HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 10.03.2019 Agenda PacketPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, October 3, 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
4. Case No. CZ19-01
Applicant: Claude Greiner
Location: North of American Legion Road and South of 400th Street SE
An application submitted by Claude Greiner for a rezoning of approximately 25.32
acres of property located in unincorporated Johnson County north of American Legion
Road and south of 400th Street SE from County Agriculture (A) to County Residential
(R).
5. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: September 5, 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: October 17 / November 7 / November 21
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
Date: October 3, 2019
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From:
Re:
Anne Russett, Senior Planner
CZ19-01 South of American Legion Road
Background Information The applicant, Claude Greiner, is requesting a rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) for approximately 25.32 acres of property located in Johnson County north of American Legion Road and south of 400th Street SE in Fringe Area B – Outside of Iowa City’s Growth Area. Because the property is within Iowa City’s two-mile Fringe Area, the Fringe Area Agreement specifies that the City will make a recommendation to the County Planning and Zoning Commission before the County Commission considers the application. The final decision on the rezoning falls within the County’s jurisdiction.
If this rezoning is approved, the applicant intends to develop a county subdivision, and divide the land into approximately 23 single-family residential lots and two outlots for storm water management and open space. City approval will be required if the property is subdivided as proposed.
In 2018, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) in this area also submitted by Claude Greiner. Staff recommended not to approve this rezoning because it conflicted with the policies in the Fringe Area Agreement. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council agreed with staff. This led to the creation of a conflict resolution committee, which included City and County staff, City Council members, and representatives of the Board of Supervisors. After this committee consulted, the City Council recommended approval of the rezoning as did the Board of Supervisors.
Analysis Existing Land Use and Zoning The subject property is zoned County Agricultural (A) and is currently being used for row crops. Properties to the north are zoned County Agricultural (A). Properties to the west, south, and east are zoned County Residential (R), with residential properties lining American Legion Road.
Proposed Zoning & Surrounding Area The applicant is requesting a rezoning to County Residential (R) which allows for single family homes on lots at least 40,000 square feet. The area along American Legion Road currently has many residential properties. The land surrounding these residential properties remain in agricultural production.
Compliance with the County’s Comprehensive Plan The County recently updated its Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map of the comprehensive plan designates this area Residential. The Residential land use category allows for, “single-family detached dwellings with a preferred density of one unit per acre or denser.”
Compliance with the Fringe Area Agreement In reviewing proposed rezonings in the Fringe Area, staff relies on the policies outlined in the Fringe Area Agreement. The Fringe Area Agreement is a component of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and applies to areas not specifically planned for in the City’s
September 27, 2019
Page 2
Comprehensive Plan. The Fringe Area Agreement is intended to provide guidance regarding the development of land located within two miles of Iowa City’s corporate limits. The agreement’s slated purpose is to provide for orderly and efficient development patterns appropriate to non-urbanized areas, protect and preserve the fringe area’s natural resources and environmentally sensitive features, direct development to areas with physical characteristics which can accommodate development, and effectively and economically provide services for future growth and development. This property is located in Fringe Area B – Outside the City’s Growth Area. For this area, the agreement states that agricultural uses are preferred. Specifically, the agreement states: “Until otherwise changed by amending this agreement, this area shall be restricted to those uses consistent with a Rural/Agricultural area as indicated in the Johnson County Land Use Plan, and as designated for a Rural/Agriculture area in Chapter 8:1.6 Class A District of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance, as amended.” According to the Johnson County Comprehensive Plan, the Agricultural land use category envisions agricultural uses, such as row crops and animal husbandry, with “very limited residential development.” According to the Johnson County Zoning Code, Agricultural uses are defined as farms, nurseries and greenhouses, orchards and tree farms, with residential uses to be restricted to two single-family dwellings on a farm 40 acres or larger. The proposed rezoning does not align with the land use policy direction in the Fringe Area Agreement. However, the proposed rezoning does provide for orderly and efficient development in that it will extend Faye Drive SE, an existing stub street. Staff recognizes the conflict that exists between the County’s updated Comprehensive Plan and the adopted Fringe Area Agreement. Due to these conflicts, staff has been working with County planning staff on updating the Fringe Area Agreement.
Staff Recommendation Although the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the policies outlined in the adopted Fringe Area Agreement, staff recommends approval of this rezoning for the following reasons: 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the County’s Future Land Use Map and comprehensive plan; 2. Based on the outcome of Greiner rezoning south of American Legion Road in 2018, staff anticipates that a recommendation of denial would lead to the need to create another conflict resolution committee; and 3. Staff is working with County planning staff to update the Fringe Area Agreement.
Attachments:
1. Aerial Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Fringe Area Map
4. Rezoning Exhibit
Approved by: ________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
AARONDR SER
O
S
ALIE
C
T S
E
TAFT AVE SEAMERICAN LEGION RD SE
F
A
Y
E
D
R
S
E
B RYANCT
400TH ST SE
WAPSI AVE SECZ19-01Lot A of Redwing Estatesµ
0 0.25 0.50.125 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: Sept 2019
An application submitted by Claude Greiner for the rezoning of 25.32 acres located north of American Legion Road and south of 400th Street SE from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R).
