The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-15-2009 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, January 12, 2009 - 6:00 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Lobby Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 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. Development /Rezoning Items: 1. SU608-00010 / REZ08-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by S&J Development LLC for a rezoning from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) and Rural Residential (RR-1) to Planned Development Overlay Low Density Single-Family (OPD-5) and a preliminary plat of Country Club Estates Parts 3-7, a 170-lot, 82.3-acre residential subdivision located on Rohret Road, east of Slothower Road. (45-day limitation period: January 19, 2009) 2. SU608-00011 / REZ08-00012: Discussion of an application submitted by Three Bulls for a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single- Family (OPD-8) and a preliminary plat of Hickory Pointe, a 4-lot, 2.97-acre residential subdivision located on Hickory Trail, west of First Avenue. (45-day limitation period: February 20, 2009) D. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: December 1 & December 4, 2008 E. Other F. Adjournment Upcoming Planning 8~ Zoning Commission Meetings Informal Februa 2 Februar 16* March 2 March 16 Formal Februa 5 Februar 19 March 5 March 19 `Meeting cancelled due to holiday STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Christina Kuecker, Associate Planner Item: REZ08-00011 and SUB08-00010 Date: January 15, 2009 Country Club Estates Parts 3-8 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Phone: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: SPECIAL INFORMATION: S & J Development LLP 2231E 45 Street Davenport, IA 52807 Mike Speer 1157 Flagstaff Street Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 936-6839 Rezoning from ID-RS to RS-5 (18.58 acres); RR-1 to OPD-5 (44.29 acres) and Preliminary Plat fora 170- lot residential subdivision on 82.3-acre land Development of Country Club Estates Parts 3 - 8 North of Rohret Road and east of Slothower Road Approximately 82.3 acres Agricultural, Part RS-5, part RR-1, and part ID-RS North: County owned Poor Farm - P South: Undeveloped & County Residential - R & AR East: Residential - RR-1 & RS-5 West: Undeveloped County Residential - R10 Southwest District Plan -single family and/or duplex type development December 3, 2008 January 19, 2009 Public Utilities: Sanitary Sewer can be extended from previous development phases of Country Club Estates on the northeast. A lift station is necessary to serve the southern half of the subdivision Public Services: The City will provide Police and Fire protection and refuse and recycling collection services. Transit 2 route Westside Loop serves this area with the nearest stop locate approximately 0.2 miles east on Phoenix Drive BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Most of the land under consideration for the proposed rezoning and subdivision was annexed into the City prior to 1972. Approximately 18 acres adjacent to Rohret Road, was annexed in 1994. At the time, a proposal to rezone the property to Medium Density Single-Family Residential zone (RS-8) and Low Density Single-Family residential zone (RS-5) was considered. However, because of the lack of sanitary sewer services and the substandard condition of Rohret Road, the existing zoning was maintained -Rural Residential (RR-1) and RS-5 -and the newly annexed land was zoned Interim Development Residential (ID-RS). Since 1994, the future alignment of Highway 965 between Highway 6 and Highway 1 was determined and the political decision was made to extend the growth boundary to include this area. At this time, the City committed to serving this area with sanitary sewer extensions and necessary lift stations, in order to encourage full development within the city. Since the time of this policy change, Country Club Estates Parts 1 and 2 have been subdivided and developed as single-family residential lots. The applicant, S & J Development LLP, is now requesting approval for the rezoning of approximately 44.29 acres of land from Rural Residential (RR-1) zone, and approximately 18.58 acres of land from Interim Development-Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone (a total of 62.87 acres to be rezoned). The applicant is also requesting approval fora 170-lot, 82.3-acre residential subdivision with three out-lots. The applicant is also requesting that the entire subdivision be rezoned to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Single-Family Residential (OPD-5) zone to allow modification of the wetland. The applicant has indicated that they have used the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have had a neighborhood meeting. ANALYSIS: Comprehensive P/an and Zoning: The land is located within the Weber Subarea of the Southwest District Plan. The Southwest District Plan identifies this land as appropriate for primarily low-density residential development. The current zones RR-1 and ID-RS reflect development constraints and inadequate infrastructure available in this area. The proposed zoning, Low Density Single- Family Residential (RS-5), will allow for a residential development with a maximum density of five dwelling units per acre. Most of the surrounding land is zoned for large lot residential uses such as RR-1, and County Residential (AR, R, and R-10) zones, except for the land on the northeast, which is zoned RS-5. At the time of previous rezoning considerations, neighboring property owners expressed concern about the development of smaller lot sizes adjacent to the large RR-1 zoned lots on Tucson Place. At the time Tucson Place was developed in the early 1980's it was the policy of the City to discourage development west of Highway 218. The City limited the availability of sewer capacity in this area to control growth. Consequently, Tucson Place was developed using septic systems, which require a minimum of one-acre lots. The City's growth policy has since changed to encourage full development of land within the city to make efficient use 3 of investments in infrastructure and to counter sprawl. For this reason, RS-5 zoning is appropriate for Country Club Estates. However, the Southwest District Plan does recommend that larger RS-5 lots be platted adjacent to the RR-1 lots to provide a transition. The proposed lots in this area range from approximately 1 1,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet. Although the proposed lots are larger than the minimum 8,000 square feet, most of the lots are not significantly larger than what is typically platted in other RS-5 neighborhoods. However, the wetland buffer as discussed below will provide for an open space corridor and a transition between the existing lower density residential area and the proposed development. In staff's opinion, this is an appropriate location for RS-5 zoning because the zoning transition happens on the rear property lines and the wetland provides additional open space. Staff believes that rezoning the land to RS-5 zone would be appropriate and would allow efficient use of land and infrastructure provided that sanitary sewer service and improvements to Rohret Road and Slothower Road are funded. Such a zoning would also be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan vision and compatible with surrounding land uses. If the improvements are not funded then ID-RS is an appropriate zone. Subdivision Design: The applicant is also seeking approval fora 170-lot residential subdivision on this property. The proposed subdivision includes three outlots. Outlots A and C contain most of the environmentally sensitive features, a USGS blue line stream, drainage way, and jurisdictional wetlands. The applicant is proposing to use Outlot C as a storm water management facility as well as the wetland mitigation area. Outlot B is proposed as neighborhood open space to be dedicated to the city. The subdivision design generally complies with the neighborhood principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the Design Standards and Required Improvements of the Subdivision Code. The applicant has proposed a subdivision with varied lot sizes. The proposed lot areas range from 8,000 square feet to 25,426 square feet. Smaller lots are scattered throughout most of the subdivision. The street pattern is laid out in a manner to provide good connectivity within the subdivision, as well as provide connectivity to future development to the north and west. The applicant has proposed six phased additions. The phases jump between the northern portion of the development and the southern portion of the development with the first phase occurring along Lake Shore Drive. Because of the necessary improvements to Rohret Road discussed below, staff recommends for the phases south of the wetlands (with the exception of the lots along Lake Shore Drive and the Fourth Addition) be the last phases of the development. Environmenta//y Sensitive Areas: The property contains a stream corridor, critical slopes, and regulated wetlands. The applicant is requesting modifications of the wetlands that are regulated by the SAO, which includes the elimination of wetlands within the proposed Lake Shore Drive right-of-way and in vicinity of lots 31-34 and the reduction of a wetlands buffer in the vicinity of lots 3 - 8. These wetlands are proposed to be replaced by compensating wetlands to be constructed in Outlot C. A Level II Sensitive Areas Review is required prior to development due to this modification. A Level II Sensitive Areas Review is considered a type of planned development and as such must comply with the applicable approval criteria for Planned Development Overlay. 