The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-21-2005 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, July 18, 2005 -7:30 PM Informal Meeting Robert A. Lee Community Recreation Center Meeting Room B 220 S. Gilbert Street Thursday, July 21,2005 - 7:30 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda C. Rezoning Items: 1. REZ05-00014 Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Mixed Use (MU) Zone, High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) Zone, and Public (P) for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Jefferson Street and east of Gilbert Street. 2. REZ05-00015 Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) Zone, and Mixed Use (MU) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Davenport Street and north of Jefferson Street. 3. REZ05-00016 Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone and Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Burlington Street and west of Linn Street. 4. REZ05-00017 Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-12) for all properties currently zoned RFBH, including Saddlebrook, Bon-Aire, Hilltop, Baculis, Forest View, Michael F Camp Properties and Thatcher Mobile Home Parks. 5. REZ05-00010 Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Longfellow Place within the Longfellow Manor Subdivision. 6. REZ05-00011 Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Dodge Street Court within the Jacob Ricord's Subdivision. 7. REZ05-00012 Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Catskill Court within the East Hill Subdivision. 8. REZ05-00013 Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located south and east of Whispering Meadows Drive within the Whispering Meadows Subdivision. D. Development Items: 1. SUB05-00011 Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a preliminary plat of Resubdivision of North Airport Development, a 40.79 acre, 11-lot commercial subdivision located north of the Iowa City Airport, along Ruppert Road. 2. SUB05-00016 Discussion of an application submitted by Three Bulls, LLC for a final plat Olde Towne Village, a 49-lot, 33.3 acre residential subdivision located south of Rochester Avenue, east of Scott Boulevard, and north of Lower West Branch Road. E. Vacation Item: V AC05-00006 Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for vacation of alleys in Peninsula Neighborhood First Addition. F. Consideration of the June 27 Meeting Minutes G. Other Item F. Adjournment Informal Formal October 3 October 6 STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner Item: REZ05-00014: East CB-2 Areas Date: July 15, 2005 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: City of Iowa City Contact Person: Karen Howard, Associate Planner Phone: 356-5251 Requested Action: Rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) to Central Business Support Zone (CB-5), Mixed Use (MU), High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44), and Public (P) Purpose: Elimination of CB-2 from City Zoning Ordinance Location and Existina Land Use: All properties are currently zoned CB-2. See legal description for exact location. The addresses and businesses listed below are intended for information purposes only and are subject to change over time. STREET ADDRESS BUSINESS NAME USE TYPE Proposed Zoning 10 S. Gilbert Street Unitarian Universalist Society reliqious institution CB-5 422 Iowa Ave. United Action For Youth - United Way qeneral office CB-5 430-490 Iowa Ave. Legal Services Corps of Iowa general office/multi-family CB-5 residential Edward Jones Investments general office/multi-family CB-5 residential 500 Iowa Ave. U of I Community Credit Union personal service-oriented CB-5 retail 505 Iowa Ave. residential multi-family residential CB-5 507 Iowa Ave. residential multi-family residential CB-5 511 Iowa Ave. Jeffrey Fields Law Office general office CB-5 Wieland/Briahton Therapy Assoc. medical office CB-5 Eastern Orthodox Christian Chapel religious institution CB-5 Raphael - Books & Gifts sales-oriented retail CB-5 513 Iowa Ave. residential multi-family residential CB-5 517 Iowa Ave. residential multi-family residential CB-5 523 Iowa Ave. offices qeneral offices CB-5 15 N. Van Buren St. dentist office medical office CB-5 18 S. Van Buren St. residential multi-family residential CB-5 20 S. Van Buren St. Boland-Duarte Counselinq Services qeneral office CB-5 22 S. Van Buren St. New Pioneer Co-op sales-oriented retail CB-5 . 2 505 E. Washinqton St. Houser Clinic - phvsicians, architects medical office MU 511 E. Washinqton St. Donald W. Robinson Builder Inc. Iqeneral office MU architects Iqeneral office MU 517 E. Washington St. Golden Haug Bed & Breakfast hospitality-oriented retail MU 520 E. Washington St. Haunted Bookshop sales-oriented retail MU Pierce Kinq Architect laeneral office MU 521 E. Washington St Red Avocado eating & drinking MU establishment 505 E. College St. Communitv Mental Health general office . MU 506 E. College St. Blank & McCune Real Estate Co. qeneral office MU Photoworld sales-oriented retail MU 507 E. College St. Community Employee Assistance Iqeneral office MU Community Mental Health laeneral office MU 504 E. Burlington St. L&M Mighty Shop Iquick vehicle servicinq CB-5 510 E. Burlington St. Hoffman-Waters Realtors general office/multi-family residential CB-5 522 E. Burlinqton St. residential multi-family residential CB-5 214 S. Van Buren St. Community Mental Health Iqeneral office CB-5 220 S. Van Buren St. Community Mental Health Iqeneral office CB-5 425-429 E. Burlington St. Hanson's Automotive auto repair RM-44 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Various multi-family and office uses, RIO zone; Multi-family apartment, RM-44 zone South: Burlington Street, various multi-family residential buildings, RM-44 East: Single- and multi-family residential, RNC-20 and RM-12 zones; College Green Park West: State Historical Society, City Hall, Chauncey Swan Parking Ramp, Robert A. Lee Recreation Center, all Public Comprehensive Plan: This area is located primarily in the Downtown Planning District, with small portions on the east and south edge located in the Central Planning District The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map denotes the area as appropriate for "Mixed Use". File Date: July 14, 2005 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In the proposed Zoning Code, the CB-2 Zone has been deleted in order to reduce the number of zoning classifications within the code and thus simplify the ordinance. If this zone is eliminated areas that are currently zoned CB-2 will need to be rezoned to another appropriate zoning classification. There are three general areas of the City that are zoned CB-2: · North CB-2 Areas: An area north of downtown roughly bounded by Dubuque and Linn Streets on the west, the alley between Jefferson and Market Streets on the south, Gilbert Street on the east, and the alley between Davenport and Bloomington Streets on the north. The block bounded by Dubuque, Market, Linn and Jefferson Streets was recently rezoned from CB-2 to CB-5. (See the attached map labeled "North CB-2 areas.") · East CB-2 Areas: An area east of downtown roughly bounded by Van Buren Street on the west, the alley between Jefferson Street and Iowa Avenue on the north, a line running parallel to and 3 approximately 80 feet to the west of Johnson St, and Burlington Street on the south, but also including property at the southwest corner of the intersection of Burlington Street and Van Buren Street. (See the attached map labeled "East CB-2 areas"). · South CB-2 Areas: Various disconnected, smaller parcels located generally south of Burlington Street and north of Prentiss Street (See attached map labeled "South CB-2 areas"). This rezoning application addresses the second of the three areas listed above, the east CB-2 areas, as illustrated on the attached location map. This area is surrounded by a variety of residential and office uses on three sides and by municipal property with office uses, a recreation center, and civic parking lots to the west. Municipal and University properties (publicly owned land) form a ring around the north and east portions of downtown that partially separates this CB-2 area from the downtown commercial core. The location of this area near downtown and surrounding uses (Mercy Hospital, the University, and medium- and high-density residential housing) produce a high traffic volume for this area, both vehicular and pedestrian. Vehicle traffic is heaviest on Burlington Street and Iowa Avenue. Van Buren Street is less-heavily traveled. ANAL YSIS: Comprehensive Plan: This area's proximity to the University and Downtown make it appropriate for any number of commercial and residential uses, hence the designation of "Mixed Use" on the Land Use Map. This area is an older developed part of the City, characterized by small parcels with a mix of land uses. It has good access to City services and infrastructure, but off-street parking is limited. The Plan states that "because Iowa City is a relatively small and compact city, less dense residential development can be found adjacent to the downtown. As the community grows and the downtown prospers, care should be taken in providing proper transitions between the intensity of downtown development and surrounding residential neighborhoods." Proposed Rezoning: There are a number of zoning designations that could replace the CB-2 designation. When considering the best fit for particular properties, staff looked at the surrounding zoning, the existing land uses in the area, and how a particular zoning might affect the surrounding neighborhood. Another important consideration is whether a new zoning designation would create nonconformities and how that might affect future development or redevelopment of property. The attached map entitled East CB-2 Areas, indicates staffs recommended zoning pattern for this area. The reasoning behind the proposed zoning is described below and is illustrated on the attached map. Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone: The CB-5 is intended to allow for the orderly expansion of the Central Business District and to enhance the pedestrian orientation of the central area of the City. This zone is intended to accommodate a higher density of commercial uses than would be allowed in the CB-2 Zone, but less than what is allowed in the CB-10 Zone. The floor area ratio (FAR) allowed in the CB-5 Zone is 3, but may be increased through bonus density provisions up to 7. Buildings can be up to 75 in height. CB-5 would allow for a density and scale similar to that found downtown and on University property. The mixture of land uses permitted in this zone requires special consideration of building and site design. CB-5 zoning is proposed for the CB-2 properties that front on Iowa Avenue and on Van Buren Street between Iowa Avenue and Washington Street. It is also proposed for the smaller parcels shown on the map that are surrounding by publicly-owned property (Unitarian Church property, Mid-American utility substation facility) and for the parcels that front along the north side of Burlington Street (as shown on the attached location map). The mix of larger scale offices, the Community Credit Union, and various institutional uses along Iowa Avenue are of a scale that is compatible with the downtown. As a prominent boulevard leading to downtown Iowa City and the Pentacrest, Iowa Avenue is an important corridor. The higher density uses allowed and the pedestrian-oriented site development standards that are a part of the CB-5 4 zone would be appropriate for uses along this street. The New Pioneer Cooperative is located on the corner of Washington and Van Buren, but also owns additional property to the north along Iowa and Van Buren Streets. Rezoning this property to CB-5 would allow for future expansion of this use and create some potential for redevelopment within this block. Another potential zoning designation for this area is Mixed Use (MU). However, the bank would become nonconforming due to its size and there would be limited expansion potential for the grocery store if this area was zoned MU. The CB-5 zone also allows gas stations, while the MU Zone does not. A CB-5 designation would allow the Mighty Shop on the corner of Burlington and Van Buren to remain a conforming use. Burlington Street is a state highway and an entryway to downtown Iowa City, so higher-intensity uses are appropriate for this corridor. There is the potential for a rather rapid transition between more intense CB-5 land uses in this area and the residential neighborhoods to the east, especially at the mid-block transition points between Van Buren and Johnson Streets. The adjacent RNC-20 Zone along Iowa Avenue allows medium density multi-family uses and many properties have been developed to the maximum density allowed in this zone. Of greater concern are the properties located further south along Johnson Street between Washington Street and College Streets. This area has a mix of single family and multi- family properties that surround College Green Park. Creating a suitable transition between CB-5 zone and the low density multi-family zone (RM-12) may be more problematic. For this reason, staff is recommending that the CB-2 properties located south of Washington Street and north of the alley behind properties that front on the south side of College, be rezoned to Mixed Use (MU) as further described below. Mixed Use (MU): The purpose of the Mixed Use (MU) Zone is to provide a transition from intensive commercial and employment centers to less intensive residential districts and to stabilize the residential areas located in these transitional areas. In the CB-2 area along Washington Street and College Street quite a number of older residential structures have been converted to successful mix of offices and small retail establishments. These uses provide a gradual transition between the higher intensity of the downtown and the lower density residential neighborhood surrounding College Green Park. The MU zone would acknowledge and keep the current establishments conforming and would allow development and redevelopment of property in the area to occur, but at a lower scale and intensity than would the CB-5 Zone. The Mixed Use Zone allows a wide variety of commercial and residential uses: offices, retail, restaurants, guest houses, theaters, single family, duplexes, multi- family, etc, similar to the mix in the area today. HiQh Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) Zone: The purpose of the High Density Multi-Family Residential Zone (RM-44) is to establish areas for the development of high density, multi-family dwellings and group living quarters. Properties zoned RM-44 should be located with good access to all City services and facilities, including public transportation services. Vehicular access and parking should be designed carefully to ensure efficient traffic and pedestrian circulation on adjacent streets. Due to the high density permitted in this zone, careful attention to site design is expected to ensure that buildings are compatible with surrounding land uses and that a quality living environment will be maintained over time. RM-44 zoning is proposed for the property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Burlington and Van Buren Streets. East of Gilbert Street, land uses on Burlington Street transition from intense downtown development toward lower-density residential uses. Much of the area near the parcel in question is zoned RM-44, and displays a range of multi-family apartment buildings and converted homes that help transition between the intensity of the downtown area and lower density properties further east. The Gilbert Street corridor is developed with multi-family structures in many places near these parcels, as well. To the north, the Robert A. Lee Recreation Center is a large structure that compares visually with the apartment structure to the south. The subject parcel is currently an auto repair shop, which would become nonconforming regardless of how this property 5 was rezoned. The auto repair establishment could continue to operate as a nonconforming use for as long as the property owner wishes. However, if the property were ever to redevelop, high density residential development would be appropriate and compatible with surrounding uses and zoning. Therefore, staff believes that RM-44 is the appropriate zoning for this parcel. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that all the CB-2-zoned propert~es located south of Jefferson Street, east of Gilbert Street and north of Court Street be rezoned to Central Business Support (CB-5), Mixed Use (MU), and RM-44, as illustrated on the attached location map. Approved by: A~v- /4-1. . Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development OF IOWA CITY ~ . ==== :'::":.:.::.:.:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:'.:.:.:::.:.::.:.:.:.:....... tj J ~ !:::::::·:M····~::::::i::·~· <::'.:" T l*l [ lllLUlJ ¡.... ":':':':'.:.:. .~~.:~.:.:. R· NC2~~' ~'::':":'::'::'>'::':'::":':'::'\'::'::':"::". _ J .:....:.. ··k8·······l·:·::·::·:-···:······~ ~ .......:..:.:..:.:.:.:: .....:.::,.::.: - - ~'" ", , . .'. .... .'. -:::::~-..:::--.... ~ '\'. ::.\:\:.:: '\:\: .\::.: ::':':" /! 7 - - ~~ ; .:.:.~':~ ..- f-- I P ::::':::':'.~n= * . ~ I- IJJ cnounce' v:00V/ - lWl )Wr n '.J v%:v/Vj/ - r- College _ _ , ...... l.. V "/ v /v / C/) G r- _ : IJ I ~ .... ~ ð reen ~ .- ( .:.'. r / / / C/) ---1 . .... . ;,';~ - ~ Pcp § rT ' COLLEG¡ T ~ \'l// ~ i¡I ] CB\~: ~~~ J- !·rM~ ~~ ( r-L-L A~~~ \, C/) ] ...,...... .:':::.::t. P "krTI :.p.:.:.:.:.:..... - I- hF~1 . f5 HI:', ::'::"\:':":'\' .::.:'::.:.:. ....:.:.:'::' ~ II - J 1:>·,·::·:::-':·::::····.·:·:··· .....:.:.::\ <: BURLINGTON 5T <: ~ ~H~FfR Ë7~2 rn g[ía I ì ~ KEY r··:-,-,:··:·::-:··:·::-:··I CB-5, Central Business Support V~ ~ MU, Mixed Use * I ~ r ~ IOWA AVE ;m IDJII HINGTON 5T 1 p " ~ r- ~D ~R . RM-44, High Density Multifamily Historic Landmark Proposed Zoning CB2 areas, East SITE LOCATION: STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner Item: REZ05-00015: North CB-2 Areas Date: July 15, 2005 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: City of Iowa City Contact Person: Karen Howard Phone: 356-5251 Requested Action: Rezoning of all CB-2-zoned property located north of Jefferson Street and South of Davenport Street from Central Business Service (CB-2) to Central Business Support Zone (CB-5), Neighborhood Commercial (CN- 1) and Residential Office (RIO) as illustrated on the attached location map. Purpose: Elimination of CB-2 from the Zoning Ordinance Location and Existinq Land Use: All properties are currently zoned CB-2. See legal description for exact location. The addresses and businesses listed below are intended for information purposes only and are subject to change over time. STREET ADDRESS BUSINESS NAME USE TYPE Proposed Zoning 302 E. BloominQton St. A&A PaQliai's Pizza eatinQ & drinking establishment RIO 310 E. BloominQton St. residential multi-family residential RIO 316 E. BloominQton St. BloominQton Street Laundromat Ipersonal service-oriented retail RIO 317 E. Bloomington St. Pagliai's & Hamburg parking accessory parking RIO 318 E. Bloominqton St. Iowa City Family Resource Center Igeneral office RIO 319 E. Bloominqton St. Psvchiatric Associates medical office RIO 322 E. BloominQton St. residential sinQle-family residential RIO 308 N. Linn St. residential multi-family residential RIO 219 N. Gilbert St. Murphy-Brookfield Books sales-oriented retail RIO 225 N. Gilbert St. residential single-family residential RIO 229 N. Gilbert residential multi-family residential RIO 305 N. Gilbert St. Russ' Amoco Service vehicle repair RIO 311 N. Gilbert St. residential multi-family residential RIO 315 N. Gilbert St. residential multi-family residential RIO 405 E. Market St. residential multi-family residential RIO 411 E. Market St. residential multi-family residential RIO 204 N. Dubuque St. Handimart Food Stores quick vehicle servicinQ CB-5 212 E. Market St. M&M Dairy Queen eating & drinking establishment CB-5 214 E. Market St. Pizza Pit eating & drinking establishment CB-5 216 E. Market St. residential) multi-family residential CB-5 218 E. Market St. Sunshine Laundry Co. & residential personal service-oriented retail/ MF CB-5 220 E. Market St. Heritage Property Management general office CB-5 222 E. Market St. residential) multi-family residential CB-5 2 301 E. Market St. Community News Advertiser Igeneraloffice CB-5 Iowa City Gazette Igeneral office CB-5 KCRG TV IQeneral office CB-5 321 E. Market St. attorneys IQeneral office CB-5 Iphysicians medical office CB-5 North 300 Block Market Market Street metered lot City-owned commercial parking P St. 202 N. Linn St. That's Rentertainment sales-oriented retail CN-1 203 N. Linn St. Northside Book Market sales-oriented retail CN-1 206 N. Linn St. Chill and Grill eating & drinking establishmenV CN-1 multi-family residential 207 N. Linn St. Roominations sales-oriented retail CN-1 208 N. Linn St. Taste of China Chinese Restaurant eating & drinking establishmenV CN-1 multi-familv residential 209 N. Linn St. Guitar Foundation sales-oriented retail/multi-family CN-1 residential 210 N. Linn St. Hanrahan's eating & drinking establishmenV CN-1 multi-family residential 211 N. Linn St. Frame House & Gallery sales-oriented retail CN-1 214 N. Linn St. Hamburg Inn Inc. eating & drinking establishmenV CN-1 multi-family residential 215 N. Linn St. Corcoran Communications general office CN-1 312 E. Market St. George's Buffet eating & drinking establishment CN-1 323 E. Market St. Ruby's Pearl sales-oriented retail CN-1 325 E. Market St. Paul Revere's Pizza eating & drinking establishment CN-1 327 E. Market St. Motlev Cow Café eatinQ & drinking establishment CN-1 330 E. Market St. Mautz Paint Co. sales-oriented retail CN-1 331 E. Market St. Artifacts sales-oriented retail CN-1 401 E. Market St. John's Grocery Inc. sales-oriented retail/multi-family CN-1 residential 402 E. Market St. Dave's Fox Head Tavern eating & drinking establishment CN-1 119 N. Gilbert St. residential multi-family residential CN-1 120 N. Gilbert St. residential multi-family residential CN-1 125 N. Gilbert St. residential multi-family residential CN-1 127 N. Gilbert St. Artifacts sales-oriented retail CN-1 213 N. Gilbert St. Riverside Theatre Co. indoor commercial recreational use CN-1 217 N. Gilbert St. Friday's Barber Shop personal service-oriented retail CN-1 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Medium-density single-family residential, RNC-12 Mixed commercial, CB-5; University property, P; and mixed housing and office uses, RIO Mercy Hospital and its surroundings, CO-1 Medium density residential, RNC-12; high- density multi-family residential, PRM and RM- 44. South: East: West: Comprehensive Plan: The 1997 Iowa City Comprehensive Plan places this area in the Downtown District. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map denotes the area as appropriate for "Mixed Use". File Date: July 14, 2005 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In the proposed Zoning Code, the CB-2 Zone has been deleted in order to reduce the number of zoning classifications within the code and thus simplify the ordinance. If this zone is eliminated areas that are currently zoned CB-2 will need to be rezoned to another appropriate zoning classification. There are three general areas of the City that are zoned CB-2: · An area north of downtown roughly bounded by Dubuque and Linn Streets on the west, the alley between Jefferson and Market Streets on the south, Gilbert Street on the east, and the alley between Davenport and Bloomington Streets on the north. The block bounded by Dubuque, Market, Linn and Jefferson Streets was recently rezoned from CB-2 to CB-5. (See the attached map labeled "North CB-2 areas. ") · An area east of downtown roughly bounded by Van Buren Street on the west, the alley between Jefferson Street and Iowa Avenue on the north, a line running parallel to and approximately 80 feet to the west of Johnson St, and Burlington Street on the south, but also including property at the southwest corner of the intersection of Burlington Street and Van Buren Street. (See the attached map labeled "East CB-2 areas"). · Various disconnected, smaller parcels located generally south of Burlington Street and north of Prentiss Street (See attached map labeled "South CB-2 areas"). This rezoning application addresses the first of the three areas listed above, the north CB-2 areas, as illustrated on the attached location map. This area is bounded by single family residential neighborhoods to the north, higher density multi-family development to the west, and Mercy Hospital and its environs to the east. University properties border this area to the south, and partially separate this part of Iowa City from the downtown area. The location of this area near downtown and surrounding uses (Mercy Hospital, the University, and medium- and high-density residential housing) produce a high traffic volume for this area, both vehicular and pedestrian. Vehicle traffic is heaviest on Dubuque Street, which is fed by the one-way arterials of Market and Jefferson Streets. Bloomington, Linn, and Gilbert are designated as local streets in this area and are less heavily traveled. ANAL YSIS: Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan land use map shows this area as being appropriate for mixed-use development. This area is located on the northern edge of the Downtown Planning District and is referred to as the Northside Marketplace. The Plan refers to the need to investigate improvements to the public right-of-way, the future of City parking facilities and the continued vitality of commercial enterprises. The City recently invested in tree planting, street lighting and sidewalk paving to enhance the pedestrian amenities on Linn, Market and Gilbert Street. The Plan generally notes that high-density housing near downtown is based on the concept that residents will walk to work or the University, patronize downtown establishments, and add to the after-hours vitality of the area. The Northside Marketplace currently contains a successful mix of small retail establishments, restaurants, offices, and residential uses. The casual "mainstreet" character of the area attracts considerable pedestrian traffic from surrounding residential neighborhoods and large employment centers, including the University of Iowa and Mercy Hospital. Proposed Rezoning: There are a number of zoning designations that could replace the CB-2 designation. When considering the best fit for particular properties, staff looked at the surrounding zoning, the existing land uses in the area, and how a particular zoning might affect the surrounding neighborhood. Another important consideration is whether a new zoning designation would create nonconformities and how that might affect future development or redevelopment of property. 4 The attached map entitled North CB-2 areas, indicates staffs recommended zoning pattern for this area. The reasoning behind the proposed zoning is described below. Mixed Use (MU) Zone: Mixed Use (MU) is the proposed zoning for CB-2 properties that front on Bloomington Street. The Mixed Use (MU) Zone is the newly proposed name for the Residential/Office (RIO) Zone. In the proposed zoning code, the current RIO Zone has been revised to allow a greater mix of retail, restaurants, office, and residential uses. As such it is more aptly named Mixed Use, rather than Residential/Office. It is a lower-scale mixed-use zone that is intended to provide a transition between higher intensity commercial areas and lower intensity residential zones. The MU designation will acknowledge the existing mix of uses along Bloomington Street and will also allow a wide variety of options if a property owner wishes to change or redevelop their property in the future, but at a scale that is compatible with the low density, single family residential neighborhood that exists directly to the north. We understand through discussions with some property owners in the area that there may be a desire for this area to be up-zoned to CB-5, a central business zone that would allow considerably higher density development. (The floor to area ratio or FAR allowed in the CB-5 Zone is 3, but may be increased through bonus provisions up to 7. Buildings can be up to 75 feet in height). However, staff believes that given the proximity to a lower density residential neighborhood that a CB-5 designation would allow development or redevelopment that would be out of scale. The CB-5 Zone also does not require parking for new commercial development. Given the limited amount of land available for off-street parking in this area and the high demand for the existing on-street parking spaces, the Comprehensive Plan notes that the parking issues in this area must be dealt with carefully. Rezoning this area along Bloomington Street to CB-5 would likely increase demand pressure on the limited parking supply in the area. One existing use in this Bloomington Street area that would become nonconforming if the CB-2 Zone is eliminated is the auto repair shop on the corner of Bloomington and Gilbert Street. None of the suitable alternative zoning designations (MU, CB-5, or CN-1) allow auto repair shops. Gas stations (but not vehicle repair shops) are allowed in the CB-5 and the CN-1 Zones, but not in the MU Zone. However, both the auto repair shop and the gas station operation can continue for as long as the property owner wishes as a nonconforming use. The other parcel proposed for MU zoning is located at 405/411 Market Street just east of John's Grocery. This property contains two 12-unit multi-family buildings. These multi-family buildings are currently nonconforming in the CB-2 Zone, because residential uses are not allowed on the ground floor and the number of units exceeds the allowed density in the CB-2 Zone. With a change to MU, the residential use of the property would be allowed, but the existing density of apartment units would continue to be nonconforming. Consequently, this change in zoning will have little effect on the current use of the property. It will remain nonconforming due to density. Neiqhborhood Commercial (CN-1) Zone: The areas shown as Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) on the attached map include the area along Market Street, Linn St, and Gilbert Street. This area forms the backbone of the Northside Marketplace as described in the Comprehensive Plan. It contains a vibrant mix of small retail shops, restaurants, a neighborhood grocery store, and several office buildings. The office uses located at 301 and 321 Market Street are larger than what would be allowed in the CN-1 Zone and are adjacent to the proposed CB-5 area. Therefore, these properties are proposed to be rezoned to CB-5 to keep the existing uses conforming. The other properties and land uses in this area fit well into the CN-1 zone. The CN-1 Zone is intended to provide the opportunity for small-scale retail sales and personal service uses in areas close to residential neighborhoods. The standards in this zone promote pedestrian-oriented development at an intensity level that is compatible with surrounding residential areas and promote principles of 5 site design, building articulation, scale and proportion that are typical of traditional main street design. This area is already developed according to these mainstreet commercial principles. A CN-1 designation will allow existing businesses to remain conforming while allowing a variety of options for development and redevelopment at this same neighborhood scale over time. The other zoning designation that abuts this area is the Commercial Office (CO-1) Zone. This zone is intended to provide space for offices, compatible businesses, and apartments in buffer zones between residential and more intensive commercial or industrial areas. Mercy Hospital and associated medical offices are located in the area zoned CO-1. Rezoning adjacent CB-2 areas to CO-1 may encourage additional medical and dental practices to move into the area. This designation could logically be applied to areas abutting the existing CO-1 zone along Gilbert Street. However, Staff finds that there is a successful, unique mix of retail, office, and residential uses in the area that is more appropriately supported with CN-1 zoning. The CO-1 zone does not allow sales-oriented retail operations, of which there are several in this area (Murphy-Brookfield Books, John's Grocery, Mautz Paint, etc). Staff finds that the Market Street corridor is a successful retail commercial district and encouraging a predominance of office uses and making existing retail uses nonconforming may reduce the viability of this neighborhood shopping area. Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone: The CB-5 Zone is intended to allow for the orderly expansion of the Central Business District and to enhance the pedestrian orientation of the central area of the City. This zone is intended to accommodate a higher density of commercial uses than would be allowed in the CB-2 Zone or in the MU or CN-1 Zones. Currently the CB-5 Zone does not allow vehicle serving uses such as gas stations. However, in the proposed zoning code, gas stations would be allowed in the CB-5 Zone as a provisional use. Given the proximity to existing CB-5 properties and high density multi-family zones, the several parcels along Market Street closest to Dubuque Street are proposed for CB-5 zoning. These properties include the gas station on the corner of Dubuque and Market and the small cluster of retail/restaurant uses with upper floor apartments located immediately to the east. If these properties were ever to redevelop, the higher densities allowed in the CB-5 Zone would be compatible with adjacent higher density zoning. Public (P) Zone: A portion of the north side of the 300 block of Market Street is owned by the City as is operated as a public parking lot. All property that is owned by the City, County, State, or Federal government should be zoned Public. Therefore, this lot should be rezoned to P. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that all CB-2-zoned property located north of Jefferson Street and South of Davenport Street be rezoned variously from Central Business Service (CB-2) to Central Business Support Zone (CB-5), Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1), Mixed Use (MU), and Public (P) as illustrated on the attached location map. Approved by: ~~A. Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development Attachments: Location map CITY OF 10 WA CITY ~ D-L-J H H -1 H H \ ~ I~n BJI] VJrr // / / / _ z - f- f- /V ~~/j / / - Ô . f-- r-- /V -0// / // / ---:1 / '///// // J ~ ~ BLOOMINGTON 5T ~01 ...v =--= lD ~~~~j MeG01 íTl , - - rO /~/ J~/ H ·t I OJ ..'.: '. . '..'.' . .'.'. '. .' '" ',.',' ..........(7 tv. '.J.L V 0 S P / 0 [ ........._* DI:UvI·:,:,:,:,·:::::,:,:·:·:.,,:.::::.:.':'~Þ::i~~V ~:v:v:= ~ ' .' ....". ..... . v v Þ ø v ~. v J . " ". .'." u u v-v; ~ ~ ¡.¡, ~ ~ v V Vi ~ ~ .. '.", . ....' ' '. '..'. ". '.", '" '" v ~ '" v v"'''' '" v"'''' '" '" '" v '" v v '" . . v v 1'<11 ,I'I'K I" î vq;.Tv v '" '" '" '" v /// ~ iu 'u to'v '" '" v '" v v u '. '......... .' . '.' . '. v v v v '" v I¡ ~ I--: _ t;; ill I I ..·i>.·';~,'~v",,,,vV"'\¡/~% ~ ~ JM4J - ' '........,. ',','.',' ~v v",///~ ,~I Z '.' '.,..'....,... ',.'.....'. UUZ-iI ~ - I o .." ,...'...'.'. ".' ,......'..'... v v I¡ '" '" v'" '/ ~ I ~ ~I tj ~~ T ~ª- rs=;', bi JEFFf- k''''UI\J ~ I M I '\ I * I I !iT"- "-L ~ KEY Wó:1 MU, Mixed Use 1:,:":'::':':'::':-':'::.1 CB-5, Central Business Support ~ P, Public rv v v v VV \71 CN-1, Neighborhood Commercial * Historic Landmark SITE LOCATION: North CB2 areas, Proposed Zoning STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner Item: REZ05-00016: South CB-2 Areas Date: July 15, 2005 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: City of Iowa City Contact Person: Karen Howard, Associate Planner Phone: 356-5251 Requested Action: Rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) to Central Business Support Zone (CB-5) and Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) Purpose: Elimination of the CB-2 Zone from Zoning Ordinance Location and Existinq Land Use: All properties are currently zoned CB-2. See legal description for exact location. The addresses and businesses listed below are intended for information purposes only and are subject to change over time. STREET ADDRESS BUSINESS NAME USE TYPE Proposed Zoning 25 W. Burlington Street Kum & Go quick vehicle servicing and CB-5 convenience store 316 S. Madison Street Lovetinski Harapat Auto Service Vehicle repair CB-5 500 S. Dubuque Street Willis Law Office office CB-5 114 E. Prentiss Street Islamic Society of Iowa City Religious institution PRM 118 E. Prentiss Street Rooming House, MF Group Livinq/Multi-Family PRM 508-510 S. Clinton Street Generaloffice/MF Office/Multi-Family PRM 516-518 S. Clinton Street General office/MF Office/Multi-Family PRM 522 S. Clinton Street General office/MF Office/Multi-Familv PRM 528 S. Clinton Street General office Office PRM 530 S. Clinton Street Multi-Family Residential Multi-Familv PRM 504 S. Capitol Street Multi-Family Residential Multi-Familv PRM 510 S. Capitol Street Single family residential Sinale familv PRM 514 S. Capitol Street Duplex Two Familv use PRM 518 S. Capitol Street Rooming house Group Livina PRM 520 S. Capitol Street Rooming house Group Livina PRM 4 E. Prentiss Street Duplex Two Familv Use PRM 7 E. Harrison Street Duplex Two Family Use PRM Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: mixed central business zone uses, CB-5/CB-10 zones South: general commercial and multi-family uses, PRM; CC-2 East: Multi-Family Residential, RM-44 2 West: Various public uses; University-owned property Comprehensive Plan: This area is located in the Downtown Planning District and the Near Southside Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan area. This area is generally intended for higher density multi-family residential uses. File Date: July 14, 2005 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In the proposed Zoning Code, the CB-2 Zone has been deleted in order to reduce the number of zoning classifications within the code and thus simplify the ordinance. If this zone is eliminated areas that are currently zoned CB-2 will need to be rezoned to another appropriate zoning classification. There are three general areas of the City that are zoned CB-2: · North CB-2 Areas: An area north of downtown roughly bounded by Dubuque and Linn Streets on the west, the alley between Jefferson and Market Streets on the south, Gilbert Street on the east, and the alley between Davenport and Bloomington Streets on the north. The block bounded by Dubuque, Market, Linn and Jefferson Streets was recently rezoned from CB-2 to CB-5. (See the attached map labeled "North CB-2 areas.") . East CB-2 Areas: An area east of downtown roughly bounded by Van Buren Street on the west, the alley between Jefferson Street and Iowa Avenue on the north, a line running parallel to and approximately 80 feet to the west of Johnson St, and Burlington Street on the south, but also including property at the southwest corner of the intersection of Burlington Street and Van Buren Street. (See the attached map labeled "East CB-2 areas"). · South CB-2 Areas: Various disconnected, smaller parcels located generally south of Burlington Street and north of Prentiss Street (See attached map labeled "South CB-2 areas"). This rezoning application addresses the third of the three areas listed above, the south CB-2 areas, as illustrated on the attached location map. This area contains a concentration of high density residential uses, various government offices and facilities, with some office uses mixed in. South of this area, the uses transition to a mix of general and intensive commercial uses. Vehicle traffic is heaviest on Burlington Street. Other streets in this area tend to serve local businesses, government offices, and residential properties and are less traveled than Burlington Street or Gilbert Street, which borders this area on the east. ANAL YSIS: Comprehensive Plan: This area is a part of the Near Southside Neighborhood located just south of downtown. A redevelopment plan was adopted for this area in 1992. Only pockets of CB-2 Zoning remain in this area of the City. A number of properties in this general vicinity have been rezoned over the last several years for the development of high density multi-family residential uses. The redevelopment plan indicates that high density residential uses and government uses are appropriate in the areas bounded by Harrison Street, S. Dubuque Street, Prentiss Street, and Capitol Street. Proposed Rezoning: There are a number of zoning designations that could replace the CB-2 designation. When considering the best fit for particular properties, staff looked at the surrounding zoning, the existing land uses in the area, and how a particular zoning might affect the surrounding neighborhood. Another important consideration is whether a new zoning designation would create nonconformities and how that might affect future development or redevelopment of property. The attached map entitled South CB-2 Areas, indicates staff's recommended zoning pattern for this area. The reasoning behind the proposed zoning is described below and is illustrated on the attached map. Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone: The CB-5 is intended to allow for the orderly expansion of 3 the Central Business District and to enhance the pedestrian orientation of the central area of the City. This zone is intended to accommodate a higher density of commercial uses than would be allowed in the CB-2 Zone, but less than what is allowed in the CB-10 Zone. The floor area ratio (FAR) allowed in the CB-5 Zone is 3, but may be increased through bonus density provisions up to 7. Buildings can be up to 75 in height. CB-5 would allow for a density and scale similar to that found downtown and on University property. The mixture of land uses permitted in this zone requires special consideration of building and site design. CB-5 zoning is proposed for the CB-2 properties that are located at the corner of Burlington Street and Madison Street. This corner contains a gas station and an auto repair shop. CB-5 zoning allows gas stations, but the auto repair shop would become nonconforming. While separated from nearby CB-5 zoning by the Pentacrest apartments, which are zoned RM-44, this area is appropriate as an extension of the downtown area located on Burlington Street, a major arterial street. CB-5 zoning is also proposed for the parcel located at the corner of S. Dubuque Street and Harrison Street as shown on the attached location map. This is a leftover parcel of CB-2 land. It contains a fairly new office building that is not likely to redevelop any time in the near future. The scale of development is consistent with surrounding high density residential uses and government offices and facilities. Rezoning this parcel to CB-5 would keep this property conforming. Planned Hiqh Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) Zone: The purpose of the Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential Zone (PRM) is to provide for development of high density multi-family housing in close proximity to centrally located employment, educational, and commercial uses. Because of the high density of development anticipated in this zone, special consideration of building and site design is required. Density bonuses may be granted when additional amenities are provided Establishing a pleasant, safe and efficient pedestrian environment is important, since many of the City's primary destinations are within walking distance of properties zoned PRM. Many types of group living and institutional uses are allowed in this zone. Properties located along Clinton, Prentiss, and Capitol Streets are currently a mix of multi-family and office uses. Staff finds that PRM zoning is the most appropriate for these properties. They would be a logical extension of the existing PRM zone directly to the south. The properties along Clinton Street are designated as high density residential in the Near Souths ide Land Use Plan. Properties along Capitol Street are designated for future government uses. However, until and unless these properties are acquired by a government entity, they cannot be zoned Public. PRM zoning is consistent with existing use of the property and with surrounding zoning and uses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that all the CB-2-zoned properties located south of Burlington Street, west of Linn Street, and east of Madison Street be rezoned to Central Business Support (CB-5) and Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM), as illustrated on the attached location map. Approved by: ~~~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development - CITY OF IOWA CIT ~ -------.J - ~ -....~ I I I . I I I I J L- = -'," · --=- _ =1 ~tJ2 ................ ~T IT - ......... '. ........ ~ ":':':":':":':':':':':-':':':'.: '\:':":':'::'::'::::'::::" t; p .......................... RM44 D~f'- -- . I .~..,t,5 . \ I- ~~~ - = \~ en County P - " ~ ';ourt Po~t I ~ll=t.. . ~ æ I-I01~" Ii (~~CbM r ?rJÍóI~' _~I ~"'þ ~ _", tJ~AJ ........ h / P Im:t;r ~ 7' '.\ ,..--.,.. 1 ~...... HARRISON ST (·:.·:··:··..··f· /:;::-:::: V l' "'",'. ....... ,,- ,"" I-æ - "\ .:. .... I If '1 . ...'..... - - '. ..... '. '. I- ,..-- - ;:::e I... - - - - en :: &J ~ - - é 1-.. '-S' ! \. I- - t ~ ~ ~.c ) . _~ - _ .:!'l ë ". i ~ \ \\ en C ì . I- - - :' I 'I........ I 1 .... .....-- \ ~ PRENTISS ST I I~/ '.- \ I I ~-4_~ r - ---, I Ì=-i - C.' ¡¿. --- -.' ~ - p 21 tM ... '¡:~ í :~ ,:= 1 IL / Î ~ -- .. KEY 1":":':":-':':":-':':-':1 C8-5, Central Business Support ~-_-_ PRM. Planned High Density Multifamily * Historio ndmark I ( I r )1 \ ...J J Proposed Zoning SITE LOCATION: South CB2 areas, L. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 21, 2005 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo Re: REZ05-00017 RFBH to OPDH-12 In an effort to remove redundant zoning categories, the draft zoning code proposes the elimination of the Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) Zone. The current code includes a separate category and standards for manufactured housing parks, primarly due to the fact that the land is not subdivided into individual lots for sale, but instead is divided into lease lots. Residents generally own the dwellings, but not the underlaying land. Typical zoning rules are not easily applied to these types of developments. Manufactured housing parks are not dissimilar to condominium-style planned developments, where the dwelling units are separately owned, but the land and surrounding facilities are jointly owned in common. The RFBH zone is also similar to the Planned Development Overlay (OPDH) Zone in that a specific site plan is required for new development. The density permitted by the RFBH zone is approximately the same as the High Density Single-Family Residential (RS-12) Zone. Therefore areas of the city that are currently zoned RFBH are proposed to be rezoned OPDH-12 and the RFBH zone would be eliminated from the zoning map. Existing RFBH areas include the Hilltop, Forest View, Bon Aire, Saddlebrook, Michael F. Camp, Baculis and Thatcher Mobile Home Parks. Location maps showing each the RFBH zones in the City are attached. The existing RFBH property owners will not be required to make any changes to their properties as a result of the proposed changes to the zoning map. If major redevelopment of these areas is proposed in the future, the applicant would be required to submit an OPDH rezoning plan rather than a Manufactured Housing Site Plan as currently required by RFBH zone. The specific requirements such as setbacks, area and parking for a manufactured housing park are contained in Section 14-3A-6 of the draft zoning code. With a few exceptions these requirements are essentially the same as those required by the RFBH zone. The current RFBH zone allows limited commercial uses intended to serve the area residents. These same types of commercial uses could be included in an OPDH application. Staff recommends that the zoning map be revise to remove the RFBH zone and to rezone exiting RFBH properties to OPDH-12. . Approved ~- Franklin, Director Dep rtment of Panning and Community Development ~ (- \ \ \ ) / CITY CITY OF IOWA RS8 RS8 ~ it/ O/, òel/ ;7'/ RFBH to OPDH-12 Saddlebrook and Bon Aire LOCATION MAP ~ ~ BJJ STREET OPDH5 " ~ ':-'-..'.", ;--,--. " Y~':'L":;"C-' h '" ',' .' ..... >'/ . \l~C-' . ,. /_,,1, c" -~ m . .." - - - , - - - . - -" -" 1,- I, _"., ry OF )WA CITY c:=~ --"--- () \ RFBH to OPDH-12 CITY OF IOWA CITY - 1 ~' I D-RM L " \ \ \ - D-RS \ ~ * p ~ OHP Nopoleon Pork - ID-RM PU STA Baculis and Thatcher p \ .) )í' ( à: f It '1' 3S , '- IU . ~ '11 LOCATION MAP ~ CITY OF IOWA CITY , \ ~j ) "'- ~ / ~~~: ¿¡; RSS ~/)y-.... " \J "'> (-{)'----:s> G ...----¡:? '"'--...,0 D-RS Waterworks Park I I ;'~;/:~~c~ I c OSÂfRS~ /'v ,/'~'---,.,¿ .J to OPDH-12 RFBH View Forest LOCATION MAP ~ - IITl 1Q " C2 F ~M1: Ìu B( , ill - RFBH to OPDH-12 CITY OF IOWA CITY 3b ~ CC2 [C J:l SOUTHGATE AVE ~ ~ "\ "'" IRONWI ~ ~ CH ID-RS D ~ -~" Hilltop IMPERIAL CT ]IT 11 ~ :/ ~~ - LOCATION MAP CITY OF IOWA CITY ¡-- \\ I \ ~\ ./ 'W\ CITY CORPORATE LIMITS ------ /' / )himek )chool p CAROLINE DRIVE Michael F. Camp Properties -I .. - 1 - I I I - ~ ~~ - - 1_\ 1 - J - ----\-------1 CITY OF IC.u- _I--L- I-~ H .". '-, ... ' - - I - /- t IDRS RS5 \ R$1- 2- -=~. ~5 / / ~, ;1' G' ·ff,' I ....