AARONDR SER
O
S
ALIE
C
T S
E
TAFT AVE SEAMERICAN LEGION RD SE
F
A
Y
E
D
R
S
E
B RYANCT
400TH ST SE
WAPSI AVE SEJohnson County PD & S
CZ19-01Lot A of Redwing Estatesµ
0 0.25 0.50.125 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: Sept 2019
An application submitted by Claude Greiner for the rezoning of 25.32 acres located north of American Legion Road and south of 400th Street SE from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R).
AARONDR SER
O
S
ALIE
C
T S
EAMERICAN LEGION RD SE
F
A
Y
EDR
S
E
TAFT AVE SE420TH ST SE
400TH ST SE
WAPSI AVE SEJohnson County PD & S
CZ19-01Lot A of Redwing Estatesµ
0 0.25 0.50.125 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: Sept 2019
An application submitted by Claude Greiner for the rezoning of 25.32 acres located north of American Legion Road and south of 400th Street SE from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R).
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 5 , 2019 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark
Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Max Parson
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Anne Russett, Jade Pederson
OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Welch, Davis Maxwell
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of ZCA19-03, an application submitted
by Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC for an amendment to the Riverfront Crossings
regulating plan to include the property located at 625 S. Gilbert Street in the Central Crossing
Subdistrict.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ19-07 an application submitted
by Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC for a rezoning of approximately 1.6 acres of property
located at 305 and 315 E. Prentiss Street and 625 S. Gilbert Street from Community Commercial
(CC-2) and Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Riverfront Crossings-Central Crossings (RFC-CC)
subject to the following conditions:
1. Dedication of right-a-way along South Gilbert Street.
2. Provision of an access easement to give the City access to a manhole for the trunk
sewer.
3. Provision of an access easement to give the City access to a sanitary sewer line.
4. Improvements of Ralston Creek, including the removal of invasive trees, addition of riprap
and tree planting, as well as a temporary construction easement for the reconstruction of
Prentiss Street Bridge. And then the fifth is
5. Execution of an affordable housing agreement.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of SUB19-09, an application submitted
by the Governor Group, LLC for a preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan for
South Gilbert Commercial Development subdivision, a 7.07 acre, 2-lot commercial subdivision
with one outlot located south of Southgate Avenue between S. Gilbert Street and the Crandic
Railroad
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 5, 2019
Page 2 of 15
CASE NOS. ZCA19-03 and REZ19-07:
Applicant: Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC
Location: 305 and 315 E. Prentiss Street and 625 S. Gilbert Street
a. An application submitted by Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC for an amendment to the
Riverfront Crossings regulating plan to include the property located at 625 S. Gilbert Street in
the Central Crossing Subdistrict. (ZCA19-03)
b. An application submitted by Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC for a rezoning of
approximately 1.6 acres of property located at 305 and 315 E. Prentiss Street and 625 S.
Gilbert Street from Community Commercial (CC-2) and Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to
Riverfront Crossings-Central Crossings (RFC-CC). (REZ19-07)
Anne Russett introduced Neighborhood Development Services planning intern Jade Peterson
who is going to be presenting this case.
Peterson stated this item includes two applications. These applications are submitted by
Capstone collegiate properties LLC. The first application is for regulating plan amendments to
include 625 South Gilbert Street and the Central Crossing Subdistrict, and the second application
is for the rezoning of properties at 305 and 315 East Prentiss Street and 625 South Gilbert to
Riverfront Crossing Central Crossings. Peterson showed an aerial view of the subject area.
Ralston Creek runs along the west of the property and the Iowa State railroad is along the south.
Currently on the subject property the land uses include residential, office and intense
commercial. The zoning of the site is community commercial and intensive commercial. Similar
zoning extends to the south, properties to the west and north are zoned Riverfront Crossings.
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the regulating plan that would include 625 South
Gilbert Street in the Central Crossing Subdistrict and they're also proposing a rezoning of the
subject property to RFC-CX. Peterson added any future development will be subject to the
affordable housing requirements since the proposed zoning will be within Riverfront Crossings.
The applicant intends to develop an eight-story residential building. A Good Neighbor meeting
was held on September 3.
Next Peterson showed the development concept that was submitted by the applicant and their
statement of intent. It shows an eight-story, 178 dwelling unit building. The building concept
would have three lower levels for 259 residential parking spaces, and five upper levels for
dwelling units. A bonus height request would need to be submitted for this concept. The requests
will be reviewed by the staff form-based code design review committee as well as the City
Council. The concept also shows improvements along Ralston Creek and a pedestrian way that
connects to South Gilbert Street.
Peterson stated the property falls within the downtown and Riverfront Crossings master plan.