4 For a property containing a regulated wetland, a Wetland Mitigation Plan is required to be submitted along with a Sensitive Areas Development Plan. The mitigation plan should delineate the wetlands and the required natural buffer area, and delineate a construction area limit. The SAO strongly encourages avoiding delineated wetland areas and minimizing the impact of development on the wetlands, and therefore requires thorough investigation and consideration of alternative development design before compensatory mitigation is considered. The SAO requires an undisturbed, 100-foot natural buffer between any development activity and a regulated wetland unless said development activity is exempted. Regarding the elimination of wetlands within the proposed Lake Shore Drive right-of-way and in the vicinity of lots 31-34, staff recognizes that reduction of this portion of the wetlands that are not directly associated with the drainage way can be justified and meet the SAO requirements provided that the long-term maintenance of the compensatory wetland area is addressed. Staff believes that this provides opportunities for development on the southeastern portion of the property while a larger reconstructed wetland will be created within the stream corridor. Approximately .55 acres of wetlands will be eliminated in the Lake Shore Drive right-of-way and in the vicinity of lots 31-34, however 2.15 acres of wetlands will be created in the northwest portion of Outlot C. A 100-foot buffer has been placed around all other regulated wetlands. At the time of final plat approval, a mechanism will need to be created to provide for the long-term maintenance of the wetland areas by the homeowners association. Section 14-3A-4J states that the developer must submit a legally binding instrument setting forth the procedures to be followed for maintaining the private shared open space and for financing maintenance costs. The applicant also proposes to use Outlot C as a storm water management facility for the proposed development. This necessitates grading and filling within the stream corridor, the wetlands, and the associated buffers. The mitigation plan states that out of the 2.83 acres, a total of 1 .0 acres will be impacted by this and other infrastructure related development. Staff believes that the impacted area may be significantly more than reported in the mitigation plan because most of the ground within Outlot C will be graded to function as a storm water detention facility and storm water and sanitary sewer lines will be installed in the stream corridor and the wetlands within Outlot A. Essential public utilities such as storm and sanitary sewers, water mains, gas, telephone and power lines, and storm water detention facilities are permitted within protected sensitive areas if they are designed and constructed to minimize their impact upon the protected sensitive areas and associated buffers. There is some concern amongst staff about the combination of the wetlands and the storm water detention. The SAO does not require the two to be separated, but it does require submission to and approval by the Army Corps of Engineers for any development activity within a wetland area. The Corps has recently changed some of its mitigation and delineation requirements and it is the responsibility of the applicant to meet these requirements. Currently the wetland area includes a blue line stream on the USGS maps and some lower quality wetlands. The applicant proposes to enhance, reconstruct, and expand the existing wetlands. Staff consulted with a wetland specialist, who indicated that the existing wetlands are of a low quality and that the proposed reconstruction would improve the area. However, she too was apprehensive about the mixing of storm water detention and the wetlands. The applicant proposes the use of sediment traps as a means of storm water runoff treatment and is proposing several measures to slow the flow of storm water through the wetland area in 5 order to create a more viable and diverse wetland area The applicant has provided the Army Corps of Engineers with the plan for review and approval. The Corps has not had time to review the submission and may require additional information from the applicant. If the Corps determines that the proposed design minimizes the impact on the wetland and the buffers, then staff believes that the design is appropriate. Staff recommends that any approval be subject to the Corps approving the Wetland Mitigation Plan. In the absence of Corps approval, a redesign of the wetland areas and the storm water management would be necessary. Traffic imp/ications, access, and street design; Currently, the property can be accessed from Phoenix Drive and Lake Shore Drive, which is partially completed in Country Club Estates