HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-05-16 Ordinance(O' -
Prepared by: Sylvia Bochner, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240
(REZ17-00006)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATLEY 3,440 SQUARE FEET OF
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 812 S. SUMMIT STREET FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL WITH HISTORIC DISTRICT OVERLAY (RS-5/OHD) TO NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL WITH HISTORIC DISTRICT OVERLAY (CN-1/OHD). (REZ17-00006)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Jamie Powers, has requested a rezoning of property located 812 S. Summit
Street from Low Density Single Family Residential with Historic District Overlay (RS-5/OHD) to
Neighborhood Commercial Historic District Overlay (CN-1/OHD); and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan encourages walkable neighborhoods and envisions
neighborhood commercial uses as contributing to the quality of fife within neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the Neighborhood Commercial Zone is intended to promote pedestrian -oriented
development at an intensity level that is compatible with surrounding residential areas
WHEREAS, as the building is currently used for an upper -floor residence and a bakery, which is a non-
conforming retail use, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested this rezoning to allow an expansion of the building to construct
a new stairwell for the residential use and remodel the interior space; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and
determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets conditions addressing the
need for maintaining compatibility with the surrounding single-family residential neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to restrict the hours of operation and prohibit the sale of alcohol and tobacco
to maintain that neighborhood compatibility; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2017) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public
needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the owners have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in
this area of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated
herein, property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of RS-5/OHD to
CN -1 /OHD:
The south 43 feet of Lot 1, Block 1 of P. J. Regan's 1st Addition, Iowa City, Iowa..
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning
map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and
publication of the ordinance as approved by law.
SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the
City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the
Ordinance No.
Page 2
Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owners expense, upon the final passage,
approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of 20 .
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
f s fv a
ty Attorneys Office S z JI 7
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
First Consideration
Vote for passage: AYES:
Thomas, Throgmorton.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
Botchway
Cole
Dickens
Mims
Taylor
Thomas
Throgmorton
05/16/201
Cole, Dickens, Mims, Taylor,
NAYS: None. ABSENT: Botchway.
that the
Prepared by: Bob Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5240 (REZ17-00006)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter
"City") and Jason and Jamie Powers (hereinafter "Owners").
WHEREAS, Owners are the legal title holder of approximately 3,440 square feet of property
located at 812 S. Summit Street, Iowa City, Iowa; and
WHEREAS, the Owners have requested the rezoning of said property from Low Density Single
Family Residential with Historic District Overlay (RS-5/OHD) to Neighborhood Commercial with Historic
District Overlay (CN-1/OHD); and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions
regarding the need for maintaining compatibility with the surrounding single-family residential
neighborhood by restricting the hours open to the public and the sale of tobacco and alcohol, the
requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2017) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public
needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the Owners acknowledge that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to
ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the need for
maintaining compatibility with the surrounding single-family residential neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Owners agree to develop this property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. Jason and Jamie Powers are the legal title. holder of the property legally described as: The south
43 feet of Lot 1, Block 1 of P. J. Regan's 1a' Addition, Iowa City, Iowa.
2. The Owners acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa
Code §414.5 (2017) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on
granting a rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public
needs caused by the requested change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners agree that development of
the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning chapter, as well as the
following conditions:
a. Any commercial use may not be open to the public between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.;
b. No sales of alcohol or tobacco shall be allowed on the property.
4. The Owners and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable
conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2017), and that said conditions satisfy
public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change.
5. The Owners and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold,
ppdadmlagVoondltional zoning agreement deluxe.doc
redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional
Zoning Agreement.
6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a
covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect
as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. The
parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all
successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties.
The Owners acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed
to relieve the Owners from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal
regulations.
8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into
the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the
ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the
Owners' expense.
Dated this _ day of
CITY OF IOWA CITY
James Throgmorton, Mayor
Attest:
Julie Voparil, Deputy City Clerk
Approved by:
ity Attorney's Office S z J t
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on
20
By: Ja ie Powers
By: JasodPowerA
2017 by James Throgmorton and
Julie Voparil, as Mayor and Deputy City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
ppdadnVagt/conditional zoning agreement deluxe.doc
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
2
OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
State of��'
Countyof X04 sow.
This record was acknowledged before me on m QN , 2017 by Jason Powers and Jamie
Powers.
0
Nota b�q in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)��
My commission expires: 7 (3 I l
ppdadmtagV=diVwal zoning agreement deWze.do 3
Prepared by: Bob Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240
(REZ16-00008)
ORDINANCE NO. 17-4704A
AN ORDINANCE REZONING 12.28 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -5) AND LOW DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -12)
TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY/LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(OPD -5) ZONE AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY/LOW DENSITY MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (OPD/RM-12) ZONE AND APPROVING A PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LARSON SUBDIVISION, A 2 -LOT, RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION LOCATED NORTH OF SCOTT BOULEVARD BETWEEN HICKORY HEIGHTS
LANE AND FIRST AVENUE. (REZ16-00008/SUB16-00012)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Kevin Hanick, has requested a rezoning of 12.28 acres of property located
north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue from Low Density Single Family
Residential (RS -5) (2 acres) and Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -12) (10.28 acres) to Planned
Development Overlay/Low Density Single Family Residential (OPD/RS-5) and Planned Development
Overlay/Low Multifamily (OPD/RM-12) zone; and
WHEREAS, the property contains regulated slopes and woodlands; and
WHEREAS, the Sensitive Areas Development Plan will allow one single family lot and two multifamily
buildings to be clustered on a portion of the property, while reserving a portion of the land for preservation of
regulated slopes and woodlands; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has. requested a reduction of a protected slope buffer to allow the installation of
stormwater management facilities; and
WHEREAS, stormwater detention facilities are permitted within buffer areas if they are designed and
constructed to minimize their impact upon the protected sensitive areas and designed to include measures to
protect against erosion, pollution and habitat disturbance, and result in minimal amounts of excavation and
filling, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning, Sensitive Areas
Development Plan, and requested protected slope buffer reduction and determined that they comply with the
Comprehensive Plan; and
IOWA: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described below is hereby classified OPD/RM-12:
Amended Auditor's Parcel 2005108 (Plat of Survey recorded in Plat Book 52, Page 144 at the
Johnson County Recorder's Office), except that portion lying in the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter of Section 2, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M., Iowa City, Johnson County,
Iowa. Total area: 10.281 acres more or less.
SECTION II APPROVAL. The property described below is hereby classified OPD -5:
Amended Auditor's Parcel 2005108 (Plat of Survey recorded in Plat Book 52, Page 144 at the
Johnson County Recorder's Office), except that portion lying in the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast
Ordinance No. 17-4704 A
Page 2
Quarter of Section 2, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M., Iowa City, Johnson County,
Iowa. Total area: 2.00 acres more or less.
SECTION III. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval
and publication of this ordinance by law.
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance,
the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same,
at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as provided by
law.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or
any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this 16th day of May , 2017.
MAYOR /
Approved by:
ATTEST:
�� CI LERK City Attorney's Office y/Z� ��7
Ordinance No. 17-4704A
Page 3
It was moved by Mims and seconded by Dickens that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES:
NAYS: ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Botchway
Cole
Dickens
Mims
Taylor
Thomas
Throgmorton
First Consideration 05/02/2017
VOteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Taylor, Thomas, Throgmorton,
Botchway, Cole. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dickens.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published 05/25/2017
Moved by Mims, seconded by Dickens, that the rule requiring
ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two
Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be
finally passed be suspended, the second consideration and
vote be waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final
passage at this time. AYES: Mims, Taylor, Thomas, Throgmorton,
Cole, Dickens. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Botchway.
r v Pre red by: Bob Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street,
(REZ16-00008)
AN ORDINANCER ONII
FAMILY RESIDENTIA (P
TO PLANNED DEVELO 1
(OPD -5) ZONE AND PLA
RESIDENTIAL (OPD/RM-1
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
ORDINANCE NO,
IA 52240;319-356-5240
12.28 ACRES OF PR ERTY FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE
) AND LOW DENSI MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ENT OVERLAY/L
NED DEVELOPM
i ZONE AND ARF
SUBDIVISION LOCATED NO
LANE AND FIRST AVENUE. I
THE
4 OF
(RM -12)
) DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
T OVERLAY/LOW DENSITY MULTIFAMILY
ROVING A PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS
N SUBDIVISION, A 2 -LOT, RESIDENTIAL
BOULEVARD BETWEEN HICKORY HEIGHTS
1616-00012)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Kevin H ick, has requested a rezoning of 12.28 acres of property located
north of Scoff Boulevard between HicHeights Lane and First Avenue from Low Density Single Family
Residential (RS -5) (2 acres) and Lo Den ity Multi -Family Residential (RM -12) (10.28 acres) to Planned
Development Overlay/Low Density Single amily Residential (OPD/RS-5) and Planned Development
Overlay/Low Multifamily (OPD/RM- 2) zone; a
WHEREAS, the property c tains regulated s pes and woodlands; and
WHEREAS, the Sensiti Areas Development Ian will allow one single family lot and two multifamily
buildings to be clustered o a portion of the property, hile reserving a portion of the land for preservation of
regulated slopes and woo ands; and
WHEREAS, the ap licant has. requested a reduction p
stormwater managem nt facilities; and
WHEREAS, st mwater detention facilities are perm
constructed to mi ' ize their impact upon the protected se
protect against a sion, pollution and habitat disturbance,
filling, and
the Planning and Zoning Commission has
an, and requested protected slope buffer re
Plan; and
a protected slope buffer to allow the installation of
within buffer areas if they are designed and
fe areas and designed to include measures to
result in minimal amounts of excavation and
the proposed rezoning, Sensitive Areas
td determined that they comply with the
IOWA: W, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY CO CIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
S TION I APPROVAL. Property described below is hereby classifie OPD/RM-12:
mended Auditor's Parcel 2005108 (Plat of Survey recorded in PI Book 52, Page 144 at the
ohnson County Recorder's Office), except that portion lying in the South st Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter of Section 2, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M., I a City, Johnson County,
Iowa. Total area: 10.281 acres more or less.
SECTION II APPROVAL. The property described below is hereby classified OPD -5: �—
Amended Auditor's Parcel 2005108 (Plat of Survey recorded in Plat Book 52, Page 144 at the
Johnson County Recorder's Office), except that portion lying in the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast
Ordinance No. 17-4704
Page 2
Quarter of Section 2, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M., Iowa City, Johnson County,
Iowa. Total area: 2.00 acres more or less.
%ION IIIZONING MAPThe Building Inspector is hereby authorianddirected to change the
zonifthe CityofIowa City,Iowa, to conform to this amendment Pon the finalpassage, approval
and on of this of
by law.
Aprovision
Iv v. GtK I IFIGATION AND RECORDING. Upon p ss
and approval of the Ordinance,
therk is ereby authorized and directed to certify a cop of this ordinance and to record the same,
at tof the aunty Recorder of Johnson County, low , at the owner's expense, all as provided by
law
N V. REP LER. All ordinances and part of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Orre hereby rep aled.
N VI. SEVERA LITY. If any section, rovision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be r unconstitutional, ch adjudication all not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or
any, provision or part the of not adju ed invalid or unconstitutional.
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this
MA
shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
of May 2017.
by:
ATTEST:
e CI RK City Attorney's Office V12- 11 /
ante No. 17-4704
3
1t was move
Ordinance as
AYES
Mims and seconded by _
d be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
NA
First Consideration _
Vote for passage
Botchway, Co
Second Considt
Vote for
ABSENT: ABST
Botchway
Cole
Dickens
Mims
Taylor
Thomas
Throgmorton
17
IS: Mims, Talor, Thomas, Throgmorton,
NAYS: None, BSENT: Dickens.
Date published 05/25/2017
Moved by Mi s, seconded by Dickens, that the r e requiring
ordina/3-v
o be considered and voted on for pas age at two
Counciings prior to the meeting at which it is to be
finalled be suspended, the second considerat'on and
vote bed and the ordinance be voted upon forl
passaghis time. AYES: Mims, Taylor, Thomas, T ogmorton,
Cole, s. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Botchway.
that the
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ16-0008/SUB16-00012
Larson Subdivision
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact Person:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Bob Miklo
Date: March 16, 2017
Kevin Hanick
88 Hickory Heights Lane
Iowa City, IA 52245
Mark Seabold
Shive Hattery
2839 Northgate Drive
Iowa City, IA 52245
319-354-3040
Rezoning to OPD -12 and preliminary plat and
sensitive areas development plan approval
Development of a single family residential lot and
one lot with 60 multi -family dwellings
2201 North Dubuque Road (the property also has
frontage on Scott Boulevard)
12.28 acres
Residential RS -5 and ID -RS (in process of being
rezoned to RM -12)
North: Office (ACT Campus) - ORP
East: Office (ACT Campus) - ORP
South: Undeveloped - ID -RS
West: Residential and undeveloped — RS -5 and ID -
RS
Northeast District Plan — office park with residential
as a potential alternative use.
February 23, 2017
April 9, 2017
The applicant, Kevin Hanick, is requesting approval of the preliminary plat of Larson Subdivision,
a 2 -lot, 12.28 -acre residential subdivision located at 2201 North Dubuque Road. The northern
tract, Lot 1 is planned to be the location of a new single family dwelling for the property's current
2
owners. The existing house and accessory buildings are planned to be removed from Lot 2. The
City Council has approved first reading of an ordinance rezoning Lot 2 to Low Density Multifamily
Residential (RM -12) with a Conditional Zoning Agreement allowing a maximum of 60 dwelling
units.
The property contains regulated slopes and woodlands. The preliminary plat includes a sensitive
areas development plan indicating grading and tree clearing within the 50 -foot buffer for the
protected slope located in the southeastern portion of Lot 2. The zoning ordinance requires
approval of a Planned Development Overlay where disturbance of a protected slope buffer is
proposed. Therefore this application requires a rezoning from Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) to
Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily (OPD/RM-12).
The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy".