-1 --J / ~ ~",. --I "s~ =1W'""- J}Q/~ , . ~~~ ~ / RFBH to OPDH-12 LOCATION MAP I City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 21,2005 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo Re: REZ05-00010 to REZ05-00013 - RS-8 to RS-12 Longfellow Manor, Whispering Meadows, East Hill Subdivision and Jacob Ricord's Subdivision The draft zoning code proposes that construction of new duplexes and attached zero-lot line dwellings in the RS-8 zone be limited to corner lots. Construction of new duplexes or attached zero-lot line dwellings on lots that are interior to the block will not be permitted. Existing duplexes and zero-lot lines will not be affected by the change. Because some recent subdivisions were designed for zero-lot line or duplex dwellings and there are still vacant lots within these subdivisions, staff is proposing to rezone these areas from RS-8 to High Density Single-Family (RS-12). The RS-12 zone will allow duplexes and zero-lot dwellings on the interior lots as well as corner lots. In addition to duplexes, the RS- 12 zone allows attached single-family homes (townhouses). The lot area requirement for townhouses and duplexes in the RS-12 zone is 3,000 square feet compared to 4,350 square feet in the RS-8 zone. As a result there may be some lots or combination of lots where an increase in density may be achieved as a result of the proposed RS-12 zones. However given existing lot configurations in these areas, staff believes that increases in density will rarely if ever occur. The areas proposed for rezoning from RS-8 to RS-12 are Longfellow Manor, the southern portion of Whispering Meadows, East Hill Subdivision (Catskill Court) and Jacob Ricord's Subdivision (Dodge Street Court). Location maps are attached. Staff recommends that REZ05-00010 through REZ05-00013 to rezone Longfellow Manor, Jacob Ricord's Subdivision, East Hill Subdivision and portions of Whispering Meadows Subdivision from RS-8 to RS-12 be approved. Approved by: . I 'h.u', (¿ {JL Kari Franklin, Director Department of Panning and Community Development ~ II -r NAVE 1 SHERIDA I = RM 12 - r---------::: I 7 7 t t U:::- <::1: W o u Z ~ cr:: I CITY OF IOWA CITY L <::1: cr:: Ü Z <::1: -1 :::,¿ <::1: o ) J ) - r .. -, I ,~ " RS-8 to RS-12 Longfellow Manor SITE LOCATION: . r - I ~ z 5: « ~ I f- =:J o Ul CITY OF IOWA CITY " RM 20 C01 L----- AVE MUSCA TINE RS-8 TO RS-12 Subdivision I H East SITE LOCATION: ~ CITY OF IOWA CITY I '\ .~ p¿ \ j ~ ~~ I /J ~ í ~~ j< Hickory Hill Pork Jj ~( z --' z ::J ::<: z o o CN1 CAROLINE DRIVE ~ \ RS-8 TO RS-12 /\ SITE LOCATION: Jacob Ricord"s Subdivision CITY OF IOWA CITY w > <t 0::: W f- V1 <t ~~ )"1iO~[;RCLE ~rcoccoccoc=~c ¡( ~ II ~ ~ II <tll CL 0 II CLÜ <t 6/1 CllllIII [I ~. CL~ - - -\\ ~lT ~I -' ;;:, ìí II 1/ f- U Z <t Ü CL o ":> RFBH -I =J .-..u. - I WTf' I: w > <t <t o <t > w z - "", f\F \ a$ , ~I/ffi RSS I I Z ..J ..J <t CJ w 0::: ¡- L - ~11.:I. ~~ ¿ <t ~ \) a :3 () .., <l) RS-8 TO RS-12 SITE LOCATION: Whispering Meadows STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: John Yapp Item: SUB05-00011 Resubdivision of North Airport Development Date: July 21, 2005 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: City of Iowa City 410 E Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Contact Person: John Yapp / Karin Franklin Phone: 356-5230 Requested Action: Preliminary plat Purpose: To create an 11-lot commercial subdivision Location: North of the Iowa City Municipal Airport, along Ruppert Road Size: Approx. 40.79 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped; CC-2, Community Commercial Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: South: East: West: Commercial; CI-1 Airport Commercial; CC-2 Commercial; CC-2 Comprehensive Plan: Retail/Community Commercial File Date: July 1, 2005 45 Day Limitation Period: August 15,2005 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Aviation Commerce Park was recently rezoned from Intensive Commercial, CI-1 to Community Commercial, CC-2. This rezoning was 1) to facilitate the purchase of approximately 21 acres of property by Wal Mart Stores, Inc.; and 2) to encourage additional retail and related commercial development on the remainder of the property (approximately 19 acres). The City is requesting a resubdivjsion of the property to create a large approximate 21-acre parcel, and to relocate Ruppert Road to accommodate the large commercial lot, and to allow access to the road from existing commercial properties to the north. 2 ANAL YSIS: Zoning considerations: The Community Commercial zone allows retail and related businesses such as restaurants, personal service and office businesses. These businesses attract traffic from the larger community. When the property was recently zoned to Community Commercial, CC-2, a Conditional Zoning Agreement was generated to help meet the policies of the South Central District Plan. These conditions include sidewalk and pedestrian walkways to be installed to allow pedestrians to easily walk to the businesses in the area, landscaping requirements, and appearance standards for any commercial structures over 50,000 square feet in size. The majority of these requirements will be reviewed as site plans are generated for individual lots. On this plat, sidewalks are shown to be included on both sides of Ruppert Road and Westport Drive. Subdivision Design: The main feature of the subdivision is the relocation of Ruppert Road, which will be paid for by the purchaser of the large commercial lot. A new road, Westport Drive, including sidewalks, is proposed to extend along the north side of the North Airport Development. A segment of Ruppert Road on the western half of the development is proposed to be removed in order to create an approximate 21-acre lot to accommodate a single large retailer. Ruppert Road will need to be vacated concurrent with the final plat process. The east segment of Ruppert Road in the North Airport Development is proposed to be converted to a cul-de-sac, and it's name will be changed to Spitz Court. Smaller one- to two-acre commercial lots will be accessed from Sptiz Court; these lots may be combined to accommodate larger commercial users. A roadway easement to connect Spitz Court to Westport Drive is included between lots 3 and 4 to allow for Sptiz Court to be a loop street that will be more conducive to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian traffic if smaller commercial establishments locate here. If one large business occupies the east half of the development, there is potential for Spitz Court to be vacated altogether to create enough room for a large commercial entity. Westport Drive, a collector street, will be located along the northern boundary of the North Airport Development subdivision, and as a public street will be able to provide access to the commercial properties to the north. Westport Drive is proposed to be designed with a center turn-lane between Ruppert Road and Lot 5 to accommodate turning traffic associated with both the north and south sides of Westport Drive. Stormwater management: The stormwater management system is an elongated dry-bottom basin along the south side of the North Airport Development. It collects water from this development, and directs it to the Iowa River. No individual stormwater basins are required for any of the lots in this development. Floodplain: The 100-year flood plain is shown to extend into a few portions of the North Airport Development. These floodplain limits are based on the 1999 FEMA floodplain maps. Because of filling and the creation of the dry-bottom basin along the south side of the property, it is unlikely the 100-year floodplain will continue to extend into this property. Typically structures built within the 1 OO-year floodplain are required to construct the lowest floor elevation at least one foot above the 100-year flood level. Engineering staff is working on generating a floodplain 'map revision' to clarify which properties are and are not within the 1 OO-year floodplain. Traffic Issues: Retail development will attract more traffic than was anticipated under the previous CI-1 zoning. Westport Drive is appropriately designed as a collector street, and the development has access to two arterial streets, Highway 1 and Riverside Drive. As part of the purchase agreement, Wal-Mart agreed to improve Ruppert Road to add a northbound to westbound left turn lane. A southbound to eastbound left turn lane at the Ruppert Road / Westport Drive intersection may also be needed. A sidewalk on the east side of Ruppert Road will also be included. s:\PCD\Staff Reports\SUB05-00011 North Airport.doc 3 Changing traffic patterns are a consequence of new development and investment. As this property develops, the intersections of Highway 1 / Ruppert Road (which is currently signalized) and Westport Drive / Riverside Drive (which is not currently signalized) will need to be improved to accommodate changing traffic patterns. A traffic signal may also be needed at the Ruppert Road / Westport Drive intersection. In order to facilitate the viability of commercial development in this area, the City should anticipate investment in these intersections due to development and potential redevelopment on surrounding properties. Infrastructure fees: A water main extension fee of $395 per acre is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends SUB05-00011, a preliminary plat of a Resubdivision of North Airport Development and North Airport Development Part Two, an 11-lot, 40.79-acre commercial subdivision located north of the Iowa City Airport, be approved. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat Approved by: ,.;;;é.;¿~æ-z-¿~. Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development s:\PCD\Staff Reports\SUB05-00011 North Airport.doc ~ ~i 't PUBLIC WORKS & TRANSI T DC ~ , SUB05-00015 CITY OF 10 WA CITY ~ STAiE HIGHWAY' CC2 I I OSA/RM20 ~ I~ ----- ~I MUNICIPAL AIRPOR T ~ 11 C CC2 ) p ¿ "" ~ SITE LOCATION: North Airport Development I I ~ f L__ I I I I I I . I I - - - ;;.;;.~ - -r~~ .ft.__ I I I PU'J'/PLII' ØPIOUD .,.... City of 10.... City - - =~:==r-= ¡:;-==.=-~-..=--= --- ¡;¡;- -- ¡¡; ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡;' ¡¡;- PRELIMINARY PLAT RESUBDIVISION OF NORTH AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AND NORTH AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PART TWO + IOWA CITY, IOWA PUT PJœPARft) BY . O1nnœl9tJllDnml:R: Onn'S .A.'!"!'D~ l1li9 COIlSULTAII'I'S JNC. Clt}' '" _ City CIty Attomoj. OffIce 11117 901JTII GIL1II!Ir ST, .10 I. lrullJDcl<m strut .10 I. 1ruIdD¡IaD _ ~ IOYA em, m_A. 62240 low. City, law. 52240 law. City, low. 52240 ----. .... ----------- NOO'OO'oõ'E-~------ $, STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo Item: SUB05-00016 Olde Towne Village Date: July 21,2005 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Three Bulls, LLC 2621 Catskill Court 920 S. Dubuque Street Iowa City, IA 52245 Contact Person: , Casey Boyd 631 5800 Requested Action: Final Plat Purpose: To create a 10-lot commercial subdivision and a 39-lot residential subdivision Location: South of Rochester Avenue, east of Scott Boulevard, north of Lower West Branch Road Size: 33.3 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped, OPDH-8 and CC-2 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Agricultural, ID-RS and County RS South: RS-5; residential East: Residential and Agricultural, County RS West: Residential, RS-5 and OPDH/RS-12 Comprehensive Plan: Commercial, residential and open space File Date: July 1, 2005 45-day Limitation Period 60-day Limitation Period August15,2005 August 30,2005 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This property was annexed into the City in 2001. At that time it was zoned Community Commercial (CC-2) and Medium Density Single-family Residential (RS-8) with a Conditional Zoning Agreement that provide specific requirements to guide the development of the property. Approximately 10 acres is zoned CC-2 and the remaining 21 acres is zoned RS-8. The RS-8 portion of the property currently has approximately 3.92 acres of regulated wetlands and two sewage lagoons that were used for the Iowa City Care Facility. 2 The conditions contained in the Conditional Zoning Agreement are: a. Applicant agrees that preliminary and final plats and site plans for the eventual development of this property will demonstrate compliance with the neighborhood design policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan, including the Northeast District Plan, and that the City will take these policies into consideration during its review of said plats and plans. b. Applicant agrees that the CC-2 property shall develop in general conformance with the concept plan attached hereto and incorporated herein. Any subdivision or site plan shall generally conform to this concept plan and shall be designed to create a Main Street or Town Square style commercial center. The commercial center shall be designed with a pedestrian orientation incorporating such features as on-street parking, parking lots behind buildings, minimal or no building setback from sidewalks and upper floor residential uses. c. Applicant agrees that prior to the development of the RS-8 property, the applicant or future property owner shall submit and obtain approval of a Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH), which will adhere to the neighborhood design policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Northeast District Plan. d. Prior to any plats or development being approved on the property with frontage on Lower West Branch Road or within 500 feet of Lower West Branch Road, the reconstruction of Lower West Branch Road must be in a funded year in Iowa City's Capital Improvements program. Additionally, prior to any plats or development being approved for the property with frontage on Lower West Branch Road or within 500 feet of Lower West Branch Road, the Applicant must contribute funds toward the reconstruction of Lower West Branch Road to the City. The Applicant agrees that the amount of funds to be contributed by Applicant to City toward the reconstruction of Lower West Branch Road is $86,652. e. Applicant agrees to dedicate to City 45 feet of right-of-way north of the centerline of Rochester Avenue along Rochester Avenue. f. Applicant agrees to dedicate to City 33 feet of right-of-way south of the centerline of Lower West Branch Road along Lower West Branch Road. g. Applicant agrees to install curb and gutter and an 8-foot wide sidewalk on the south side of Rochester Avenue in conjunction with the development of the CC-2 property. Applicant agrees that it shall bear all expense for these improvements and said improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's specifications. h. Applicant agrees to provide an easement for a sewer main to serve the Iowa City Care Facility property. In February of 2005 a preliminary plat for the entire development and a rezoning and preliminary OPDH plan for the RS-8 portion of the property were approved. The applicant is now requesting approval of the final plat for the entire property. ANAL YSIS: Subdivision design: The final plat is in general conformance with the approved preliminary plat. Deficiencies and discrepancies are noted at the end of this report. Staff is reviewing construction drawings and legal papers, which must be approved prior to City Council consideration of the final plat. The Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) requires that the commercial zone be in general conformance with the concept plan that was approved when this area was rezoned in 2001. The Northeast District Plan recommends that this neighborhood commercial center be developed in a main street or town square design that ensures its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. This includes incorporating features such as on-street parking and locating parking lots behind buildings. The layout of the streets in the commercial zone conforms with these requirements of the CZA. At the time of building permit approval for the individual lots, the site plans will also need to show conformance with the CZA. The OPDH plan w 8Õ' 3 ..., "'C- _ ::T Q)'CD :::J o ..., CD CD C/) :¡¡:ë.: ;::+CD ::T:::J ro+~ ::TQ) CD- ()"'C NO :þ2: . 0 :::J C/) o - - ::T CD "'C a "'C CD ~ '< :¡¡: Q) C/) Q) "'C "'C ..., o < CD a. S' ï1 CD 0" ..., C Q) .:2 Q) :::J a. a. CD 3 o :::J C/) ~ - CD C/) C/)W:¡¡:-:::JO ::T 0 -. ::T CD o 0 = CD -." CCD...,:¡¡:tg.CD a. "E. ~ CD 0" ::I O"-c!::!:Ocn CD ::T -. Q) 3-" Q)~m5.oSl) a._Q)000 Q-Q 0 a.~ CD3::T:::J0 C/) <5' C/) "'C -1 ~:¡¡:::TCDCD::T ã..~_<:::JCD _. CD CD ~ C/) C/) :::J ..., < -."'C C -CD CDO Q) 0" ::TQ) :::Joa. '" 0 CD-' '" C/) CD < -CD-Q)OV) CD 3 3 C/) ..., -. (Q CD 0 Q) ~ ~. 3 CD' :::J "'C - ;:t CD CD Q) Q)Q)CD:::JC/):::J "'C :::J :::J ~- S' a. CD a. Q) -. ø<::::JC/)=O <o_CD"'T'I Õ' ~ _CD ::T C ð ""Q)_CDO -:::J::TC/)_I ~a.CDÕa...., o ..., CD CD :::!10 "U3 a.(Q :::J Q) -·C w:::J...,<:o- _C/),,<Q)Q) "'CCDC/)~gg ~~w~:::J:::J . _:::J C/) õ' a. ñ)' Õ' ..., :::J 0"" CD CD ::u =: s:.Q w CD':< -. C C/) Q C/)::;' CDCDÕ'a.CD 3Q)...,CD..... "'!::!:.....<::T 502:CDCD =-:::JC/)oa. () C/) "'C CD ï10§-~~ CD3a."'0 CD 3 <_. ;:t ~ C/) .-. _. v) v) 0 :::J !!? õ' OJ :::J =O:::JCDO ê:::JQ)@- oo:::Ja.c~ _::T C/) a.0O"CDQ) CD~CDO:::J 9: @cQ) O:::Jc!::!:O ~g.C/)g.m -. CD Q 0..... -. :þ 0 .....J ......_-+, ~d58g.~ Q)::T:::J< - õ· ~ CD < "'C C -. - CD ,,, _ 0" 0 0- ....wc"'C "'C""éD3" ~Q) CD3 C/)O~:::JCD . 0 (X) =- ::I CDo> - C/)Ô'>-1..... C/) ::T CD .....01CDCD o N III ,.... ,...... en .. ::T0Q) CD :¡¡: :2. :þ C/)~or o a..:2 :¡¡: 5.C/)C/)Q) ::T.....CD..... CD::T<:CD ..., CD < ..., :::J _.