Second Addition to the north. The proposed development will include an extension of the southern portion of the north-south collector street -Lake Shore Drive, which will connect to Rohret Road. The Southwest District Plan states that the north-south collector street between Melrose Avenue and Rohret Road should be configured so that it is not used as scut-through route for non-local traffic. Staff believes that the design of Lake Shore Drive with curves and a number of intersections accomplishes this objective. Lake Shore Drive will also divert some existing traffic from Phoenix Drive. The proposed subdivision can also be accessed from the north by Slothower Road via Melrose Avenue and from the south by Rohret Road. Both Rohret Road and Slothower Road are currently chip-seal surface streets and require substantial improvements to meet City Standards, including right-of-way acquisition. Because this is a major development, with a significant number of new residential lots, vehicular traffic, as well as pedestrian and bicycle traffic on Rohret Road and Slothower Road will increase. Improvements to Rohret Road and Slothower Road are not yet included in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Therefore, Staff believes that in order to provide access to this development, as a condition for this rezoning, the applicant should improve the portion of Rohret Road that is adjacent to the proposed lots (lots 1 and 38) in the first phase on the development. Development of the Fourth Addition (lots 39 to 60), Sixth Addition (lots 88 to 1 15}, and Eighth Addition (lots 140 to 170) should not occur until the developer has paid their fare share of the cost of improvements to Rohret Road and the improvements are included in the CIP. If Rohret Road is not included in the CIP, staff recommends that ID-RS zoning be retained on the Sixth Addition (lots 88-115) and Eighth Addition (lots 140-170) unless the applicant agrees to improve the portion of Rohret Road adjacent to the subdivision. Because of the substantial amount of construction that will be required to improve Rohret Road, Staff is recommending that the Sixth Addition (lots 88 - 1 15) and Eighth Addition (lots 140 - 170) be the last phases of the development, unless Rohret Road is improved prior to or simultaneously with their construction. Slothower Road will also need to be improved as lots develop. Currently Slothower Road is a chip-seal surface street with approximately 12 feet of pavement width. Although Slothower Road is in good shape physically, the 12 feet of width is not adequate for two vehicles to pass. This is acceptable for the current low traffic volumes, as the road functions essentially as an access drive to a limited number of properties. It is not acceptable for a street accessing an urban residential subdivision. Transportation planning staff recommends that Wildcat Lane be barricaded at Slothower Road until Slothower Road is reconstructed either to city standards, or at a minimum widened to a 22-feet wide chip seal road (rural residential 6 standards). A .sign at the barricade indicating that the dead-end will eventually be opened to Slothower Road is shown on the plat. As a requirement of the Subdivision Code, The applicant/owner is required to dedicate land to the City as public right-of-way for both Rohret Road and Slothower Road, and provide necessary utility and construction easements. The applicant/owner will be required to share the proportional cost of improvements of the portions of these roads that are adjacent to the subdivision. Because the subdivision is located on only one side of each street, this amount is equal to 12.5% of the total cost of improvements to the portion of Rohret Road (an arterial street) that abuts the property and 25% of the total cost of improvements to the portion of Slothower Road (a collector street) that abuts the property. A portion of Slothower Road near the southwest boundary is in the county jurisdiction. This section of the street does not have a paved surface and is rarely used. If this section of Slothower Road is not relocated or vacated, twelve lots along Prescott Lane in the proposed subdivision will be double-fronting lots. To address this concern the applicant has indicated that a request has been made to the County and adjacent property owner to vacate the southern potion of Slothower Road. If it is not vacated the subdivision should be redesigned to eliminate the double-fronting lots. Staff recommends that the vacation of this portion of Slothower Road be a condition of preliminary plat approval for all lots west of Desert Lane (lots 88 - 1 1 5 and 152 - 170). In Staff's opinion, this would leave sufficient land to layout an alternate subdivision design that includes Slothower Road if it is not vacated As part of the proposed subdivision the east-west neighborhood