Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 02.06.2020PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, February 6, 2020 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 Nos. CZ19-04 Applicant: Deborah Mulford on behalf of the Amy A Mulford Inter Vivos Trust Location: Fringe Area; West side of Highway 1 NE, across from 3188 Highway 1 NE An application submitted by Deborah Mulford for a rezoning of approximately 115 acres of County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R) in unincorporated Johnson County. 5. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: January 16, 2020 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: February 20 / March 5 / March 19 Informal: Scheduled as needed. Date: February 6, 2020 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Jade Pederson, Planning Intern Re: CZ19-04 – North of Iowa City along the west side of Highway 1 NE Background Information The applicant, Deborah Mulford on behalf of the Amy A Mulford Inter Vivos Trust , is requesting a rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) for 115 acres of land located in Johnson County, north of Iowa City along the west side of Highway 1-NE. This is located in Fringe Area A North Corridor – Outside of Iowa City’s current Growth Boundary. 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. Based on the site’s location and the nature of this request, the Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area Policy Agreement requires the submittal of a concept plan. The concept plan submitted by the applicant is for a residential subdivision and shows 51 residential lots and 6 outlots with two access points off Highway 1 and one future access identified at the north side of the property. Analysis Existing Land Use and Zoning The subject area is zoned County Agricultural (A) and currently is used for farming. There are no residences or other buildings on the land at present. Properties to the north and east across Highway 1 NE are zoned County Residential (R and R3) while properties to the south and west are zoned County Agricultural (A). Proposed Zoning & Surrounding Area The applicants are requesting a rezoning to County Residential (R) which allows single-family homes on lots at least 10,890 square feet in size. Compliance with the County’s Comprehensive Plan The Future Land Use Map of the County’s Comprehensive Plan desig nates this area Residential. According to the Johnson County Comprehensive Plan, the Residential land use category envisions primarily single family detached uses with a preferred density of 1 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 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 developm ent patterns appropriate to non-urbanized areas, protect and preserve the fringe area’s natural resources and environmentally sensitive features, direct development to areas January 31, 2020 Page 2 with physical characteristics which can accommodate development, and effectively a nd economically provide services for future growth and development. This property is located in Fringe Area A – North Corridor, but outside the City’s Growth Boundary. For this area, the agreement states that residential uses are preferred. Specifically, the agreement states: “Residential uses are the preferred use in this area. Any rezoning s in this area will be considered on the basis of conformity with the Johnson County Land Use Plan and other related policies. On a case-by-case basis, proposals to rezone land in this area to RS-3 (one dwelling unit per three acres of lot area) may be considered. RS zoning will be considered if the application to rezone includes a concept plan showing a minimum of 50% of the property designated as an outlot for open space or agriculture.” The proposed rezoning conforms with the Johnson County Land Use Plan. The concept plan submitted by the applicant shows designation of 50% of the property as open space. The open space areas identified on the concept are areas that are constrained by sensitive features, such as stream corridors, woodlands, and floodplains. Another goal of the fringe area agreement is to preserve the fringe area’s natural resources and its environmentally sensitive features, which this concept accomplishes. Summary Due to the location of the subject area and the nature of the request, the applicant was required to submit a concept plan. The stipulation of denoting at least 50% of the property as open space or agricultural on the concept plan is met according to the submitted concept plan; however, the concept may change at the time of subdivision . Planning staff circulated the proposed concept internally and received the following comments: 1. Any connections to Highway 1 will require approval from the Iowa Department of Transportation. 2. Future connections to the residential property to the west should be provided for. 3. There is a portion of the subject area, to the south, that falls within FEMA 100 and 500-year floodplains. The submitted concept plan designates all the affected area as an open space outlot. If the property owner chooses to move forward with a subdivision, staff will review the plat at that time pursuant to the applicable subdivision regulations. Finally, although this land is now outside of Iowa City’s Growth Boundary, as part of the update to the Fringe Area Agreement staff is recommending that this area be included in the City’s Growth Boundary to provide a transition from the planned commercial office and research park uses within the City limits to the south, and larger lot residential uses in Johnson County. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of CZ19-04, an application submitted by Deborah Mulford on behalf of the Amy A Mulford Inter Vivos Trust, requesting rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) for 115 acres of land located in unincorporated Johnson County, north of Iowa City along the west side of Highway 1 NE in Fringe Area A of the North Corridor. January 31, 2020 Page 3 Attachments: 1. Aerial Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Fringe Area Map 4. Rezoning Exhibit 5. Concept Plan Approved by: ________________________________________________ Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services HIGHWAY1 NENORTHG A T EDR M O S S R ID G E RDLILACTRL NELYNDENDR N E NEWPO R TRDNE DEVONDRNE LYNDENHEIGHTSR D N E K Y LE D R N E HIGHWAY1NEFOX LN NE SYCAMORETRLNENDODGESTCREEKSIDELNNE P I N E R I D G E T R L N E SUSSEXLNNEP ONDLNNE O A K R I D G E T RLNE WO O D L ANDDRNEB UCHMA Y E RB NDNERAPIDCREEK T R L NEWOODCR ESTLNNETREEFAR MLNNE JENNLN N E R U N NINGDEERW OODSNE320TH ST NE TOAD RD NE LYNDEN H EIGHTSRD NER A PID CREEK RD N E RUNNING DEERRDNE CZ19-04W of Hwy 1 NE and S of Jenn Ln SEµ 0 0.35 0.70.175 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: Dec 2019 An application submitted by the Amy A Mulford Inter Vivos Trust in the care of Deborah Mulford for the rezoning of 115 acres of property located to the west of Highway 1 NE and to the south of Jenn Ln SE from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R). Iowa City Boundary R3 R3 R R R R R R R R R CHAR AR AR A A A A A A A HIGHWAY1 NENORTHGATE D R M O S S R ID G E RDLILACTRL NELYNDENDRN E NEWPOR TRDNEDEVONDRNE LYNDENHEIGHTSR D N EHIGHWAY 1 NEFOX LN NE KYL E D R N EWONICKLN NE SYCAMORETRLNENDODGESTP R AIRIE DUCHIENRDNEC R E EKSIDE LN NE P I N E R I D G E T R L N E P ONDLNNE O A K R I D G E T RLNE WO O D L ANDDRNEB UCHMA Y E R B ND NE RAPIDCREE K T RLNEWOODCRE STLNNEJENNLN N E R U N NINGDEERW OODSNETOAD RD NE 320TH ST NE R AP ID CRE EK RD N E LYNDEN H EIGHTSRD NERUNNING DEERRDNE RR1 ID-RP ID-RPCH1 ID-RP RDP CO1 ID-RP CO1 ID-RP RDP ID-RP CO1ID-RP CZ19-04W of Hwy 1 NE and S of Jenn Ln SEµ 0 0.35 0.70.175 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: Dec 2019 An application submitted by the Amy A Mulford Inter Vivos Trust in the care of Deborah Mulford for the rezoning of 115 acres of property located to the west of Highway 1 NE and to the south of Jenn Ln SE from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R). Iowa City Boundary HIGHWAY1 NENORTHGATE D R M O S S R ID G ERDLILACTRL NELYNDENDR N E NEWPO R TRD N E DEVONDRNE LYNDENHEIGHTSR D N EHIGHWAY1NEFOX LN NE KYL E D R N EWONICKLN NE SYCAMORETRLNENDODGESTP R AIRIE DUCHIENRDNEC R E EKSIDE LN NE P I N E R I D G E T R L N E P ONDLNNE O A K R I D G E T RLNE WO O D L ANDDRNEB UCHMA Y E RB NDNE RAPIDCREEK T R L NEWOODCR ESTLNNETREEFAR MLNNE JENNLN N E R U N NINGDEERW OODSNETOAD RD NE 320TH ST NE R AP ID CRE EK RD N E LYNDEN H EIGHTSRD NERUNNING DEERRDNE Johnson County PD & S CZ19-04W of Hwy 1 NE and S of Jenn Ln SEµ 0 0.35 0.70.175 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: Dec 2019 An application submitted by the Amy A Mulford Inter Vivos Trust in the care of Deborah Mulford for the rezoning of 115 acres of property located to the west of Highway 1 NE and to the south of Jenn Ln SE from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R). MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 2020 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sarah Hekteon, Tim Hennes, Anne Russett, Danielle Stutzman OTHERS PRESENT: Adam Kos, Jon Marner, Phil O’Brien, Rob Decker, Nathan Griffith, Bill Gearhart RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 0-6 (Hensch recused) the Commission recommends denial of CZ19-06 an application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a rezoning of approximately 32.87 acres from County Agricultural (A) to County Commercial (C) and 0.09 acres from County Residential (R) to County Commercial (C) in unincorporated Johnson County. By a vote of 4-2 (Baker and Martin dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of SUB19- 16, an application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a preliminary plat of the 218 Commercial Park subdivision, a 5-lot commercial subdivision with eight outlots in unincorporated Johnson County. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of ZCA19-06 an application submitted by Phil O'Brien requesting an amendment to the zoning code to allow animal related commercial uses in the Commercial Highway (CH-1) zone to allow for the development of a community based indoor dog park and recreation center at 2513 North Dodge Street. By a vote of 5-2 (Dyer and Townsend dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of DRC19-04, an application submitted by Rob Decker requesting a Level II design review which includes a 7-story height bonus request for two 15-story buildings located at 12 East Court Street including the following staff recommendations: 1. Re-design of the Capitol Street right-of-way, for review and approval by staff, to ensure consistency with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and other recent City street reconstructions, like Washington Street in downtown. 2. An additional administrative review of the management plan that includes details regarding staffing, cameras, accessing video, etc. prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Additional detail and justification on the academic amenity space. 4. Secure fencing around bicycle parking must be non-opaque (e.g. chain-link). 5. If the building plans deviate substantively from the approved design review plans, these changes must be reviewed and approved by the City Council. An example of a substantive change is a change to exterior building materials. CALL TO ORDER: Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 2 of 29 Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. CZ19-05 AND SUB19-16: Applicant: CJ Moyna & Sons Location: Fringe Area; West of Oak Crest Hill Rd SE, east of Highway 218 SE and south of F50 SE a. An application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a rezoning of approximately 32.19 acres of County Residential (R) to County Highway Commercial (CH) and approximately 32.87 acres from County Agriculture (A) to County Commercial (C) in unincorporated Johnson County. b. An application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a preliminary plat of the 218 Commercial Park subdivision, an 11-lot commercial subdivision with five outlots in unincorporated Johnson County. Hensch noted since he is an employee of Johnson County he is recusing himself from this item and Vice Chair Parsons will oversee this agenda item. Heitner presented the staff report noting they received a revised rezoning and preliminary plat application from the applicants earlier this week. Heitner gave a brief overview of the changes from those revisions. With regards to the rezoning item, the main item he wanted to point out is parcel number three in the originally proposed rezoning was going to go from County Residential (R) to County Highway Commercial (CH) but the applicant has rescinded that request, so under the revised proposal it will remain County Residential (R). The major changes to the preliminary plat are in the original proposal there were 11 lots for immediate development. The revised proposal only includes five. The original proposed preliminary plat had one outlot for future development. The revised proposal is four. In terms of new streets that would be built with the subdivision there were originally three new streets proposed, the revised proposal just has one long street, an extension of Isaac Walden Road SE. Heitner showed an aerial view of the originally proposed subject area and then a view of the revised subject area and pointed out the large area north of Isaac Walton Road, or where Isaac Walton Road is to be extended is not included in the revised area. Next he showed a view of the revised subject area with the context of the current County zoning. The revised area is predominantly in County Agricultural zoning, with County Residential zoning to the north and that will remain in place. In the context of the City fringe area this is Area C which is fringe area outside the growth area. To the north, just a little bit north of Riverside Drive, there is a part of Area C that's inside of the City's growth area. Heitner next showed the revised rezoning exhibit and the revised plat. He noted the five lots for immediate development, numbered one through five are on the south side of the Isaac Walton Road extension. Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 3 of 29 Regarding the general background information on this case, the applicant applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the County in June 2019 to amend the County's future land use area for the subject area from agricultural to commercial. At the time, City staff provided comment on this potential plan amendment and expressed several concerns. Those concerns were detailed in an attachment that was in the Commission packet. Despite the City's concerns about the future land use map amendments the County Board of Supervisors still voted to amend the land use map from agricultural to commercial. With regards to background information on the rezoning, there are actually two parcels this applies to, parcel 1 is 32.87 acres going from County Agricultural to County Commercial, the second parcel is a small triangular parcel 0.09 acres from County Residential to County Commercial. With respect to the City's Comprehensive Plan on this rezoning, the fringe area dictates for Fringe Area C “that in the portions of Area C that are not within Iowa City's growth area and which are zoned for non-farm, development may occur in conformance with the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance and City Rural Design Standards 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 has designated for a rural agricultural area in Chapter 816 Class A District of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance as amended.” Heitner next gave an overview of City staff’s concerns with the rezoning. A County Commercial zoning designation in this area would open up the area for a large amount of by-right retail and service-oriented uses and this would generally conflict with the current nature of the Fringe Area Agreement which has intent to preserve the area as rural and agricultural. Lastly, the Fringe Area Agreement typically guides commercial development into the City so that areas with existing access to utilities and infrastructure are not passed over for gap or leapfrog development. Moving on to the preliminary plat Heitner reiterated the revised plat would have five lots for commercial development with four outlets for future development, two outlots for open space and one outlot that will be for future street infrastructure. As far as subdivision design, with the revised plat the only street that would be platted would be the extension of Isaac Walton Road to the west. Stormwater detention would be provided in Outlot B, in the southeast corner of the development. In terms of traffic implications, the proposed street infrastructure in the subdivision meets the City's Rural Design Standards. Transportation planning staff did note that overhead lights might be appropriate along Oak Crest Hill Road should the subdivision continue to develop. With respect to environmental sensitive areas the subdivision must meet County regulations pertaining to sensitive areas development. Outlots C and E at the far southern end of the subdivision are intended to be preservation outlets per the County's direction to preserve an existing stream corridor. W ith respect to water and sewer, a water system with a distribution line running off the north side of the proposed Isaac Walden Road extension will provide water to the five proposed lots for development. Individual septic systems are required to meet the Johnson County Board of Health rules and regulations and will be necessary on each developable lot. In summary, the applicant has submitted a revised rezoning request and preliminary plat, reducing the rezoning acreage from 65.15 acres to 32.96 acres. All of which would be rezone to County Commercial. The plat would reduce the number of lots from 11 to 5 for immediate development, with future development potentially taking place on 4 outlets. Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 4 of 29 The role of the Commission tonight would be to provide a recommendation to the City Council on the rezoning based on the Fringe Area Agreement. Ultimately with respect to the rezoning and the plat, the Johnson County Board of Supervisors will make the ultimate decision. As far as next steps, after the Commission provides a recommendation Council, Council will review and provide a recommendation to the Johnson County Planning Commission. Heitner stated there is a two-part staff recommendation as it pertains to the rezoning. Due to conflict with the existing Fringe Area Agreement staff is recommending denial of CZ19-05 an application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a rezoning of approximately 32.87 acres from County Agricultural (A) to County Commercial (C) and 0.09 acres from County Residential (R) to County Commercial (C) in unincorporated Johnson County. Staff did hold a meeting with Johnson County staff back in September 2019. City staff’s position on the land use in this area has not changed since that meeting and therefore does not believe that a future conflict resolution meeting with the County is necessary. W ith respect to the preliminary plat because the preliminary plat meets the City's Rural Design Standards staff is recommending approval of SUB19-16, an application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a preliminary plat of the 218 Commercial Park subdivision, a 5-lot commercial subdivision in unincorporated Johnson County. Baker asked for clarification on staff’s recommendation that the Commission deny the rezoning request but approve the plat which is based upon a zoning which they are opposing. Heitner confirmed that was correct as in denying the rezoning request and approving the plat, the plat is just based on following the City's Rural Design Standards from the Fringe Area. Baker asked if the zoning that's in place now would not allow that development to occur. Heitner confirmed it is currently agricultural and would not allow the development. Russett noted staff is not recommending approval of the plat unless the County Board of Supervisors approves the rezoning, assuming they approve the rezoning staff would recommend approval of the plat. Signs asked if what was originally Outlot A on the northern half of this property is remaining County Residential is that what the new proposal states. Heitner confirmed that is correct. Signs noted he is confused by the drop from 11 lots to 5 lots and having all these outlots and wondered what if any advantage that change had in any decision making processes City staff or County staff might have. Heitner stated there wasn't a great deal of decision making that City staff made based on that change, their recommendation was going to be the same, regardless. It was their understanding that the Applicant in some discussions with County planning staff were encouraged to make that reduction in scale. Parsons opened the public hearing. Adam Kos (CJ Moyna & Sons) is representing the applicant along with Jon Marner from MMS Consultants who worked on the design for them. Kos gave a little background information on their company and maybe why they acquired the piece of property, they’ve had the property for a few years now, maybe four or five years. Initially they purchased the property with some ideas and the longer they had it and spoke with the City and started thinking about what can happen Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 5 of 29 down in that location, the number one objective was to find a home for themselves. CJ Moyna & Sons is a grading contractor located in Elkader, Iowa, and they do a lot of big, heavy highway civil type work such as all the grading at the I-80/380 interchange. They have also done large grading jobs at the Park Place development in Tiffin, also in North Liberty and in Iowa City. They do a lot of work all across the state of Iowa. One of the things for them moving forward is that the work demographic is changing a little bit, a lot of the workforce that they have right now with a tremendous amount of experience and talent are getting a little bit older and with their vision and thought process moving forward to get into some urban areas like Iowa city it's a great place to put little satellite office, a place to stage and work on some equipment and then get into the community and look for some good employees. Currently they have about 250 -275 employees depending on the season, and with the type of work that they do there's an opportunity to make some pretty good wages. Kos noted he lives in Kalona, just south of Iowa City, his family's from here so that also played a role in wanting to be in Iowa City as well. On the east side of Oak Crest Hill Road there's also 80 acres that they are looking at, doing some preliminary studies and reviewing finances involved in creating a wetland on that side of the road as well. Kos stated part of the resubmittal that came in yesterday came from some conversations with both City staff and County staff, they heard some concerns, heard some excitement, and therefore ultimately trying to find the right path moving forward to make this work. They acknowledge that it's a fun and unique interchange and offers a lot for the City of Iowa City in the future. That being said they would like to get moving forward, especially with a building for themselves and maybe a few others. A blue-collar office park is what they are envisioning there for the 5 to 11 lots. Parsons stated that it seems for a commercial aspect it makes more sense to develop Outlot A before going south of Isaac Walton Road because at Outlot A they are closer to the action such as the interchange and South Riverside Drive. Parsons is curious on their thought process on why they decided to eliminate Outlot A from initial development. Kos replied not know what the short-term or long-term vision is for that interchange. That particular interchange probably holds a lot of value as a recreational potential in the future, there's a lot of public land there currently. Therefore, for them and what they want to do they see the least desirable land or the area that is probably least attractive is a little bit farther south. They would like to be tucked in by the tree line, low visibility, pretty setting, nice place to work, etc. They acknowledge that that northern piece is probably better suited for something else then what they are needing. Parsons asked if they are envisioning office space as opposed to retail or mix of both. Kos confirmed they were envisioning office space and not retail. Martin asked in the conversations with the County, because of what the agreement says, is this the route that the County said was needed to go first. Why wouldn't the County have had a conversation about rewriting that verbiage first. Russett replied they are currently working together on an update to the Fringe Area Agreement. Kos added the conversations have been very encouraging and the county is very excited to have a company like theirs come to the area. Bringing their business and footprint to Johnson County is exciting and the job potentials that they can bring to the table is exciting as well. Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) added that part of the reason the northern parcel was pulled out from the zoning and is listed as a future development is the recognition by CJ Moyna there are Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 6 of 29 conversations that need to be had between the County and City staff regarding the Fringe Area Agreement. By shifting the focus of the development to those four to five lots along the Isaac Walton Road extension allows CJ Moyna to come in, go ahead and get that development process started while those other issues can get worked out. It allows that area to start to develop and a little bit of progress to begin to move forward and hopefully that stimulates some conversation about what truly wants to be there. Dyer asked if they knew who the other occupants in the development will be. Kos replied they feel like it would be folks will be similar to them, what they are seeing right now in Tiffin is a small industrial park that's coming online that has some electricians there and other businesses similar. Kos noted that particular area and the proximity to the interstate is appealing. For them they have big equipment and trucks so for them to come rolling down through Highway 6 or through town and hit all the stoplights is probably not a good idea. The proximity to the interstate is a better location for them. They would continue to have their main facility up in Elkader but would like to have a location here where they could bring equipment in a heated shop to service. Parsons closed the public hearing. Parsons noted with staff making two separate recommendations he feels it makes sense to have two separate votes. Signs moved to recommend approval of CZ19-05 an application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a rezoning of approximately 32.19 acres of County Residential (R) to County Highway Commercial (CH) and approximately 32.87 acres from County Agricultural (A) to County Highway Commercial (CH) and 0.09 acres from County Residential (R) to County Commercial (CH) in unincorporated Johnson County. Martin seconded the motion. Parson stated with its position close to Highway 218 and South Riverside Drive he does see a path that there could be some commercial development in this area down the road, especially with its proximity to the fairgrounds, Colonial Lanes and other industrial activity. However, he thinks staff makes a compelling argument that based on what the Fringe Area Agreement says right now this wouldn't comply and so he would have to submit his vote for denial. Baker stated there's a cliché here about putting the cart before the horse that we are going to let the applicant proceed to do everything they could and then we'll work out the rules and regulations later. Martin agrees that's the way she understands it as well. Baker stated he has not heard a compelling case argument that the staff’s concerns don't have more merit here in this case right now so he will be voting against this rezoning as well. Signs stated that based on the current Fringe Area Agreement staff’s assessment is correct. Ultimately, however we vote it still is going to County and ultimately is their decision. His biggest concern is that we have a lot of vacant commercial industrial lots around the community and he personally doesn’t see a need for more. Additionally because of this would be kind of bending the rules a little bit he doesn’t find terribly compelling A vote was taken and the motion failed 0-6. Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 7 of 29 Parsons next moved to item B. Signs moved approval of SUB19-16, an application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a preliminary plat of the 218 Commercial Park subdivision, an 11-lot commercial subdivision with four outlots in unincorporated Johnson County. Dyer seconded the motion. Signs acknowledged it was odd to deny the rezoning but approve the plan but understand staff’s approach on both of them. Also the County may approve the rezoning even with the recommended denial. Baker disagreed and said until the County approves the rezoning the plat is a moot point so why approve the plat before the County approves the zoning. Signs noted if the Commission doesn’t approve either one then it's just totally dead. By denying the rezoning they are basically putting the decision in the County's lap and by approving the plat they are acknowledging if the County approves the rezoning then the plat does meet the Rural Area Development standards. Baker asked why it is necessary to approve the plat before the County does. Russett noted this is because the applications were submitted together as a rezoning and a preliminary plat so they are reviewed together. Baker asked if the Commission were to vote down the plat the applicant could come back in with a resubmission once the rezoning is in place. Russett said she was not sure. Some ordinances have clauses that do not allow for immediate resubmittals after an action has been taken and she is not familiar with the County’s ordinance. Signs stated based on the logic of the staff’s arguments about why the plat should be approved he would agree and will vote for it. A vote was taken and the motion passes 4-2 (Baker and Martin dissenting). Hensch rejoined the meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 8 of 29 CASE NO. CZA19-06: Applicant: Phil O’Brien An application submitted by Phil O’Brien requesting an amendment to the zoning code to allow animal related commercial uses in the Commercial Highway (CH-1) zone to allow for the development of a community-based indoor dog park and recreation center at 2513 N. Dodge Street. Heitner began the staff report with an aerial view of 2513 North Dodge Street, noting its very highway adjacent just north of the I-80/Dodge Street interchange. The next map showed the current zoning surrounding 2513 North Dodge Street. There is CH-1 zoning in the area however CH-1 zoning does not allow for animal related commercial establishments. The majority of zoning in the area is research park or office oriented. Heitner stated in some discussions with the applicant the proposed use would be a community based indoor dog park and recreation center, totaling around 22,000 square feet. The center would be primarily indoors with some contained outdoor space and walking trails. The applicant expressed he believes that the center will have a regional draw. W ith respect to the City’s current regulations on animal related commercial uses, they are defined as related to the temporary care, medical treatment or cremation of domestic animals. Then the code breaks that into two subgroups, the first of which is general subgroup and examples provided within the code include veterinary clinics, animal grooming establishments and pet crematoriums. The second subgroup is the intensive subgroup and examples include kennels and stables. Heitner pointed out general animal related commercial is allowed provisionally in CN-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) but not in CH-1 (Highway Commercial), which maybe is a little bit of an oddity given that CN-1 is a less intense zone than CH-1 and operates in a more neighborhood context. In terms of the proposed code amendments that staff is recommending, the first would be to allow general animal related commercial uses as a provisional use in Highway Commercial (CH- 1) zones. Second, allowing animal daycare and indoor animal recreation uses as allowable provisional general animal related commercial uses, which would be allowed provisionally in CN- 1, CH-1, CI-1, CC-2, CB-2, and CB-5 zones. And finally amending the definition of animal related commercial uses to include animal daycare and indoor animal recreation uses. Heitner stated Staff is also proposing to amend the code to allow private outdoor animal recreation uses via special exception in CH-1 zones. This amendment is not intended to regulate or otherwise constrain the keeping of household pets, or the development of public recreation facilities such as public dog parks. The special exception process would require all outdoor animal recreation uses to obtain approval from the City’s Board of Adjustment. Staff is proposing the following additional approval criteria to obtain a special exception for outdoor animal recreation uses. 1. Outdoor animal recreation areas must be located at least 400’ from any residential zone. 2. No outdoor animal recreation uses are allowed overnight. 3. All outdoor animal recreation areas must be fully enclosed by a fence that is of sufficient height to prevent animals from escaping. 4. Animals shall not be permitted in an outdoor animal recreation area unless a handler is present. 5. Where outdoor animal recreation facilities are accessed by the public, a double-entry Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 9 of 29 gate is required. 6. All outdoor animal recreation areas must be kept in a clean, dry, and sanitary condition. 7. All outdoor animal recreation areas shall be located in an interior side or rear yard and screen from any right-of-way or adjacent residential zone by at least the S2 screening standard In terms of proposed definitions staff is recommending three: 1. Animal daycare, which would be a non-residential facility offering care for domestic animals during daytime hours, not during overnight hours. 2. Indoor animal recreation, indoor facility used for the exercise, recreation or training of domestic animals. 3. Private outdoor animal recreation and outdoor facility used for the exercise recreation or training of domestic animals. Heitner noted because this is an application for text amendment staff looks at consistency with Comprehensive Plan as well as compatibility with the existing neighborhood. In context of the Comprehensive Plan it does call for office and general commercial uses on CH-1 parcels which staff sees as potentially fitting with this proposed development. 2513 North Dodge Street is not specifically addressed in the Northeast District Plan, that Plan area terminates just south of it. As far as compatibility with the existing neighborhood character, CH-1 parcels are predominantly surrounded by office and research park uses and they tend to have larger scale buildings with deeper setbacks. Heitner noted it's possible that a hybrid animal recreation use and office use might be a nice complement to either the planned or existing office uses in the immediate area. In terms of more broadly speaking rationale for the text amendments, staff feels that the amendments would allow regionally focused animal related commercial uses to take advantage of highway adjacency that's provided by CH-1 zones. The provisional criteria would require soundproofing for all general animal related commercial indoor uses and private outdoor animal recreation uses would be allowed as an accessory use only by a special exception in CH-1 zones. Heitner noted that most the current CH-1 zones in the City are clustered around the Dodge Street/I-80 interchange. The surrounding uses are predominantly either research park, interim development-research park, or commercial office zones. He pointed out there's a pretty good degree of buffering between where this use could be allowed and any adjacent residential. In looking at this text amendment staff wanted to look at a few peers zoning ordinances, Heitner showed a general snapshot of three zoning ordinances pertaining to animal services in Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and Davenport. Des Moines and Cedar Rapids did have some kind of separation requirement, Des Moines being about 200 feet to residential zones and Cedar Rapids being 100 feet. The 400-foot recommendation that staff is proposing is understandably larger than those requirements. Des Moines and Cedar Rapids also allow animal services to take place in a bit more suburban and urban oriented context. In Des Moines for example, animal services can be even in mixed use in downtown. Most ordinances staff looked at had either a fencing requirement or screening requirement, almost all of them had a requirement pertaining to over nights and outdoor uses not being permitted. The role of the Planning and Zoning commission is to recommend approval or denial to the City Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 10 of 29 Council within 45 calendar days of the date the City receives the rezoning text amendment application or the rezoning shall be considered recommended for approval. With respect to next steps, pending recommendation of approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the proposed text amendments. Staff is recommending amending the City Code to allow the following: 1. Allow general animal related commercial uses as a provisional use in Highway Commercial (CH-1) zones. 2. the creation of animal daycare and indoor animal recreation uses as general animal related commercial uses as provisional uses in CN-1, CH-1, CI-1, CC-2, CB-2, and CB-5 zones. 