Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Packet 03-15-18MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBUARY 15, 2018 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark Signs MEMBERS ABSENT: Max Parsons, Jodie Theobald STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Ford, Sara Hektoen, Karen Howard, Stan Laverman, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: John Yapp, Kevin Digmann, Nick Psihayos RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ18-0006/SUB18-0001, an application submitted by Allen Homes, Inc. for a rezoning and Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Lindeman Subdivision Part Eight, a 39-lot, 20.24-acre residential subdivision located in the OPD-5/OPD-8 zone located South of Lower West Branch Road and North of Anna Street. By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of the amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, and Chapter 17-5, Housing Code. By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends to forward a written recommendation to the City Council stating that the Foster Road Urban Renewal Plan conforms to the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, and conforms with the general plan for the development of the City of Iowa City. CALL TO ORDER: Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DEVELOPMENT ITEM/REZONING ITEM (REZ18-00006/SUB18-00001): Discussion of an application submitted by Allen Homes, Inc. for a rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Lindeman Subdivision Part Eight, a 39-lot, 20.24-acre residential subdivision with 36 single family lots and 41 townhouse style multifamily dwellings located in the OPD- 5/OPD-8 zone located South of Lower West Branch Road and North of Anna Street. Miklo showed an aerial of the area. This area was annexed into the City in 2001 and zoned RS- 5 (Low Density Single Family Residential) and RS-8 (Medium Density Single Family Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 2 of 21 Residential). In 2002 in was rezoned and a preliminary plat was approved for the Lindemann Subdivision, the rezoning was to Planned Development Overlay (OPD) to address the sensitive areas on the property which included wetlands and a stream corridor. At that time this portion of the property was platted as an outlot for future development and although it has the Planned Development Overlay designation there wasn’t a specific plan approved or plat approved for this portion of the property. Miklo said that the current application is to amend the zoning to approve a specific Planned Development Overlay Plan and also to approve the preliminary plat for the property. Miklo stated that the western part of the property zoned RS-5 would contain single family lots, the center of the property that contains the stream corridor and associated wetlands, is partially zoned OPD-5 and partially zoned OPD-8 and would be dedicated to the City for park land and wetland preservation. The eastern portion zoned RS-8 and has the OPD over it will contain several single family lots plus townhouses that would be clustered in the northeast area. That will be due to transferring some of the areas from the sensitive areas over to this area. Miklo noted that the staff report reviews all the conditions and criteria to be reviewed for Planned Development Overlay and staff finds that this application meets those conditions and criteria. Miklo reiterated that the sensitive areas are being set aside into an outlot, there is a buffer reduction requested along the west side where normally a 100 foot buffer would be required, but they are asking in places for the buffer to be reduced down to 25 feet but would be 100 feet in other areas. Miklo explained that in this area the wetland was previously disturbed for the extension of a sewer line through the area and this portion does meet the test for wetland buffer reduction. Stormwater management is provided through a regional management system in Scott Park, however they will be installing storm sewer and directing the storm sewer towards the creek or existing storm sewer systems in the adjacent streets. Miklo stated there are infrastructure fees associated with this application including a watermain extension fee, a sanitary sewer tap-on fee, and fees towards the improvements to Lower West Branch Road. Staff did receive a revised plat for this application this week and all the technical questions identified by the City Engineers have been satisfied. Staff recommends approval of REZ18- 0006/SUB18-0001, an application submitted by Allen Homes, Inc. for a rezoning and Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Lindeman Subdivision Part Eight, a 39-lot, 20.24-acre residential subdivision located in the OPD-5/OPD-8 zone located South of Lower West Branch Road and North of Anna Street. Freerks asked about the 3.5 acres of private common open space. Miklo noted that is a mistake, the 3.5 acres is the entire lot and the private open space is just the center which is roughly half an acre. Freerks questioned if there were any steep or critical slopes in this area. Miklo replied that there are no regulated slopes that require review. Hensch asked about the buffer in the wetlands area. Miklo stated that the ordinance requires a 100 foot buffer from any jurisdictional wetland, but if the wetland is not associated with endangered species, unique wetland plants, doesn’t contain water for long periods throughout Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 3 of 21 the year, and is not associated with the stream corridor then the applicant can seek a buffer reduction. Miklo noted that the eastern part of this wetland is associated with the stream corridor and will contain the full buffer but the western portion where they are seeking the reduction is outside the stream corridor. Therefore the City is allowed to reduce the buffer down to 25 feet, however the Commission can choose to require the full buffer. Staff felt it was a reasonable request given the wetland has already been modified for the sanitary sewer installation. Hensch asked if the Commission doesn’t approve the reduction, how the plan would be altered. Miklo said if the reduction was not granted the cul-de-sac would have to be pulled back further west so there would be fewer lots. Dyer pointed out there are two cul-de-sacs in this plan and it seems like an awfully long drive to get to the one on the west. Miklo said they had looked at that and the other option was to go through the wetland to connect the cul-de-sac or continue north to Lower West Branch Road and Staff felt it is more important in this situation to protect the wetlands than to connect the streets. He added it is less than 900 feet which is the City maximum for cul-de-sac length. If there weren’t already other lots established in the area there may have been other options. Freerks asked how the wetlands buffer preservation will happen when on private lots. Miklo said those will be placed into a conservation easement. Freerks opened the public discussion. John Yapp (Allen Homes, Inc.) stated the plan includes single-family and townhouse properties, and the single family lots will be slightly smaller than lots to the south as they are a bit narrower but is balanced by the large amount of open space in the development. There will be a little over five acres donated to the City and little over half an acre in the courtyard of the townhouse lot. The overall density is a little over four units per acre. Yapp noted they held a neighborhood meeting a couple weeks ago, some of the concerns of the neighbors were what the townhouses would look like. Another concern was the lot sizes on the Lindemann cul-de-sac so they adjusted their plans and made two of the lots slightly bigger (lots 7 & 8). Yapp stated they are including the trail that will extend to Lower West Branch Road and complete the trail system from Lower West Branch Road to Court Street. As Miklo noted they are requesting a reduction in the wetland buffer along the west side of the wetlands which is in an area previously disturbed by the sewer line and in an area where the trail will be. He added that it is not disturbing the wetland, just reducing the buffer. Yapp noted that this area was previously farm wetland and does not contain the types of plants or wildlife that would disallow reducing the buffer. Yapp stated they do have interconnected streets except for as noted the two cul-de-sacs and that was to avoid crossing the creek and disturbing the wetland. Anna Drive, the street just to the south, does provide a bridge over the creek. Yapp stated that MMS Consultants did produce a water pressure study to show the water pressure is adequate for this development (which was another concern raised at the neighborhood meeting). Another concern from the neighbors was the lack of Century Link service on the north end of Lindemann Drive specifically. Yapp and Jesse Allen met with a representative from Century Link yesterday to discuss this project and the existing areas to the south and will work with them to bring fiber to the neighborhood. Century Link is very reluctant to install copper or phone line because the number of customers that use that is dropping off, but they are willing to invest in fiber. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 4 of 21 Yapp next showed images of the townhouse styles they are proposing. They feel they will have variation in the townhomes both vertically and horizontally with the roof lines, stoops, how far back the front doors are, sizes of the townhouses, and changes in colors. He showed an example of the courtyard in the middle of the property. There is also variety in the backs of the units, some have decks over the garages with patio doors that go into the units, some will be smaller and instead of a deck there is a three-season room next to the garage. Dyer asked in the courtyard if there would be any amenities. Yapp replied they will include a gazebo and seating and grilling areas and have submitted a concept plan with those amenities. Hensch asked about the wetland buffer and if the wetland area buffer could be larger if those adjoining lots were decreased a bit. Yapp replied it is a balancing act in trying to meet City Code, goals of the Comprehensive Plan and also trying to meet approval of neighbors. In this case a couple of the lots were smaller and several neighbors requested the lot size be increased to be more consistent with others on the street. Signs asked if Scott Park water retention area flooded over Scott Boulevard in the past. Miklo stated he doesn’t believe Scott Boulevard ever flooded over, it has been full with water but has not gone over the street. Martin confirmed that she lived in the area in 2008 and it did not go over the street. Hensch asked if there has been water issues with the neighborhood to the south. Miklo is not aware of any issues. Freerks closed the public hearing. Signs moves to recommend approval of REZ18-0006/SUB18-0001, an application submitted by Allen Homes, Inc. for a rezoning and Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Lindeman Subdivision Part Eight, a 39-lot, 20.24-acre residential subdivision located in the OPD-5/OPD-8 zone located South of Lower West Branch Road and North of Anna Street. Martin seconded the motion. Hensch noted that it probably doesn’t make a difference on this application but shared an overall concern of reducing wetlands buffers as it was also part of another recent application and the idea of the buffer is to slow down water and keep areas intact. He shared concerns about water quality, erosion and wet neighborhoods. Freerks agreed but was happy to see the exchange of land to the City in this proposal and that will help to protect the wetlands. Dyer added her concern about building on the narrowed buffer. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. REZONING ITEM (REZ18-00003): Discussion of an application submitted by Hodge Construction for a rezoning of approximately 1.1 acres from Intensive Commercial (Cl-1) zone to Riverfront Crossings - Central Crossings (RFC-CX) zone for property located at 225 & 225 ½ E. Prentiss Street. Miklo began the staff report noting the location of the property as south of Prentiss Street and east of Ralston Creek, it is currently zoned Intensive Commercial which does not allow any Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 5 of 21 residential uses in that zone, so rezoning this property will increase the development potential and value of this property considerably. The area is within the Riverfront Crossings District and within the Central Crossings Subdistrict and that would apply if this is rezoned. The area to the north is the South Downtown Subdistrict of the Riverfront Crossings area which allows for larger buildings and higher density. The idea is density and scale of buildings will step down as we move to the south including this property. Miklo explained that the Form-Based Code has a series of standards to require that the buildings have a smaller scale and with step backs on the upper floors of the buildings, again to create more of a human scale as compared to the South Downtown District. Miklo said this particular property as noted is adjacent to Ralston Creek, which is identified in the Form-Based Code as a pedestrian street, or open space, both on the Plan and in the Code. Miklo stated that when they first received the Plan there was no indication where the floodway is and the floodway is the point at which the 30 foot setback is required and a pedestrian street will be within that area. Miklo said that he did receive a call from the applicant this morning indicating that the blue line on the proposal represents the floodway. The City does need verification of that and needs a drawing with elevation points on it so the City Engineers can verify the floodway. Miklo pointed out that the concept plan that is submitted with this application is just a concept plan and the Commission is not approving this particular plan and it is subject to change and if that blue line is the floodway then the concept plan would need to change because there is a 30 foot setback required from that floodway for the pedestrian street and the creek buffer. Staff is recommending approval of this realizing that there may be some changes in this Plan to adhere to the Form-Based Code requirements and the requirement for the pedestrian street and the setback. Staff is recommending approval be conditioned on improvement of the pedestrian street to the center line of the right-of-way, which may entail some work on the creek bank itself, the City Engineers would plan to meet with the applicant to determine the extent of those improvements. Freerks asked about the 30 feet noting that the property line doesn’t encompass the creek or all of the sidewalk, that 30 feet buffer isn’t necessarily from the property line its 30 feet from the floodway. Miklo confirmed that was correct. Freerks said that there are potentially lots of things that may change with this application and the concept is not very clear. There are a lot of unanswered questions at this point. They need to know where the flood plain lies so they can know how the building will lay out. Freerks is concerned because the concept drawing doesn’t have a set back on the fourth floor, and a step back is required by the code. Freerks reviewed the Riverfront Crossings Plan and Code which require the step back. The Commission approved Whistler Place just in December on South Dubuque street and that developer included the step backs on the fourth level in their plan. Freerks stated that what she is seeing in the application doesn’t really mesh with concepts and some of the needs the City has put forward, so she is interested in hearing a little more about it. Hensch asked Miklo to clarify the definition of floodway versus terms they regularly hear like 100 year flood plain or 500 year flood plain. Miklo explained that floodway is a channel by FEMA regulations cannot be built upon, a flood plain can be built upon if it meets certain conditions. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 6 of 21 The floodway will carry floodwater, a flood plain will store floodwater. Hensch asked in the Riverfront Crossings area what are the goals for Ralston Creek and development along Ralston Creek. Miklo stated there is a section in the Staff Report to describe the goals. The goal is to improve Ralston Creek, to turn it into an amenity rather than current situation where a lot of buildings turn their back to the creek. The idea illustrated in the Plan is to have a small park here and that is why the Code requires a pedestrian street in this particular area. Freerks noted that this would be a huge increase in what the owner is able to do with this property so she expects compliance with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and Form Based Code. The applicants concept for amenities along the creek seem just like a slab of cement. Something better can be done along there. Freerks is making these points early because while they are not improving the concept plan, just the rezoning, this item will never come before the Commission again. Miklo stated that once the Commission would approve the zoning the placement and design of the buildings would be reviewed by the Form-Based Code Committee which is basically the Design Review Committee which is made up of staff. Freerks asserted she is uncomfortable with that sometimes, noting they have asked a lot more from other developers and it seems like they need to be consistent. Signs stated he agrees with Freerks in that they spent a lot of time talking about this district, and talking about the green spaces and look of the buildings and articulation and all those things. He would agree all he sees with this concept is a large block sitting on a piece of land. Freerks added they might not even get that because they don’t know where the flood way is located and therefore where the building be located. These are issues she would like to see answered. Signs agrees, the pedestrian street as shown in the renderings here doesn’t look terribly welcoming to him, there is a large concrete terrace deck shown on the east side facing the creek, a couple trees popped in there, it just doesn’t feel like what he believes the goal of area is supposed to feel like. Dyer stated the building drawings make it looks like a prison, at least the part facing Prentiss Street. She added that it disturbs her that the Commission gets conceptual drawings which don’t necessarily have anything to do with reality and then the Commission never sees what is approved, and the conceptual drawings don’t meet their requirements. She noted if you compare the site plan to the image from the Riverfront Crossings District it is like an entirely different vision, and the Riverfront Crossings District Plan is what the Commission approved. In that example there is a curving sidewalk, a central stopping place. It bothers her that we would accept something far short of what the Master Plan shows. Freerks asked if there were any more questions for Staff. She acknowledged the applicant and told them they will get their chance to speak not to feel defeated, the Commission just wanted to lay out their concerns and go forward from there. Freerks opened the public discussion and asked the applicant to step forward, sign in and state their name. Kevin Digmann (Hodge Construction) asked Miklo to show some photos of existing conditions at Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 7 of 21 this location. Miklo said he did not have those on the computer in this presentation. Freerks said she looked online and has been by there many times so knows what it looks like now. Digmann asked to walk the Commission through this project because they have built similar buildings on the corner to the west. He pointed to the building at the bottom of Dubuque Street, the bottom left one, it is an L shape, actually revers L shape, and that building exists today and if anyone has driven by it they have received a lot of positive comments on it. The building in the middle is the very building similar to this project, looks pretty similar, none of the buildings are exactly alike but they use a lot of similar materials and characteristics. Freerks asked if they have a setback on the fourth floor. Digmann said they do have a small one and when they met with Staff they got a variance on how deep the setback had to be because the problem is, you have to understand when you build a building it is efficient to do a corridor down the center, you get units on both sides. So all of a sudden when you say you have to set one side so far back, it totally blows the floor plans, it blows the costs go up so much more because the structural systems become so different, it is easy to say this is what you should do but in reality it is very difficult and very expensive to do. Digmann noted that in the first two buildings they talk about some changes in m aterials, they really stick out, if they look at the one picture you can see how on the top floor it really is a big change in materials without a setback, there actually is a setback but it’s only a few feet not the ten feet the Code asks for, which is what they did in the second building. And then the third building on Dubuque Street he pointed out they are working with The Housing Fellowship to do an affordable housing piece there, they have applied for State tax credits, so all these buildings will have similar characteristics to what this is. If they have driven by they will notice the look of this building does look and feel a lot like what exists there today. Digmann stated the challenge with this site is the creek they can’t really do underground parking, they are doing at-grade parking, so the first level for the most part along the creek and alley really is a parking area, they have tried on Prentiss Street to make a big statement for what the building looks like as you enter. As far as the buffer, although they haven’t gotten the exact engineering documents, this was designed by the engineer who laid this out for the floodway with the 30 foot buffer, hence why the building is cocked at a little bit of an angle. They also wanted to keep it as close to that side as they can, so obviously there is a little bit of a buffer between the existing buildings that are going up on Dubuque Street. So they are trying to keep it as close to the 30 foot buffer so that you don’t have one side with all kinds of space and another smack up against the alley looking at the other buildings. So they are thinking of the residents. Digmann noted with the patio area, they did met with staff and talked about this with the idea to try to create that pedestrian street and some activities and try to create it so it is a common amenity for all of the people there as far as being able to have this outdoor patio area with some steps that come down. Digmann pointed out they never know what the future of the creek will be, there is a railroad track, and he doesn’t think there is any near-term plans to have any sort of underpass cut through that railroad track. Digmann said as far as the pedestrian street, traffic in this project will all be going to Prentiss Street, there is nothing going south on this project, and as he stands here today he doesn’t think there ever will be but that can change. Digmann stated that they have to start somewhere, and it gets so expensive to draw concepts before even finding out if they can go to the next level. He talked with Miklo today and understands the challenges, and they talked about meeting down at the creek to figure out what they need to do along the creek to enhance it and make it better. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 8 of 21 Digmann added as far as the building goes, it is there and he encourages all the Commission to go drive by and see what exists today. He noted because they have to raise the parking, it is really a three-story building and then the parking. Digmann also pointed out if they go around the top corner of the parking garage that was just built in that area it is a four story building and has no setback at all on the fourth floor. He’s not saying “they didn’t have to do it, we shouldn’t have to do it” they are trying to comply. He had Miklo show images of the concept and how they are trying to make the big statement on Prentiss Street because they are looking at it with no other context and other buildings around so you can see a lot more of the building than you will on the ground, but going down Prentiss Street you are going down a pretty steep driveway, there is actually a single-family home sitting on the right side of the alleyway which you don’t see, and the building will angle back to the south as you go back. Looking at the images, the top floor does have some setback and a big change in materials and cornice around there to give it more of that impression. Freerks asked if Digmann’s other buildings in Riverfront Crossings have a 10 foot setback. Digmann confirmed they do not, they had a conversation about reducing the setback due to the change in materials, and the perception that when you look at it, it is not that visible because of what surrounds it. Miklo clarified that the building on the corner does have a 10 foot setback. Digmann said it is a 10 foot setback on the north side of the building but not on the pedestrian street, Dubuque Street. Digmann added that on the other building, the center one, that is where they went five stories and put a setback on the fifth story which is not all the way to 10 feet. Digmann stressed that everyone has to understand that it’s not about just not trying to do it, he would do it in a second, it’s just how it changes the floor plans and how expensive it gets to build to do that. Dyer stated there is no guarantee that they can build what they want. The Code requires a 10 foot set back, there is no guarantee you can build something that doesn’t have a 10 foot setback. She said other developers have figured out how to do it. Freerks added if they want the height you have to go by Code and she is puzzled by how two buildings have appeared now that don’t meet Code and now being asked about a third one. Digmann didn’t want to argue but then how did the City get one built right across the street with the parking ramp that has zero setback. Freerks asked if Miklo or Howard if they wanted to address that. Howard replied that the Sabin Townhomes are the liner building for the municipal parking garage there so those units are only 20 feet deep and if a 10 foot setback was done on a liner building like that the units would only be 10 feet deep. Freerks remembers talking about that. Howard noted there is a specific adjustment for liner buildings like that which allows that to occur. Also for that building it was allowed because it was hiding a parking structure which is not a particularly pleasant thing to see so the building was allowed to be as tall as the parking structure so it would hide the structure from visibility from the street. Digmann noted that is the same situation as they are getting into with their building. You have a corridor down the middle and two equal size units on each side for all floors until you get to the top floor and with a corridor down the middle on side also has to come in so far and basically are taking what might be a 20 foot unit and sizing it back 10 feet. And working with staff they understand there may be some situations where it may work, have change in materials, really make it stand out, and have some leeway on some of that stuff. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 9 of 21 Freerks asked which staff he worked with on this design. Digmann said he worked with John Yapp and Doug Boothroy. Digmann also said they could have a long set of stairs coming out of second floor units but then it feels like that whole area is just for residents to have stairs down there, this way it becomes a common amenity for all the units. Freerks understands that but feels it is more what can be done with it to make it more desirable for people to want to spend time out there. She acknowledges that is more detailed oriented, for her the big thing is the setback, it is Code, it is what they ask other developers to do, and it seems unfair to her that some people are required to meet Code and other people are not for no good reason really. Freerks stated they did change some language in December but they tried to be very specific about that so if for some reason you absolutely couldn’t meet the Code there was a good reason not just that it made it easier. She doesn’t think that is what anyone here had in mind. Dyer added that the building could be designed quite differently and meet that requirement. Digmann doesn’t disagree. He isn’t here to debate this, he is just trying to move it forward that is a corner building where clearly from both angles you can kind of see the setback. He is saying for a building like this, to say every building has to be this way, there should always be cases where maybe it just doesn’t make as much sense in one case as it does in another. Freerks commented that it seems to her that there are three out of four here where the case is being made that the setback is not needed on this block and she has concerns about it. The goal of Riverfront Crossings is to have smaller scale buildings in this district. Signs stated that was the concern, they keep seeing exceptions, exceptions, exceptions and a lot of time and effort, City resources and community input went into developing this district and the requirements in this district and they continually see request for exceptions and then pretty soon you have a block where three out of four of the buildings don’t meet the Code and it gets very frustrating when they know what has gone into these Codes and it gets set aside. Digmann wanted to make the statement that the Commission is not here to approve the no setback, they are here to approve the zoning so they have to comply with the rules right. And then that will be up to City staff. Freerks interjected that then somebody in City staff has approved that twice to reduce the setback and she has concern about that. Digmann stated that the voice of that decision needs to go through City staff, he understands that the Commission does not like to see this but again he is not asking them to approve no setback, he is just asking them to rezone this property to what is in the Riverfront Crossings Code, in the map it says here is what we want to do, this is a start of what we want to do, we understand we have to subject to conditional zoning agreement which they will have to negotiate with the City. Freerks agreed but stated that they will get through the Commission but then get what they want from the City because whoever they are talking to is allowing this to happen. She doesn’t know how this is happening but to her something is going on where they are continuing not even meeting the basic standards. Signs stated that while the Commission can’t comment on the design, well we can comment on it, but to Digmann’s point not decide on design. However Signs is more than happy to defer this application until the Commission gets more answer as to why the designs aren’t being done correctly after they leave this desk. There does come a point where they just have to say it needs to stop and you may have just reached that point. Dyer noted that other developers are having to meet these requirements. Digmann stated he is not asking to do away with the setback. Freerks and Dyer interjected that yes he is. Digmann Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 10 of 21 pointed out this is a conceptual drawing, the application is for rezoning, and the Commission is not to approve the design. Freerks pointed out the with the Whistler project they did get a design and approved the rezoning with some great detail to the design, they actually talked about how many square foot of open space would be on the roof so there were things that were adhered to that. Digmann asked why they can’t go on record tonight to say it is approved subject to the setback per the City Code. Martin said to back up just a little bit, she totally gets that they are here to do a rezoning however once Riverfront Crossings went through and they started getting applications historically they have set a precedent that they wanted to see more complete drawings, more substantial, not just concepts, that has been happening for the last couple of years. Freerks said that they are giving so much more by allowing this kind of upgrade to the zoning and so they have required that people show them more, it’s not a typical South Johnson Street. Martin added that setback aside, they want to see more. Digmann understands and stated that when they send their plans in for design review, it’s not a whole lot different than the concepts, it’s not angled images, it’s straight-on images, so what he is hearing is if he came back next month or whenever and that top floor was setback 10 feet we’d be fine. Freerks replied maybe or maybe not. She added that they’ve talked about amenities along the walkway so it is inviting. What they want to see is something that is of a higher caliber, it needs to be better than what you’d see normally, it is what they are expecting in the Riverfront Crossings. If you look through the Riverfront Crossings you can see all kinds of visuals that show the variations people use so there is something that is very different. Freerks added that the waterway is important, the flood area that is a key point to how the building is going to lay out on the lot and that will in turn play out in what kind of building you can build, how wide it can be. Digmann said that is what they have done, that is why the blue line is there. Freerks said they don’t know for sure and that is why it needs to be checked by the engineers. Dyer said there is no engineering drawings, there is nothing to do with elevation of the land. Freerks stated they are not trying to pick on Digmann they just want some of the basics, he is not meeting what other developers are giving the Commission. Digmann stressed that his point is the Commission is saying there is a Riverfront Crossings Code out there that is to be followed. Freerks confirmed. Digmann said the Commission is also not happy that City staff is giving leeway on any of this. Freerks stated that is not what she said. Digmann stated that isn’t it the City staff’s job to enforce what is in the Code with the design. Freerks stated she will not debate that right now, it is a conversation they may have later in the meeting regarding what is occurring, it is an ongoing problem with minimums not being met, what she is asking of Digmann is interest in the flood area, more specifics on how the building is going to be laid out, and the fact that there is not the basic requirement for setback on the fourth floor. Hektoen added that the Commission does have the authority to impose conditions to satisfy public needs created by the rezoning, there is a lot of language in the Comprehensive Plan upon which you can formulate. Freerks added they can require many things if they want to. Hensch stated he actually thinks they are pretty close, the building