Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-01-16 OrdinanceItem Number: 8.a. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT January 16, 2024 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 0.78 acres of land located 1201 W. Benton Street from Low Density Residential (RS -5) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -12). (REZ23-0008) Attachments: Staff Report w Attachments PZ 12.6.23 minutes final Ordinance & CZA Council correspondence - Brian Boelk, Axiom Consultants STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ23-0008 Parcel(s): 016272001 GENERAL INFORMATION: Owner/Applicant: Contact Person: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Location Map: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Prepared by: Madison Conley Associate Planner Date: December 6, 2023 Steve Roe Christian Retirement Services, Inc. 1 Oaknoll Court Iowa City, Iowa 52246 319-351-1720 sroe(aDoaknoll.com Brian Boelk Axiom Consultants, LLC 60 E Court St. Unit 03 Iowa City, IA 52240 319-519-6222 bboelk(aDaxiom-con.com To rezone 0.78 acres of land from Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -12) zone. To establish an assisted group living facility that would allow the expansion of Oaknoll Retirement Residence campus. 1201 W. Benton Street 0.78 acres Household Living, Low Density Single - Family Residential (RS -5) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Comprehensive Plan: Southwest District Plan: File Date: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: North: Group Living, Medium and High Density Multi -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-20 and OPD/RM-44) South: Household Living, Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) East: Household Living, Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) West: Household Living, Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) Residential at 2-8 Dwelling Units per Acre Single-Family/Duplex Residential October 24. 2023 Oaknoll Retirement Residence (Christian Retirement Services, Inc.) recently purchased approximately 0.78 acres of property located at 1201 W. Benton Street, just south of Oaknoll's main campus. The owner is working with Axiom Consultants to prepare two applications to permit a campus expansion by allowing a small, assisted group living use that would house up to 12 residents in a single -story building on the subject property. The owner plans to accomplish this through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA23-0001) and a zoning map amendment (REZ23- 0008). Attachment 3 includes the applicant submittal materials such as the Applicants Description of Needs Memo, Rezoning Exhibit, and the Applicant Statement which describes the rationale behind the request. Attachment 4 includes the proposed development concept for the property. The concept shows a one-story 8,720 square foot building that would house 12 residents. The current Comprehensive Plan shows this area with a future land use designation of 2-8 Dwelling Units per Acre. The current Southwest District Plan shows this area with future land use designation of Single -Family & Duplex Residential. If approved, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would change the Southwest District Plan's future land use designation to Multi -family Residential and the Comprehensive Plan designation to 8-16 Dwelling Units per Acre. If accepted, the proposed rezoning of the property from RS -5 to RM -12 would be consistent with the land use policy direction. The applicant has used the Good Neighbor Policy and held a Good Neighbor Meeting on September 5, 2023. Nine neighbors attended. Attachment 5 provides the summary report of the meeting provided by the applicant. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned RS -5. The RS -5 zone is intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households. The uses allowed in the RS -5 zone include the following: detached single-family, detached zero lot line, attached single-family, duplexes, group households, daycare, general educational facility, parks/open space, religious/private group assembly, and communication transmission facility. The RS -5 zone does not allow assisted group living or multi -family uses. Proposed Zoning: The applicant is requesting that the property to be rezoned to RM -12. The purpose of the RM -12 zone is to provide for the development of high density, single-family housing and low density, multi -family housing. This zone is intended to provide a diverse variety of housing 3 options in neighborhoods throughout the city. Careful attention to site and building design, specifically height limitations and the allowed density, are important to ensure that the various housing types in any one location are compatible with one another. Table 1 outlines the uses that are allowed in the RM -12 zone, which include multi -family, assisted group living, community service, general educational facilities, etc. A multi -family use on the property would allow a maximum of 12 units. An assisted group living facility would be allowed on the property as a provisional use. The assisted group living facility would be allowed 45 roomers maximum due to the size of the property and density allowed by the provisional use section in the code. Additionally, the group living use must have a bath and toilet facilities available for use by roomers and be able to provide access to a communal kitchen, dining room, and other common facilities and services. Table 1 – Uses Allowed in RM -12 Zone Use Categories: Detached single-family dwellings P Detached zero lot line dwellings PR Attached single-family dwellings PR Duplexes PR Group households PR Multi -family dwellings P Assisted group living (e.g., nursing group care facilities homes, PR Community service—general (e.g., museums, youth club facilities libraries, S Community service—shelter S Daycare PR Educational facilities—general public/private schools (e.g., PR Parks and open sace PR Religious/private group assembly PR Communication transmission facility PR P = Permitted PR = Provisional S = Special exception Rezoning Review Criteria: Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezonings: 1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan; 2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The future land use map of the current IC2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for Residential at 2-8 Dwelling Units per Acre. The current Southwest District Plan future land use map identifies this property as appropriate for Single-Family/Duplex Residential. Concurrent with this rezoning, the owner has requested an amendment to the land use policy direction to show this area as appropriate for 8- 16 Units per Acre / Low Density Multi -Family. Assuming that the amendment is adopted, this application would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Southwest District Plan also includes policies that multi -family housing should be located along arterial street corridors in areas with good access to city services. However, the Southwest District Plan notes concern that the amount of land zoned high-density multi -family is excessive rd for this area and an appropriate transition between low-density single-family neighborhoods and areas zoned high-density multi -family was lacking. Specific concerns noted are that the bulk and scale of large apartment buildings, large parking lots, bright lights, and noise directly adjacent to single-family homes could constitute nuisances. Benton Street is an arterial street corridor that does have access to city services. Regarding the bulk and scale of higher intensity level use, staff is recommending a condition that any development to be consistent with the general scale and footprint of the concept (Attachment 4) to ensure compatibility with the existing neighborhood development pattern. Additionally, this condition will serve as a way for staff to address other policies noted in the plan. The plan includes a goal to stabilize existing single-family neighborhoods in the Roosevelt Subarea in order to provide the opportunity and encourage households of all types to live close to the University and downtown Iowa City. In addition, it encourages the development of high- quality multi -family housing that is compatible with surrounding development to meet the housing needs of a variety of households including singles, young families, university students and elderly populations. Recommended actions include the following: Avoid concentrations of high-density multi -family zoning directly adjacent to low-density single-family zones; facilitate downzoning multi -family property where appropriate. Apply the Multi -family Residential Design Standards contained in Section 14 -5H -5N of the City Code to the Roosevelt Subarea. Review and make needed changes to the Multi -family Residential Design Standards to ensure compatibility of new multi -family development with surrounding development. The Southwest District Plan was adopted in 2002. Subsequently the city adopted multi -family site development standards in 2005. Any multi -family use would be subject to the multi -family site development standards in the zoning code. The Comprehensive Plan also includes several strategies regarding land use and housing, including the following: Ensure that infill development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood. Identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where services and infrastructure are already in place. Promote housing design and features that allow people to age in place, such as universal design. Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The subject property is bordered by single-family residential housing to the east, west, and south, with Oaknoll's Main Campus located north across W. Benton Street. Although this property is in a mid -block location surrounding by single-family residential on three sides, staff considers this proposal an extension of Oaknoll's Main Campus to the north. Staff will utilize the recommended condition to ensure that the rezoning is compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Specifically, by ensuring consistency with the footprint and scale of the concept any new development will be compatible with the existing character, which is predominately smaller, house scale buildings on the south side of W. Benton Street. With the adoption of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and the recommended condition, staff finds the proposed rezoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Correspondence: Staff has received public correspondence (Attachment 6) from neighboring residents voicing their support for the proposed rezoning. NEXT STEPS: After a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission this application will be considered by the City Council. • City Council will need to set a public hearing for both the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning. • City Council will consider approval of the comprehensive plan amendment (CPA23-0001) and must hold three readings including the public hearing for the rezoning (REZ23-0008). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ23-0008, a proposed rezoning to change 0.78 acres of the property located at 1201 W. Benton Street from RS -5 to RM -12 zone subject to the following condition: • General compliance with the footprint and scale of the concept plan (Attachment 4) to ensure compatibility with the existing neighborhood development pattern. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Applicant Submittal Materials 4. Development Concept 5. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary 6. Public Correspondence Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Location Map CITY OF IOWA CITY JR 7j _ W Benton St MW M (7=m v 411 d �� 1- 14 7 F A Rezoning request submitted by Axiom b__RV Consultants on behalf of Christian Retirement Services, Inc. to rezone from�\� the current RS -5 zone to an RM -12 zone �P ,� f � t to accommodate a "small -house' r „ nursing model that would serve twelve y„ residents needing assistance. z '� r �.. ! *Hadocke St r ATTACHMENT 2 Zoning Map N WF S 1201 W Benton St. 0 0.01 0.01 0.03 Miles Prepared By: Mehnie Comer Date Prepared: October 2023 8 IF c� U 0 W Benton St 4D' rvS m v A Rezoning request submitted by Axiom �y w t�"` Retirement Services, Inc. to rezone from > . � �� < , � M, , � .^_ the current ftS-5 zone to an RM -12 zone 4� ty to accommodate a "small -house" t nursin model that would serve twelve �6 g it residents needing assistance. fJ't .��a`� fxMi�"Harocke St x.21 m` ATTACHMENT 3 Applicant Submittal Materials G September 19, 2023 To: City of Iowa City Re: Zoning variance request for 1201 W. Benton St. ei From: Steve Roe, Chief Executive Officer oil Oaknoll is requesting to use our recently acquired property at 1201 W. Benton St. for a "small -house" nursing model that would serve twelve residents. The small -house model creates an ideal setting to provide care for frail, older adults. Each resident has their own private room, including a bathroom and . shower, around the perimeter of the building. Residents can be involved in meal preparation, which happens in an open kitchen. The house has a communal dining and living area for activities and visiting. The design of the house is modern. It ties in with the architecture of our most recent addition across Benton St. It also fits nicely on the property and will not disturb the neighbors. The trees around the property line will not be disturbed. We hosted a meeting of the property owners around our property on September 51h to explain what we hoped to build. We showed the neighbors what the home will look like when completed. The neighbors immediately east, west, and south signed a "letter of support" for the proposed new home in which we will provide nursing care. Those letters are included with this submission. The last expansion of Oaknoll's licensed nursing beds occurred in 2016, the year after our Spring Building addition was complete. The number of licensed beds increased by 10, from 48 to 58. To meet resident expectations, the number of private nursing rooms has increased from zero to 52 over the past 19 years. 52 of our 58 licensed beds are private rooms. Since 2018, Oaknoll has acquired 14 condominiums at One University Place, and we open the 60 - apartment Oaknoll East campus in 2020. With these two locations, our number of Independent Living households has grown by 74. Over time, approximately 50% of the individuals served in these locations will require nursing care. Over the next five years, our goal is to increase the number of licensed nursing beds from 58 to approximately 90 to meet the anticipated needs of our larger Independent Living population. The proposed project at 1201 W. Benton St. would get us to a total of 70 licensed nursing beds, which we anticipate will get us through until the redevelopment of our main campus can occur. Oaknoll is an asset to the Iowa City community. We hope that the city will support a creative and responsible use of the property at 1201 W. Benton St. Oaknoll Retirement Residence • 1 Oaknoll Court • Iowa City, Iowa 52246-5250 PHONE 319-351-1720 • FAx 319-351-6772 • www.oaknoll.com REZONING EXHIBIT 1201 WEST BENTON STREET IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA PROJECT VICINITY MAP APPLICANT INFORMATION: APPLICANi/OWNEB: PREPARED BY: CHRISTIAN RETIREMENT SERVICES,, INC AXIOMCONSULTANTS, LLC C/O STEVE ROE C/O BR I AN BOELK 1 OAKN0LL COURT 60 E COURT STREET, UNITE IOWAC IA522465250 10 WA CITY, 10 WA52240 319-0665006 319519-6220 BBOELH@.IIOMCON. COM LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOUR 1 AND 2, BRYN MAW R HEIGHTS, PART 1, ACCORDING TO THEPWT THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 6, PAGE 12, PWT RECORDS OF JOHNSON GOT NUA IOWA ZONING INFORMATION: CURRENT20NING SINGLE- FAMILY RERDENTIAL IRS 5) PROPOSED ZONING'. MULTIFAMILYRESIDENTIAL (RM -12) BENTON STREET u N a JLI— w N z AS 0 m oU i z y 3 a o O ~ AXIOMCONSULTANTS CIVIL - STRUCTURAL - MECHANICAL - ELECTRICAL - SURVEY - SPECIALTY September 22, 2023 The proposed rezoning consists of a single parcel located on the South side of W. Benton between Weeber St and Wylde Green Rd in Iowa City. Refer to the Rezoning Exhibit included with the Rezoning Application for additional information and detail. The current zoning classification is RS -5 and the Applicant is seeking to rezone property to RM -12. The applicant is proposing to demo the existing single family home and construct a new "small -house" nursing model that would serve a much needed twelve residents with assisted living. This would be considered complimentary to the current Oaknoll Main Campus directly across the street. The intent with the design of this structure is that it visually appears as if another single-family residential home, while site -wise is situated within the existing trees and vegetation so screening remains and minimal removals are needed. There is city water, storm sewer, and sanitary sewer already provided to this site. Existing easements are in place within the parcel as previously platted and identified. Storm water management is already incorporated into the development for this impervious area. Discussion has taken place with City staff and pre -application process has been completed. A Good Neighbor Meeting was organized and held by Oaknoll staff with the adjacent and surrounding single family residences in which there was a very positive response. With that, included as an attachment to this rezoning application are support letters from neighbors directly adjacent to the parcel proposed to be rezoned. Additional Good Neighbor Meetings can be held if so required or requested. The total area of amended rezoning is 0.776 acres. Sincerely, Brian A. Boelk, PE PRINCIPAL/OWNER 300 S Clinton St #200, Iowa City, IA 52240 1 319.519.6220 w .axiom con.com 2330 12^ Street SW, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 1 319.519.6220 ATTACHMENT 4 Development Concept B W Benton Sc 1 ]Y[ R l i Res. Res, Porch !HC / 6 Po.rchmh Den71 — i i Vest Entry - (--- e)1 1215 IR - Do, DR 1Piry Garage rc Res K t EI. D. TrasM1 a tit Int Seat. J - ,.P"m. p '( a Res. Living Clea.= nM. I i Room •p _ ii Ree 91t —, Spe � eoe RR. 5 Spades W mB i Pati) TM1rmIX Res. Res. Lt. Res. ______L — —__-_..-___-__ a Y B11 Is (A — bU' . �1B I. Lltl 1201 W Benton - Site Plan 12 Residential Units Gross SF: 8,720 SF Circulation: 2,185 SF (25%) Lot Coverage: 26 C W 9enbn st PG. 1 09(05%2023 WL/knoll d OCI GROLIP M©© A R C H I T E C T S 'Y � _ � _ _ :L d dw � � � r -'�- t� I'` M'@p°�-#Y S 1 � � . { + �i° a �,_ a i�'R' t: � e 'y ��^... ;-$!, 5 � in c s• i .yn a � � ��f �+: _. -- -- -- -- _ �.�_'- ..aye— ___ — -- _ - -------- - -_-- � '2 r�i- �i__.r 1201 W Benton - Proposed North Elevation PO 4 09/05/2023 Wahwg d DCI GROUP Mx©© ATTACHMENT 5 Good Neighbor Meeting Summary An active Lij October 30, 2023 To: Madison Conley, Associate Planner — City of Iowa City Re: Good Neighbor meeting for proposed 1201 W. Benton St. project From: Steve Roe, Chief Executive Officer oil Oaknoll hosted an informational meeting for property owners near 1201 W. Benton the afternoon of September 5, 2023. On the north side of Benton St., the Oaknoll campus extends from Oaknoll Drive to Wylde Green Rd. Each property owner on the south side of Benton St. between Weeber St. and Wylde Green Rd. was invited, along with the neighbors who share the property line on the south side of the property. A total of nine property owners were invited. The list of property owners and addresses follows: 1. Randy A. Ihrig 1123 W. Benton St. 2. Katerina Beyerink 1129 W. Benton St. 3. Margaret & Raymond Welsh 1209 W. Benton St. 4. Mousa Abuissa 1215 W. Benton St. 5. Melvin Donaldson & Courtney Hitchon 816 Talwrn Ct. 6. Wilford & Elaine Yoder 820 Talwrn Ct. 7. Kathryn & George Sadewasser 824 Talwrn Ct. 8. Suellen Pennel 802 Wylde Green Rd. 9. John & Connie Nelson 809 Weeber St. could not attend, but met privately Sept. 11 attended and signed letter of support attended and signed letter of support did not attend did not attend attended and signed letter of support attended attended via proxy attended During the meeting, I shared information about Oaknoll's plans for this property, beginning with a description of the "small house' model of nursing care and why we were working to add additional nursing spaces. I shared a map of the area and the architectural renderings of what the proposed building will look like. We closed the meeting with a question -and -answer session. One of the questions was related to parking and another was related to traffic. The residents who will be cared for in this building do not drive, so they will not have vehicles on the property. There will be two to three staff members working with the residents throughout the day, and intermittent visitors to the twelve residents living in this new building. Benton St. is already a very busy street. This building will not add any significant new traffic. If there is any additional information that would be helpful in considering this application, please let me know. Oaknoll Retirement Residence • I Oaknoll Court • Iowa City, Iowa 52246-5250 PHONE 319-351-1720 • FAx 319-351-6772 • www.oaknoll.com ATTACHMENT 6 Public Correspondence September 5, 2023 To: City of Iowa City Re: 1201 W. Benton St. property We, the property owners near Oaknoll, consider Oaknoll to be a "good neighbor". We support Oaknoll's request to the city for a zoning variance from RS5 to RM -12 for their property at 1201 W. Benton St. We understand that if the rezoning request is approved, Oaknoll will pursue adding additional licensed nursing spaces to care for their most dependent residents. The new building will be a good addition to our neighborhood. Randy A. Ihrig, 1,1,223 W. Benton St. Katerina Beyerink, 1129 W. Benton St. Margaret & Raymond Welsh, 1209 W. Benton St. Mousa Abuissa, 1215 W. Benton St. Melvin Donaldson & Courtney Hitchon, 816 Talwrn Ct. Wilford D. & Elaine E. Yoder, 820 Talwrn Ct. Kathryn L. & George Sadewasser, 824 Talwrn Ct. Suellen N. Pennell, 802 Wylde Green Rd. John S. & Connie Nelson, 2245 Macbride Dr. (owner of 809 Weeber St.) September 5, 2023 To: City of Iowa City Re: 1201 W. Benton St. property We, the property owners near Oaknoll, consider Oaknoll to be a "good neighbor". We support Oaknoll's request to the city for a zoning variance from RS5 to RM -12 for their property at 1201 W. Benton St. We understand that if the rezoning request is approved, Oaknoll will pursue adding additional licensed nursing spaces to care for their most dependent residents. The new building will be a good addition to our neighborhood. Randy A. Ihrig, 1123 W. Benton St. Katerina Beyerink, 1129 W. Benton St. Margaret & Raymond Welsh, 1209 W. Benton St. Mousa A uissa, 1215 W. Benton St. Melvin Donaldson & Courtney Hitchon, 816 Talwrn Ct. Wilford D. & Elaine E. Yoder, 820 Talwrn Ct. Kathryn L. & George Sadewasser, 824 Talwrn Ct. Suellen N. Pennell, 802 Wylde Green Rd. John S. & Connie Nelson, 2245 Macbride Dr. (owner of 809 Weeber St.) September 5, 2023 To: City of Iowa City Re: 1201 W. Benton St. property We, the property owners near Oaknoll, consider Oaknoll to be a "good neighbor". We support Oaknoll's request to the city for a zoning variance from RS5 to RM -12 for their property at 1201 W. Benton St. We understand that if the rezoning request is approved, Oaknoll will pursue adding additional licensed nursing spaces to care for their most dependent residents. The new building will be a good addition tc our neighborhood. Randy A. Ihrig, 1123 W. Benton St. Katerina Beyerink, 1129 W. Benton St. Margaret & Raymond Welsh, 1209 W. Benton St. Mousa Abuissa, 1215 W. Benton St. Melvin Donaldson & Courtney Hitchon, 816 Talwrn Ct. Wilford D. & Elaine E. Yoder, 820 Talwrn Ct. Kathryn L. & George Sadewasser, 824 Talwrn Ct. Suellen N. Pennell, 802 Wylde Green Rd. John S. & Connie Nelson, 2245 Macbride Dr. (owner of 809 Weeber St.) November 27, 2023 City of Iowa City Madison Conley Associate Planner RE; CPA23-0001 1201 W Benton St. REZ23-0008 1201 W. Benton St. We strongly support Oaknoll of Iowa City's plan to amend the Southwest District Plan to Low -Density Multi -Family for the property at 1201 W Benton St. Thanks for allowing us to provide this input. Dale L. Woods 1 Oaknoll Ct. Iowa City, IA 52246 Planning and Zoning Commission December 6, 2023 Page 11 of 17 it. He might have been the only person on the Commission at the time but if people remember the rezoning for Grand Living, when they came in the Grand Living at Bridgewater, which is now built in North Coralville, that beautiful structure was going to go in that open area by St. Andrew Presbyterian Church but all the neighbors, in Walnut Ridge in particular, came to complain and now they don't have that beautiful senior facility in Iowa City. He feels like this is something he really strongly supports, it is of course just the map, they can cover the minutiae of the rezoning and particular concerns can be covered as conditions under the rezoning, but just as the concept he fully enthusiastically supports this. Quellhorst stated he would support this amendment and thinks it's an important cause. He also thinks it's in a reasonable place for our employer of zoning, particularly given the other large structures on Benton Street, and this is an arterial street. However, he does think that at some point, whether in this proposed amendment or in a broader revisitation of the District Plan, it'd be helpful to clarify the extent of the development that the City is willing to permit in this area, to provide some comfort and predictability for the people that live there, particularly west of George Street. The whole purpose of the Comprehensive Plan, and the District Plan, is to give people notice of what's going to happen in their neighborhoods and where they live. When the City is doing this in sort of piecemeal fashion, and bringing a change to the Comprehensive Plan, along with a change the zoning code, he doesn't think people get quite the degree of advance notice that might be ideal. Therefore, he will support this request here today, but will be reluctant to support similar requests in the future. Wade agreed he will also vote in favor of it, he understands the neighbors' concerns but because he sees as a transition area from the east to this location this does provide a transitory area from single family residential to a higher density location. A vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0 (Elliott recused). CASE NO. REZ23-0008 Location: 1201 W. Benton Street An application for a rezoning of approximately 0.78 acres of land from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -12) zone. Conley began the staff report noting this rezoning is in tandem with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -0001 that was just approved. There is an existing single-family home on the parcel at the moment and across the street is Oaknoll's main campus. The subject property is bordered by single family homes with RS -5 zoning to the east, west and south and RM -12 residential multifamily high density with an overlay across the street to the north. The proposed zoning for the subject property is RM -12, which is the low density multifamily residential zone. The RM -12 zone is created to provide a diverse variety of housing options in neighborhoods throughout the City. This zone particularly allows multifamily assisted group living, community service, general educational facilities and others, whether that be through permission, provisional use or special exception. Additionally, compliance with the multifamily site development standards in 14-2B-6 of the Iowa City Zoning Code would apply to any development going into the RM -12 zone. The maximum density listed in multifamily has a maximum of 12 units allowed Planning and Zoning Commission December 6, 2023 Page 12 of 17 in this particular zone. Additionally, assisted group living facility would have a maximum of 45 roomers, and that calculation comes from the provisional use section in the Code, there is also a maximum height of 35 feet. Additionally, like previously mentioned there are some requirements depending on how close the proposed structure is to an existing single-family structure, if it is 15 feet there would be a maximum limit of two and a half stories for that proposed structure. Conley next showed the development concept provided by the applicant, the footprint site plan concept for the proposed assisted group living facility. It would house 12 residents in 12 units. The square footage of the building would be 8720 square feet and covers approximately 26% of the lot. There are five parking spaces with the access to West Benton Street. Conley also showed a 3d model of how the structure would look on the property. Regarding the general development approval criteria for a rezoning, it must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and be compatible with the existing neighborhood. The future land use map will be updated due to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment going from two to eight dwelling units to eight to 16 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, the Southwest District Plan will be updated as well going from single-family duplex residential to low-density multifamily. In the Comprehensive Plan there are three parts that support this type of proposed development and rezoning, first is to ensure that infill development is compatible and complimentary to the surrounding neighborhood, second to identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where services and infrastructure are already in place, and finally to promote housing design and features that allow people to age in place such as universal design. Additionally, Conley noted Benton Street is an arterial street corridor with access to City services. She stated this plan does encourage high quality multifamily housing compatible with the surrounding development in order to meet the needs of a variety of households. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan this property is also in the Southwest District Plan, and there are some concerns in that plan, one being high density multifamily zoning is excessive for the area. Number two, transition is lacking between low density single-family and high-density multifamily zones. Third is building bulk and scale, parking lot size, bright lights and noise adjacent to single family homes. There are some recommended actions stated in the Southwest District Plan to help combat this, such as avoid concentrations of high density multifamily zoning directly adjacent to low density single family zones, facilitate downzoning multifamily property where appropriate and apply the multifamily residential design standards contained in Section 14 -5H - 5N of the City Code to the Roosevelt Subarea. Staff is recommending a condition that there should be general compliance with the footprint and scale of the concept plan to ensure compatibility with the existing neighborhood development pattern. Additionally, to talk about the compatibility with existing neighborhood, staff noted that this is seen as an extension of Oaknoll's main campus which exists to the north and is bordered by single family homes to the east, west and south. This condition includes development concept notes, such as it being 8720 square feet, a one-story structure, and can only house 12 residents. The recommended condition that staff has created would help to ensure compliance with the existing neighborhood uses because regulating that building bulk and scale would be one of the ways to ensure that this development meets the existing neighborhood development pattern. Staff recommends approval of REZ23-0008, a proposed rezoning to change 0.78 acres of the Planning and Zoning Commission December 6, 2023 Page 13 of 17 property located at 1201 W. Benton Street from RS -5 to RM -12 zone subject to the following condition: • General compliance with the footprint and scale of the concept plan to ensure compatibility with the existing neighborhood development pattern. Hensch asked about the condition of general compliance of the footprint and scale of the concept plan, one concern is that if this is rezoned to RM -12 and Oaknoll, for some reason, decides they can't proceed with the plan can someone decide to just build some apartments there. Stating general compliance to the footprint and scale of the building does that mean that if it's 10% deviation from that or 50% deviation, then it the rezoning is no longer valid. Conley stated it means that they aim for the concept to comply with what is found in the Code regarding multifamily development standards, specifically the building bulk and scale and making sure that whatever development does come in would comply and be compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. Russett added staff really focuses on bulk and scale for the condition to ensure that they wouldn't allow a large block scale apartment building. Through the condition, they are not restricting uses nor restricting number of units but are trying to say is that the project must fit within approximately 8700 square feet and a one-story building. There may be some flexibility such as if they propose a one and a half story building staff would have to look at that and see if it is generally in compliance, maybe it's not 8700 square feet, maybe it's 8800, so there is some flexibility but general compliance. The project needs to meet the intent of the condition that it's going to fit in terms of bulk and scale with the existing neighbors. Hensch noted the architects said that this facility will be about 15 feet tall so they would be limited to something essentially 15 to 20 feet and if they wanted to change it for some reason, they're not going to get the 35 feet. Russett stated if the Commission wants to put a cap on that, they could add specificity to the condition. Russett noted conditions can go either way, it provides specificity, but it also it can act as a constraint, especially if something changes in the future. As long as staff can ensure that the condition proposed is to meet a public need caused by the rezoning and it can be supported staff would be supportive of adding specificity. Hensch believes it does need to be more specific because the whole thing about character in a neighborhood, if they put a 35 -foot building there, versus a 15 -foot building, it will not be consistent with single family residential dwelling, a 35 -foot building would be out of character. Russett noted the RS -5 zone has a maximum height of 35 feet as well so this zone doesn't allow a higher building than as it's currently zoned. Quellhorst noted they all share a general sentiment that this project appears to be tasteful and well done but there are concerns that they don't want to deviate too far from it. With that in mind what conditions would staff recommend to not cause too many problems for future owners or conveyances but at the same time assure that they're sticking relatively clear way to what's been proposed here today. Russett stated staff believes with their recommended condition of general compliance in terms of bulk and scale, which is talking about the height and the footprint, will assure compliance. If the Commission wants to limit it to a certain number of stories, that's Planning and Zoning Commission December 6, 2023 Page 14 of 17 something that could be considered, there were also discussions regarding landscaping and tree preservation that is not included in the staff condition, so that might be something to require for the future. Hensch stated they have done that in the past and in other times they've had the City Forester sign off on the landscaping plan. He feels that seems reasonable to do again as a condition for this. Craig stated she would like to see a compliance related to the height; in this neighborhood it should not be more than one story. Hensch noted the current zoning height allowed is 35 feet, so currently somebody could build a 35 -foot building right there without getting a rezoning. Russett noted the difference is that at the current zoning it only allows single family and duplex uses and at 35 feet is more likely with RM -12, but there could be a two-story duplex or a three- story duplex. Wade noted oftentimes with a new regular residential multi -unit building, it has some kind of fee in lieu or affordable type unit requirement, what has affordability requirements versus what does not. Russett replied the affordability requirements are in Riverfront Crossings, there is no affordability requirement here. Hensch stated since they're talking about conditions, he is interested in the condition of the landscaping plan and having that signed off by the City Forester because it makes sense to try to maintain as many trees as possible to stay with the character of the neighborhood. His other concern is given how busy Benton Street is, five parking spaces does seem a little light, and perhaps a condition regarding if there's room for additional parking spaces to be constructed, could they add them. They're expecting people to walk across Benton Street and there's not any pedestrian crossings there. Could they add a condition about the engineer working with the City about making a designated pedestrian crossing, because the whole neighborhood needs it. It seems pretty reasonable for the safety of the visitors, guests, employees, and then just for the neighborhood that it needs to be investigated to have a designated pedestrian crossing area that the City has signed off on for the safety of everybody. Hekteon stated they could pass on that request to the City traffic planners. Craig is confident staff will pass along traffic concerns to the appropriate City officials. Hekteon stated if they wanted more feedback from staff they can ask but she would hesitate to recommend imposing it as a condition of the rezoning without further information from staff. Hensch noted they can ask the applicant's engineer about this. Russett added alternatively, if it's something the Commission wants to investigate with City staff they could defer. Craig stated she is comfortable to do City staff will do the right thing here. Hensch opened the public hearing. Brian Boelk (Axiom Consultants) stated with regards to engineering they are certainly happy to work with City staff, Public Works, Engineering Traffic, both in terms of the discussion, certainly Planning and Zoning Commission December 6, 2023 Page 15 of 17 with Benton Street as a whole, but as well as crossings along Benton Street there as well. Oaknoll will not have any issues with that, it's certainly in their best interest for safety as well as Oaknoll is a major employer and needs to be investigated if they're asking staff to cross the street to go to work. In regard to the parking, Belk doesn't think Oaknoll will have any objection to adding more parking there either. This is just a concept drawing, this isn't the site plan that would really get into the depths of all that and in terms of on the concept plan, parking was somewhat limited based on anticipated use with the history of what skilled nursing facilities require and need based on what they've seen over the many years, as well as just trying to limit the amount of impervious area and impact to the property as a whole in terms of a footprint. However, if looking at some additional parking is required, they're not against that, they could move the house a little bit forward and get some additional parking in there. He did note they do have another handicap stall there as well as a space that could be in front of the garage so really there's more like seven parking spaces shown on that concept versus five. Hensch stated it's the sense of the Commission that they're a little light on parking, and also listening to the other people who spoke at the public hearing parking is already an issue around there during times, so they don't want to add to that. Belk reiterated they can definitely look into additional concepts, again they will have to go through the code process with the site plan to make sure they're first meeting the Code, and then can go from there. Hensch asked if they are going to do a landscape plan with concept. Belk replied they will, that would always go with the site plan process and again, certainly the desire that was really pointed out by Oaknoll and directed to them was to position the house there to keep as many of those beautiful trees as they can. Additional landscaping will be based on the site plan and the zoning. Jordan Conrad (905 Weeber Street) stated he still objects to this rezoning and if they are talking about adding more parking spaces that is going to change the feel and start to look like a commercial zone and not a residential neighborhood. He adamantly is opposed to this plan, it's changing the neighborhood and he is rather disappointed that nobody else seems to be concerned about that. Hensch closed the public hearing. Townsend moved to recommend approval of REZ23-0008, a proposed rezoning to change 0.78 acres of the property located at 1201 W. Benton Street from RS -5 to RM -12 zone subject to the following condition: • General compliance with the footprint and scale of the concept plan to ensure compatibility with the existing neighborhood development pattern. Wade seconded the motion. Craig asked to amend the motion to include in the conditions that structure may not exceed one story and City approval is required for a landscaping plan that preserves as much existing mature landscaping as possible. Planning and Zoning Commission December 6, 2023 Page 16 of 17 Townsend agreed to amend her motion, all members of the Commission seconded the amendment. