Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Packet 4-18-19PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 18, 2019 Formal Meeting – 7:00 PM Emma Harvat Hall Iowa City City Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda (Continued from 4/4/2019) 4. Discussion on the good neighbor policy, application requirements, and rezoning criteria. 5. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: April 4, 2019 6. Planning & Zoning Information 7. Adjournment If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or anne-russett@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: May 2 / May 16 / June 6 / June 20 Informal: Scheduled as needed. MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2019 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Max Parsons, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin, Mark Signs STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DISCUSSION ON THE GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY, APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS, AND REZONING CRITERIA: Russett noted this discussion came up during the March 12 City Council/Planning & Zoning Commission consult meeting where the Mayor requested the Commission discuss some of the items presented at that meeting, mainly related to the Good Neighbor Policy application requirement and rezoning criteria. Russett noted this evening the Commission doesn’t need to recommend any items, this is just the start of the conversation and in May the City Council will also discuss this item so any information discussed this evening will be shared with Council and Council will then make any specific recommendations to staff next month. Russett stated the Good Neighbor Meeting Policy was established in 1998 and reviewed in 2013 and at that time both staff and City Council felt Good Neighbor Meetings should be kept voluntary, and today staff recommends meetings remain voluntary as well for a variety of reasons. 1. The projects that come before the Commission and that staff review are all very different, some are large scale with large impact, some are small with small impacts. 2. Some meetings happen early in the process of the rezoning stag e and don’t happen at platting. 3. There are notification requirements the City sends out as well as postings on the site for notification to neighbors. Russett shared a table that showed some of the applications the Commission reviewed in the last few months and whether or not a Good Neighbor Meeting was held. The Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2019 Page 2 of 8 results are varied, there were a couple of rezonings (Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 rezoning and the 2130 Muscatine Avenue rezoning) that did not hold Good Neighbor Meetings, the vacation the Commission reviewed a few weeks ago did not hold a Good Neighbor Meeting but the larger scale projects like Forest View, Cherry Creek and the affordable housing project on the east side did hold Good Neighbor Meetings. Russett noted the Commission has expressed some concerns about the number of people who are notified of the Good Neighbor Meetings. The requirement is for notification for neighbors within 300 feet of the project area. Russett showed a map of an area to show what 300 feet looks like, the example property was 2130 Muscatine Avenue. Staff has not done a comprehensive review of what other local jurisdictions require, but based on the cities staff is aware of the 300 foot requirement is comparable, they are aware of one other jurisdiction that does use a much larger area because it is rural in nature. Russett next presented some background on rezonings and how staff looks at rezonings. Rezonings are requests to use the land differently and are not always tied to a specific project. When staff receives an application for a rezoning they review that rezoning against all of the uses that are permitted in that zone district. They look at the intensities that are permitted, the densities, and they review whether they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan vision as well as whether or not they would be compatible with the neighborhood. She noted sometimes it is difficult to separate the rezoning of the land from the specific development project that is being proposed. Often both the Commission and the City Council want more information on the project, staff does as well, particularly for the larger projects. In terms of application requirements for rezonings, there are two types of rezonings. First is the standard rezoning which is one base zone to another base zone designation (i.e. RS-5 to RM-12 or CO-1 to CC-2). The other type is the OPD or Planned Development Overlay where there is a base zoning designation and then an actual overlay. These are often done when there are sensitive areas on the site. The application requirements for these two different types of rezonings vary. There are more details on OPD rezonings required (landscaping, elevations, concept plans) than on standard rezonings. Russett showed another table of projects the Commission has reviewed over the past few months along with the level of detail provided for those rezonings. Different levels of detail are provided depending on the project. The Lower West Branch Road and Taft Avenue and the Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 rezonings only provided concept plans whereas the rezoning of the multifamily housing on the east side provided a concept plan, elevations and landscaping. In terms of criteria, Russett stated the criteria is different between a standard rezoning and a Planned Development Overlay rezoning. The general criteria for standard rezonings is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the neighborhood. For OPD rezonings they look at those two criteria but also specific criteria related to density, design, impact to streets and utilities, etc. Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2019 Page 3 of 8 It is staff’s goal to have a consistent message to applicants in terms of what is required at the application stage for various application types, particularly rezonings. Staff must often times provide advice to applicants on what they should provide so the Commission can make an informed decision and that should be a consistent message. If they are asking for concept plans or landscaping plans that are not required as part of the application the applicant has the right to question why they need to provide it. It is also staff’s goal to not require too much detail that the process becomes increasingly burdensome. Baker asked if the area of notification and the lack of a requirement for a Good Neighbor Meeting is the same no matter what the type of application. Russett confirmed that was correct. Baker suggested that perhaps the larger the development the wider the area of notification ought to be as well as the requirement of a Good Neighbor Meeting. He feels the impact of the project should dictate a different standard. Parsons questioned how to clarify a size of a project. Does that mean acres it covers, because in the example of the Chauncey project, it has a huge impact but yet only covers a small area. Baker suggested possibility density as a measure as well as size of acres involved. In most cases number of acres involved would create a higher density. Hektoen noted the State Code allows people who live within 200 feet of a rezoning have the authority to protest rezonings and trigger a super majority vote from Council. Baker is not sure that addresses the issue, he still sees a bigger difference in the projects on Muscatine Avenue and one the size of Forest View and how the community input and notifications for each of those projects should perhaps be different. Russett said for a project such as Forest View staff would, and has, told the applicant they should hold a Good Neighbor Meeting as it is very important for the project. Baker appreciates that, noting if they don’t hold a Good Neighbor Meeting then they will hear from the neighbors at the Commission meeting. He also asked if there is any interest in having the area of notification larger for larger scale developments. Hensch noted there are a couple common things the Commission hears from the public at meetings, they say they are never notified (but they are usually outside of the circle or just ignored their mail) or they were not invited to a Good Neighbor Meeting. Hensch said he does struggle with an application that chooses to not hold a Good Neighbor Meeting, philosophically he is opposed to that because it is a good communication tool, it shows concern for the neighbors and respect to the neighbors. It does not mean the applicant has to do or change anything to appease the neighbors but maybe small things can be changed and problems avoided. He does not see a downside of requiring a Good Neighbor Meeting for a rezoning. He does not see it as necessary for a vacation or plat, but for a rezoning, when someone moves into a neighborhood they know what the neighborhood should look like, but with a rezoning it brings a choice of changes for land uses and could change a character of a neighborhood and therefore the neighbors should be involved in that decision. Part of the role of the Commission is to do what is best for the community. He feels requiring a Good Neighbor Meeting and expanding the notification area is a good thing. He understands it won’t solve all the problems but there does need to be changes. Putting notification in the newspaper is not the solution, no one reads newspapers anymore, and it is time to rethink how these notifications are being presented. Perhaps they should be done via social media. Hensch did note he does not want to create more work for staff so it must be put on the responsibility of the developer. Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2019 Page 4 of 8 Hektoen asked what Hensch would envision the consequence being if a developer doesn’t hold a Good Neighbor Meeting. Hensch said the developer then could simply not proceed with the rezoning. Parsons asked if notice goes out, no one responds, then what it the purpose of holding a Good Neighbor Meeting. Hensch said that is fine, at least the option was there. Parsons asked what would constitute a Good Neighbor Meeting, could the developer hold it at their office at an inconvenient time. Hensch said there are already rules for Good Neighbor Meetings set from Neighborhood Development Services on what constitutes a meeting. Russett said the current process is the applicant would set up the meeting, staff would work with the applicant on developing the letter to the neighbors and creating the list of the people who would get the invitation. She noted staff does attend the meetings, they do not moderate them, but are there in case there are questions related to