Moreover, the property falls within two sub districts of the Riverfront Crossings. 625 South Gilbert
Street or the southern part of the property is within the Gilbert Subdistrict and the northern
portion of the property 305 and 315 East Prentiss Street are within the Central Crossing
Subdistrict. The regulating plan amendment asked to include 625 South Gilbert Street as a part
of the Central Crossing Subdistrict. Peterson noted the two sub districts have distinctive
objectives, regulations and standards that they follow. She showed a table with some of the most
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 5, 2019
Page 3 of 15
notable differences and similarities between the Central Crossings and Gilbert Subdistricts. As
far as land use goes, the two subdistricts are nearly the same and follow the CB-5 zone. The
base height maximum is one floor less in the Gilbert Subdistrict then in Central Crossings and
the bonus height maximum that can be achieved from bonus height provisions differs by three
floors. Staff use two criteria to review the regulating plan amendment and rezoning application.
The first is compliance with the Comprehensive plan and the second is compatibility with the
existing neighborhood. With regards to the compliance with the Comprehensive Plan to subject
property is located in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, which envisions the
site to be redeveloped to allow a mix of residential and commercial uses. Staff used comparisons
of the two subdistricts to evaluate the regulating plan amendment application. Peterson showed
a table that outlines objectives and development character of the two subdistricts. The Central
Crossing Subdistrict is more focused on residential development to address the need for housing
close to downtown. The Gilbert Subdistrict is mostly built out to the north of the railroad and
envisions that area south of the railroad to redevelop at a lower intensity. In terms of scale and
intensity of use the Central Crossings wishes to maintain moderate scale, while Gilbert wants to
maintain smaller scale south of the railroad. Both subdistricts have objectives to restore enhance
conditions along Ralston Creek. Staff is proposing a condition to this rezoning that requires
improvements to be made along Ralston Creek that will encourage having the creek as asset as
well as fulfill an objective of the District Plan. The condition will require improvements including
the removal of invasive species, stream bank stabilization and tree planting.
Peterson stated the second review criteria that staff uses to review this application is
compatibility with existing neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood has residential multi-
story buildings to the north, east and west of the project site, a raised railroad and an overpass
are to the immediate south. Massing studies were submitted by the applicant and their statement
of intent and these studies show what an eight-story building would look like on the site from the
street view. Since the site has a lower elevation, the scale of the proposed building is similar to
the surrounding multi-story buildings. Peterson showed images that were submitted by the
applicant and their massing study. One shows a view looking southeast from the Dubuque and
Prentiss Streets intersection. Another image shows a view looking north on South Gilbert.
Additional images that were submitted, looking south from the RISE and looking west from the
Prentiss and Gilbert Street intersection.
Next Peterson discussed traffic implications and access, the access on East Prentiss as shown
on the concept plan is actually private property belonging to the adjacent property owner and an
access agreement will be needed with the adjacent owner in order to utilize the access. In the
case that an access agreement cannot be achieved, alternative access will need to be identified
during design review. Staff is proposing conditions to be attached to the rezoning that are related
to access and traffic. One of the conditions addresses the need for the enhancement of
pedestrian infrastructure along South Gilbert Street. The condition requires dedication of right-of-
way along the southern property line to allow the City to reconfigure the sidewalk. This will allow
an additional buffer between pedestrians and vehicle traffic. Condition two requires provision of
an access easement from manhole for a trunk sewer located near the southwest corner of the
subject property. Condition three requires the provision of an access easement for a sanitary
sewer line that runs through the old Maiden Lane right-of-way located in the southeast portion of
the property.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 5, 2019
Page 4 of 15
Peterson noted Ralston Creek is an environmentally sensitive area and borders the property to
the west. Any development on this site requires a 30-foot buffer from the Ralston Creek
floodway. A sensitive area site plan will need to be submitted for any development on the
subject property. The Ralston Creek 100 and 500 year floodplains both cover some of the
property. Because of this, any development needs to comply with the City's floodplain
management regulations. Flood proofing requirement and minimum floor elevations will be
determined during site plan and building plan review. As far as the stormwater management of
the site goes, staff believes that it will be handled by the existing storm water infrastructure which
staff believes is sufficient, but further analysis will be made at the site plan stage.
Peterson stated the role of the Commission for this case is to determine whether the rezoning
and regulating plan amendment complies with a Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the
existing neighborhood character.
Next steps pending Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation of approval this case will
go to a public hearing at City Council and pending City Council approval the applicant can submit
a height bonus request. Staff recommends approval of ZCA19-03, an amendment to the River
Crossings regulating plan to include the property located at 625 South Gilbert Street in the
Central Crossings Subdistrict. Staff also recommends approval of REZ19-07 a proposal to
rezone approximately 1.6 acres of property at 305 and 315 East Prentiss Street and 625 South
Gilbert Street from Intensive Commercial and Community Commercial to Riverfront Crossings
Central Crossings, and this will be subject to the following conditions.
1. Dedication of right-a-way along South Gilbert Street.
2. Provision of an access easement to give the City access to a manhole for the trunk
sewer.