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: NOVEMBER 15,2023: Craig moved to approve the meeting minutes from November 15, 2023. Townsend seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett gave a couple updates; first City Council did adopt the two zoning code amendments that the Commission had seen recently regarding all of the housing code amendments including the accessory dwelling unit amendments which were passed with the Commission's recommendation to maintain the owner occupancy requirement. Second, Tuesday night the Council will to discuss the RNS-12 maximum height reduction from 35 feet to 27 feet. Townsend noted every time she drives up Kimball Road where they knocked down that house there's been a crane there for the past three or four months just sitting there and it just looked like it was sitting on a slope. What are they building there. Russett will check on a building permit and get back to her. ADJOURNMENT: Townsend moved to adjourn, Quellhorst seconded and the motion passed 5-0. Doc ID: 032221220011 Type: GEN Kind: ORDINANCE Recorded: 01/19/2024 at 10:36:26 AM Fee Amt: $57.00 PaOe 1 of 11 Johnson County Iowa Kim Painter County Recorder BK6539 PG570-580 FICC STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS JOHNSON COUNTY ) I, Kellie K. Grace, City Clerk of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify that the Ordinance attached hereto is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 24-4918 which was passed by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of January 2024 is a true and correct copy, all as the same appears of record in my office. Dated at Iowa City, Iowa, this l q+k- day of January 2024. Kellie i. Grace City Clerk lard 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET • IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 • (319) 356-5000 • FAX (319) 356-5009 Prepared by: Madison Conley, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-3565230 (REZ23-0008) Ordinance No. 24-4918 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 0.78 acres of land located 1201 W. Benton Street from Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -12) (REZ23-0008). Whereas, the owner, Christian Retirement Services, Inc., has requested a rezoning of property located at 1201 W. Benton Street from Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -12); and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for 8-16 Dwelling Units per Acre and encourages land use and housing policies specific to ensuring compatible infill development to the surrounding neighborhood, appropriate infill and redevelopment opportunities, and housing designs to allow people to age in place; and Whereas, the Southwest District Plan identifies the subject area as appropriate for Multi -family Residential and encourages development of high-quality multi -family housing that is compatible with the surrounding development to meet the housing needs of a variety of households including singles, young families, university students and elderly populations; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need to ensure the development of high quality multi- family housing that is compatible with the existing neighborhood character, mostly comprised of small scale single-family homes, through general compliance with the footprint and scale of the concept plan, a maximum height of one story, and approval of a landscaping plan by the City Forester that preserves as much of the existing mature landscaping as possible; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with reasonable conditions regarding general compliance with the development concept attached hereto, a maximum height of one story, and a landscaping plan that preserves the existing mature landscape, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2022) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and Whereas, the owner, Christian Retirement Services, Inc., has agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area of the city. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I Approval. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein, property described below is hereby reclassified to Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -12): LOTS 1 AND 2, BRYN MAWR HEIGHTS, PART 1, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEROF RECORDED IN BOOK 6, PAGE 12, PLAT RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 0.78 ACRES. Ordinance No. 24-491 Page 2 Section II. Zoning Map. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of the ordinance as approved by law. Section lll. Conditional Zoning Agreement. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance. Section IV. Certification And Recording. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. Section V. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section VI. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section VII. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Pas d and approved this 16th day of January _ 2024 77-e—�� Kjjv�r Attest: I City Clerk Approved by City Attom y's Office (Sara Hektoen — 1212812023) Ordinance No. 24-4918 Page 3 It was moved by Salih and seconded by Harmsen the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: x Alter x Bergus x Dunn x Harmsen x Moe x Salih x Teague that First Consideration 01/02/2024 Voteforpassage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Salih, Teague NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Moe Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published 01/25/2024 Moved by Alter, seconded by Salih, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived, and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage at this time. AYES: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Salih, Teague NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Moe Prepared by: Madison Conley, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5230 (REZ23-0008) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made among the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City") and Christian Retirement Services, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"). Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 0.78 acres of property located at 1201 W. Benton Street legally described below; and Whereas, Owner has requested the rezoning from Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -12); and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for 8-16 Dwelling Units per Acre and the Southwest District Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for Multi -family Residential; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need to ensure the development of high quality multi -family housing that is compatible with the existing neighborhood character, mostly comprised of small scale single-family homes, through general compliance with the footprint and scale of the concept plan, a maximum height of one story, and approval of a landscaping plan by the City Forester that preserves as much of the existing mature landscaping as possible; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding general compliance with the development concept, a maximum height of one story, and a landscaping plan that preserves the existing mature landscape, the requested rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2023) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and Whereas, The Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Christian Retirement Services, Inc. is the legal title holder of the property legally described as: LOTS 1 AND 2, BRYN MAWR HEIGHTS, PART 1, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEROF RECORDED IN BOOK 6, PAGE 12, PLAT RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 0.78 ACRES. 2. Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2023) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change. 3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner agrees that development of the subject property will conform to all requirements of the Zoning Code, as well as the following conditions: a. General compliance with the footprint and scale of the development concept attached hereto. b. The building shall not exceed one-story in height. c. Approval of landscaping plan by the City Forester that minimize removal of existing mature landscaping during construction. 4. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2023), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 5. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. In the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all development will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this I day of becz Mme- . 2023. Cit .of iI owa City _ B ce Teague;; Ma r Attest: Kellile Grace, City Clerk Ap{�pprr/ooved by: %3 2 Christian Retirement Services, Inc. By: Renc Rco y � 6 City Attorney's Office City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ) ss: Johnson County } This instrument was acknowledged before me on January 16 , 2024by Bruce Teague and Kellie Grace as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. ,� TAMARA NEUMANN Commlesion Number 838058 * * MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Nota Public in and for the Sta a of Iowa carr MARCH 14, 2025 Notary (Stamp or Seal) Christian Retirement Services, Inc. Acknowledgment: State of J -t*> w k County of 3 a4�n5 This record w s acknowledged b 6*Q-- Ken �v(name) as aPR t� BETHA HAAS 2 Commission Number 198807 My COmmISSl�n Expires rowT ^lA_ 17-dS me onGem%et oZ / • 2023 by (title) of Christian Retirement Services Inc. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: i D-' 1-7 - ay25 w Bvmon sr i Porch Ro�rn -.•v - I -Envy ung t tom (sfyc, ` ' Fdpy /N1 ,tiv j♦1 \A sV azd HG 12 Residential Units Gross SF: 8,720 SF Circulation: 2,185 SF (25%) Lot Coverage: 26% I w� a 1201 W Benton - Site Plan PG s 09/05/2023 Wab?011 ��OCIGROUP Q©© ARCHITECTS w r of {qe 4 -r.+ 1�w I.x'A"F•T��S1k�1 (� �.. ._ ,r hr l 3�%Ni�'.. - ,r ,���{y Ns", s AdP /or. �_.� � �° a •�� - r�� a; ft--' 4 1201 W Benton - Proposed North Elevation M&)alwoll oc, GROUR ne mire s Kellie Grace From: Anne Russett Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2024 12:03 PM To: Kellie Grace Cc: Danielle Sitzman; Madison Conley Subject: FW: 1201 W Benton Street - Rezoning Kellie — Oaknoll would like Council to consider consolidating the 2nd and 3rd readings of the rezoning. This will be on the next Council meeting. Thanks, Anne From: Brian Boelk <bboelk@axiom-con.com> Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2024 11:48 AM To: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org>; Madison Conley <MConley@iowa-city.org> Subject: 1201 W Benton Street - Rezoning RISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Good morning, Anne and Madison, hope you had a great holiday and Happy New Year to you both. On behalf of Oaknoll, please consider this a request to consolidate the 21d and 311 readings for the Rezoning at 1201 W Benton Street into one meeting at the next scheduled City Council meeting date. Please let me know if this is feasible and/or if a different process should be taken for such request. Thanks! BRIAN BOELK PE, CPESC, CPMSM Owner - Principal - Civil Services Manager AXIOMCONSULTANTS CBJ Best of the Corridor 2019-2023 w: axiom-con.com c: 319-400-1056 ©®©m Item Number: 8.b. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT January 16, 2024 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning to reduce the maximum allowable height in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone from thirty-five (35) feet to twenty- seven (27) feet for single-family and duplex uses. (REZ23-0005) (Pass & Adopt) Attachments: REZ23-0005 Memo -Deferral -Final -w -Attachments Late Correspondence to PZ Correspondence to PZ-Knote-1 0. 18.2023 PZ 8.16.23 final minutes PZ 10.18.23 prelim minutes Ordinance r i -4 4 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: October 17, 2023 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Request to reduce height requirements in RNS-12 zone (REZ23-0005) Introduction The Northside Neighborhood Association asked the City Council to consider reducing the maximum allowable height in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone from 35 feet to 27 feet. At its June 6, 2023, work session, the City Council initiated the rezoning process by directing staff to prioritize the review of the proposed change. On August 16, staff presented this request to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff recommended denial. The Commission deferred the item to October 17 and requested that staff schedule another meeting with the neighborhood association to discuss the proposal. The Commission also requested additional information on the City's historic preservation program. Staff met with three representatives of the neighborhood association on September 6. During the September 6 meeting, the neighborhood association representatives noted that they were interested in reducing the maximum allowable height only for new single-family and duplex uses. Also, they originally proposed a reduction to 27', but based on our conversation it appeared they were open to other options to regulate height (e.g. 2.5 stories). Staff's understanding of their main concerns are as follows: • The existing maximum height of 35' provides a financial incentive for investors to demolish older, affordable, owner -occupied structures. • The 35' height maximum encourages redevelopment to out -of -scale buildings that can harm neighboring properties. The example given was the proposed single-family home at 319 N. Van Buren Street. Staff continues to recommend retaining the current height for the reasons set forth in the August 16 memo (Attachment 1). Analysis This section is an update to staff's original analysis included in the August 16 memo. This memo presents some additional information to consider regarding zoning code implementation, the effect of local historic and conservation districts, and redevelopment potential. Public Purpose The purpose of building height regulations is to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings. All land uses should be considered when establishing a height limit. Staff has concerns with having maximum allowable height limits that vary based on land use. First, because each zoning district may allow several different land uses, explaining the reason why they should be treated differently is necessary. For example, with the proposal, new single-family and duplex uses would be limited to 27', but other land uses allowed in the zone (e.g. religious institutions, daycares) would remain subject to the 35' maximum. If maximum allowable height varies between uses a governmental purpose for that variation October 10, 2023 Page 2 would need to be established. Staff has not identified a governmental purpose for such a change. Zoning Code Implementation The proposal also recommends that the 27' height maximum only apply to new single-family and duplex uses. The proposal also poses some challenges when it comes to implementing the zoning code. For example: • Existing single-family and duplex uses would remain subject to the 35' height maximum because the proposed change only applies to new structures — not existing ones. • New single-family and duplexes would be subject to the 27' maximum. • Other land uses, such as religious institutions, would have a maximum height of 35'. This height maximum would apply to both existing and new religious institutions. Furthermore, when the RNS-12 zoning district was created, it outlawed multi -family uses. However, there already were many such existing uses present in the area. Therefore, special provisions were created to apply to those existing multi -family uses in order to avoid creating nonconforming uses through the rezoning process. Instead, the code allows existing multi -family uses to be demolished and rebuilt to the present density, but the building would need to meet all other dimensional standards, including height. This is a difficult provision to implement because the owner would need to prove that the multi -family use was conforming with regard to use and density under the previous zoning designation. The details of decades old defunct zoning districts are not readily available to the public or staff. It would also need to be determined whether applying the height limit of 27' to new construction is or is not intended to include additions to existing single-family and duplex structures. This is another complicating factor. Any rezoning ordinance supporting this change would need to clarify the maximum allowable height for additions. The City's zoning code is already complicated, and the proposed changes would add to this complexity. The proposed amendment would mean that staff would have to implement different height requirements for different uses built at different times. This makes implementation even more complicated. Extent of the RNS-12 Zone Today, there are 500 properties city-wide zoned RNS-12. Of the 500 total city-wide properties zoned RNS-12, 375 (75%) are also regulated by a Historic District Overlay (OHD) or a Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zone. These overlay zones preserve properties that have been identified as important historic resources. The impact of the overlay zone regulations will be discussed in the next section. Of the 500 properties city-wide, 313 are within the Northside neighborhood. 266 (85%) of those within the Northside are also within a Historic or Conservation Overlay zone. Only 125 (25%) of properties citywide are zoned RNS-12 and not located within a OHD or OCD zone. 47 of these properties are located within the Northside neighborhood. In summary, there are few properties that are zoned RNS-12 and not located within an OHD or OCD zone. Figure 1 illustrates the boundary of the Northside neighborhood (in red), the location of properties zoned RNS-12, and properties located within a OHD or OCD zone. Table 1 provides a summary of this data. October 10, 2023 Page 3 E Park Rd W Market St W Washington St E Figure 1: Map of properties zoned RNS-12 Properties Zoned RNS-1Z Kimball Rd A Yn 11� O v m t Brown St z 2 � L O Z Fairchild St ® fa11.LW =�_I Iti i!iiil tB inn � I e L 1 11 Z Z M x L i N O O L7 Z 3 n � Z m Z Z E Washington St E College St I P —,= -4 CITY OF IOWA CITY Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann Date Prepared: March 2023 E Cedar St c )avenporF St.2 ton St E Bloocri�n9 j o Rochester Ave L 2 a v Hotz Ave ¢ f 7 �E III i��y^ o 9 61ONrson '2 St J Z z E Iowa Ave C9tc E Washington Q, u• -it t t� St U5 �4� E College St 9ba N N W Burlington rn J � E Burlington St - St 1 4 >R c o 0' j j E Court St Legend - t 'j 'jjN Maple St o Grant Q Northside/Goosetown Boundaryt Ct a Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS12) F a ^ t 3 0 Conservation District Overlay (OCD) ; Center a (•••,.) Historic District Overlay (OHD) BowAve Seymour Ave October 10, 2023 Page 4 Table 1: Summary of Parcels Zoned RNS-12 Ci -wide Number of Parcels % of Parcels Neighborhood Stabilization 500 100% Residential Zone RNS-12 RNS-12 with Historic or 375 75% Conservation District Overlay RNS-12 with No Historic or 125 25% Conservation District Overlay Northside Neighborhood Number of Parcels % of Parcels Neighborhood Stabilization 313 100% Residential Zone (RNS-12) RNS-12 with Historic or 266 85% Conservation District Overlay RNS-12 with No Historic or 47 15% Conservation District Overlay Historic Preservation Program The Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan was adopted by City Council in 2008. The Plan carefully and thoughtfully evaluated Iowa City's historic buildings and neighborhoods and set forth a plan of action for their stewardship. Historic neighborhoods and buildings are protected by the designation of local historic districts, conservation districts, and historic landmarks. Designation provides for the careful management of these resources through the historic review process. The purpose of historic review is to preserve or conserve historic architectural resources by discouraging alterations that either destroy the unique characteristics of a building or alter the character of historic neighborhoods. Local historic and conservation districts are designated through a rezoning process that applies either a Historic or Conservation District Overlay (OHD/OCD). Historic District Overlays (OHD) are geographically cohesive areas with significant concentrations of buildings and other resources that possess a high degree of historic integrity and convey a distinct sense of time and place. The Zoning Code also outlines the OHD in section 14-3B-1 as intended to promote the educational, cultural, economic, and general welfare of the public by protecting, enhancing, and perpetuating historic landmarks and districts of historic, architectural, and cultural significance. An OHD is the City's tool to safeguard historic buildings and neighborhoods throughout the community. The Code states that overlays also ensure a historic review of new construction or alterations of all properties in these areas to assure compatibility with the existing character of historic neighborhoods and preserve the historic integrity of the resources. As described in section 14-3B-2 of the City Code, Conservation Districts Overlays (OCD) are a geographically cohesive area that is similar to a historic district in character. However, because it has fewer properties that retain a high degree of historic integrity or contribute to a distinct sense of time and place, it does not currently qualify as a historic district. Because these areas are still considered worthy of protection, the City Council may designate them for conservation. OCD is intended to conserve the unique characteristics of older neighborhoods and resources, including their architectural, historical, and aesthetic qualities. Similar to OHDs, OCDs also require historic review of new construction and exterior alterations of all buildings within the OCD to assure compatibility with the existing character of older neighborhoods and preserve the historic integrity of the resource. Table 2 outlines the adoption dates for Conservation and Historic Districts existing within RNS- 12 zoned areas. October 10, 2023 Page 5 Table 2: Local Historic & Conservation Districts in areas with RNS-12 Zoning Location Local Designation National Register Governor — Lucas Street Conservation District May 2001 East College Street Historic District May 1997 July 1997 College Hill Conservation District May 2003 Northside Historic District May 2009 April 2005 Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District June 2014 Section 14-3B-3 Historic Review in the Zoning Code lays out the requirements for historic review. The historic review process is required when a material change to the exterior of a property within an OHD or OCD designation requires a regulated permit (e.g. electrical permit, building permit). The Historic Preservation Handbook, adopted by resolution and referenced within the Zoning Code, outlines guidelines that historic review applications are reviewed to. The guidelines address specific historic preservation issues and provide additional guidance to property owners and builders for the design of their projects. Examples of projects requiring historic review include: • New siding • Construction of decks and ramps • Replacement or addition of windows • Demolition of a garage or outbuilding • Porch construction, reconstruction, or replacement • Removal of porches, trim, brackets, chimneys, or defining architectural features • Additions Although some historic review applications can be reviewed and approved by City staff, major changes, such as new construction and demolition must be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. New construction requires historic review when a new principal building or outbuilding is proposed. The Historic Preservation Commission must approve the new building prior to any building permit being issued. The projects are evaluated against the guidelines in the Historic Preservation Handbook, which are intended to ensure compatibility with the character of the neighborhood where construction is to occur. The New Construction guidelines outline recommendations for many types of architectural and exterior features such as, balustrades and handrails, fagade, decks, setbacks, design, doors, windows, etc. With regards to building height the maximum allowable height is 35' pursuant to the Zoning Code; however, the Historic Preservation Handbook includes specific guidelines related to building height and mass and states that "new structures must be one and a half or two stories in height" in the Northside neighborhood. While this is a guideline, any proposal for new construction within an OHD or OCD zone would be reviewed based on the surrounding neighborhood context and the building mass and scale of adjacent buildings and require review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. Demolition involves the complete removal of a building or a portion of a building. Removal of dormers, decorative trim, porches, balustrades, chimneys, and other significant features requires a building permit for demolition, and therefore historic review. The demolition must be approved by the Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. With regards to demolition, the Handbook only allows it where the building is structurally unsound and irretrievable. For non-contributing and non -historic properties requesting demolition, the Commission will consider the condition, integrity, and architectural significance of the building. In summary, the City's historic preservation program is robust. The program helps to preserve, protect, and enhance historic and culturally significant properties throughout Iowa City. Because October 10, 2023 Page 6 most properties zoned RNS-12 are also zoned OHD or OCD (75%), it adds a large degree of protection from any future construction, demolition, or development changes in the future. Redevelopment Review Staff also reviewed demolition permits in RNS-12 zoning districts to identify redevelopment trends over time. This analysis has been updated slightly from the one presented in August to include information on when the demolitions occurred and the height of the new structures. Since 1992, the City had 17 residential demolitions in RNS-12 zones (excluding the demolition of a single-family home for a school playground that should be zoned P1). This averages approximately 1 demolition every 2 years over the past 31 years. Two of these from the 1990s are for uses that are no longer allowed. A full list of the demolitions of residential buildings can be found in Figure 2. 3 N E 2 N a c 0 E E 1 0 M Figure 2: Demolition of Residential Buildings in RNS-12 Zones, 1992-2003 I 111 161_ I " m m m oao00.0000m m m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H N N N N N el N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N The characteristics of these demolitions are summarized below. In addition, Figure 2 shows when demolitions occurred by year. Six of the 17 demolitions occurred prior to the land being rezoned to RNS-12. 1 single-family demo to create vacant lot in 1992; remains undeveloped 1 single-family demo to build parking 1 duplex demo to build 4-plex (no longer allowed) 1 group living demo to build 6-plex (no longer allowed) 1 duplex demo to build a church 3 demos for buildings damaged in natural disasters; one single-family redeveloped as a single-family, one single-family redeveloped as a duplex, and one multi -family redeveloped as a duplex 4 single-family demos to build single-family (includes 319 N Van Buren) 4 single-family demos to build duplexes 1 duplex demo to build a duplex Additionally, staff looked at building plans to estimate height of the redeveloped buildings. Plans were found for 11 of the buildings that have been built. 2 of the 11 are above 27' in height. Both of these are for multi -family developments that would no longer be allowed in the zone. 9 of the 11 are 27' or less in height October 10, 2023 Page 7 Based on this, it does not appear that the maximum allowable height of 35' acts an incentive for redevelopment or else more buildings would be closer to the height maximum. It may be an incentive for the development of multi -family residential, but doesn't appear to be an incentive to redevelop in zones that only allow single-family and duplex uses. Overall, it appears that development pressure in the RNS-12 zone has actually decreased over time and redeveloping small single-family homes into large single-family homes is not common. This is likely due to 75% of properties zoned RNS-12 also being located within Historic and Conservation District Overlay zones, which restrict demolitions and involve Historic Preservation Commission review. Comprehensive Plan Analysis The Future Land Use Map of the Central District Plan includes a land use designation for Single -Family Residential Stabilization. The description for this designation is as follows: "Intended for older areas of the city where single family homes originally predominated, but due to subsequent changes in zoning have experienced an increase in housing density and some conversion to multi -family and group living uses has occurred. The intent of this designation is to preserve the single-family residential character that remains by preventing further densification and conversion of single family residences to multi -family. Development Density: varies depending on mix of single family and conforming and nonconforming multi -family and group living uses." This land use designation is applied to large areas of the Northside neighborhood, portions of E. Market and E. Jefferson Streets, and areas of Lucas and S. Governor Streets south of Burlington Street. These areas generally correspond to the areas zoned RNS-12. As described in the adopted land use designation, the purpose of the designation is to "preserve the single-family residential character" by "preventing further densification and conversion of single-family residences to multi -family". In summary, the goal of this land use category is to maintain a single-family neighborhood and restrict the number of units by limiting other housing types. The land use designation does not speak to the scale of development, but rather housing types and density. The scale of the development is regulated by height in the zoning code. There are many statements within the comprehensive plan related to infill development and ensuring that it is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood. The maximum allowable height in most residential zones is 35', which implies it has already been determined that 35' is a height that ensures a complimentary scale. Conclusions • While height limits are intended to prevent domination of adjacent properties, the City has traditionally found that 3 story building heights are appropriate in all areas containing single-family uses, including the RNS-12 zone. The purpose of the RNS-12 zone is to maintain a single-family character, which has been interpreted as preserving single- family uses, and preventing the spread of multi -family conversions and redevelopment. The current height limitation is consistent with other single-family residential zones, thus serving the purpose of the RNS-12 zone to maintain the predominantly single-family neighborhood character. The purpose of height regulations are to promote a reasonable scale and relationship between buildings. All land uses should be considered when establishing a height limit. October 10, 2023 Page 8 A public purpose justification must be identified for regulations, such as maximum heights, that vary based on land use. Alleviation of perceived redevelopment pressures and preservation of neighborhood character are not served by allowing uses to be constructed at varying heights. • Implementation of the zoning code must be considered. The proposed changes require staff to implement different height requirements for different uses built at different times. Staff does not recommend creating unnecessarily complicated regulations. 75% of the properties zoned RNS-12 are located within a Historic or Conservation District Overlay zone. As the staff report outlines, new construction would be subject to historic preservation guidelines, and require review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. In short, 75% of properties within the RNS-12 zone are already subject to additional review processes that ensure new structures are not out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. Redevelopment pressures do not appear to be mounting in areas zoned RNS-12. Since 1992 there have been 17 residential demolitions in the RNS-12 zone (six of which occurred prior to the land being rezoned to RNS-12). This is an average of approximately 1 demolition every 2 years. This may be due in part to the large number of properties that are located within Historic and Conservation District Overlay zones, which restrict demolitions. The purpose of the RNS-12 zone is not tied to historic characteristics or the scale of the development. For that purpose, the City has adopted Historic and Conservation Overlay areas and much of the area zoned RNS-12 is subject to those additional guidelines and requirements. For these reasons, Staff does not support the requested amendment to the zoning code, even as modified from the original proposal. Next Steps Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed rezoning ordinance. Staff Recommendation Staff does not recommend approval of REZ23-0005, a proposal to change the maximum allowable building height from thirty-five (35) feet to twenty-seven (27) feet in the Neighborhood Residential Stabilization (RNS-12) zone for new single-family and duplex structures. As was noted above, staff has not identified a governmental purpose for having the maximum allowable height vary based on land use. If the Commission wants to recommend approval they would need to identify what the governmental purpose is for regulating height differently based on use. Attachments 1. August 16, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission Memo 2. Correspondence Approved by: t� • J: ^� Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 - October 18, 2023 Memo August 16, 2023 Memo to the Planning & Zoning Commission r i -4 4 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: August 16, 2023 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Request to reduce height requirements in RNS-12 zone (REZ23-0005) Introduction The Northside Neighborhood Association petitioned the City Council to consider reducing the maximum allowable height in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone from 35 feet to 27 feet. The association's petition can be found in Attachment 1. At its June 6, 2023, work session, the City Council directed staff to prioritize the review of the proposed change. Background History of the Neighborhood Residential Stabilization (RNS-12) Zone The purpose of the RNS-12 zone is to stabilize certain existing residential neighborhoods by preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of these neighborhoods. Provisions in this zone prevent the conversion or redevelopment of single-family uses to multi- family uses. However, existing conforming multi -family uses retain their conforming status when rezoned to RNS-12. The RNS-12 zone allows detached single-family dwellings and duplexes, but does not allow detached zero lot line dwellings or attached single-family dwellings. The zone does not allow new multi -family developments. The existing 35' maximum height is consistent with all single-family and multi -family residential zones in Iowa City. The zone was originally created after a controversy in 1992 when a project proposed adding more than one residential structure to a single lot in a Low -Density Multi -Family Residential Zone (RM -12). Owners of nearby properties petitioned Council due to concerns that allowing more than one residential structure per lot in RM -12 zones would be out of character with the existing neighborhood. In response, City Council adopted what is now known as the Neighborhood Residential Stabilization Zone (RNS-12)1 on March 30, 1993, and rezoned several properties in the general vicinity of Johnson Street on the west, Clapp Street on the east, Market Street on the north, and Jefferson Street on the south from RM -12 to RNS-12. See Attachment 2. In February of 1994, Council amended the RNS-12 zone to affirm the zone's single-family character and restrict the number of principal buildings permitted on a lot. It also further clarified that the zone does not allow the construction of new multi -family structures. Over time, Council continued to rezone several additional areas to RNS-12. While the circumstances for rezoning each area were different, the overarching goals included conserving each neighborhood's single-family character and preventing new multi -family development. A summary of the creation of the zone and the multiple amendments to the zoning map that resulted in rezoning from a multi -family zone to RNS-12 are as follows: 1 This zone was originally named Neighborhood Residential Conservation Zone or RNC -12, but was renamed RNS-12 in 2005. August11,2023 Page 2 • March 30, 1993: initial adoption of the RNS-12 zone, which amended the zoning code to create a new zoning designation focused on allowing single-family dwellings and not allowing new multi -family dwellings • March 30, 1993: properties along Johnson Street to the west, Clapp Street on the east, Market Street on the north, and Jefferson Street on the south were rezoned from the RM -12 zone to the RNS-12 zone • June 21, 1994: properties along Church Street between Dubuque and N. Dodge Streets were downzoned from RM -12 to RNS-12 • January 11, 1995: Fairchild and Davenport Streets, between N. Dubuque and N. Dodge Streets, and the 200 block of Bloomington Street, excluding properties zoned RM -44 along Dubuque Street were downzoned to RNS-12 • May 16, 2000: properties along the 300-600 blocks of S. Governor and S. Lucas Streets, and a portion of the 700-800 blocks and 800-900 blocks of Bowery Street were downzoned to RNS-12 • November 21, 2000: properties in the vicinity of Iowa Avenue, Washington Street, South Summit Street, Governor Street, Muscatine Avenue, and College Street were downzoned to RNS-12. The most recent change to the boundaries of the RNS-12 zoning district occurred on May 1, 2007. Property owners in and near the South Governor and Bowery Street areas petitioned Council to rezone the neighboring area from RNS-12 to RS -8. The purpose was to preserve the balance of rental and owner -occupied housing by ensuring that additional duplex conversions would not take place. Council approved the rezoning. The boundaries for areas zoned RNS-12 have not changed since 2007. Explanation of Building Height While the application of the RNS-12 zone has expanded to various areas of the city through multiple rezonings, the height limit in the zone has not changed since it was adopted. Maximum height regulations help promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings, provide light, air, and privacy, and discourage buildings that visually dominate other nearby buildings. The maximum height in the RNS-12 zone is 35 feet, as defined in the code as measured from the average point of ground elevation 5 feet from the building (called "grade") and the roofline, which is the highest point of a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof, or the midpoint between the eaves and ridge of a saddle, hip, gable, gambrel, or ogee roof. Certain items are exempted from building height, such as chimneys, spires on institutional buildings, domes (and similar roof protrusions) without habitable floor space, parapet walls up to 3 feet, television antennas, and roof structures such as solar energy systems, stairways, ventilating fans, and similar equipment required to maintain the building. Maximum height may be increased if all setbacks are increased by an additional 2 feet for each foot of height above the height limit or through a Minor Modification process where applicable approval criteria are met. Staff estimates that almost all properties currently zoned RNS-12 conform with the current maximum height limit. Analysis Extent of the RNS-12 Zone Today, there are 500 properties city-wide zoned RNS-12. Of the 500 total city-wide properties zoned RNS-12, 375 (75%) are also regulated by a Historic District Overlay (OHD) or a Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zone. These overlay zones preserve properties that have been identified as important historic resources. The impact of the overlay zone regulations will be discussed in the next section. Of the 500 properties city-wide, 313 are within the Northside neighborhood. 266 (85%) of those within the Northside are also within a Historic or Conservation Overlay zone. 125 (25%) of properties citywide are zoned RNS-12 and not located within a OHD or OCD zone. 47 of these properties are located within the Northside August 11, 2023 Page 3 neighborhood. In summary, there are few properties that are zoned RNS-12 and not located within an OHD or OCD zone. Figure 1 illustrates the boundary of the Northside neighborhood (in red), the location of properties zoned RNS-12, and properties located within a OHD or CCD zone. Table 1 provides a summary of this data. See also Attachment 3. Figure 1: Map of properties zoned RNS-12 E Park Rd W Market St Properties Zoned RNS-12 E z N Kimball Rd �saBrown St laal// a'Sf.A! i�ns!yiLs� iCt •'a st 2 L�� .i'!04■ �j IlL u eu r _ -■o CITY OF IOWA CITY Preparetl Ly'. Kirk Lehmann Date Prepared MarcM1 2023 NE CedarSt -eni sr s Noe E Bloom,PAn St o Rochester Ave i E I a m Hotz Ave ¢' £ I P Jef/e SL a V N c o r i. rson f V O U' Z J S[ N2 Z z z z z Z z E Iowa Ave Lj;^moi` E Court St Legend I c W WashingtonE sit E Washington St in••u I Washington St ^�vo 3xA yv 45 RFL: IS5 1. 4�11 Q Northside/Goosetown Boundary 1 i, a4�P L+ _ Ct n a E College St .. E College St � m n N Conservation District Overlay (OCD) 9L 3 Center I Historic District Overlay (OHD) Bower P V N r W BurlingtonM Co E Burlington St F '^ S[ N2 N a a �H E■ Lj;^moi` E Court St Legend „ „ u Maple Bt o Grant Q Northside/Goosetown Boundary 1 i, L+ _ Ct n Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS12) .. 