at the corner of Prentiss Street and Dubuque Street is pretty great. Just stick with what the Riverfront Crossings is asking and the one paragraph in the staff report about Ralston Creek development, if the intent or spirit Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 11 of 21 of that is followed for that area in front of the creek he thinks they are really close. The point is perhaps that they are trying to draw the line about fewer exceptions. Digmann doesn’t have a problem with that he feels that if it’s in the book, and this is what the zone is, then it is, and then it’s up to staff or whoever and he doesn’t have to spend a lot of money, more money than he’s already spent, to try to come in here to see if the Commission will approve something. Dyer explained that he knows what the rules are. Hensch concurred, the Code is there and this representation presented tonight doesn’t reflect the Code. Dyer added that other developers invest a good deal more in their presentations to Planning and Zoning. Digmann apologized and noted he did meet with staff on this, although they were prior staff, and this was the feedback they got to move forward. Freerks feels if they put a little more energy into making something a little more exceptional, especially the way that public area is just not a slab of cement because having this be very pedestrian friendly, especially utilizing the creek area, and then just going by the Code in terms of Riverfront Crossings and having that setback is very important. Digmann asked what her definition of pedestrian friends is. What kind of amenities do you look for that make if more pedestrian? Freerks said there is no rail even there. Digmann said it would have a railing around it. Martin said the Comprehensive Plan will contain an image of what was in mind for the area so something along that vision. Dyer suggested townhouses along there, saying it would be more appealing. Freerks asked what the limitation period was on this. Miklo said they have until March 12, so it can be deferred until the next meeting. Freerks stated they can get to a point here, she acknowledged that Digmann has done lots of great things around town so don’t feel defeated, but what was presented tonight doesn’t even meet the minimum. Hensch stated that he applauds the desire for trying to do improvements along Ralston Creek, he likes that people are taking it seriously as an ecological feature rather than a drainage ditch, and unfortunately since you are one of the first developments to incorporate along Ralston Creek you are going to be held as the example of how to do it right. Freerks said they should be excited to see what they can do there. Digmann said they will work on the setback and see what they can do on the pedestrian space. Dyer also requested more information on the topography of the land and how the building will set into it and the flood plain. Freerks stressed for Digmann to talk to Miklo as he is a great resource, and the Commission likes his ideas generally. Freerks closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to recommend approval of deferring REZ18-00003 until the next meeting. Martin seconded the motion. Martin commented about three thoughts she has on this. She understands builders wanting “here’s the Code, here’s the stamp, here’s what you build” but this is the opportunity, especially in Riverfront Crossings to make sure that they are holding people to a standard to beautify our city and we don’t want everything to look the same. She understands from a developer’s point of view the cost concern, but that is not the Commission’s concern, their concern is the integrity of preservation of this community. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 12 of 21 Signs goes back to the fact that the Code is there, and it is very specific in the Riverfront Crossings District and this isn’t it. Freerks added if there is anything in the language that they changed recently that is making this happen…will discuss at the end of the meeting because she has specific questions on things she would like to have answered. Howard said the language updated at the last meeting was with regard to upper level step backs allowed by a minor adjustment to any district of Riverfront Crossings and did give quite a bit more leeway to what could be adjusted by staff. Miklo added that there is some criteria that is has to meet and if the step back is not there, there has to be other design features to visually break up the mass of the building. Freerks wondered if maybe that is the problem, that people think they can just doll up the top level with another color or cornice and actually that is not at all what they had in mind and if they are in anyway confusing people they maybe need to revisit that because that was not the intention when they made that change. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS: Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, to address changes to state law regarding occupancy of residential dwellings. Howard shared the PowerPoint regarding the changes, it is quite lengthy because there are a lot of little changes happening to the zoning ordinance. In January 2018 the state legislature changed State Code to prohibit any municipality to enforce any regulation that limits occupancy of rental property based on the existence of familial relationships. Howard noted that it a common way to address occupancy across the United States so it has been a little bit of a struggle for a lot of communities across the state of Iowa, particularly the cities that have large colleges or universities. Freerks asked if other states are also making this change. Howard said she is not aware of any other state having this kind of restriction imposed by the state legislature. Howard stated the City Council considered a number of changes in December that addressed the Housing Code and specifically made some changes there. The goals for the recent changes to the Housing Code and Zoning Code are to establish a balance between the short- term rental opportunities for students and long-term housing options for more permanent residents in the city and try to come up with alternative means that they used to be able to rely on a specific formula of how many people could live within a single-family house or duplex unit. Howard recapped the Housing Code changes because they do not come before the Planning & Zoning Commission but she wanted to make them aware of them. These changes include a cap on the number of single family and duplex rentals allowed in neighborhoods close to the UI campus. The City set up a rental permit district and there are certain number of those districts that exceeded the rental permit allowance of the 30% cap on the number of rental units in each districts. So for many of the areas that are close to campus far exceed that 30% cap so no more new rental permits shall be issued in those districts, with some exceptions. That was the big change in the Housing Code. Additionally the City established a limit on the amount space within a dwelling that can be used as bedrooms, and a requirement for a minimum amount of Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 13 of 21 shared living space (living, dining, kitchen areas) within the dwelling based on the number of bedrooms in the unit. The idea here is for single-family residences and duplexes that are supposed to be single-family in character not be chopped up and lose shared living space to make more bedrooms. Finally, a number of other requirements and enhanced enforcement procedures were added to improve the safety and security of dwelling units in anticipation that occupancies will increase. Howard moved onto the Zoning Code changes and began with a little background on how they organized the residential use categories in the Zoning Ordinance. Right now there are two types of residential units in Iowa City, "Household Living Uses" or "Group Living Uses." Household Living Uses are single-family homes, duplexes, multi-family buildings and a small group of these would be the group households. Howard noted that they are changing nothing with regards to the group households (Systems houses, group homes, elder group homes) that have very specific definitions in the State Code and the Iowa City Code mirrors the State Code. Therefore any changes do not affect the group homes. Group Living uses are larger in scale group living environments (nursing homes, group care facilities, rooming houses, fraternal group living). The distinction between Household Living and Group Living is that members of a household live together as a single housekeeping unit, people are living together as a unit and sharing responsibilities and expenses of the household and all areas of the home are open to all members of the household. GroupLiving Use such as a rooming house, individuals have their own private living space and do not typically share household expenses, supplies, vehicles, and the like. Howard explained that there are different zoning requirements for these different residential uses. The City had to change the definition of household however, by eliminating the typical means of defining a "household"(by familial status), it is much more difficult to determine whether a use is a Single Family Use or whether it is a rooming house. Before the City could use a specific number and if it went beyond that number of unrelated people it would no longer be classified as a single-family house. With that going away, it become grayer and the City will need to rely on other methods to prevent overcrowded conditions and inappropriately scaled dwellings intended solely to maximum residential occupancy without regard to the character, livability or long term stability of the neighborhood. Howard addressed the changes to the Zoning Code proposed in the Staff Report: 1. Because they have changed the definition of Household over the years, it used to allow for up to five unrelated people to live together in certain zones, and then it was reduced down to a limit of three. Over those years because there were exiting units those rental permits were "grandfathered." Since there will no longer be a stated limit on the number of unrelated persons within a unit, there is no longer a need to grandfather existing rental occupancies, so these sections of the zoning code should be deleted. 2. There is a cross reference in each of the Occupancy Sections in the Zoning Ordinance to the Housing Code because now the two Codes will work together to regulate occupancy. 3. They have amended the parking requirement for single-family and duplexes. Previously they were partly related to the number of unrelated persons living in the household and that is changed to number of adults in a household because children don’t drive and it made sense to regulate the number of parking spaces required with the number of adults. This will keep the parking requirements similar to what they are today for single- family and duplexes uses. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 14 of 21 4. A change to the occupancy standard is proposed for accessory apartments, deleting reference to the household definition that was tied to familial status and establishing an occupancy limit of two individuals. Note that accessory apartments are only allowed on owner-occupied properties and are limited to one bedroom. Martin asked how come the City can limit that occupancy but not the others. Howard said it is complicated when talking about individuals because of children versus adults. The accessory apartments are a secondary use to a single-family owner-occupied house. 