ANALYSIS:
Comprehensive Plan: As noted in the staff report for the recent rezoning of this property (REZ16-
00008) The Northeast District Plan map shows the area north of Scott Boulevard, including this
property, as being appropriate for Office Research Park development, but the text of the Plan
notes that alternative uses, including residential should be considered. The text of the Plan also
encourages a diversity of housing including multifamily near Scott Boulevard. In Staff's view, the
proposed subdivision for two residential lots is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning: Lot 1 is currently zoned RS -5. The proposed lot exceeds the minimum 60 foot lot width
and 8,000 square foot minimum lot area required in that zone. The sensitive areas plan shows
that there will sufficient land area for a single family dwelling and associated accessory buildings
outside of the sensitive areas.
Lot 2 is in the process of being rezoned to RM -12. Lot 2 exceeds the minimum 60 foot lot width
and 8125 square foot lot area required in the zone. The sensitive areas plan illustrates that
development will be in conformance with the Conditional Zoning Agreement currently be
considered by the City Council.
Subdivision design: No new streets are proposed for this subdivision. Access to Lot 1 will be
from Dubuque Road. Lot 2 will have one driveway access to Scott Boulevard. The proposed
driveway onto Scott Boulevard has been located where it will provide for adequate site distance.
The steep ravines located on this and adjacent properties would make the creation of an
interconnected street network typically required in residential subdivisions infeasible.
The portion of Dubuque Road adjacent to the north side of Lot 1 is currently in an easement.
The subdivision plat includes dedication of the owners half of the road to the City as street right-
of-way (0utlotA.)
Sensitive Areas: The property contains regulated slopes and woodlands. Lot 1 includes a
construction limit line that confines potential development areas to the portions of the property
that do not contain regulated slopes and woodlands.
On Lot 2, disturbance of woodlands and slopes is generally limited to the area necessary for the
stormwater management facilities proposed in the southern part of the ravine. Smaller areas of
disturbance will occur along the west edge of the driveway for Lot 2.
Tree removal and grading necessary for the stormwater management facilities will impact the
50 -foot protected slope buffer. Stormwater detention facilities are permitted within buffer areas
if they are designed and constructed to minimize their impact upon the protected sensitive
PC D1SIaH Repo t Waff mpotl preliminary plaLd=
C]
areas and associated buffers. The design and construction should include measures to protect
against erosion, pollution and habitat disturbance, and result in minimal amounts of excavation
and filling. The City Engineer is currently reviewing a revised stormwater management plan
and anticipates completing the review prior to the March 16 Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting.
As proposed the 17.5% of the steep slopes, 2.5% of the critical slopes and 18.9% of the
woodlands will be affected. This may change depending on City Engineer review of the
stormwater management facilities.
Neighborhood Open Space: A subdivision of this size requires the dedication of .70 acres of
neighborhood open space or fees in lieu of. The Parks and Recreation Department has
determined that fees are appropriate in lieu of land dedication. The fee will be equivalent to the
value of 30,867 square feet of property. This requirement will need to be addressed in the legal
papers for the final plat.
Infrastructure fees: The water main extension fee of $435 per acre will apply to this subdivision
and should be noted in the legal paperwork. There are no sanitary sewer tap fees that apply to
this area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral pending resolution of any deficiencies
identified on the recently submitted preliminary plan and sensitive areas development plan. Upon
resolution of any identified issues, staff recommends approval of 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 and
sensitive areas development plan of Larson Subdivision, a 2 -lot, 12.28 -acre residential
subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue.
(R EZ 16-00008/sub 16-00012 )
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
Revised Plan: A revised preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan were submitted
on March 10. Staff is in the process of reviewing the plans to assure that all deficiencies and
discrepancies have been resolved. We anticipate the staff review will be completed prior to the
March 16 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan
Approved by: —7,4 �/ c yr
John Yapp, Develop ent a ices Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
PCMStaff RepwsWaH rapW pallminary plat Jo
WE SUB16-00012
S Larson Subdivision '
0 0.0275 0.055 0.11 Miles Prepared Rv: Marti Wolf
l 1 k nate Prepnred:Bcc.201
• 1
■
I ■ ■ _ 1
r . .
/- , ■ `[
• ■ ■ ■ ■ R ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ was*
Od ♦
Tj`�1
■ 1] ■ i I
+y. ■ Y ■ /
I
An application submitted by
Kevin Hanick for •n Subdivisqo \ ■ ■
a 2-lot, 12.28-acre residential
subdivision at 2201 N. Dubuque R -&man a
F
' 1
I
I
•I c
Io
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
tEOENo
LARSON SUBDIVISION
, I
I ACR .. HNSMC UN ,N A
_
O
r
__
� � i % I' M ' .Nl�y�11l\\ U' �
� �`
no•n.Y V•xwwlw/u4Y
_ _
. (! I 1 M
��
1
flFD awallwary /
�
11
I ' it
Yc..
11
/ •
��.,
' / I �/�. � �
\
V�
1
Y mYmh•,
`\R,�,\;
�i
III ❑ \I\hq\ 1
I '
,` !�
�\ \N�1
A� ,
I/ Ill 1
/ /�\^
' f� /,i
emc.0 x.oapw.pl EJ
I \0 •�
It
�. '(\)
1
Ki
/ / 1 �� ,' � i �f[�llL'i i �1�,'�. jj / /y'�'WI ,,SII � ' 1
'( 7IFFj F�}/'I;!// I: �; :,//; ,,`h ' I' t�"_'n�l'I'I
� '41� ,Iml ':
iv M�("`~
�To.�.rwl
•
•
2
N
I
',1111,', I ,. �•1 � �' �1
4- I'''II s 1
y�
YI �i yry ti, 1 %
�
II 4.
I � 1 i i 1 ' liiin •: �"
'
/^fS�Y
�
Qi
11 (lull 1 1 '1111 ,1 \ �'[
1 � �. 61jN �
n
IO'I\•'TI
O
11
_
NOTE
�
'r
�
J
'�,�i//,
z
\1 1 l _ _ ^dF%', f/
l; ;;
11111'1
•�i�'I
IIII
,l
l.i
'-:
\:�� �1•;
a
;�,,�_z_� __--sc-�= - _- --
U
�
_-'tib
F
F
wmesms
1
•
• c e
•
-----
SITE GRADING, EROSION CONTROL AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
--'
CARSON SUBDIVISION
_
IO�WqA CRV.JOHNBON COUNTY, IOWA
,w•__Ie
_ f
wYMsr�iwa Cw�
x ��
EROSION CONTROLLEGEND
SENBfTNEAREASLEGEND
5 K
as
uw �o
a
\yY �e
0 rT4 �y`�I�yM
�w ow
✓ �
,I A iWi Y S n
r
/
N A
✓
���
r r `,
WIN u jp
r• y
1x•Ir
r - rry�
,,�' r °N�ll ��a'!`;��\ 1
d
i;
�.Mwn_®roam
"'
'• r/ -
1
U���gr`Y
®wm, •
0
~'4i r ✓"T
i}
InIT
r ' w _ h�nl i>" t`
>
It I
�♦ it i it i w'j.}� pb,�dl
l�';'n\ �\� r
m
,I(I I
r I f 1 / i / M l \�� 12x����1
/'
mc.v.••ae
.il i
,
Z
:ir
1K•�,ri1H l'
i - \rr'il �i j
•c.rsoe
rrl ' r w"r��rafr o u17 '•
—_._
yO
YR;,i0h
/
ae
r
Y;,IbLC
Y.
(
rs M
••�•
4
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTpN
z
�r
,1 _ - I„ rd a �`.
.1 ..MR STAGING
UYODNN AREA
O
i i ai
1'r i'H 14 h,
z LL
LOT i
F-
to
�M�LU
z
Z
jr
d
V
r
® "
1l
�:;�. ``
'"'i,
��A� aal°'
■gpyJ
n�aurn
_f�ai�$4t
-
__:_ .t'�',�^'Yr a? .yg
,set
.
.01a,re
,�J■■y9
•y
waw
COM= ST FILTER TUBE DETNL
.\_ � - -
�.`
��
rrcnawmw.amnueesea
`'aCF"r"^a•�"'s�"`
t
u�i
}
_ _
l — — _
_—__ ^` J—�_
LOT2,m+mwa®iew..war,rre.x.a
a ��w�w
ICuz �rI13
B � � d
(1 SILT FENCE DtTAL
^ p
°
o . r
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE
AREAS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CARSON SUBDIVISION
1
IOWA CRY. JO
WUIM,IOWA
, `
a.
PAN LLOEND __ __
1
.:♦wear
.a�ww..�.. _-� _
YID H
1
i
O
I
d _
E
� L - 41♦�'� � �
rmuerso ssnwo.rcmwawruw a.
,
I
maryu B
'l-='- �
1
.mwr..aw•
.w.anw♦a.�o.e..: p
'
xfeK Nx
N
1
O
1
—•—
Q
[wh1[ovTx4 [MAv
.
Z
G
♦
LO
° � �
4•
i/
�irowsma�wo�rlla�u°ioll mem
�
1
LL
��
°rulPpn ronverrx wlrrxo
I°1[c°�°a1M[rOR
�wreoro°aauxorroaocron xam
I-
r F
3mti
veaaforinnrarsaa
J
W Z Z\
:x
'I
,\
fllKrd CIrMKI
/,1 PGG�pEWALN
d O
�.tw
m�rem"'maa
�l�ass
w°°xwlun. rr.
°1cK.ur[.rvr Im
i¢a Il welaa
r'
a
n.w
/
_sco Arm_.
meKc min coos cr
y
0
3
• o e
r
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LARSON SUBDIVISIONz
ppplp
IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA..�r
O
jI
ra
j— as
a
W:
N % 1
•
li
O
.m.m..�
o
—y
I N DUBUQUE RD=—
iiii�/aiii�=JC���
1 AA 1
\ y
vJ
N
f•
i �''i ��?iy �I,^app"��,ji 1ril
p
m �"'
-
yMY'
Z
Vl
l/i
ini i'%�ql 11Ir'r1
f
\
i�
IIIIAINI�111AI !yl f
y�/'�1141�igFpr`ni'`
Z
1
ti
1
�• 0
1
xn�ow,uc v�
_
/
1
101.
=
1'
Ii'ii'rPYYi
F- Of
1
i
-:.
u54ifi
Lu Z U)
LL 0
I
\\/
.. yJ �,� �a 11 I I IJ]]ml
•1 `\
111
N�~
. . -I lig I�I�In11 „IIIY�
4
iJr
Y - PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT ,
LARSON SUBDIVISION
r-�
"tea
A
19
r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 30, 2017
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Bob Miklo, Senior Planner
Re: Larson Subdivision REZ1 6-0008/SUB1 6-00012
Date: March 16, 2017
This application was deferred at the March 16 meeting pending correction of deficiencies and
approval of the stormwater management plan. Revised plans have been received and reviewed
by staff and the City Engineer has approved the stormwater management plan.
Staff recommends approval of 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 and sensitive areas development plan of
Larson Subdivision, a 2 -lot, 12.28 -acre residential subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard
between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue. (REZ1 6-00008/Subl 6-00012)
• •
o
c
PRELIMINARY
PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SND
LARSON SUBDNISION
IOWA CRY, J"WN COUNTY, IOWA
_
i
ir.�
Him=
- won.wm
sm..wnw wrvn.ww �s
1'ww'W��Fwwlnu'raww
1 S
ll —•
-E
R
—�ovA'�M
•
,a
J
1
\�\,\
�Anv>
��{®
1 , 1
_ �\�
wWtlww`Mw Wtti
+� =•tea
Q m
I'II / 1 Y!t �" _ -...
11 I' 1 I
�
- Y
��T I�•ww�
0
�{
• 1 ' i i � i I ( i ; 4
'
_ �Yy4• �
:ur:�r:.�."'a.ra.
_
Wt
y
<
®
' I %; '; �' 1 1 /; 111 % ' I I �:
/ I 'M` I
rvncrmwaA
•
l%1%f/
�
ON
f 1 { f 1 tE!}it�/";;
N
SITE GRADING, EROSION CONTROL AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LARSON SUBDIVISION
IOWA CRY. JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
wan.ww �msLv'srn.wmw
EROSION CONTROL LEGEND
--.�--
mwe
Q e
0
wvms'wwa
O
vuwv
aMmvnim
C a
m�v em.a.n,a
D
SENSRNE AREAS LEGEND
nwwean ®rtOnium rauir� n.
vwwwvwr � rr°'zir. m zma t
rioimimwssawr a'.cr® :':.:
wmc�o.n.www �
amokr 1T n.m•
�•ermma
�Alw w
--.�--
�
0
vmwv
O
vuwv
D
v
S
•
•
,mw
LFII: JL .IIP �II�
u nT.t.
!.LAND UVOpwN AREA
Lb ...v
,te 1 vs �D0 �iam� Mlit
OI voersmsauatmn®,air.