3 m n N Conservation District Overlay (OCD) TLj.' 3 Center I Historic District Overlay (OHD) Bower t`,b Ave Seymour Ave August 11, 2023 Page 4 Table 1: Summary of Parcels Zoned RNS-12 City-wide Number of Parcels % of Parcels Neighborhood Stabilization 500 100% Residential Zone (RNS-12) RNS-12 with Historic or 375 75% Conservation District Overlay RNS-12 with No Historic or 125 25% Conservation District Overlay Northside Neighborhood Number of Parcels % of Parcels Neighborhood Stabilization 313 100% Residential Zone RNS-12 RNS-12 with Historic or 266 85% Conservation District Overlay RNS-12 with No Historic or 47 15% Conservation District Overlay Local Historic & Conservation Districts All properties within an overlay zone OHD or OCD are subject to historic review for exterior modifications that require a regulated permit (e.g. building permit). As a result, any new construction or demolition must be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Properties in these overlay zones are also subject to the guidelines adopted in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook which are analyzed during historic review. With regards to building height the maximum allowable height is 35'; however, the Handbook includes specific guidelines related to building height and mass and notes that "new structures must be one and a half or two stories in height" in the Northside neighborhood. Any proposal for new construction within an OHD or OCD zone would be reviewed based on the surrounding neighborhood context and the building mass and scale of adjacent buildings. With regards to demolition, the Handbook only allows it where the building is structurally unsound and irretrievable. For non-contributing and non -historic properties requesting demolition, the Commission will consider the condition, integrity, and architectural significance of the building. Because most properties zoned RNS-12 are also zoned OHD or OCD, it adds a large degree of protection from any future construction, demolition, or development changes in the future. Field Work Review To identify the potential impacts of the proposed amendment, staff estimated the building height for all properties zoned RNS-12 using 2021 pictometry data from CONNECTExplorer. Staff decided to utilize this after exploring other options. One such option including using lasers and measuring distance and calculating height from the sidewalk; however, there were issues with accuracy. Furthermore, based on our conversations with both City and County GIS professionals they considered this tool to be the best option. It is important to note that without engineered drawings or the use of professional survey equipment and access to each property, it is not possible to ascertain actual building height from grade to roofline. Most buildings in this area were built before current building permitting processes, so construction drawings are not available. As such, this analysis only provides an idea of possible impacts; it should not be interpreted as a definitive count of affected properties. To adjust for potential error in measurement, staff categorized properties into groups with counts shown in Table 2. This analysis suggests that approximately (1/5) one-fifth of buildings zoned RNS-12 may become non -conforming if the height limit were reduced from 35 feet to 27 feet. Generally, these are spread throughout the area zoned RNS-12. However, the impacts of the proposed amendments could be lesser or greater depending on actual measurements. August11,2023 Page 5 Table 2: parcels by Buildingeight Building Height Number of Parcels % of Parcels Category >35' 13 2.6% Non -conforming; would continue to be non -conforming 30-35' 104 20.8% Conforming; may become non -conforming 25-29' 122 24.4% Conforming; may be conforming or non -conforming <25' 259 51.8% Conforming; may continue to be conforming Undetermined 2 0.4% Lack of data or challenging site characteristics Total 500 100.0% Source: CONNECTExplorer data collected by City staff Buildings taller than the proposed 27 -foot height limit would become non -conforming. Generally, these may continue as they are so long as non -conformities are not increased or extended. In addition, buildings may only be rebuilt to the same height as an existing structure where damage to that building is less than 75% of its assessed value or it is a historic building. Other more flexible non -conforming provisions generally apply to non -conforming single-family uses. Single-family uses may be restored to the same degree of non -conforming or less if destroyed or damaged by fire or a natural disaster. As such, the proposed amendment would have two main impacts on those owning property that may become non -conforming. The first is that future expansions must comply with the new height limit, which may create situations where an addition cannot be the same height as the original building. The second is that if something happens to a structure such that it is destroyed, it may not be permitted to be rebuilt to its current dimension. This has implications for owners in the area in the event of a disaster. It is also considered best practice to minimize the number of non -conformities caused by changes to the zoning code. Redevelopment Review Staff also reviewed demolition permits in RNS-12 zoning districts to identify redevelopment trends over time. Since 1992, the City had 17 residential demolitions in RNS-12 zones (excluding the demolition of a single-family home for a school playground that should be zoned P1). This averages approximately 1 demolition every 2 years over the past 31 years. Two of these from the 1990s are for uses that are no longer allowed. A full list of the demolitions of residential buildings can be found in Figure 2. N E Z Figure 2: Demolition of Residential Buildings in RNS-12 Zones, 1992-2003 X ry m a vi m n m m m .� ry m a in m r m m o .y ry m w m m m m m m m m o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o o .y .i .y ti ..� .w .y .y .i ry ry ry ry m m m m m m m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H N N N H N el N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N August11,2023 Page 6 The characteristics of these demolitions are summarized below. In addition, Figure 2 shows when demolitions occurred by year. 1 single-family demo to create vacant lot in 1992; remains undeveloped 1 single-family demo to build parking 1 duplex demo to build 4-plex (no longer allowed) 1 group living demo to build 6-plex (no longer allowed) 1 duplex demo to build a church 3 demos for buildings damaged in natural disasters; one single-family redeveloped as a single-family, one single-family redeveloped as a duplex, and one multi -family redeveloped as a duplex 4 single-family demos to build single-family (includes 319 N Van Buren) 4 single-family demos to build duplexes 1 duplex demo to build a duplex Overall, it appears that development pressure in the RNS-12 zone has actually decreased over time and redeveloping small single-family homes into large single-family homes is not common. This may be due to the fact that 75% of properties zoned RNS-12 are also located within Historic and Conservation District Overlay zones, which restrict demolitions. Affordability & Equity Housing affordability is a common goal between both the Northside Neighborhood Association and the City of Iowa City. According to the National Association of Counties Matchmaker Tool, Johnson County is a high-cost county with a rapidly growing population. This is a common indicator that housing supply is not sufficient to meet current housing demand. In addition, the Matchmaker Tool notes that 31.6% of renters in Johnson County are severely cost -burdened, spending half or more of their income on rent alone. Recommended policy solutions include upzoning land to allow for high-density housing and low-cost housing types, flexibility in design standards, establishing an affordable housing trust fund, and relaxing dimensional requirements. This assessment of county -level metrics provides ample solutions to the high-cost housing issue in Iowa City and Johnson County as a whole. Regarding the proposed reduction in height, staff has not found adequate evidence to suggest that a height limit restriction will increase housing affordability. Instead, staff presented and the Commission recommended approval of several best practice zoning reform strategies on August 2, 2023 to increase housing supply and improve housing options. Comprehensive Plan Analysis The Future Land Use Map of the Central District Plan includes a land use designation for Single -Family Residential Stabilization. The description for this designation is as follows: "Intended for older areas of the city where single family homes originally predominated, but due to subsequent changes in zoning have experienced an increase in housing density and some conversion to multi -family and group living uses has occurred. The intent of this designation is to preserve the single-family residential character that remains by preventing further densification and conversion of single family residences to multi -family. Development Density: varies depending on mix of single family and conforming and nonconforming multi -family and group living uses." This land use designation is applied to large areas of the Northside neighborhood, portions of E. Market and E. Jefferson Streets, and areas of Lucas and S. Governor Streets south of Burlington Street. These areas generally correspondence to the areas zoned RNS-12. August11,2023 Page 7 As described in the adopted land use designation, the purpose of the designation is to "preserve the single-family residential character" by "preventing further densification and conversion of single-family residences to multi -family". In summary, the goal of this land use category is to maintain a single-family neighborhood and restrict the number of units by limiting other housing types. The land use designation does not speak to the scale of development, but rather housing types and density. The scale of the development is regulated by height in the zoning code. There are many statements within the comprehensive plan related to infill development and ensuring that it is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood. The maximum allowable height in most residential zones is 35', which implies it has already been determined that 35' is a height that ensures a complimentary scale. Conclusions 75% of the properties zoned RNS-12 are located within a Historic or Conservation District Overlay zone. As the staff report outlines, new construction would be subject to historic preservation guidelines, and require review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. In short, 75% of properties within the RNS-12 zone are already subject to additional review processes that ensure new structures are not out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. • Redevelopment pressures do not appear to be mounting in areas zoned RNS-12. Since 1992 there have been 17 residential demolitions in the RNS-12 zone. This is an average of approximately 1 demolition every 2 years. This may be due in part to the large number of properties that are located within Historic and Conservation District Overlay zones, which restrict demolitions. • Lowering the maximum allowable height will unnecessarily create non -conforming situations. • While height limits are intended to prevent domination of adjacent properties, the City has traditionally found that 3 story building heights are appropriate in all areas containing single-family uses, including the RNS-12 zone. The purpose of the RNS-12 zone is to maintain a single-family character, which has been interpreted as preserving single- family uses, and preventing the spread of multi -family conversions and redevelopment. • The purpose of the RNS-12 zone is not tied to historic characteristics or the scale of the development. For that purpose, the City has adopted Historic and Conservation Overlay areas and much of the area zoned RNS-12 is subject to those additional guidelines and requirements. • Reducing the height limit is not a recommended best practice for improving housing affordability, but rather increasing the diversity and density of housing would be the most appropriate methods. • The current height limitation is consistent with other single-family residential zones, thus serving the purpose of the RNS-12 zone to maintain the predominantly single-family neighborhood character. For these reasons, Staff does not support the requested amendment to the zoning code. August 11, 2023 Page 8 Next Steps Staff sent letter to owners of properties zoned Neighborhood Residential Stabilization (RNS-12) notifying them of the petition from the neighborhood association. The letter was mailed on July 26, 2023. Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed rezoning ordinance. Staff Recommendation Staff does not recommend approval of REZ23-0005, a proposal to change the maximum allowable building height from thirty-five (35) feet to twenty-seven (27) feet in the Neighborhood Residential Stabilization (RNS-12) zone. Attachments 1. Northside Neighborhood Association Petition to City Council 2. Map of RNS-12 Rezoning Timeline 3. Map of Properties Zoned RNS-12 Approved by: r ) • Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordine Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Northside Neighborhood Association Petition to City Council Ashley Platz From: James Throgmorton <jthrogmo@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2023 4:41 PM To: *City Council Cc: Bruce Teague; Megan Alter; John Thomas; Laura Bergus; Shawn Harmsen; Pauline Taylor; Andrew Dunn; Geoff Fruin; Sharon DeGraw; Susan Shullaw Subject: Strengthening Iowa City's Central Neighborhoods Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; RNS-12formalrequestNNA2023.pdf; RNS-12Northsidemap.jpg R SK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Dear council members, I write to you on behalf of the Northside Neighborhood Association's (NNA's) Steering Committee. For reasons documented in the attached proposal, we in the NNA believe the Zoning Code should be amended to reduce from 35 feet to 27 feet the maximum height for single-family and duplex residential structures in Residential Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12) zones. This amendment would help ensure that infill development projects in RNS-12 districts contribute to a healthy balance of affordable rental and owner -occupied housing without compromising the character of the Northside and similar neighborhoods. Neighborhood Development Services staff have told us that either the City Council or the Planning and Zoning Commission must be the sponsors of requests to change the text of the Code Consequently, we ask the Council to initiate the rezoning process and direct staff to proceed in an expeditious manner. The only change being requested is to go from 35' to 27' in RNS-12 districts. We recognize that the proposed amendment would have to go through standard review by the City staff, the P&Z Commission and the City Council, and that those reviews and related discussions will influence your final decision about the merits of the proposed amendment. Thank you for considering this request and for your service to the people of Iowa City Best regards, Jim Throgmorton PROPOSAL FOR STRENGTHENING IOWA CITY CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOODS: Reduce the Height Limit in RNS-12 Districts to 27 Feet The Northside Neighborhood Association believes the Zoning Code should be amended to reduce from 35 feet to 27 feet the maximum height for single-family and duplex residential structures in residential neighborhood stabilization (RNS-12) zones.This amendment would make the height standards consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan, and it would help ensure that infill development projects in RNS-12 districts contribute to a healthy balance of affordable rental and owner -occupied housing without compromising the character of the Northside and similar neighborhoods.' Our Request Neighborhood Development Services staff have told us that either the City Council or the Planning and Zoning Commission must be the sponsors of requests to change the text of the Code.t Consequently, we ask the Council to initiate the rezoning process and direct staff to proceed in an expeditious manner. The only change being requested is to go from 35' to 27' in RNS-12 districts. We provide you with this report so that you can decide whether the Council is willing to initiate the proposed rezoning. Assuming a majority agrees to direct staff to act, we would be prepared to provide further assistance as necessary. We recognize that the proposed amendment would have to go through standard review by the City staff, the P&Z Commission and the City Council, and that those reviews and related discussions will influence your final decision about the merits of the proposed amendment. Background about the Northside Neighborhood Located within the 1839 plat of the city, the Northside neighborhood is Iowa City's oldest intact neighborhood. Located within convenient walking distance of the downtown and the main campus of the university, the neighborhood contains features that mark it as a model for inclusive and sustainable development, including: a vibrant commercial district, a thriving and recently renovated elementary school, a mixture of housing types and costs, a significant forest canopy, medical facilities and grocery stores, and many appealing components of an attractive public realm, including North Market Square Park and many others.The neighborhood is also a valuable asset for Iowa City as a whole; for example, because its residential density is considerably higher than most other neighborhoods, the property tax revenue it generates per acre are also likely to be higher. The attached zoning map shows the boundaries of RNS-12 districts relative to the Northside neighborhood and its historic and conservation distrix overlay zones. Most of the RNS-12 district properties are located in the Northside; however, some are located southeast of the Northside neighborhood. The two other RNS-12 districts are located in the Longfellow neighborhood along South Lucas and South Governor Streets and in the College Hill neighborhood between Burlington, Washington, Governor Streets and Muscatine Avenue. We have reached out to representatives of Longfellow and College Hill neighborhoods and invited them to join us in this request We have chosen to follow the staff's advice; however, we are confused by the staffs interpretation of Sections 14 -8D -SA (Initiation) and 14 -8D -5C (Submittal Requirements) of the Zoning Code. Clarification would be helpful. Goals of the Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan, Central District Plan, Residential Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12) Zones, and Strategic Plan Our request is rooted in ambitions and purposes expressed in Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan, the Central District Plan, the RNS-12 provisions of the Zoning Code, and the recently adopted Strategic Plan for 2023-2028. Iowa City's "I C2030: Comprehensive Plan Update" (2013) states,"Quality infill development plays an important role in neighborhood reinvestment and may include rehabilitating existing structures or encouraging new development of vacant, blighted, or deteriorated property. Development of infill sites should add to the diversity of housing options without compromising neighborhood character or over -burdening infrastructure, including alleys and parking" (2013, p. 21).Two of the plan's specific goals are to "Ensure that infill development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood" (p.24), and to "create a healthy balance of rental and owner -occupied housing in all neighborhoods" (p.28). z The "Central District Plan" (2008/2012), states in part,"While there are a considerable number of smaller, modest homes in Subarea A [which includes the Northside], the competition from student renters, who often live together and pool their resources, keeps these homes out of the financial reach of many singles or families looking for affordable homes to rent or own" (p. 13). Goal 2 of this plan indicates City government will "Work to achieve a healthy balance of rental and owner -occupied housing in the district's older neighborhoods to promote long-term investment, affordable housing opportunities, and preservation of historic homes and neighborhoods" (p.20).And it will "Examine existing zoning rules to ensure that they support housing goals and neighborhood stabilization efforts" (p.21). x According to Iowa City's Zoning Code (Section 14 -2A -I E), the purpose of the RNS-12 zone is "to stabilize certain existing residential neighborhoods by preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of these neighborhoods. Provisions in this zone prevent the conversion or redevelopment of single-family uses to multi -family uses." Section 14 -2A -4C- I further stipulates that maximum height standards in the Code are intended "to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings; provide options for light, air, and privacy; and discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity." This maximum height "may be increased; provided, that for each foot of height increase above the height standard, the front, side, and rear setbacks are each increased by an additional two feet (2'):' Iowa City's "Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2023-2028" summarizes the vision, strategies and key action steps for the City Council and staff through the five-year planning period. While all of the Strategic Plan has relevance to the quality of life in the Northside neighborhood—we share the three key values expressed in the Plan—several specific elements of the plan directly relate to our request' One of the Strategic Plan's three key values pertains to "partnership and engagement," It states, "Community members believe engagement and participation in local government decision-making is worthwhile and sincere .... [and] Neighborhoods are revitalized as a source of grassroots community - building, empowerment, and prosperity for all households" (p. 8). 3 Those values are: 1) racial equity, social justice, and human rights; 2) climate action; and 3) partnerships and engagement The Strategic Plan also identifies five impact areas, the first of which is Neighborhoods and Housing. The vision for this impact area states: Iowa City is a collection of authentic, vibrant neighborhoods and districts. By way of internal and external streets and trails, each community member has safe, easy access to everyday facilities and services within a I S -minute walk or bike ride. Neighborhoods are compact and socially diverse, with a variety of housing choices and at least one place serving as its center. Permanent affordable housing choices are dispersed throughout the community. New higher density develop- ment blends with existing buildings and shapes a comfortable, human -scale pedestrian environ- ment. Public spaces are inviting and active with people recreating and socializing in parks, natural areas, and tree -lined streetscapes, all enhanced with public art and placemaking activities" (p. 9) a We in the Northside neighborhood are striving to preserve and strengthen the kind of neighborhood the Comprehensive Plan, Central District Plan, RNS-12 code, and Strategic Plan purport to value. We ask the City Council to put those values into action by amending the maximum height provision of the RNS-12 Code. Rationale forAmending the Maximum Height Provision of the RNS-12 Code There are three RNS-12 districts in Iowa City. Roughly 500 properties are located in them.Three hundred and thirteen (3 13) of the properties are located within the Northside neighborhood.To date, we have been focusing our attention on the properties located within the Northside neighborhood and the neighborhood located immediately southeast of it; however, we recognize the importance of reaching out to residents who live in the other two RNS-12 districts, and we have begun doing so. 1) The 35 -foot Maximum Height Undermines Affordability The existing housing stock in the Northside's RNS-12 district is quite diverse it terms of housing type, age, assessed value, and ownership. The 35 -foot maximum height for new single-family and duplex structures provides a financial incentive that undermines the affordability of housing in the neighborhood. According to our preliminary analysis of 244 residential properties located in the RNS-12 district (including the part extending east outside of the Northside's boundary): ' 137 designated as single-family/owner-occupied' 51 2 -family conversions or duplexes 17 rooming houses 16 3 -family conversions 12 apartments 6 4 -family conversions 3 5 -family conversion 2 condominiums 4 To help readers envision what such a neighborhood would look like, the Plan prominently displays a photograph taken during a Northside neighborhood block party. 5 Many properties designated as single-family / owner -occupied are owned by LLCs.VVe do not understand why they are classified as "owner -occupied;' but we presume that many of them are rented. 6 Detailed information about property ownership and assessed values in the RNS-12 and other zoning districts can be found in the Johnson County Assessor's Property Information Viewer a t:https:ilgis.johnsoncounrylowa.gov/piv/. As one would expect of an older central neighborhood, the buildings tend to be quite old; they range in age from one built in 1848 to two built in 2016. The breakdown of buildings according to age is as follows: 56 built in the 1800s 157 built from 1900 to 1949 31 built after 1950 The 2023 assessed values of the single-family/owner-occupied properties ranges from to $76,410 to $544,610; a breakdown of assessed properties can be seen below: 25 properties are assessed in the $ I00,000s or less 77 properties are assessed in the $200,OOOs 26 properties are assessed in the $300,OOOs 5 properties are assessed in the $400,OOOs 4 properties are assessed in the $500,OOOs It is especially instructive to look at the mix of owners of the 313 properties. Fifty-two (52) are owned by 30 Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) or corporations. Of the 313 properties located in the Northside's portion of the RNS-12 zone, at least 40 are owned by one company. The age, assessed values, and location of housing in the Northside's RNS-12 district has important consequences. The continued demand for student housing puts pressure on housing in the Northside and other close -in neighborhoods. In light of that demand, investors have a strong financial incentive to convert existing single-family structures to rental units (especially but not exclusively) for students or else to demolish existing structures and replace them with structures housing a larger number of occupants. Lot by lot, some developers seek permission to construct structures which are incompatible in scale and character with nearby buildings.This market pressure drives up the assessed values of property, which increases property taxes and makes the neighborhood less affordable for current owner -occupants and for families and individuals who wish to rent or purchase housing in walkable neighborhoods, such as those in the RNS-12 zone.7 A related challenge concerns deterioration of older buildings due to mistreatment or a lack of investment in their maintenance or improvement. Some rental occupants can be tremendously hard on buildings.This drives up the owner's cost of routine maintenance, repair, and upkeep. Older residents who live on fixed -incomes in structures that are small and old face a related challenge. As market forces cause the assessed value of currently affordable housing to increase, such residents must pay increased property taxes and, especially if they have low or fixed incomes, find they cannot afford to invest in home improvement or energy efficiency. Over time, such properties become increasingly vulnerable to purchase by investors who see opportunities to demolish existing buildings and redevelop the properties. 7 Recent actions by the State have limited Iowa City's ability to regulate the number of occupants per dwelling, and additional state legislation restricting the City's ability to regulate short term rentals, such as A!rbnb, has put further pressure on affordable housing. 4 Recent demolition of small home at 923 East Market Street 935 East Bloomington Street Our preliminary, partial analysis provides empirical evidence for this claim. We are aware of three recent demolitions: 935 East Bloomington Street 918 East Bloomington Street 319 North Van Buren Street Several other proposed demolitions are: 923 East Market Street 930 East Jefferson Street 915 East Davenport Street 923 East Davenport Street 943 East Davenport Street 1116 East Davenport Street in the RNS-12 districts and adjacent neighborhoods. The demolitions at 935 East Bloomington Street and 319 North Van Buren Street are especially instructive.The recent demolition at 935 East Bloomington Street transformed a property assessed at $166,410 in 2022 into a new two-story building with a finished basement into a property assessed at $536,220 in 2023. According to Zillow, it was originally listed for sale in October 2022 at $589,000. It did not sell after two reductions in price, and in March 2023 the one -bedroom basement was listed for rent at $1,000 per month. The three bedrooms on the second floor are listed at $900 each per month for rent The main floor is designed for shared use by tenants in the four bedrooms. The demolition at 319 North Van Buren Street signals what can happen to the character of a neighbor- hood when the owner proposes a new structure that maximizes its possible height under the current code.The owner has tried twice to obtain a permit to build a new structure. Most recently, the owner proposed a three-story structure, which would have been 38 feet tall.' A graphic image of what that building would have looked like in relation to the building immediately to its north is shown on page 6. 8 Our focus is on amending the maximum height limits specified in the RNS-12 part of the Zoning Code. However, our concerns about the potentially adverse effects of continuing the 35 -foot limit are influenced by the City staff's and the Board ofAdjustmencs recent decisions concerning that proposed building. Left Illustration of a recently proposed structure at 319 North Van Buren Street in relation to the home immediately to its north. In our view, infill development is inevitable and can have a positive impact when it complements the existing scale and character of the neighborhood. However, permitting 35 -foot tall homes makes it less likely that appropriately -sized and affordable new structures will be built. 2) The 35 -foot Maximum Height Compromises the Northside Neighborhood's Character Except for the South District's form -based code, which specifies 2.5 stories as the maximum height, it is our understanding that the current 35 -foot height limit applies to all single-family zones across the city. This 35 -foot maximum allows 3 full stories plus an attic.We understand that the intent of the 35 -foot limit was to accommodate houses built on sloping lots with walk -out basements. Such houses are usually only 2 stories or approximately 25 feet tall on the street side of the property but are located on lots that slope away from the street. Consequently, the back side of the house with the walkout basement includes another floor and sometimes approaches the 35 -foot height limit. Although there maybe exceptions to this house form, it is generally observed in parts of the city that have sloping lots. Very rarely, if ever, are Iowa City houses 35 feet tall when viewed from the street. In preparation of this document for Council's consideration, we examined property records and conducted visual surveys to determine the height of each single-family dwelling and duplex in the city's RNS-12 areas.We found that buildings in the Northside's RNS-12 zone typically range from approximately 15 -foot tall single -story structures with an attic to 25 -foot tall two-story structures with an attic; that is, they are overwhelmingly 1-, 1.5-, 2-, and 2.5 -story dwellings.We found no 3- or 3.5 -story houses on the Northside. Few, if any, approach the current 35 -foot height limit. Even the apartment buildings (which will not be affected by the proposed change) in the RNS-12 zone are lower in height than 35 feet and 3 stories, primarily because the lower level is located partially underground in most of these buildings.When we conducted our survey, we identified the taller buildings and measured them with a laser measuring tool. One reason for the current 35 -height limit in Iowa City's single-family residential zones is to allow walk -out basements on sloping Iots.There are very few if any sloping lots in the RNS-12 zones, which are located in older and Flatter parts of town.Therefore, there is no need to allow taller buildings to accommodate walk -out basements. Proposals like the recent one for 319 North Van Buren Street will not result in affordable housing. They remove existing affordable units and replace them with 4 -bedroom student rentals that go for more than $1,000 per month per bedroom.They also make the neighborhood less attractive overall and may discourage households that City government has been trying to attract to support Mann Elementary School, the Northside commercial district, and downtown. One might ask why a 27 -foot maximum height should be set for the RNS-12 zone if the Historic Preservation guidelines, which are overlaid on parts of the zone, recommend a maximum height of two stories in the Northside and Longfellow Historic Districts. In other words there is some indication that height is already restricted to less than the 35 feet in parts of the RNS-12 zone, so there may not be a need to amend the standard in Table 2A-2. But the guidelines are just that — guidelines, while the height limit in the zoning code is law and therefore carries more force. It is also important for the zoning law to be consistent with the guidelines to avoid confusion by having two different height limits apply to the same parcel. When the zoning law is not consistent with the guidelines, confusion can occur for both developers and the neighborhood as to what is possible to achieve.To more clearly guide investment decisions, the two should be consistent. In addition, the large parts of the RNS-12 zone that are not covered by Historic or Conservation District designations make it necessary to amend the height limit to 27 feet to achieve the community's stated goals and the purpose of the RNS-12 zone, which is to preserve the character of these neighborhoods. The RNS-12 zone was specifically drafted to preserve the existing single-family character of certain neighborhoods. The current 35 -foot height limit is counter to this goal. It encourages redevelopment with out -of -scale buildings that have harmful effects on neighboring properties. Permitting new infill structures of that height would make it more difficult for the Northside neighborhood to retain a healthy balance of affordable rental and owner -occupied housing without causing destabilization and compromising the character of the neighborhood. The homes and duplexes in the Appendix demonstrate that a range of housing types are compatible with a 27 foot height limit. Prepared by the NNA Steering Committee May -June 2023 7 APPENDIX: Examples of Buildings that Work with a 27 Foot High Code Amendment to the RNS-12 Zone Height measures are based on the method used to measure height in the zoning code, which is from the ground to the midpoint between the eaves (where the roof starts to slope) and the peak of the roof. 801 Bowery is 24 feet tall on the street side. The lot slopes slightly towards the back where it measures 26 feet tall. This house is 24 feet tall. 816 and 818 Fast Market Street. The building is 27 feet tall. This apartment building at 534 South Lucas Street is 30 feet tall. It illustrates some of the large apartment buildings (which will not be affected by the proposed code amendment) do not even reach the 35 feet currently permitted by the RNS-12 code. E Park Rd W Market St E z W Washington St O C M— U z z in c a E N W Burlington St o 2. N a 3 v O wn St N Ronalds St o v z Irch St Ul c y� Cedar St c m m E Davenport St. a r E Bloomo9ton St — v v> , Rochester Ave ZI I I! ; > arm. Hotz Ave < ILS o efferson St 9 J N L O U Brown St O Z z z L H M1�'�IF �a�f�}'�ltl��� :S -LA I�'dEUy A�yY ftlCo }�� ���/�t i.'.sf�s E1.[ Iy MM Um a1 Mgomm FF :1iLY}ImmmprEmff 117H D R MR'% M— U z z in c a E N W Burlington St o 2. N a 3 v O wn St N Ronalds St o v z Irch St Ul c y� Cedar St c m m E Davenport St. a r E Bloomo9ton St — v v> , Rochester Ave ZI I I! ; > arm. Hotz Ave < ILS o i St E College St © �iGscd�°e+ n E College St E Burlington St � N n ° Vf In N� C Legend A Northside Boundary Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS12) 0 Conservation District Overlay (OCD) ® Historic District Overlay (OHD) c o NI�•y(I-t°�7' j E Court St tLJJl7-F-1NG j .. Maple St O Grant Q x Ct c) N d N d N J rt G F d 3 K a T N Center Ave Seymour Ave efferson St 9 J N L O U C7 Z J 00 O Z z z z Z E Iowa Ave E Washington St E Washington ,cA �yy 4� i St E College St © �iGscd�°e+ n E College St E Burlington St � N n ° Vf In N� C Legend A Northside Boundary Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS12) 0 Conservation District Overlay (OCD) ® Historic District Overlay (OHD) c o NI�•y(I-t°�7' j E Court St tLJJl7-F-1NG j .. Maple St O Grant Q x Ct c) N d N d N J rt G F d 3 K a T N Center Ave Seymour Ave ATTACHMENT 2 Map of RNS-12 Rezoning Timeline N S w F G_ G?. 0 m — °v; E ParRtl N s z Brown St RNS-12 Rezoning Timeline Ronalds St M w =61W -M Church St m o a c J Z Z Z ]anuary3, 1995: Rezoning from RM -12 to RNS-12 Z 65 G) o w m 3 June 21, 1994: Rezoning from RM -12 to RNS-12 Ronalds St 0 u, o Fairchild St °' m J N z U - _ E Davenport St -- - o- d c E Bloomington St c 5 o O m � � 9 z 7 Pe N e e5 w E Market St or �o c m E Jefferson St Z Elowa Ave E Washington St E Washington St s E College St LaAzLIA L. - 1 T?1fy' YIIr®rm� CITY OF IOWA CITY Prepared by: Melanie Comer Date Prepared: August 2023 March 30, 1993: Rezoning from RM -12 tb RNS-12 c e m d U Rochester Q a `M Ave z n Hotz Ave in d S U-1 EJefferson St Woodlawn Ave E Washi St 0 v m c Or 0 0 0 m c 0 d o z 0 m Gonda/e Rd November 21, 2000: Rezoning from RNC -20 to RNS-12 s a > s N E Burlington St — sC CoJ/ m W c P m U01 g cn m m m 00 o W Court E Court St E Court Sl E Court St U St May 16, 2000: s U), Rezoning from m �, Maple St 9Pk 2 E Harrison RM -12 to RNS-12 m `" oOa y C St E o rn May 1, 2007: Ct �i U m v Rezoning from J E RNS-12 to RUD S_8 N in E Prentiss St -oo ®® c o Bowery St g ® c CenterAve m U Wright St U SeymourAve m 0 — m U) c � `o m s Lafayette St Sheridan Ave r m R � D c' > m `° U E St U m Page St S C&y E Benton St m s 2E J Jackson Ave 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 Miles St m Walnut St t t l l tai lI ATTACHMENT 3 Map of Properties Zoned RNS-12 E Park Rd W Market St n c La O 0 � O i9 C W Washington St N O N W Burlington St Properties Zoned RNS-12 Kimna4t Rd c c R N C Brown St z m C L O z N a v 3 8 � r • MR CITY CITY OF IOWA CITY Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann Date Prepared: March 2023 d K �� A M. nAlil I !I • F •'I 1® WT r�j��E Market St_ RIM �� y.U�_' _ rChurch-StI c i v' J ❑ of Q a _ Hotz Ave E ]efferson vi iii �. St p rn Joftersou St v L U �. Center O L7 Z ca L0 z St II HIMEm Ave z FM FT ® ®Im °' h c Cedar St N E Davenport St a JJJ 17 � er � E Blaam�n9ton L C a Rochester Ave Ti Legend E Washington St Q Northside/Goosetown Boundary Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS12) Q Conservation District Overlay {OCD} ® Historic District Overlay (01-11D) •ir••ri r r� LE E College St L Burlingtol N V N 0 d V W 2 t vY4snujyLU11 �a I St d�ryP rs E College St P E Court St Maple St A M. nAlil I !I :p 'I w: �I r�j��E Market St_ RIM �� y.U�_' _ Ct n c i v' J ❑ of Q a _ Hotz Ave E ]efferson vi iii �. St p rn Joftersou St v L U �. Center O L7 Z ca L0 z Ave z z z z E Iowa Ave Seymour Ave �i Ti Legend E Washington St Q Northside/Goosetown Boundary Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS12) Q Conservation District Overlay {OCD} ® Historic District Overlay (01-11D) •ir••ri r r� LE E College St L Burlingtol N V N 0 d V W 2 t vY4snujyLU11 �a I St d�ryP rs E College St P E Court St Maple St C) Grant x Ct n N N a of Q ED �. rn v Center Ave Seymour Ave ATTACHMENT 2 - October 18, 2023 Memo Correspondence 711lip Friends of Historic Preservation P.O. Box tool, Iowa City, Iowa 52244 www.ic-fhp.org info@ic4hp.org August 14, 2023 Dear Iowa City Planning and zoning Commissioners: In June 2023, the Iowa City Council received a request for a zoning code amendment for RNS-I2 proposed by the Northside Neighborhood Association. The Friends of Historic Preservation supports the document "Proposal for Strengthening Iowa City Central Neigh- borhoods," which requests the maximum building height for single-family homes and duplex housing to be 27 feet in RNs -I2 areas. A review of the houses in RNS-I2 shows that single-family homes range from I, L I/2, z, to z I/2 stories in height. New taller infill housing would not match existing housing and would have deleterious effects in RNS-I2: I) It would introduce housing that is out of character in height, mass, and scale. Permitting oversized buildings affects the desirability of a block and the neighborhood. 2) Houses that are taller than 27 feet cast shadows and block sunlight for neighboring houses and gardens. 3) Allowing housing taller than 27 feet will hasten the loss of Iowa City's housing stock that is historic, durable, and affordable. At the same time, large quantities of high-quality lumber from old-growth forests would be added to the landfill (framing, siding, and flooring. 4) A survey of RNs -I2 areas shows that there are few if any full 3 story or 35 foot tall houses. Capping the height at 27 feet will maintain the existing residential character of the zone. ONE OF THE CITY'S GOALS IS TO IZEEP HOUSING AFFORDABLE. Housing that already exists is more affordable and environmentally green than removing old homes to construct new ones. We recommend City sponsored programs to revitalize older homes, such as the UniverCity Program. Where houses are in such poor condition that they are removed, they should be replaced with buildings that do not impose on their neighbors. Thank you for your time to review the RNS-I2 code amendment and for your work on the Planning and zoning Commission. GINALIE SwAim on behalf of the FHP Board of Directors Northside Neighborhood Association's Statement to the P&Z Commission Re: Stafrs RNS-12 Recommendation August 16, 2023 We trust you have read our proposal, so we won't go through it in detail now. We would be happy to answer your questions about it. We will instead focus on the City staff's report. That report makes a few key mistakes and misjudgments, which lead to inappropriate conclusions. We urge you defer voting on the proposed amendment, instruct the staff to correct these errors, and return to you with a revised report within a reasonable amount of time. First, we did not petition the City Council to consider reducing the maximum allowable height in the RNS-12 zone from 35 feet to 27 feet. Our request focused exclusively on reducing the maximum height for new single-family and duplex residential structures in that zone. Had the staff invited us to consult with them before writing the report, this distinction would have been clarified and any other errors corrected. We made one error ourselves. We meant our application to focus on new structures, but we accidentally omitted that word in our petition. Second, influenced by its error, the staff reports that 117 or more properties currently exceed the proposed 27 ft. height limit. They correctly observe there are 500 properties in the RNS-12 districts, 313 of which are within the Northside. But, instead of using these total numbers when determining how many properties currently exceed the proposed height limit, staffshould have used the number ofsingle-family and duplex properties when counting. 