3. Provision of an access easement to give the City access to a sanitary sewer line.
4. Improvements of Ralston Creek, including the removal of invasive trees, addition of riprap
and tree planting, as well as a temporary construction easement for the reconstruction of
Prentiss Street Bridge. And then the fifth is
5. Execution of an affordable housing agreement.
Hensch asked if the property adjacent immediately west of the property along Ralston Creek that
the Commission rezoned some months ago has the same conditions on that property regarding
Ralston Creek as being placed on this property. Russett confirmed they did carry that same
condition forward to this rezoning.
Hensch also noted because there's quite a severe elevation change from Dubuque Street and
Gilbert Street and then going down Prentiss Street and wondered what are those elevation
changes? If they are talking about a bonus height of how far down that the area already is just by
the topography? Russett is not aware of the elevation changes, but perhaps the applicant might
have some information on that.
Dyer asked if Staff found out about the affordable housing in Riverfront Crossings. Russett
replied she did look into that and has an update. Since the Riverfront Crossings form-based code
was adopted through various development projects, the City has required that 94 units be
affordable within the Riverfront Crossings District and so far 60 of those units have been built. In
terms of the fee in lieu paid, there were two projects that provided a fee in lieu and the total that
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 5, 2019
Page 5 of 15
City has in the pot for affordable housing is just over $808,000 and that money does need to be
spent within Riverfront Crossings.
Martin asked of the 60 units, how many are occupied? Russett will have to look into that.
Hensch asked if the number of built units includes the Delray development (the one right on the
railroad tracks on Dubuque, by the other Hodge properties). Russett said it does not. Hensch
noted the number of units will go up quite a bit.
Baker asked at what point in the process, and who's responsible for approving the final exterior
design? Russett stated it is addressed during the design review phase so the applicant after the
rezoning would submit a design review application to staff and they would review that. In this
case, since the applicant is requesting a bonus height, it has to go to the City Council for final
review and approval.
Baker also asked about the pedestrian walkways, and who's responsible for maintaining that
now and in the future? Russett noted it is a right-of-way so it's the city's responsibility. Hektoen
stated the adjacent property owners maintain the sidewalk, by state law, adjacent property
owners are responsible for maintaining the sidewalk. Baker stated he has a personal concern
when you look at sidewalks like this, that have no buffer between the street and the edge of the
sidewalk, there needs to be some sort of railing or something there and who's responsible f or
that? Russett stated that's the same concern that staff has so that's why they are requesting that
the applicant provide additional right-of-way in that area, because the City's hope is that
eventually the sidewalk will go behind the bridge abutment to provide a buffer between the
pedestrian and vehicle traffic instead of in front of the bridge abutment as it is currently. The City
would eventually be re-routing that sidewalk but it's not something that is funded at this point.
Baker noted there will be an increase in the population down there and it just seems like that the
City should at least install a temporary railing, some sort of buffer there to coincide with the
completion of the project, even though the City will change the location of the sidewalk
eventually. Baker noted the City has this problem over on Riverside as well and he doesn’t want
to see it cropping up more and more.
Hensch asked about the condition regarding the steam bank stabilization, including necessary
grading in addition of riprap, does the City specify the riprap because he would hate to see a
bunch of broken up concrete. Hektoen said Public Works will review the plans and approve the
materials.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Mike Welch (Axiom Consultants) is representing Capstone Collegiate Communities. Additionally,
Davis Maxwell is here with Capstone tonight. Welch started by saying they held a good neighbor
meeting, and with a much lower turnout, as you can imagine most of the properties within that
200 foot radius are rental properties. Most of the building owners and property owners are other
developers in the area, so they are aware of the project and don't have any concerns. With
regards to item A, the regulation plan change, he wanted to make a couple of points. First the
South Gilbert district extends up Gilbert, which makes sense until you look at these three
properties and you see that the property 625 Gilbert Street is bordered on the south by the tracks
and on the west by Ralston Creek and really does seem to fit in the intent of Central Crossings
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 5, 2019
Page 6 of 15
more with the residential. He also thinks the Clark building, that's the little to the east is also
residential. Therefore it seemed that moving that into Central Crossings District just seemed to
make sense as the railroad tracks are a natural buffer there. Additionally in the design and in the
concept plan at this point, they aren't planning to have any frontage access off South Gilbert.
There currently is a shared driveway and the property line splits the center of the driveway, that
will be maintained but not a primary access point for the proposed building. They are in favor of
the condition for the additional right-of-way to give the Cty the option in the future to reroute the
sidewalk.
Welch continued on with item B and stated two years ago on when Davis came and wanted to do
this project, it was a really exciting project for the neighborhood. It became apparent while
working through the Riverfront Crossings Code they would have to do height bonus. Since they
don't meet the student housing because they are not close enough to campus there's a bunch of
those bonuses that aren't available, so the one that that became available to them was public art,
which gets them one floor. The others were the LEED credits and this project is really tailored
for those. Welch didn’t get into too many details because that will happen at design review and
height bonus review. However he shared Capstone will do as part of their project energy
efficiency, sustainability, because they own the buildings for the long haul. They're not building it,
to sell it, they're building it to own it and so they have a vested interest in in that long-term
performance of the building and for their tenants. The other part that that is exciting is Ralston
Creek and we really see Ralston critique as an opportunity to create another amenity that helps
separate them from the other properties in the area. We are interested in working with staff and
the City to see how they can make Ralston Creek more accessible to the public. One item that
was on that site plan is a proposed connection from Gilbert Street around the south side of the
building and up to Ralston Creek. Not only is that a nice feature on the site, but if someone is
walking on Gilbert Street it gives them a way to kind of cut through and avoid going up and over
the hill on Prentiss Street there.