~ 3 "'C3-Q) o "'C CD -. ~...,CD:::J õ·o -'CD :::J < C/) X CDLL>._ 03~CD -CDN:::J s: :::J 0> !!? _.- W 0 C/) O"'C :::J a.-CD_ CDr""CD <OQ)CD CD <: 0 -<""0 °CDCD_ "'C ..., . 3<:Þ~ CD<C/)W :::J CD ..., 01<0 =-cnCD ......Q -1 OJ £:. ~ ::T""m"" m~a.Q) CD°O"° _ ::T '< m CD-n- CDAI::T:¡¡: C/) 0 CD -. Q) = Q)a.() ...,~ NO" CD:¡¡::þCD Q) ::T........, a. -. ::T CD a.°CD.Q ...,::T C CD Q)-. C/) :¡¡:"'C ..., C/) ="'C CDa. CD-- a."'C õ' _ _...., w 0 :::J 0 :::J ..., <..... :fc::¡¡::f CD CD = V) 00 -1 :þ ï1 ï1 ::u m () o :5: :5: m z o :þ -1 o Z OQ)OOO 0"'C0..... :::J"'C3Q) C/)..., ~ -'0 3 a.<CD"" CD CD ..., CD ~a.00 .... -,0 !::!:C/)Q)3 °c- :::J0"Q)3 0......· :::J CD _CDa.:::J -$4 a. ::T-mC/) CDOC/)..... :::!1 C/) _. ::T :::J_a.Q) WWCD_ -~:::J "'C !::!: 00 -Q)Q)c W "'C - =-"'C C/) OJ aco <0"01 a.' Q) _.0 -<0 o ëñ· 0 -+, -. ~ 000> o ~:::J ~ ~ - w _0 2£5' o ..... w !::!:CD_ o a."'C :::JQ)_ a.-~ ..., Q) 00 0 :¡¡:o_ -'0 :::J::+o (Q - C/)OJa. WOCD :::Jc-1 a. CD 0 -<:¡¡: CD Q) :::J cgaCD "'CW< Q):::J= "'C a. ii) CD ::u (Q øoß> "'C0Q) ...,::T -'CD oC/)w ...,.....W - CD . O...,W I ():þQ) ;::+<0 '<CDm () :::J ~ oC.þ. C ~CD <0 BO"~ =CD..... :þ -1 -1 :þ () I :5: m z -1 (f) !,>:-" ï1 r -'0 :::J 0 W W "U!::!: _0 Q) :::J -3 Q) "'C 00^:þ CD CD W"'C < "'C :::J."'C ~Q):::Ja o ~ï1< "'C3ã)CD 3CD:::Ja. CD:::J"O" :::J ..... ='< - :::J "- ~ I( 00 --. m W :::J a. () o 3 3 c :::J ;::+ '< ~ -I ~ CITY OF IOWA CITY ~ - ~ - ~ ~ ~ :J: ID-RS I D-RS ~ ~ - ~~ ~;(-.~s~ ......... ~ R J í i , I.I..aL. - I r I ~ ~ = ....... ~ =f;l ~.. Cf 1 ;1 I,¡, ... ~ ~ ~~..... - --~ \ I .--:::::; ~ .I OSAlRS8 ~~H8 ~~ ~~, ¿~~. Olde Towne Vi Helen Lemme Scpol S U 805-00016 .-----, ,I age SITE LOCATION: Plat Village Iowa Final Towne Iowa City, Olde ----- - ----- ----- - ,::'~" / / _./ /- SUBDIVIDER'S A'M'ORNEY LESUE MOORE 618 SOUTH CUNTON STREET IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 Q!KEB OWND's ATTORNEY mJBDMDEB PWM GROVE ACRES, INe. KIRSTEN FREY nlREE BUU3, L.LC. 369 NORTH 1ST AVENUE 820 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET 2621 CATSKIIJ. COURT IOWA CITY. my" 52245 10l'A CITY. lOW" 52240 10l'A cm. IOWA 52246 PLAT PIŒPARlD BY . M:WS CONSULTANTS IHC. 191? SOUTH CILBIRT ST. IOWA CITY, 101A, 52240 LØT1 1E8LER IlllDMlIOII -..."".....-- ......_.6_......._.. ne_....__ ! ~ UN 0 !to LOTS SHALl MA'oIE OJIIECT IlEHlCULAA ACŒSS Z :!3 01 ONTO SCOTT 8OI.LEVARO OR ONTO ROCH[S'fEA A10ÐIUE - ~ ~ ==-~3I~rir~~y ~.. ~ 5 0 S1'RIJC'fUAIEStlilLOTI5UoU.ItA\lEA40rOOT-... Z õì ~! SEt BACK fROIiI TH[US'TtALTRQ4TQf"WATL.N: t7SCOT1 ~;::¡ ~o¡ :::::: =~~ ::=0::= ROAD 5 - o~R '! »£AE IS A IoIIrIIo1UW S£PARA1ION BETWŒ'" GARAGES OF '" F"[U I: 0 I~! ~ ~~r~-=ør~:)':~:-n:o~1. 8 J ;. 4) 11-£ roar ~TS UUSfRAT£O ON 'fHE oPOH PLAN rcR LCmII3-2O " 21-28 !: ~ 0 =s.~:¡=~~or~RAI.~zgo~~lBElINE~O ~ Ü g~ BT TH[ Dlll[CTQA ()F ~ç ANO CClMMLNTY Œ\lEU"«NT. OIIIG 0 ~ S)~SClolLOTS1-"'AlINQJJ)["'TL£AST3IWF'D1EN1rACAD[DESK:NS.:::S~O WCllØNC A VAIIIE1' Of' ca._ IIIICICS AND ARO!t1tC'I\JItAL on......s. 0 LOTS:.! . JI SHALL NOT HAil[ OIIECT ACC[SS ONTO 1-=-=1 11[51 IIUH04 ROAD -=:11: AND NOTES -~toIIt€ft.FCUCI -IDØI£SIICIULCOIIMDI.,IIUSTAILISt£D -CONGIIESSIONAlCO!lNEA.A£CDADEDlOCAlION - PItØ'OtTY cc:MDI(S). FCUG (_ """"' -PIIOPERTYCOAJIERSSET (~:".~p¡.tlelSCaø . - 1111'"1" - --PACJl[lltT'f"¡'~llN[! =.::":.::=:-.':':-..== ~l~ LMS ------C(Nl(RI.I\IES -lOTUJCS,IN"I[MU/.. - - --L01UNt1r,f"LAT1[tICRItTŒEO - ------ ------ - EASI:¡prf' IJI«S, WD1H.. I'I..R"D5I: NIIT[I ----------------nn-u---_EIISlINGEASE'«NTI.I\IES, I'\.RP'OII£ItOTf:O ~) - A[COIIDED DIWD8CNS d~~1 ::::~ I.lUJlIIIÆ000000000M.I._,._FEETMGIUOID1IIS ERRœ (J' Q.m.Œ IS LESS THAN 1 rOOT ~ 20.(0) F'[[T LEGE~D t ~ o r.¡ " j¡: Æ g s: p.. r.¡ ~ zu (t; ~-< ~ O. .- E- Q ¡:,.. '" ¡: :J o PL4T/PLAN APPROYID .,... Cil1_ of Ion CiLy =r:::...~-='~O;;::'~':b. ~_.......~...-...,..... ~~..=-~~~ ~ ~ - ¡;¡; ¡;¡; ........_\l1li_....._.211- ......J"""IoI......IIoI~....... City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 21,2005 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo Re: V AC05-00006 Peninsula Phase I - alleys The Commission recently recommended approval of the vacation of the public alleys in the Peninsula Phase II. The purpose of the vacation is to convert the alleys from public to private to allow installation of private utilities within the alleys. The Peninsula Development Company L.L.C. is now requesting vacation of the public alleys in Phase I for the same purpose. Converting the alleys from public to private will also make ownership of the alleys consistent throughout the neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of this request. In the platting of the Peninsula, 3 foot utility easements were provided at the rear of lots abutting alleys to enable the installation of gas and electric utilities. Presumably space within the alley abutting this 3 feet was expected to be provided for the actual installation of the utilities. We have been informed by representatives of MidAmerican Energy Co. that the company policy at this time is to avoid placement of utilities in public rights-of-way since any future relocations of those utilities would be at the cost of the utility company, according to City policy. So the resolution of this is to transfer ownership of the alleys from the City to the developer and retain easements over the alleys for public access, emergency services, and garbage pick-up and establish a hold-harmless provision in the easement such that the public does not incur costs for pavement repair caused by the provision of the public services. When the neighborhood builds out the ownership and responsibility for the alleys will be transferred to the homeowners association. As public alleys, the rights-of-way were open for all of the uses and services noted above; snow removal was the responsibility of the abutting owners; and the City (public) was responsible for the pavement for its life (approximately 20 years). As private alleys, the uses and services will remain the same; snow removal responsibilities will remain the same; the public will have no pavement maintenance responsibilities; and an easement will be granted by the developer to MidAmerican for space in the alley abutting the 3 foot easement for installation of utilities. Cc Barry Kemper, Peninsula Development L.L.C. Aaron Cooper, MidAmerican Energy Ron Knoche Brian Boelk CITY OF IOWA CITY )1:/. · . .,,- \,,- ~., ~~ .~~ .~ #~ .- II -- ~- ~ / OSA/ Pen insu/ f Pork/a, d Alley Vacation 1 Peninsula Part SITE LOCATION: MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 27, 2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL DRAFT MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Terry Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: Don Anciaux, Dean Shannon STAFF PRESENT: Mitch Behr, Karen Howard, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Mark McCallum, Susan Futrell, Rebecca Needes, Marc Moen, Jerry Anthony, Jim Throgmorton, Stephen Tret, John Balmer, Larry Svoboda, Mike McLaughlin, Patti Santangelo, Anna Buss, Greg Rocko, Dennis Nowotny, Garry Klein CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Brooks said that for the first approximately 30 minutes of the meeting, there would be general comments on items that people did not have a chance to discuss at the previous hearing. He referred to the two handouts for those in attendance. Brooks said that the letter-sized sheets each contain an amendment number relating to the numbering on the legal-sized packet of information. He said that where there is no amendment number, it indicates an area where the Commission did not ask staff to make any revisions in that section. Brooks said the list of proposed amendments was based on input the Commission received from a series of three public open houses that began on March 3rd. He said the Commission has also held a public hearing, and there have also been a number of opportunities at which he and Howard spoke before various community groups. Brooks said a form was also available on the Planning Department's web page for people to submit their comments in writing. Brooks said staff and the Commission have culled through all of that information and arrived at the issues and areas of concern that are addressed in the legal-sized packet. He said the meeting would last until 10:00, if necessary, and if there are still people who wish to comment, the public hearing will probably be extended into another meeting. Howard distributed comments and e-mails that had been received since the Commission's informal meeting the previous Monday. Brooks said that until this is voted on by City Council, the public is welcome to comment on any areas of concern. Public hearing: Mark McCallum, 811 East Colleqe Street, said that he is a landlord for a property in the College Green Historic District and is also a member of the Historic Preservation Commission. He said that he sent a proposal last week to Howard regarding what he considers a downzoning move by the City in reducing the number of unrelated occupants in multi-family structures, except for the RM-44 zone. McCallum said he bought his property because it was a very under-utilized property. He said it is a 1920s building with a lot of efficiencies and one-bedrooms. McCallum said that it is a double lot with 33 parking spaces. He said that he is limited to 13 units. McCallum said he did an analysis of his property. He said that under the current zoning, if he wanted to gut his property and redevelop it into 13 five-bedroom units, he could do that, as long as he met the parking requirements. McCallum said it has bothered him that there is no distinction in the zoning code between an efficiency unit and a five-bedroom unit. He said that in the new zoning proposal, there is still no distinction between an efficiency or one-bedroom unit and a four-bedroom unit. McCallum said that when a developer does redevelop a property, he will redevelop it to his maximum use. He said that when one is building four- and five-bedroom units, it is only developing for a certain market niche, which is the college student mix. McCallum said he thought that should be changed so Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 2 there are mixed uses in building and mixed densities in sizes so that there is a more balanced rental market out there that would attract elderly, disabled, and urban professionals. McCallum said he also did an analysis of handicapped-accessible units on College Street. He said there are over 300 rental permits right now on College Street. McCallum said there should be special incentives to develop smaller, handicapped-accessible units within the zoning code, because there is only one handicapped accessible one-bedroom unit of the 300 units on College Street. McCallum said he has proposed an incremental zoning model that reduces the land required by 100 square feet for each reduction in bedrooms. He said he is open to other ideas. McCallum said he would like to see some distinction in the zoning code, City-wide, of how we're developing properties. He said that one way would be to express an occupancy load per acre of land in each of the zones and then let the rental market decide the mix of what would occur on the properties. McCallum said he would like to see the inequity n the current zoning code addressed. He said that this is an opportunity to use the zoning code to encourage more diversity in the housing stock, which will create more diversity for different types of people to move closer into town in a more balanced approach. Susan Futrell. 311 Fairchild Street, said that she and her husband own a single-family home in the Gilbert-Linn near northside neighborhood and also a rental property in the Longfellow Neighborhood. She said that she generally supports the overall goals and the revisions of the code. Futrell complimented the City staff and the Commission on the vision of trying to manage the growth in the community. Futrell said that she strongly supports Chapter 2, Section 5 that reduces the maximum occupancy in a number of zones. She said it is a way to address particularly older neighborhoods that can accommodate mixed residential types of uses very well. Futrell said that when the occupancy levels go above what the areas in the neighborhoods were intended to support, all kinds of things suffer. She said she strongly supports the effort overall to reduce maximum occupancy in the areas where it is appropriate. Rebecca Needes. 3341 Rohret Road, said that she is the legislative affairs person and Vice President of the Chamber of Commerce. She said the Chamber has not yet taken an official position, although it plans to do so later this month, but she wanted to raise some concerns that the Chamber has. Needes said the Chamber has a local government affairs committee that looks at issues that come up in Iowa City and the surrounding communities. She said the Chamber goes through a diligent process, involving a task force, a committee, and the Board of Directors, before it takes a position on an issue. Needes said that the Chamber looked at the proposed rewrite in relationship to the commercial sections and the impact the rewrite would have on its members. She said the Chamber also looked at the implications of residential changes with respect to affordable housing. With respect to the commercial development, Needes said the Chamber is hesitant to see changes made that will impact a developer's ability to use the property for its best or highest use of the site, including the five-foot build to the line, parking relegated to the rear of the building, and architectural requirements. Regarding residential affordability, Needes said that the Chamber had some concerns about the increased costs of housing with the limit of zero-lot lines and duplexes to the corner lots in the RS-8 zone. She said that also, the architectural standards that would be mandated, such as width of trim, relationship of the façade to the placement of the garage, and widths of the eaves, the Chamber feels are best left to the homebuilders and developers. Needes said that the Chamber feels that the market can drive these changes. Needes said the Chamber is hesitant to see changes that may slow growth or move it to other areas outside of Iowa City. She said that, in general, the Chamber feels that the proposed zoning rewrite has become more proscriptive in its tone. Needes stated that mandating provisions really should be left in the hands of the developer and the market. Needes asked if the Commission has had the opportunity to meet with various groups. She said that there are several groups in town who have concerns. Brooks responded that the Commission had a Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 27,2005 Page 3 number of meetings and presentations to different groups and also held the three open houses. He said it has been a learning process for the Commission. Freerks added that everyone had to have that ability to have conversations with the Commission, not just particular groups who might be interested in one monetary reason or one reason over another. She said that is why the Commission has so many ways for people to comment. Freerks said that she did not believe that relegating parking to the back is a change in the code. Howard said that a lot of those standards are already in the code but are in a different place than they are in the draft. Plahutnik stated that reading through the code is onerous, and Needes did it from the viewpoint of how this would affect Chamber of Commerce members. Plahutnik said the Commission's starting point on the Code is not how the Commission can best benefit a particular developer or group of developers or any group of citizens right now, but it is how well it can be shaped to the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Commission is looking 20 years or more ahead to get something that is in the best long-term interest of the community. Needes said she agrees with that but is concerned with the perception that roadblocks are thrown up and things are made more challenging. She said she truly believes in planned growth, but one has to remember that growth drives the economy and drives the community. Needes said that even though the Chamber of Commerce represents its members, which are primarily businesses, the Chamber also looks at the greater good of the community. She said that the Chamber has pure motives other than just profit or the benefit of some of the developer/members but what it sees as the vision for the community. Marc Moen. 226 Clinton Street, stated that he owns historical property and also developed property in the Central Business District of Iowa City. He said he is concerned about the parking issue in the Central Business District. Moen said that amendment