O$ ,tsna,am,o®ormvrmt
(]J �mw�a�wat�wa.vus�•iw
O trVrTadaq law T�ixm Olamnm•A•MA4
O Fat��m�ta�TN�.�N wav�ca �R rRm�irlu,Y�rY
SILT FENCE DETAIL
u m"'
O
LL
O
2
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LARSON SUBDIVISION
IOWA CITY. JONNSON COUNTY, IOWA
PAVING LEGEND
wwEw
sl I
1. fFIQ I'WMBENAMIB1i MMmM1ERYIlf.
x eim�mEMevu�ewwBNaxrwwaaunmmE
wmicxamVBx
PCC OEWAtIt
�l
2c.oe-u
aun�oumEm
NYV
OE®�LlAT11
N1110NIE
OB/YRIIM
_
n
r�oun
WAiE�,.ES�GBMEDn
nen xw-
E�..owo n..s
DFTX MF T NN iIELUMoeCrtB RI
wwEw
sl I
1. fFIQ I'WMBENAMIB1i MMmM1ERYIlf.
x eim�mEMevu�ewwBNaxrwwaaunmmE
wmicxamVBx
PCC OEWAtIt
�l
aun�oumEm
NYV
OE®�LlAT11
N1110NIE
OB/YRIIM
_
n
Y
OEOMp I1CG%B Vbu9E 9�uLL BE iRP
WAiE�,.ES�GBMEDn
BE BUFniEBIO♦
DFTX MF T NN iIELUMoeCrtB RI
( :QS PCC DRrvE CRCGS SECTgN
C
m
W
w
O
LL
F
0
Z
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SONSUEIVISIO DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CARSON SUBDIVISION
IOWA CRY. JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Mi �smnx � [g m
z
0
0
5
0
m
N
la Q f of
z 0
H
L2W:,l,ZF
i
Ov
I
W
O
LL
O
Z
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
---�
LARSON SUBDIVISION
IOWA Crt . JOHNSON COUNTY. IOWA
�
am�n.wwm
mrwon.wm.: wnvm.wm.e mwm.umo w..mr.wm.e
'
�
PUWi1NG AREAS
I
W
O
LL
O
Z
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
W,
Prepared by: Karen Howard, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5251
ORDINANCE NO. 17-4705
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14: ZONING, ARTICLE 2G, RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS
AND EASTSIDE MIXED USE DISTRICTS FORM -BASED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, TO
ADD ZONING STANDARDS FOR THE ORCHARD SUBDISTRICT
WHEREAS, in 2016, The City Council amended the City's Comprehensive Plan to expand the
boundaries of the Riverfront Crossings District to include properties north of Benton Street that
front on Orchard Street and Orchard Court and along an unused east -west remnant of City right-
of-way that extends west from the intersection of Orchard Street and Orchard Court and named
this new area the Orchard Subdistrict; and
WHEREAS, the Orchard Subdistrict was established to encourage redevelopment that would
provide a better transition from the low -scale single family neighborhood to the west and the higher
intensity mixed-use development along Riverside Drive in the West Riverfront Subdistrict of
Riverfront Crossings; and
WHEREAS, in order to facilitate redevelopment in the Orchard District consistent with the master
plan objectives and desired development character set forth in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan,
new zoning standards for the Orchard subdistrict will need to be incorporated into the Riverfront
Crossings form -based code; and
WHEREAS, the zoning standards will ensure that buildings are complementary in mass and
scale to the adjacent single family neighborhood by limiting the building height to three stories with
upper floor stepbacks along street frontages and along the single family zone boundary, and will
establish a 30 -foot setback between development in the Orchard Subdistrict and the adjacent single
family zone, which in addition to the natural drainageway located along the west boundary of the
subdistrict, will provide a green buffer between the single family neighborhood and higher density
residential development in the Orchard Subdistrict; and
WHEREAS, the regulating plan, building height diagram, and accompanying zoning standards
will ensure that future redevelopment is pedestrian -oriented with buildings opening onto tree -lined
streets and parking located behind buildings and screened from public view; and
WHEREAS, furthermore, it is in the best interests of the public to clarify and refine certain
provisions of the Riverfront Crossings form -based zoning code that have been difficult to administer,
confusing, or have been falling short of achieving the objectives of the Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan, namely certain setbacks for building/structured parking and for buildings, and certain permitted
frontage types; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the
aforementioned zoning code amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as
follows:
A. Amend subsection 14-2G-1 B, Subdistrict (in Riverfront Crossings), by adding the following
h. Orchard Subdistrict (RFC -0)
B. Amend Figure 2G-1: Regulating Plan for the Riverfront Crossings District to include the
Orchard Subdistrict, as shown on the Regulating Plan attached hereto.
Ordinance No. 17-4705
Page 2
C. Amend Figure 2G-2: Building Height Diagram for the Riverfront Crossings District to include the
Orchard Subdistrict, as shown on the Building Height Diagram attached hereto.
D. Delete subparagraphs 14-2G-3A-4b(1)(B), 14-2G-3C-4b(1)(C), and 14-2G-3D-4b(1)(D), which
regulate setbacks for building/structured parking along primary streets, pedestrian streets, and
Ralston Creek, and substitute in lieu thereof this paragraph numbered accordingly:
"Building/Structured Parking: 30' min. from the primary street building fagade and
located behind fully -enclosed, occupied building space, except the setback may be
reduced to 20' for buildings with ground -level residential uses."
E. Amend those certain provisions of subsection 14 -2G -3B set forth below as follows:
1. Section 1 "INTENT": Delete the Figures 2G-6 and 2G -6B, and any reference to them
and add the following language thereto.
The Orchard Subdistrict is intended for lower intensity residential development in
buildings with street -facing entries opening onto pedestrian -friendly streetscapes that
provide a transition between higher intensity mixed-use areas along Riverside Drive
and low -scale residential neighborhoods to the west. Buildings are designed with
facades aligned along primary streets and parking located within buildings behind
active uses and in mid -block parking lots and structures.
2. Section 2 "USES". Add Orchard Subdistrict to the list of districts in which this section
applies and:
a. add the following as (a), and renumber the subsequent paragraphs accordingly: "In
the Orchard Subdistrict, commercial and industrial uses are not allowed, except in live -
work townhouses, which may contain commercial uses allowed in the CB -5 Zone,
provided the building is constructed to accommodate such uses and provided the use is
not prohibited in the list below. Quick Vehicle Service Uses are not allowed."
b. amend paragraph (c) to add "Orchard Subdistrict" to the last sentence, which states
that the number of 3 -bedroom units for these building types may not exceed 20%.
c. amend paragraph (g) to add "Orchard Subdistrict".
d. amend paragraph (h) to add "Orchard Subdistrict".
3. Section 3 "PRINCIPAL BUILDING PLACEMENT AND FORM",
a. amend a. (1) to add "Orchard Subdistrict and the Eastside Mixed Use District" to the
list of applicable districts
b. amend Table 2G-2 to add "Orchard and Eastside Mixed Use" to the title and to add
the following line and footnote thereto:
Ordinance No. 17-4705
Page 3
Districts
Orchard I x
Notes: 2. Only allowed in locations with frontage on Orchard Street.
c. amend b(1)(a) to state that the primary and secondary street setbacks shall be 6'
minimum and 12' maximum in the Orchard Subdistrict.
d. amend b(1)(f) by deleting the current language and replace with the following: "In the
Central Crossings Subdistrict and Eastside Mixed Use District, the maximum setback
does not apply above the 2nd floor. In the Orchard District, the maximum setback does
not apply above the 2nd floor and is increased to a max. of 25' above the 1 st floor."
e. amend b(1) by adding a new paragraph: (h) "In the Orchard District, 30' min. from
RS -8 Zone boundary."
f. delete c(2) and replace with the following: "Eastside Mixed Use and Orchard:
Principal buildings shall be 3 stories max. in height above grade."
g. amend c(3) to add "In the Central Crossings Subdistrict" to the beginning of the
sentence.
h. amend c, by adding a new paragraph (4) "In the Orchard Subdistrict, above the 2nd
floor, building facades facing streets and RS -8 zone boundaries shall step back 10'
min., 25' max. from the lower floor facade. At street corners, tower elements or similar
corner emphasis treatments may be exempt from the stepback requirement for up to
one fagade bay (max. 35 feet) as approved by the FBC Committee. Alternatively, if
approved by the FBC, the required fagade stepback may be established above the 1st
floor or may be tiered with the 10' min stepback achieved with smaller stepbacks above
both the list and 2nd stories."
i. amend f(1) to add "Orchard Subdistrict" thereto and amend the last sentence so that
the provision in the last sentence is applicable only to the Central Crossings Subdistrict.
4. Section 4, "PARKING, LOADING, AND SERVICE AREAS"
a. delete b(1)(b) and replace with the following: "Building/Structured Parking: 30' min.
from the primary street building facade and located behind fully -enclosed, occupied
building space, except the setback may be reduced to 20' for buildings with ground -
level residential uses."
b. amend b(2)(b) by deleting "10' min and setback".
Permitted
Building
Types
rn
c
°
�
rn
v_
O
of
m
m
m
c
i°-
m
m
d
H
IS
W
C
r
r=
13
0
E
v
o c
E
°`
d
°v_
V
x
2
J
U m
X
x
x
x
X(2)
x
Notes: 2. Only allowed in locations with frontage on Orchard Street.
c. amend b(1)(a) to state that the primary and secondary street setbacks shall be 6'
minimum and 12' maximum in the Orchard Subdistrict.
d. amend b(1)(f) by deleting the current language and replace with the following: "In the
Central Crossings Subdistrict and Eastside Mixed Use District, the maximum setback
does not apply above the 2nd floor. In the Orchard District, the maximum setback does
not apply above the 2nd floor and is increased to a max. of 25' above the 1 st floor."
e. amend b(1) by adding a new paragraph: (h) "In the Orchard District, 30' min. from
RS -8 Zone boundary."
f. delete c(2) and replace with the following: "Eastside Mixed Use and Orchard:
Principal buildings shall be 3 stories max. in height above grade."
g. amend c(3) to add "In the Central Crossings Subdistrict" to the beginning of the
sentence.
h. amend c, by adding a new paragraph (4) "In the Orchard Subdistrict, above the 2nd
floor, building facades facing streets and RS -8 zone boundaries shall step back 10'
min., 25' max. from the lower floor facade. At street corners, tower elements or similar
corner emphasis treatments may be exempt from the stepback requirement for up to
one fagade bay (max. 35 feet) as approved by the FBC Committee. Alternatively, if
approved by the FBC, the required fagade stepback may be established above the 1st
floor or may be tiered with the 10' min stepback achieved with smaller stepbacks above
both the list and 2nd stories."
i. amend f(1) to add "Orchard Subdistrict" thereto and amend the last sentence so that
the provision in the last sentence is applicable only to the Central Crossings Subdistrict.
4. Section 4, "PARKING, LOADING, AND SERVICE AREAS"
a. delete b(1)(b) and replace with the following: "Building/Structured Parking: 30' min.
from the primary street building facade and located behind fully -enclosed, occupied
building space, except the setback may be reduced to 20' for buildings with ground -
level residential uses."
b. amend b(2)(b) by deleting "10' min and setback".
Ordinance No. 17-4705
Page 4
F. Amend those certain lines of Table 2G-5 "Permitted Frontage Types", located in Section 14 -2G -
4(A) as follows and add the following footnote:
Liner Building x x X(3) X(3)
Note: 3. Allowed for access to individual dwelling units or live -work units.
G. Amend Table 2G-6: "Permitted Building Types", located in Section 14-2G-5 by adding a column
for the Orchard Subdistrict as follows and add the following footnote:
Form -Based Zoning District
Permitted Building Types Orchard
Cottage Home
x
Permitted Frontage Types
x
Building Types
x
x
x
Multi -Dwelling Building
x
Live -Work Townhouse
x(2)
C
O
d
LLV
v
C
A
7
m
N
S
O
L
2
-p V
V
N
rn
F
N
LLLL
R}
d
Apartment Building
X(3)
X(3)
x
X(1)
Multi -Dwelling
Building
X(3)
X(3)
x
x(1)
Mixed -Use Building
x
x
X(2)(3)
X(2)(3)
X(2)
x(1)
Liner Building x x X(3) X(3)
Note: 3. Allowed for access to individual dwelling units or live -work units.
G. Amend Table 2G-6: "Permitted Building Types", located in Section 14-2G-5 by adding a column
for the Orchard Subdistrict as follows and add the following footnote:
Form -Based Zoning District
Permitted Building Types Orchard
Cottage Home
x
Rowhouse
x
Townhouse
x
Apartment Building
x
Multi -Dwelling Building
x
Live -Work Townhouse
x(2)
Commercial Building
Mixed -Use Building
Liner Building x
Civic or Institutional Building
Notes: 2. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Orchard Street.
H. Amend paragraph 14 -2G -7G -1d.(5), to add Orchard Subdistrict thereto.
I. Amend Table 5A-3: Minimum Parking Requirements for the Riverfront Crossings District &
Eastside Mixed Use District, located in 14-5A-4 to regulate the Orchard Subdistrict in the same
Ordinance No. 17-4705
Page 5
manner as the Park, South Gilbert, Central Crossings, Gilbert, West Riverfront, Eastside Mixed
Use subdistricts.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions
of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti-
tutional.
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 16 th day of May , 2017.
MAYOR
Approved by: /
City Attorney's Office
ATTEST:
�k
CI ERK
Ordinance No. 17-4705
Page 6
It was moved by Mims and seconded by Thomas that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES
NAYS: ABSENT:
x
ABSTAIN:
Botchway
Cole
Dickens
Mims
Taylor
Thomas
Throgmorton
First Consideration 05/02/2017
Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Taylor, Thomas, Throgmorton,
Botchway, Cole. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dickens.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published 05/25/2017
Moved by Mims, seconded by Taylor, that the rule requiring
ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two
Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally
passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived
and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage at this time.
AYES: Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole, Dickens, Mims, Taylor. NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Botchway.
Riverfront Crossings Height Diagram
Legend
_ 3 stories max.
- 4 stories max.
2 stories min., 6 stories max.
_ 2 stories min., 8 stories max.
- 8 stories max. with Iowa River frontage
Public Parks and Open Space
Green Space
r
=-1�.:.p�r CITY OF IOWA CITY sd
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 6, 2017
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
Re: Zoning Code amendments to create the Riverfront Crossings — Orchard (RFC -0)
Zone, a new form -based zone in Riverfront Crossings
Background: In spring of 2016, The City Council amended the City's Comprehensive Plan
based on the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to expand the boundaries of
the Riverfront Crossings District to include properties north of Benton Street that front on
Orchard Street and Orchard Court and along an unused east -west remnant of City right-of-way
that extends west from the intersection of Orchard Street and Orchard Court (see attached
Comprehensive Plan Map). This new area of Riverfront Crossings, the Orchard Subdistrict, was
established to encourage redevelopment that would provide a better transition from the low -
scale single-family neighborhood to the west and the higher intensity mixed-use development
along Riverside Drive in the West Riverfront Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings. The attached
pages from the Orchard District section of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan describe the
master plan objectives, desired development character, and recommended development
program of this new district.
Implementation: In order to facilitate redevelopment in the Orchard District consistent with the
master plan objectives and desired development character, staff has drafted zoning standards
for the Orchard District and incorporated them into the Riverfront Crossings form -based zoning
code. The standards are intended to ensure that buildings are complementary in mass and
scale to the adjacent single family neighborhood by limiting the building height to three stories
with upper floor stepbacks along street frontages and along the single family zone boundary to
the west. A 30 foot yard is also required along the western boundary of the subdistrict, which in
addition to the natural drainageway that extends along this west boundary, will create a green
buffer between new development and RS -8 zoned property to the west. Following is a more
detailed summary of the provisions that would apply in the Orchard Subdistrict.