5. There is a change to the rear setback requirements for single-family and duplex uses, but is applied only to certain zones in the Central and Downtown Planning Districts, which are the zones closest to The University of Iowa campus, most affected by the student market. It is also the areas where there are more traditional neighborhood patterns, gridded street patterns, similar block sizes, similar lots sizes, alleys in most situations, etc. This is something that was recommended by the form-based code consultants, Opticos, after looking at what was happening in the community. People were taking single-family homes and adding onto the back and extending them out to take up a large part of the rear yard which is not typical for the pattern of development in these single-family neighborhoods. Howard did note there are some RS-5 areas in these districts but they are limited to such changes due to the historical overlay on these districts. Martin asked if someone was to remove one of the back duplex parts of one of those houses, could they build a garage at that back end, with the new setback requirement in place. Howard said because most of those homes have an alley in the back, the typical pattern would be for a detached garage which will have its own setback. If they were to build an attached garage it would have to fit within the new setback requirement as it is measured as part of the house. They can attach a detached garage to a house with a breezeway. 6. The side setback for multi-family and group living uses is increased to 10 feet to be consistent with the standard in Riverfront Crossings. This will ensure that there is at least 20 feet between multi-family buildings on abutting lots. Similarly, the rear setback in the PRM Zone is changed to be consistent with the standard in the Riverfront Crossings District. The current standards have resulted in the close spacing of multi-family buildings, such as along S. Johnson and S. Van Buren Streets, creating crowded conditions and concerns about privacy, safety, and livability for residents. 7. The number of bedrooms in attached single family and duplex units is limited to 4. This is a clear and objective standard that will be easy to administer and will help to control occupancy to a reasonable level for these housing types. 8. To mirror the change made in the Housing Code, the minimum bedroom size in multi- family uses is increased from 70 square feet to 100 square feet. Bedrooms that exceed 225 square feet or with any dimension greater than 16 feet will be counted as two or more bedrooms. This will help control parking issues as well. 9. A new minimum open space requirement is proposed for all household types, including single family, duplexes, multi-family and group living uses. For multi-family and group Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 15 of 21 living uses, the open space requirement mirrors the requirement and standards currently applied in the Riverfront Crossings District at 10 square feet per bedroom, but not less than 400 square feet. For detached single family uses, a minimum of 500 square feet of usable open space is required in the rear yard. For duplexes, 300 square feet of usable open space per unit is required in the rear yard. For attached single family (zero lot line and townhouses), 150 square feet of open space is required in the rear yard. To provide relief in cases for unusually constrained lots or lots with little rear yard space, such as reverse corner lots, infill lots, oddly shaped lots, and similar, an option to request a minor modification to these standards is provided. Freerks asked if there is any language regarding if the open space can be impervious surfaces. Howard said it is stated that the open space for single-family homes and duplexes has to be in the rear yard and pervious surfaces, it cannot be paved, patios and decks will not be counted towards open space. 10. There is a use classification system in the Zoning Ordinance that helps identify the criteria and characteristics of each use category and so they have amended the descriptions of the residential use category to provide a little more clarity on what is meant by single-family home or Household Living. For household living, added language introduces the term "single housekeeping unit". In the "exceptions" section of Household Living, it also clarifies that if there is more than one residential lease issued per dwelling unit or if there are locks installed on bedroom doors that create de facto rooming units where an individual resident can prevent other residents from entering his/her private room, then the use is classified as a Group Living Use. 11. In the definitions chapter of the Zoning Code, in addition to amending the definition of "household" so it no longer has anything about family status and added the reference to "single housekeeping unit". They also added a definition of “adult” to persons age 18 or over and clarified the definitions of "roomer," "rooming house", "rooming unit," and "farm dwelling." 12. In addition to the zoning code changes, the Council will be asked to add several clauses to the Housing Code (Chapter 17-5), that address occupancy limits for single family and duplex uses that do not meet the minimum parking or open space standards in the zoning code. If someone is coming in for a new rental permit, changing from an owner- occupied to a rental, the unit will be reviewed and must be in compliance with the open space and parking requirements. And finally, a clause is proposed to clarify that for existing single family and duplex rental units where the percentage of bedroom space within the unit exceeds 35%, the use of those bedrooms may continue, but no additional bedroom space may be added unless the unit is brought into full compliance with the standard. Staff recommends amending Title 14, Zoning Code, and Chapter 17-5, Housing Code, as described in the staff memo and as indicated on the attached pages of the memo. Freerks asked moving forward how will this all be calculated, will it only be for new permit requests. Howard confirmed that is true, that in cases of zoning changes all previous permits are grandfathered in, it is only if someone is asking for something new. Laverman noted that information on these changes can be found on the City’s website and Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 16 of 21 YouTube channels under rental permit caps. Freerks asked about cottages, and Howard said that clause was just for Riverfront Crossings and is likely not to be an issues as Riverfront Crossings will more high density. Freerks had a comment about the minor modification for open space requirements and has concerns about abuse of that requirement, but is glad that notification will be given to neighbors if a minor modification is applied for. Howard said there is a distinction for minor modifications. In the Riverfront Crossings Code it is called a minor adjustment, and that is done through an administrative review committee, but the minor modification is set up for the whole Zoning Code and a hearing date is set and notice given to surrounding property owners. It is still staff administering the hearing and making the decision but there is an opportunity for public input. Martin asked if the notifications go to the renters that are nearby. Miklo doesn’t believe so, just to the property owners. Freerks suggested a notification sign put in the yard as well so people would know. Miklo believes they do put signs up and will check on that. Freerks questioned Amend Chapter 17-5. Howard noted that she did hand out at the beginning of the meeting a sheet that would substitute the language that was in the Staff Report in the agenda packet. They realized there was a sentence that was in the first paragraph that should have been in the last paragraph where they are talking about new rental permits. The City didn’t want to make so that someone that had an existing rental permit, that didn’t meet the open space requirement, loses their permit but to let them know they cannot enlarge. Freerks also asked about the bedrooms not exceeding the 35% being subject to administrative review. Howard explained that there needed to be a change for reasonable exceptions. Freerks opened the public hearing. Nick Psihayos (UI Student) is interested in the Code changes and what the goals of the Commission and Planning Department looking for with neighborhoods and how to integrate students and families and obtain good relationships between homeowners and renters. Freerks stated that none of this can guarantee good relationships, but good rules and regulations can help facilitate it. Hektoen gave Savois a copy of the Code which explains the problem and the goals as a good resource. Howard noted that in general the City is trying to keep a balance in these neighborhoods that are single-family in character and close to the University. Miklo also added the City Zoning Code does have areas where the allowance for higher density is allowed, the problem is when you introduce a large number of people into a lower density there are issues (with parking, nuisances, traffic, etc.). Dyer stated that another objective is so families can live closer to the University and downtown as well. Freerks closed the public hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 17 of 21 Hensch moved to recommend approval of the amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, and Chapter 17-5, Housing Code, as described in the staff memo and as indicated on the attached pages of the memo including the amendment that was distributed at this evenings meeting. Signs seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed 5-0. Freerks read a statement of appreciation for Karen Howard who was leaving her position in Iowa City to take a new position in Cedar Falls, Iowa. URBAN RENEWAL ITEM: Discussion of Proposed Foster Road Urban Renewal Plan located between North Dubuque Street and Prairie du Chien. Wendy Ford (City of Iowa City Economic Development Coordinator) stated that at the last meeting on February 6, 2018, the City Council approved a resolution of necessity which starts the process to establish an Urban Renewal Area and a TIFF District. This particular one is the Foster Road Urban Renewal Area and Ford showed a map of the area. It is just south of I-80, east of Dubuque Street, and west of Prairie du Chien. The City has been working with the developers in this area who desire to build the road connecting Dubuque Street to Prairie Du Chien in order to be able to develop the rest of the properties. The developers, as forecasted in the North District Plan, are seeking financial assistance from the City to build the road. The City can assist in the development of this road, and sees the public benefit to this road as being a connector between Dubuque Street and Prairie Du Chien to facilitate better transportation, better emergency responses, and access by and to other neighborhoods. Ford noted there are many public benefits in this project. Ford showed the area which will be developed as recently approved in a Planning & Zoning meeting, and noted that this development and street connection are in line with the Comprehensive Plan and that is why it was approved for rezoning. Ford explained that the Tax Increment financing aspect of this project depends on the pieces of the project along Foster Road (a series of townhomes and a larger senior living building). The Tax Increment that those projects would create then would generate the revenue that would assist in the cost sharing of the road from Dubuque Street to Prairie du Chien. Ford explained that the charge of the Commission make a recommendation to the Council about whether this Urban Renewal Area fits within and complies with the Comprehensive Plan. This is one step to happen before a March 20 hearing, the other step is that the City holds a taxing consultation with representatives from the