1n our petition we reported that only 188 of the 313 parcels located in the Northside are occupied by single-family structures, 2 -family conversions, or duplexes. Even if 3, 4, and 5 -family conversions are included, none of the 213 (188 + 25) structures are greater than 2'/2 stories and none of them exceed 27 ft in height. Third, the staff estimated building heights using 2021 pictometry data from CONNECTExplorer. Volunteers from the Northside actually measured the taller buildings. They walked or biked by every property in all of the RNS-12 zones including those outside of the Northside. They identified the taller houses and duplexes. After measuring some apartment buildings for comparison sake, they then went back to the taller buildings with a laser measurer and determined the height from the grade to the midpoint of the roof pitch. These volunteers knocked on the door of each house to tell residents the volunteers were doing research on houses in the neighborhood and asked if they could take some measurements. Every resident they asked granted permission. The volunteers then placed the laser device next to the house to obtain an accurate measurement.' 1 For buildings that were not accessible with a laser device, the volunteers used a tape measure to measure the foundation, any accessible trim, and several feet of siding to determine the number of laps of siding per foot. They then counted the laps of siding from photos. These measurements were added to determine building height. Even if this method underestimated a building's overall height, the fact that none of the measurements came close to 35 feet justified confidence in the calculations. Fourth, the staff emphasizes that that 85% of all properties in the Northside are located in Historic or Conservation Overlay Zones and that guidelines in the Historic Preservation Handbook state that "new structures must be one and a half or two stories in height." We would emphasize, however, that these guidelines do not have the force of law. The Zoning Code is what matters when it comes to heights, and it is important for the guidelines and the zoning law to be consistent with one another to avoid having two different height limits in the same zone. Fifth, the staff reports there have been only 17 residential demolitions in the RNS-12 zones over the past 30 years. We agree. However, we note that 14 of those structures were single-family, and 14 out of 151 is 10 percent of the neighborhood's current stock of single-family / owner - occupied properties. Moreover, the relative paucity of demolitions does not necessarily reveal a lack of development pressure. Over the years, 25 properties have been converted from single- family to 3, 4, or 5 -family structures. The staff also emphasizes that the Historic Preservation Handbook allows demolitions only when a building is structurally unsound and irretrievable. Yes, but years of neglect and disinvestment can make a building unsound and irretrievable. And the staff essentially dismisses our concern for the small, inexpensive, single-family structures located in the southeastern part of the Northside neighborhood outside the OHD and OCD districts. And, even more important, the past does not necessarily presage the future. Relying too heavily on past trends is like looking in the rearview mirror to know where you're headed. Just two weeks ago, you approved staff -proposed amendments to the Zoning Code which are explicitly designed to increase the supply of housing by making it easier and more profitable to build new structures. With this in mind, it is especially important to look at the mix of owners of the 363 residential properties located in the Northside neighborhood's RNS-12 district (plus the part of the district that extends east outside of the Northside's boundary). Forty-two percent (42%) are owned by 66 or more Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) and other incorporated entities. LLCs owned by one individual own 13% of the 363 residential properties. One family owns at least 17 of the RNS-12's residential properties, and athird entity owns another 16. Together, these three owners possess 23% of all the residential properties in the Northside area's RNS-12 district. They are likely to have considerable influence over what gets demolished and what gets built in the RNS- 12 districts. Sixth, the staff indicates it is not aware of any evidence that the proposed height limitation would increase housing affordability. We never said it would. What we did say is that reducing the maximum permitted height of new single-family and duplex structures would reduce the pressure to demolish older, and currently very affordable, owner -occupied structures. Any new structure will be far less affordable than an existing structure. Seventh, the staff states that the existing 35' maximum height is consistent with all single-family and multi -family residential zones in Iowa City. It is our understanding that this is not true; the form -based code for the South District limits heights to 2 and'/2 stories or 30 feet at the peak of the roof (essentially 27 feet to the midpoint of a sloped roof), which is what we have asked for. Last, the staff states "it has already been determined that 35' is a height that ensures a complimentary scale." We disagree. The RNS-12 zone was specifically drafted to preserve the existing single-family character of certain neighborhoods. Section 14 -2A -1E further stipulates that the maximum height standards in the Code are intended "to discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity." The current 35 -foot height limit encourages redevelopment with out -of -scale buildings that can have harmful effects on neighboring properties; it is, therefore, counter to the purpose of the RNS-12 zone. Permitting new infill structures of that height would make it more difficult for the Northside neighborhood to retain a healthy balance of affordable rental and owner -occupied housing without compromising the character of the Northside neighborhood. Given these facts, we urge you to defer, to instruct the staff to revise its report, and to consider the proposed amendment in the near future. We would be eager to work with staff to ensure that both parties agree about the facts that matter. August 15, 2023 Dear Commissioners, I served as Senior Planner for the City of Iowa City from 1994 to my retirement in 2018. In that capacity I supervised the team that drafted the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan including the Central District Plan. Prior to being Senior Planner I was an Associate Planner from 1990 to 1994. 1 helped to draft and implement the RNS- 12 zoning district. I am therefore very familiar with the intent and application of these documents and ordinances. I believe that the Northside Neighborhood Association's proposal to limit the height of new single-family houses and duplexes to 27 feet is keeping with the intent of the RNS- 12 zone to stabilize existing residential neighborhoods by preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of these neighborhoods. The proposal is also supported by the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, Central District Plan and our community's goal to preserve affordable housing (I have attached excerpts from those documents that speak to this issue). The City adopted the RNS-12 in an attempt to maintain some of the close -in neighborhoods for individuals and families who wish to live within walking distance of downtown and the University of Iowa campus. The City Council and the Commission were concerned that proposals to redevelop existing housing with buildings marketed to University students would further displace affordable housing and change the character of the core of the city. At the same time, we recognized the need to provide a variety of housing including residences for University students. In addition to the RNS-12 zone we drafted the PRM and CB -5 zones to provide for high-density housing and mixed-use areas. We also recognized that the areas that we rezoned to RNS-12 already contained a great diversity of housing with a mix of single-family homes, duplexes, contemporary apartment buildings and older houses that had been converted to multiple dwellings. We wrote the ordinance to keep the mix of uses but not to further diminish the supply of single-family properties. In other words, the goal was to take development pressure off the existing neighborhoods north and east of downtown and the campus and encourage greater development downtown and south of Burlington Street. I believe we are now seeing the benefits of this policy with residential development in Riverfront Crossings and downtown. But there still is development pressure on the Northside and Goosetown neighborhoods where investment companies are buying up properties and making them unaffordable for individuals and families. Amending the height limit for new single-family/duplexes in the RNS-12 will help level the playing field by removing an incentive to redevelop existing houses with tall structures marketed to University students. When we rewrote the zoning code in 2005 we considered all aspects of the regulations with the goal of creating pleasant and sustainable neighborhoods. As stated in the Zoning Code, the height regulations are intended to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings; provide options for light, air, and privacy; and discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity. When redrafting the dimensional regulations we considered reducing the maximum height of single-family dwellings in recognition that most houses are 1 to 2.5 stories. Even in new subdivisions it is rare to see houses taller than 2 stories on the street side of the property. After consideration, we chose not to propose a reduction in maximum height so as not to hinder walkout basements on sloping lots. As the Northside Neighborhood Association has pointed out, there are few sloping lots within the areas zoned RNS-12, and therefore 35 feet is not necessary to accommodate such structures. Although the City once maintained a uniform 35 -foot height limit for single-family residential uses, the South District Form -Based Code has set a precedent for restricting houses to 2.5 stories. I believe that is a good move and should also be considered for the RNS-12 zone where the intent is to preserve the existing character. Maintaining the current 35 -foot height limit invites redevelopment of much taller buildings than those that exist in the RNS-12 zone. Unlike other areas of the city which have larger lots, the Northside, College Hill and the western portion of the Longfellow Neighborhood (areas zoned RNS-12) consist of tightly packed small lots where construction of 3- to 3.5 -story houses will disrupt the quality of life of their neighbors. Taller buildings cast shadows that block natural light to interiors of homes and gardens. It appears that staff made an error when calculating the number of properties that would become non -conforming if the Northside's request is granted. Table 2: Parcels by Building Height on page 5 of the staff report is based on all 500 properties in the RNS- 12 zones. This includes multi -family apartment buildings that would not be subject to the amendment. The Northside's requested amendment only applies to single-family and duplex structures, very few of which are over 2.5 -stories tall. It has been indicated the historic districts have guidelines to discourage houses taller than 2.5 stories and therefore a reduction of the maximum height in the RNS-12 zone is not necessary. Does this mean we don't care about the quality of neighborhoods outside of historic districts? If you observe your own neighborhood I suspect you will find that 1- and 2 -story houses are by far the most common house type and are appropriate for the smaller -sized lots found in the RNS-12 zone. To further the goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan, I encourage you to recommend approval of lowering the maximum height limit for single- family and duplex structures in the RNS-12 zone. Sincerely, Robert Miklo ATTACHMENT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXCERPTS The following excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan support the Northside Neighborhood's request to lower the maximum height of single- family and duplex structures in the RNS-12 zone. As encouraged by these Plans, the Northside has identified a quality -of -life issue raised by recent development proposals for 35 -foot -tall buildings and has asked the City to address this concern. Page 21 Preserve Historic Resources and Reinvest in Established Neighborhoods: Adopting strategies to assure the stability and livability of Iowa City's historic and established neighborhoods helps to preserve the culture, history, and identity of Iowa City. Investing in the neighborhoods that are closest to major employers in the city preserves opportunities for people to live close to work, school, and shopping; pro- motes walking and bicycling; and reduces vehicle miles traveled. In addition, many established neighborhoods contain affordable housing options along walkable, tree -lined streets where City services and infrastructure are already in place and where neighborhood elementary schools and parks are the focal point of neighborhood activity and identity. Page 21 Encourages Compatible Infill Development: Quality infill development plays an important role in neighborhood reinvestment and may include rehabilitating existing structures or encouraging new development of vacant, blighted, or deteriorated property. Development of infill sites should add to the diversity of housing options without compromising neighborhood character or over -burdening infrastructure, including alleys and parking. Page 24 Land Use Goals and Strategies: Ensure that infill development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood. Pages 28 and 29 Housing Goals and strategies: Strive to create a healthy balance of rental and owner -occupied housing in all neighborhoods. Preserve the integrity of existing neighborhoods and the historic nature of older neighborhoods. Develop neighborhood plans that help ensure a balance of housing types, especially in older parts of the city. Support the Historic Preservation Commission's efforts to meet its goals. Support housing rehabilitation programs and re -invest in housing in existing neighborhoods. The UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership purchases and renovates rental properties in areas near the Downtown and Campus. These homes are then resold as affordable owner -occupied housing. The goal is to achieve a healthier balance of owner -occupied and rental properties in near -campus neighborhoods that still retain a single- family character. CENTRAL DISTRICT PLAN Page 2 Describes how the plan should guide preservation of existing neighborhoods and redevelopment: The Central District Plan will be used as a general guide to future development or redevelopment within the district and for preserving valuable assets already present within established neighborhoods. It will take the efforts of City officials, area residents, businesses, and community organizations to achieve the goals and objectives in the plan. Planning staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment, and the City Council will use the plan as a guide when reviewing development and rezoning requests. It will serve as a tool for neighborhood groups, community organizations, and other interested parties to advocate for improvements and form partnerships to make elements of the plan a reality. The City will refer to the plan when setting funding priorities for public projects, improvements to existing infrastructure, and public services. Property owners, business owners, and developers who are thinking of investing in the Central District will find the plan useful as a framework for their plans. The plan will also serve as a benchmark over time and continued input from the public will ensure that the plan works equitably and reliably. Preserve Historic Resources and Reinvest in Older Neighborhoods - Adopting strategies to assure the stability and livability of Iowa City's older neighborhoods helps to preserve the culture, history, and identity of Iowa City. Investing in the neighborhoods that are closest to the University and other major employers in the city provides options for people to live close to work, school and shopping, promotes walking and bicycling, and reduces vehicle miles traveled. In addition, older neighborhoods contain many affordable housing options where City services and infrastructure are already in place. Page 9 Describes zoning history and how zoning is a tool to achieve the community's goals: In the early 1960's, the City drafted a new comprehensive plan with help from an out-of- town consulting firm, which advised the City to up -zone many of the close -in neighborhoods to encourage redevelopment with higher densities and modern buildings. In response to the resulting up -zonings, rising University enrollment, and a University policy to build no new dormitories, widespread redevelopment of older neighborhoods began to take place in the 1970's in the form of the mansard-plexes (generally 12 -unit apartment buildings that were nicknamed for the simplified mansard roofs). In addition, the higher densities allowed in the new zones permitted the large single-family homes typical of the area to be split into apartments and rooming houses. Given that the older neighborhoods were built with streets, yards, and parking to support single-family homes, the increasing densities put a strain on the neighborhood infrastructure. Backyards were turned into parking lots, on -street parking became more congested, and apartment buildings were constructed that were out of character with the neighborhood. Many residents objected to the unchecked transformation in neighborhood character and petitioned the City to down zone areas to preserve the single-family residential character that remained. In response, the City Council down - zoned some of the City's older neighborhoods by adopting two new zoning designations, beginning with the RNC -20 zone adopted in 1983 and followed by the RNC -12 zone in 1992. These new zones acknowledged the mix of uses that had already resulted from the re -zonings of the 1960s while preserving the character of the older neighborhoods by preventing further densification. In addition, the Central District Multi -family Residential Design Standards, adopted in 2000, ensure that new multi- family structures built in the Central District are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The City has also been successful in protecting historic resources in the Central District through the adoption of historic district and conservation district overlay zones, and by bestowing historic landmark status on the area's most significant buildings and properties. Page 13 Describes student housing and affordability: Sub Area A (ares north and east of campus and downtown, including the RNS-12 zones) There is a steady demand for housing in the neighborhoods closest to Downtown and the University campus, and the market is quite complex. The University has approximately 6,000 on -campus housing units, while student enrollment is now over 30,000, making the private housing market the primary provider of student housing. Over the years, many single-family homes in neighborhoods closest to the university have been split into apartments and rooming houses or have been replaced with apartment buildings. The demand forstudent housing in Subarea A keeps apartment rents higher than in the rest of the Iowa City metropolitan area. Homeowners also compete for the charming historic homes that are conveniently located close to employment centers. While there are a considerable number of smaller, modest homes in Subarea A, the competition from student renters, who often live together and pool their resources, keeps these homes out of the financial reach of many singles or families looking for affordable homes to rent or own. While this mix creates a vibrant and interesting living environment, it has been an ongoing challenge to maintain a balance between the different housing types and mix of residents within Subarea A. With absentee landlords and a large number of inexperienced young renters, problems with property maintenance, loud and disorderly conduct, yard upkeep, and snow removal are more prevalent. In an effort to identify and address ongoing nuisance issues in older neighborhoods, the City formed a Neighborhood Relations Task Force in 2001, which included representatives from neighborhood associations, landlord interest groups, tenant interest groups, the Association of Realtors, and various City departments, including Neighborhood Services, Housing Inspections, the City Attorney's Office, and the Police Department. Page 14: Speaks to the role of Neighborhood Associations: An important goal of the Central District Plan is to continue to monitor and enforce the Neighborhood Nuisance Ordinance and to identify any additional quality of life issues that surface so that they can be addressed in a timely fashion through targeted code enforcement, mediation, education, or additional regulation. Neighborhood associations play a critical role in monitoring neighborhood conditions, advocating for services and neighborhood amenities, and disseminating information to area residents. Neighborhood Associations should continue their efforts to be inclusive and effective partners in maintaining quality of life in the Central District. The City should continue to support these organizations and encourage formation of new associations where needed. The City should also partner with the University to find ways to ensure that young University students have access to—and maintain—safe and healthy off -campus living environments. Many Central District workshop participants asked why the University wasn't taking a more active role in providing or partnering with private developers to provide better housing options for students. Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners Neighbors have asked me to review the staff report regarding the proposed change in height for single-family and duplex uses in the Residential Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12) zone. I served the City as an Associate Planner from 1990 to 1994 and then as Senior Planner from 1994 to 2018 when I retired. As a member of the staff that drafted the RNS-12 zone and the Comprehensive Plan and Central District Plan which the zone is intended to implement, I respectfully disagree with some of staff's conclusions and offer the following. Previously staffs principal rationale for denying the neighborhood's request was that changing the maximum height would create non -conforming structures. The Northside Neighborhood Association (NNA) pointed out there are few single-family houses or duplexes that exceed 27 feet in height located in the zone. Staff also acknowledges that there have been no recent single-family or duplexes built in the RNS-12 zone that are over 27 feet tall. So staff's rational for denying the neighborhood request is not related to existing development pattern. Two recent proposals for a house that would be 35 feet tall with a flat roof rather than a traditional pitched roof, demonstrate that development patterns are changing. As stressed in the zoning code the intent of the RNS-12 zone is to stabilize existing residential neighborhoods by preserving the predominantly single- family residential character of these neighborhoods. The requested height amendment would contribute to this goal. Staffs current reasons for denying the height change are listed below with a response on behalf of the Northside Neighborhood Association. These responses are based on my years of experience drafting and implementing the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code including the RNS-12 zone. 1. Staff: While height limits are intended to prevent domination of adjacent properties, the City has traditionally found that 3 story building heights are appropriate in all areas containing single-family uses, including the RNS-12 zone. NNA Response: Although traditionally all residential zones had a 35 -foot height limit, the new form -based code for the South District limits single-family height to 2.5 stories, which is generally 25 to 30 feet. Being the city's newest zoning district, this is acknowledgement that 35 feet is not always appropriate for a single-family neighborhood. The 35 -feet height is largely intended to accommodate houses with walkout basements — a situation which is not present in the RNS-12 zone. Even though the code allows 35 feet throughout residential zones (except now in the South District), other than houses built on slopes, such height is rarely seen in single-family homes and duplexes . And where it is used the lots are much larger than the small compact lots found in the RNS- 12 zone. Houses on larger lots tend to have greater setbacks and do not dominate or cast excessive shadows on their neighbors. The lots in the RNS-12 are among the smallest in the city — on these small lots buildings that are taller than 2.5 stories will be counter to the intent of the height standards as stated in the zoning code, "... to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings; provide options for light, air, and privacy; and discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity." When the City Council adopted the code, the City acknowledged that RNS-12 neighborhood requires special consideration — that is the whole point of the zone. Having a 27 -foot height limit would be consistent with this policy. 2. Staff: The purpose of the RNS-12 zone is to maintain a single-family character, which has been interpreted as preserving single-family uses, and preventing the spread of multi -family conversions and redevelopment. NNA Response: This is the current staff's interpretation. For those who live in neighborhoods, single-family character means all of the things that make up quality of life: enough sunlight to allow gardens, trees and other living landscaping, light shining through windows on a winter day, a fresh summer breeze, privacy, and not having light and air blocked by a 35 -foot -tall wall a few feet from one's property line. A 27 -foot height limit for the small lots with one and two-story houses would be a better way to preserve the existing single-family character of the RNS-12 zone in the Goosetown, College Hill, Longfellow and Northside neighborhoods. 3. Staff: The current height limitation is consistent with other single-family residential zones, thus serving the purpose of the RNS-12 zone to maintain the predominantly single-family neighborhood character. NNA Response: Again the RNS-12 zone is a special zone that calls for special consideration to stabilize and preserve single-family residential character. It has no sloping lots that require a 35 -foot height for walk -out basements. Its lots are among the smallest in the city. Continuing to allow 35 -foot -tall buildings within a few feet of a neighbor's property does not promote the intent of the zone. The proposed 27 -foot height would be similar to the 2.5 -story limit in the South District form -based code so there is precedent to limiting residential height to less than 35 feet. 4. Staff: The purpose of height regulations are to promote a reasonable scale and relationship between buildings. All land uses should be considered when establishing a height limit. A public purpose justification must be identified for regulations, such as maximum heights, that vary based on land use. Alleviation of perceived redevelopment pressures and preservation of neighborhood character are not served by allowing uses to be constructed at varying heights. NNA Response: There are good public purpose justifications for having varying heights based on land use: The rationale for a 27 -foot height limit for single-family and duplexes in the RNS-12 is to preserve the existing quality of life in these neighborhoods by ensuring that new 35 -foot tall houses on these small lots do not dominate their neighbors denying them access to sunlight, breezes and privacy. The few other land uses allowed in the zone are already given special consideration to accommodate them within their neighborhoods. Consider: 1) the RNS-12 zone is a special zone where the goal is to preserve the single-family character that currently consists of 1- to 2.5 -story buildings with minimal setbacks; 2) Multi -family uses are already identified for special consideration and are given special non -conforming rights in the zone; 3) The only non-residential uses allowed in the zone are religious institutions, primary and secondary schools, and day cares. These uses require approval by the Board of Adjustment ensuring a reasonable scale and relationship between buildings. If the 27 -foot height limit is adopted for only single-family and duplexes, the few non- residential uses allowed in the zone would retain the potential of being up to 35 feet tall, but these uses are subject to greater setbacks that mitigate any height above 27 feet. The additional setbacks for religious institutions and schools are 20 feet on the front and sides, and 50 feet in the rear. These greater setbacks are sufficient to mitigate shadows cast by a 35 -foot -tall building, and to allow sufficient air circulation and landscaping. So the code already has different dimensional requirements for different land uses in the same zone. There is good "governmental purpose" justification for treating houses and duplexes on these smaller lots differently by limiting their height to be consistent with the existing development pattern. This is consistent with the intent of the zone and the From a practical view staff's concern about having different land uses with different heights is unfounded. Even the apartment buildings in the zone do not reach 35 feet in height. For example, the apartment building pictured has three floors but the lowest is partly submerged below grade. This results in the building being shorter than the 2.5 -story house next door. This technique was commonly used for the apartment buildings built in the zone. Given the restrictions of the RNS-12 zone, it is unlikely that new apartments will be built in the zone. 5. Staff: Implementation of the zoning code must be considered. The proposed changes require staff to implement different height requirements for different uses built at different times. Staff does not recommend creating unnecessarily complicated regulations. NNA Response: The Northside's request is to amend the maximum height in the RNS- 12 zone for single-family and duplex structures only. This was spelled out in communications with the City (dated May 29, 2023), which you have in your packet. In the August 11 staff report, staff apparently misread the request to apply to all uses in the RNS-12. As noted in the August staff report one of staff's major objections to the neighborhood's request was that reducing the height limit for all uses might make some existing buildings non -conforming. It has now been clarified that the neighborhood's request applies only to single-family and duplexes and would not affect existing apartment buildings and that very few non -conformities would be created. Meeting with staff in September and looking for compromise, Northside representatives floated the idea of applying the change only to new single-family and duplexes and not existing houses. As noted on page 2 of the staff report applying a different standard to new and existing houses could be complicated. The neighborhood agrees with staff that the height amendment should apply to both existing and new single-family and duplex structures. This will eliminate staffs concern about this aspect of the ordinance (third full paragraph page 2 of staff report). There are few single-family houses or duplexes in the RNS-12 zone that are over 27 feet tall, and those that exist would be legally grandfathered in. So applying the amendment to existing as well as new houses and duplexes should not be an issue. The one house that may exceed 27 feet in height is located at 225 Fairchild Street. It is designated historic so it could be rebuilt to its present height if destroyed per Section 14 -4E -6:C.3 of the code. Fortunately its height comes from a steeply sloping roof and it has generous setbacks so it does not impose on its neighbors. On page 2 paragraph 2, staff raises questions about multi -family uses in the RNS-12 zone. Multi -family uses have special provisions spelled out in section 14-2A-7: C. of the code. These provisions allow legally established apartment buildings to continue and to be rebuilt if removed by disaster or the owner's choice. The issue of confirming the degree of conformity of the property already exists in the current code. This will not change if the neighborhood's request is approved. (The City Clerk has a collection of zoning codes and maps dating back to the first Iowa City zoning ordinance adopted in the 1920s — these documents may address staff's concern about determining conformity expressed at the end of paragraph 2 page 2 — but again this amendment does not apply to multi -family buildings and has no bearing on this issue of conformity.) Regarding the complexity of the proposed change: whenever a building plan is applied for in the RNS-12, the plan should be checked against the various dimensional requirements of the zoning code (Table 2A-2). Confirming that a building measures at 27 feet tall or less should be no more difficult than determining if the plan is for 35 feet. Whenever I reviewed a plan for zoning compliance I did not rely on my memory regardless how familiar I was with the tables in the zoning code — I always checked the plan against the table and text because I knew that a mistake could cause a problem for those building on the property or for their neighbors. It is not a complicated task. 6. Staff: 75% of the properties zoned RNS-12 are located within a Historic or Conservation District Overlay zone. As the staff report outlines, new construction would be subject to historic preservation guidelines, and require review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. In short, 75% of properties within the RNS-12 zone are already subject to additional review processes that ensure new structures are not out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. NNA Response: So is the City saying that as a community we do not care about the quality of life in the RNS-12 zone for those outside of historic/conservation districts? And what about those who live in a house in a historic/conservation district that is on the border? Should their properties in the district be restricted to 2.5 stories, while the investment company that owns the adjacent lot just outside the district can build a 3.5 - story building blocking their views, airflow, privacy, and access to sunlight? A 27 -foot height limit would reflect the common development pattern in the RNS-12 zone and help preserve the quality of life for neighborhood residents. It should apply regardless of historic/conservation district designation. 7. Staff: Redevelopment pressures do not appear to be mounting in areas zoned RNS- 12. Since 1992 there have been 17 residential demolitions in the RNS-12 zone (six of which occurred prior to the land being rezoned to RNS-12). This is an average of approximately 1 demolition every 2 years. This may be due in part to the large number of properties that are located within Historic and Conservation District Overlay zones, which restrict demolitions. NNA Response: The pace of redevelopment should have no bearing on writing good zoning laws that guide whatever development will occur. Just one out -of -scale building can have a negative effect on its neighbors, making the neighborhood less desirable for the individuals and families that live there. Until recently there have been no 35 -foot tall houses or duplexes proposed or built in the RNS-12 zone. Investment companies have been buying up properties in the RNS- 12 zone and have been building larger buildings like the duplex at 930 E. Jefferson Street. These new buildings are being designed to maximize the number of bedrooms. They are often marketed to college students. The rents on these dwellings far exceed the rents of the houses that they have replaced. There have been two recent proposals from an investment company to build a 35 -foot - tall single family -house on N. Van Buren Street. By going up to 35 -feet the developer would be able to fit more bedrooms on a small lot. This new model of development will have negative effects on the quality life of neighbors by blocking their views, air flow, privacy, and access to sunlight. A 27 -foot height limit in the RNS-12 zone would remove an incentive to investment companies to buy up even more properties to replace affordable houses with more expensive dwellings. The NNA's requested change is consistent with the intent of the RNS-12 zone, the Comprehensive Plan and the City's goals for affordable housing. 8. Staff: The purpose of the RNS-12 zone is not tied to historic characteristics or the scale of the development. For that purpose, the City has adopted Historic and Conservation Overlay areas and much of the area zoned RNS-12 is subject to those additional guidelines and requirements. NNA Response: Again, because one lives in an RNS-12 outside a historic/conservation district they should not have the same quality of life — access to sunlight and summer breezes — as those who live in a district? Some RNS-12 properties within historic/ conservation districts share property lines with lots that are just outside the district. Should they be restricted to 2.5 stories while the investment company next door can build a 35 -foot tall building that blocks their views and access to sunlight? Conclusion: In 1992 the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council responded to residents of east Jefferson Street, who were concerned about their neighborhood's future, by adopting the Residential Neighborhood Stabilization Zone (RNS-12). The new zone was so successful at preventing large buildings from replacing smaller affordable houses, the City expanded its application to several other neighborhoods. These neighborhoods have now identified a new threat in the form of 35 -foot -tall structures that would greatly diminish their quality of life. Changing the height limit from 35 feet to 27 feet will help ensure that the existing single-family residential character of the RNS-12 zone is preserved. This is also a matter of affordable housing. The amendment will diminish an incentive for investment companies to purchase and redevelop the affordable housing stock found in these older neighborhoods. And it will help maintain the quality of life for our city's residents. As shown in Table 2A-2 from the zoning code, the neighborhood's request is not complicated — it simply requires that the figure 35 be replaced with 27 in the Maximum Height column for the rows for single-family and duplex. Sincerely, Robert Miklo Tat lI 2A.2' Dl men;ional Requirement$ In TP6 $ingle.Femily Residential Lanes ZUIWu. Ninlm"L4t Rlpll=ww Is S.[aleul 9WWIF IIYIN unimYm Ut IIlmlw1 Illmli un aw'FI4Yl NIXIW51 gpM wi M Ln1 An Mlnp LAI F1Mbyl F,..l Side Rear RtMlmum MFlmum TOWI Flom Of @p. F1.00 Sten l&WFLI MINIM (PLO P.) ffLl (R.I Relpht IkAdleq ■u§dkg SHb.