number 36, as he understood it, would make the parking standards under the proposed code even more restrictive than under the existing code. He said it would actually totally prohibit ground level or grade level parking in the Central Business District entirely. Moen said he believed staff's recommendation was to allow some ground level structure parking. Howard said that structure parking refers to it being within the walls of the building. Moen said that a zoning code, which will probably be around for decades, should allow the Board of Adjustment some latitude, particularly for innovative or imaginative projects. He said he is concerned that if the code says there can absolutely not be any parking at grade in the Central Business District, there is no recourse for that. Moen said he has two or three sites downtown to be developed, and his goal is to attract retail downtown. He said that for apartments, the parking could all go underground. He added, however, that to attract retail downtown, some kind of give on the parking issue is critical. Moen said that there is no way he could have attracted a grocery store to Plaza Towers if he had not been able to offer parking. He said that under the proposed code, he does not believe that is something the Board of Adjustment could even consider, because it is parking at grade and is not in a structure and because it allows entry into the parking lot directly off the street and not from an alley. Moen said he is thinking about a project involving everything on the corner of Burlington and Clinton Streets down to West Bank. He said that except for the corner lots, those are extremely deep lots, and the back portion of the lots is not conducive to retail space. Moen said if he is allowed to put parking in the rear so that the whole streetscape is retail, the parking would not be seen, and the question is whether the parking has to be part of the structure. He said he did not have a big problem with that because he would build over that on the second level and above. Moen said, however, that the Board of Adjustment should have some latitude on those things, especially if one wants to encourage retail downtown. Moen said the other concern he has about staff's recommendation is that drivers would have access only from the alley. He said he has had architects and structural engineers look at the site in terms of how to get access realistically for the rear parking, if it is allowed at all, if one has to drive through an alley. Moen said there are garbage trucks using the alley and deliveries to bars and restaurants, and the whole alley is lined with dumpsters. He said that could lock drivers into the alley for half an hour or more. He said that when the entire area is developed, if he tells retailers that there is no parking and no chance of any parking, retailers would not want to locate there. Moen said the Board of Adjustment should have some latitude to have the ability to grant that parking. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 27,2005 Page 4 Jerry Anthony. 713 Eastman Drive, said he is an architect and urban planner and a five-year resident of Iowa City. He thanked the Commission members and City staff for the tremendous work that has gone into the draft proposal, the opportunities created to engage members of the community in the venture, and the diligence shown in responding to questions and concerns around the proposed zoning ordinance. Anthony said he wanted to draw attention to three general issues. He said the first issue is why the City needs a new zoning ordinance. Anthony said it is needed for the following reasons. He said that in a progressive City such as Iowa City, the citizens of the city, through a deliberative, collaborative, and comprehensive process, come up with a vision of what the community should be. Anthony said the vision is contained in the Comprehensive Plan. He said that once a community has put together a Comprehensive Plan, to implement its vision it uses instruments such as the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, and building by-laws, to reach that desired goal. Anthony said the zoning ordinance is a very important tool to help reach that vision. Anthony stated that the Comprehensive Plan was put together in 1997 and 1998. He said the zoning ordinance, the important tool to implement this plan, was adopted in the 1980s or earlier. Anthony said that if the City does not adopt a new ordinance, the City would be trying to implement a vision for the future with instruments from the distant past. Anthony said that he has spent some time reviewing this ordinance and looked for broad general issues, particularly two that he feels are very important for the future of the community: proposals involving architecture and proposals involving affordable housing. He said that ever since the City was incorporated, developers and builders have provided neighborhoods and houses of different sizes, shapes and architectural styles until about the 1980s and 1990s. Anthony said that in the past two or three decades, developers have chosen to build cookie cutter neighborhoods with block upon block of houses indistinguishable from each other. He said that developers respond to these charges by saying that this is what the market wants and so that is what they provide. Anthony said that Iowa City has a hot real estate market, and such markets are sellers' markets; buyers will buy whatever the builders provide. He said that since in recent times builders have chosen to provide row upon row of garages with houses attached, he firmly supports the design guidelines proposed in the new zoning code and hopes the Commission will adopt them. Regarding affordable housing, Anthony stated that Johnson County residents have the greatest difficulty in finding affordable housing of the 99 counties in Iowa. He said that communities that do not have affordable housing and don't care about it embark on the slippery slope to economic decline and soon become unattractive, stagnant places. Anthony said that the average single schoolteacher in the Iowa City School District, or single police officer or firefighter or nurse, cannot afford to buy a home or perhaps even rent a home at a reasonable price in Iowa City. He asked if the City wishes to continue to be a community that has no place for its police officers, schoolteachers, and firefighters. Anthony said that zoning can allow or disallow development of more lower priced housing and even regulate where new lower priced housing can be built. He said that many provisions in the new zoning code are steps in the right direction, for example, allowing mixed developments. Anthony said, however, that the Commission has ignored one of the best methods to increase production of affordable housing: inclusionary zoning, a method that requires developers and builders to produce a certain share of lower priced units in their developments and a method that is time-tested and proven in exemplary communities such as Portland, Oregon and Montgomery County, Maryland. He asked that the Commission look into inclusionary zoning in the days ahead and, as it does, developers who have opposed the proposed ordinance, citing concerns about affordability, would step forward to support inclusionary zoning, for it would address their concerns about affordability. Anthony stated that concerns about housing affordability have been raised by many citizens in the past few months, and Commission staff has recommended a few changes to the proposed ordinance in response to these concerns, particularly items six and seven in the amendments. He said he hoped the Commission would accept staff's recommendations and adopt those changes. .- ------------...------------- Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 5 Jim ThroQmorton. 814 Ronalds, said that he is an Iowa City resident, former member of the City Council, and a member of the Board of Directors for A Thousand Friends of Iowa, a statewide organization that promotes responsible development in cities throughout the State. He said he has not read the entire document, but he does support the general thrust of what City is trying to do and what could come out of the proposed revision to the zoning code. Throgmorton said he wanted to express his very strong support for the general thrust of the revisions and said that he is in full agreement with the details of what Anthony just said. Throgmorton said he strongly supports Moen's effort to revive retail in the downtown and admires the work Moen has done. He said, however, that there are three large parking structures within a block of Moen's development and asked if something could be worked out there. Throgmorton encouraged Commission members to look at a book by Donald Schupp, a professor at UCLA, called The High Cost of Free Parking. He said that it really provides a lot of wonderful detail and advice about how to incorporate wise parking policies into a development plan. Regarding Needes' comments that developers and builders want to put land to its highest and best use, Throgmorton said it is an interesting idea, and it is certainly right for developers and builders to make reasonable profits out of their land. He said, however, that we live in a democracy, and there are good reasons not to put land to its highest and best use at certain times. Throgmorton said that if that were the case, the entire north side would be apartment buildings. He said it is not simply a matter of what the market wants; it is a matter of what the citizens of Iowa City want in interaction with the market. Throgmorton said that Needes stated it was important not to slow growth or push it outside of Iowa City. He said that pushing it outside of Iowa City is an issue because city limits have a big effect. Throgmorton said that driving up to North Liberty, one sees a lot of cookie cutter development that he does not think very highly of, although people are building it and it has proven successful. He said the real question for Iowa City is a question of quality: what kind of development and where and when. Throgmorton said it is not a matter of opposing growth or development; it is a matter of trying to do what is wise and best for the people of the city. Stephen Tret. 501 East ColleQe, said that he is the Director of the Community Mental Health Center for MidEastern Iowa, which owns property on the corner of College and Van Buren. He said he appreciated all the work that the Commission has done and will probably be communicating with some of the Commission members individually" John Balmer. 10 Princeton Court, said that he was raised in Iowa City on Brown Street. He said he likes Iowa City, including the diversity of the neighborhoods. He said that the zoning code is a massive document, and the Commission has a formidable task in front of it. Balmer said that the Commission will be influenced greatly by staff, which has its own point of view on this. Balmer cautioned the Commission to be careful. He said there has been very good development in the community with a nice mix, including the Longfellow Area, the near North Side, Walnut Ridge, and Windsor Ridge. Balmer said this has been very well thought out, and obviously, times change. He said he did not think we could revert to the days of detached garages and alleys. Balmer said the most recent example of this is the Peninsula Project, which the jury is still out on. Balmer urged the Commission to be cautionary and ask questions as it proceeds in its deliberations. He said he did not feel the City needs the changes, and he agreed with the person who said they are becoming restrictive. Balmer said he would like to see less governmental regulations. He said that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Balmer asked the Commission to look at what is proposed versus what we have now and said that what we have now works pretty well. Larry Svoboda. 16 Chen Lane, said that he is a property owner of primarily multi-family housing in Iowa City. He said he believed, in reading through the proposed code, that there had been a change in the requirement for parking in the PRM district from two spaces for a four-bedroom to three spaces. Svoboda said if that is the case, it would be counterproductive to a PRM zone. Svoboda said the PRM zone is a high-density zone that is normally very close in to the central part of the City. He said the whole concept when it was put together was a reduction in parking to make the zone Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 6 possible. Svoboda said that most of the lots in the PRM zone are very small to start with so that increasing the parking in effect puts the PRM zone back to an RM-44. Mike McLauahlin. 614 Pine RidQe Road, said he owns and operates rental property in the near downtown area, primarily houses and condominiums in the RM-12 and RM-20 zones. He said that he objects to the proposed non-related occupancy limits in section five. McLaughlin said he looked at the status of the complaints brought primarily through the Housing & Inspection Services (HIS) and got a printout of that. He said there was a nuisance ordinance passed two to three years ago to get control over disorderly house, noise, parking, trash, and general disruption of neighborhoods. McLaughlin said he received a 30-page document of disorderly house complaints going back to September of 2003 to the present. He said that he understood that the attempt to reduce the non- related occupancy in the 12 and 20 zones is a reaction to complaints of this nature. McLaughlin said that in reviewing the document, it shows that the complaints are pretty well spread across all zones. McLaughlin said his general overall impression from HIS staff and the department head is that he felt things were improving, which is an incongruity from what staff is saying in this proposal. He said, given that, the new non-related occupancy proposal is a fairly drastic change, and there are several other options to use. McLaughlin said the proposal would limit the 12s and 20s to one less non-related occupant. McLaughlin said he had two concerns with that. He said first that since not all zones are affected, he believes it is unfair, particularly in those areas. McLaughlin said that real estate is still driven by location. He said that landlords and developers in the downtown area will continue to operate as is, whereas any new opportunities in 12 and 20 zones will be greatly limited by this proposal. Secondly, McLaughlin said this new proposal uses a one-size fits all look at this. He said there are different neighborhoods throughout the City that have different percentages of owner-occupied housing as opposed to rentals. McLaughlin said it would be fairer to look at the pockets of neighborhoods and designate where the Commission wants to preserve those, as opposed to going across the board with everything. McLaughlin said in the areas that are a high percentage of rental, if there is a prospective property that was likely to be converted to rental, it would have done so by now as it came up for sale. He said therefore what is left is probably not desirable as an investment, and this legislation will have little effect on salvaging those minority properties but will create a great deal of non-conforming property. McLaughlin said he is also concerned about the larger developers near downtown continuing to go as is and said the playing field will be tilted significantly. He also said that as there is more and more high- density development downtown, there will problems with downtown, as there are currently, such as alley congestion, not enough parking, more bars, etc. McLaughlin said he would like to see some kind of balance, perhaps using a neighborhood by neighborhood approach as opposed to across the board. Patty Santanaelo. 3035 Stanford Avenue, said she supports inclusionary zoning. She said that without that, the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship would not be in the Peninsula. Brooks said he would like the Commission to begin going through the revisions that staff was asked to make. Amendment 1. Brooks said that amendment number one refers to language to keep existing conforming duplexes in the RS-8 zone conforming. Howard said this is very similar to provisions in the RNC-12 and RNC-20 zones where properties were rezoned. She said it allows properties that were existing when the zoning code was changed to continue to have conforming rights, as long as the density is not increased above what they already had. Howard said this will allow interior lots in the RS-8 zone to remain conforming and to be rebuilt in the event of a fire. -~~'---"~~-----_._----- Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 7 Greq Rocko asked what the minimum lot width is in an RS-8 zone today. Howard said that the minimum width is 45 feet. Rocko asked what paragraph C6 in the previous section refers to. Brooks said that it is taken from the full code. Freerks said that this seems like a fair thing to do in looking at the changes that will be made. MOTION: Smith moved to direct staff to incorporate the language in amendment one into the proposed draft. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Brooks said this vote is not a vote to approve, but simply to direct staff to incorporate the language into the proposed draft. He added that the absence of amendments two and three in the packet show that the Commission decided not to ask staff to prepare any revisions. Amendment 4. Brooks said this refers to dimensional requirements in the single-family residential zones of RS-8 and RS- 12. He said this would change the minimum lot width for detached single-family dwellings from 55 feet to 45 feet. Brooks said that the legal-sized sheet for this amendment says that the minimum lot width may be reduced to 45 feet and the minimum frontage may be reduced to 30 feet if garages or off-street parking areas are located and designed such that they meet the provisions of paragraph C6 of the previous section. Brooks said that paragraph C6 contains garage, driveway, and parking lot location standards. He read, "On lots less than 60 feet in width, garages and off-street parking areas must be located so they do not dominate the streetscape. Alley or private rear lane access will be required unless garages are located flush with or recessed behind the front façade of the dwelling in a manner that allows the residential portion of the dwelling to predominate along the street. The length of any street-facing garage wall that is visible from the street may not exceed 50% of the length of the street-facing building façade as measured along the same street frontage. On corner lots only one street-facing garage wall must meet this standard ." Howard said amendment four is an amendment to the bonus density provisions in the code. She said the developer gets a bonus in the allowed density if he does certain things, and this request opens up RS-8 and RS-12 to additional bonuses to the developer if he can find creative ways to place the garage so that it does not dominate the streetscape. Howard said it therefore adds flexibility to the density. Anna Buss. 525 West Benton, said that in regard to RS-8 areas that the Commission wants to change so that duplexes cannot be built on interior lots, this will create a lot of really small houses. She added that detached garages are not really practical in Iowa. Buss said she owns a number of these small lots, and they are currently RS-8 lots. She said it is her impression that if one hooks enough of them together, one can still do a planned overlay development. Miklo confirmed this. Buss said she could then basically bulldoze down her whole block and rebuild it all to a more dense area. She said that she would rather visually see nice duplexes on interior lots than a lot of dinky small houses. Buss said there are a lot of neighborhoods that have some really small lots and small houses on those lots. She said that some of them are not very well kept. Buss said she would rather see them incorporated as a duplex and would like to have the Commission reconsider its option on some of these interior lots, especially on a street like Benton Street, where there is already a traffic problem. She said she does not see the benefit of limiting zero-lot lines and duplexes to only the corner lots. Greq Rocko said he now sees that C6 is the alley provision. He said that taking away the interior lots won't allow for the conversion of duplexes to be built as condominiums, which gives a narrow lot to begin with. Rocko said that the Commission is trying to correct a problem that doesn't exist. He said he cannot recall any incidents of people being run down in their neighborhoods by speeding cars backing out of their driveways. Rocko said it is not government's business to design houses for people and to tell people how they should live and how their houses should look. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 27,2005 Page 8 Howard said this amendment is about having a bonus to allow front-loaded garages off the street, if the developer can find creative ways to place the garage so it doesn't take up the majority of the frontage of a narrow lot. MOTION: Freerks moved to direct staff to incorporate the language in amendment four into the proposed draft. Smith seconded the motion. Smith said he thought that most of the comments actually refer to proposed amendment two, rather than amendment four. Freerks said this amendment gives people more options and opportunity without using the planned development, although that can still be done. Plahutnik stated that these bonuses don't necessarily need to apply. He said if someone wants to build anything that is conforming on his lot, he may. Plahutnik said if the builder wants to reduce the width of the lot and have a higher density, that is where these issues come into play. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Amendment 10. Brooks said this amendment involves a request to remove section 14-2a-c6-3 on page 18, which states that parking is not permitted in the front building setback with a few listed exceptions. Howard said this is a change to the current code. She said it was pointed out at the first public hearing that, even though the code has not been enforced this way, the language would prevent people from parking more than one car in front of their garages if their houses were built to the front setback line. Howard said this amendment states that one can park up to three cars in front of required parking spaces that are in a garage or outside the front setback. Brooks said this is clearing up a loophole more than anything, as these are non-required spaces. MOTION: Smith moved to direct staff to incorporate the language in amendment ten into the proposed draft. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Amendment 12. Brooks said this amendment relates to historic preservation exceptions and a request to change the word "necessary" within the Board of Adjustment approval criteria. He said the requester feels this word may be interpreted so strictly that it would make it difficult for most properties to meet the standard. Brooks said staff and the Commission supported this and elected to change the wording to read "will help" instead of "is necessary" throughout the historic preservation exceptions. Mark McCallum said that this is exactly what he was looking for and said that it looks great. MOTION: Koppes moved to direct staff to incorporate the language in amendment twelve into the proposed draft. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Amendment 13. Brooks said this was a request with regard to maintenance easements required for zero-lot line dwellings. He said it was suggested that such easements be recorded with the subdivision rather than with the deed to the property, and after staff and legal counsel reviewed this, they agreed that this was workable. Behr stated that the revised language is just as enforceable, but there are some circumstances when the easement would not be put on the deed but would be put on the land. MOTION: Smith moved to direct staff to incorporate the language in amendment thirteen into the proposed draft. Plahutnik seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 9 Amendment 22. Brooks said this addresses a request to eliminate the provision in the code that restricts buildings to two and one-half stories in the residential office zone. He said there was general support for this, so that it would allow buildings to exceed the two and one-half story height. Brooks said the Commission is still holding with the requirement that where this abuts a single-family residential zone, there has to be a stepping down of the building height so that it isn't an abrupt elevation change. MOTION: Plahutnik moved to direct staff to incorporate the language in amendment twenty-two into the proposed draft. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Amendment 21. Brooks said that this amendment would change the name of the residential office zone, RO, to a mixed- use zone. Howard said that it was brought up that sometimes the residential office zone is misconstrued just because of the name, and people think it is restricted to residential and office uses. She said that is not the case, as this is a truly mixed zone, allowing multi-family, single-family, retail, and offices. Howard said a better name would be the mixed-use zone, MU, and the zoning map would be amended to indicate the change as well. Dennis Nowotnv. 511 Washinqton Street, stated that his wife suggested this name change. He said he does not like the idea of going from commercial down to residential. Nowotny said that any prospective buyer will look at the zoning, and if it is zoned residential, it just doesn't look good. Nowotny said he likes the idea of something that would be other than residential/office. He said that mixed use sounds pretty good and sounds progressive. Nowotny said there is a quirk in that RIO goes down to three and then back up to five or whatever it is downtown. He said that maybe it could be evened out in some way. Nowotny said he also liked the idea of getting rid of the two and one-half story thing for close to downtown. MOTION: Freerks moved to direct staff to incorporate the language in amendment twenty-one into the proposed draft. Smith seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Amendment 23. Brooks said this relates to a community service shelter and the request to change it back to a special exception in the CI-1 zone. He said this would basically put it back the way it was. He said that in the CI-1 zone, the CC-2 zone, and the CB-10 zone, a community shelter would be moved back to a special exception, rather than a provisional use. Garrv Klein. 628 2nd Avenue, said that it would be helpful to define the main difference between a special exception and a provisional use. Brooks said that a special exception has to go before the Board of Adjustment for its review and approval. He said that a provisional use can be approved administratively by staff. Howard said that provisional just means that there are additional provisions that need to be met, based on whatever type of use it is. She said that special exceptions tend to be uses that would fit into a zone but need some extra scrutiny, because they are a little different than the other types of uses that are allowed. Howard said a public hearing is then held before the Board of Adjustment. Brooks said the Commission felt that although there is a need for these types of facilities in the communities, making it a provisional use took away the public's right to voice concerns and have input into the process. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 10 Howard stated that staff drafted language to help the Board of Adjustment review these types of uses. She said there are general standards that the Board uses to review any special exception, and staff drafted specific standards for shelters to give the Board of Adjustment some guidance in reviewing these. Brooks said the language would require the applicant to submit a site plan and a shelter management plan to address issues such as loitering, noise, glare from lights, late-night operations, odors, outdoor storage, and litter. He stated that the management plan must include a litter control plan, a loitering control plan, a plan for on-site security, and a resolution procedure to resolve nuisance issues as they occur. Brooks said the Commission is trying to give the Board of Adjustment some measurements to base its evaluation of the request against. Freerks said that where shelters are provisional, the plan would still be required to be approved by staff. MOTION: Smith moved to direct staff to incorporate the language in amendment twenty-three into the proposed draft. Koppes seconded the motion. Koppes said that with the number of written comments received by the Commission, it is a good move to put this back into the proposed draft. Freerks said that it allows for a public process. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Amendment 27. Brooks said this is a request to establish standards in commercial zones for large commercial retailers to keep such developments compatible with the character of the community, to reduce large parking lots, and to provide better pedestrian amenities. He said the Commission has proposed the same standards, with the addition of a definition, requested by a City Council member when this issue was being discussed as it related to the sale or rezoning of property near the Airport. Howard said these standards would apply to all commercial retail uses over 50,000 square feet. Brooks stated that this is the first step toward gaining some control over big box developments. Garrv Klein said he has a feeling the more he studies this issue that no matter what is done in terms of beautification, it's like putting lipstick on Frankenstein. He said there are some other standards that could be applied. Klein said he submitted them to Howard for distribution to the Commission. Klein said he brought a big box comparison matrix put together by staff in Madison, Wisconsin in 2004. He said that what is useful about it is the consideration of thresholds and caps for big box development. Klein asked, in a community where we value letting people do what they want to, why would the City want to think about this. He stated that the answer is that these are long-term decisions. Klein said what these ordinances really say is that the City wants to encourage commercial diversity in the community. He said that a lot of communities are getting on board with that idea and ask where their process should interact with the dealings of a normal public land transaction. Klein said that in Dane County, Wisconsin in 2004, it varied from 20,000 square feet to 60,000 square feet where they felt it might be a place to interject a process. He said that Madison just recently put a cap of 100,000 square feet on its development, but it varies by community. Klein said the question really is what is best for a community not only today but into the future. He said he believes in smart development, and it makes sense to think about how you diwy up your land. Klein said the proposed draft in particular does a pretty good job of summarizing the different things to think about as the Commission considers what is best for our community. He said that there is a clear need to address this very important issue in the near future. MOTION: Freerks moved to direct staff to incorporate the language in amendment twenty-seven into the proposed draft. Plahutnik seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Amendment 29. Brooks said this is an amendment would allow stealth cell tower facilities in the neighborhood commercial zones. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 11 Howard said there was a joint committee from the City and various surrounding towns to coordinate efforts to allow more cell towers and find out what the cell tower providers needed. She said the amendments in the draft were to move in that direction. Howard said that Mr. Lynch suggested that the City open up these kind of changes to the neighborhood commercial zones, because he had looked at areas in the City with neighborhood commercial zoning as areas that perhaps needed more coverage. Howard said this language was suggested by John Yapp, who was on the committee, as language that would help yet still keep limits to make certain the towers are really camouflaged, because those areas are close to residential zones. MOTION: Smith moved to direct staff to incorporate the language in amendment twenty-nine into the proposed draft. Koppes seconded the motion. Freerks said that it is good that there is also a provision about removing the towers at a certain point if they are no longer in use. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Amendment 32. Brooks said this change concerns animal-related commercial uses. He said the request is to add language to allow overnight sleeping facilities for staff in a veterinary establishment. Brooks said that under accessory uses, overnight sleeping accommodations have been included. He said these would not be permanent residences but would be a room or space within the veterinary clinic. Brooks said the Commission felt this was reasonable as long as permanent residency within the area was not allowed. Howard said this is not something that is currently disallowed. She stated that this language would just add it to the examples of accessory uses so that it is clear that it is not disallowed. MOTION: Freerks moved to direct staff to incorporate the language in amendment thirty-two into the proposed draft. Plahutnik seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Amendment 36. Brooks said this was a request related to maximum parking in the CB-10 zone. He said a concern was expressed about the new approval criteria for private, off-street parking in the CB-10 zone. Brooks said the Commission would like to see some allowance for parking at grade, either within a parking structure or in surface parking lots. Howard said that the Board of Adjustment did not have a lot of guidance, and right now, private off-street parking is not allowed in the CB-10 zone, except by special exception. She said the original language placed in the code was an attempt to give the Board some guidance on when it should be allowed. Howard said that parking downtown is primarily parking for retail, and short-term parking is primarily provided by the City through the short-term parking garages. She said it is a means to control parking downtown and preserve land for building uses downtown and also to protect the City's capital investment in its parking structures. Howard said this language was put in place, but the amendment does provide some opportunity for some structure parking on the ground floor, similar to how it is done in the CB-5 zone. Miklo said the other reason the City regulates the location and supply of parking downtown is for traffic control reasons - to encourage it to be a pedestrian environment by having strict controls as to where the parking is. Howard said that regarding one of the issues that Moen brought up earlier about parking being allowed from an alley versus from the street, the amendment on the second page would allow the Board of Adjustment to approve parking that has access directly to a street but gives some guidance as to when that should be allowed. Mark Moen said he appreciates the effort to allow parking access from the street. Moen said that under paragraph 4-a, the last couple of sentences say that only proposals for long-term parking will be considered, and short-term parking demand should be satisfied through the public parking Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 27,2005 Page 12 system. He stated that Plaza Towers would not have been allowed with this language. Moen said his group's goal for downtown is to try to attract as much business, as much traffic, as much retail space as possible. Moen said that retail business owners have informed him that a limited number of parking spaces is needed for convenience. Freerks asked how those few short-term parking spots would be managed, if they were allowed. Moen said there are electronic systems and surveillance systems available. He said that if required, the grocery store at Plaza Towers will be staffed during all hours of operation. Moen said that at Brewery Square there is an electronically controlled, gated lot that requires a token to exit. Moen said he is concerned that the special exception is limited to long-term parking. He said that the spots are needed for short-term parking. Moen said that parking depends on the type of business one wants to attract. He said that he is not asking that short-term parking be allowed as a matter of course but just wants to ask that the Commission make room for it so that the Board of Adjustment can look at it. Moen said one of the reasons that the retail mix is important is that it drives what goes on upstairs. He said that if this was allowed, it would drive more traffic downtown, which would also protect the City's investment in its ramps. Moen said that a handful of parking spots would make the difference to many tenants as to whether or not they would consider locating in those buildings. Moen said one other thing he would like the Commission to consider is in paragraph 4-e-2 on the second page of amendment 36, where it states that garage openings along the primary street frontage are not permitted if other access is possible. He said that depending on how the word possible is defined, someone on the Board could construe it as meaning that if it is literally possible, you can't do it. Moen suggested the use of the word "feasible" or "practical." Brooks said that Moen is dealing with a fairly substantial piece of property so that he could accommodate some short-term parking in the development if it were allowed. Brooks said that the small stores downtown don't have the ability to accommodate parking within their property. Moen said that on Washington Street, someone can pull up or double park, but that opportunity is not available on Burlington Street. He said that if there is no short-term parking on site at all, it is a huge deterrent to attracting retailers, although it is not a deterrent to attracting bars and restaurants. Smith asked Howard if the intent was to include short-term parking in the provision changes. Howard said that this was drafted with the input of parking management and transportation management staff. She said the idea is that the City gets more revenue from the short-term parking as there is more turnover. Howard said the concept is that the short-term parking was intended to help retailers downtown so that it can be consolidated and be used for all the small retailers downtown. Howard said the Board of Adjustment has had requests for long-term parking for residential. She said the City has been somewhat reluctant, if there is enough demand for the short-term parking, to dedicate the spaces to long-term parking. Howard said that if the last two sentences in paragraph 4a were eliminated, it would allow the Board of Adjustment to consider it on a case by case basis. She said that keeping those two sentences would eliminate the Board's ability to provide private, off-street short-term parking. Smith said that he would support the ability to allow latitude to the Board of Adjustment. He said he would encourage changing the text to remove the second to last sentence and changing the last sentence to read, "Short term parking demand is preferred to be satisfied through the public parking system." Howard said that currently in the code, private off-street parking is allowed by special exception, so that is not changing. She said the difference between the current code and the proposed code is that staff is trying to add some standards to assist in the Board of Adjustment's analysis. The consensus of the Commission was to alter the language under 4-a as recommended by Smith and to change the word "possible" in item 4-e-2 to the word "feasible" throughout the paragraph and to add the word "feasible" in the fourth sentence in that section to read, "If there is no other feasible alternative,., ,II ---"._._-~'~---,-----~._--" Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 13 MOTION: Smith moved to direct staff to incorporate the language in Amendment thirty-six, as revised, into the proposed draft. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5- Q. Amendment 37. Brooks said this amendment relates to requiring a mitigation plan for wetlands and renaming the section and reordering the provisions sequentially. Howard said staff has made two different proposals. Brooks said one proposal changes the wording to wetland protection, and the alternative proposal includes a definition of the word "mitigation." Howard said that the first proposal changes all the wording. She said it is not a substantive change. Howard referred to a memo from Julie Tallman, which says that changing all of the wording would create some confusion - that the wetlands specialists understand the word "mitigation," and those are the people using the ordinance. Howard said that mitigation is understood to be a process and does not always mean compensatory mitigation but is a range of things. MOTION: Koppes moved to direct staff to leave the language in Amendment thirty-seven as originally proposed and to add the definition of the word "mitigation" and to then incorporate the language and definition into the proposed draft. Freerks seconded the motion. Freerks said that including the definition makes good sense and keeps the ties to the federal regulations and the way that people use the terminology. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Amendment 43. Brooks said this amendment relates to archaeological sites and the request that language be clarified to spell out the operational procedure at the State so that there is no confusion or mistake made when determining protections for archaeological sites. He said this request was made by a registered, professional archaeologist. Howard said that archaeological sites need to be reviewed by both the State Archaeologist and the State Historic Preservation Officer. She added that the State Archaeologist determines whether there is a site, and the State Historic Preservation Officer determines whether it is significant. Howard said that if the City forwards the site plan to both parties at the same time, that will cover what is needed. MOTION: Smith moved to direct staff to include the language in Amendment forty-three in the proposed draft. Plahutnik seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Amendment 44. Brooks said this amendment relates to neighborhood open space requirements. Behr said this amendment is a response to some requests to clarify the conditions to be met with respect to the property and the timing of the actual dedication of the land. He said that this is not an actual change in practice; it is just codifying it and making it part of the code. Behr said this would also codify the practice that when fees are paid in lieu of dedicating land, those fees, within the five-year period, have to be spent in the district in which the subdivision is located. He said that the time period was not reduced from five years, because staff felt it would be difficult considering the fact that there is a five-year CIP turnaround. Behr said that the current code allows five years, but if there is not 50% build-out, the period is extended anyway. MOTION: Koppes moved to direct staff to incorporate the language in Amendment forty-four into the proposed draft. Plahutnik seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Amendment 45. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 27,2005 Page 14 Brooks said this amendment relates to regulations of non-conforming residential occupancy. Howard said this was a request by Mr. McLaughlin. She said McLaughlin was working on a couple of projects for which he had already received building permits but was uncertain whether he would be able to finish them enough to receive a rental permit before this was passed. Howard said that HIS reviewed building permits and things that were ongoing to try to catch most of those, and this should catch any that were already issued a building permit and had already made some progress. Howard said this would grant McLaughlin rights to whatever is on the rental permit or what was granted with the building permit from that time forward. She said it runs with the land and is therefore a substantial right to continue with the occupancy granted with the existing rental permit or a building permit. Howard said this does not concern the use itself but only refers to the number of unrelated people who can live in a building. She said this refers to the number of occupants within each unit, not to the number of units. Miklo said that what this amendment does is allow someone who recently invested money to finish the project and get the rental permit. Koppes said she would like to know, if the building burns down, if there could still be the same number of occupants. Howard said she would check with HIS and get an opinion regarding that occupancy and said that some language could be added if necessary. Mike McLauQhlin said that he applied for four building permits, and the buildings are framed and roofed and should be completed by September 1. He said that once each building is completed, he has to apply for a change of use for each of the individual properties. McLaughlin said they formerly were three single- family residential properties, and the fourth was a duplex. He said he will basically end up with four duplexes and is going from one use to a different use when the projects are completed. McLaughlin said that after the projects are complete, he will have to go through the process of having a new permit issued under the new usage. McLaughlin said he is asking that any building permit that is granted prior to passage of this proposal be allowed to continue not only along with those building codes but also the current housing codes that are intermingled. Freerks said that is the intent of the language in the amendment. McLaughlin asked why the date for receiving a building permit under this amendment is not extended beyond March 1. Howard stated that staff only wanted to address properties of people who had already been issued the permits and did not want a huge rush on this after the ordinance was already released and everyone knew about it. McLaughlin asked what would happen to someone who applies for a permit in the month of July. Howard said that person would already have notice that this is changing. McLaughlin said that if this is worded that the permit must be applied for by a certain date, someone might be deterred from starting a project, because he would not be certain he could finish it before the passage of this amendment. He asked if this would act as a moratorium. Howard said that the Building Department is part of the staff that has been reviewing and suggesting these changes. She said that the Building Department has fully advised anyone coming in for a building permit since the draft has been issued that if they are applying for a building permit to increase the number of bedrooms with the intention of exceeding what would be allowed in the proposal, then they are doing that at their own risk. McLaughlin asked if this is not therefore enforcing a proposal that has not yet been passed. Howard said it is not enforcing but is just giving fair notice that the zoning code could change. Behr said that whenever someone buys property or gets a building permit, he is subject to the laws changing before he receives an occupancy permit. He said that this amendment would provide a measure of relief to that. Howard added that right now occupancy is not grandfathered in at all so that this will provide some certainty. MOTION: Smith moved to direct staff to incorporate the language in Amendment forty-five into the proposed draft. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Amendment 48. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 27,2005 Page 15 Brooks said that this amendment relates to performance guarantees. He said the request was to remove this section, and staff concurred that removing this section was acceptable and proposed a change to 14- 51-5C to reference Title 18 of the City Code, Site Plan Review, which includes many of the performance guarantees. Howard said this is placed in the zoning code for ease of use. She said it is the exact plan from the site plan ordinance, which would remain in place. Howard said this would function as a cross-reference. MOTION: Smith moved to direct staff to incorporate the language in Amendment forty-eight into the proposed draft. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. MOTION: Smith moved to accept the correspondence received by the Commission. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Miklo said there were a couple of requests for additional changes. Brooks asked Commission members if there was a need to hold an additional public hearing. Patti Santanqelo stated that the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship plans to meet with some builders. She said they had some questions, but their meeting is not until later. Santangelo said they may want to come back with some things then. Koppes suggested having one more public hearing after the changes are incorporated. She said that at that point, the draft could be forwarded on to the City Council with the new information. Brooks suggested talking about the next steps at the Commission's next work session. He said he would like to keep things moving but did not want to stifle public input. The consensus of the Commission was to put this on the agenda of the next informal meeting to discuss any other revisions or requests that have come in and whether the Commission wants to pursue those and also discuss the timeline for wrapping this up. Public hearing closed. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:09. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s:/pcd/mínutes/p&zl2005/06-27 -05,doc