Re-gulating Plan
The Orchard subdistrict currently includes a limited street network. Benton Street and Orchard
Street are the major streets that provide for both vehicular and pedestrian travel from this area
to other areas in the community. These streets are both designated as primary streets on the
attached regulating plan for the Orchard District. New buildings constructed along these streets
must be designed with active frontages and street -facing entries. Parking must be located
behind active ground floor building space in mid -block locations. Benton Street is an arterial
street that was widened years ago to add travel lanes and turn lanes near the intersection with
Riverside Drive. Unfortunately, the public right-of-way was not widened sufficiently at the time to
Page 2
provide for adequate pedestrian infrastructure, leaving little space for a sidewalk, a parkway
buffer and street trees. When properties with frontage on Benton Street are rezoned to the new
Orchard designation, additional right-of-way will need to be dedicated to the City for pedestrian
improvements necessary to accommodate the increased residential density allowed with the
upzoning to Riverfront Crossings.
As illustrated on the regulating plan, a new block pattern will be established with a new
pedestrian street west of and parallel to Orchard Street extending north from Benton to an
intersection with the east -west portion of the Orchard Court cul-de-sac. Since residential entries
and active building uses will likely front on this street, as illustrated in the master plan concept
drawing, it will be considered a primary street. The existing Orchard Court cul-de-sac is also
designated as a primary street on the regulating plan, which will ensure that active uses are
located along this street with parking located behind. In order to allow a more efficient pattern of
development in the future, the cul-de-sac should be reconfigured through a subdivision process
to intersect at a right angle with a new east -west street that would extend west from Orchard
Street in the location where the remnant City right-of-way is currently located. This future street
is designated as a secondary street on the regulating plan. When property is rezoned in this
area of the subdistrict, the right-of-way will need to be widened to 60 feet to create a complete
street to access rear parking locations and with sidewalks and street trees to create a safe and
comfortable environment for pedestrians.
Dimensional Standards
• Building setbacks
o Primary street and secondary streets: 6' minimum, 12' maximum (porticos,
terraces, stoops and other allowed frontage features may extend into the
setback)
o Side setback: 10' minimum
o Rear setback: 10' minimum or 5' minimum if along an alley
o Setback from RS -8 Zone boundary: 30' minimum
• Maximum Building Height: 3 stories, with a 10' stepback above the 2nd story along street
frontages and along any lot line that abuts the RS -8 Zone. Alternatively, if approved by
the form -based code committee, the required stepback may occur above the 1st story.
This allowance may be particularly useful to encourage residential liner units that would
screen ground level structured parking.
• Parking located behind buildings or within buildings with access from the alley or private
lane. Along primary streets parking must be located behind active building uses. Surface
parking is allowed along secondary streets behind buildings that front on a primary
street, but must be screened with low masonry walls and landscaping. Parking must also
be setback a minimum of 30 feet from the RS -8 Zone boundary.
• Building Types and Allowed Land Uses: The Orchard District is primarily a residential
district, so all residential building types are allowed. As this is such a small district with a
limited street network, mixed-use, commercial, and civic/institutional buildings are not
allowed. Live -work townhouses are the only building types allowed in the district that
would be designed to accommodate small commercial uses, which due to the size and
Page 3
constraints of construction of this building type would be self-limiting. In addition, the only
location that may be suitable for live -work townhouses, would be along the Orchard
Street frontage, which faces existing commercial uses located across the street and
along Benton Street and Riverside Drive. Therefore, the code restricts live -work
townhouses to the Orchard Street frontage and limits the types of commercial uses to
those that would be compatible with residential living, similar to the restrictions adopted
in the Eastside Mixed Use District.
• Streetscape and frontage area improvements, open space requirements, and building
design standards will be the same as required in other Riverfront Crossings subdistricts.
To ensure that buildings are appropriately scaled to provide a transition from the lower -
scale single family neighborhood to the west, bonus height will not be allowed in the
Orchard subdistrict.
Additional proposed changes to the Riverfront Crossings Code:
There have been a number of new buildings proposed in Riverfront Crossings that are designed
with residential units on the ground level floor along a street frontage that screen structured
parking. In the more urban subdistricts of Riverfront Crossings and the Eastside Mixed Use
District, the minimum required setback for structured parking is 30 feet behind active building
uses. While 30 feet is an appropriate minimum depth for ground floor commercial, attractive
and livable residential units can be designed with a minimum 20' depth. For example, the Sabin
Townhomes that line the new City parking structure along South Dubuque Street are
approximately 20 feet in depth and several of the residential buildings planned for "The
Crossings" development in the South Gilbert Subdistrict have ground floor residential units that
are 20' in depth. The first building planned for the Orchard District has residential units that are
25 feet deep. While the code does allow the FBC committee to grant a minor adjustment to
reduce the parking setback for these types of situations, since this type of building design will
likely occur on a regular basis, staff recommends amending the parking setback standard for
buildings with ground level residential units that screen structured parking to from 30 feet to 20
feet and making this standard consistent across all the subdistricts of Riverfront Crossings.
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. There is also a typo in the column
for forecourt frontages. Since a forecourt is always a subordinate frontage type that has to be
combined with another frontage type, note 1 should also apply to Apartment Buildings.
Recommendation: Staff recommends amending Title 14, Article 2G, Riverfront Crossings and
Eastside Mixed Use District Form -based Development Standards, as described in this memo
and as indicated on the attached pages.
A red -lined version of the new code language (without the graphics) is attached, which
highlights the changes. The underlined text is new language to be added to the code and the
strike -through notation indicates language to be deleted. Graphics in the code will not change
Page 4
other than modifications adding the Orchard District to the Riverfront Crossings regulating plan,
height diagram, and subdistrict locator map. The amended regulating plan and height diagram
are attached.
Attachments:
1. Excerpts from the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan related to the Orchard District
2. Proposed amendments to the zoning code language
3. Amended Riverfront Crossings Regulating Plan and Height Diagram
Approved by: / '4 /
John Yapp, Develo ment Services Coordinator
Neighborhood and Development Services
00
O
i S
CAPJM SI.
0
1
0
n�
� -
L
orchard district
The Orchard District is fully developed with duplexes along
Orchard Street, small multi-famity buildings around the cul-
de-sac and a few single family dwellings. Three of the single
family homes were moved onto Orchard Court and have no
paved street frontage (the only access is As an unpaved drive
from Benton Street). There currently is an abrupt change
from the larger scale mufti -family and mixed commercial
development east of Orchard Street to the residential on the
west side of the street. Redevelopment at a higher density
than exists today will provide an incentive to create a better
transition and a more pleasant neighborhood. Development
should be restricted to building typologies, such as cottage
clusters. townhomes, live -work townhomes and mufti -dwelling
buildings that are designed and scaled in a manner that is
complementary to the rhythm and scale of the single family
neighborhood located to the south and west, where the goal is
to preserve the existing housing stock.
Orchard District Summary
Master Plan Ohl'-cbves
> Encourage redevelopment that is complementary in mass and
scale to the adjacent single (amity neighborhood
Create a transition from larger -scale mixed-use and commercial
buildings along Riverside Drive to single family
r Improve design quality of development
Create beth and mole visible street access
Development Character
r Buildings that are articulated and scaled in a manner appropriate
for transition from the larger -scale, mixed-use conidorto the
adjacent single family neighborhood
r Buildings fronting tree -lined streets
r Parking located away from street frontages with minimal surface
parking lots
Use rear or side yard setbacks, upper floor stepbacks, and
landscaping to create transitions to single family neighborhood
Development Program.
r Llrtllled to college homes, mwhouses, townhouses. live -work
townhouses, and two to three-story mufti -dwelling buildings with
third floor stepback.
r High level of design in exchange for increased density
Rendering showing redevelopment north of Benton Street
Landscaping to create transitions
Orchard Street redevelopment
M
:a:
��::::
2002
Oman
F rT�.
r -
Legend
- South Downtown Subdistrict
University Subdistrict
Central Crossings Subdistrict
Gilbert Subdistrict
"`i Park Subdistrict
South Gilbert Subdistrict
West Riverfront Subdistrict
MW Orchard Subdistrict
ZLua
111] C_11 Li1i] i1JJ
IL-MilJ ,_1_, Il
EM !? �2, =
HE !IT_]
k
_ Public Parks and Open Space
Green Space
- Primary Street
_J Required Retail Storefront
Required Ralston Creek Frontage
Riverfront Crossings Boundary
f University of Iowa Campus
222. Pedestrian Street
If
' r J� ,� _, I11I1 ' HEMFEneon SC. ,V .L r
-
{wY6
i
Riverfrorlt Crossings [height Diagram
i
i
s
i
t
Ilk
o c
0 0
f �
rs
` Prentiss St.
Legend
3 stories max.
4 stories max.
2 stories min., 6 stories max.
2 stories min., 8 stories max.
_
8 stories max. with Iowa River frontage
Public Parks and Open Space
Green Space
Downtown
Amend 14 -2G -1B, Subdistricts (in Riverfront Crossings), by adding a new paragraph 8, as
follows:
8. Orchard Subdistrict (RFC -0)
Amend Figure 2G-1: Regulating Plan for the Riverfront Crossings District, to include the
Orchard Subdistrict (as attached).
Amend Figure 2G-2: Building Height Diagram for the Riverfront Crossings District to
include the Orchard Subdistrict (as attached).
Amend subparagraphs related to setbacks for building/structured parking along primary
streets, pedestrian streets, and Ralston Creek frontages in all Riverfront Crossings
subdistricts and the Eastside Mixed Use District, as follows:
• Building/Structured Parking: 30' min. from primary street building facade and located
behind fully -enclosed, occupied building space. For buildings with ground -level
residential uses, the setback may be reduced to 20.
Amend 14 -2G -3B, as follows:
B. Central Crossings and Orchard Subdistricts and Eastside Mixed
Use District
1. INTENT
The Central Crossings subdistrict (shaded in dark in Figure 2G-6) is intended for moderate
intensity mixed-use development in buildings with entries opening onto pedestrian -friendly
public streets and streetscapes. The Eastside Mixed Use District (shaded in dark in Figure 2G -
6b) is intended for lower intensity mixed use and residential development in buildings with
street -facing entries opening onto pedestrian -friendly streetscapes that provide a transition
between higher intensity mixed-use areas in downtown Iowa City and residential neighborhoods
to the east. The Orchard District (shaded in dark in Figure 2G -6c) is intended for lower intensitv
residential development in buildings with street -facing entries opening onto pedestrian -friendly
streetscapes that provide a transition between higher intensity mixed-use areas along Riverside
Drive and low -scale residential neighborhoods to the west. Buildings are designed with facades
aligned along primary streets and parking located within buildings behind active uses and in
mid -block parking lots and structures.
Figure 2G-6: Subdistrict Locator— Central Crossings & Orchard
Figure 2G -6b: District Locator — Eastside Mixed Use
2. USES
The principal uses allowed in the Central Crossings and Orchard Subdistricts, and Eastside
Mixed Use District are the same as allowed in the CB -5 Zone, as specified in Table 2C-1 within
Article 14-2C , except as noted below. Provisions and special exception approval criteria that
apply in the CB -5 Zone also apply in these districts as set forth in Article 14-413, except as noted
below. In addition, the following restrictions and allowances shall apply:
a. In the Orchard Subdistrict commercial and industrial uses are not allowed except in live -
work townhouses which may contain commercial uses allowed in the CB -5 Zone provided
the building is constructed to accommodate such uses and provided the use is not
Prohibited in the list below.
b. In the Central Crossings Subdistrict, Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses are not allowed on any
frontage designated as Primary Street or Ralston Creek Frontage, as specified in the
Riverfront Crossings Regulating Plan. In the Eastside Mixed Use District, Quick Vehicle
Service Uses are not allowed, except by special exception on property at the corner of
Burlington and Van Buren Streets. Quick Vehicle Service Uses are not allowed in the
Orchard Subdistrict.
c. Household Living Uses shall be allowed within permitted Building Types as specified in
Section 14-2G-5. For Multi -Family Uses, the provisions in Section 14-413-4 are superseded
by the standards in this Article and, therefore, do not apply, unless specifically listed in this
section. Residential occupancy is limited to one "household" per dwelling unit, as this term is
defined in Article 14-9A, General Definitions. The maximum number of bedrooms per
dwelling unit is three, except for single family uses within Cottage Homes, where the number
of bedrooms is unrestricted. Residential density (units per acre): No maximum. However, in
the Central Crossings Subdistrict, for Apartment Buildings, Multi -Dwelling Buildings, and
Mixed -Use Buildings, the number of 3 -bedroom units per lot may not exceed 30% of the
total number of units on the lot, except for south of the Iowa -Interstate Rail line, where the
number of 3 -bedroom units for these building types may not exceed 20%. In the Eastside
Mixed -Use District and Orchard Subdistrict, the number of 3 -bedroom units for these
building types may not exceed 20%.
d. Residential Uses are not allowed within required retail storefronts, as specified in the
Riverfront Crossings Regulating Plan.
e. Assisted Group Living Uses shall be allowed within permitted Building Types as specified in
Section 14-2G-5. Residential occupancy is limited to 1 roomer per 300 square feet of floor
area, not including floor area within a garage or structured parking area.
f. Drinking Establishments are not allowed.
g. Animal -Related Commercial, Repair -oriented Retail, and Alcohol Sales -oriented Retail uses
are not allowed in the Eastside Mixed Use District or the Orchard Subdistrict.
h. In the Eastside Mixed Use District and Orchard Subdistrict, Commercial Recreational Uses,
Eating Establishments, Sales -oriented Retail, and Personal Service-oriented Retail uses
shall not be open to the public between the hours of 11:00 PM and 690 7:00 AM, except if
located in a storefront with frontage on Van Buren Street or Burlington Street.