streets, Wildcat Lane in the northern portion of the subdivision and Tumbleweed Terrace in the southern portion will be extended to the west boundary of the property. Wildcat Lane also extends to the northern boundary of the property. Dunley Court will create a connection between Slothower Road and Lake Shore Drive, which will function as the collector streets between Melrose Avenue and Rohret Road until Lake Shore Drive is extended further North. Other new neighborhood streets; Cactus Court, Desert Lane, Mesa Court, Prescott Lane and Prescott Court, and Tempe Place will serve the proposed subdivision. The subdivision contains two cul-de-sac streets in the southern portion extending from Tumbleweed Terrace. Staff is recommending that a sign to be placed at the northern end of Wildcat Lane indicating that the dead end is temporary and that Wildcat Lane will eventually be extended into the neighboring property. The sign location is shown on the plat. The subdivision regulations state that for blocks longer then 600 feet amid-block pedestrian connection must be provided between adjacent streets. The plat shows 20' sidewalk easements from the end of the Cactus Court and Prescott Court cul-de-sacs bulbs to Rohret Road. These satisfy fhe requirement for mid-block pedestrian connections. To provide adequate secondary access and to minimize traffic related to the construction activity through the existing neighborhood, Staff believes that the construction of Lake Shore Drive to Rohret Road should be required in the first phase. Since Country Club Estates First and Second Addition were platted, the Subdivision regulations have changed. Most importantly, right-of-way width and sidewalk widths have gotten larger. Previously, collector streets were required to have aright-ot-way width of 60' with 4' sidewalks and local streets were required to have aright-of-way width of 50' with 4' sidewalks. In the new subdivision regulations collector streets must have aright-of-way width of 66' and local streets a right of way width of 60', with sidewalks being 5' in both 7 instances. It was determined by Staff that the most appropriate location to make the transition in right-of-way widths and sidewalk widths was at the intersection of Lake Shore Drive and Dunley Court. Some of the proposed lots along Slothower Road (91 - 95, 138 - 139, and 164 - 170) and Rohret Road (1, 38, 142 - 143, 148 - 149, 154 - 155, and 163 - 164) are double fronting lots. The subdivision regulations discourage such lots. If such lots cannot be avoided the following standards apply: 1 Lots with multiple frontages shall be 125% of the required lot area for the zone. Corner lots with only two frontages are exempt from this requirement. In this case, the minimum lot area in the RS-5 zone is 8,000 square feet. Double frontage lots are required to be 10,000 square feet. • Lots 93 - 95, , 143 - 144, 155 - 156, and 166 - 171 must meet this requirement. • Lots 93 - 95 and 166 - 171 do not meet this requirement, but this can be avoided with the vacation of the southern portion of Slothower Road as discussed earlier. 2 Double and triple frontage lots where dwellings will have side or rear-building facades oriented toward an arterial street shall provide a minimum 20-foot wide landscaped buffer area along the arterial street frontage. The buffer area shall be planted with a mixture of coniferous and deciduous vegetation and shall be required along with other public improvements for the property. No solid fences are allowed within this buffer area. This restriction must be noted in the subdivider's agreement and on the plat. • All the lots along Rohret Road (1, 38, 142 - 143, 148 - 149, 154 - 155, and 163 - 164) must meet this requirement • A landscape buffer is shown along Rohret Road on the plat. The dead end created by Wildcat Lane extending to the north property line is longer than 150' maximum required by the Fire Department. A temporary fire-apparatus accommodating turn- around is required in this location and is shown on the plat. Neighborhood park/and or fees in lieu of Based on the Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance, a subdivision of this size is required to dedicate 1 .95 acres of open space or pay fees in lieu of dedication. To pool all the neighborhood space for the entire Country Club Estates, at the time of previous subdivision plats, staff had recommended that the neighborhood open space or fees in lieu of should be considered at the time of future proposals. The Open Space requirements for Country Club Estates Part 1 and 2 (0.25 and 0.40 acres respectively) would be 0.65 acres. Therefore, total neighborhood open space required to be dedicate is 2.6 acres. The proposal identifies Outlot B containing approximately 4.63 acres as an area to be dedicated to the City. The Parks and Recreation Commission has considered the