Regarding the comment about riprap, unfortunately, they are involved in the project on the west
side and that is the route that they intend to go again. In the statement of intent, there is a kind
of a rendering or a cross section in there that the landscape architect on the team helped them
put together. It is a pretty ambitious goal but it is the direction they want to go and really creating
a natural kind of inviting area if there's space. Right now they are working with some floodplain
buffers and some stormwater retention and mitigation measures in there.
Welch also pointed out it is important to understand is the massing of this building and how it fits
in that neighborhood. He does not have the exact elevation difference, but recalls from the
Prentiss Street Bridge to the intersection of Dubuque and Prentiss there is likely a 25 to 30 feet
elevation change there.
Hensch stated a slide of that information would be very effective because the massing concepts
are really good but to be able to illustrate that that difference of elevation, because that's like two
and a half floors would be helpful.
Welch noted in that statement of intent on page nine, there is a schematic section that cuts down
Prentiss Street there. There is 620 Dubuque, which is the highest building on the corner of
Dubuque and Prentiss and the elevation of the top at 736, that's the height of the eve on that
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 5, 2019
Page 7 of 15
building. 225 Prentiss, which is the one that's currently being built on the west side of Ralston will
be at 710. With the building they are proposing at the top of that eighth floor it would be around
742. So they are only six feet above the building on Dubuque Street even though they eight
floors instead the four they have from grade. The other image worth noting is the view from The
Rise from that corner at Court and Linn and you look at it and you don't see a building, you just
see trees. It's just kind of sticking out above the trees back there. Again, it's one of those that that
as you get further away, you really can't see the building.
Welch concluded by stating the conditions seem acceptable. The only one they may need to
work with the City on is the sewer easements, just depending on the building, it could be an
easement or a realignment might be necessary to make that work. Welch is comfortable they
can work that out with staff during the design process to address.
Hensch stated when he walked and drove through that area it looks like virtually anything you do
will decrease the amount of impervious surfaces in there. Is that your estimation? Welch replied
that yes, they are working with the Clarks to get that access easement off of the alley and in
doing so would get rid of that long curb cut in front of the City Electric building that's there now.
That would then be a more typical street, grass or vegetated parkway of some kind, and then
sidewalk. They haven't really looked at the landscaping on the north side of the proposed
building, but there'll be an opportunity there for enhancing the streetscape will be an
improvement for what's there today.
Hensch asked if they had developed a new preliminary estimation of which level of LEED they
will use, silver, gold, platinum? Welch stated any LEED certification no matter what level you go
to ends up being a pricey process. For a residential building, you don't really see a return on
investment from spending the money to get this certification however they will incorporate the
same principles of LEED and use the LEED prerequisites and checklist to guide the design and
incorporate those items. They we will not be pursuing a LEED certification.
Dyer noted the applicant is asking for a bonus based on LEED. Welch confirmed that is correct,
but to clarify the way the Code reads is you can still get the credit by doing the items and
verifying that the items are done without going through the LEED certification process through
the Green Building Council. Russett confirmed for the bonus height, it's called the LEED bonus
height, but certification is not required. And it also talks about environmental aspects that could
be made to the project and the applicant is also proposing those improvements along Ralston
Creek. So there is some flexibility in options that could be incorporated that relate to energy and
sustainability and the environment in that bonus height option.
Dyer asked then if the City will really test for LEED qualities, will they do blower door tests and
other things to verify that LEED standards have been met. Hektoen said with the Chauncey the
City had their architect provide us with a certification saying this meets all of these standards and
it was constructed in accordance with these plans. The City relied upon their experts. Dyer
believes if they are getting a bonus then the city should take some responsibility. Hekteon stated
that inspections are done, but the City doesn’t have the same kind of expertise on staff to do the
kind of work that the architects and the engineers.
Dyer asked why the project had to have a height bonus. Welch responded it was the economics
of the of the property to meet the parking requirements on site to get the density that justifies the
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 5, 2019
Page 8 of 15
land cost and the building cost. The other option would be to redevelop as a standalone building
with surface parking, that wouldn't be the best use for a property that's 1200 feet from campus
and close to downtown.
Dyer asked if they considered keeping the Gilbert Street designation for Riverfront Crossings so
that that part would be lower? Because the point on Gilbert Street is to have lower buildings?
Welch said they did look at that, but there is a step back on Gilbert Street and so your kind of
back behind that railroad abutment before you get to the full height of the building. Welch stated
as you as you look at that transition the railroad tracks on South Gilbert makes that area a
natural transition. The trees will screen and soften the height of the building there as well. Dyer
noted along Gilbert Street it will still be eight stories and an alternative would be to accept the
Gilbert Street District requirements for the part of the building that faces Gilbert Street.