3. PRINCIPAL BUILDING PLACEMENT AND FORM
a. Building Types
(1) Principal buildings shall comply with Section 14-2G-5, Building Type Standards. The
following Building Types are permitted in the Central Crossings and Orchard subdistricts
and in the Eastside Mixed Use District (see also Table 2G-6):
Table 2G-2: Permitted Building Types - Central Crossings
Notes:
1. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Van Buren Street or Burlington Street.
2. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Orchard Street.
b. Building Placement
(1) Principal buildings shall be placed to the front and corner of lots and aligned along
setbacks in compliance with the following requirements as shown in Figure 2G-7.
Figure 2G-7: Building Placement Diagram
(a) Primary (A) and Secondary (B) Street Setback:
Permitted Building Types
M
C
m
y
01
Subd�stfists
07
V
C
M
N
Districts
v
_
m
c
a
E
a
m'E
F
m
m'
7
O
d
•�
N
9
C
R
c
E
O
E
v
M
O
.0
Op
O
6
7
>
O
x
G
>
U
W
F-
Q
J
U
J
U Ip
Central Crossings
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Eastside Mixed
Use
x
X
x
x
x
x
X(1)
X(1)
x
Orchard
x
x
x
x
x
X(2)
x
Notes:
1. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Van Buren Street or Burlington Street.
2. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Orchard Street.
b. Building Placement
(1) Principal buildings shall be placed to the front and corner of lots and aligned along
setbacks in compliance with the following requirements as shown in Figure 2G-7.
Figure 2G-7: Building Placement Diagram
(a) Primary (A) and Secondary (B) Street Setback:
Central Crossings: 10' min., 16' max.
Orchard: 6' min.. 12' max.
Eastside Mixed Use:
Primary (A) 20' min., 30' max.
Secondary (B) 10' min. 20'max.
(b) Lots Fronting on Pedestrian Streets: 5' min., 10' max. from public right-of-way or
access easement. See Section 14 -2G -7B for additional requirements.
(c) Ralston Creek Frontage Setback: 5' min. from stream corridor buffer line.
(d) Side Setback (C): 10' min. or 0' if building abuts or will abut the adjacent building,
except for apartment buildings and multi -dwelling buildings where the minimum is
always 10'. For mixed-use buildings, facades on residential floors must be set back
at least 10' from the side lot line.
(e) Rear Setback (D): 10' min. or 5' min. if set back along public alley or private rear
lane.
(f) In the Central Crossings Subdistrict and Eastside Mixed Use District, above the 3rd
fl....r (or above the O...d floor if the height f the f' f 7 t t least 30' abeve
grade) -the maximum setback does not apply above the 2nd floor. In the Orchard
District, the maximum setback does not apply above the 2nd floor and is increased to
a max. of 25' above the 1 si floor.
(g) Approved forecourt frontages may exceed the maximum setbacks stated above.
(h) In the Orchard District, 30' min. from RS -8 Zone boundary.
c. Building Height and Facade Stepbacks
(1) Central Crossings: Except as provided below, principal buildings shall be 4 stories max.
in height above grade.
(a) Additional building height may be granted through transfer of development rights or
through bonus height provisions as set forth in the Section 14 -2G -7G, Building
Height Bonus Provisions.
(b) Building heights may be further restricted by FAA regulations.
(2) Eastside Mixed Use and Orchard: Principal buildings shall be 3 stories max. in height
above grade., ^efte eed3�'.
(3) In the Central Crossings Subdistrict, above the 3rd floor, building facades facing and
visible from streets, plazas, or parks shall step back 10' min. from the lower floor facade.
(a) At street corners, tower elements or similar corner emphasis treatments may be
exempt from the stepback requirement for up to one fagade bay (max. 35 feet) as
approved by the FBC Committee.
(b) The required facade stepback may be established at a lower floor than stated above,
provided it is established at least 30' in height above grade.
(4) In the Orchard Subdistrict, above the 2nd floor, building facades facing streets and
RS -8 zone boundaries shall step back 10' min.. 25' max. from the lower floor facade.
At street corners, tower elements or similar corner emphasis treatments may be
exempt from the stepback requirement for up to one facade bay (max. 35 feet) as
approved by the FBC Committee. Alternatively, if approved by the FBC, the required
facade stepback may be established above the 15t floor or may be tiered with the 10'
min stepback achieved with smaller stepbacks above both the I" and 2nd stories.
d. Building Projections
(1) The following building features may project into setbacks as follows:
(a) Bay windows, eaves, roof overhangs, cornices, belt courses, buttresses, sills, and
other similar features: 2' max.
(b) Balconies on upper floors may project up to 6' into front setbacks. Balconies may
project beyond non -street -facing facades on upper floors up to 4' max., but shall
extend no closer than 8' from a side or rear lot line, unless said lot line abuts an alley
or permanent open space.
(c) Canopies, awnings, stoops, terraces, covered building entries, and similar elements
as permitted in Section 14-2G-4, Frontage Type Standards.
(2) Awnings and canopies may also project into public rights-of-way according to the
applicable provisions of the Building Code. Certain permitted signs may also project into
public rights-of-way according to applicable standards set forth in Article 14-5B, Sign
Regulations. Projections into the right-of-way shall not interfere with utilities, street trees
and other important right-of-way features.
(3) Arcades and galleries projecting beyond ground -level street -facing building facades are
not permitted. (An arcade is a fagade with an attached colonnade that projects over the
sidewalk/walkway with upper story building space above. A gallery is a colonnade that is
attached to a ground level fagade that projects over the sidewalk/walkway). Upper floor
facades may not project closer to the streetside property line than the ground -level
building fagade, except for building features noted above.
e. Building and Frontage Types
(1) Principal buildings and building facades shall be designed in compliance with Section
14-2G-4, Frontage Type Standards, and Section 14-2G-5, Building Type Standards.
f. Facade Continuity
(1) Central Crossings and Orchard: To define pedestrian friendly streetscapes and create a
mostly continuous frontage of buildings along primary streets, principal buildings shall
occupy a min. of 75% of the primary street lot frontage. In Central Crossings, in the
absence of a building along the remainder of the lot frontage, a streetscreen shall be
built in compliance with Section 14 -2G -7D.
(2) Eastside Mixed Use: To define pedestrian friendly streetscapes while maintaining a lower
intensity development character along primary streets, principal buildings shall occupy a
min. of 50% and a max. of 75% of the primary street lot frontage.
4. PARKING, LOADING, AND SERVICE AREAS
a. Parking shall be provided using a permitted Parking Type appropriate for the selected
Building Type in compliance with Section 14-2G-6, Parking Type Standards, and at the
minimum ratios specified in 14-5A-4, Minimum Parking Requirements.
b. Parking, Loading, and Service Area Placement & Screening
Parking, loading, and service areas shall be located within and behind principal buildings in
compliance with the following requirements as shown in Figure 2G-8.
Figure 2G-8: Parking and Service Placement Diagram
(1) Primary Street, Pedestrian Street, and designated Ralston Creek Frontage Setback (E)
and Screening
(a) Surface Parking and Service Areas: 30' min. from primary street building facade and
located behind fully -enclosed, occupied building space.
(b) Building/Parking Structure: For parking in the ground floor of a building or structure,
30' min. from primary street building facade and located behind fully -enclosed,
occupied building space. P^r paFking On uppeF '' FniR. frn.n scree+fn^^^
building f^n^de ands ed fFGrR view by rnhiteGt rally finished building f^n^deo
For buildings with ground -level residential uses, the setback may be reduced to 20'.
(c) Underground Parking: 0' min. from primary street building facade.
(2) Secondary Street Setback (F) and Screening
(a) Surface Parking, Loading, and Service Area: 10' min. and set back 3' min. from the
secondary street building facade and screened by low masonry walls and
landscaping as specified for S2 standard - alternative materials (option B), set forth
in Article 14-517, Screening and Buffering Standards.
(b) Building/Structured Parking: 1' min. from the secondary street
building facade and screened from public view by architecturally -finished building
facades, according to the standards for structured parking set forth in 14 -5A -5F.
(c) Underground Parking: 10' min. and set back 0' min. from secondary street building
facade.
(3) Side (G) and Rear (H) Setbacks and Screening
(a) Surface Parking, Loading, and Service Area: Must comply with the same side and
rear setback requirements as principal buildings, or 0' where parking is shared with
the adjacent property. Setback area shall be landscaped to the S2 standard.
(b) Building/Structured Parking: Must comply with the same side and rear setback
requirements as principal buildings. Parking must be screened from view by
architecturally -finished building facades, according to the standards for structured
parking set forth in 14 -5A -5F.
(c) Underground Parking: Must comply with the same side and rear setback requirement
as principal buildings.
(4) Underground parking shall be designed to ensure ground floor finished floor elevations
meet elevation requirements for permitted frontage types.
(5) For buildings with ground floor residential use, no surface parking shall be closer than
10' to any residential portion of a building (i.e. not including portions of the building
containing garage space). This 10' area must be used for walkways and landscaping
and/or may be included as part of a larger open space area. If parking spaces are
located where headlights of vehicles shine onto a wall containing ground floor windows,
said parking spaces must be screened from view of the windows to at least the S2
standard.
c. Access to Parking, Loading, and Service Areas
(1) All parking, loading, and service areas shall be accessed from public alleys, private rear
lanes or driveways on secondary streets consistent with the applicable regulating plan,
except as allowed in paragraph (2), below.
(2) If access from an alley, private rear lane, or driveway from the secondary street is not
feasible due to topography, site conditions, configuration of the lot, and/or other
constraints, access to a primary street may be granted by the FBC Committee. Any
request for a curb cut on an arterial street will be reviewed according to the applicable
provisions set forth in Section 14-5C-6, Arterial Street Access Requirements.
d. Construction and Design Standards for Parking and Loading Areas
(1) The following subsections of Section 14-5A-5, Construction and Design Standards, shall
apply:
A. Purpose
B. Paving Materials
C. Parking and Stacking Space Size
D. Drainage
E. Location
F. Standards for Structured Parking
H. Design and Layout of Surface Parking Areas
I. Landscaping and Tree Requirements within Parking Areas
J. Screening and Setback Areas
K. Design of Bicycle Parking Areas.
5. ACCESSORY USES, BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
a. Accessory uses, buildings and structures shall comply with the provisions of Article 14-4C.
However, if the provisions contained in this article are more specific or restrictive, said
provisions shall supersede the provisions of Article 14-4C.
b. Garages and parking structures must be located and constructed in compliance with the
provisions of paragraph 4, Parking, Loading, and Service Areas.
c. Accessory buildings other than garages and parking structures must be located behind
principal buildings according to the same setback standards as surface parking. Facades of
accessory buildings within public view must be architecturally finished in a manner that is
consistent with the principal building.
Amend Table 2G-5: Permitted Frontage Types as follows:
Table 2G-5: Permitted Frontage Types
Notes:
1. Subordinate frontage type — to be used in conjunction with other permitted frontage
type(s)
2. Frontage type may be allowed by the FBC for appropriate horizontal mixing of uses,
e.g. for large mixed-use buildings with multiple street frontages.
3. Allowed for access to individual dwelling units or live -work units.
Permitted Frontage Types
Building Types
M
d
CC
O
y
IL
C
y
p
L
O
O
0
U
A
d
0 O
°
` 'O
o `m
'C
o
0
W
>
i
m
a r
(.
LL
Cottage Home
x
x
Rowhouse
x
x
x
Townhouse
x
x
x
Apartment Building
X(3)
X()
x
X(1,
Multi -Dwelling Building
X(3)
Xg
x
x(1)
Live -Work Townhouse
x
x
x
Commercial Building
x
x
x(1)
Mixed -Use Building
x
x
X(2)0
X(2)g
X(2)
x(1)
Liner Building
x
x
X(3)
X(3)
Civic or Institutional Building
x
x
x
x
x(1)
Notes:
1. Subordinate frontage type — to be used in conjunction with other permitted frontage
type(s)
2. Frontage type may be allowed by the FBC for appropriate horizontal mixing of uses,
e.g. for large mixed-use buildings with multiple street frontages.
3. Allowed for access to individual dwelling units or live -work units.
Amend Table 2G-6: Permitted Building Types, as follows:
r klti on A• Oormi fcri Riiilriinn Tvnec
Notes:
1. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Van Buren Street or Burlington Street.
2 Only allowed on properties with frontage on Orchard Street.
Amend 14 -2G -7G -1d.(5), as follows:
(5) Height bonuses are not allowed in the Eastside Mixed Use District or the Orchard
Subdistrict.
Form -based Zoning Districts
FitfttedBu
o
N
n
o
v
3
a
a
S
m
O
—
=
U
A
t
>
0
M
m
7
L
7
d
�
C
.0
V
N
N N
m
aL
U)
u
t7
O
lL
Cottage Home
x
x
x
se
x
x
x
x
use
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
ent Building
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
elling Building
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
rk Townhouse
KBuilding—______
x
x
x
x
x
x
X(2)
x
rcial Building
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x(t)
Use Building
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x(+)
uilding
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
r Institutional
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
g
Notes:
1. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Van Buren Street or Burlington Street.
2 Only allowed on properties with frontage on Orchard Street.
Amend 14 -2G -7G -1d.(5), as follows:
(5) Height bonuses are not allowed in the Eastside Mixed Use District or the Orchard
Subdistrict.