3. Allowing private outdoor animal recreation as an accessory use to be obtained by a special exception in Highway Commercial (CH-1) zones. Hensch noted on the 400-foot requirement for separation from residential area seems way more than the other peer groups and it seems overly prescriptive to him. Heitner agreed and noted staff discussed that but it was a carryover from a provisional requirement from the intensive animal related commercial use and seemed like a good starting point and a good distance to include for this new outdoor animal recreation accessory use being created. Hensch also asked if all proposed outdoor animal recreation areas have to go before the Board of Adjustment. Heitner confirmed that was correct. Hensch noted it seems like there's a lot of prescriptive things are prohibited when it's going to go to the Board of Adjustment anyway and they could set all kinds of different requirements. Hensch noted it makes it seem like this could only happen in this one place and he would like to see these kinds of things be more common and around everywhere. He noted Colorado Springs, Colorado, was very pet friendly town and that's very attractive to people and he’d like to see Iowa City go in that direction. He doesn’t want to stand in the way of anything today but would certainly like to see Iowa City be moving towards more leniency and more pet friendly. Baker asked if Hensch is recommending reducing the 400-foot requirement. Hensch noted it seems kind of random but it doesn't look like it hurts this application at all, it just may be for future things. Baker said he would certainly support any sort of reduction if others wanted to do that. Baker had a question about the three definitions, animal daycare, indoor animal recreation, private and so forth. The animal daycare definition notes overnight kenneling is not allowed but the others don't say that so are they allowed to provide overnight accommodations. Heitner stated that overnight will not be allowed as a component of the outdoor animal recreation at all. Baker stated if they had the capacity for it, even though it's called an outdoor recreation facility, but they have a building so there could be room for indoor kennels for people who want to keep their pets overnight there this would seem to even prohibit that. Russett stated the zoning code regulates kennels differently and kennels are considered an intensive animal related commercial use, which are only allowed in the CI-1 zone. Martin asked about Bright-Eyed & Bushy-Tails that is out there and what are they zoned. Russett said it is zoned CO-1, it does have a kennel as it's a vet clinic and the code allows kennels as an accessory use to a vet clinic. Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 11 of 29 Baker asked for a clarification about the third standard on fencing height. Who determines the height? Heitner said probably the building inspection services staff. That was a recommendation again they saw in a peer community. They could just state a height, such as Davenport states the fence must be six feet in height. Baker asked if that would be settled at the Board of Adjustment? Heitner said it could be. Baker noted if six feet is sufficient for the City dog parks, then why not have that be sufficient for this amendment. Baker also noted there's no specification here about type of fence, chain link fence versus a wooden fence or a fence that can be seen through, is there any requirement in terms of the opaqueness of the fence. Heitner replied there's no requirement. Baker stated lastly regarding fence height, the whole thing is to prevent animals from escaping and he’s had some experience with dogs ignoring the height of a fence and figuring out a way to go under that fence. Dyer stated that is why there is a requirement of having to be with a handler. Signs asked what the standard for residential heights limitations on fences is. Hekteon thinks it is six feet. Signs notes some possible rewording of bullet point number three and referencing a six -foot minimum fence height, which means it could be considerably greater than that. Townsend asked if there was any input or notification of the current tenants around that area of this going in the area. Russett stated since it's not a map amendment, there's no noticing requirement. Hensch opened the public hearing. Phil O’Brien (416 2nd Avenue) came forward to answer questions. Baker asked how tall would the fence at the facility be. O’Brien said that is o be determined but they will make sure all the dogs stay in it. Hensch asked if any of the recommendations staff has the report cause any question or pause, or can they be worked with? O’Brien stated it is definitely stuff he can work with. Dyer asked if O’Brien was familiar with a facility like this elsewhere? O’Brien noted they’ve done some research and looked at different facilities around the country. They range everything from a warehouse space with the garage door to elaborate 50,000 square foot facilities. Signs noted his interpretation is it's basically an office building with a lot of indoor dog amenities. O’Brien stated it will be a metal frame building, part of it was modeled after the University of Iowa rec center, so there is an elevated track and an open area below. There will also be meeting areas and a retail restaurants and co-labs. Hensch closed the public hearing. Parsons moved the Commission approve ZCA19-06 an application submitted by Phil O'Brien requesting an amendment to the zoning code to allow animal related commercial uses in the Commercial Highway (CH-1) zone to allow for the development of a Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 12 of 29 community based indoor dog park and recreation center at 2513 North Dodge Street. Signs seconded the motion. Hensch stated he thinks it's overly prescriptive, but he really wants this to pass, so maybe that is a conversation for a future date to address the 400-foot separation from residential. He will not argue about that today as he likes this and hopes it's wildly successful and will support it. Signs noted he is excited to see potentially see something going in on that piece of property, it will really help that corner and it's a difficult spot. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. CASE NO. DRC19-04: Applicant: Rob Decker, Axiom Consultants Location: 12 E. Court Street An application submitted by Rob Decker requesting a Level II design review, which includes a 7- story bonus height request, for two, 15-story buildings located at 12 E. Court Street. Russett began the staff report showing an aerial map showing the location of the project site Just south of Burlington, in between Clinton Street to the east and Madison Street to the west. As an overview of this application, again it is a Level II height bonus request, which requires review by the staff Form-Based Code Committee and Planning and Zoning Commission in this case, which is not typical, these typically go from the Form-Based Code Committee straight to City Council, but in this instance, it must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Form-Based Code Committee includes Russett, Danielle Stitzman, development services coordinator and Tim Hennes, senior building inspector, and they have reviewed this plan and are also here tonight to answer questions. They determined that the project meets the standards of the zoning code. The height bonus request is a discretionary process and there's specific criteria that must be met and can help and guide decision making. Although the project meets the letter of the Code staff does have some concerns with the project, one being the proposed skywalk, the second being fully screened balconies, and the third is the design of the Capitol Street right- of-way which Russett will elaborate on later in the presentation. Some history on the project, this property was rezoned to Riverfront Crossings South Downtown in September 2018. There were several conditions associated with this rezoning and Russett wants to highlight a couple of them. First is the dedication of the Capitol Street right-of-way and second is that if a Level II Design Review was required for a bonus height request that it must come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation to City Council. An overview of the bonus height request, the applicant has requested seven stories of bonus height for two 15 story mixed-use buildings. The bonus maximum height in this zone is 15 stories subject to a discretionary review. The applicant has requested bonus height through three different means, the first is the transfer of public right-of-way, the second is the historic preservation height transfer, and the third is for student housing. Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 13 of 29 Russett showed the site plan. Capitol Street runs between the two buildings, there is a west building and east building. She began with an overview of the west building. It is proposed to have 492 dwelling units. There are three levels of underground parking. The non-residential uses would be along Capitol Street, Court Street and Burlington Street. Russett showed an image of the proposed elevation from Capitol Street looking west, and a couple of renderings that show some of the courtyard spaces. Next, she showed a map of the first level floor plan. The blue areas are residential uses, the green areas are amenity spaces and recreational spaces, the orange areas are office and then the yellow is retail. There are some residential uses that front the courtyard on the first level, the amenity space is the study areas along Capitol Street and then there's some recreational and amenities along Burlington Street. There is retail proposed at the northeast corner of Capitol Street and Burlington and also at the southern end along Court Street and Capitol Street. The proposed office space is on the Court Street side. The academic spaces are to include study rooms and computer labs with Wi Fi and the recreational amenities include a half basketball court, track, jacuzzi area and an outdoor pool deck. In the image that shows the proposed open space the blue areas are the publicly accessible open space and the green areas are privately accessible open space. For the west building around 9,500 square feet of open space is required and the plans show just over 15,000 square feet. Moving on to the east building, it has 426 dwelling units proposed, three levels of underground parking. Again, the non-residential uses are along Capitol Street, Court Street and Burlington Street. Russett showed the first level floor plan for the east building. Again, the orange area is offices, the green areas are study spaces and amenity spaces, and then there's a small portion of retail at the corner of Capitol and Court Streets. There are no recreational uses proposed in the east building, there is a restaurant that's proposed on the 15th floor. The required open spaces for the east building 8,200 square feet and the plans show around 10,300 square feet of open space. In terms of proposed material, the applicant has proposed to use metal panels, terracotta spandrel and regular glass, metal screens and concrete. Russett brought down the sample board the applicant provided for the Commission to take a look at. Russett also noted that along the first floor of Capitol Street, the applicant has proposed an artistic component in the form of a graphic panel behind metal screens near building entrances. She showed a rendering illustrating the metal screen with plantings growing up them and then the lighted graphic panels in the back. The applicant also proposed a skywalk which connects the two buildings at the fourth floor. The proposed Capitol Street right-of-way shows 12 ½ foot unobstructed walkways, 12 ½ foot travel lanes and angled parking. Next Russett explained the criteria for each height bonus request. First, the public right-of-way transfer. The criterion related to the public right-of-way transfer is that the land proposed for dedication, which could be called the sending site, is needed in order to construct or improve rights-of-way necessary to realize the vision of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. The applicant has agreed to dedicate the public right-of-way to extend Capitol Street, that was a condition of the rezoning and this extension is envisioned in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. The applicant has requested to transfer 304,000 square feet of right-of-way to the buildings. Staff does have concerns with the design of the Capitol Street right-of-way. First, staff Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 14 of 29 recommends that the angled parking be changed to parallel parking. Although there are no bicycle facilities proposed along Capitol Street it will be used by cyclists and angled parking is not the best type of parking to have with cyclists. In addition, the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan shows parallel parking in this location. Additionally, the travel lanes proposed are 12 ½ feet wide, which are wider than would be supported by the City and do not align with current City designs like the recent reconstruction of Washington Street. The sidewalks on Washington Street are also wider than the proposed 12 ½ feet along Capitol and staff anticipate this to be highly traveled corridor especially by pedestrians. In terms of the proposed skywalk, staff concerns are that the skywalk could block the views of the Old Capitol and could potentially divert street level activity. Next is the historic preservation transfer. The criterion related to this transfer request is that the site from which the height transfers requested, the sending site, is designated as an Iowa City landmark. The Tate Arms is designated as an Iowa City historic landmark, this was designated several years ago by the applicant. The applicant previously transferred a portion of the development potential of the Tate Arms to an adjacent property and agreed to a rehabilitation plan as part of that. The current request is to transfer the remaining potential of the Tate Arms building, which is 27,400 square feet to 12 East Court. Next is the student housing