Davis Maxwell (Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC) stated as a student housing
development company, they do business all over the country. This is one market that they are
very interested in to provide quality housing for the students who attend the University of Iowa,
but also anybody can live here as well. It's not solely for the students at the University of Iowa,
that's just target market.
Hensch asked if this was their first foray into the Iowa City Market? Maxwell replied it was.
Dyer asked what is their intent with regard to affordable housing? Will they have it in their
building? Maxwell stated they are currently marketing roughly 10% of the units to be affordable.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of ZCA19-03, an application submitted by Capstone
Collegiate Communities, LLC for an amendment to the Riverfront Crossings regulating
plan to include the property located at 625 S. Gilbert Street in the Central Crossing
Subdistrict.
Additionally, Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ19-07 an application submitted
by Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC for a rezoning of approximately 1.6 acres of
property located at 305 and 315 E. Prentiss Street and 625 S. Gilbert Street from
Community Commercial (CC-2) and Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Riverfront Crossings-
Central Crossings (RFC-CC) subject to the following conditions:
1. Dedication of right-a-way along South Gilbert Street.
2. Provision of an access easement to give the City access to a manhole for the trunk
sewer.
3. Provision of an access easement to give the City access to a sanitary sewer line.
4. Improvements of Ralston Creek, including the removal of invasive trees, addition
of riprap and tree planting, as well as a temporary construction easement for the
reconstruction of Prentiss Street Bridge. And then the fifth is
5. Execution of an affordable housing agreement.
Townsend seconded the motions.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 5, 2019
Page 9 of 15
Hensch acknowledged kudos to Axiom because of their very nicely structured and
comprehensive report that he believes made it very easy to understand things. It was very nice
to see those massing concepts, because that is always an issue. He is also very pleased to see
that we're turning Ralston Creek into being treated as more than just a drainage ditch, get it back
to be treated as a natural resource, which of course is an element of this whole area. He
acknowledged there's a lot of issues with height but given the change in elevation it is really
going to help mitigate the appearance of mass for this project. And then the higher elevation on
Gilbert Street right next to the railroad tracks looking up from the sidewalk on Gilbert Street,
looking up to those railroad tracks, it's pretty substantial up there, then that helped, again, would
create that illusion of mitigation for that height. So he thinks those are some just features in that
area that really soften the mass and scale of the building. Overall it's an improvement and
currently there are too many impervious surfaces in the area, so anything done will improve that.
Hensch is in favor and will support this application.
Signs agrees and doesn’t have any problem with the height in the scheme of things. He hears
Dyer’s concerned about Gilbert Street, but he drives that route every day and never look at that
space, he’s always looking at the curb going north.
Dyer noted that part is intended for pedestrians to not have the sense of a big mass right next to
them. One concern she has is blocking the light to the apartment building that's on the corner of
Prentiss and Gilbert Street and hope there's something other than a flat glass wall to look at.
Dyer also noted her continued frustration that they don't see any building designs and they don't
know what little what it will look like.
Hensch also appreciated that a good neighbor meeting was held. He wants to recognize people
who do that because he thinks that is the spirit of the commission and they hope for community
input.
Townsend stated she is very pleased to hear that they are going to have the affordable housing
piece in there and not pay the fee in lieu, she thinks that's very important for that area.
Dyer asked if it would be possible to amend that fifth condition to make it that the affordable
housing is on site and not make it an option?
Hensch asked isn't it by Code that they have the option of either the number of units or the fee in
lieu of because the fee in lieu of has to be spent and Riverfront Crossings? So the actual effect
will be the same over time? Hektoen confirmed that and also noted technically speaking, this is
a code requirement. We included in the list of conditions just so the applicant is reminded of that
obligation. It is not necessary to include it as a condition of the rezoning. The code allows for
these various options because a lot of times the applicants don't have their plans fully fleshed out
at this stage and that's that was the rationale between allowing these different options. Dyer
asked if for this project could it be limited to take out the option. One concern she has is this is
pretty close to campus and fees in lieu could be spent way down at the other end by Highway
Six, which is a lot different location, it's like half a mile farther away from campus.
Signs shares that concern in general however the developer indicated his intent was to have on
site affordable housing. Would you have any problem with us taking out the fee in lieu part of
that of that clause? Hektoen said it is difficult for the Commission to go down that path without
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 5, 2019
Page 10 of 15
further analysis of what actually distinguishes this from any other property in the Riverfront
Crossings. As you guys know the conditions imposed on rezoning are supposed to meet public
needs that are generated by this rezoning. The City has established the affordable housing
requirements for the entire Riverfront Crossings area and ordinances been passed that allow the
fee to be spent anywhere in the Riverfront Crossings area not just in each subdistrict so without
further analysis of the uniqueness of this situation, she cautions the Commission against
deviating from the existing structure.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CASE NO. SUB19-09:
Applicant: The Governor Group, LLC
Location: South of Southgate Avenue between S. Gilbert Street and the Crandic Railroad
An application submitted by the Governor Group, LLC for a preliminary plat and sensitive areas
development plan for South Gilbert Commercial Development subdivision, a 7.07 acre, 2-lot
commercial subdivision with one outlot located south of Southgate Avenue between S. Gilbert
Street and the Crandic Railroad.