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 fora 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 (fagade 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 -0) 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
� C_
Prepared by: Marti Wolf, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240 (REZ17-00003)
ORDINANCE NO. 17-4706
AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATLEY .705 ACRES OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 619 AND 627 ORCHARD COURT FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY — LOW
DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (OPD -5) ZONE TO RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS - ORCHARD (RFC -0) ZONE
(REZ17-00003)
WHEREAS, the applicant, M & W Properties, has requested a rezoning of property locally known as 619
and 627 Orchard Court from Planned Development Overlay Low Density Single Family (OPD -5) zone to
Riverfront Crossings — Orchard (RFC -O) zone; and
WHEREAS, the subject properties are located in the Orchard Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, an integral part of the Comprehensive
Plan, indicates that the Orchard Subdistrict should create a transition from the larger scale mixed use and
commercial buildings along Riverside Drive to the lower scale single family neighborhood to the west and
encourage redevelopment that will create a better pedestrian environment along streets, and improve the
quality of housing in the area to serve the needs of the community; and
WHEREAS, the form -based zoning standards that apply in the Orchard Subdistrict encourage
development that is of a scale and design to provide the desired transition described in the Riverfront
Crossings Master Plan and will improve the quality of the neighborhood by reserving frontage areas along
streets for pedestrians and restricting parking and vehicular access to areas behind buildings; and
WHEREAS, the existing Orchard Court has a substandard right-of-way width that does not provide
adequate space for a sidewalk and parkway buffer with street trees to meet requirements in the Riverfront
Crossings form -based zoning code; and
WHEREAS, the requested rezoning will result in a significant increase in the residential population in the
area, which will increase the pedestrian and bicycle traffic along Orchard Court and, therefore, additional
public right-of-way to widen pedestrian areas along Orchard Court and the provision of affordable housing will
be needed; and
WHEREAS, Iowa City Code 14-2G-8 requires that, upon rezoning to RFC -O, the owner must enter
into an agreement with the City establishing how the owner will provide affordable housing when the
property is redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and
determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets conditions addressing the
need for the dedication of land along the Orchard Court frontage to widen the pedestrian area within the right-
of-way to a minimum of 15 feet in width; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2017) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public
needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the owner and applicant have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate
development in this area of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated
herein, property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of Planned
Development Overlay -Low Density Single Family (OPD -5) zone to Riverfront Crossings -Orchard (RFC -O)
zone:
LOTS 1, 2, AND 3 IN ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION, IOWA CITY, IOWA ACCORDING TO THE
PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 16, PAGE 29. PLAT RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY,
IOWA, ACCORDING TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
Ordinance No. 17-4706
Page 2
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning
map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and
publication of the ordinance as approved by law.
SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the
City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the
Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage,
approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approovved this 16thday of May , 2017.
G,
na7-
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY-LERK
Ap roved by
City Attorneys Office
Ordinance No. 17-4706
Page 3
It was moved by Mims and seconded by Thomas that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
x Botchway
x Cole
x Dickens
x Mims
x Taylor
x Thomas
x Throgmorton
First Consideration 05/02/2017
Voteforpassage: AYES: Taylor, Thomas, Throgmorton,
Bbtchway, Cole, Mims. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dickens.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published 05/25/2017
Moved by Mims, seconded by Taylor, that the rule requiring
ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two
Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be
finally passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote
be waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage at
this time. AYES: Cole, Dickens, Mims, Taylor, Thomas, Throgmorton.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: Botchway.
Prepared by: Karen Howard, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5251 (REZ16-00002)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City"), and M&W Properties, L.L.C., (referred to hereinafter as "Owners").
WHEREAS, Owners are the collective legal title holders of approximately 0.705 acres of
property locally known as 619 and 627 Orchard Court in Iowa City; and
WHEREAS, the Owners have requested the rezoning of the subject properties from
Planned Development — Low Density Single Family (OPD -5) to Riverfront Crossings — Orchard
(RFC -0); and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2017) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the increased density of residential living allowed with the RFC -O zoning will
result in the need for an improved "public realm," including improved streets with safer and more
attractive areas for people to walk and bike; and
WHEREAS, the requested rezoning will result in a significant increase in the residential
population in the area, which will increase the pedestrian and bicycle traffic along Orchard Court
and, therefore, additional public right-of-way to widen pedestrian areas along Orchard Court will
be needed; and
WHEREAS, certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the
development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including the need for
a safe, attractive, and comfortable environment for residential living and improved streets that
will encourage walking and biking; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions to ensure improved pedestrian and bicycle safety and comfort and to provide for
safe traffic circulation upon redevelopment, the requested zoning is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the high percentage of housing cost -burdened households is the most
common housing problem within the City of Iowa City, and one of the primary areas where people
face housing affordability challenges is near the University campus and the City's urban core; and,
WHEREAS, the Riverfront Crossings District is well -situated to support a mix of housing
due to its close proximity to downtown Iowa City and the University of Iowa campus, its existing
and planned mix of uses, convenient access to public transit and municipal parking facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code is intended to encourage a
walkable, pedestrian -friendly area where residents can work, live and play, and will increase the
need for housing that is affordable to the workforce; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning to RFC -O will allow residential development at a density not
previously permitted; and,
WHEREAS, the Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code requires that upon a rezoning to
a riverfront crossings zoning designation, the property owner must enter into an agreement with
the city to establish which method or methods the Developer will use to provide the required
affordable housing.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. Owners are the collective the legal title holders of the property legally described as
follows:
1 of 4
LOTS 1, 2, AND 3 IN ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION, IOWA CITY, IOWA
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 16, PAGE 29.
PLAT RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, ACCORDING TO EASEMENTS
AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
2. The Owners acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles
of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Orchard Subdistrict of the Downtown and
Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, and the Owners intend to comply therewith. Further,
the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2017) provides that the City of Iowa
City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above
the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested
change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners agree that
development of the subject property will conform to all requirements of the zoning
chapter, as well as the following conditions:
a. Prior to issuance of any building permit, land shall be dedicated to the City along
Orchard Court to improve conditions along the street necessary for the increase
in pedestrians and bicyclists anticipated with the rezoning according to the goals
and objectives of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. The ROW dedication
shall result in a minimum 15 foot wide pedestrian area' between the new front
property line and the street curb along the Orchard Court frontage. Upon
redevelopment, Owners shall improve said pedestrian area with a minimum 5
foot wide sidewalk located generally along the front property line and a minimum
10 foot landscaped parkway planted with street trees located between the
sidewalk and the street curb according to the form -based zoning standards;
b. Owner shall satisfy the affordable housing obligations imposed pursuant to Iowa
City Code of Ordinances 14-2G-8 through the provision of on-site owner -
occupied dwelling units, on-site rental dwelling units, and/or the payment of a fee
in lieu of the remaining dwelling units not provided on-site or as otherwise agreed
to between Owner and the City in an affordable housing agreement entered into
prior to issuance of a building permit for development of any portion of the above-
described property.
4. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under
Iowa Code §414.5 (2017), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused
by the requested zoning change.
5. In the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all
development will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the
land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with
title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City.
7. This agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and
assigns of the parties.
8. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or
2of4
Applicant from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the
ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the
ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at
the Owners' expense.
Dated this 16th day of
2017.
CITY OF IOWACITYOWNE S
Jarkies Throgmorton, Mayor By[M&W Properties, LLC
Attest:
Ju oparil,\ D, ep q -City Clerk
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on / 2017 by James
Throgmorton and Julie Voparil as Mayor and Deputy City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa
City.
Notary Public in and for State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission
3of4
FoiV
KELLIE K. FRUENUNG
(cion POW 6M�t9
MY
M&W PROPERTIES, LLC ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
STATE OF IOWA
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument w`as• acknowledged before me on 2017 by
(Name(s) of individual(s) as k A iv -x p
(type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of M&W Properties LLC.
KATHLEEN M THORNTON e
Commission Number 764003 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
Mj `!
• �� •ommission E ires
I (Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)-w� c✓�� u -
My commission expires:
4of4
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ17-00003
GENERAL INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Karen Howard
Date: April 6, 2017
Applicant:
M & W Properties
P.O. Box 5152
Coralville, IA 52241
319-430-5991
ryanwade 1000(a)gmail.com
Contact:
Michael Muhlenbruch — Shive Hattery
2839 Northgate Drive
Iowa City, IA 52245
319-354-3040
mmulenbruch anshive-hattery com
Property Owner
Thomas Bayliss and Hartwig Properties, LLP
627 and 619 Orchard Court
Iowa City, IA 52240
Requested Action:
Rezone 619 and 627 Orchard Court from Low
Density Residential Planned Development (OPD -5)
to Riverfront Crossings -Orchard (RFC -0)
Purpose:
Redevelop the property according to the Riverfront
Crossings — Orchard District Standards
Location:
619 and 627 Orchard Court
Size:
Approximately .705 acres (.495 and .21 acres,
respectively)
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
A single family dwelling and a MF dwelling(4-plex)
OPD -5
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Iowa Interstate Railroad
South: Residential duplexes (RS -8)
East: MF dwelling (RFC -WR)
West: four MF dwellings (4-plexes) (OPD -5)
File Date:
February 23, 2017
45 Day Limitation Period:
Undetermined. 45 day period begins from the date
the RFC -O zone is adopted by Council
2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, M & W Properties, has requested a rezoning from Planned Development Overlay—
Low Density Single Family Residential (OPD -5) Zone to Riverfront Crossings Orchard (RFC -0)
Zone for 0.705 acres at 619 and 627 Orchard Court. The applicants 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
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
The applicants requested the change to the Comprehensive Plan in 2016 that resulted in the
expansion of the Riverfront Crossings District to include the new Orchard Subdistrict, which
encompasses properties located along Orchard Street and Orchard Court north of Benton
Street. The Orchard Subdistrict was created to encourage residential redevelopment that would
create a better transition between the higher intensity mixed-use area along Riverside Drive and
the lower -scale single family residential neighborhood to the west. If the subject properties are
rezoned, the new form -based standards for the Orchard Subdistrict will apply.
In early March, the City Council adopted a resolution of support for M&W Properties' application
for Workforce Housing Tax Incentives from the Iowa Economic Development Authority to
construct multi -family housing on the subject properties. If the tax incentives are approved by
the State and provided the applicant obtains zoning and building approvals for the proposed
building, the City Council has committed to provide a local match equal to at least $1000 per
dwelling unit.
The applicants held a Good Neighbor meeting prior to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in
2016, but have not held a Good Neighbor meeting for this specific rezoning application.
ANALYSIS:
Proposed zoning: With this proposed rezoning, the new form -based zoning standards of the
Orchard Subdistrict (RFC -O) will apply to these two properties, including the affordable housing
requirement that applies in Riverfront Crossings. The form -based zoning standards for the
Orchard District are described in detail in a staff memo dated April 6, 2017, which was also
included in your agenda packet for this meeting. It should be noted that the requested rezoning
cannot be approved until the zoning code amendments are adopted that create the new RFC -O
Zone.
Comprehensive Plan: The subject properties are located in the Orchard Subdistrict of Riverfront
Crossings as described in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Following is an
excerpt from the master plan that lists the plan objectives, desired development character for the
district, and the types of development envisioned for this area. Rezoning the property to the new
designation will facilitate the type of redevelopment envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
3
Orchard District Summary
Master Plan Objectives:
r Enoourage redevelopment that is complementary in mass and
scale to the adjacent single family neighborhood
r Create a transition from larger -scale mixed-use and commercial
buildings along Riverside Drive to single family
r Improve design quality of development
r Create better and more visible street access
Development Character:
r Buildings that are articulated and scaled in a manner appropriate
for transition from the larger -scale, mixed-use corridor to the
adjacent single family neighborhood
r Buildings fronting tree -lined streets
r Parking located away from street frontages with minimal surface
parking lots
r Use rear or side yard setbacks, upper floor stepbacks, and
landscaping to create transitions to single family neighborhood
Development Program:
r Limited to cottage homes, rowhouses, townhouses, live -work
townhouses, and two to three-story multi -dwelling buildings with
third floor stepback.
r High level of design in exchange for increased density
Compatibility with neighborhood: The goal of the Orchard Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings
is to improve the aesthetics of development in the area and encourage the development of high-
quality housing that meets the needs of the community. The form -based standards will ensure that
development on the properties will be designed in a manner consistent with the residential
character envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan and provide new affordable housing options
consistent with to the Riverfront Crossings inclusionary zoning ordinance.
While the rezoning to RFC -O would provide a number of different options for redevelopment of
the subject properties, the applicant is currently contemplating a 3 -story, multi -dwelling building
containing approximately 45 efficiency/1-bedroom units. A preliminary concept for the building
shows the main entry to the building opening to the south along the east -west portion of
Orchard Court and entries to individual ground level units will be located along the west side of
the building, which will front on the existing north -south portion of the cul-de-sac. Shared open
space would be provided on a second floor terrace and private open space will be provided on
street level terraces and upper level balconies. All parking for the residents will be enclosed
within the structure. Along the west side of the building upper floors will step back from the
ground level floor 20-25 feet. The applicants are exploring the feasibility of installing a green
roof system on the large terrace created with this stepback. They have successfully
implemented this type of system on a smaller scale on a previous multi -family project located
near the UI medical campus. The upper floor farade will also step back on the south side of the
building. The proposed concept demonstrates that the applicants have a good understanding of
the new zoning standards that would apply with this rezoning.
Traffic and Pedestrian circulation: The proposed rezoning will result in a considerable
increase in the residential density in the area. The subject properties front on Orchard Court,
which has a 50 -foot right-of-way leading to the wider 100 -foot right-of-way at the bulb of the cul-
de-sac. The City's current width standard for a local residential street is 60 feet, which provides
adequate space for a 5 -foot sidewalk and a 10-12 foot parkway buffer to support healthy street
trees. One of the objectives of the Riverfront Crossings Plan is to create high quality residential
neighborhoods with tree -lined streets that encourage walking and biking. As properties are
4
rezoned along this frontage, staff recommends requiring a dedication of land on both sides of
Orchard Court to ensure that the streetscape and frontage area improvements required in the
Riverfront Crossings form -based code can be achieved. The applicants have agreed to dedicate
land along the frontage of the subject properties to create a right-of-way with a minimum 10 -foot
parkway for street trees and a new 5 -foot sidewalk. The applicants will be responsible for
installing the new sidewalk and street trees at the time of development according to the
standards in the form -based code.
In the future as more of the properties along Orchard Court are proposed for redevelopment,
reconfiguring and re -aligning the streets as illustrated on the regulating plan should be
encouraged during the rezoning process. Such a re -alignment would require a re -subdivision of
some of the properties in the area. However, the properties that are the subject of this rezoning
can develop as envisioned in the master plan without a subdivision. Therefore, with a
conditional zoning agreement to widen the right-of-way as described above, staff finds that the
street right-of-way will be adequate to support this rezoning.