plat and voted in favor of accepting the dedication of Outlot B. A 50' wide opening with a service drive and sidewalk provides access to the open space from the neighborhood at the intersection of Tempe Place and Wildcat Lane Storm water management The plan shows a storm water detention easement located within proposed Outlot C, which also includes the proposed wetland mitigation area. Engineering staff is still reviewing the storm water management plan, as portions of the subdivision do not drain into the proposed detention basin. As noted above the Army Corps of Engineers will need to approve the 8 wetland mitigation and storm water management plans. In the absence of Corps approval, the wetland and storm water management will need to be redesigned. /nfrastructure fees: Water main extension fee of 5395 per acre is required. The applicant will also be required to pay their fair share of improvements to Rohret Road and Slothower Road. If Rohret Road is not included in the CIP, staff recommends that ID-RS zoning be retained on the Sixth Addition (lots 88 - 1 15) and Eighth Addition (lots 140 - 170) unless the applicant agrees to improve the portion of Rohret Road adjacent to the subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ08-0001 1, rezoning of approximately 62.87 acres located north of Rohret Road from ID-RS to RS-5 (18.58 acres) and from RR-1 to RS-5 (44.29 acres) and SUB08-00010, a preliminary plat of Country Club Estates Part 3-8, a 170-lot, approximately 82.3-acre residential subdivision with three outlots, located north of Rohret Road, be approved with the following conditions: 1 . The portion of Rohret Road adjacent to lots 1 and 38 being improved to City standards by the developer and the extension of Lake Shore Drive being completed in the first phase of development; 2. Development of the Fourth (lots 39 - 60), Sixth (lots 88 - 1 15), and Eighth (lots 140 - 170) Additions shall not occur until the improvement of the remainder of Rohret Road is in the CIP and the applicant/owner pays their fair share (12.5%) of the improvements If Rohret Road. If Rohret Road is not included in the CIP, then ID-RS zoning is to be retained on the Sixth (lots 88-1 15) and Eighth (lots 140-170) Additions unless the applicant agrees to improve the portion of Rohret Road adjacent to the subdivision; 3. The Sixth (lots 88 - 1 15) and Eight (lots 140 - 170) Additions shall be the last phases of the development, unless Rohret Road is improved prior to or simultaneously with their construction; 4. The southern portion of Slothower Road being vacated, such that lots 91 - 95 and 164 - 170 do not become double fronting lots. If the southern portion of Slothower Road is not vacated, no lots west of Desert Lane (lots 88 - 1 15 and 152 - 170) shall be preliminary platted and an alternate design shall be created that eliminates the double fronting lots; 5. The Wetland Mitigation Plan being approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 6. Along term maintenance plan for the wetland private open space by the Home Owners Association being included in the legal papers with the final plat; DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: 1) Provide information about the disturbance of regulated slopes 2) Identify and delineate all the construction limit lines to avoid disturbance of sensitive areas 3) Revise the impacted area of the wetland within the stream corridor limits and compensatory mitigation 4) Revise the buffers for created wetlands 5) Submit Site Grading and Erosion Control Plan 6) Other deficiencies and discrepancies identified by the City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary plat 3. Correspondence Approved by: l/ - uYi~•~"/yC~.~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development f!; ~ ~,. ~1 ~ ~ PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN ~~i - _.. ~.- _ - - COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES THIRD, FOURTH .~. '~ " FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH & EIGHTH ADDITIONS _ , ~ ... =--- . rp ~ I I l ~~~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~~ \; ~ "~ IOWA CITY, IOWA _I. ~ ~ ~ ~ ..~.~:' i ~ ~ypr 7,.r y}O~ ~ ~ "v ° 1° STANDARD IECENO AND N09E5 Ili .. :v, i i ® ,, ~,, - e~~nanne ac. ru ~~r. : _ _ _ _-_ ~ " ~ ~ ~ 1 , N .~ - avr r m~ crtr. p4 eeew nu tmm. of °et~sw°1~` _ _ _- _- - , ~ ~~ ~ ~ i ~. ~ ~~. ~ , ..... r- ,. ~.m......R ..~ ~ .,...,~ . ~. rucnn xi a~ _ - ~... 1 0.~~• I ~ ® ~~'~ ~ ... a...~~...... m..m ~,d..,a s.,..... ®wmc"w :,~c,uc~oa+cxv i r ~S ~ 4 ! ~~ i ~_ .cn~wo rnc.na ~rca vco - ova - •~ ~ i ~~ ~r r _ ` ~ _ ~ Iii ~ r I i ~ i ,9£J~"`~ ~ &4 ~c whn.«o cnurz n .~ -t.--' ~: I ~~'i -'~, r '.:' r ,i ~~ ns -- '~iI'~~i outiota'.. ~, ~ ~~ 5 .,. ~ .- ~.I,°:.~G'~«o ©~.a~.o.An..oM~.~~~r -_ II Ii~ _~ __ S' 6~;'r /.;'\ ~.... 'S°~aA'.`.'~x~an ~n'*'swiawE i~"rnEw ca"mm""~a° ?