Russet began the staff report showing a map of the location of the property. It is located on
South Gilbert Street just south of Southgate Avenue and then the CRANDIC is the eastern
boundary of the site. The area is all zone CI-1. In terms of the background on this application,
there's one existing building on the proposed lot one and the subdivision will allow new
commercial development on lot two. The applicant chose not to use the good neighbor policy for
this subdivision. In terms of the Comprehensive Plan, both the Comprehensive Plan in the South
District Plan identified this as appropriate for commercial development. Russett showed a map of
the plat. There are two proposed lots one and two, and then to the south there's outlot A which
will be used for stormwater management. There's also wetlands in that outlot. In terms of
transportation, the property is accessed via South Gilbert and Southgate Avenue. There's an
existing sidewalk along South Gilbert and the preliminary plat shows proposed sidewalks along
Southgate Avenue. There's also bus service to this site. The property is within the floodplain. The
entire property is located within the 500 year flood plain and most of the property is within the
100 year flood plain. The developer plans to fill this entire site to the 100 year flood plain
elevation and any development would need to comply with the city's floodplain management
ordinance. As mentioned there are wetlands on the site, there's a total of 0.08 acres of wetlands,
all at the southern part of the project site within outlet A. The sensitive areas ordinance does
require a 100 foot buffer from all wetlands but also provides an option for reducing that buffer
through buffer averaging. The applicant has proposed buffer averaging to decrease the buffer by
50 feet around one wetland located at the north eastern portion of the preliminary plat. The
applicant has proposed to remove around 2500 square feet of that buffer and add an additional
16,792 square feet of buffer around the larger wetlands to the southwest of the preliminary plat.
The buffer is being requested because the combined size of the wetlands is less than 1/10th of
an acre and the buffer averaging would increase the size of the buffer around the majority of
wetlands. Also, the wetlands are not buffered to the east because the CRANDIC railroad is on
the east side. Also the reduced buffer is on the opposite bank of the drainage ditch and outside
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 5, 2019
Page 11 of 15
of the grading limits. The applicant also proposed a storm water detention basin within the buffer
area and this is allowed as the sensitive areas ordinance does allow storm water detention
facilities in these buffer areas. Construction activity within outlot A shall be limited to construction
of the stormwater retention basin. There will also be a silt fence installed to provide erosion
control and avoid disturbance of the wetlands. There was also a potential for archaeological
resources on this site, a phase one study was completed and it concluded that no further
investigation was recommended. In the staff report that was submitted to the Commission the
stormwater management is originally listed as a deficiency but Public Works Department has
reviewed some changes made to the stormwater plans and they have approved the preliminary
stormwater management plan so that is no longer a deficiency.
The role of the Commission in the review of a preliminary plan is to review it to see if the plat
complies with our subdivision regulations and other applicable codes as well as the
Comprehensive Plan
Next steps, after a recommendation of approval from the Commission, the Council will review the
preliminary plan and sensitive areas development plan and then the applicant would be able to
submit a final plat application and final sensitive areas development plan.
Staff does recommend approval of SUB19-09 an application submitted by the Governor Group
LLC for a preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan for the South Gilbert commercial
development subdivision. A two lot 7.06 acre commercial subdivision located south of Southgate
Avenue between South Gilbert Street and Crandic railroad.
Signs asked if there was a building on the site. Russett said there is on lot one, she believes it is
under construction right now. Signs asked if that is that like getting the cart before the horse?
Russett said they were able to submit a site plan for the site, even without the subdivision, now
they want to sell off lot 2 so they needed to subdivided.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Mike Welch (Axiom Consultants) is representing the Governor Group. Regarding fill on this site,
almost the entire property has already been filled above the hundred year flood floodplain over
the last like 10 years or so there's just little bits along the perimeter that aren't quite up there
most mostly because of sidewalk raids. As part of this project, it will get sidewalk constructed
along the south side of Southgate Avenue, that section of sidewalk completed from South Gilbert
to the railroad tracks. And then any access from lot two onto South Gilbert would have to go
through Public Works comply with access onto an arterial street.
Hensch asked about the stormwater area and for clarification on the whole issue. Because they
pretty much filled up the whole area there doesn’t seem like there could be much left for the
wetlands? Welch stated the wetlands go down that east property line along the Crandic, they are
actually seep wetlands, which aren't as common, but they're actually up on the railroad
embankment, it's where there's waters like seeping out of the railroad embankment and
providing the hydrology for those wetlands. Hensch asked if it was coming through from the
other side, because that hill. Welch said they didn't really investigate that but would guess is
that's where the water is coming from. Typically seen on old railroad grades are those real
sluggish kind of drainage channels alongside of them and that's what's creating a lot of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 5, 2019
Page 12 of 15
additional wetlands. Back 10 plus years ago when the Kennedys first started filling this property
they did contact the Core and at that time the Core told them that there was no need to do that
they weren't going to take jurisdiction so Code didn't apply. And so they filled up to where they
filled up. This time and going through the process the Core said yes, there's a connection to the
river, so we are going to take jurisdiction, until then we had the wetland investigation done.