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.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
Approved by: _7 A J
John Yapp, Develo ment Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Aota
CITY OF IOWA CIT)
CC2 '' A
s
RM44
RS8 = RS8f
y "•`fir ._ ,
AT
s ry
r
RFC -WR
RFC -WR r
ON'
An application submitted by M & W Properties fora ' •*y
rezoning of .705 acres from OPD-RS5 Zone to Riverfront 4 - �_ k • •
Crossings — Orchard (RFC -O) at 619 and 627 Orchard
Court �y, I .. 11► _ '� " ccz
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 -0) 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 Swyaard (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 -0)
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).
(V�
Prepared by: Marti Wolf, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-5240 (REZ17-00004)
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 4,550 SQUARE FEET OF
PROPERTY FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE (CB -2) ZONE TO CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT
(CB -5) ZONE LOCATED AT 202 NORTH LINN STREET (REZ17-00004)
WHEREAS, the applicant, William Nusser, has requested a rezoning of property located at 202 North
Linn Street from Central Business Service (CB -2) zone to Central Business Support (CB -5) zone; and
WHEREAS, both zones require commercial uses on the ground floor with the option for residential uses
on upper floors; and
WHEREAS, the existing development on the property includes a non -conforming surface parking area
and a building that lacks the fagade elements required in the zone and district; and
WHEREAS, the lower minimum parking standards and additional residential density and minimum Floor
Area Ratio in the CB -5 zone greatly enhance the redevelopment potential of this small corner property; and
WHEREAS, upon redevelopment, the property will be brought into conformity with parking and building
design requirements and enhance the pedestrian character and safety of the corner; and
WHEREAS, all the other corner properties at the intersection of Market and Linn are already zoned CB -
5; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan (Central District Plan) emphasizes the "distinct identity and scale"
of the Northside Marketplace as different from the Downtown, and encourages development that preserves
the existing scale, economic vitality, and mainstreet historic commercial character of the Northside
Marketplace; and
WHEREAS, the minimum parking requirements and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the CB -5 zone effectively
control the potential scale of the building; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined
that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets conditions addressing the need for
design review; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2015) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public
needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the owner and applicant have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate
development in this area of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning
designation of Central Business Service (CB -2) zone to Central Business Support (CB -5) zone:
THE SOUTH 65.75 FEET OF LOT FIVE (5), BLOCK FIFTY EIGHT (58), ORIGINAL TOWN PLAT OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, SUBJECT TO RIGHT OF WAY OVER THE EAST TEN (10) FEET THEREOF, BY THE
OWNERS OF LOT 5.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning
map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and
publication of the ordinance as approved by law.
SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the
City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the
Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage,
approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION Vl. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of , 20 .
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
App oved by
City Attorneys Office
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Botchway
Cole
Dickens
Mims
Taylor
Thomas
Throginorton
First Consideration 05/02/2017
Vote for passage; AYES: Thomas, Throgmorton, Botchway, Cole,
Mims, Taylor. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dickens.
Second Consideration 05/16/2017
Voteforpassage: AYES: Dickens, Mims, Taylor, Thomas
Cole. NAYS: Throgmorton. ABSENT: Botchway.
Date published
It was mot
Ordinance
AYES:
No.
by and seconded by
read be adopted, and upon roll call there we
NAYS: ABSENT: ABS
First Consideration
Vote for pas.
Mims, Tay
Second Conside
Vote for
Date
Botchway
Cole
Dickens
Mims
Taylor
Thomas
Throginorton
05/0 /2017
AYES: Thomas Throgmorton, Botchway, Cole,
NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dickens.
that the
Ordinance No.
Page
It was i oved by and seconded by
Ordinanc as read be adopted, and upon roll call there w
AYES: AYS: ABSENT: ABS AIN:
Botchway
Cole
Dickens
Mims
Taylor
Thomas
Throgmorton
First Consideration 0 16/2017
Vote for passage: AYE Dicke s, Mims, Taylor, Thomas,
Cole. NAYS: Thro morton. SENT: Botchway.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
that the
Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5239 (REZ17-0004)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City"), Central State Bank (hereinafter "Owner"), and William Nusser (hereinafter
"Applicant").
WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 4,550 square feet of property
located at 202 South Linn and
WHEREAS, the applicant, William Nusser, has requested a rezoning of property located at
202 North Linn Street from Central Business Service (CB -2) zone to Central Business Support
(CB -5) zone; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding building design, the requested zoning is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2015) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in
order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are
reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the need to encourage development that complements the existing scale and distinct
identity of the Northside Marketplace as different from the Downtown and to preserve the
existing scale, economic vitality, and mainstreet historic commercial character of the Northside
Marketplace; and
WHEREAS, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. Central State Bank is the legal title holder of the property legally described as:
THE SOUTH 65.75 FEET OF LOT FIVE (5), BLOCK FIFTY EIGHT (58), ORIGINAL TOWN PLAT
OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, SUBJECT TO RIGHT OF WAY OVER THE EAST TEN (10) FEET
THEREOF, BY THE OWNERS OF LOT 5.
2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles
of the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan. Further, the parties
acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2015) provides that the City of Iowa City may
impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above the
existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree
that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the
zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions:
ppdadm/agYmnditional zoning agreement rev.doc
a. Building design is subject to the City's Design Review Process and approval by the
City's Design Review Committee.
4. The Owner, Applicant, and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are
reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2015), and that
said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change.
5. The Owner, Applicant, and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is
transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the
terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be
a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force
and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the
City of Iowa City. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the
benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties.
7. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning
Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all
other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
S. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by
reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and
publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense.
Dated this day of
CITY OF IOWA CITY
James A. Throgmorton, Mayor
Attest:
Julie Voparil, Deputy City Clerk
tove
zl_ P J 7
City Attorney's Office
ppdadmlagt1conditional zoning agreement rev.doc
20
Central State BZ"J By:
Title: CQ
William Nusser
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20_ by James A.
Throgmorton and Julie Voparil, Deputy City Clerk as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the
City of Iowa City.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
Central State Bank ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on * r,\ a8 , 29-1.3 by
as CV\�e� of Central State
Bank.
tary Pub in and for said Cou tyand State
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
William Nusser ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
)ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
"j3)n
On this`d day of '�pr: \ , 2017, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in
and for the above-named county and state, personally appeared William Nusser, a single
person, to me known to be the identical person named in and who executed the within and
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his voluntary act and
deed.
to Public in anted he State of Iowa. 3
ppdatlMagticonditional zoning agreement ray.doc 3
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ17-00004
202 N. Linn Street
GENERAL INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: April 6, 2016
Applicant: Ross Nusser
1519 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-331-5206
rossnusser@urbanacres.com
Owner: Central State Bank
2530 Corridor Way
Coralville, IA 52241
319-625-2050
Abbe.stensland @centralstate. bank
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
Rezone from Central Business Service Zone (CB -2)
Zone to Central Business Support Zone (CB -5)
To allow redevelopment for mixed use based on
lower parking requirements in the CB -5 zone.
202 N. Linn Street
4,550 square feet
Commercial bank; CB -2
North: Commercial (CB -2)
South: Commercial (CB -5)
East: Commercial (CB -2)
West: Commercial (CB -5)
February 23, 2017
April 11, 2017
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Ross Nusser, is seeking a rezoning from CB -2, Central Business Service Zone, to
CB -5, Central Business Support Zone for a 4,520 square foot property located at the northeast
corner of the Market Street/ Linn Street intersection.
The property includes a one-story commercial building that was the former site of Pearson's
pharmacy and more recently has served as home to the Corridor State Bank. The lot includes a
non -conforming surface parking area with 5 parking spaces located between the building and the
Market Street right-of-way.
2
The applicant proposes to redevelop the property for a mixed use building with commercial uses
on the ground floor and residential units above.
ANALYSIS:
Comprehensive Plan: The Central District Plan contains a discussion of the Northside
Marketplace, which includes this property (see Central District Plan pages 55-59). The plan
notes a desire to preserve the "distinct identity and scale' of the commercial district as different
from the Downtown:
"Locally owned businesses that have become institutions in the community, such as John's
Grocery, Pagliai's Pizza, and the Hamburg Inn, serve as commercial anchors for the neighborhood,
which is defined by an eclectic mix of small-scale, locally owned specialty shops and restaurants.
Many participants describe the area as 'Old Iowa City'—an urban commercial district that is not
dominated by the undergraduate student market."
The Central District plan identifies the historic character of the Northside Marketplace as one of
its greatest assets. While redevelopment of vacant and non -historic property is considered
appropriate, the Central District Plan notes a concern that too much redevelopment or
development at too large a scale or density may diminish the traditional mainstreet character of
the neighborhood. Development that is sensitive to the neighborhood's history and architectural
elements is encouraged. The subject property is not considered a historically significant
structure and does not currently contribute to other goals of the Northside Marketplace.
The following goals of the Northside Marketplace include encourage development that is
consistent with the mainstreet character of the area with parking located behind or underneath
the building.
Northside Marketplace Goals and Objectives:
Goal 1: Preserve and promote the unique aspects of the Northside Marketplace
a. Establish policies and regulations that will preserve the existing scale and mainstreet commercial
character of the Northside Marketplace
c. Adopt zoning rules that ensure that redevelopment occurs in a manner that promotes pedestrian -
oriented street frontages
e. Explore and implement initiatives to clean up, maintain and improve service alleys
Goal 4: Encourage development and redevelopment that will maintain the character and economic vitality of
the Northside Marketplace:
a. Adopt zoning regulations to ensure that new development is consistent with the existing mainstreet
character of the area and compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods, i.e. encourage
2-3- story building located close to the street, storefront windows, accessible and attractive building
entrances and parking located behind or beneath buildings.
b. Establish policies and regulations that encourage mixed-use buildings with 1- to 3- bedroom
apartments above commercial storefronts in order to provide opportunities for a variety of tenants.
Goal 7: Improve public safety
b. Study pedestrian activity at the intersection of Linn and Market Streets and implement changes that
will Improve safety for all pedestrians
This stated desire to maintain a small scale commercial character in the Northside Marketplace
has influenced zoning and development decisions for other properties in the business district:
The 2012, a rezoning of the corner 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 addition the
developer was required to make improvements to the streetscape and alleyway. This property
is adjacent to and across the street from residential properties.
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 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 3 stories with a step back at
the third story. This property is at a mid -block location.
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 (similar to this application), which
greatly limited the kinds of uses permitted in the rather large ground -floor space. Based on
concerns regarding future redevelopment of the property if the historic building were ever
destroyed, the City Council approved a CZA requirement that "any redevelopment of the
property shall comply with the CB -2 building standards".
Other corner properties at the intersection, which are all zoned (CB -5), include the 2 %-story,
historic Brewery Square building on the southwest corner of Market and Linn Streets and the
recently developed Writers Block, a 4 -story building on the southeast corner. Properties located
along Jefferson Street, west of Linn Street, are zoned CB -5. East of Linn Street, properties that
front onto Jefferson are zoned Mixed Use (MU) zone.
Differences between the CB -2 and CB -5 zone:
There are a number of ways that rezoning the property would better enable redevelopment of
the property.
1. The CB -5 allows a greater residential density than is permitted in the CB -2 zone:
2. The CB -5 zone also allows a taller building than would be permitted in the CB -2 zone:
The maximum building height in the CB -2 zone is 45 feet with a maximum floor area ratio
(FAR) of 2.0. This means that the building can have a maximum of 2 square of floor area for
each one square foot of lot area. Through bonus provisions, the FAR of building may be
increased to 3.
The maximum building height in the CB -5 zone is 75 feet with a FAR of 3.0. Similar to the
CB -2 zone, bonus provisions may allow an increase the FAR up to 5.0.
The applicable bonus provisions in the CB zones include the following:
• Masonry finish or architectural metal; not including metal siding, on all non -fenestrated
areas of walls. +0.75 floor area ratio.
0
• Provision of a theater. 5 square feet of floor area for every 1 square foot of theater area.
• Provision of pedestrian activity areas, such as sidewalk cafes, adjacent to but not within
the public right-of-way, provided such areas do not exceed a depth of 12 feet from the
front lot line. +3 square feet of floor area for every 1 square foot of pedestrian
activity area.
• Usable open space for passive recreational use of the residents (i.e. balconies, terraces,
and rooftop gardens designed and improved for outdoor activities. Balconies serving
individual dwelling units and required setback areas are not eligible. +2 square feet of
floor area for every 1 square foot of usable open space.
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.
3. As with the dimensional standards above, the parking requirements in the CB -5 zones
better enable redevelopment. That is to say, there is a reduction in the minimum
parking requirement for both commercial and residential uses in the CB -5.
In both the CB -5 and CB -2 zone, parking requirements for residential uses are lower than in
most other zones due to the location of these zones in the near Downtown and campus area.
The CB -2 zone requires a minimum of 0.75 parking spaces for one bedroom and efficiency
apartments and 1.5 spaces for two-bedroom units. The CB -5 zone is slightly lower with 0.5
spaces for one -bedroom units and 1 space for two-bedroom units. Both zones require 2.5
parking spaces for 3 -bedroom units. In the CB -5 zone, elder apartments require 1 space for
every 2 dwelling units.
parking requirements
1 bedroom or
Parking) efficiency I 0.75 0.5
Requirement perl 2 bedroom unit 1.5 1
I uniq 3 bearoom unit ( z.o j c.0
The parking requirement for elder housing (a permanent designation) is 1 space for every two units. A parking benefit is only
realized vdth 2- or 3- bedroom elder units, since the 0.5 parking space per unit for 1 bedrooms is equivalent to 1 space per two
units of elder housing.
The most significant difference in terms of parking is for commercial uses. The CB -2 zone
requires parking for all commercial uses permitted in the zone, while the CB -5 zone has no
minimum parking requirement for commercial uses. Changing the zoning of this property to
CB -5 would therefore eliminate the commercial parking requirement. On a small lot such as
this one, on which there is very limited parking potential, the reduction in parking of the CB -5
significantly increases the development potential. By alleviating the parking requirement for
commercial uses a greater variety of commercial uses is possible, and a pedestrian -oriented
building is much more feasible.