County and School District to talk about the implications of the TIF on budgets. Hensch asked the length of Foster Road extension. Ford said she believes it is around 1500 feet. Hensch asked because the estimated cost is $4 million and that seems extravagant. Ford explained it includes all the public infrastructure that goes along with the construction of the road (water, sewer, stormwater). Hensch asked about eligibility of the TIF, what it is based on. Ford replied that all TIF Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 18 of 21 districts must be based on some finding of b light or economic development or slum situation and in this case it is an economic development area. It is the only instance in which the Iowa Code allows the use of TIF in an economic development (non-blighted) area for non- LMI residential development and it comes with two distinct conditions not applicable to other Urban Renewal Areas. One is that it only lasts 10 years. The second requirement is that for the City to be able to TIF generated by those buildings the City has to split the increment that comes out of that (in this case 45% and 55%). The 45% being equivalent to Johnson County that qualifies as LMI, and put that 45% into the affordable housing fund. The other 55% can be used for the cost sharing elements of this project. Freerks asked where the other TIF districts are in the City. Ford said there are 12 districts, there are several that go along the industrial area that is lined by railroad on the north end and Highway 6 on the south end (Proctor & Gamble area out towards Highway 6), there is another one at Highway 6 and includes the Pepperwood Plaza area, one at Towncrest, the large one is the City/University Urban Renewal Area which encompasses both downtown and Riverfront Crossings, Riverside Drive Urban Renewal Area, Moss Ridge and finally Sycamore Mall/First Avenue. Ford noted that not all of them are active and a couple have never been tapped for Tax Increment Financing at all, they are just set up to be ready. Freerks opened the public discussion. Seeing no one, Freerks closed the public discussion. Signs moved to forward a written recommendation to the City Council stating that the Foster Road Urban Renewal Plan conforms to the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, and conforms with the general plan for the development of the City of Iowa City. Hensch seconded the motion. Hensch stated in general he is not a fan of TIFs because as an example this project may bring 100 students to this area to attend Iowa City Schools but for 10 years no money will be going to the School District, however he does feel the public good is very strong here by the development of this road as there is a severe need for it. He also is encouraged by seeing the funding that will go into affordable housing. Freerks said that TIFs often get a bad rap because they are so often abused but she has seen the numbers before and Iowa City is very careful in the way that they use TIFs and not abuse them, so she is in favor. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JANUARY 18, 2018 Hensch moved to approve the meeting minutes of January 18, 2018 Signs seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 19 of 21 PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Freerks wanted to discuss the items that are being approved that don’t meet Code. This evening the gentleman said he had a couple of buildings that didn’t have step backs that fall in the area where they are required. Freerks acknowledged they made that change to the Code in October and was unsure how far along those buildings were when that Code change was approved, it he took advantage of that. Hektoen said she was not aware of the timing. Martin believed those buildings were pretty much done. Freerks is concerned then how this happened because it is clearly laid out in the Code. Freerks would like to follow through on this. They have also talked about landscaping not being installed in commercial areas as required and some of the issues with that and this seems to be even a bigger issue to her if Code is not being met and some type of waiver is occurring. It is important to her that the City of Iowa City ask the same of each applicant as they come forward and for people to be able to anticipate and be able to understand what they are required to do. Martin would like to at least have a clear explanation as to why something was adjusted. She acknowledges there may be a variance of some degree on something at some point but what was the give and take for that variance. Freerks noted that the City just gave that valve to them, it wasn’t there before so she is puzzled why this occurred. What she is thinking is if they could just back up through Riverfront Crossings she is interested in seeing if anyone is not using the setbacks and is also interested in how people are utilizing the language, or if it has even been used. She would like to follow up on that. All Commissioners agreed. Miklo clarified that Freerks was asking for a report on any previous minor modifications and noted it may take some time to put together. Hektoen said it would be more in the minor adjustment category opposed to minor modifications. Freerks said if there are issues or they see a flood of things that haven’t or are not meeting Code they need to think about how they can fix it, whether it is the language or what it is. Martin asked if a building is built and has received its certificate of occupancy but is later on realized to have not been in compliance with Code and there is nothing in writing to explain why that happened, is there anything that can be done or does the developer just plead ignorance. Hektoen said the City can cite the developer for not meeting the Zoning Code and they would receive a municipal infraction. Hektoen said it would all depend on the violation. Freerks said it appears that someone is giving a green light to these things, it appears that way because otherwise these projects wouldn’t be getting off the ground, or into the ground. Code is Code. Dyer stated it seems as if there is an objective, not just in Riverfront Crossings, to fill up every single inch of space with building rather than articulate them nicely along the landscape and there is no guarantee you can use up every inch of space. Miklo suggested that over the next several months whenever there is a minor adjustment after it’s been approved, staff could inform the Commission of what’s been done. Freerks would love that, stating it just helps them better understand the Code and how things are being utilized. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 20 of 21 She doesn’t think it is even a punishment for anything or a check and balance, although that is a positive outcome perhaps, but thinks it is wise planning. Hensch likes what Miklo proposes because (1) he will find it educational and (2) he firmly believes there are sometimes adjustments that need to be made so he would like to learn why some of those things were done and then the Commission can consider them upfront sometimes. Signs noted that based on the application tonight it seems that there is a disconnect somewhere and he things it behooves all of them to figure out where it is. Freerks noted that they have made other people do all these things and she doesn’t want Iowa City to be known as inconsistent. Dyer is also concerned that some folks come in with conceptual drawings that are intended to be close to what is planned and others rip them out of a book or something. Signs agreed that was a great observation and some applicants go above and beyond to help the Commission visualize and this one was far short of that. Freerks asked if Miklo would have time for this in the future. Miklo said once they are up to full staff, but he will advise the committee that this is a request. Freerks stressed it was a unanimous request. Miklo said as minor adjustments occur he will try to report back at the next meeting. Freerks also wants to look backwards at previous cases, Miklo said that may take a little time. Signs made record that as of last Friday he has stepped down from the role of President of the Affordable Housing Coalition due to his new work responsibilities, but he does remain on the Board. ADJOURNMENT: Signs moved to adjourn. Dyer seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 5-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2017 - 2018 6/1 (W.S) 6/7 6/15 7/6 7/20 8/3 8/17 9/7 9/21 10/5 10/19 11/2 12/7 12/21 1/4 1/18 2/15 DYER, CAROLYN X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X FREERKS, ANN X X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X O/E X HENSCH, MIKE X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X O/E O/E X X PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X O/E SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X O/E X O/E KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2018 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Jodie Theobald, Mark Signs MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sylvia Bochner, Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Quentin Pitzen, Laureen Ipsen, Ross Nusser, Nancy Purington, Rick Stephenson, Mark Tade, Brian Vogel RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DEVELOPMENT ITEM SUB18-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by University Lake Partners, II for the preliminary plat of Forest Hills Estates, a 53.29-acre 5-lot subdivision with 4 residential lots and 1 commercial office lot locate south of Interstate 80 west of Prairie Du Chien Road. Miklo indicated that this item should be deferred, as Engineering is reviewing the updated plat and stormwater management plans for compliance with City codes. Freerks opened the public hearing. Quentin Pitzen (2040 Tanglewood) asked whether the commercial lot would have access through the western part of the parcel. Miklo explained that the western portion of the parcel closest to I-80 would be an outlot for open space. The Commercial Office (CO-1) lot would be at the intersection of Prairie Du Chien Road and the extension of Foster Road. Pitzen expressed a concern that the additional traffic on Foster Road near Dubuque Street would make it difficult for residents of the neighborhood that is located on Meadow Ridge Lane, Ventura Avenue and Tanglewood Street to drive out of the neighborhood. He asked if they City and any plans for the intersection of the Dubuque Street Frontage Road and Foster Road. Miklo said he would review the question with the City Engineer and report back. Planning and Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 2 of 10 Laureen Ipsen (1710 Prairie Du Chien Road) asked about the width of the Foster Road extension. Miklo answered that it would be 36 foot wide and would have two travel lanes with protected bike lanes in each direction and sidewalks on both sides of the street. Freerks closed the public discussion. Hensch made a motion to defer SUB18-00002 to the March 15 meeting. Signs seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. REZONING ITEM REZ18-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Hodge Construction for a rezoning of approximately 1.1 acres from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Riverfront Crossings – Central Crossings (RFC-CX) zone for property located at 225 & 225 ½ E. Prentiss Street. Miklo said that the applicant has requested that this item be deferred to the March 15 meeting to allow time to revise the concept plan. Hensch made a motion to defer REZ18-00003 to the March 15 meeting. Signs seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. REZONING ITEM REZ18-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Ross Nusser for a rezoning of approximately 1.89 acres from Planned Development