processes. Dyer also agrees that Good Neighbor Meetings should be required and also there has to be better notice for projects with bigger impacts for the community at large and especially the neighborhood. In the case of Forest View they did hold Good Neighbor Meetings and that was good but there was not good notification of the meetings. Additionally that project will affect everyone on the Peninsula not just those within 300 feet. In earlier meetings the people living in Idyllwild came to express their concern about drainage and therefore a whole lot of work was done regarding drainage as a consequence. The project affects whole neighborhoods, not just 300 or 500 feet from the edge of the project. She also agreed there has to be better ways of notifying neighbors, more visible ways. In the case of big buildings, such as the ones downtown, that concerns everyone, not just those within 300 feet. It will affect the skyline, traffic, and aesthetics for the entire city. She is not sure what the answer is regards who to decide which projects are large (area, density, dollar value, etc.). In the example of the Chauncey there were lots of people at the zoning meetings and Council meetings because those people were not in the area of which to be invited to the Good Neighbor Meetings. Russet asked Dyer about projects that are downtown and affect the skyline does that concern include Riverfront Crossings. Dyer confirmed she would include Riverfront Crossings when discussing downtown skylines. Hensch noted the issue of if the Commission receives a report from the Good Neighbor Meetings has also come up in the past. Sometimes they occur but the Commission does not get a report. He also discussed the inconsistency in requirements and the Commission decisions and that is true, sometimes the Commission is aggressive on a project developer and sometimes back off regarding elevations, concept drawings and construction material lists. He agrees there needs to be consistency and developers deserve the right to know what is required, but these items are what helps the Commission make their decisions. It helps the Commission make a correct decision for a neighborhood if they can see exactly what the developer wants to do with the rezoning. Baker noted that was one of the problems with Forest View is there are design standards and guidelines but that doesn’t really show what will actually be built on that area. Hensch said there were some concepts with that application, they just didn’t have any elevations. He understands some of the big projects will be phased in over time so all details may not be available but to deal in trust and hope doesn’t always work out. He also knows that sometimes it does require the developer to have certain drawings created and that costs money, but if they want the development they should be willing to invest in the process. Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2019 Page 5 of 8 Baker questioned however if a developer shows a drawing or elevations at the rezoning, how obligated are they to follow those. Hensch noted they are not obligated but it shows a good faith effort. Hektoen noted the drawings or elevations can be made as a condition of the rezoning, to say they must have substantial compatibility with concept plans show. Dyer noted that some of the OPDs they have reviewed over the past few years have required changes before approval and the developers have ended up being happy with the changes suggested by the Commission and ended up being better projects for the community. Sometimes it is providing more open space in a family development or changes in building materials to add distinction. She feels strongly that multifamily projects and OPDs need to have concept drawings and elevations. Hensch also said often a developer comes before the Commission, the 45-day clock is ticking, and they don’t have concept drawings or elevations it can seem like a “rubber-stamp” being pushed though. He feels in many cases the projects get so much better when there has been this input by the Commission and the public and developers come back with better solutions. Townsend noted that when there is a rezoning, there are the signs that go up, so it would be nice to have Good Neighbor Meetings so the community can find out more details and an opportunity to ask questions. Otherwise people see the signs and have to call City Staff and ask the questions, staff may or may not have the answers to. Dyer asked if the wording on the signs is legislative or could there be more information put on the signs. Hektoen doesn’t feel the wordage is codified. Dyer said an attachment to the sign could post when the Good Neighbor Meeting is being held. Baker feels the consensus is a recommendation to require a Good Neighbor Meeting for all rezonings and elevations for all projects. Hensch said this is just an initial discussion meeting and they can come back to this at the next meeting after some thought. He would like the suggestions to be thoughtful, not detrimental to staff time, and helpful to citizens. Hektoen noted that requiring site plans or concept plans it is important to note that all projects are different and the stage of which they are in when they come before the Commission are different so it is important to keep in mind within the zoning context the Commission has the tool to impose conditions to address public needs that are created by the rezoning. So if there is an application that is very nebulous or will be a 15 year build-out and the Commission can articulate the public need, they can impose a design review as a condition of the rezoning to come back before the Commission with a concept plan. Baker asked if that could have been imposed on the Forest View project. Hektoen said the condition of a design review was imposed. Dyer said that would be a staff review though, not Commission. Russett said for the project at 12 East Court Street, they did add the condition of a design review by the Commission. The project is in Riverfront Crossings, Pentacrest Gardens apartments. Baker asked if the Council could also impose such a condition and Hektoen said they can. Russett will have this discussion topic on the next meeting agenda as well for continued discussion. Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2019 Page 6 of 8 Parsons stated his reservations of making Good Neighbor Meetings required, he doesn’t feel they are necessary for all rezonings. He feels the trust is in staff, they know the rules and see all the applications and they know what the Commission wants and what the public would or would not want in their neighborhoods. He feels requiring such meetings for small projects would be a burden on staff. Townsend agrees with Parsons but does feel there should be a way people in the neighborhood could find out more information, such as having a link posted on the site, etc. Parsons asked when the notices of rezonings go out to the public. Russett said it must be a minimum of seven days but they try to have them out at least two weeks prior. Dyer noted if the neighbors are to have an impact, they need to be part of the process long before the rezoning meeting. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MARCH 21, 2019 Dyer moved to approve the meeting minutes of March 21, 2019. Townsend seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett gave an update from the Council meeting on Tuesday where the Council discussed a few things pertinent to the Commission. First, staff presented Council with a residential infill analysis and she will send out the PowerPoint presentation to the Commission. Staff has been directed by Council to work with the consulting firm, Opticos Design, to think about ways to address out of scale or oversized infill residential. Also the City has executed a contract with Opticos to work on a Form-Based Code for the South District. Council has asked staff to explore an amendment to the contract to include a visioning session for the North Side Marketplace as well as a parking study for the North Side Marketplace. That area is Linn Street east to Gilbert Street and Market Street to Bloomington. In terms of recent applications sent to Council. 2130 Muscatine Avenue rezoning was adopted as well as Rollins Pass preliminary plat. Council had the Forest View public hearing on Tuesday and was continued to the April 23 meeting, staff has received some protest petition so are running the numbers to see if a super majority vote is needed. Hektoen mentioned there will be two people coming from Minneapolis to discuss the Race, Place and Land Use Minneapolis 2040 Plan. They have eliminated single-family zoning and will be speaking about that at the Iowa Memorial Union on April 25 at 7:30pm. Baker asked when Council would vote on Forest View. Parsons said that is not known for sure. Baker asked if there was time as a Commission to have discussion at the next meeting on whether they wanted to recommend to Council to impose a condition of their vote to have elevations and design review to come back before Council for approval. Russett said the Commission has already made their recommendation to Council on that application. Hektoen noted that Planning & Zoning’s review of the application has passed, the recommendation has Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2019 Page 7 of 8 been made. Hensch said they can reach out to the Councilors as citizens. Baker noted that the Forest View project is such a long-term project with three distinct components and he wondered if a developer could do one of the components and not do the others. Russett said there are times where things are platted as outlots or zoned ID (interim development) but once you have the zoning designation and it’s platted that is what is done. There could be a scenario where nothing gets built. Baker is concerned about the commercial area being developed but the residential is deferred, delayed or whatever. Russett agreed that could happen. Hektoen noted they should not be discussing the Forest View project as it was not on the agenda, but it was noted in the recommendation they must provide the replacement housing in the first phase of the project. Baker will not be at the May 16 meeting. Adjournment: Dyer moved to adjourn. Parsons seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2018 - 2019 5/17 6/7 6/21 7/5 8/16 9/6 9/20 10/18 12/20 1/3 1/17 (W.S.) 2/4 2/21 3/7 3/21 4/4 BAKER, LARRY -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X DYER, CAROLYN X X O/E X O O/E O X X X O/E X X X X X FREERKS, ANN X X X ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X X X O/E X O/E X X X O/E PARSONS, MAX X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E THEOBALD, JODIE X X O/E ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- TOWNSEND, BILLIE -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member