bonus height request. There are two sets of criteria for this request, first is the locational criteria. The project must be located within the University, South Downtown or West Riverfront Subdistrict and be located within 1,000 feet walking distance from the University of Iowa campus. Russet confirmed the proposed project meets both of those criteria. The next set of criteria are related to management design and amenities. This includes an enforcement plan for professional 24-hour on-site management and security. Open space must be provided within amenities that create a high-quality living environment for students and secure bicycle parking. Russett reiterated this project meets the location criteria, it also demonstrates compliance with the number of on-site bicycle parking that's required. Staff would recommend transparent fencing around the bike parking within the parking garages for safety reasons. Mentioned in the staff report, the City has reviewed the security plan however more detail is needed. Staff recommends that a final administrative review and approval of the management plan take place at a later date so staff can confirm various things such as confirmation of camera coverage, protocols for police department accessing videos, protocols for timely repairs as well as staffing requirements. Russett noted the plan lacks detail on how the student amenity spaces creates a high-quality living environment. Therefore staff is recommending some additional justification on those student amenity spaces to ensure that they are the right type, the right size and right amount based on the size of the building. Lastly, the applicant has proposed fully screened balconies, staff recognize that the screening is provided for safety reasons but have concerns that the screening could take away from the quality of the design. Russett stated there are several rezoning conditions that had to be reviewed as part of the development plan. The first condition is that the property must substantially conform to the building footprint shown in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Russett showed an image comparing the Master Plan and the proposed building. The applicant’s plans show 5% more linear feet along exterior walls and 4.8% more square feet than the Master Plan. but staff feels that this condition has been met. Russett pointed out the Master Plan originally is showing four buildings and the proposed project is two buildings. The next condition is that the Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 15 of 29 development of the subject property must include a landscaped interior courtyard between the two easternmost buildings. Russet acknowledged the plans show an interior courtyard extending from Capitol Street to the alley between the east building and the Voxman Music Building, so this condition has been met. The last condition is the bonus height shall demonstrate excellence and building and site design, use high quality building materials and be designed in a manner that contributes to the quality and character of the neighborhood. This is not only a condition but also a standard within the Form-Based Code to review the height bonus, Russett mentioned the materials earlier but noted there are extensive window and door openings that show that the project meets the fenestration requirements of the Code. All entrances to non-residential uses along Burlington, Court and Capitol Streets are at grade, helping to create a more walkable environment. The step backs meet the 10 foot at the fifth story, and there's even deeper step backs closer to Court Street, and they narrow as you move north toward Burlington along Capitol Street. The proposed project is located between the Voxman Music Building on the east and an eight story residential project on the west and the Johnson County Courthouse to the south. The role of the Commission here is to review and make a recommendation to City Council on the proposed development. The Commission should use the criteria that staff has outlined here that the Form-Based Code Committee used. City Council will be using that same criteria. In terms of next steps, after the Commission makes a recommendation and the plans will be reviewed by City Council and the awarding of the bonus height is up to City Council. Russett stated the Form-Based Code Committee finds that the proposal meets the standards of the Riverfront Crossings Form-Based Code. Staff does recommend the following modifications and some additional details. 1. Removal of the skywalk. 2. Re-design of the Capitol Street right-of-way, for review and approval by staff, to ensure consistency with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and other recent City street reconstructions, like Washington Street in downtown. 3. Removal of the balconies. 4. An additional administrative review of the management plan that includes details regarding staffing, cameras, accessing video, etc. prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Additional detail and justification on the academic amenity space. 6. Secure fencing around bicycle parking must be non-opaque (e.g. chain-link). 7. If the building plans deviate substantively from the approved design review plans, these changes must be reviewed and approved by the City Council. An example of a substantive change is a change to exterior building materials. Martin asked why staff want to remove the balconies or is staff recommending removing balconies or just not fully screening balconies. Russett replied the balconies are proposed to be fully screened but for safety reasons staff recommend that they be removed. Staff feels like the materials and the screening that are being proposed take away from the quality and design of the building. Martin asked why didn’t staff renegotiate what that would look like rather than just take away balconies. Russett acknowledged they did some negotiation with the applicant and they have changed the materials however staff is still not comfortable with the proposed materials and the balconies being fully screened with those materials. They’ve told the applicant the best option is to remove the balconies. Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 16 of 29 Martin next asked why staff want the skywalks removed. Russett stated they were concerned as there's a view shed, an important view shed on Capitol Street to the Old Capitol, and with the opening of Capitol Street that will create that view shed that was once closed, and they are concerned that that skywalk will block the view of the Old Capitol. Additionally, staff want the activity in this area to be at the street level and with skywalks they were concerned it could divert potential retail or pedestrian activity from the street to the skywalks. Martin assumed the skywalks are for the residents. Parsons agreed noting especially since the recreational activities are all only in one of the buildings. Russett acknowledged the skywalk would be mainly used for the residents. Martin noted nothing was said about the airport flight path, so she assumes the height bonus is fine with the flight path. Russett confirmed that was correct. Dyer asked about the provision of affordable housing and what is the provision. Russett replied the applicant must meet the affordable housing requirement which is 10% affordable, either by fee-in-lieu or on site. She will defer to the applicant on more details of their plan. Hensch commented on the landscaped central courtyard and noted given the amount of physical structures around that and he is concerned that all that stuff will end up dying, and it would be wise to have a landscape architect to select species that have a chance of staying alive in there. Hensch stated that all the architecture philosophies now need to be very biophilic oriented and need to be pretty intentional about the selection of that landscaping. He would like to put a stipulation above to have a landscape architect signing off on this to make sure there will be plants that can survive in that environment and are native Iowa so they can handle the cold and the drought and the heat because it's going to be a really tough environment. Hensch stated regarding the balconies, he is a big balcony fan, the 19-story building across street has 19 balconies, but he can see staff’s concern about the screening making it look too institutional so will defer to staff. However regarding the skywalk, the renderings have it to be pretty transparent so if there's a skywalk that people can see through it won’t really interfere with the view. Additionally, this is Iowa and it would be nice for people to be able to move between buildings. Baker noted on page seven of the staff report he needs more clarification on that phrase “divert from street level activities”. A skywalk to go from one building to another or a skywalk concept in general makes perfect sense to him. Baker asked about the parking changes staff proposes, from angle to parallel, he assumes all those spaces will be metered regardless. Russett acknowledged she doesn’t know the answer to that and would have to look into it. On security, Baker notes a phrase on page eight where “staff recommends at least three security personnel providing security 24/7” and wondered if that means literally one person, eight hour shifts, seven days a week, just three people for that entire complex or does that mean nine people, three on each shift. Russett stated it means three people on site at all times. Baker noted the paragraph right below that talking about the plan lacks detail on how this amenity, the academic community space, creates a high-quality living environment, and wondered who's involved in judging it as an academic space, or high-quality. Is it just a staff decision or will they Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 17 of 29 bring in people from the University, who's making the decision about what really qualifies as academic amenity space? Russett stated it would be the Form-Based Code Committee that would be reviewing it. Baker asked if there any University representation on that committee and Russett replied no. Baker feels there should be someone with experience to evaluate academic amenity space and that is not on staff right now. Hekteon stated that is part of the applicants burden and one way that they could support their application is by bringing in evidence supporting the University's practices or something of that nature. Baker also wanted to address the question of balconies again, he has mixed feelings about balconies in general for large developments, he understands why the developer would want them, they are an amenity that people like to have, but is staff’s concern only over how they look, an aesthetic question. Russett replied staff wouldn't want them to have the balconies without screening because of the fact that it's student housing and do recognize that they're proposing the screening for safety reasons. Staff is recommending the balconies just be removed. Baker asked if the Commission or the Council says if they can have balconies would they have to be 100% enclosed or perhaps just waist high or such. Russett stated if Council chooses to allow balconies staff would recommend that they were fully screened, 100% screened. Staff has gotten feedback from the Police Department based on their review of the plans, they had lots of concerns with balconies, and they would need to be screened completely. Baker noted in the latest planning magazine that they get every month as Commission members, this month it was on the City of Houston and there's all sorts of designs in there about high rises in Houston and balconies and high rises, and they're not enclosed balconies at all. Baker asked if the concern here that we're dealing with a student population. Russett confirmed that was the concern. Baker asked then how that is concern different than on a 10-story building versus a three- or four-story building, which has a balcony which is only half enclosed, if a person falls off the three story it can be just as tragic. Russett stated that the difference here is that this is a discretionary review process for a height bonus, and they have concerns with the proposed to balconies. Beyond safety there is a concern about noise and trash, things getting thrown off the balconies, that type of thing. Baker acknowledged then if is the staff recommendation that under no circumstances would they support the inclusion of balconies that were not fully enclosed. Russett reiterated their recommendation is removing the balconies. Baker concurs and would prefer they be removed too, he likes balconies but aesthetically for buildings that size he can see where a design with no balcony having all that balcony space included back into the apartment itself would be would be an advantage as well for the for the developer. Townsend asked after these buildings are completed and after students move in, how long are these plans in place such as the security. Russett said it is in perpetuity. Townsend also noted the buildings are right next door to the University Rec Center so why are