Overlay/High Density Single Family Residential (OPD/RS-12) to Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM-12) located at 1705 Prairie Du Chien Road. Walz began the staff report by showing an aerial of the area and a map showing zoning of the surrounding area. She discussed the current land use and zoning and discussed the proposed RM-12 zoning, which would allow a maximum of 30 units on this property based on lot area. The applicant has not submitted a concept plan for development and it is not known whether this density can be achieved. She mentioned the potential for sensitive areas on the property and indicated the applicant does not intend to develop areas with sensitive features. She noted that the property may contain sensitive areas—slopes and or groves of trees. She discussed the North District Plan, which states that with the development of Foster Road, new development could occur in this area and this property could be redeveloped as multi-family. She then reviewed recent amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to address resident displacement. While the policy does not technically apply to this property because it has fewer than 12 units, the applicant has taken a number of steps to communicate and gather input from the residents, including contacting residents in person, holding a meeting for residents, compiling a list of Planning and Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 3 of 10 resources, offering no less than 120 days’ notice for relocation, and working with the City and other sources to identify funds for relocation to assist residents. Staff recommends approval, subject to a condition that the applicant provides residents with 120 days of notice for relocation. Freerks asked whether there is a concept plan indicating what new development would be on this property. Walz indicated that this had not been submitted and applicant was still deciding how he would develop the property. This had been the topic of discussion at the Good Neighbor meeting where he gathered input from the neighbors. Martin asked whether there were notes from the neighborhood meeting. Walz said that she had attended the meeting for the neighborhood meeting for surrounding residents. Neighbors who attended had been generally supportive though they expressed concern for the residents of the trailer park. She noted that the applicant would be able to speak to the concerns heard at the meeting for residents of the property proposed for rezoning. Freerks asked what could be developed on the property under the current RS-12 zone. Walz responded that in terms of detached single-family homes, the development potential would be limited without encroaching into sensitive areas. Miklo noted that the RS-12 would allow for a small number of townhomes on lots of 3,000 square feet and duplexes on lots of 6,000 square feet. This would require an alley. Freerks opened the public hearing. Ross Nusser (applicant) spoke concerning relocation of the residents of the mobile home park and his frustration that not enough is done to ensure smooth transitions for the residents, some of whom have lived here for 30-40 years. Because of the extension of Foster Road, redevelopment of this property is likely and he is concerned that the residents could be forced to relocate with short notice if the property redevelops without a rezoning. He discussed his meetings with residents of the subject property and the surrounding neighborhood, including a good neighbor meeting. Commissioners asked for minutes from the meeting for trailer park residents, but Ross responded that none were taken. The commission asked for more information on whether they could require financial assistance for relocation of residents. Walz deferred to the City Attorney. Goers indicated that while the trailer park fell beneath the 12-unit threshold in the comprehensive plan, the spirit of the plan was to ensure that residents of affordable units such as this were accommodated fairly. So long as any assistance was in scale with the impact of the rezoning, it could be attached as a condition. Nusser noted that some of the residents were present. Commission asked him about more specific concept plans for the site. He responded that he was focused on the issue of relocation but agreed to prepare more detailed plans if deferred until the March 15th meeting. Nancy Purington (1706 Prairie Du Chien Road) spoke about her concerns about the traffic on Prairie Du Chien Road. Her property is directly across from the subject property. She reported Planning and Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 4 of 10 high speeds on Prairie Du Chien and difficulty turning into/out of her driveway. She is concerned that this may get worse when Foster Road is extended and if additional density is added on the subject property. She requested that a traffic study be conducted in this general area with information on traffic counts and speeds. She also expressed her preference that multi-family housing on the subject property not exceed 2-story because no buildings in the surrounding area are taller than 2 stories. Laureen Ipsen (1710 Prairie Du Chien Road) also spoke about traffic concerns on Prairie Du Chien, especially with the extension of Foster Road. She asked about the possibility of multi- family housing on the redeveloped site having access from Foster Road. She asked if Foster Road will be a wider street than Prairie Du Chien; staff responded that it will be (2-lanes of traffic with buffered bike lanes). She was concerned about adding density in an area with traffic issues. Curt Vangerpen (Dubuque Street) is one of the owners of the mobile home park. He said that he had not intended to give residents short notice, however, the infrastructure at the trailer park was in need of major improvement. He discussed maintenance issues related to sanitary sewer and water lines which contribute to the need to redevelop the area. He noted that a year ago the City said that the extension of Foster Road was at least seven years away and he believed he would need to make substantial upgrades to water and sewer to keep the park going. When the recent decision came to build Foster Road he realized that it was an opportunity for him to avoid making these substantial repairs. He reported making repairs to the sewer lines in December, but states that these lines are very old and could stop working in the near future, which would displace residents with little notice. He expressed concern about this relocation, but stated that continuing to maintain the mobile home park is not feasible. He noted that there was no place in Iowa City that is more affordable to live than his trailer park, but the necessary improvements would require him to raise rent. Rick Stevenson (853 St. Anne’s Drive) also noted the speed and volume of traffic on Prairie du Chien Road and requested any increased density have driveway access onto Foster Road. Mark Tade (1706 Prairie du Chien Road): He noted that he lives several hundred feet from the Interstate but the sound of traffic is quite intense. He said it was not possible to hold a conversation in his back yard during the summer. He said he thought it was important to preserve any trees in the area as they offer some buffer from the noise. Miklo noted that the Foster Road rezoning preserves a large number of wooded area and that the City’s subdivision regulations require a 300-foot buffer from the Interstate for new residential structures. Nusser spoke again and expressed his desire to work with residents but his need for some direction from the Commission. He indicated that the rezoning would allow him to better determine what options he could provide to assist with relocation. Several commissioners expressed the need for more information from the developer, both in terms of the proposed development and a relocation plan. Planning and Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 5 of 10 Dyer expressed a concern that the applicant had not presented a plan for relocation or a plan for how he would develop the property. She said it makes it difficult for the Commission to make a decision when there are so many unknowns. Signs indicated that they felt they could make a better recommendation in terms of relocation plan if they had some idea from the developer and the currents residents what the needs were and what the developer felt he could reasonably afford. Commissioners acknowledged that redevelopment was a matter of time and that everyone involved was trying to be fair. Freerks stated that there was a need to know how this new development would fit into the neighborhood and that usually such re-zonings were accompanied by a concept plan of some sort. She understood that the applicant had the best of intentions and was sensitive to the neighborhood but that the Commission had been disappointed by some developments in the past and this would be the first multi-family in this neighborhood so it was important to get it right. Nusser reiterated his willingness to come forward with a plan and requested to defer to March 15. He stated that there were two issues: the redevelopment of the property and the difficult circumstance of relocating the residents and that he wished to address both. Hensch moved to recommend approval of deferring REZ18-00002 until the March 15 meeting. Signs seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. REZONING ITEM REZ17-00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Cardinal Pointe West, LLC for a rezoning of approximately 7.84 acres from Interim Development Research Development Park (IDRP) to Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) located west of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and east of Deer Creek Road. Bochner stated this property is currently zoned Interim Development Research Development Park (IDRP) which is a designation given to undeveloped land when that land does not have the infrastructure necessary for development. At this time infrastructure is in place for this property so it is appropriate to rezone but the Interim Development-Research Park indicates that was a foreseen use. The proposed zoning for this lot is Low Density Multi-Family (RM-12) which allows for both high density single- family housing and low density multi-family housing to provide a diverse variety of housing options. Because of this mixture, attention to site and building design is important in this zone to ensure compatibility. The applicant has submitted a Sensitive Areas Site Plan that shows three multi-family building on this parcel which contain a total of 108 1- and 2-bedroom units (36 units per building). All three buildings will have access from a driveway off Deer Creek Road with parking provided under the building and in the surface lot located between buildings. Bochner showed images of the current state of the property and then the proposed sensitive areas site plan. The zoning ordinance indicates that multifamily buildings should be oriented with at least one facade facing a public or private street or an interior courtyard. As shown currently this proposal doesn’t meet that standard but the applicant indicated they will apply for a minor modification due to sensitive features on the property and steep slopes on the Camp Cardinal Boulevard frontage. Planning and Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 6 of 10 Bochner stated that with regards to the Comprehensive Plan, this property is located within the Northwest Planning District, one of two districts for which a detailed plan has not been drafted and instead refers to the Clear Creek Master Plan which was adopted in 2002. This Master Plan indicates that the areas adjacent to Highway 218 are appropriate for office park or research uses to