Hensch stated he presumed they had to do a phase one environmental survey for this. He
imagines there were some findings relative to the railroad, with all the creosote and various
chemicals thrown on that over the years. Welch confirmed that is correct. They did a phase one
environmental survey, but because the railroad is off their property they didn’t extend that far.
Dyer asked if the wetlands would be maintained or just be swamp. Welch said the basin or the
wetlands really will not be changed from what they are now, the grading will stop and those
wetlands will remain undisturbed.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Baker moved to recommend approval of SUB19-09, an application submitted by the
Governor Group, LLC for a preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan for
South Gilbert Commercial Development subdivision, a 7.07 acre, 2-lot commercial
subdivision with one outlot located south of Southgate Avenue between S. Gilbert Street
and the Crandic Railroad.
Dyer seconded the motion.
Hensch said he has been driving past this area since ’93 so wasn't too big fan of the way the fill
was thrown in there over the years but is glad to see the area getting developed and the
wetlands are going to be protected. Probably smaller than it should have been, but you know
things change over times.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 15, 2019
Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of August 15 2019.
Baker seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett didn’t have any updates.
Baker asked about the issue raised earlier in the first item on the agenda about the sidewalks
that are just right next to the roadway. What is the understanding of what his concern was and
where you're going with it now? Russett stated her understanding was that Baker would like the
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 5, 2019
Page 13 of 15
City to make the improvement as soon as possible, and if there can be a temporary or short-term
remedy to explore that. Baker stated his real concern is bigger. He would like for the City to
identify any other locations comparable in the City and work on some sort of remedy. He knows
of two or three places in town where the sidewalks are literally, if you miss a step, you're in front
of a car. There ought to be some way to protect pedestrians that it's not there now. That ought to
be on the City staff agenda somehow.
Signs asked if anyone knows an update on the South Riverside underpass tunnel, it was
supposed to happen last year. Russett does not know what caused the delay but she knows
they are working on it. Should be open next spring or summer. Hensch noted the estimated
price tag for the South Riverside one is a million dollars. Hektoen said acquiring property from
the railroad is never an easy task.
Signs noted they seem to be bumping into this affordable housing on site versus fee in lieu issue
quite often it's something that the Commission is concerned about. What, if anything can be
done? Can this commission forward a recommendation to Council to make a change or how
what kind of process would happen if we wanted to put our toes in the water? Hektoen said the
Commission has the authority to initiate rezoning and that's what it would be, an amendment to
the Code. Hensch thinks it is a very difficult issue because frankly, he thinks sometimes the fee
in lieu of is a more efficient way to address this, to leverage that money using Iowa Finance
Authority money to get way more affordable housing units. He thinks it's more complicated than it
just sounds. Signs agrees they would want to get more information. He feels it flies against the
intent of trying to scatter these units throughout the community, in this case the Riverfront
Crossings neighborhood, and you potentially get a building full of just these units and that's not
always a positive thing in the long run. The other problem he’s had with it since day one is the
fee in lieu amount does not build a unit. The amount is not enough to build a unit. The fee in lieu
is somewhere in the high $80,000 and the City has paid $200,000 for several units in town and
so he has a problem with the with that disconnect.
Hensch asked about Riverfront Crossings, noting when that consultant was here they spoke
about reducing the number of subdistricts, is that on some kind of a timeline or que? Russett said
in terms of next steps on that they want to discuss the consultants recommendations with the
Council. And then ultimately staff will be taking amendments forward for the Riverfront Crossings
form-based code.
Dyer asked if the amendments would address concerns raised regarding bonus height. Russett
noted the consultants concern is the way the Code is structured, like in Central Crossings, it
appears that the maximum height is four stories but if you dig down in the Code more than you
realize you can get a bonus height for eight and the consultant thinks that information should be
up front on the map that says the base height is four and with height bonuses as you can get up
to eight, it should be more transparent.
Adjournment:
Baker moved to adjourn.
Signs seconded.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 5, 2019
Page 14 of 15
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2018 - 2019
3/15
(W.S.)
4/2
4/5
(W.S)
4/16
4/19
5/3
5/17
6/7
6/21
7/5
8/16
9/6
9/20
10/18
12/20
1/3
BAKER, LARRY -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X O/E X X
DYER, CAROLYN O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E X O O/E O X X X
FREERKS, ANN X X X X X O/E X X X ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- --
HENSCH, MIKE O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E
PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X X X O/E ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- --
TOWNSEND, BILLIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X O/E X
1/17 (W.S.)
2/4
2/21 3/7 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/16 6/6 6/20 7/18 8/15 9/5
BAKER, LARRY X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X
DYER, CAROLYN O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X X X
FREERKS, ANN -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E X X X O/E X X X X O/E O/E X
PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E
SIGNS, MARK X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X
THEOBALD, JODIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member