all these things included in this building, students pay for those amenities with their Ubills. Russett stated the applicant could address that. Signs asked if the open space calculations are all ground level square footage. Russett confirmed it is, it's the courtyards. Signs interpreted the comments about the amenities as staff thought there were too many amenities in the in the building and wondered what's the reasoning behind that. Russett replied that wasn't the intent, in reviewing the plans, the Form-Based Code Committee didn’t have a good idea of how many student study rooms and spaces should be in a building of this size, so they wanted more information from the applicant to justify the square footage, the types of amenities, the computer labs, those types of things that are being Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 18 of 29 proposed. Signs also asked for clarification on staff’s thoughts on the size of the sidewalks proposed on Capitol and Court Streets. Russett stated the travel lanes are too wide, the street width. Townsend noted the width of the sidewalks were mentioned in the report. Russett reiterated that the sidewalks on Washington Street are much wider than what is currently proposed along Capitol Street. Baker had one final question about balconies and asked if there are any sort of record of problems with the current balconies in Iowa City, people hurting themselves through balconies now. Russett said the Police Department could probably provide some information on that. Hensch presumes it's more associated with noise generation and people throwing things. Hekteon reiterated what Russett said that this recommendation was informed in large part by input from the Police Department. Townsend voiced a concern of having two 15-story buildings in that area. It will tower over Voxman, it's going to be taller than the engineering building. Hensch noted when the applicants here they can ask them but noted the elevations are going to be different due to the topical map of the area. Hensch opened the public hearing. Rob Decker (Axiom Consultants) is the project manager for this project and will try to expand on what was presented by staff and then be happy to answer any questions. He began noting he appreciates all the effort that staff has provided them with over this long process, next month will be two years that they've been working on this effort. They understand it's gigantic and there's a lot to digest here. Decker start by showing a video that gives a really good example of the project. Then he will go into a couple of clarification items and go through the building as a whole. Decker next read a prepared statement because this project is so big he wanted to write his thoughts down so nothing got missed. “On behalf of the ownership group and the design team, I want to thank you for the opportunity to talk briefly about this project. I don't want to stand up here for an incredibly long time and I don't intend to, together with Newman Monson we’ll give you a rundown of what you're going to see with all the design that this entails. It's incredibly large and while many of us on the team have the benefit of this being second nature at this point, after these many months, we understand that there's an incredible amount to digest. We're incredibly excited about being on the project. It's a really, really unique opportunity to transform this area. This is my hometown, so I'm excited about it. I think it's a game changer for the City. Very few if any private properties present so unique and opportunity is to be essentially on campus while providing private residential opportunities of incredibly high quality that allow for a student experience in such a proximity, walkability, incredible amenities, urban design and more. Not only is what you saw something that would change the landscape of Iowa City for the better, in our opinion, it brings an incredible host of benefits, including an estimated $3 to $4 million annually into Iowa City coffers in the form of property taxes, an estimated $9 million into the affordable housing fund. A reopening of the long-closed Capitol Street with is described as one of the axial entry points to the Old Capitol, its last remaining one of the four. It provides Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 19 of 29 incredibly high-quality safe housing for the students on campus, literally just south of downtown closer than most of the dorms. It makes sense, it fits the site, the height is partially offset by the steep grade of the hill, so it gobbles up a lot of the height. It's less than or equally as tall as high rises that are already in town. It replaces outdated infrastructure, puts a newer building and a new energy code into place in a town that benefits tremendously from that. The impermeable area of the site is nearly the same as what currently sits there with a much higher urban density, density that's called for in the City's Master Plan as well as other student housing studies completed in town. Our analysis of the current market rates and other analyses recently released assume less than 3% downtown vacancy and around 6% in the metro area, which is an incredibly healthy level. In discussions with our colleagues in the industry and from other accounts supplied by Housing and Urban Development arguments can often be made that healthy levels nationally should sit around 8% to 10%. Iowa City within the past decade or so has experienced incredibly low vacancy rates below 1% downtown. Obviously, these levels aren't sustainable and that's why a number of housing projects have popped up and continue to pop up. The analysis that developers are looking at are still showing really excellent opportunities in town and that's why you continue to see these projects, they wouldn't be completing these projects if it wasn't fiscally sound opinion. And the last thing I would say is, besides making sense for the reasons above, it's been very well received. We've received positive reinforcement or outright support from affordable housing programs, most of them, the local unions, the Downtown Association, countless local contractors and businesses, and numerous members of the general public that I've spoken with and best of all the projects being completed locally. The owners are lifetime residents of Iowa City and a family that made their whole life here. The design teams are Iowa City firms, the general contractors is an Iowa City firm, McComas Lacina that has a wonderful reputation downtown and has been here for decades. The entire team on this project is Iowa City based, you'll never find a project this big that's going to do that again, I guarantee it. And lastly, that project will push an estimated 2 million hours of full-time labor into the economy during it if not more than that, it’s probably a low estimate. Their process to get here is basically been nine months of rezoning, nine months of design review of City staff which has been great, Planning and Zoning right now and we're going to move to Council next, as you're all aware, that'll be a two year process next month.” Decker next went through the requirements from Zoning that staff went through. (1) Dedication of Capitol Street right-of-wa y, that's being done, it was agreed to in the CZA, it is a 100-foot right- of-way that's been blocked since the 1970s and it will open up the axial view to the Old Capitol that is envisioned in the Master Plan. (2) Obtain approval of elevations from Planning and Zoning, that's why they're here tonight. (3) Build the Capitol Street right-for-way to City specifications which they have. One of the things Decker wanted to clarify is that's been vetted heavily with the City already, the vast majority of it meets expectations. The lane width can easily be changed to what the City wants. However, Decker does feel strongly about the angle parking and will address that later. (4) The satisfaction of affordable housing was addressed in a formal memo, they will agree to pay the fee in lieu of to The Affordable Housing Coalition, its near $9 million into the fund. (5) The compliance with the footprint in the Master Plan was shown in a good example earlier. (6) Development of landscaped interior courtyards has been reviewed extensively with staff as well. Decker will read one more prepared statement from their landscape architect, which describes the landscape architecture that they've designed to date. (7) Approval of the architect, that was completed a long time ago and lastly, (8) demonstrating excellence in design for the building and the site. Decker will do a general walkthrough of the site and try to clarify some things. There's sort of a central concourse, or courtyard, but it's more of a concourse that runs between the buildings. One could debate on whether this is four or two Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 20 of 29 buildings, by code it’s two buildings because they're connected, but they're designed to feel independent, and that's to meet with the Master Plan. The forecourts are entry points into each of those four facilities. Each one of them, with the exception of the northeast one, has a has a private courtyard that can only be accessed by private residents of the buildings. Voxman doesn't allow for one in that northeast corner. There are parking garages under each structure that are independent of one another, they span the length of each of those footprints. There are two entry points to the garages. The right-of-way is 100-feet which is really large, there aren't many places in town large, but it matches through the corridor. In addition to the really large setbacks that they’ve done, it provides what they think is a really bright and open corridor north to south. Decker next read the landscape architecture prepared statement. “An important piece of this project has been the carefully planned landscape features intended to create a beautiful space for pedestrians, motorists and users of the building. Plants, paving materials and other site features were selected to complement existing nearby streetscapes, to provide a seamless transition along east Burlington and east Court Street. South Capitol Street will be lined with trees framing the views of the Old Capitol building to the north, overstory trees will shade proposed parking and complement the surrounding buildings. The resulting tree canopy is intended to create a comfortable pedestrian experience along with the large beds of ornamental grasses, paralleling the generous walkway connecting adjacent spaces. Throughout the site unique planting beds reflect the architectural details of the building, as well the proposed colored concrete accents. Public entrances with seating will be enhanced with the use of ornamental trees, flowering shrubs and a mix of perennials integrated into the surrounding streetscape with perennial beds that wrap around the building. Some entrances are screened by living wall which will create more vertical green infrastructure in an urban environment. A courtyard space between the buildings will be flanked with vegetation and ornamental trees to create a strong access while softening the hardscape. The addition of colorful public art opportunity, varied seating types and accent lighting will create a living environment around the building.” Nathan Griffith (Architect, Newman Monson) wanted to speak about the three major goals for the project. One goal is that the project is designed to contribute to the quality and the character of the neighborhood. He will talk about that and speak to that as shows some of the images. Second critical to the project is the student health, safety and welfare and that will be addressed in many different ways throughout the project, including the balconies as well as the skywalk. Third goal is the enhanced pedestrian environment. First Griffith showed an image comparison of the Master Plan footprint and the proposed footprint and pointed out a few different critical parts. One is the pedestrian experience along the street. On their plan one can see how much frontage at ground level the building will have as compared to what was proposed in the Master Plan, and with that they were able to obtain goal one by creating the forecourts and courtyards and a more friendly pedestrian experience as you're walking along the street. Another point is the step back of the buildings as compared to the Master Plan footprint, at the north side of the site there is an additional 10 feet of stepback and the south tower is 15 feet to allow for more sunlight and access to sky. Thirdly, the towers as tight and efficient and spindly as possible so that it really reduces the scale of the building from an urban sort of context. Next Griffith showed a few images showing the context of the project within the City and how the Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 21 of 29 building is broken up into pieces and the way that the colors of the cladding start to allow the building to dissipate into the sky being a lighter color, rather than a darker color, which is very much in tune with the neighborhood. Voxman