buffer residential uses from the noise and fumes produced by the highway. However the 1997 Comprehensive Plan recognized that with the establishment of the Oakdale Campus north of Interstate 80 there might be limited need for additional offices and research uses in this area. The plan also recognized the topographical and infrastructural limitations of the area, and therefore, supported clustered development that would result in pedestrian friendly neighborhoods with minimal disturbance of the sensitive areas. In terms of capability with the neighborhood, the majority of the property surrounding this area is currently undeveloped, there is a subdivision just north of this area that will have a mix of housing types. The proximity to Highway 218 poses compatibility issues with residential uses. Iowa City's subdivision regulations address health issues associated with noise and air pollution produced by major roadways by requiring a minimum 300' buffer between Highway 218 and residential development. Because this application is for a rezoning, rather than a subdivision, the regulation does not apply. However, a condition may be attached to the rezoning in order to address the concerns associated with the proximity to Highway 218. Staff recommends this rezoning be conditioned upon approval of a plan signed by an acoustical engineer prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure that roadway noise is mitigated in the interior of the buildings for any buildings located within 300 feet of the right-of-way of the highway. This plan should include sound mitigating construction techniques, such masonry construction and sound- dampening windows, along with the planting of trees to form a buffer between the highway and buildings. Bochner noted this site has sensitive areas including steep and critical slopes and woodlands. Bochner stated that the Commission had been given revised plans that have come in after the staff report was drafted, so there have been some changes to the amount of sensitive areas that will be disrupted due to the calculations to the sensitive areas. In the new plans, 45.7% of the steep slopes on the property being disturbed, 19.6 % of critical slopes, and 29.5% of woodlands. The Sensitive Areas Site Plan includes construction limits that indicate the portion of the lot that may be developed. A landscaping plan shows where trees and shrubs will be planted within the development area. With regards to traffic implications, existing road infrastructure, which is improved to City standards up to the driveway on Deer Creek Road, will be sufficient to serve the proposed density of the development. North of the proposed driveway, Deer Creek Road is unimproved and dead ends at River Products quarry property located in Coralville. Developable land to the north will not connect into Deer Creek Road, therefore the extension of right-of-way improvements to the street and extension of sidewalk north of the driveway are not recommended by staff. In terms of parking, the site plan shows 171 parking spaces which is the minimum requirement based on the proposed number of units. The majority of these spaces will be provided in structured parking provided on the lower level of each building with the rest in a surface lot between the buildings. Bochner also noted another change in the plans that were distributed to the Commission this evening is that the fire department requires a wider driveway (minimum 26 feet) to accommodate for fire apparatus to reach the height of the proposed buildings, which has been satisfied in the updated plan. Overall, the proposed rezoning of the subject area to Low-Density Planning and Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 7 of 10 Multi-family Residential (RM-12) is appropriate provided that the applicant ensures that the effects of highway noise are mitigated for the interior of these buildings. Although the Clear Creek Master Plan designated this area for office use to buffer nearby residential uses, the Comprehensive Plan states that demand for office space may be limited and residential use may be an alternative use. Freerks asked if the Comprehensive Plan does state that residential may be another appropriate use. Bochner said the Plan says “conservation development”. Miklo noted Staff can check to see exactly what the Comprehensive Plan states for that area. He knows it clearly states office use is preferred up against the highway but the previous Plan did indicate there is limited demand for such office use. Staff recommends approval of this application with the condition that sound mitigation is provided through a plan approved by an acoustical engineer prior to any building permit being approved. Freerks asked if they are providing any visitor parking. Miklo replied that they are providing the minimum parking required, but in the parking requirements in the zoning code assume that visitor parking is included in the minimums. Parsons asked if there were any planned improvements for Deer Creek Road. Miklo said staff anticipates Deer Creek Road will end at this property and all of the development in that area will be served off Kennedy Parkway. Hensch added the dust from the gravel on Deer Creek Road could be an issue for residents. Miklo said the Commission could add a condition to having to treat the unpaved road to mitigate that issue. Hensch also stated that the landscape plan doesn’t list the species of trees to be used, nor anything about shrubbery requirements. Theobald added with the number of trees and shrubs mentioned on the plan there is not enough to mitigate noise and dust issues. Martin asked about the 300 feet buffer, what is the current requirement. Miklo stated that if this were a subdivision there would be a requirement for a 300 foot buffer between any residential building and Highway 218. This is a rezoning of only one parcel so there is not automatically a 300 foot buffer, however the Commission could put a condition on the rezoning although staff is recommending other conditions to mitigate sound issues. Freerks opened the public discussion. Brian Vogel (Hall & Hall Engineers, Inc.) stated that all the buildings will look similar, and in the same color scheme with the brick and colors of the siding. The developer has agreed to use the sound mitigating materials and construction techniques, and will get an acoustical engineer in to do a study before construction and incorporate that into the building plans. Martin asked about the balconies and how the sound will be dealt with on the balconies. Vogel said the sound mitigation is for inside the buildings. Vogel stated that their landscape architect has contacted Julie Tallman at the City. With the detailed plan of materials used in the construction, there would also be a detailed landscaping plan that also needs to be approved by the City. Planning and Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 8 of 10 Signs said that because this project is so close to the road a more detailed tree and shrubbery plan would improve the livability for the people there and help the Commission agree to this rezoning. Vogel said the existing woodlands that would be preserved would help with dust and mitigation. Freerks is concerned about this proposal and that there won’t be any sustainable long-term neighborhood feel here because nobody is going to want to be that close to the interstate. She acknowledges it is a tough piece of property and reflects that is why the Comprehensive Plan laid out what is appropriate in that area. She is not saying residential cannot work, but she does have concerns, there are no amenities outside, and it appears that one is just trying to squeeze as much as they can into an oddly shaped lot with steep slopes and wooded areas right next to an interstate. She does not have problem with multi-family in that area, this proposal just brings her pause. Martin noted they have an opportunity here to help give the community that we live in something that really works and can be sustained over time. Vogel stated that the developer is trying to create affordable housing and that is why they are proposing the density. Martin asked if these will be one and two bedroom units only. Vogel confirmed that is correct. Signs noted he is not as concerned as others, noting this is a difficult parcel and there is no commercial or office that will go there as all surrounding properties are residential. Hensch agreed that this parcel is an island so to make it more inviting there does need to be a courtyard or outside amenities to attract residents to want to live there. He said he like the building design, but would like to see more variety rather than thee identical buildings. Theobald noted her concern is the sound, she lives on that side of town and quite a bit away from the interstate and can hear it at her house all night long, even with windows closed. There needs to be a windbreak line of trees. She would like to see a detailed landscape plan before approval. Martin stressed as this is near an access point to Iowa City the need to maintain the beautification of the area. Signs added he likes the building design, he thought they might want to add a trail connection or overlook at the pond, someplace for the residents to go and enjoy the view. He felt that the pond could be turned into an amenity that the project currently lacks. Dyer added that having a walking trail around the property could be one amenity, adding a playground, and it seems like if the buildings weren’t so big they could be away from the 300 foot buffer zone and deal with the sound that way. Dyer also asked if there was a fire department turnaround along the driveway to the north. Miklo said the fire department did look at this and approved the layout. Miklo reiterated the direction the Commission is asking the applicant and staff to review prior to approval. (1) More of a buffer to the interstate; (2) there needs to be some form a amenity, possibility using the pond; (3) dust mitigation; (4) possibility smaller buildings to get them further away from the highway; (5) detailed landscape plan; (6) and possibility different color schemes on each building. Planning and Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 – Formal Meeting Page 9 of 10 Freerks noted that to make a quality community addressing these concerns are important. Signs said it is important to establish a precedent so that developers come forward with good plans. Freerks said that Commission used to get more thorough information. She realizes that staff has been limited and is down two staff people. Dyer expressed a concern that some applicants have been submitting limited information about their plans, while others submit comprehensive plans that give the sense of what will be built. The Commission agreed that it would like to see adequate information on the applications they review. Freerks closed the public discussion. Parsons moved to defer item REZ17-00015 to the March 15, 2018 meeting. Hensch seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Dyer and Hensch noted that they would not be at the March 15 meeting. Miklo noted that Martin would be attending the American Planning Association Conference in New Orleans in April. ADJOURNMENT: Theobald moved to adjourn. Parsons seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2017 - 2018 (W.S) 6/7 6/15 7/6 7/20 8/3 8/17 9/7 9/21 10/5 10/19 11/2 12/7 12/21 1/4 1/18 2/15 3/1 DYER, CAROLYN X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X O/E X X HENSCH, MIKE O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E X X X X X X X X X X O/E O/E X X X PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X O/E X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X O/E X O/E X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member