* w�Og1' (34 IR! Null C...r Carr$ PMunpol � 7H RNS aelecaa km4 sm 46 4d 166 S 22 s- Y Xf7 ARIL 0% Na 504 17 II49Ny 1Fmlly iWa 9 I aeplex vw SA4V 45 m 15a 5+22 ®ee pe 0 44b 5a'X 4 S nll 1 B 97 Mw R" 5,M p,w,4 45 m le 5+22 m 203 4nb 5090 a /IlEeA i!!e be! M aaa Ihri 4 W odmuvl epaa nh 46 m m G22 m m 2t 4de IM n1e nM1 Northside Neighborhood Association's Statement to the P&Z Commission Re: REZ23-0005 RNS-12 Maximum Allowable Height Amendment October 18, 2023 One month ago the Commission began considering the Northside Neighborhood Association's request to change from 35 to 27 feet the maximum allowable height for single- family and duplex residential structures in Residential Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12) zones. After hearing the staffs recommendation and related public comment, you deferred action on the proposed amendment. You urged City staff to meet with us, to revise their earlier report, and to provide you with recommendations for tonight's meeting. On September 6, three of us on the Northside Neighborhood Association's Steering Committee met with City staff members Tracy Hightshoe and Anne Russett as you had requested. Tracy and Anne can speak for themselves, but we found it to be an enlightening and constructive conversation. During the meeting, they asked us, what are your specific concerns, and how does the proposed reduction address them? In its October 10 report recommending against approving the proposed change from 35 to 27 feet, City staff raised several concerns. But one stood out: the staff could not identify a governmental purpose for having the maximum allowable height vary based on use. Before proceeding further, let me get one of the star's concerns out of the way. In the September 6 meeting, looking for a mutually acceptable compromise, we floated the idea of applying the change only to new single-family and duplexes and not to existing structures. However, the staff report persuades us that applying a different standard to new and existing houses would produce unnecessary complications. Consequently, we agree with staff that the height amendment should apply both to existing and new single-family and duplex structures. Doing so is consistent with our original petition. This should eliminate staff's concern about this aspect of the proposed amendment. So what led us to propose the change in maximum allowable height? Put concisely, the current 35 -foot limit encourages redevelopment with out -of -scale buildings that can have harmful effects on neighboring properties. The existing height limit provides a financial incentive for investors to demolish older, and currently very affordable, owner -occupied structures, and makes it less likely that appropriately -sized and affordable new structures will be built. This financial incentive stems from the fact that RNS-12 zones are located in the University hnpact Area and are, therefore, subject to intense demand for off -campus student housing. The recent demolition and development at 935 E. Bloomington St. exemplifies how this process works. It was this housing market pressure that stimulated City government to create the RNS-12 district and to give it a unique public purpose, namely: "to stabilize certain existing neighborhoods by preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of certain neighborhoods." As former City planner Bob Miklo states in his most recent written advice to the Commission, "for those who live in neighborhoods, single-family character means all of the things that make up quality of life enough sunlight to allow gardens, trees and other living landscaping, light shining through windows on a winter day, a fresh summer breeze, and not having light and air blocked by a 35 -foot -tall wall a few feet from one's property line." This market pressure also led City government to stipulate as a matter of public policy in the Central District Plan (p. 20) that the City will "[w]ork to achieve a healthy balance of rental and owner -occupied housing in the district's older neighborhoods." Continuing to permit new infill structures as tall as 35 feet in RNS-12 zones would make it more difficult to achieve that objective. The potential that out -of -scale buildings could have harmful effects on neighboring properties is also affected by the unique physical characteristics of the RNS-12 neighborhoods. Single-family and duplex structures comprise the vast majority of properties in those neighborhoods. Very few, if any, of those structures currently exceed 2'/2 stories, which is roughly equivalent to 27 feet. There are numerous multi -family structures, but new ones are prohibited. The only non-residential uses allowed in the RNS-12 zones are religious institutions, primary and secondary schools, and day cares. Moreover, the compact lots found in the RNS-12 zones are among the smallest in the city. Consequently — unlike in other residential zones with large lots and setbacks — 35 -foot buildings could easily dominate or cause excessive shadows on neighboring structures. The existing 35 -foot limit, therefore, runs counter to the purpose of the RNS-12 zone. Section 14 -2A - IE stipulates that the maximum height standards in the Code are intended: to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings; provide options for light, air, and privacy; and discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity. Furthermore, the current 35 -foot maximum was originally adopted to allow walk -out basements on sloping lots. There are very few sloping lots in the RNS-12 zones. There are none in the Northside's RNS-12 zone. Therefore, there is no need to accommodate single-family and duplex structures on sloping lots by permitting 35 -foot heights. Let me now address the staffs specific concern about having varying maximum heights based on land use. We believe there are good public purpose justifications for having varying heights. The rationale for a 27 -foot height limit for single-family and duplexes in RNS-12 zones is to preserve the existing quality of life in these neighborhoods by ensuring that new 35 -foot tall houses on these small lots do not dominate their neighbors and deny them access to sunlight, breezes and privacy. If the 27 -foot height limit is adopted for only single-family and duplex structures, the few non-residential uses allowed in the zone — schools, religious institutions, and day cares — would retain the potential of being up to 35 feet tall, but these uses are already subject to greater setbacks that mitigate any potential harms. In the end, there is really only one question you need to answer: will changing the maximum permitted height of single-family and duplex structures from 35 to 27 feet increase the likelihood that new infill development will help achieve a healthy balance of affordable rental and owner -occupied housing while preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of RNS-12 neighborhoods? If you answer yes, you should vote in favor of the proposed amendment. Thank you. We would be happy to answer any questions you might have. 0 October 15, 2025 Bear Commision Members, ,a The city staff reports that 75% of properties within the RNS-12 zone are already subject to additional review processes that ensure new structures are not out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood." WE the undersigned support the height reduction from 35 feet to 27 feet. We are part of the 25% of the RNS-12 zone not in the historiciconservatioh districts. That doesn't mean we are not concerned about our neighborhood and;.t�,uallty of life. �+ It is very painful to be dismissed by the City as not worthy bf their consideration. Sincerely, �v eq 4J 4 S-U- ✓ aL( On Oct 17, 2023 Dear Commission Members, I am one of the group of neighbors who approached the City in 1993. We were concerned with a proposed development that we felt would dramatically change the character of our neighborhood. We asked for help. The city responded. Changing the zoning from RM -12 to RNS-12 was the solution the City came up with. Over the years other RM -12 zones in the University Impact Zone also requested to be rezoned to RNS-12 because of the pride and love for their neighborhood. Most of the homeowners in our neighborhood are working class.They have worked hard to own their homes and they are proud of them. At the time of the rezoning to RSN-12 the concepts of historic districts and conservation areas were foreign to them. They wanted to give new neighbors the dream of home ownership that they had experienced. They had faith the new neighbors would responsibly respect what was already here. And for years that was true. But we have now reached a point where newcomers are interested only in their rights and maximizing their investment. The investment those of us who live here have made in creating and maintaining a neighborhood is of no concern to them. Their properties become dark holes the sucking life out of the neighborhood. I am asking you to amend the height to 27 feet in the RNS-12 zone out of love and pride in my neighborhood. I believe this is needed to continue the investment made in creating and maintaining our neighborhood. Sincerely, Nancy Carlson Anne Russett From: Freerks, Ann M <ann-freerks@uiowa.edu> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 1:41 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: RNS-12 height limit A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hi Anne, Below is a letter I would like shared with the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission before the meeting tonight. Please let me know you have received it and it has been distributed. Thank you, Ann Freerks Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners: I am writing to request you vote in favor of the Northside Neighborhoods request to reduce the height limit in the RNS-12 zone from 35 feet or 3.5 stories to 27 feet or 2.5 stories. I do not live on the Northside, but on the far west edge of the Longfellow Neighborhood. My neighborhood is comprised of RNS-12 and RS -8 zones on the border with areas that are entirely occupied by undergraduate students. As you may know I spent many years as a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I know first -had that the RNS-12 zone was created to STABALIZE these areas and maintain what is left of those single family characteristics. If you vote against this, I firmly believe it will be a green light for redevelopment by investment firms, further eroding the fragile bits of affordable housing maintained in these areas. I am also writing to tell you a bit about how I ended up in the neighborhood where we have been for over 30 years. I hope you take a few minutes to read it. I want you to feel how important it is to have these special places and that they should be protected. I want you to see how voting for this height limit will aid that protection. When we were a young family just starting out we were attracted to the charming houses of South Governor Street. We liked the proximity to Longfellow Elementary where our kids, if we I had them, could walk to grade school. It was also a very affordable option. We looked at newer structures, but in our price range they were without basements or were far from where we worked and did not have the historic houses and established trees that attracted us to the western side of the Longfellow Neighborhood. In 1993 we took the plunge and bought a 100 - year old house that needed lots of work. We were welcomed by a number of elderly couples from next door and down the street who had raised their families on South Governor Street. They were happy that our house had not become a student rental like so many others in the neighborhood. We didn't know it at the time, but WE were helping to stabilize the neighborhood. In 1999 we were surprised when a charming old house across the alley from our house was torn down and a large 3 -story apartment building went up. There was no care given to how the building fit in the neighborhood. All the beautiful mature oak trees were cut down. Every square inch of available space was taken up with the new building. There did not appear to be concern for the comfort of tenants. If there was, there would have been some usable yard space set aside for them. I will never see this replacement structure as an asset to the neighborhood. Although we enjoy having college kids as neighbors as it keeps us a bit youthful — we like the mix of young and older residents — we found that as more and more students moved in their habits can conflict with working families. There are those who have late-night parties, and shoot off fireworks during the summer. Some things we did not appreciate considering we had to get up early to get our kids to school and us to work. I have had many of these conversations with college neighbors and try to see them as teaching moments. There are costs and benefits in every situation. For this reason neighborhood stability is key. Increase in density on these narrow lots has great impact. We knew little about zoning before the apartment building went up. Several of our neighbors were in the same situation. We talked and then decided to approach the City. That is when we found out that Lucas and Governor Street were zoned RM -12 Multi -family and there were more plans for 3 -story buildings. Investors were actively trying to buy properties. A realtor called me and said I should get out while I can. For a brief moment we considered selling and moving to a new neighborhood, but we thought of our elderly neighbors, who had welcomed us to the neighborhood, and the other young families that were also making their homes in the western streets of Longfellow. We also knew long-term renters who were drawn to the neighborhood for the same reasons we were. They were also concerned about being displaced by new more expensive student housing. We decided to stay and fight for our neighborhood. K This experience taught us that zoning can be a powerful tool affecting our daily lives. We and our neighbors petitioned the City to rezone our neighborhood to RNS-12, Residential Neighborhood Stabilization. The investment companies that were buying up houses objected to our request, but the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council agreed with us that Iowa City needs some close -in neighborhoods that are sustainable and attractive to all sorts of households — owner -occupied families as well as renters, young families, singles and retirees. After our successful rezoning effort I was asked to apply for an opening on the Planning and Zoning Commission. I felt it was my duty to give back. I served several years with the goal of using zoning to make both new and existing neighborhoods pleasant places to live for ALL residents. Recent proposals for 3 -story 35 -foot tall houses in the RNS-12 zone have revealed a loophole that is counter to the intent of the zone to stabilize and preserve existing neighborhoods. I urge the Commission to approve the Northside Neighborhood's request to bring the allowed building heights in line with the existing houses in the RNS-12. This will not only apply to the Northside but will be beneficial to South Lucas and Governor Streets. We have raised our family on South Governor Street. Our kids have grown - at some point we will be ready to sell and move on. We hope to sell to another young family who will send their kids to the newly renovated Longfellow School and walk to their jobs downtown. We hope you support such families with good zoning policy. Thank you for taking the time to read this and for serving on the board. Ann Freerks Former Planning and Zoning Chair 443 South Governor Street Please distribute this letter to all Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission members prior to your October 18th meeting. Thank you. 3 Images from Sharon DeGraw October 18, 2023 HEIGHT MATTERS NEW HOUSES • Only one or two stories • Can have a walkout basement • Rarely 35 feet tall APARTMENTS IN RNS- 1 2 • Most apartment buildings are less than 27 feet BETHEL AME CHURCH • Less than 27 feet — fits well in the neighborhood • Day Care is well under 27 feet tall E7LL-4F W -L x -T C U& Images from Dave Moore October 18, 2023 III Hf TT tl� E T IEA r ❑ _ T -I -f+ -:I, . IIN :L'. Y. E •-1 IIE+_TE L'L h..::._.: ....yY .... M6RT14 ELEVATION HT 12/21/18 8'11 AIV€ �- �.A �� +: qtr ...; ;_Y � �� f' y�•,. Anne Russett From: Jared Knote <jaredknote@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 9:11 PV To: Anne Russett Subject: Re: Iowa City Planning and Zoning 10/18/2023 - Public Commemnt Discussion Visual Aids nRISfL ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hi Anne, Thanks so much for trying to make the visuals available at tonight's meeting. Not that it will change the commissioners' votes, but if you can share these visuals and short reminder of the voiceover with them, I would appreciate it. Page 1- The circle represents the stabilization neighborhood I wanted to share perspective on. All images are public domain -- Google maps, plus the assessor's office. Page 2 - Is a sample of typical Jefferson Street housing stock in that neighborhood -- mix of small ranches and four squares and capes. Page 3 - If you were to turn around, these redevelopments evidence the type of infill. The side-by-side duplex on the left was one of the 2021 teardown-rebuilds. While it's hard to show scale, the concrete full -floor basement extends over my head. That may not count as part of the height of the building, I don't know. Perhaps that concrete "story" may qualify as "basement" even if above ground. On the right is another property redeveloped by the same developer. Again, the "basement" is higher than my head. Page 4 - In addition to out of scale height, the rebuilds are also out of scale with depth, with most green space taken up by house and parking. Trees removed. Page 5 - From the assessor's office of the property, these pictures show what was torn down and what was replaced. The original likely had a basement, but at human scale. So neighbors who pass one another might get to know one another. Page 6 - Redevelopments can destabilized a generative neighborhood of connected people. More houses are coming down. Here on the same block, facing Market St, this green house was torn down. Page 7 - This is the 1000 block of market. This is what I see every morning outside my house. This dense neighborhood is a celebration of housing choice, and many different types of neighbors -- renters, owners, students, non -students, various definitions of "family" and single and age and race. The density and variability support diversity, affordability, and stewardship. But today, on the other side of this neighborhood block, I learned another house of human scale is being torn down. On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 3:43 PM Jared Knote <iaredknote(cDgmail.com> wrote: Hi Anne, I hope you're doing well. Would you please be able to help me regarding the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight (10/18/23)? If there is a call for public comment, I would like the opportunity to share some perspective with the commissioners, staff, and public. Visual aids might help, as I've seen others use in the past. Would you be able to help me include the attached PDF tonight if discussion is opened to the public? (I could send PPT, but the file size is large.) Thank you in advance. Respectfully, Jared Jared Knote Market St. Iowa City, IA Jared Knote mobile: 516-455-3618 Jared Knote mobile: 516-455-3618 Images from Jared Knote October 18, 2023 City of r Search in domment • CityoflowaCity WebDocuments Boards,,:-ccommissfons andmmnmittees > Planningar T y ---- 4 ! IM p. Q (D1$ Fit windM 1 • 1 a ll .• Flan TP; F"I rl RUPWt% ZW" Rf5-12 w 1 1 ru.yj�• Lewd s 9 I�r.WYrnlrra i.rl,i, y �W 4r�O�Y r°fb. AMW 927EJ&Ne St Iowa City, laza -Wor ODGgI2 Street View No, 2022 3,, rnvm do 1, x 4% 935 EJ&ffo on St 4 Tawe CRY laws . GoNle Street View Nw 2022 fee mwe dates . r {pp j i� I J r I �/+i. +n!Slfxwllwmtn. .._'iiiyi I — , _i� 11154• ' + �� � ; I-�r� 0' S:; r!Iaiiiiif ie' f ..� • •�i�'tA':- Ri�{�S.y st �{r;.� yE't.4�TV '-+` S'�,i y- Y �-� _ , ��w 1�. �'N .'-• gyp, •, - ��� .:r r `� "a'�"l .:��5'+�L1Lid<LdYa=2P"i •.nx 1 .'��7.$.iA�i _"tri — 1 941 EJ•ff =n St 9 Iowa City, Iowa . Google SVeet View Nor 2021 See more dao .r � � f L"� �� � . r • ` 'A � I ; � r6 C � is �t F^y�':s. ii • rte. .. - 2�`i nr"'� ". y' �. �rJ'^ r" ��_ yy��ry tl C Pin S S r �; � rvtca ��✓ f r v. I.d Jk` s- F J y.r = rpdf a/ 5 1— 100% 0 a � , � 974 E Market St Iowa City, Iowa } I IW4 N.2,D22 3mmore dates .%}'z'1�1f7 r f PA Ar 3. 'PI e Google 02C East Market Streel. Iowa • X 1019 E Mnfl t9r Iowa (ily, Iowa Google Street Mew Nov 21122 See moi. d.h i ,,,,,•�. .�� lr �,, �+\ cry leyr s Y el Connors® � Hoc ocrnistry 6J' Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 5 of 18 had 300 people, all women. Anyway, she loves Iowa City for many, many reasons and the Emma Goldman Clinic is one of them. Townsend strongly support this but noted on the documentation regarding the landmark designations it says that the staff does not find that there is enough information to consider the property meeting criterion F at this time, F is regarding information important to history, why would that not be. Russett explained that's a criteria that the Historic Preservation Commission evaluates and determined that F didn't apply because typically F applies to things that are archaeologically or prehistoric significant. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. CASE NO. REZ23-0005: Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to reduce the maximum allowable height in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone from 35 -feet to 27 -feet. Russett stated this is a proposed amendment to the zoning code that started originally with a meeting with representatives of the Northside Neighborhood. Staff met with them several weeks ago when they reached out regarding a change that they would like to see in the RNS-12 zone to reduce the maximum allowable height in that zone. Staff had recommended that they petition City Council with that proposed change, which they did, and at the June 6 work session City Council directed staff to prioritize the review of the proposed change. Staff's understanding of this change was it to be a reduction of the maximum allowable height from 35 -feet to 27 -feet in the RNS-12 zone. Some background on the RNS-12 zone, it was created in 1992 when there was a project that was proposed to add more than one residential structure to a single lot in the RM -12 zone. Owners of nearby properties petition City Council due to concerns that allowing more than one structure per lot in the RM -12 zone would be out of character with the existing neighborhood. In 1993, the City Council adopted the RNS-12 zone to preserve the single-family character of the neighborhood and prevent new multifamily residential development. In addition to the creation of that new zoning district, there were also several map amendments that started in 1993. Russett shared a map showing all the properties that were zoned from a multifamily zoning designation, whether it was RM -12 or RNC -20 to the RNS-12 zoning designation. The last map amendment was to a portion of South Governor where there was a proposal to change the zoning from RNS- 12 to RS -8, which was approved by City Council. In terms of the current regulations, all the City's single-family and multifamily residential zones have a maximum height limit of 35 feet. The form -based zones do regulate height differently, but single-family and multifamily residential zones have a maximum height of 35 feet. The RNS-12 Zone allows single family detached units with duplexes allowed midblock duplexes and duplexes on corner lots. It also allows daycares, religious institutions and educational facilities. It does not allow new multifamily uses and the maximum height is 35 feet. Russett showed a map of the properties that are zoned RNS-12 and pointed out the Northside Neighborhood Association boundary. Russett also talked about the Historic and Conservation District overlay zones noting properties within those overlay zones require additional review. Properties are subject to the guidelines Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 6 of 18 adopted in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook and the maximum allowable height within these overlay zones is 35 feet just as it is in the base zoning district of RNS-12. However, the handbook does include specific guidelines related to height and mass. Specifically, it states that new structures must be one and a half or two stories in height in the Northside Neighborhood. New construction and demolitions must be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission and with new construction, it's reviewed based on the surrounding neighborhood context, and the mass and scale of adjacent buildings. Demolition in historic districts is only considered where the building is structurally unsound or irretrievable, so very uncommon. The overlay zones provide a large degree of protection from future construction, demolition and development changes. Russett shared a table showing the breakdown of the properties that are zoned RNS-12 and whether or not they're located within a historic district or a conservation district overlay. Citywide 75% of the RNS zoned properties are located within either an historic or conservation district overlay and within the Northside Neighborhood 85% of the properties are within historic or conservation district overlay. Staff note that importance because there are additional rules and processes which add a large degree of protection for those properties. Staff also reviewed demolition permits in the RNS-12 zones since 1992 and there have been 17 demolitions within RNS-12 zone, an average of one demolition every two years over the past 31 years. The data suggests that redevelopment pressure in RNS-12 zones has decreased over time and that may in part be due to the fact that 75% of the properties are either in a historic or conservation district which would restrict demolitions. Staff also looked at conversions because it seems to be a concern of the residents of the Northside Neighborhood. Since 1992 there have been 82 conversions from single-family to duplex or duplex to single-family City wide, 38% are single- family to duplex and 62% are duplex to single-family. This data shows that more of the conversion is from duplex to single-family than the other way around. For property zoned RNS- 12 there were 10 conversions from single-family to duplex or duplex to single-family. 70% of them were from duplexes to single-family and again, Russett stated the RNS-12 zone does not allow conversions to new multifamily. Russett stated even though staff looked at conversions, height limits will have no impact on future conversions within this zone since conversions are dealing with existing structures and not new structures. Staff also did some field work and until they received the recent correspondence yesterday from the neighborhood association, they weren't aware that the Northside Neighborhoods intent was to only apply the 27 -foot requirement to new buildings, specifically new single-family and duplex uses. Based on Council's direction staff was concerned with the creation of non -conforming structures and discussed this with the Northside representatives. Due to concerns about creating non -conforming situations staff estimated building height using the best tool that they had available and Russett shared a table showing the results of that work. Based on the estimate, some buildings may become non -conforming, however if the Northside Neighborhood Association wishes to only apply the height standard of 27 -foot to new buildings the non- conforming analysis becomes irrelevant and won't apply to existing structures. In terms of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan does include a land use designation for single-family residential stabilization, with the description of preserving single-family residential character, and preventing further densification and conversion of single- family residences to multifamily. The land use designation focuses on housing types and density rather than the scale of development. It maintains single-family neighborhoods and restricts the number of units by limiting housing types. Russett reiterated in all single-family residential zones Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 7 of 18 the maximum height limit is 35 feet so there's been some determination that this maximum ensures a complimentary scale within single-family neighborhoods. In terms of staff's conclusions, again 75% of the properties zoned RNS-12 are located within a historic or conservation district, which requires additional review processes to ensure that new structures are not out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. Based on the demolition data, redevelopment pressure is limited and staff concluded based on non -conforming situations, however that may no longer apply as this is only applying to new structures. Again, the purpose of the RNS-12 zone is to maintain a single-family character which has been interpreted as preserving single-family uses and preventing new multifamily uses. Height limits don't help preserve single-family uses or further the intent of the zone and the current height limits are consistent with other single-family residential zones and therefore consistent with the purpose of the RNS zone to maintain that predominantly single-family character. Staff did receive some additional correspondence yesterday from the Northside Neighborhood Association. They noted in the correspondence that they meant for the change to only apply to new construction and only single-family and duplex dwellings. Staff hasn't had much time to fully analyze this as they just received the correspondence yesterday but do have some initial concerns to highlight. First, if the reduced height limit only applies to new construction, it would address the concerns related to non -conforming situations, so that's a good thing. The concern is that the RNS-12 zone allows other uses besides just single-family and duplex structures, such as daycare uses and religious institutions. If the purpose of height regulations is to promote reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings, all land uses should be considered when establishing a height limit. Also, if the maximum allowable height varies between uses, a governmental purpose for that variation would need to be established. The second concern is complexity and challenges with implementation. If a governmental purpose could be identified for having different regulations for different uses, the code becomes even more complicated and difficult to administer. It not only would have different height requirements for different uses but uses that would typically be subject to non -conforming provisions would no longer be subject to them because existing structures would remain conforming. Lastly, regarding affordability, the Northside Neighborhood document states that reducing the maximum height would reduce the pressure to demolish older and currently very affordable owner -occupied structures. Height regulations don't impact the balance of owner and renter properties. Zoning codes do not regulate whether structures are owned or rented. Russett also noted that in their correspondence the Neighborhood Association has requested that this item be deferred. Staff has received two additional pieces of late correspondence which she shared with the Commissioners via email and handed out this evening, both are in support of the Northside Neighborhood's proposal in their request. Staff does not recommend approval of REZ23-0005, a proposal to change the maximum allowable building height from 35 -feet to 27 -feet in the Neighborhood Residential Stabilization (RNS-12) zone. Also, staff has not identified a governmental purpose for the proposal for this only to apply to new structures and to only single-family and duplex uses. If the Commission wants to recommend approval, they will need to identify what that governmental purpose is because it is regulating height differently for different uses. Staff would also not recommend approval of a proposed change to the maximum allowable building height for new single-family and duplex structures in the RNS-12 zone to 27 -feet. In terms of next steps, after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission this Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 8 of 18 would go before City Council. Hensch asked if the request for deferral had a particular reason requested other than the obvious to give staff time to come up with a governmental purpose and application of that. Russett replied she believes they wanted staff to change their analysis and to reflect on their request that it is new construction only. Hensch noted the 35 -foot limit would only apply to new construction future requests, which won't result in any non -conforming status of existing buildings. Russett confirmed that was correct. Hensch noted in the South District, the form -based code that they previously passed, the height limit for that is 27 feet, correct. Russett explained the limit there is two and a half stories but there's also a feet maximum as well. Hensch stated regarding the historic district and conservation district height limits, the limit is 35 - feet but the handbook guidelines they want to have one or two stories for new construction and that seems incongruent. Has there ever been thoughts about making those two things match up better. Russett stated no because a guideline clearly carries no force of law, it's just a recommendation and within the zoning code 35 -feet is the maximum. There are other requirements in the zoning code such as maximum density, for example, but each property isn't always going to get to that maximum density, that's why it's maximum, it's just the cap. Hensch noted it seems that the 35 -foot limitation mainly was instituted to address grade issues on site. Russett replied that's what the former senior planner noted in his correspondence, the City has had this 35 -foot height limit since the 1930s. She noted walk -outs may have not been a popular housing style in the 1930s but that 35 -foot maximum has been around for decades. Hensch asked in the RNS-12 zoning areas, how are those heights determined because it doesn't include steeples or spires. Russett explained typically there's an average grade that would be calculated based on elevations five feet from the proposed structure. They calculate an average grade and then measure from that all the way up to the midpoint of the roof, and in most roof types that would be the midpoint between the eaves and the peak. Quellhorst noted one of the Association's concerns is that the Historic Preservation handbook is just guidelines and are not binding, so he is curious to know what the process is for deviating from those guidelines and how often that happens. Russett stated while they are guidelines, the language in the guidelines is pretty strong, they use words like shall and must, and the guidelines are also adopted by reference within the zoning code. The guidelines include exceptions that can be considered for certain proposals within historic districts so it could be possible that the Historic Preservation Commission maybe would allow something more than two and a half stories based on the building type proposed. However, based on how the guidelines are implemented, and the Historic Preservation Program, the guidelines carry a lot of weight and are used heavily in the evaluation of the proposals for new construction, demolition or even just exterior modifications to buildings. The decision to deviate from the guidelines is determined by the Historic Preservation Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 9 of 18 Quellhorst asked if Russett is aware of any incidents where the Commission approved a substantial deviation from the guidelines. Russett explained there's exceptions within the guidelines that the Historic Preservation Commission can consider so they are limited to the exceptions outlined in the in the guidelines. Quellhorst noted one of the Association's main concerns is the potential to build incongruent really tall homes and in the analysis of structures that are 27 -feet currently, is there any sense of how many of those are single-family homes. Russett is not sure but noted that could be determined. He asked how many existing single-family homes are in the conservation overlay that exceed 27 -feet. Again, Russett is not sure but could find out. Elliott noted one of the issues is the different heights for different uses, could there just be a rule that says 27 -feet is the maximum height in RNS-12 and not specify the use, and what would be the implications of doing that. Russett said yes, they could implement that rule, and that was staff's original concern, because they thought the original request was for a 27 -foot requirement, and the concern would be the creation of non -conforming situations. Elliott asked if the height requirement was just for new buildings, what would be the concern. Russett stated then the concern is related to the complexity of how they regulate height and it only applying to new structures and only applying at certain points in time, if the ordinance is adopted that new structures are now 27 -feet then previous ones would be conforming. It gets trickier to implement. Padron noted some RNS-12 could be churches so someone could build a church but if they say no more than 27 -feet for everybody then the church would not be able to be taller than 27 -feet. Russett confirmed that was correct. Hensch opened the public hearing. Susan Shullaw spoke again as a member of the steering committee of the Northside Neighborhood Association. She thanked everyone for taking some time in reading their initial proposal but just wanted to refresh their memories of some of the main points. The initial proposal had made clear that this was for new residential structures, this is really about new infill in RNS-12 districts, and specifically the Northside, which they really support as long as that infill feels appropriate, and particularly today when this is a hot topic for all when it can create affordable housing. However, they also want to preserve and strengthen the character of these neighborhoods and to quote the Plans "infill development that is compatible and complimentary to surrounding neighborhood and creates a healthy balance of rental and owner -occupied housing in all neighborhoods". Shullaw showed images of the beautiful structures in the Northside and addressed their first objection to the 35 -foot height. It was their understanding that this height limit was initially designed for structures on slopes and for walkout basements, but there are a few, if any, sloping lots in the Northside. This and the other RNS-12 districts are in older and flatter areas of town, so it's a moot point and raises the question of why 35 -feet is allowed in these neighborhoods. They believe that this negatively impacts affordable housing because it gives an incentive to developers to convert existing single-family structures and demolish them and replace them with larger structures with larger occupants. They've seen this happening before and have some examples in the Northside of smaller, older houses being Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 10 of 18 replaced with large single-family unable to sell and they become rentals. They are concerned about that development pressure. Shullaw acknowledged even though it's true what staff found in their research about the number of demolitions that have happened in recent years, she stated they all know that past performance is not always a predictor of what happens in the future. So that's a concern for them. Shullaw also reiterated some points they've made about driving up property values and making these neighborhoods less affordable. They believe that the 35 -foot height thwarts the purpose of the zoning, which is to stabilize existing residential neighborhoods and to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings and provide options. She showed an illustration of a very tall building placed next to a very short building in the Northside. She noted an example of a structure that doesn't really allow for light and air between buildings. They have done some research on the Northside and its clear buildings in the Northside are overwhelmingly one and a half, two, and two and a half stories, they couldn't find any three story buildings on the Northside, and few of the buildings approach that 35 -foot limit. Therefore, 35 -foot buildings would be an aberration in this part of town and out of character of the neighborhood. It may also make the neighborhood less attractive at a time when the City is hoping to bring more people in and to patronize schools like Horace Mann. Shullaw stated they also believe that this 35 -foot height limit in new construction of residential violates many of what the City is saying in its Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Plan about wanting to preserve central neighborhoods and the character of those neighborhoods. Jim Throqmorton stated he wanted to focus attention on the staff's report and their response to it because they have several concerns. The report makes a few key mistakes and misjudgments which leads to inappropriate conclusions. First, the Northside Neighborhood Association did not petition the City Council to consider reducing the maximum building heights in the RNS-12 zone from 35 -feet to 27 -feet. Those numbers are all correct, but that's not exactly what they petitioned. Their requests focused exclusively on reducing the maximum allowable height for single-family and duplex residential structures in that zone. Had the staff invited them to consult before writing their report this distinction could have been clarified and any errors corrected. Second influenced by this error, the staff reports that 117 or more properties currently exceed the proposed 27 -foot height limit. They correctly observed there are 500 properties in the RNS-12 districts, 313 of which are within the Northside, but instead of using the total numbers when determining how many properties currently exceed the proposed height limit, staff should have used the number of single-family and duplex properties when counting. In their petition the Northside Neighborhood Association reported that only 188 of the 313 parcels located in the Northside are occupied by single-family structures, two family conversions or duplexes. Even a three, four and five family conversions are included. None of the 213, that is 188 plus 25, structures are greater than two and a half stories, so in their judgment, the non-conformance issue goes away. Throgmorton acknowledged staff presented some new information tonight, which they would want to take into account and might influence the collective judgment about what to do. He also wanted to note that there's a property inventory viewer available through the City Assessor's office that he has been going through in great detail and it identifies every single-family/owner- occupied property in the Northside Neighborhood and other parts of the City. The odd thing is it identifies them as single-family/owner-occupied when a large proportion of them are not occupied by owners but are occupied by renters, it's really quite puzzling. Third, the staff estimated building heights using 2021 pictometry data from Connect Explorer, which Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 11 of 18 Throgmorton admitted he has no experience with whatsoever, but volunteers from the Northside actually measured the taller buildings. They walked or biked by every property in all the RNS-12 zones, including those outside of the Northside and identified the taller houses and duplexes. After measuring some apartment buildings for comparison's sake, they then went back to the taller buildings with a laser measure and determined the height from the grade to the midpoint of the roof pitch. These volunteers knocked on the door of each house to tell residents the volunteers were doing research on houses in the neighborhood and asked if they could take some measurements. Every resident they asked granted permission. The volunteers then placed the laser device next to the house to obtain accurate measurements. Fourth, the staff emphasizes that 85% of all properties in the Northside are located in historic and conservation overlay zones and the guidelines in the Historic Preservation Handbook state that "new structures must be one and a half or two stories in height". Throgmorton emphasized however, that these guidelines do not have the force of the zoning code which is what matters when it comes to heights. He also noted it is important for the guidelines and zoning law to be consistent with one another to avoid having two different height limits in the same zone. Fifth, the staff reports there have been only 17 residential demolitions in the RNS-12 zones over the past 30 years. He acknowledged that is correct, however 14 of those structures were single-family and 14 out of 151 is 10% of the neighborhood's current stock of single-family properties. Moreover, the relative paucity of demolitions does not necessarily reveal a lack of development pressure. Over the years 25 properties have been converted from single-family to three, four or five family structures. The staff also emphasizes that the Historic Preservation Handbook allows demolitions only when a building is structurally unsound and irretrievable. Years of neglect and disinvestment can make a building unsound and irretrievable and the staff essentially dismisses the concern for the small, inexpensive, single-family structures located in the southeastern part of the Northside Neighborhood, ones that are outside of the historic preservation and conservation districts. Even more important, the past does not necessarily predict the future, relying too heavily on past trends is like looking in the rearview mirror to know where you are headed. Just two weeks ago, this Commission approved staff proposed amendments to the zoning code which are explicitly designed to increase the supply of housing by making it easier and more profitable to build new structures. So, if in the past there's not been a large amount of development pressure, this Commission just voted to increase the pressure and need to take that into account. Throgmorton noted it is especially important to look at the mix of owners of the 363 residential properties located in the Northside Neighborhoods in RNS-12 district, plus the part that extends out on the southeastern part of the Northside. 