School of Music has the same material, terracotta cladding which has a light gloss to it, which will start to reflect in the sky and the surrounding environment. As one approaches from the west, the recesses of the building are much deeper than one might see on a building like the Rise and that matters a lot to how one experiences the project on the urban setting has been broken up into smaller components. Griffith pointed out they were very intentional and have the living spaces pointed away from the building per se as opposed to facing towards the courtyards. For instance, from across the front edge, the living space for the west building to the east building is 160 feet in distance and they thought that was critical to the safety and security of the students as they're living. Looking at the development from the south in the foreground would be an office space on the first floor, the materials are just a bit darker, which kind of grounds the building, but also a lot of glass striations along the facade, as well as many different recesses, including the forecourts, enhance the pedestrian experience on the street, and make it a friendly experience as you walk through. Next Griffith showed some images one would walk through the development as a pedestrian again noting the many, many plants and benches and sort of colored paving and things that will help make this place more friendly and engaged and give some depth and friendly experience to the pedestrians. He showed an image of the community space and potentially a classroom area where they could host lectures or informal gatherings. He then showed the forecourt areas, re- emphasizing some of those design characteristics of the way that forecourt is designed to engage the building and becomes more friendly. Some of the elements are the dark paving with the light paving, aligning with the building, colored plantings and things. He showed the connection over on both the west building and the east building and where that connection starts. The connection is 40 feet off the ground, it's the height of a four-story house. The width of that space is 48 feet wide, and the depth of the soffit is 50 feet. Regarding nuts and bolts of the skywalk, it is at the fourth level of the project and set back from Burlington Street. They are very purposeful in the way that they are cladding the skywalk with transparent glass that can be seen through, but also in the way that it's structured so that it appears very spindly and skeletally and would then dissipate into the sky in the way that the colors might reflect the surroundings. They don't think that it impedes the view corridor of the Old Capitol. Griffith added it's worth noting the safety and security point of the skywalk and most of the amenities in the two buildings are in the west building so having access to those amenities is critically important to the success of the east building. Griffith next took a moment to talk about the balconies and showed an image, an example, of the type of material and the application on a residential project. The balconies will be 5-foot by 15- foot spaces which are very generous for balconies in Iowa City. The 15-foot side has a perforated metal guardrail. He showed an example of this on a real building in Los Angeles. Without the balconies it will be a cold building. The material on the 5-foot side of the balcony of t is a metal mesh guardrail and he showed an example of that product in Austin, Texas on a sky bridge that connects a couple residential buildings. With this material again they are trying to provide as transparent as possible, but keep the safety of the students as they're not able to throw things off or jump off or anything like that. The balconies provide a place to soften the edges of the building and help reduce the scale, as well as providing for vertical lines that reduce the building beyond the larger 50-foot recesses. He noted the access to light and air is critically important to the student’s health in this development, and just being able to go outside and get Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 22 of 29 some fresh air contributes to the success of the project. Students/tenants having access to light and air and just being able to step outside and get some fresh air enhances their experience and their likelihood to rent here and the success of the project. Decker noted that they are not here to disagree or to fight with City staff, he respects their opinions, as again noted they've been great to work with, but they obviously have their own opinions on the project. The reason that the angle parking is important them and the reason that this is different than Washington Street is it is not a street lined with businesses, it's a housing project. It does have a few scattered offices and businesses on it and therefore those additional 20 parking stalls are incredibly critical to the success of those few businesses that are going to be there. The project already has a very small amount of parking for how substantial it is and they don't feel like it detracts from the Capitol Street corridor. With regards to the skywalk it is important for safety at all hours, safety during any kind of weather, to get from one building to the other. A resident should have access to all the amenities if they pay rent there. They shouldn't have to go down into a tunnel in the garages, which would be an incredible safety issue even with cameras and the alternative is they walk outside or there are amenities on both sides, which is not feasible. The better opportunity is to have a set of amenities for the complex that people can access and that is why they want the skywalk. Lastly, Decker said the balconies are probably the biggest issue for them. Beyond the health and fresh air benefits they disagree that they're displeasing visually and think they help break up the facade in ways that help it correspond with the code and softens those corners. With such a big building softening the corners makes a big impact. Additionally, nearly all of the other high-rise and mid-rise buildings in town have balconies. They spent a lot of time working with staff on the materials and look of the balconies, they also spent a lot of time with ICPD and met with them three different times to talk about these balconies. They’ve heard what people have said, and they've adjusted things to try and get what they want to have on the buildings but in the way that makes sense and meets as many of those boxes as they can. Lastly, leaving them off could make the building functionally obsolete. This building is going to be around for 100 or more years. Yes, it's intended for students now but it might not always be for students. Student populations may decline, they may increase, at some point the upper floors may not be students, the upper floors may be professionals, they may be retirees, the building may convert to retirees down the road, they don't know. Leaving off those balconies is something that can never be corrected. Griffith addressed the amenities and how they came to the amount of academic and recreation spaces in the building. The owner has gone way beyond necessary to achieve a successful project and they did a comparison of the study spaces and academic spaces of this project with the Rise as a comparison example of a project near this one, and this project has per bedroom twice the amount of area of academically oriented spaces. And not only that, but those spaces are spread throughout the building, on each floor, there's a study space, which is not anywhere else in Iowa City. Baker asked about the amenities and if that was the case they made to the staff and the staff has said that's not clear. Griffith stated that's a recent study that they had done so this may be the first time everybody's hearing this. Hensch noted the skywalk that will be built, if approved, will be transparent and that is the intention, not just a rendering. Decker confirmed noting if they vary substantially from the renderings they need to ask Council for permission or changes. Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 23 of 29 Hensch asked an elevation question in what the change in elevation from Madison Street to the west wall of the Voxman building is. Decker said the elevation change across the site is a difference of 30 feet. Just by appearance wise it's really going to look more like a 11 or 12 story building rather than 15 stories and be lower than Hilton Garden Inn. The top of the flagpole of the courthouse is very similar to the height of this building. Hensch thanked him for reading the statement from the landscape architect. He noted however historically they see lots of really good drawings and then when it's actually implemented all those plantings and trees and grasses suddenly aren't there, or they're dead the first year and they never get replaced. Signs noted a lot of the images show a lot of colorful artwork is committed and will be there. Griffith noted the artwork is conceptual, they are not seeking additional height for artwork, which can be done. The City wants a really engaged experience with this building and artwork is one opportunity to do that. That's something that would have to be vetted but it would enhance the building. Signs agrees that it enhances the building and would be very disappointed if it wasn't there when it was done and makes a big difference on how he looks at this entire project. Martin commented that earlier in the presentation they said there were these sorts of murals in the project and wanted them to confirm that was their intention. Griffith confirmed. Martin asked for clarification having heard a couple of different words such as private residence and student housing and to her those mean different things and what is the current vision for who's living there and how they're living there. Decker replied it’s not a dorm, so it's a private student residence. They expect mainly upperclassmen who want to stay downtown. Martin asked if people other than students can live in the facility and Decker confirmed anyone can live there, not just students. Yes the intent is students but if 200 people come and ask if they can live at the top of it that certainly could be a possibility and then making the upper stories have a different look to them. Martin then asked about the security. Decker noted the security plan is complicated and they’ve gone through it with City staff numerous times, it's not finalized but will be finalized as part of the process. Martin did note she would hate to see that project without balconies. Hensch asked about the step back issue and if there were going to be two step backs, or just one step back. Griffith replied just one step back. Hensch asked at what height. He added that will affect how the balconies above that appear. Griffith said the step back is at the 4th story and because of the slope of the site, the stepback is anywhere from 30 to 50 feet up and also those setbacks are different, they're skinny up on the north side and they're back down below. Martin did note she would hate to see that project without balconies, asked based on the picture they showed if someone fall out of that balcony. Decker noted people have asked him this and the truth is someone could take a chair and shatter a window easier than break through that metal. Martin again reiterated she is not concerned. Dyer noted being a retired professor, she noticed the community space spaces on the upper Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 24 of 29 levels are smaller than her living room for 30 apartments, that seems inadequate, and there are no lounges like there are in dorms for gatherings other than studying. The other thing she thought of that doesn't seem adequate is all the fancy recreation places, there are no restrooms or locker rooms and going around the track for half an hour, one might need to use a bathroom. It just seems inadequate in in that respect. Another thing that disturbs her a great deal is making affordable living in lieu of the buildings that are on this site, a relatively affordable housing close to campus and replacing affordable housing close to campus with luxury residential housing close to campus, and wherever those $9 million dollars are going to go with someplace else farther from campus. The City is trying to integrate affordable housing within the community, scattered throughout the community and this is a monstrous project closing out affordable living. The last thing that bothers her a lot is blocking the light from the offices in Voxman Music Building. It's going to have a blank wall they are looking at and that is not neighborly. Dyer said for those reasons she is going to vote no. Decker addressed the question on size of the study spaces on the floors. As already mentioned they have way more than any other building of this size. a lot more than approved buildings in town. Additionally there are a lot of very large spaces on the ground floor, that was that was done intentionally because the engagement with the pedestrian experience in a building that doesn't require