Commercial parking
requirements
1per300sgftNOMINIMUM
Minimum
Salesoriented retail
Parking
parking
Personal Seriwe
1 per 300 sq ft
Requirement
requirement for
General office
1 per 300 sq ft
Medical office
1.5 spaces per
commercial
office or exam
uses
room
Eating & Drinking
1 per 150 sq ft
or 113 of the
occupant load
Business owners cite the availability of on -street and surface parking, in addition to affordable
rents and pedestrian traffic, as reasons for locating in the area. However finding and maintaining
the right balance of parking is critical as much of the surface parking in the area is privately
owned and could be developed. There is also a City public parking lot on the north side of
Market St, east of the subject property.
A small, publicly owned service alley that runs between the subject property and the CB -2
property to the east (George's Buffet) allows for the opportunity to provide access to parking at or
below grade. The applicant will propose that the City re -open this 10 -foot wide lane as right -of
way. This would contribute to a 22 -foot wide alley providing access to any parking required for the
residential uses, with the additional 12 feet coming from the subject private property. (The zoning
code recommends that garage entrances and exits should be provided along a building wall that
does not face a public street and is accessed from a rear lane or alley.) This proposal and the
design of the access drive would be reviewed as part of eventual design plans for the property.
Structured parking may not be provided within the ground floor level of the building for the first 30
feet of lot depth. Because the subject property is fairly small, just 65 x 70 feet, there is somewhat
limited space to meet the parking requirements for the residential uses at grade—there is room for
3-4 cars to park off an alley at the ground level, which would allow 6-8 one -bedroom apartments.
The applicant has indicated that he is able provide 7 spaces underground, which would allow up
to 14 one -bedroom or efficiency units. The residential parking requirements address parking
demand but also influence the development potential and the scale of the building that can be
built.
While the supply of on -street parking and parking in surface lots (public and private) is currently
fixed in the Northside Marketplace, alleviating the commercial parking requirement will allow for a
more pedestrian -oriented building which is consistent with the goals of the Central District Plan.
There is a public parking garage, the Clock Tower Place facility located on Iowa Avenue, two
blocks to the south, which also has capacity for short-term parking needs.
Summary: 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. The Floor -to -Area ratio requirement of 3.0 built -into the CB -5 zone (with design -related
incentives the FAR may be increased to up to 5.0), combined with the limited ability to provide
parking on-site, will help keep redevelopment to an appropriate scale. The redevelopment of the
property with a pedestrian -oriented building, designed to complement the main street character
and scale of the historic Northside Marketplace as envisioned in the Central District Plan, would
contribute to the commercial vitality of the neighborhood and be consistent with recently approved
zoning changes for other properties in the neighborhood.
Staff believes that the rezoning of this small, comer property will allow it to redevelop in a manner
that is in keeping with the goals of the Central District Plan by removing the non -conforming
surface parking in front of the building and bringing the building closer to the side walk with the
sort of retail store windows and entrances required by code. Allowing redevelopment will also
create a better balance in scale with the other corner properties at the intersection, which all have
CB -5 zoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
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.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Images
3. Application materials
Approved by: /
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator
ilia pf I,
I Z t+ , t
J
a• 1
ci4'1F? <�r
ne+.
r1
P ME !h A h;
It m
him
An application submitted by William Nusser
for a rezoning of 4,550 square feet of property l
from Central Business Service (CB -2) to
Central Business Support (CB -5) at
202 North Linn Street.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
View of the subject property at 202 North Linn Street.
View of the subject property at 202 North Linn Street.
View looking west on Market Street. The property at 202 S. Linn is on the right.
A ten -foot alley between the subject property and George's to the east could help to provide access to at -grade or
underground parking.
View to the south along Market Street—the Writers Block (a 4 -story building) and Brewery Square ( a 2'h story building)
are located on adjacent comers.
10
View of the commercial mixed use building (3 stories) on the northwest comer of Linn and Market. Streets.
Recently developed commercial mixed use building on the comer of Linn and Bloomington Streets.
Lo
HOLLAND, MICHAEL, RAMER & SITTIG PLC
Attorneys at Law
123 North Linn Street, Suite 300
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
319-354-0331
www.icialawyers.com
C. Joseph Holland
iholland@icialaw.com
Robert Michael
mi3chael@icialaw.com
April 5, 2017
Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission
Civic Center
RE: REZ17-00004 (202 N. Linn St.)
Dear Commission Member:
Crystal Raiber
craiber@icialaw.com
Brek Sittig
esittig@idalaw.com
I just recently became aware of an application to rezone the property at 202
N. Linn Street. I tend to agree that the site is under utilized and redevelopment is
appropriate. However, I have serious reservations about yet another property in the
neighborhood with seriously limited on-site parking.
I have had an office in Brewery Square, which sits on the opposite corner from
202 N. Linn for nearly 25 years. During that time I have seen redevelopment of
properties in the area and significant changes in the existing land uses. Changes in
the area, in addition to residential units, has been some increased retail activity and
a shift of uses to food and beverage to an extent greater than the past. Two of my
clients have built significant structures withmixed residential and commercial uses.
Both of those properties provide significant below grade parking beneath the
building. Both have some additional at grade parking..
Those redevelopments and changed land uses have put serious strain on the
parking resources in the neighborhood. If you look at the aerial photo
accompanying the staff report on this rezoning application, you will see the Market
Street municipal parking lot, which sits just east of the site. Notice that every
parking space in that parking lot is occupied. Also, every surface parking space
along Market Street is occupied. This is not at all unusual.
r
There are no available parking permits for that lot. In fact, there is a lengthy
waiting list. I have has a permit for that lot for close to 25 years I have regularly seen
people who work in the area repeatedly putting additional time on meters, with
increasing frequency in recent years..
As a business owner in this area we have clients and visitors who come to our
office for a variety of purposes. We have very limited on-site parking, and
encourage clients to use that when it is available. However, often that limited
parking is all taken and they must rely on parking on the street or in the Market
Street municipal lot.
Just today I had a meeting with a client and some consultants. The client was
late because she had to circle the area looking for a parking space. I am not
convinced that seven parking spaces adequately addresses the residential use, let
alone adding additional commercial uses to the area. The current commercial use,
Central State Bank, utilizes virtually no parking. They have their own surface
parking, which I have almost never seen fully occupied.
There is also reference in the staff report to a 10 foot wide publicly owned
service alley. That it is used for parking on a nearly around the clock basis by some
of the businesses in the area. I do not know that I have ever seen it passable from
north to south, so if the City does open that as a public right of way, something will
need to be done to replace the parking for those businesses.
I like the location of my Firm in the near northeast side of Iowa City and I
have watched this neighborhood transition over the years. I think very careful
attention needs to be paid to not disrupting the current businesses in the area by
overburdening the parking which is already in very, very tight supply. Less parking
for visitors is going to make the area less attractive to some businesses.
I am not able to attend your meeting on April 6'' so I wanted to pass along
my comments in writing.
Very truly yours,
C. Joseph Holland
CJH:ses
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 fagade. 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 for 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.
40 �nn@�. enc -�Zle 6 f
319 337 9�7� � '',I�
Londe McGuire c0—�-v -�
Northside Marketplace Development p
May 16, 2017 at 7:29 PM 1
Linda McGuire
Harris, Diana Beth Rapson f Sarah Clark
Susan Shullaw Joy Smith David Rust Hauserman, Nancy R
Kevin Boyd , A.G. Burnside
TO: Iowa City Council
RE: Northside Marketplace Development
FR: Linda McGuire (and other Northside neighbors)
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Council.
My remarks are personal, to me and are not meant to be a pointed objection to the Pearson property proposal. Just to be clear,
though, we neighbors (cc:d here among others) follow these issues and certainly are not without opinion.
On agenda, "Pearson" property rezoning. But really ask your attention to a larger, though not unrelated, issue than the rezoning
request.
The MAIN point: to urge the Council to consider a planned, "area" development for our marketplace.
A good number of our Northside neighbors are participating in the "visioning" process for in -fill residential development, parking and
traffic, etc. for our NS neighborhood. Thank you for bringing in these great consultants.
Over our time with consultants and among ourselves, we wonder why we shouldn't have that the same planning process for the
Marketplace, our commercial hub. What might a commercial hub for our neighborhood look like? There is a number of critical
development opportunities in a three -block or more square, tt;s only a matter of time before each is bought before you.
. I recently had the great fortune to tour some of the many beer caves beneath the Northside Marketplace. Development will require
"in -fill" of those caves. Ok. But,let's not bury our history with development. Our early immigrants joined with their church folk, Czech,
German, Irish, drinking beer together The water was not all that reliable. Let's capture that history, consider what commercial venues
we need, as we vision how to proceed.
Linda McGuire
EIDE®
LINT
16 1017
Clty Clerk
Iowa City, Iowa
Design Review Process
• Design Review is conducted by a staff committee currently
comprised of representatives from the Urban Planning
Division, Building Inspections Division and City Manager's
Office
• When design review is required for a project, applicants
submit building elevations / images prior to requesting a
building permit. This process allows for a detailed review and
discussion of exterior elements of the building.
• Depending on the location and zone a property is located in,
there are different standards under which the project is
reviewed. In the Central Business District, projects are
reviewed under the Central Business Site Development
Standards.
Commercial Site Development Standards
• Parking and loading are not permitted for the first 30 feet
of lot depth , and must be concealed from view (parking is
permitted underground)
• Vehicular access to parking must be located and designed
to minimize traffic congestion and to preserve street
frontages (as much as possible) for active uses
• Landscaping plans must be submitted for review
• Dumpsters and recycling bins must not be visible from the
street
• The ground floor ceiling height must be at least 14'
Commercial Site Development Standards
• Primary building entrances must be distinguished by
canopies or awnings; recesses; raised cornice or similar
treatment; and/or other architectural details
• Any building with a residential use must have at least one
door that provides access to the dwelling units in the
building
• A minimum of 50% of the street -facing fagade between 2'
and 10' must be clear and highly transparent windows and
doors
• For buildings greater than 50' in length, the fagade must be
broken into modules to give the appearance of individual
storefronts
Floor Area Ratio Bonus
Floor Area Ratio bonus provisions are intended to provide an
incentive for projects to incorporate features that provide a
public benefit and/or encourage excellence in architectural
design.
• Masonry or architectural metal finish — 0.75 FAR
• Provision of a theater — 5 SF for each 1 SF of theater
• Funds for street furniture, lighting and landscaping
improvements - 0.25 FAR
• Provision of pedestrian activity areas adjacent to the public
right of way — 3 SF for each 1 SF of area
Floor Area Ratio Bonus
• Usable open space for residents, such as courtyards,
terraces and rooftop gardens — 2 SF for each 1 SF of area
• Adaptive re -use of a historic landmark — 3 SF for each 1 SF
of area re -used
1
Prepared by: Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030
ORDINANCE NO. 17-4707
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, CHAPTER 5, PROHIBITIONS AND
RESTRICTIONS, SECTION 5 OPEN CONTAINERS, TO ALLOW OPEN CONTAINERS TO BE
CARRIED FROM ONE LICENSED PREMISES DIRECTLY INTO ANOTHER.
WHEREAS, under the current ordinance, it is unlawful for a licensee to permit any person to carry an
open container out of their licensed premises; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the ordinance is to ensure that licensees do their part in preventing open
container violations wherein patrons carry alcoholic beverages purchased from licensee out into public,
non -licensed premises; and
WHEREAS, carrying an open container from one licensed premises directly into another licensed
premises would not create a circumstance of open containers in public, non -licensed premises, and thus
does not create any of the problems the open container ordinance was designed to prevent; and
WHEREAS, nothing herein would force a licensee to allow a patron to bring an open container onto
their licensed premises, as the licensee would retain control of their licensed premises; and
WHEREAS, this amendment would provide greater flexibility to licensees, and allow for broader
community events;
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City to approve this ordinance amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS.
TITLE 4, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, CHAPTER 5, PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS,
SECTION 5 OPEN CONTAINERS, is hereby amended by deleting subsection A in its entirety, and
substituting the following language:
A. Open Containers Prohibited Outside Licensed Premises: It shall be unlawful for any person
or for any licensee or permittee under this title and/or agents or employees of a licensee or
permittee to permit any person to carry from a licensed premises any open container of
alcoholic beverages, including, but not limited to, bottles, cans, glasses, mugs and cups,
except when such carryout is related to and necessary for custodial, maintenance and other
bona fide employment purposes, unless the person is carrying the open container from one
licensed premises directly into another licensed premises.
SECTION IL REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication.
Pas d and�7e this 16 day of May 2017.
M OR p
ATTEST:��_
CI Y. ERK
App ed by (�
City Attorney's Office 7
Ordinance No. 17-4707
Page 2
It was moved by Dickens and seconded by Thomas that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES:
NAYS: ABSENT:
P
ABSTAIN:
Botchway
Cole
Dickens
Mims
Taylor
Thomas
Throgmorton
First Consideration 04/18/2017
Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Taylor, Thomas, Throgmorton,
Botchway, Cole, Dickens. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 05/02/2017
Vote forpassage: AYES: Throgmorton, Botchway, Cole, Mims,
Taylor, Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dickens.
Date published 05/25/2017
'= 1CITY OF IOWA CIT
-rMCOUNCIL ACTION REPOR
April 18, 2017
Ordinance amending Title 4, Alcoholic Beverages, Chapter 5,
Open Containers, to allow open containers to be carried from one
licensed premises directly into another
Prepared By:
Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney
Reviewed By:
Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Fiscal Impact:
No impact
Recommendations:
Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:
Ordinance
Executive Summary:
This ordinance amendment will allow open containers to be carried from restaurants and bars
directly into street events like the Downtown Block Party that will have obtained a license for the
area included within the parry.
Background / Analysis:
Under the current ordinance, licensees may not permit their patrons to leave their licensed
premises with an open container of alcohol. This ordinance amendment would allow patrons to
leave a licensed premises with an open container if they do so directly into another licensed
premises. This would allow for events such as the planned Downtown Block Party, in which the
street and sidewalk would be included in the licensed premises of that community event. In the
absence of such an event the street and sidewalk is not a licensed premises, and therefore, the
patrons would still not be allowed to take an open container out of one bar/restaurant and into
another bar/restaurant if there is non -licensed space in between.