42% are owned by 66 or more limited liability companies and other incorporated entities. One LLC owns 13% of the 363 residential properties. One family owns at least 17 of the RNS-12 residential properties and a third entity owns another 16. Together these three owners possess 23% of all the residential properties in the Northside areas RNS-12 district and they are likely to have considerable influence over what gets repaired, what gets demolished and what gets built in the RNS-12 districts. The next point, sixth, is the staff indicates it is not aware of any evidence that the proposed height limitation would increase housing affordability, the Northside Association never ever said it would, what they did say is that reducing the maximum permitted height of new single-family and duplex structures would reduce the pressure to demolish older and currently very affordable owner -occupied structures. A new structure will be far less affordable than an existing structure. Seventh, the staff states that the existing 35 -foot maximum height is consistent with all single family and multifamily residential Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 12 of 18 zones in Iowa City. This is not true. The form -based code for the South District limits heights to two and a half stories, or 30 -feet at the peak of the roof, essentially 27 -feet to the midpoint of a sloped roof, which is what they're asking for. Staff states "it has already been determined that 35 -feet is a height that ensures a complimentary scale for the RNS-12 district", they disagree. The RNS-12 zone was specifically drafted to preserve the existing single-family character of certain neighborhoods. Section 14-2A-1 E further stipulates that the maximum height standards in the code are intended to "discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity". The current 35 -foot height limit encourages redevelopment without a scale building that can have harmful effects on neighboring properties. It therefore undermines the purpose of the RNS-12 zone. Permitting new infill structures at that height would make it more difficult for RNS- 12 neighborhoods to retain a healthy balance of affordable rental and owner -occupied housing without compromising the character of the neighborhoods. It goes to the heart of the purpose of the RNS-12 district. Given these facts, Throgmorton stated the Northside Neighborhood Association is asking the Commission to approve the request to reduce the maximum permitted height of single-family and duplex structures from 35 -feet to 27 -feet. However, if the Commission feels uncertain at this very moment, they urge them to defer voting to instruct staff to correct its report and to finish considering this proposal at the next meeting or maybe the one after that. Throgmorton stated the Northside Neighborhood Association would be eager to work with staff to ensure that both parties agree about the fact for that matter. Sharon DeGraw (Iowa City) stated in response to the height change request staff expressed concerned about creating non -conforming situations. DeGraw shared some images to illustrate why they believe non-conformance is not an issue. The device that they used to measure houses was a Bosch laser measure, and it's a high precision device. They can set this on the ground and point it up at something and it sends a laser and measures. There was a question earlier on how height is measured for a building so DeGraw demonstrated how they spotted the apex of the building, the highest point, and whatever that measurement is in length they divide that in half and shows the midpoint that represents the height of a building. She noted when there is a flat top roof, it is even more evident to see how much taller a 35 -foot flat top roof structure would be than a typical one and a half to two and a half story structure like is found in the Northside and RNS-12 single-family or duplex structures. She showed some images that if 27 -feet seems constricting there are very many tall buildings that are single-family or duplexes that already existing in the Northside. DeGraw reiterated their proposal is just to talk about single-family and duplex for infill. She showed an image of a duplex on the 900 block of Jefferson Street, its relatively new construction, and it's about 27 -feet at the midpoint. If the basement level was sunk a little more, the structure would fit better with its neighbors. The picture also demonstrates that under the current 35 -foot height limit, this building would be much taller compared to its neighbor. Next, she showed 225 East Fairchild noting this historic house on Fairchild is one of the tallest that they could find in the RNS-12 zone. The main part of the house is 27 -feet tall to the midpoint of the gables on the front, the back and sides of the house but there is a pure middle shape roof that goes up a bit higher, so the house would likely exceed the proposed 27 -foot height limit. However, this is not an issue regarding nonconformity, as the zoning code allows historic structures to be rebuilt to the previous design, even if they are totally destroyed. She next showed a single-family house on South Lucas that has a large addition that slightly exceeds the proposed 27 -foot height limit. Even so, it's not clear that this would be non -conforming because Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 13 of 18 height is measured based on average grade. Regardless, they ask if this would fit into a RNS-12 neighborhood or a neighborhood you'd want to live in. The duplex on Fairchild Street is quite large compared to its neighbors, which itself is a large house. It is 35 -feet tall at the peak but less tall at the midpoint. Because of the odd roofline it's difficult to give an exact height for the zoning purposes but it appears that even this large structure complies or comes close to the 27 -feet proposed height limit. Next, she showed a house at 911 Washington Street, it's one of the tallest structures that they could find in the RNS-12 zone and because it's multifamily it would be exempt from the request that they have. Finally, she showed 112 and 114 North Governor, this is new construction that conforms with the height request of 27 -feet and it looks good and is appropriate for Northside and RNS-12 zones. DeGraw stated they respectfully request Council to amend the zoning code by reducing the maximum building height for new single-family and duplex structures in the RNS-12 zones from 35 -feet to 27 -feet. Linda McGuire (Iowa City) stated she is almost a 50 -year resident of the Northside and the Northside Neighborhood Association got started when they successfully prevented a heli -a -pad from being on Mercy Hospital in 1989, and they're hoping they don't have to fight that one again. She wanted to point out that this was a request from the Northside Neighborhood Association, directly to City government, to engage in planning for their neighborhood. They really appreciate the staff having to step up and do it on an expedited schedule. She wants to make two points. First, the objective measure of 27 -feet is really good considering that many of the lots in the Northside are 40 feet wide. So what they're asking is that especially in the middle of the block that they don't put up needle structures. The other consideration is what they call single-family. The City cannot put occupancy limits on houses but what are called single-family houses in the Northside are packed with as many renters as possible, which drives up the value of the lot. Therefore, if they're demolished, there is a connection to affordability. McGuire noted it's a complication that is way beyond what they're talking about right now, but the main point is the failsafe that staff has said is that they already have existing processes to regulate heights in neighborhoods is insufficient and painful and expensive. If every time there is a proposal to put something in to fight the height requirement of 35 feet because it doesn't fit in the character of the neighborhood, that's an expensive process for neighbors, for staff and for Commission's. She did a fight like that next door and had to go to the Historic Preservation Commission to keep a demolition from happening at 319 North Van Buren Street. McGuire stated what they're asking is the beginning of a form -based code in the Northside with height requirements and that the Commission would support the Northside Neighborhood Association's proposal for height requirement. If they must defer, please understand that they are approaching the Commission to come up with some approach for planning for the inevitable development in the Northside neighborhood that preserves affordability, walkability, access for elders, families, whatever. Ginalie Swaim stated for several years she was a member of the Historic Preservation Commission which has participated in the City's past planning efforts regarding Downtown and Central Planning Districts. Tonight she is representing as a board member of the local nonprofit Friends of Historic Preservation and they encourage the Commission to support the Northside Neighborhood's proposal to amend the height standards for RNS-12. Historic Preservation is not about preserving every historic building, it is also about preserving the character of Iowa City neighborhoods. Even preservationists acknowledge that not all buildings can be saved, repaired Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 14 of 18 or salvageable, and may be replaced with newer structures. However, when that happens the new buildings should be compatible with their neighbors. New buildings should not be so tall as to lord over the existing streetscape. Swaim noted they have all seen in many places, streets in neighborhoods, where a new building lords over the streetscape and where a taller building sticks out like a sore thumb. Taller buildings interrupt the rhythm and the scale of nearby houses that are a consistent height and they diminish the sense of time and place that appeals to so many people. The height incentive to build taller buildings opens the door to developers willing and able to invest in tear down and build up 37 -feet because taller buildings mean more units and bigger rental income or higher purchase prices. In turn such a strategy decreases the number of smaller houses that are affordable to owners. Where then does this leave the residents who call these neighborhoods home, the residents who choose not to or can't afford to tear down and build bigger, who appreciate the consistent scale, who depend on a good supply of older housing stock, and who enjoyed the natural light that could be blocked by taller buildings. As stated, the City established RNS-12 to conserve an area for folks who want to live within walking distance to downtown, the City has other areas, South Gilbert and South Burlington for taller structures. The Northside, whether the parts in a district or those that are not in historical district, is the largest older neighborhood in Iowa City and many consider it the core of older Iowa City. Why not then be proactive about protecting this older neighborhood whether it's in a historic district or not. Additionally, don't properties in neighborhoods in the Northside that are not in a district still deserve the same considerations for quality of life to those that are in districts that are subject guidelines. Perhaps they've heard the expression, the greenest building is the one that's already built. A building 60-70 or more years older is better was built by lumber from old growth forests, it's denser and more durable. Tearing down houses means that this still valuable old growth lumber ends up in the landfill. Hardly a climate action goal. Jared Knote (1021 E. Market Street) lives in a section that's not in the Northside District and is a relatively new resident and has been here since 2020. What he was most compelled about with this particular proposal was less about the character in terms of the physical character in neighborhoods, sure that's important to some people, but for him it's really about the community and the character of the place. One of the things that's so attractive to him about this particular space is that there are so many different types of people and family settings and communities. Part of the ability to preserve that community and equity is to have these diverse, sometimes littler buildings that allow people to find a place that is affordable. Families and people's situations change, as an example people have divorces or perhaps they get widowed, and finding space within that same community so kids can stay in schools is an important part about having a vibrant, diverse community. That makes Iowa City so special and makes that neighborhood so special. Some of the addendums that were made and submitted do a beautiful job of is providing nuance that perhaps was not in the initial request nor were in staff's work, were affordability. He respects that best practice might be that height restrictions aren't great for affordability, there's a reasonableness to that, but there's also reasonableness to allowing for the diverse type of housing stock to being preserved and part of a way of making that preserved, as others have said more eloquently said, is to reduce an incentive to redevelop in a way that is not going to force folks out because they can no longer afford to rent a home that has either multiple rental folks in it, and so forth. Knote acknowledged the Commission is doing the hard work of contemplating this pretty complex item, it seems relatively simple in some ways, but in some Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 15 of 18 ways there's a lot of complexity. He just asks that maybe as they're figuring out think about what would be helpful to preserve some of the diversity of the community and sustainability of the community. Consider perhaps how this height restriction might disincentivize the type of redevelopment that might force folks out who might otherwise want to stay in that community. Kevin Boyd stated he loves local history and is going to talk about history for a second. Tonight they meet in Emma J. Harvat Hall, many know that she was the first woman to become mayor of Iowa City but what they may not know is it took 37 years for a second woman to become mayor again. Thelma Lewis was the first mayor to govern in this chamber, so she sat right where they are and wielded the gavel for the first time. Thelma, more than anyone else in our history, is the reason they have professional city staff, rather than political appointees, she co-chaired the campaign, and Boyd suspects she did most of the work to get the referendum passed to get the council/manager form of government and secured professional staff here in Iowa City. Lewis was ready to retire from her term on Council but the anti-Council/manager forces were running a slate of candidates and at that time her seat would be the critical seat on the Council overriding the referendum. Thelma knew that she was a strong enough candidate to win again, and she did, securing for a second time the professionalization of staff and the council/manager form of government. At the end of her term on Council, Thelma gave a bit of a farewell address to the Pilots' Club in the ballroom at the Hotel Jefferson and she made several accurate predictions about issues that Iowa City would face over the next decades, it's really remarkable to read. She shared a vision for how staff and the City would work with this new kind of professional staff that was growing in size. She believed it was important for citizen groups, neighborhood associations, groups who cared about things in the community would come together with a thoughtful proposal, bring it to the City staff and City Council and partner with the City staff to find a workable solution. That was her vision, the vision of the woman who was responsible for having professional staff here. She, in that ballroom, reminded future decision makers in Iowa City that they, the decision makers, should listen to civic organizations, neighborhood groups, and to encourage City staff to find workable ways to try to accommodate what they're trying to achieve. So tonight, here in Emma J Harvat Hall, where Thelma Lewis once wielded her gavel, Boyd encourages the Commission to channel Thelma Lewis and support the citizen -led groups. If they are concerned that there's some details in here that still need to be worked out, channel Thelma Lewis some more and encourage staff and the neighborhood association to come together to find a reasonable solution and defer until that time could come. Hensch closed the public hearing. Elliott moved to defer this item until the second meeting in October. Townsend seconded the motion. Quellhorst wanted to make a couple of points, maybe some things to consider during the deferral process. First, he'd really like to thank everybody because it's clear that they have thought very hard about this issue, staff put together a very detailed and conscientious report and the neighborhood association also obviously put a great deal of effort into their submissions. It's evident that they care very deeply about historic preservation, which is something that's very important in the Strategic Plan, as well as the Central District Plan. He noted one thing that would be helpful to him is to understand how effectively the historic and conservation overlays Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 16 of 18 currently function. He has some concerns about carving out a unique height limit that is applicable to a unique and limited zone and is inconsistent with height limits in other residential zones. Again, historic preservation and preserving the integrity of Iowa City neighborhoods is also vitally important and is a priority in the Strategic Plan so to that end it'd be helpful to understand both how effectively the current historic preservation scheme is, as well as whether there are any alternatives to this they might consider that would get them all to the same place. The two things that he would have in mind would be strengthening the provisions that underlie the historic conservation overlay zones, or perhaps adding additional properties to those zones, if they feel it's appropriate. Wade appreciates everybody coming in and all the correspondence on this item. His position is he thinks it's demonstrated to this point all the overlays are performing their goal or intent, as demonstrated by new developments. The new developments are fitting within the goals of the existing neighborhoods so introducing a new complication or new special consideration he just wants to make sure that overall it makes sense. Also seeking to look in the rearview mirror, he'd be curious if this lower height restriction was in place generations before, what would the neighborhoods look like as a result of that. The neighborhoods now might not necessarily be the same neighborhoods if generations before implemented that. Padron stated she does not support the deferral and also doesn't support reducing the height. Staff made a very good point and within the staff report do they show the affect and the human scale of the neighborhoods. Mainly, when she reads the last point, that the current height limitation is consistent with other single family residential zones. Craig shares some of the feelings that others have already expressed that they've heard from the Northside Neighborhood, but the RNS-12 zone is actually a pretty small part of the of the Northside, not a small part of a significant part, but certainly not even half of the Northside Neighborhood and they haven't heard from anybody in an RSN-12 zone that lives outside the Northside Neighborhood. It appears from the math that there are historic protections on almost everything in the Northside Neighborhood that is currently zoned RSN-12 so why do they need this. She wants to know why they need this and she is not compelled that it is necessary to do it and still preserve the character of the neighborhood, which she is absolutely in favor of. Hensch stated he will be voting yes on this deferral for two reasons. Number one, since there's a misunderstanding about the application of this request from the Northside Neighborhood Association, he thinks that just needs to be clarified to make sure everybody's on same page. Second, overall, fundamentally, neighborhood integrity and character is a high priority of his and the whole city can't be taken over by rentals and profit motives, there has to be a place for people to live who work in this community and plan to stay here and contribute and be good neighbors over time. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 (Padron dissenting). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 2,2023: Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 17 of 18 Elliott moved to approve the meeting minutes from August 2, 2023. Craig seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett forwarded an email from the Corridor Community Action Network, they're hosting a community engagement festival on Sunday, August 27 and they invited boards and commissions to be part of that. If the commission is interested in having a table and talking to other volunteers in the community let her know. Hensch noted at the last meeting Craig brought up the AARP and some of the information that they had on AUDs and today he received an email about a slide presentation that talks about the benefits and what AUDs are. It's a really a great reference site for people. ADJOURNMENT: Townsend moved to adjourn, seconded by Elliott and the motion passed 7-0. MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18, 2023-6:OOPM—FORMAL MEETING EM MA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron, Scott Quellhorst, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Hektoen, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Throgmorton, Wally Plahutnik, Susan Shullaw, Nancy Carlson, Sharon DeGraw, Charlie Thomas, Deanna Thomann, Dave Moore, Spencer Blackwell, Jared Knote RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 4-3 (Townsend, Hench and Elliott dissenting) the Commission recommends maintaining 35 -feet as the maximum allowable height in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zones. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS: CASE NO. REZ23-0005: (continued discussion from 8/16) Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning, to reduce the maximum allowable height in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone from 35 -feet to 27 -feet. Russett began the staff report with background information. At the August 16 meeting the Northside Neighborhood Association requested to reduce the height to 27 -feet for new single family and duplex structures. Staff did not support that recommendation and the Commission deferred the item to tonight and requested that staff meet with the Neighborhood Association again, which they did on September 6. Russett noted a couple of the main concerns that the Neighborhood Association representatives mentioned to staff were that the 35 -foot height maximum acts as a financial incentive for investors to demolish older, affordable owner -occupied structures and that the 35 -foot height maximum encourages redevelopment of out of scale buildings that will harm neighboring properties. The example given by the Neighborhood Association was the single-family home proposed at 319 North Van Buren Street and at the meeting they were requesting the reduction in height to 27 -feet for new single family and duplex structures. Staff continues to recommend retaining the current height maximum of 35 -feet in the RNS-12 zone. Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 2 of 14 Russett stated for the purpose of this presentation she was going to try to focus on new information and not the information that was presented on August 16. One item that was briefly discussed at the August 16 meeting was a justification for having varying height limits for varying land uses. She noted if there's an interest in modifying the height only for single-family and duplex structures, justification must be identified why those lower intensity residential uses need a lower height maximum. The main concern that's outlined in the staff report is the applicability of this only to new single-family and duplex structures which would require varying standards for varying uses as existing single-family and duplex uses would be subject to the 35 -feet rule and new single-family and duplexes would be 27 -feet and all other land uses would be 35 -feet. This would also require staff to implement different height requirements for different uses built at different points in time. Russett noted recent correspondence from Jim Throgmorton of the Northside Neighborhood Association agrees with staff on this point and recommends applying the 27 -foot height maximum to both existing and new single-family and duplex uses. Russett showed a map of all of the properties that are zoned RNS-12 in the City noting there's approximately 500 properties City-wide that are zoned RNS-12. 75% of those are within historic districts or conservation districts, and staff provided additional detail on the City's historic preservation program in the written staff report. A few highlights of key points about those districts are that they are regulated differently and are subject to historic preservation guidelines, and exterior modifications require regulated permits which require historic review. Although some modifications in the historic and conservation districts to homes can be reviewed by staff, any major changes have to go to the Historic Preservation Commission and that includes demolition and new construction. Russett validated that the City has a very robust Historic Preservation Program and those overlays add a large degree of protection from future construction, demolition and development changes. She reiterated 75% of the RNS-12 properties City-wide are in one of those overlays. Within the Northside Neighborhood specifically, 85% of those properties are in historic or conservation district overlay. Staff updated the demolition analysis that was previously presented to the Commission and since 1992 there have been 17 residential demolitions in the RNS-12 zone. The data suggests that redevelopment is not increasing, although that can change in the future. Staff believes that part of the reason there haven't been a lot of demolitions is because of the historic preservation program and those historic and conservation districts which restrict demolition. Russett also noted that six of the 17 demolitions occurred prior to the land being rezoned to RNS-12 so those properties were demolished and redeveloped when it was a multifamily zoning district. Staff also looked at height for a few of those redevelopment projects, they were able to find height for 11 of the 17 residential demos and two of the 11 were above 27 - feet and both of those were multifamily. Nine of the 11 were 27 -feet or less, which suggests that the 35 -foot height maximum is not an incentive for redevelopment otherwise they would be seeing those buildings constructed at 35 -feet or higher than 27 -feet. In conclusion, Russett stated the purpose of the RNS-12 zone is to maintain a single-family character, which has been interpreted as preserving single-family uses and restricting multifamily residential. The current height limitation is consistent with other single-family residential zones. Again, there's a need to justify why the City would have a different height limit for lower intensity residential uses, as opposed to other uses within that zone, and staff was concerned with implementation. Again, in recent correspondence from Mr. Throgmorton they're okay with applying this to both existing and new single-family and duplex structures. But again, 75% of the properties are regulated within historic and conservation district overlays, which ensure new structures are not out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. Lastly, the data staff looked at showing the residential demolitions that have occurred over time do not suggest 35 -foot Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 3 of 14 redevelopment. Staff has received several pieces of correspondence and all of them are in support of reduction to 27 -feet. All correspondence was emailed to the Commissioners and are also printed out before them at their seats. Staffs recommendation is to continue to keep the 35 -foot height max in the RNS-12 zone. If the Commission wants to move forward with an amendment staff would recommend a couple of things, one that the amendment apply to both new and existing single-family and duplex structures and that a public purpose justification has identified why single-family and duplex uses need a different height limit than other uses. In teRNS of next steps, if the Commission makes a recommendation tonight City Council will likely hold their public hearing on November 21. Hensch opened the public hearing. Jim Throclmorton (814 Ronalds Street) is speaking as co-chair of the Northside Neighborhood Association Steering Committee and stated one month ago this Commission urged City staff to meet with them to revise their earlier report and to provide this Commission with recommendations for tonight's meeting. Three of them on the Northside Steering Committee met with City staff members Tracy Hightshoe and Anne Russett on September 6. They found it to be an enlightening and constructive conversation and he appreciated that very much. During the meeting staff asked them to clarify what the specific concerns were, and how the proposed height reduction addressed them. In its revised report City staff recommends against the proposed change and they offer several reasons. The one reason that stands out is the staff could not identify a governmental purpose for having the maximum allowable height vary based on use. Throgmorton wanted to call attention to and remove one of the obstacles off the table as already referred to this in the September 6 meeting, look for a mutually acceptable compromise. The Northside Neighborhood Association floated the idea of applying the change only to new single-family structures and duplexes and not to existing structures. However, the staff report persuaded them that applying a different standard to new and existing houses would produce unnecessary complications. Consequently, the Northside Neighborhood Association agreed with staff that the height amendment should apply both to existing and new single-family and duplex structures. Doing so is actually consistent with their original petition which they have not changed in writing. Therefore, it's not as if they're actually changing something here and this should eliminate staff's concern about this aspect of the proposed amendment. Throgmorton stated what led them to propose the change in maximum allowable height, put concisely is the current read 35 -foot limit encourages redevelopment without of scale buildings that can have harmful effects on neighboring properties. The existing height limit provides a financial incentive for investors to demolish older and currently very affordable owner -occupied structures and makes it less likely that appropriately sized affordable new structures will be built. This financial incentive stems from the fact that the RNS-12 zones are located in the University Impact Area and therefore subject to intense demand for off -campus student housing. Throgmorton noted it was this housing market pressure that led City government to create the RNS-12 district and to give it a unique public purpose. This unique purpose is "to stabilize certain existing neighborhoods by Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 4 of 14 preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of certain neighborhoods." As former City planner Bob Miklo states in his detailed advice to this Commission, which the Northside Neighborhood Association supports and trusts they have read, "for those who live in neighborhoods single-family character means all the things that make up quality of life, enough sunlight to allow gardens, trees and other living landscaping, light shining through windows on a wintry day, a fresh summer breeze and not having light and air blocked by a 35 -foot tall wall a few feet from one's property". This market pressure also led City government to stipulate as a matter of public policy in the Central District Plan that the City will "work to achieve a healthy balance of rental and owner -occupied housing in the district's older neighborhoods" and continuing to permit new infill structures as tall as 35 -feet in RNS-12 districts would make it more difficult to achieve that objective. The potential that out of scale buildings could have harmful effects on neighboring properties is also affected by the unique physical characteristics of the RNS-12 neighborhoods. Single-family and duplex structures comprise the vast majority of properties in those neighborhoods and very few, if any, of those structures currently exceed two and a half stories, which is roughly equivalent to 27 -feet. Moreover, the compact lots found in the RNS-12 zones are among the smallest in the City. Consequently, unlike in other residential zones with large lots and setbacks, 35 -foot buildings could easily dominate or cause excessive shadows on neighboring structures. The existing 35 -foot limit therefore runs counter to the purpose of the RNS-12 zone. Section 14-2A-1 E stipulates that the maximum height standards in the code are intended "to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings to provide options from height, air and privacy and discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity." Throgmorton stated furthermore the current 35 -foot maximum was originally adopted to allow walk -out basements on sloping lots. There are very few sloping lots in the RNS-12 zones and none in the Northside. Therefore, there is no need to accommodate single-family and duplex structures on sloping lots by permitting 35 -foot heights. Throgmorton next addressed the staff's specific concern about varying maximum heights based on land use. The Northside Neighborhood Association believes there is a clear rationale for varying heights. The reason for changing to a 27 -foot height limit for single-family and duplex structures in RNS-12 zones is to preserve the existing quality of life in these neighborhoods by ensuring that new 35 -foot -tall houses on these small lots do not dominate their neighbors and deny them access to sunlight, breezes and privacy. If the 27 -foot height limit is adopted for single-family and duplex structures, the few nonresidential uses allowed in the zone, schools, religious institutions and daycares, could still be up to 35 -feet but those uses are already subject to greater setbacks that mitigate against any potential harm. In the end, therefore, there's really only one question the Commission needs to answer. Will changing the maximum permitted height of single-family and duplex structures from 35- to 27 -feet increase the likelihood that new infill development will help achieve a healthy balance of affordable rental and owner -occupied housing while preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of RNS-12 neighborhoods. If the answer is yes then they should vote in favor of the proposed amendment. Wally Plahutnik (430 N. Gilbert Street) is here to speak for himself as a former person who sat on this Commission for seven years (2005-2012). During that period they rewrote the entire code and also redid all the comprehensive plans for each neighborhood. As a commissioner they are all aware that the Comprehensive Plan should guide their decisions. That's what they told the people at every meeting they had, and all the different sessions and workshops that they held. Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 5 of 14 Staff's analysis to the neighborhood's request regarding the Comprehensive Plan focuses on the land use in that specific map of the residential neighborhood stabilization (RNS-12) district. The letters RNS is residential, neighborhood stabilization and there's only two that exist in the City, the rest are residential neighborhoods or RS. Staff acknowledges that there are many statements within those comprehensive plans with regard to infill, so a lot of that is already covered, but it all speaks to ensuring that it's compatible and complimentary to the surrounding neighborhood. Staff goes on to say that because the maximum allowable height in most residential zones is 35 -feet, it is implied that 35 -feet ensures compatibility, that's taken as a given apparently. One thing Plahutnik would like to make note of, and strongly object to, is that every time staff refers to the stabilization's wording, they say that this does not interfere with single- family uses. The stabilization was a district made not to preserve uses, they can use any houses as a single-family use, it's meant to preserve the single-family character of the neighborhoods, character and uses, those words aren't interchangeable. Uses certainly come within the broader heading of character but one can't cram character into the smaller thing of uses. This very narrow reading of the Comprehensive Plan dismisses qualitative measures of compatibility. It ignores that there are very few 35 -foot houses anywhere in Iowa City. Typically, it's a walkout basement that adds that third floor, so the street level is less than 35 -feet in almost every instance. Introducing a 35 -foot -tall house with a flat roof, which isn't denied in this 35 -foot limit, in the neighborhood of modest one- and two-story houses is certainly not compatible with the neighborhood's character. An investment company that has purchased several properties with the intent of redeveloping them has just proposed such a structure. To make it worse, the building would have a flat roof, making it appear even taller and casting even more of a shadow over its neighbors. Plahutnik urges the Commission to follow the Comprehensive Plan and really work through this to preserve the character of the neighborhood, not just the single-family use. Susan Shullaw (718 N. Johnson Street) would like to read a portion of the letter that was submitted to the Commission by Anne Freerks on the occasion of this hearing. As they may know Freerks was part of this Commission for a number of years. "I am writing to ask that you vote in favor of the Northside Neighborhood's request to reduce the height limit in RNS-12 zones. I live on the far west edge of the Longfellow neighborhood, which is comprised of RNS-12 and RS -8 zones, bordering areas that are entirely occupied by undergraduate students. When we were a young family just starting out we were attracted to the charming houses of South Governor Street. We liked the proximity to Longfellow Elementary, and it was also a very attractive and affordable option. In 1993, we took the plunge and bought 100 -year-old house there. We were welcomed by a number of elderly couples who had raised their families on South Governor and they were happy that our house had not become a student rental like so many others in the neighborhood. We didn't know it at the time, but we were helping to stabilize the neighborhood. In 1999, we were surprised when a charming old house across the alley was torn down and a large three-story apartment building went up. There was no care given to how the building fit in a neighborhood. All the beautiful mature oak trees were cut down and every square inch of the available space was taken up with a new building. Although we enjoy having college kids as neighbors, we found that as more and more students moved in, their habits can conflict with working families. There are costs and benefits in every situation. For this reason neighborhood stability, and an increase in density on these narrow lots has great impact. We knew little about zoning before the apartment building went up. Several of our neighbors were in Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 6 of 14 the same situation. We talked and then decided to approach the City, which is when we found out that Lucas and Governor Streets were zoned RM -12 multifamily and more three story apartment buildings were planned. Investors were actively trying to buy properties. A realtor called me and said I should get out while I can. In a hurried moment we considered selling but we thought of the elderly neighbors who had welcomed us and the other young families that were also making their homes on the western streets of Longfellow. We also knew long term renters were drawn to the neighborhood for the same reasons we were. They too were concerned about being displaced by new and more expensive student housing. We decided to stay and fight for our neighborhood. This experience taught us that zoning can be a powerful tool affecting our daily lives. We had our neighbors petition the City to rezone our neighborhood to RNS-12. Investment companies that were buying up houses objected to our request but the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council agreed with us that Iowa City needs some close -in neighborhoods that are sustainable and attractive to all sorts of households, owner - occupied families as well as renters, young families, singles and retirees. Recent proposals for a 35 -foot -tall houses in the RNS-12 zone have revealed a loophole that is counter to the intent of the zone to stabilize and preserve existing neighborhoods. I urge the Commission to approve the Northside Neighborhood's request to bring the allowed building heights in line with existing houses in the RNS-12 zone. This will not only apply to the northside but will be beneficial to South Lucas and South Governor Streets as well. We have raised our family on South Governor Street and at some point we will be ready to move on. We hope to sell to another young family who will send their kids to Longfellow and walk to their jobs downtown. We hope that you will support such families with good zoning policy. Thank you for taking the time to read this and for serving on the Commission." Nancy Carlson (1002 E. Jefferson Street) is one of the group of neighbors who approached the City in 1993 who were concerned with a proposed development that they felt would dramatically change the character of their neighborhood so they asked for help. The City responded by changing the zoning from RM -12 to RNS-12, that was the solution the City came up with. Over the years they felt that this was a serious undertaking and knew it would change the course of their neighborhood. They discussed it, they contacted all of the neighbors, they explained the differences between the RM -12 zone and the RNS-12 zone and wanted to make sure that everyone understood and was on board for this change. Their neighborhood was the first, thanks to the help of the City and over the years other RM -12 zones in the University Impact Zone also requested to be rezoned to RNS because of the pride and love for their neighborhood. Most of the homeowners in these neighborhoods are working class, they have worked hard to own their homes and they are proud of them. At the time of the rezoning to RNS-12 the concepts of historic districts and conservation areas were foreign to them, they wanted to give new neighbors the dream of home ownership that they had experienced. They had faith new neighbors would responsibly respect what was already there and for years that was true. Because of that their neighborhood is an encyclopedia of housing styles, but all the houses no matter what style have similar proportions, they are all one to two and a half stories tall. When they first were presented with this zone, they discussed all these things over and over again because they realized that this would make a big change in their neighborhood. They looked at the dimensions but were naive and not as adept as someone in construction to understand what the 35 -foot height limit actually was. They looked around the neighborhood and looked at the height of all the houses in Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 7 of 14 the neighborhood and thought okay, this is a good height. Houses from the 50s and houses from the 1900s are all pretty much the same amount in height so they did not realize that they had allowed something to happen that they had no intention of having happened. Right now they have reached a point where newcomers are interested only in their rights and maximizing their investment. The investment those of them who live here and have made in creating and maintaining a neighborhood is of no concern to them. Their properties become dark holes, sucking the life out of the neighborhood. Everybody has been talking about the Comprehensive Plan and what this means and how they're supposed to follow it. The zoning code was made up to enforce the Comprehensive Plan. To quote from the zoning code on the purpose of the zoning code, "the provisions of this title are intended to implement the city of Iowa's City's Comprehensive Plan in a manner that promotes the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the citizens of Iowa City." Carlson is asking the Commission to amend the height to 27 -feet which is what they thought was 35 -feet when they did their thing out of love for their neighborhood. She believes this is needed to continue the investment made in creating and maintaining their neighborhood. Sharon DeGraw (519 Brown Street) lives in the Northside Neighborhood and walks a great deal. In moving to the Northside Neighborhood, it's the whole walkability factor and the experience that one gets living in the neighborhood. She showed an image not in the Northside Neighborhood but represents something that is the kind of thing that they would want to avoid in the RNS-12 neighborhoods. The image is an apartment complex on Iowa Avenue. The apartment complex is gigantic next to the single-family home. If they allow that kind of patterning that is a visual dissonance, it disrupts the neighborhood, and makes the neighborhood a place that people don't want to walk by and are less excited to live in. People don't want to live next to tall buildings that are out of character. She likens it to the experience of when you pull up to an intersection and someone has music blaring very loud, the first thing you want to do is get out of there and get away from that car. This height differential in a neighborhood is not what she would want to live in nor look at and feels other people who invested in their neighborhood and bought property there would feel the same way. The next image shows a suburban neighborhood and that's where they would find a 35 -foot -tall building because in the back of the house there would be a walkout basement but the front facades are well under 27 -feet. In all the RNS-12 single-family or duplex houses that are currently in the close to downtown area, the character is mostly one or two stories, they can have walkout basements that are in the back, even then they're rarely 35 - feet tall for the residential dwellings. The next image shows apartments that are in the RNS-12 next to single-family homes, the ones in RNS-12 zones throughout the City are mostly under 27 - feet, there are very rare instances when they're above that. She next showed four instances where there are nonresidential businesses, St. Wenceslaus, Preucil School, Bethel AME and a daycare on Fairchild Street. Only two of them are over 35 -feet tall, but they're on properties that are very large and there's not the issue of keeping light and air away from the neighboring buildings. The Bethel AME Church is under 27 -feet and so is the preschool. In conclusion DeGraw stated that the overwhelming character of Iowa City's RNS-12 zones consist of one- and two-story houses and a few apartment buildings with three floors, but even those apartment buildings are respectful of their neighbors in teRNS of height. There are a couple of taller historic buildings, but they have generous setbacks and do not harm their neighbors. The intent of the RNS-12 is to preserve the single-family character and the Comprehensive Plan encourages the Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 8 of 14 infill development to be compatible with the existing character. The requested change in height from 35 -feet to 27 -feet is consistent with those goals. The change will help preserve the quality of life of the neighborhoods and it's a valid zoning code change. DeGraw stated it's very important because of the consistency that will be brought to developers. If there's the two and a half story height that is true for historic districts and conservation districts, then if they go to 27 -feet high, which is about two and a half stories tall in the RNS-12 zones that eliminates any confusion for developers and would be a safe way to proceed. Charlie Thomas (100 Currier Hall) is a student at the University and lives in a campus residence hall. He would like note a brief take on the larger scope of this endeavor. He took a walk to the northside area yesterday and while it's numerous trees, falling leaves and cozy homes he found attractive, it's clearly not sustainable. It lives on the border between a growing university and near the downtown of a city with egregious housing demand. To implement a height restriction like this legitimizes the economic enclave Northside represents. It is in the Commission's best interest to code a city that provides for the numerous kinds of people that want to live there and further cementing these low-density zones directly conflicts with that. There is no indication from the data of approved demolitions that the current height limit gives an incentive at all to demolish existing property. The fear of out of scale buildings is mitigated by the already existent and limiting historic preservation measures and it is simply redundant to give this extra measure. Deanna Thomann (208 Fairchild Street) stated she has lived in the Northside District for more than 20 years, her sister Dana and her bought the house when they were in college. The home was built in 1876 and once belonged to her great great grandparents. Today, her sister teaches at the University and she works from home as a copy editor. Dana lives upstairs in the old house and Thomann live downstairs. She likes her home and her neighborhood, she likes the vibrancy of living near the downtown and the University. From the second floor of her house she is able to gaze down at the flower beds she keeps in the front yard. Above this she sees a layered horizon to the south that includes church steeples, as well as tall new structures as the trend in Iowa City is to build up. That trend makes good sense in the right places, but historic districts are just not the right place. In 2004, she stood at this same podium and voiced her support for the creation of the Northside Historic District, a plan which included her block. Some property owners objected so much that they were left out of the district and therefore several non -protected properties sit across the alley from her house and two others are across from her on Fairchild Street. The two properties that are across the street were built in 1890 and 1900, these are solid homes and are rentals with large backyards. These structures are in the RNS-12 zone but there is no conservation overlay for these homes. Currently, they could be torn down and replaced with tall, dwarfing structures surrounding old homes and blocking sunlight and the skyline that her neighbors and she enjoy. Tall structures would undoubtedly disrupt the scale and the harmony of her block. As they all know, the RNS-12 was created to stabilize fragile residential areas. In his August 15, 2023, letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission Robert Miklo, former senior planner for the city of Iowa City, explained that the height limit of 35 -feet was meant to accommodate walkout basements on sloping lots. However, they now realize few RNS-12 structures sit on sloping lots and his August letter Miklo states the limit of 35 -feet is excessive and should be changed to 27 -feet and that would be in keeping with the two and a half story houses that are commonplace in the neighborhood. Thomann agrees with Miklo and asks that Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 9 of 14 the Commission change the maximum height for houses and duplexes in the RNS-12 zone to 27 -feet. This change will further stabilize the RNS-12 zone and protect her neighborhoods quality of life. Thomann wants to stress she is not resistant to change, she realizes they need to accommodate the growing population but tearing down good historic structures and sending materials to the landfill is not the answer. She really hopes they can continue to take pride in preserving the embodied energy of the older neighborhoods. Furthermore, she encourages City staff, City Commissioners and City Council to explore ways to shake old properties from the grips of the large rental companies. Imagine finding a way to make the old housing stock affordable so that a new wave of various people can live here. She saw this new wave of various people last night when she watched the City Council meeting. That was a long, emotional meeting, with immigrants coming to the podium and an interpreter telling about their struggles to find housing close in. Thomann would hope this new wave of various people would be included within her old neighborhood, she really would love that. She realizes they don't talk about who lives in the structures in planning and zoning but if they could integrate people like that and get more homeowners in the neighborhood, that would be the ultimate stabilization plan. Dave Moore (425 E. Davenport Street) thanked the Commission for considering the zoning amendment. He stated the amendment is really simple and it makes sense and it lines things up with the Comprehensive Plan. Moore thinks this will be good for all neighborhoods, and blocks in the RNS-12 zone or the residential neighborhood stability zone. More specifically, he's here today on behalf of himself because of a situation that has impacted his family and the people living in his immediate neighborhood in the lower north side of Davenport Street and Bloomington Street. It's an example of what can happen without this amendment. In fact, it is evidence that the current height limit is an incentive to tear down and build big. What was torn down was an 1840s Weaver's cottage at 319 North Van Buren. Formerly it was rentable and it was affordable. The biggest property owner in the Northside, Prestige Properties, has proposed a full 35 -feet house with a nearly flat roof in his backyard. Moore showed images of the proposed building from the east elevation noting its nearly flat. The north elevation shows the blank wall would be what he'd be seeing over a small backyard for the next 20 years. It's huge and would block the view and sunlight from his house. He showed another image capturing the scale of the first building and then a second building was proposed which was actually taller. If the builder is successful with this new model, he could build it elsewhere, there are other vacant lots in the RNS-12 zone, just like the mansard roof apartment became a model for student housing in the 1980s. Back then the City actually created the RNS-12 zone to prevent more of them. Moore reiterated this particular three-story design is injurious to neighboring properties and is at odds with the compatibility asked for by the Comprehensive Plan and a bad precedent. At first he was not sure really how tall 35 -feet was but then as he walked around and looked at buildings to get a sense it became clear this is like a tower, it is crazy and is like a monolith. How high is 35 -feet, the Englert Theater building is 35 -feet high. He noted he and his wife have lived in their house for 45 years, somebody called it a century neighborhood and it's a little daunting to think that they've lived there half the existence of the neighborhood, but apparently many of the houses are like that. They raised two nice daughters there and do not want to be forced out of their neighborhood because the quality of life will be diminished by a three-story house that they can see out their south window, his work room. They don't want to be driven out by someone who's trying to squeeze every dime out of one of the smallest lots in any core neighborhood. Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 10 of 14 Additionally, does anyone recall ever seeing any flat roof three-story houses anywhere else in Iowa City. The tenants in the house directly north of this property will lose even more sunlight. The residents on the other side of the busy alley with young grade school children will also be affected. They appealed this twice to the Board of Adjustments and got letters of support from every single owner -occupied home within 200 yards. The lower northside is a fairly moderately income -based neighborhood. The most common complaint was the height. The Board of Adjustments found that the building official made a mistake when she approved the setback reduction to allow the 35 -foot -tall building to be built two feet closer to the property line. Spencer Blackwell (25 N. Lucas Street) is a renter and is concerned that this will add more complexity to the zoning code and will reduce the amount of units being built. Whether it be duplexes or single-family zoning houses, if less units are being built, everybody's rent starts going up. This does affect more than just this neighborhood and over the last year most people's rents have gone up over $100. If they limit the amount of housing they're going to build, they're going to end up with higher rents and push people further out and away. Jared Knote (1021 E. Market Street) stated on page four of the agenda packet is an image of the stabilization area and there's little carve outs relatively gerrymandered around this one little section of Market and Jefferson, he keeps coming back to it and has asked folks to get on Google and just look at the 900 block of Jefferson Street and if they look across on Jefferson, they'll see four squares. If one is familiar with the 1920s type of architecture, you will see lots of approximately 1000 square foot, single family ranches. The bar chart that showed most of the recent buildings that were built in 2021, what came down was a farmhouse with a gable on it and what was replaced there was a duplex. It is on an angled street which would explain the fact that instead of having human scale where they see their neighbors, the back to the basement is really a single story, then the second story or third story, which is a second story, but it's really quite elevated. Then they've got to the attic area for more living and it really takes up the entire lot. On the other side of Jefferson right in the middle of the block is a hole in the ground that used to be another small tutor style home. The point being that once one of these houses started to go right next to that duplex that was built is actually another duplex where it's actually two homes on a single lot. Next, that was another two homes on a single lot. It's not where his block is but if he looks out his window, and Knote brought images from Google Maps to show the lots are non- conforming lots, their houses are less than 1000 square feet. He is probably one of the people who helped stabilize the block, because it was a student rental. He is working on his house every single weekend and is concerned about destabilizing the neighborhood, in this stabilization zone where they don't have any protections or overlays. What they've seen is once one house came down and was replaced by a giant duplex and other builds, they have two houses on a single lot. His neighborhood and his block is very diverse, by income, by rental status, by type, duplex, non - duplex, students, nonstudents, families, racially diverse, and then one block over it's now gone into price insensitive, monoculture, all students and more houses being knocked down sequentially. Therefore, to say that there's no evidence that on single blocks where they're seeing houses being taken down and replaced by price insensitive monoculture that it doesn't destabilize blocks, that's just categorically in this case, not true. Knote thinks there's evidence to that once that continues there's more and more momentum. Again he asks them to go to that 900 block of Jefferson and walk around the corner, the 900 block of Market and see that these Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 11 of 14 are pretty every type of housing stock, there's so much housing choice in these neighborhoods, and at lots of different price points and lots of different types of people. But if they provide no protection to the type of development that can go in these areas or have savvy developers who can keep within the word, but push the spirit of what is described, they really will lose the stability of the neighborhood. Jim Throqmorton (814 Ronalds Street) wanted to add the houses at greatest risk from the height differential are ones located in the southeastern part of the Northside Neighborhood and in the Court Hill District. Those houses tend be on smaller lots, they tend to be occupied by structures that are valued in the $100,000s. Anyone who owns a house knows that assessed value in the $100,000s is something very affordable in this area. It didn't used to be when he first moved here, but it is now. So it's misguided to say, as a couple of speakers did, that this is sort of an effort to preserve property rights or something like that in the Northside Neighborhood. The biggest concern they have is for those properties outside of historic preservation districts and in the southeastern side of the RNS-12 district. Wally Plahutnik (430 N. Gilbert Street) wanted to add two points that he didn't get in. The first is they're talking about the RNS-12 stabilization district itself, not historical districts and overlay. He keeps hearing 75% of the RNS-12 is covered by historical district and conservation overlay. Well, 25% isn't and don't those people deserve to be spoken for as well. Secondly, this type of thing has already been done. The South District has a two and a half story limit and so just considering that this isn't out of the blue, this isn't something completely new, completely different. The South District already has this type of restriction. Dave Moore (425 E. Davenport Street) wanted to finish his thoughts about going to the Board of Adjustments. The Board of Adjustments had found that the building official made a mistake when she approved a setback reduction to allow the 35 -foot -tall building to be built two feet closer to the property line and that issue prevented the building from being built. The issue that prevented the building was incorrect setback, but not the height. One of the Board of Adjustment members said a simple drive by could have cleared this whole thing up months ago, it's obvious that this doesn't fit in with the neighborhood. They had hoped the developer might come back with something that was a little bit more reasonable, but he came back with an even taller building. Once again, the Board found that the building official made a mistake about the front setback, again about the front setback, it wasn't the height, so the developer could propose another building that would be injurious to the neighborhood and to the neighbors who live close by. It's hard to believe that so much time and money was spent by citizens simply to fight off a building that the Comprehensive Plan and Central District says shouldn't even exist in the first place. This amendment would put an end to that kind of problem this amendment has broad support all the owner -occupied homes in the immediate area signed off, many people in the Northside and other neighborhoods, many organizations and very deeply experienced people who wrote letters. Moore wanted to thank the volunteers from the Northside Neighborhoods for walking the streets and doing the real measurements, finding out the real facts and putting this proposal together. Hensch closed the public hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 12 of 14 Quellhorst moved to maintaining the 35 -feet as the maximum allowable height in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zones. Padron seconded the motion. Quellhorst noted he lives in Longfellow in an historic home and shares a lot of the concerns that have been voiced today but this area appears to be well protected by historic and conservation district overlays. He thinks the appropriate remedy is expanding those overlays rather than pursuing a niche carve -out to the zoning code. He also doesn't see any indication of a large influx of tall homes, staff indicated that they don't have any record of homes over a 27 -feet being constructed since the 1990s. Finally, he shares staffs concerns that the proposed amendment would be inconsistent with that standard in most other residential zones and would result in varying height limits based on purpose, which isn't a sufficient justification. Padron stated she read the staff proposal and it makes more sense to her. She has listened to all the neighbors, and they just don't convince her that their reasons are reason enough to lower the height. Townsend stated she can't vote in accordance with this because she thinks the 27 -foot is tall enough in these residential areas. She lives in one of those areas and would hope that they wouldn't get a 35 -footer and in her neighborhood. Craig asked staff if the building they saw that has galvanized a lot of this reaction, the 35 -foot building, where is it in the approval process, and it isn't part of the approval that it has to fit in with the neighborhood. Russett replied it needs to meet the standards in the zoning code. Her understanding is they did have a building permit issued for it but it's not moving forward in terms of construction. It doesn't have to meet subjective character standards, it just needs to meet the height, the setbacks, and other zoning standards. Hektoen cautioned them away from focusing too much on that one example, this is a change to the text of the code that would apply in multiple situations. Craig understands but is interested in knowing what protections are in place without changing the code and if there is a protection that they have to meet some standard and some type of conformity as in fitting in with a neighborhood, that's what is important to her. Russett replied that particular property is not in a historic or conservation district so the zoning code doesn't have any design standards that it needs to meet, there's no design standards or regulations related to it fitting in with RNS-12. Craig stated another building that is often brought up as an example is the one on the Bloomington Street but she drives down that street two or three times a week for 30 years and doesn't know any big monstrous building there. She looked up the address and the building that they're talking about looks very much like a single-family home and fits in with the neighborhood. It did replace a very small decrepit house, but it's got a yard and they built a double car garage off the alley in the back. She doesn't know why anyone would complain about that being in their neighborhood. Criag noted the issue is it didn't sell as a single-family house, it's being rented by the room and so instead of having a five member family in there they have five students. However, if they had a five -member family in there, she doesn't think anyone would be Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 13 of 14 complaining about it. That's the struggle for her when that is used as an example of what they don't want in their neighborhood and yet if it had two adults and three children, they'd be happy to have it in their neighborhood. Craig also asked staff about why in one neighborhood is the limit defined as two and a half stories and in another 27 -feet or 35 -feet. Russett would prefer that it would be in feet and not stories in this zone. Elliott stated walking into that neighborhood and can't imagine having a three-story structure, it just doesn't fit into the character of the neighborhood. She also feels like lowering it to 27 -feet adds to the affordability of the neighborhood and is consistent with the strategic plan. Wade will be supporting the denial. He hears the concerns and lived up in the Northside Neighborhood for a long time. He is familiar with the house on Jefferson, also on the corner of Market and Jefferson, along the alleyway used to be a white house there that was torn down and replaced with the duplex up on Market Street and Rochester. Also smaller houses that were replaced with newer houses. None of these became intrusive to their neighborhood and for that reason can't support lowering it to 27 -foot and will support leaving it at 35 -feet. Hensch noted the difficulty always is this question of affordable housing and that's what causes him the quandary. He is extremely concerned about the proliferation of rentals throughout the City and that the whole City is just going to become rental. Additionally, he doesn't see any evidence that more rentals is reducing the price of rent, so that's not the answer to affordability. He will oppose this motion because it's reasonable and particularly what really stayed with me him was Robert Miklo's comment that the original 35 -feet was just to deal with the slope on some of the lots and not for any other reason. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-3 (Townsend, Hench and Elliott dissenting). PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett gave an update from last night's Council meeting. The Council approved the City's submission for the pro -housing grant to the Housing and Urban Development Department and matching the leveraging funds of $2.8 million from the City so that application will be submitted later this month. Elliott noted there is now a walkway on Riverside Drive which makes it so much safer. Craig stated that's been on the City's books for many years but the railroad was supposed to move their things and they refused so ultimately they took the space out of the street. ADJOURNMENT: Townsend moved to adjourn, Elliott seconded by and the motion passed 7-0. Prepared by: Melanie Comer, Planning Intern, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ23-0005) Ordinance No. 24-4919 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning to reduce the maximum allowable height in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone from thirty-five (35) feet to twenty-seven (27) feet for single-family and duplex uses. (REZ23-0005) Whereas, the Northside Neighborhood Association asked the City Council to consider amending the zoning code to reduce the maximum allowable height in the RNS-12 zone from thirty- five (35) feet to twenty-seven (27) feet; and Whereas, on June 6, 2023, City Council initiated the requested zoning code text amendment by directing City staff to consider and make a recommendation on this request; and Whereas, Staff researched the history of the RNS-12 zone and the existing height limit; and Whereas, the City Council created the RNS-12 zone in 1993 with the purpose of stabilizing certain existing residential neighborhood by preserving the predominately single-family residential character of these neighborhoods; and Whereas, with the adoption of the RNS-12 zone, Council established the maximum building height at 35 feet, consistent with other single-family residential zones; and Whereas, since 1992, there have been 17 residential demolitions in the RNS-12 zone; and Whereas, Staff found no evidence that the existing 35 feet height limit is an incentive for redevelopment and recommends denial of this zoning code text amendment; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the zoning code amendments set forth below and recommends denial. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows: A. Amend Table 2A-2: Dimensional Requirements In The Single -Family Residential Zones in Section 14-2A-4: Single -Family Residential Zones, Dimensional Requirements, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough Table 2A-2: Dimensional Requirements In The Single -Family Residential Zones Zone/Use Minimum Lot Requirements Minimum Building Bulk Maximum Lot Maxi Minimu Setbacks Coverage mum m Open Numb Space LotArea/Unit Lot Frontage Front Side Rear Maximu Minimu Total Front Size (Sq. Ft.) Width (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) m Heightm Building Setback er of (Sq. Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) Building Bedro 10 oms Ordinance No. 24-4919 Page 2 (Sq. Width Coverag Coverag Per Ft.) (Ft.) e e Unit10 RNS- Detached 5,000 5,000 45 25 156 5+22 See 35 203 40% 50% n/a 500 12 Single- note 9 27 Family Duplex 6,000 3,000 45 25 156 5+22 See 35 203 40% 50% 4 300/unit note 9 1 27 Multi- 5,000 Existing4 45 25 156 5+22 See 35 203 40% 50% 3 10/bedr family note 9 oom, uses but no less than 400 Other 5,000 n/a 45 25 156 5+22 See35 203 40% 50% n/a n/a uses' note 9 n/a = not applicable Other uses must comply with the standards listed in this table unless specified otherwise in chapter 4, article B of this title. 2 Minimum side setback is 5 feet for the first 2 stories plus 2 feet for each additional story. Detached zero lot line dwellings must comply with the applicable side setback standards in chapter 4, article B of this title. 3A building must be in compliance with the specified minimum building width for at least 75 percent of the building's length. 4See the special provisions of this article regarding multi -family uses. 6The principle dwelling must be set back at least 15 feet, except on lots located around the bulb of a cul-de-sac; on such lots the principle dwelling must be set back at least 25 feet. On all lots, garages, both attached and detached, must be set back as specified in chapter 4, article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this title. 10 Open space must meet standards set forth in subsection 14 -2A -4E of this section. " Any bedroom with a multi -family, attached single family or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of the title 17, chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof no adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval, and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this 16th day of January , 2024 Ordinance No. 24-4919 Page 3 Attest: City Clerk Approved By / City Attorney's Office (Sara Hektoen-11/14/2023) It was moved by Salih and seconded by Alter the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: x Alter x Bergus x Dunn x Harmsen X Moe x Salih x Teague that First Consideration 12/12/2023 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Salih, Taylor, Thomas NAYS: Teague ABSENT: None Second Consideration 01/02/2024 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Salih NAYS: Teague ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Moe Date published 01/25/2024 Item Number: 8.d. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT January 16, 2024 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 61.72 acres of land located North of 1-80, West of N. Dodge Street, at the end of Moss Ridge Road from Research Development Park (RDP) zone, Interim Development Research Park (ID -RP) zone, and Highway Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/CH-1) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone (REZ23-0009). Attachments: Staff Report with Attachments PZ 12.20.23 minutes REZ23-0009 Ordinance REZ23-0009 CZA STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ23-0009 Parcel(s): 0735426001 & 0735401001 GENERAL INFORMATION: Owner/Applicant: Developer: Contact Person: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Location Map: Prepared by: Madison Conley Associate Planner Date: December 20. 2023 Stephen A. Moss 3354 Kenruth Circle NE Iowa City, IA 52240 Tyler Leo ATI Group 1615 SW Main Street, Suite 207 Ankeny, IA 50023 tyler(cDatirea Itv. com Michael Muhlenbruch McClure Engineering 1740 Lininger Lane North Liberty, IA 52317 mmuhlenbruch(cDmcclurevision.com To rezone 61.72 acres of land from Research Development Park (RDP) zone, Interim Development Research Park (ID -RP) zone, and Highway Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/CH-1) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone To allow for construction of an intensive commercial use North of 1-80 and west of Highway 1 Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Comprehensive Plan: North Corridor District Plan: File Date: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 61.72 acres Vacant Land; Research Development Park (RDP), Interim Development Research Park (ID -RP), and Highway Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/CH-1) North: Agriculture; Interim Development Research Park (ID -RP) South: Interstate 80, Light Industrial, and Indoor Recreation; Commercial Office (CO -1) and Highway Commercial (CH -1) East: Office; Research Development Park (RDP) West: Agriculture; Interim Development Research Park (ID -RP) Office Research Development Center None November 13, 2023 The owner and applicant, Stephen Moss, is interested in selling approximately 61.7 acres of property located north of Interstate 80 and west of Moss Ridge Road for development of an intensive commercial use. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment application (CPA23-0002) requests a comprehensive plan map amendment to the area that includes the property on the future land use map to be changed from Office Research Development Center to Intensive Commercial. There is no adopted district plan for this area. The Rezoning application (REZ23-0009) requests a zoning map amendment to rezone the property from Research Development Park (RDP), Interim Development Research Park (ID - RP), and Highway Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/CH-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI -1). Attachment 3 includes the Applicant's Statement describing the rationale behind the rezoning request. Attachment 4 illustrates a conceptual development concept. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment should be considered prior to the proposed rezoning. Since 2010, the subject property has been rezoned several times. Here's a summary of the case history: • Moss Green Urban Village (REZ10-00004 & SUB10-00005). On October 26, 2010, City Council adopted Ordinance 10-4409 which rezoned more than 141 acres including the subject properties to a Planned Development Overlay with portions zoned Office Research Park (OPD/ORP), Research Development Park (OPD/RPD), and Mixed Use (OPD/MU). At the same time, Council approved the preliminary plat for the Moss Green Urban Village (Resolution 10-460). This project would have allowed for construction of an office research park and mixed-use commercial development with access provided from an extension of Oakdale Boulevard which would have been constructed as part of the development. • Moss Ridge Campus (REZ12-00005/REZ12-00006 & SUB12-00003). The Moss Green Urban Village failed to develop. Council subsequently rezoned 172 acres including the subject property on October 23, 2012 (Ordinance 12-4499) to Research Development Park 3 (RDP) and Highway Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/CH-1) with the remainder zoned Interim Development Research Park (ID -RP). Council also adopted the preliminary plat for the Moss Ridge Campus (Resolution 12-458). This project would have allowed for development of the first phase of an office park with associated retail and service uses on the southeast corner of the property. It included a substantial conditional zoning agreement. Updated Moss Ridge Campus (REZ14-00020, SUB14-00019, & SUB15-00032). On January 6, 2015, Council updated the zoning (Ordinance 15-4605) and preliminary plat (Resolution 15-8) for the Moss Ridge Campus, which adjusted the street layout and refined the conservation and stormwater management areas for the proposed subdivision. In addition, the rezoning shifted the zone boundaries to coincide with the lot lines in the updated plat and amended the conditional zoning agreement to no longer require that the Planning and Zoning Commission review future site plans as it included a more detailed office park master plan. In February 2016, City Council was scheduled to consider the final plat for Phase 1 of the Moss Ridge Campus, but the application was indefinitely deferred at the request of the applicant. The 2015 rezoning ordinance and associated conditional zoning agreement (Ordinance No. 15- 4605) remain in place for this property. The conditions are summarized as follows: 1. A comprehensive landscape plan that considers stormwater facilities and environmental features, but does not need to include details for individuals lots. 2. A master sign plan that includes a design concept for the office park. 3. Additional allowances, standards, and restrictions apply for the OPD/CH-1 zoned areas: a. Two drive throughs maximum. b. Buildings shall have prominent entrances and parking toward the side or rear. c. Parking areas setback 50 feet and landscaped from 1-80. d. Allows uses in CH -1 in addition to sales oriented and personal service-oriented retail, general animal related commercial, and specialized educational facilities. 4. Site plans for individual lots will be reviewed and approved by the City according to standards relating to landscaping, building materials, building articulation and fenestration, and signage. Since 2015, much has changed, including a decline in the need for office space and the vacation of the Pearson property. In addition to these changes, market conditions are impacting the nearby ACT campus that is currently listed for sale. There are also two other major frontages along 1-80 that are either for sale or have been recently sold. This emphasizes the need to consider different uses than in the past. The proposed rezoning is aimed at the development of an intensive commercial use which aligns with the current changes and trends we see today. Furthermore, this location, which is near other warehousing uses and has few neighbors, is appropriate for considering a more intensive land use. The existing rezoning conditions focused on creating a cohesive design in the implementation of a master planned office park. Staff finds that the existing conditions are no longer necessary for a variety of reasons. Not only have market condition changed as discussed above, but the applicant will be required to submit an updated landscape plan for the property as part of the site plan requirements. In addition, commercial office is no longer the proposed use for the property. Therefore, a master sign plan with a design concept for the office park is no longer relevant. Lastly, there are conditions related to allowances, standards, and restrictions for the OPD/CH-1 zone. At this point in time, the proposed rezoning is to the CI -1 zone. Staff does not see a need to carry these conditions forward based on the change in the rezoning proposal. Future development would also need to be reviewed to the criteria applicable for a CI -1 zone, which includes the commercial site development standards. The purpose of the commercial site development standards is to ensure that commercial development is compatible in scale and rd intensity to the surrounding development, screens unsightly elements from public view, and establishes safe pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Due to the current state of the Pearson property, its large warehouse, and its lack of neighboring uses, this location would best support the CI -1 zone compared to other properties like the ACT or Dubuque Street location, that would not support compatibility. Therefore, this site can fill the current market need along the interstate more effectively than our other sites that are in transition. The applicant has not held a Good Neighbor meeting. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned RDP (35.23 acres), ID -RP (10.98 acres), and OPD/CH-1 (15.80 acres). The purpose of the RDP zone is to provide areas for the development of office, research, production or assembly firms and other complementary uses. Office and research uses should predominate in the zone. Uses allowed in this zone include general and medical/dental office, hospitality oriented retail, technical/light manufacturing, and warehouse and freight movement. The purpose of the ID zone is to provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and other nonurban uses of land may continue until such time as the city is able to provide city services and urban development can occur. The interim development zone is the default zoning district to which all undeveloped areas should be classified until city services are provided. The CH -1 zone permits development of service uses relating to expressways or along arterial roadways. At certain access points, food, lodging, motor vehicle service and fuel can be made conveniently available. The OPD zoning allows for increased flexibility in the use and design of structures and/or land in situations where conventional development may not be appropriate. Additionally, the current zoning is subject to a conditional zoning agreement that limits certain uses (e.g. drive throughs), provides some flexibility by allowing other uses not allowed within CH -1 zones and regulates signage and landscaping. Proposed Zoning: The applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned to CI -1. The purpose of the CI -1 zone is to provide areas for those sales and service functions and businesses whose operations are typically characterized by outdoor display and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles, by outdoor commercial amusement and recreational activities or by activities or operations conducted in buildings or structures not completely enclosed. The types of retail trade in this zone are limited in order to provide opportunities for more land intensive commercial operations and also to prevent conflicts between retail and industrial truck traffic. Special attention must be directed toward buffering the negative aspects of allowed uses from adjacent residential zones. Table 1 outlines the uses that are allowed in the CI -1 zone. Table 1 – Uses Allowed in CI -1 Zone Use Categories: Adult business PR Animal related commercial—general PR Animal related commercia—intensive PR Building trade P Commercial recreational—indoor P Commercial recreational—outdoor P Drinking establishments PR Eating establishments P Office—general office P Office—medical/dental office P Quick vehicle servicing PR/S Alcohol sales oriented retail P Hospitality oriented retail P Outdoor storage and display oriented P Personal service oriented P Repair oriented P Sales oriented P Surface passenger service P Vehicle repair PR Industrial service P General manufacturing PR Heavy manufacturing S Technical/light manufacturing PR Self-service storage P Warehouse and freight movement P Wholesale sales P Basic utility PR/S Community service—shelter S General community service S Daycare PR Detention facilities S Educational facilities—specialized S Religious/private group assembly P Utility -scale round -mounted solar energy systems S Communication transmission facility PR/S P = Permitted PR = Provisional S = Special exception Rezoning Review Criteria: Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezonings: 1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan; 2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The future land use map of the current IC2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for Office Research Development Center. Concurrent with this rezoning, the owner has requested an amendment to the Future Land Use Map to show this area as appropriate for Intensive Commercial. Assuming that the amendment is adopted, this application would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There is no District Plan adopted for this area. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan's Background acknowledges that the City has taken steps to direct employment growth by identifying and zoning land to accommodate industrial, commercial, and office research uses in locations with appropriate transportation access in proximity to compatible uses. Specifically, the plan sees the Moss Ridge location as beneficial to businesses that require close access to Interstate 80. There are a variety of land use goals and strategies included in the Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan that align with the proposed rezoning: • Encourage compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods to reduce the cost of extending infrastructure and services to preserve farmland and open space at the edge of the City. C) Guide development away from sensitive environmental areas, such as floodplains, wetlands, woodlands, steep slopes, flood hazard areas, and streams. • Focus industrial development on land suitable for industrial use with good access to rail and highways, but buffered from residential neighborhoods. C) Identify, zone, and preserve land for industrial uses in areas with ready access to rail and highways. C) Ensure adequate roads and other infrastructure that will attract new employers to the community. C) Plan for appropriate transition between residential neighborhoods and higher intensity commercial to ensure the long-term health of neighborhoods. C) Provide adequate buffer areas between residential areas and intensive industrial activity to mitigate any negative externalities, such as noise, odors, dust, and vibrations. The plan also includes goals and strategies in the Economic Development element of the plan that align with the proposed rezoning: • Improve the environmental and economic health of the community through efficient use of resources. C) Support... and promote appropriate development in the City's... designated urban renewal areas, including... Moss Green... Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The subject property is bordered by Agriculture to the north, Warehousing and Office to the east, 1-80 to the immediate south, as well as Light Industrial and Indoor Recreation, and more Agriculture to the west. In regard to the Pearson property to the east, the commercial site development standards in the zoning code will serve as a way to manage future commercial development and make sure it is compatible with the surrounding area. Directly south of the property is 1-80, which separates the subject property from the commercial uses south of the interstate. The property is substantially separated from the residential uses to the west due to the woodlands, agricultural land, and other environmental features that act as a natural buffer. Staff finds that the property would have minimal impact on the existing neighborhood character due to the majority of the land to the west and north is undeveloped, and it would be contiguous to adjacent office park development to the east, and use existing underutilized road capacity. As mentioned earlier, if rezoned to CI -1, the Moss Ridge property would be required to adhere to the commercial site development standards. The landscape and screening standards require that a landscaping plan be submitted, and surface parking areas, loading areas, and drives be screened from view of public rights of way and abutting properties at least to the S2 standard. The outdoor storage and display standards permit outdoor storage of materials if they can be concealed from public view. If these materials cannot be concealed behind a building, the outdoor storage area must be setback at least 20' from any public right of way and screened to at least the S3 standard. If a fence is built around the storage area, the required screening must be located between the fence and the adjacent property. Overall, staff finds that the commercial site development standards will help to ensure that future development is compatible with the existing neighborhood character, particularly the existing 7 development to the east. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The property contains a variety of regulated sensitive features areas such as slopes, woodlands, stream corridors, potential wetlands, and archeological sites. Although a sensitive areas development plan is not required at the rezoning stage, it is required at the time of a subdivision. To satisfy the public need to protect environmentally sensitive areas and archaeological resources, Staff is recommending a condition that prior to approval of a site plan the owner must obtain approval of a preliminary and final plat. During the subdivision stage, the applicant will also be required to delineate sensitive features and impacts. Since the regulated sensitive features are not being evaluated at the rezoning, the owner will be required to meet the base requirements of the sensitive areas ordinance or go through a planned development overlay rezoning. The applicant has stated their intent to comply with the base requirements of the sensitive areas ordinance. Regarding archaeological resources, a phase 1 archaeological study was completed in 2010 and determined there are archeological sites on the property. The study notes that there are some sites that are potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, for these sites, avoidance or further investigation at the Phase II level is recommended. Again, this will be further evaluated at the subdivision stage when a sensitive areas development plan is required. Floodplain: Rapid Creek places portions of the subject property within the 100 -year floodplain and 500 -year floodplain. These areas are generally located at the northwest and northeast corners of the property. Any development would need to adhere to the City's Floodplain Ordinance. Transportation and Access: The only access to the property is through Moss Ridge Road. Moss Ridge Road was constructed by the City in 2015 to encourage development of the area. In 2012 a Traffic Study was conducted to review the impacts the proposed office/research park development project would have on the property and surrounding area. With the scope of the project changing, a new traffic study is needed. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition that a traffic study be completed to ensure that any transportation impacts identified by the study are addressed as determined by the City Engineer. If any off-site improvements are identified as part of the traffic study, the developer will be required to make these improvements subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. This will ensure any transportation impacts of the proposed project are addressed. Thereby, minimizing traffic related impacts on adjacent properties. The condition for platting also meets the public need for orderly development and an interconnected street network. As part of the platting process, staff is also recommending a condition to ensure a looped water system since future development to the north and west of the subject property is not imminent. Specifically, Staff is recommending a condition that the water main be designed to extend to the existing water main along 1-80, which will create a looped system and avoid a dead-end spur greater than 500 feet. This design would keep water moving and the looping pattern reduces issues associated with water stagnation and would increase firefighting capacity. SUMMARY: In summary, Staff finds that rezoning to CI -1 is consistent with the amended comprehensive plan H subject to conditions related to traffic study, approval of a preliminary and final plat, and a condition that ensures a looped water system. The conditions imposed by the existing conditional zoning agreement are no longer applicable due to the change in uses contemplated. NEXT STEPS: After a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission this application will be considered by the City Council. • City Council will need to set a public hearing for both the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning. • City Council will consider approval of the comprehensive plan amendment (CPA23-0002) and must hold three readings including the public hearing for the rezoning (REZ23-0009). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ23-0009, an application to rezone approximately 61.72 acres of the property north of 1-80 and west of Highway 1 from ID -RS, RDP, OPD/CH-1 to CI -1 subject to the following conditions: • Prior to approval of a preliminary plat, completion of a traffic study. • Prior to issuance of a building permit, completion of all required improvements, including off-site improvements, as determined by the traffic study, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. • Prior to site plan approval, approval of a preliminary and final plat. The public improvements shall include water main designed to extend and connect to the existing water main along 1-80 to create a loop to prevent a dead-end spur. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Applicant Statement 4. Conceptual Development Concept Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Location Map ATTACHMENT 2 Zoning Map ATTACHMENT 3 Applicant Submittal Rezoning the undeveloped property to general industrial is warranted due to several key factors that align with the evolving needs of our community and the broader economic landscape. The proposed rezoning not only addresses current demands but also anticipates future growth and development. 1. Economic Advancement: • The shift towards a general industrial designation reflects the changing economic dynamics of our region, emphasizing job creation, increased tax revenue, and enhanced economic vitality. Warehouse and freight movement, as described in the City Code, have the potential to attract diverse businesses, fostering a robust and sustainable local economy. 2. Strategic Location: • The property's strategic location makes it an ideal candidate for the proposed use. Direct access to Highway 1 and Interstate 80, facilitates the efficient movement of goods, reducing logistical costs for businesses and contributing to a more competitive industrial sector. • Due to the construction of Moss Ridge Road by the City, public utilities exist at the site and are adequate for the proposed use. 3. Community Development: • The rezoning aligns with Iowa City's goals by promoting responsible land use that accommodates a range of industries. This inclusivity not only diversifies our economic base but also offers residents a variety of employment opportunities, strengthening the overall fabric of our community. 4. Market Demand: • A careful analysis of market trends indicates a growing demand for this type of use — a need mostly unmet by Iowa City. By rezoning the property to 1-1, general industrial, we position ourselves to meet this demand and attract businesses that contribute to technological innovation, manufacturing, and other sectors crucial for sustained economic growth. In conclusion, the rezoning of this property to 1-1, general industrial, is an intentional, proactive and thoughtful step towards fostering economic growth and community development. By adapting to the evolving needs of our economy and our region, we position ourselves for a vibrant and prosperous future. ATTACHMENT 4 Conceptual Development Concept —T r-- iu0= M,CcLURE" LZ 11 t, I NORTH IOWACRY aoa000 9ryFo EX -01 1���f„/�0.�1 MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2023-6:OOPM—FORMAL MEETING EM MA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron (via zoom), Scott Quellhorst, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: Susan Craig STAFF PRESENT: Madison Conley, Sarah Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Tyler Leo RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of CPA23-0002, a proposed amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use designation from Office Research Development Park to Intensive Commercial for approximately 61.72 acres of property located north of Interstate 80 and west of Highway 1. By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ23-0009, an application to rezone approximately 61.72 acres of the property north of 1-80 and west of Highway 1 from ID -RS, RDP, OPD/CH-1 to CI -1 subject to the following conditions: Prior to approval of a preliminary plat, completion of a traffic study. Prior to issuance of a building permit, completion of all required improvements, including off-site improvements, as determined by the traffic study, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Prior to site plan approval, approval of a preliminary and final plat. The public improvements shall include water main designed to extend and connect to the existing water main along 1-80 to create a loop to prevent a dead-end spur. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONING ITEMS CASE NO. CPA23-0002 Location: North of 1-80, West of N. Dodge Street, at the end of Moss Ridge Road A public hearing on a proposed amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map from Office Research Development Center to Intensive Commercial for approximately 61.72 acres of property. Lehmann stated the Moss Ridge campus has been considered in the past, it's north of 1-80 and west of Dodge Street at the end of Moss Ridge Road. He showed an aerial map noting it's Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 2023 Page 6 of 11 she is a little bit concerned that not every company is going remote and some companies are actually pushing to get people back into the offices and with the City growing they have to be careful, but she does support this application. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CASE NO. REZ23-0009 Location: North of 1-80, West of N. Dodge Street, at the end of Moss Ridge Road An application for a rezoning of approximately 61.72 acres of property from Research Development Park (RDP) zone, Interim Development Research Park (ID -RP) zone, and Highway Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/CH-1) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone. Conley presented the rezoning application for this property. As Lehmann mentioned there are agricultural areas to the north and the west and the vacant Pearson property to the east. She stated this property is comprised of environmentally sensitive features such as slopes, woodlands, stream corridors, potential wetlands and archaeological sites. The property is currently zoned Research Development Park (RDP), Interim Development Research Park (ID - RP) and Highway Commercial with the Planned Development Overlay (OPD/CH-1). To the north is agricultural areas, which is the Interim Development Research Park, to the south of Interstate 80 there is some light industrial uses, indoor recreation and some commercial office. To the east is the Office Research Development Park and to the west more agricultural and Interim Development Research Park areas. Specifically, the RDP has 35.23 acres, the ID -RP zone is 10.98 acres and the CH -1 with the overlay has 15.80 acres. Conley noted with this zoning there is a conditional zoning agreement that states: 1. A comprehensive landscape plan that considers stormwater facilities and environmental features but does not need to include details for individuals lots. 2. A master sign plan that includes a design concept for the office park. 3. Additional allowances, standards, and restrictions apply for the OPD/CH-1 zoned areas: a. Two drive throughs maximum. b. Buildings shall have prominent entrances and parking toward the side or rear. c. Parking areas setback 50 feet and landscaped from 1-80. d. Allows uses in CH -1 in addition to sales oriented and personal service-oriented retail, general animal related commercial, and specialized educational facilities. 4. Site plans for individual lots will be reviewed and approved by the City according to standards relating to landscaping, building materials, building articulation and fenestration, and signage. Staff finds now that these existing conditions are no longer necessary and will not be carried forward since commercial office is no longer the proposed use and therefore a master sign plan with a design concept for office park would be no longer applicable or relevant and the existing conditions are related to allowances, standards and restrictions for the OPD/CH-1 zone. Due to the market conditions and the decline in the need for office space and the vacation of the Pearson property the proposed zone here would be Intensive Commercial (CI -1). The CI -1 zone is created to provide areas for sales and service functions and businesses whose operations are typically characterized as outdoor storage and display storage of merchandise or operations are conducted in buildings or structures not completely enclosed. This zone does allow warehouse Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 2023 Page 7 of 11 and freight movement, outdoor storage and display, industrial service and some wholesale uses. Anything in this zone would adhere to the commercial site development standards in 14-2C-6 of the zoning code. Conley showed a picture of the development concepts submitted by the applicant. Conley next reviewed the approval criteria for a rezoning, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the existing neighborhood. She stated the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan assuming that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is adopted. The future land use map is being amended from Office Research Development Center to Intensive Commercial and as noted in the Comprehensive Plan the Moss Ridge location is identified as beneficial to businesses that require close access to Interstate 80. It's in a prime location to get on the interstate there and would have good access. In the Comprehensive Plan there is a land use section that states Iowa City would like to encourage compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods to reduce the cost of extending infrastructure and services and to preserve farmland and open space at the edge of the City. One of the strategies to meet this goal includes guiding development away from sensitive environmental areas such as floodplains, wetlands, woodlands, steep slopes, flood hazard areas and streams and this property contains a majority of those environmentally sensitive features. Additionally, another goal in the Comprehensive Plan includes a focus on industrial development on land suitable for industrial use, with good access to rail and highways but buffered from residential neighborhoods. Conley noted that a lot of the agricultural and environmentally sensitive features act as a natural buffer for this property which keeps it away from many of the surrounding uses. Therefore, the strategies to support this goal would be: • Identify, zone, and preserve land for industrial uses in areas with ready access to rail and highways. • Ensure adequate roads and other infrastructure that will attract new employers to the community. • Plan for appropriate transition between residential neighborhoods and higher intensity commercial to ensure the long-term health of neighborhoods. • Provide adequate buffer areas between residential areas and intensive industrial activity to mitigate any negative externalities, such as noise, odors, dust, and vibrations. Regarding the Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan this is known as an urban renewal area according to the Comprehensive Plan and the goal for this section states that Iowa City hopes to improve the environment and economic health of the community through efficient use of resources such as support and promote appropriate development in the City's designated urban renewable areas, which includes the Moss Green location. Conley next discussed compatibility with the existing neighborhood. She reiterated this property is not super close to neighboring properties therefore this would have minimal impact on existing neighborhood character. The Pearson property is now vacant, there's undeveloped land towards the north and the west and the environmental features would act as a natural buffer to the residential uses further west. 1-80 separates the property from the commercial uses to the south. Additionally, now that the Pearson property is vacant, it also has a large warehouse and few neighbors, which would best support the CI -1 zone compared to other properties. The property in question would best fill the current market need along the interstate more effectively than the other sites that are in transition. Any development that does go into this area would have to adhere to the commercial site development standards, which would serve and manage any Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 2023 Page 8 of 11 future commercial development to ensure compatibility to the surrounding uses Regarding the environmentally sensitive areas, Conley reiterated there are a number of them on site. She noted again an archaeological study was done in 2010 and that phase one study was done to determine the archaeological sites on the property and noted there are a couple of sites potentially eligible for the listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Avoidance or phase two level investigation of these sites is recommended if development were to occur near or on those sites. Conley also stated this property is located on a floodplain, the Rapid Creek is the specific creek on this property and it is in the 100 -year and 500 -year floodplains so therefore staff is also recommending a condition that prior to approval of a site plan the owner must obtain approval of a preliminary and final plat. Conley next reviewed transportation and access. She noted the only way to get to the Moss Ridge property is through Moss Ridge Road which was constructed by the City in 2015 in order to encourage development of the area. There was a traffic study done in 2012 that conducted a review in order to address the impacts of the proposed office research park development project that was proposed on the property and to see what impacts it would also have on the surrounding area. Conley stated due to the project scope change, a new traffic study would be needed as there is a public need to identify and implement orderly development and an inter- connected street network. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition that a traffic study be completed to ensure that any transportation impacts identified by the study are addressed as determined by the City Engineer. If any offsite improvements are identified as part of the traffic study, the developer will be required to make these improvements subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. Another condition is that the water main should be designed to extend to the existing watermain along I-80 which will then create a loop system and avoid a dead-end spur that would be greater than 500 feet. Staff recommends approval of REZ23-0009, an application to rezone approximately 61.72 acres of the property north of 1-80 and west of Highway 1 from ID -RS, RDP, OPD/CH-1 to CI -1 subject to the following conditions: • Prior to approval of a preliminary plat, completion of a traffic study. • Prior to issuance of a building permit, completion of all required improvements, including off-site improvements, as determined by the traffic study, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. • Prior to site plan approval, approval of a preliminary and final plat. The public improvements shall include water main designed to extend and connect to the existing water main along 1-80 to create a loop to prevent a dead-end spur. Hensch asked if this will this come back to the Commission for the preliminary plat review. Conley conformed yes and at that point they'll know what the phase two survey showed if in fact development occurs on either of those sites that are acknowledged as archaeological sites. Quellhorst asked if the applicant has identified a proposed use for the land. Conley replied it will be the warehouse and freight use that the proposed zoning identifies, they do not have any specifics yet. Quellhorst asked about environmental impacts and the approval process for the sensitive areas development plan, usually doesn't the Commission receive the sensitive development areas plan Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 2023 Page 9 of 11 at the time of rezoning. Russett acknowledged sometimes they will but it is not required at rezoning. This project will have to go through the subdivision process, which will require a sensitive areas development plan, and at that point the Commission will see a preliminary sensitive areas development plan that will show all regulated sensitive features, woodlands, stream corridors, wetlands, and any potential impacts. Since this is not going through a plan development overlay rezoning the applicant has expressed their desire to meet the base requirements of the sensitive areas ordinance, which means it could be administratively approved. Sometimes applicants have to impact wetlands or woodlands more than the base requirements of the sensitive areas ordinance, which then requires a planned development overlay rezoning, but this is not the case and this applicant is not asking for special permission to impact environmentally sensitive features more than the Code already allows. Quellhorst asked about the archaeologically sensitive portions of the site and why it might be eligible for National Register. Russett stated she can't really answer that as she is not an archaeologist. There are definitely prehistorical sites that have potential benefits that should be preserved but they won't really know until a more detailed study is done if that is needed. Townsend asked about the uses allowed, who determines whether the provisional or the special exceptions are okay, will those come back to this Commission. Russett replied the provisional uses would be reviewed by staff and if a special exception is required it would go to the Board of Adjustment, but neither would come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Elliott asked if a buffer is needed to the east with Pearsons because they had warehousing. Russett stated no buffers are needed there, some screening may be required along the property line if there's surface parking, or outdoor storage uses but there wouldn't be any additional buffer Elliott asked if they will be able to see this from Highway One. Russett doesn't believe so because is set way back but it will definitely be seen from the onramp headed west on Interstate 80. Wade asked if the Commission will see the site plan review. Russett replied site plan review is always administrative, but the Commission will see the preliminary plat. Wade also asked about lot sized and the current concepts. Conley replied the applicant can address the concepts. Hensch opened the public hearing. Tyler Leo (ATI Group) stated this was just a quick concept drawn up but those lots are anywhere from seven to 10 acres, that's kind of their plan sweet spot just to give some flexibility on site planning and whatnot. Hensch closed the public hearing. Townsend moved to recommend approval of REZ23-0009, an application to rezone approximately 61.72 acres of the property north of 1-80 and west of Highway 1 from ID -RS, RDP, OPD/CH-1 to CI -1 subject to the following conditions: • Prior to approval of a preliminary plat, completion of a traffic study. • Prior to issuance of a building permit, completion of all required improvements, including off-site improvements, as determined by the traffic study, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 2023 Page 10 of 11 Prior to site plan approval, approval of a preliminary and final plat. The public improvements shall include water main designed to extend and connect to the existing water main along 1-80 to create a loop to prevent a dead-end spur. Elliott seconded the motion. Townsend stated it looks like a good project, there's not much going on in that area and the City needs something there for the revenue. Quellhorst noted some concerns about possible environmental impacts and archaeological impacts but it seems like that can be addressed as part of the platting process and so long as those are diligently addressed he would also support the proposal. Wade looks forward to development in that area. Hensch also supports this noting there's sensitive areas so he's very interested in how that will be worked out. Rapid Creek is also going right through the north there and he very concerned about the floodplains, he is also interested in the archaeological resources that may be present. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 6,2023: Elliott moved to approve the meeting minutes from December 6, 2023. Wade seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Townsend moved to adjourn, Quellhorst seconded and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2023-2024 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused = Not a Member 12/21 1/4 1/18 2/15 3/1 4/5 4/19 6/21 7/5 7/19 8/2 8/16 10/4 10/18 111158 12/6 12/20 CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X WE ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X PADRON, MARIA X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X QUELLHORST, SCOTT -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X E O//E O X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- TOWNSEND, BILLIE O/E X WE X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X WADE, CHAD X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused = Not a Member 5, Prepared by: Madison Conley, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5230 (REZ23-0009) Ordinance No. Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 61.72 acres of land located North of 1-80, West of N. Dodge Street, at the end of Moss Ridge Road from Research Development Park (RDP) zone, Interim Development Research Park (ID -RP) zone, and Highway Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/CH-1) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone (REZ23-0009). Whereas, the owner, Stephen A. Moss, has requested a rezoning of property located North of 1-80, West of N. Dodge Street, at the end of Moss Ridge Road, from Research Development Park (RDP) zone, Interim Development Research Park (ID -RP) zone, and Highway Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/CH-1) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for Intensive Commercial and encourages compact and efficient development; focuses industrial development on land suitable for industrial uses with good access to highways while buffered from residential neighborhoods; and aims to improve the environmental and economic health of the community by promoting development in urban renewal areas such as Moss Green; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need to ensure orderly and efficient development and an interconnected street network through the approval of a preliminary and final plat prior to approval of a site plan and a looped water system that prevents a dead-end spur; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need to ensure that any transportation impacts are addressed through the completion of a new traffic study prior to approval of a preliminary plat and completion of all required improvements, including off-site improvements, as determined by traffic study; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with reasonable conditions regarding the completion of a new traffic study; completion of all required improvements, including offsite improvements, as determined by the traffic study, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer; approval of a preliminary and final plat; and public improvements that include a looped water system to prevent a dead-end spur, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2022) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and Whereas, the owner, Stephen A. Moss, has agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area of the city. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I Approval. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein, property described below is hereby reclassified to Intensive Commercial (CI - 1): Ordinance No. Page 2 ALL THAT PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST 'OF THE 5T" P.M. LYING NORTH OF THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 80. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 61.72 ACRES. Section II. Zoning Map. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of the ordinance as approved by law. Section III. Conditional Zoning Agreement. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance. Section IV. Certification And Recording. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. Section V. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section VI. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section VII. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of , 2024. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approved by City Attorney's Office (Sara Hektoen — 01/11/2024) Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Alter Bergus Dunn Harmsen Moe Salih Teague that First Consideration 01 i'ti/9094 Vote, for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Moe, Salih, Teague NAYS: None ABSENT: None Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published Prepared by: Madison Conley, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5230 (REZ23-0009) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made among the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City") and Stephen A. Moss, (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"). Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 61.72 acres of property located North of 1-80, West of N. Dodge Street, at the end of Moss Ridge Road legally described below; and Whereas, Owner has requested the rezoning from Research Development Park (RDP) zone, Interim Development Research Park (ID -RP) zone, and Highway Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/CH-1) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for Intensive Commercial; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need to ensure orderly development and an interconnected street network through the approval of a preliminary and final plat prior to issuance of a building permit and a looped water system that prevents a dead-end spur; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need to ensure that any transportation impacts are addressed through the completion of a new traffic study prior to approval of a preliminary plat and completion of all required improvements, including off-site improvements, as determined by traffic study; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with reasonable conditions regarding the completion of a new traffic study; completion of all required improvements, including offsite improvements, as determined by the traffic study, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer; approval of a preliminary and final plat; and public improvements that include a looped water system to prevent a dead-end spur, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2023) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and Whereas, The Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Stephen A. Moss is the legal title holder of the property legally described as: ALL THAT PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5T" P.M. LYING NORTH OF THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 80. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 61.72 ACRES. 2. Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2023) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change. 3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner agrees that development of the subject property will conform to all requirements of the Zoning Code, as well as the following conditions: a. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any portion of the above-described real estate, Owner shall obtain approval from the City Council of a preliminary and final plat for the entire 61.72 acres, and construct any necessary public improvements as set forth in a subdivider's agreement executed contemporaneously with the final plat approval. The public improvements shall include water main designed to extend and connect to the existing water main along 1-80 to create a loop to prevent a dead-end spur. During the preliminary plat application process, Owner shall obtain a traffic study for the Moss Ridge Rd/Hwy 1 intersection. Any off-site traffic control improvements shall be included in the public improvements required at the time of final plat approval. 4. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2023), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 5. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties, and shall remain in full force and effect until a building permit is issued for the above-described property, upon which occurrence these conditions shall be deemed satisfied and this agreement of no further force and effect. 6. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 7. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this day of City of Iowa City Bruce Teague, Mayor Attest: 2 2024. Stepken A. Moss 1 Kellie Grace, City Clerk Approved by: City Attorney's Office City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ss: Johnson County ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2024 by Bruce Teague and Kellie Grace as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) Stephen A. Moss Acknowledgment: State of�i7v2cn_ County of �j _ This record was acknowledged before me on 2024 by Stephen A. Moss. ` N tary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires:__ 5 f 23 f 2A25 ?.I AL s NIKOLA A PROM o y Commission Number 796292 * My Commission Expires 3