any commercial space on the ground floor, it could be residential all the way up, is incredibly important and they felt like those spaces will be were students are engaged. It is not a dorm, it’s a private residence but it's also important to the City that they have that type of engagement. They feel it is a better project than having large spaces up above. With regards to the affordable housing comment, the units that are going to be there, he would not call these luxury or that this is going to go into any kind of luxury. The units there now, the Pentacrest Garden Apartments are not the cheapest apartments, they are not affordable housing. The inventory that's there and the inventory that's going to go there are not that much different in terms of rent, but the units and amenities will be so much better. In terms of paying the fee in lieu of was because City Council was very interested in seeing the fee in lieu of, they didn't see that this project is a great place for the application of an affordable housing. It is not a location for a family looking for affordable housing. Voxman in terms of shadow, the majority of that side of the building is not offices and that's not where most of the windows and engagement are. It also won't be in shadow until midday through late in the evening. That's what the loading dock is, that's where the backdoors to most of the area go. He acknowledged there are some windows on that side of the Voxman Building but stated one can't put up a project like this without impeding on something. In terms of the bathrooms and the amenities there Griffith stated the spaces will have bathrooms. Griffith also mentioned they did a study of the way the windows align with the Voxman Building and did what they could to misalign them so that no one is looking right into an office or a person in the office is not looking right into a living room. Townsend noted looking at the floor plans for the spaces and wondered what the differences are in square feet from the efficiencies to the three bedrooms and why the efficiencies are kind of tucked in between. Griffith said on the fourth level area the efficiency units are 254 square feet and the three-bedroom areas are 963 square feet. Townsend asked how many elevators are in each building. Griffith replied there are four elevators in the west building and five elevators in the east building, one of the elevators in the east building will serve the restaurant. Additionally there are two staircases in the west building and three staircases in the east building. The Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 25 of 29 building has been designed to meet all egress codes and will be reviewed when they get the building permit. Baker asked if regarding the balcony question, was the total enclosure the original plan or was that an accommodation to a concern raised by the staff? Decker replied they originally proposed open balconies but are okay with the totally enclosed concept now. Baker noted his concern is he can't visualize that on a giant building will look, that's just a leap of faith. Martin asked if it is similar to some of the ones at Vetro. Griffith noted it is the same material. Townsend asked about the student height bonus if other people are going to be living there as well. Decker said to get the height bonus is half a floor of the whole project. The Capitol Street transfer is all but one floor, there's enough square footage in the 304,000 square feet to go from 8 to 14. The last sliver is a combination of historical transfer from the Tate Arms and student housing. Baker noted he has no problem with the height and overall design of this project and hated the buildings that were there now. This is a dramatic improvement over what's there in a lot of ways for the City. His question is on the skywalk, it seems like a missed opportunity. It is such a visible part from the public point of view and seems like a missed opportunity on some sort of design that sets it apart with artistic contributions. Baker feels somebody needs to take that concept and create something original for that space and accomplish the same purpose. It’s such a significant visual part of the project that is not really taking advantage of the opportunity. Decker added quickly that in regards to University engagement, he met with Rod Lehnertz and David Keft on this three or four different times, they're very aware of what is happening and have been supportive of it. The other person they met with was Melissa Shivers, Director of Student Engagement, to get her input in terms of security, how students are being treated, what their lessons learned are from dorms, all those good pieces and try to integrate as much of that as they can into their design. Bill Gearhart (President, State Building Construction Trades Council) and has been a resident of Iowa City since 1969. He has seen a lot of changes. The Building Trades Council is an umbrella organization for the 16 different craft unions that perform construction work. They are excited about this project, it's big, its bold, it goes up instead of sprawls and it replaces a bunch of outdated apartment houses that are there now. This is going to be a big improvement and going to be a lot of jobs for a lot of construction workers. 2 million-man hours is an awful lot of paychecks for skilled trades people and their selection of a general contractor that's local and does quality work, is going to be really good for the building, for the building trades, and for our city. So they are in complete support of this project. Hensch closed the public hearing. Parsons moved the Commission approved DRC19-04, an application submitted by Rob Decker requesting a Level II design review which includes a 7-story height bonus request for two 15-story buildings located at 12 East Court Street including the seven staff recommendations. Signs seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 26 of 29 Hensch stated he is always super supportive of staff, but he happens to disagree with them this time about the removal of the skywalk. A transparent skywalk would not obstruct the view, this is Iowa with terrible weather and it's integral to this project. Hensch noted he is a big fan of skywalks, the skywalk between the County Administration Building and the Health and Human Services Building was just a brilliant idea, he uses it every day. He has mixed feelings about the balconies, he purposely drove around buildings around town to look at balconies today and noted that on the Chauncy all 19 stories has balconies. He can understand the police department's concern with younger persons and their behavior sometimes, but it would be unfortunate to not have them. Hensch noted feeling much better about the landscaping after hearing the statement from the architect. Martin also notes she has been in Iowa City her entire life, born here, and loves the idea of so much happening that is so Iowa City centric, the people that are involved, the building, workers, that's very important stuff. She thinks a skywalk is very cool and liked Baker’s idea of something fun with this skywalk such as shown in the picture of something in Houston that had a swanky skywalk. Martin also stated she loves a balcony, she sells a lot of real estate and people love an outdoor space, no matter in what form. She also really likes the art piece, more art the better. Signs stated he is in agreement with both the skywalk and the balconies, he thinks the skywalk is an added positive note to this project. As one is driving up the hill, they may lose a 10 second view of the Old Capitol but that is not a huge problem. The fact they’ve made such a broad streetscape and really opened up that area makes a better view. Signs noted he would be in favor of taking out the recommendation to remove the skywalk. Additionally he feels the balconies are important. What concerns him the most is noise, but that is present in almost any student housing situation and they are used to it whether it's right good, bad, right or wrong. He is personally am not a huge fan of the color scheme but will note let that sway his decision. He is totally in favor of allowing balconies as long as they are screened and protected so that people aren't throwing things off the 15th floor and doing things like that. He does feel the look is extremely monolithic and was hoping to see some rooftop terraces and some variation in height but overall they’ve done enough other nice things that he can live with. He is inclined to vote in favor after they remove the skywalk and balcony removals. He also really wants to emphasize how important artwork is to the beauty and character of the project. Finally, he hopes the landscaping plan does work well and is maintained well as they say it will be. Parsons stated he is also in favor of removing staff recommendations one and three and feel others have summarized his opinions as well. He does really hope that the developers follow through with the artwork and landscaping because the ground floor is what people will see. He really impressed by the project and thinks it will be a great asset. Signs added one more comment, he doesn’t have a problem with the angle parking, he thinks it adds to the width of the whole corridor there and would rather see 40 parking spaces over 20 because it is such a large project. Baker noted he is very pleased with this project he has never been bothered by the height question considering the topography of the area. He did reiterate the design is a leap of faith, it looks good on paper, hopefully it will look like that in reality. Going back to the question of the skywalk. If there is going to be a skywalk, he’d like for the Commissioners to mandate that skywalk design go through some sort of design review process that requires a little bit more Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 27 of 29 thought from the developer about what the thing will look like. In a sense it can be a form of public art and be functional at the same time. Regarding the balconies, he is not bothered by the balconies and experience has shown balconies are useful and not necessarily a dangerous part of any large project. He is not too thrilled about the total enclosure but if that's what the City and the developer can compromise on, that's fine too. He also has no problem with the angle parking. The academic community thing can be resolved one way or the other. Overall it's a vast improvement for the area. Dyer stated she thinks it would be good to remove the angle parking, it's a lot safer for bicyclists to not have angled parking and there are going to be a lot of bicycles in this building and it's not permitted to ride on the sidewalk downtown. Hensch agrees noting the most dangerous part of driving is backing up and if they can minimize people backing up they should do that. Martin commented as a bicyclist she likes angle parking better because she has been doored from parallel parking. Parsons moved to amend his motion on DRC19-04 to approve DRC19-04 with staff recommendations four through seven. Baker asked if there was any desire to make the skywalk go through some sort of design review process. Hensch noted the whole process will go through a design review. Hensch asked if Parsons wanted to include the angled parking recommendation in his motion (recommendation 2). Russett asked to clarify stating the issue is not just with the angled parking, it's also with the width of the travel lanes and width of the sidewalk as well. Hekteon stated ultimately that's going to be a City owned right-of-way so in terms of how it's designed, the City has significant more amount of control over that. Parsons moved to amend his motion on DRC19-04 to approve DRC19-04 with eliminating staff recommendations one and three. Signs seconded that amendment. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-2 (Dyer and Townsend dissenting). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 5, 2019 Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of December 5, 2019. Townsend seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett noted the special exception for the Kum & Go on South Gilbert Street went to the Board of Adjustment last week. Staff recommended a condition not to have any noise and the Board of Adjustment removed that condition. Planning and Zoning Commission January 16, 2020 Page 28 of 29 ADJOURNMENT: Parsons moved to adjourn. Townsend seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2018 - 2019 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 10/3 10/17 11/7 BAKER, LARRY X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X DYER, CAROLYN O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X FREERKS, ANN -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- HENSCH, MIKE X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E X X X O/E X X X X O/E O/E X X X X PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X 12/5 1/16 BAKER, LARRY X X DYER, CAROLYN X X HENSCH, MIKE X X MARTIN, PHOEBE O/E X PARSONS, MAX X X SIGNS, MARK X X TOWNSEND, BILLIE O/E X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member