_ ~Ii Iii - `~ "` w r -. ~ ~ 99 ~ ~ v+>« a sso aurru nmucmv :"n".' jrl Lif •. ~ ~ _ : j ~'_,~ ~ L 62 ~ ~ ®rww ewsrwc ~nAr~o " ~k Ili ~ri n49,; ~ ~. // ~C ~® wAM ~, ~' ~ ~ i' ~~ un sa. ra rrcaunco . pcs aEx .uc. •~~> b' ' N~ >~~r r I ' Z( ®Y K BO%fLU51ER LCCAMRIS ~wrtaw / u Iy~x I I I Ir ~ / / ~~ S r ~~ ~ ~' w°~rzn 1 III ~ 11 ~ / I 1~ I~ ~ ~~ III I / ~ ,. ~ ~i'dV~'.. I 9 I~ ~ f~Y~ ' .., ~ ~ ii ~ A ~ / +~. I I }I I i 9~ ~ ~. T ~I n ,vAP. ~ ~_-.- 9. b r: ~ ~ -. ._-~I1-~ -- ~ - mwmrwumawurmue"°°" ~. .~kLL _,~. =r~ra _. ~I r ~ __ ~l~ ° -- -_O 04 d0 2@ r g! 13 I .I 95 i~, ~-.-~ .. 9T 96 t d. ~ _ ~ //, . A~ ~ p ne 5F ~ n~i _~ - - r - _ c^ M~sr r I Itri:. k ~' .°.. rho ~.< _. _ ~ • O L ~ ~ ' ..... T I ~ ~ r ~ 9@ 1 I Y, :~-~0 9b`r~0~ Ise r _ _ ' ~Yq -~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ i $ +~.,,~, ;~~ P}^ ~ ~ -I ~ -nro-.Dour mver ~..,.~m I ~ ~ rro ul ~ ~' n ~,~' ~ ~ - f , r I I ~ y ~ `` `I ~ v 1 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ \ (~1 I ~i '. ` _ _ »< _~ 7~ __ _~ ..__ ... - i :}y i ,.:. ~ ~ ~ _~ dill ~ ~ j ~ ._ ao; ~ Q ~:.. ., S r.. ~ .._ .t @G ~ i?7 _ ~ ~ e~tt~-~.~ _ _ i ~ i ,.: rr ~ ~ C~ _ ` i ~ r~ ~ ~ ~. O - O 11 5 I ..`:a ::. "- "- O r ~ tl: u n 7 .~ a e O ~ ~ - LLL - ---- --- r, "_ e _ b O d!.' .. .9'. ~t r v. r X104 :J i -~e ~ % ~ ;,a~ ,i ~eo..sn~v. i,l 970 . 19' a0 ~ ~ ,;.4 ~ II IX ~ JI ~~~, ~~~ w........~ ~~ i r ~ ~r W .y. ( Y. ~ ~' Figl'" ~ ~~ .~..•' ,~, , r u a N w _-,~ r ~ -- - m ~s r ,x. ,o.~.~s..~ .... -~'~ a ,- ar ," ~ n \~~" j~i. j ' r - ~ oa way \ ~~ ~ ~ ~. .r-{ F"M m`"` .n... r..,..., r• '1' I _-- ~ ~ COUNTRY CLUB ESTATE3 THp!*D E[GHTH ADDITIONS I ____~ -- ~ 7p ~ ORT A In;A _h (-"fit ~ ~ ~~~~: _-- ~ ili -- - - ~ , ~ ff ~_ ~ I ,~ :: • ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ - ~4: ~ - 1. r ~,..w ~~i.. H ~'"••••~•°"•.~ a eue,ls¢m canna samx parr pct r II _ iA~~w~ .~ ~ '~ O~.rr..'°"~,:~~''~~~... L~ MAP December 29, 2008 Christina Kuecker Associate Planner City of Iowa City Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Christina: As recommended, we are putting our thoughts and concerns in writing regarding the application from S&J Development LLP requesting a rezoning of the property located within the Country Club Estates development (REZ05- 00019/SU602-00029). We greatly appreciate the efforts of you and your team in keeping us, and the other neighbors, informed regarding this most recent request by the developer. Besides meeting with you, we also attended a "Good Neighbor" meeting on this current request in order to better understand the proposal from the developer. The "Good Neighbor" meeting was held on December 10, 2008 and was led by Duane Musser from MMS Consultants, Inc. and Brian Speer representing the Developer. This meeting was well attended by numerous neighbors who had received notification and are impacted by this planned rezoning/development. Although the meeting was useful for us to better understand what the current proposal is from the developer, it clearly was not intended to gather feedback from the neighbors to be considered by the developer for potential changes to their proposed plans. In fact, when asked, Duane stated that the purpose of the meeting was "not intended to gather input to be used to consider modifications to the proposal" and instead it was simply to "be able to tell the Planning & Zoning Committee that they had held a neighborhood meeting". He also stated that the meeting was intended for them "to gather comments and concems from the neighbors to allow them to have ammunition to go to the P&Z staff and refute the objections and concerns raised by the neighbors". At this meeting they had 2 plat maps, one showing high-density multi-family housing in the current ID RS zone which they stated that "the City wanted them to put in" and a second one showing no multi-family housing, which they said "they are pushing for". However, this current proposal requests the rezoning to allow for a total of 171 lots versus their previous proposal for which they were seeking approval for 154 total lots. When asked why they felt they needed to have the property rezoned from RR1 to RS 5, they stated that there was "no market for close-in lots of this size" and that they felt they could not get as much money for the 1-acre lots versus subdividing into smaller lots, "essentially, it comes down to money". They provided no information in support of this claim. Also, when asked about the lack of any trails to allow connection to other neighborhoods and park space, they indicated that "the City did not ask for any trails, so we did not plan for any in our proposal". While I can appreciate their honesty in regards to the purpose of this particular meeting, it was clearly one-sided and comes off as very arrogant, and does little to alleviate our concerns that the developer is only interested in maximizing the number of lots that they can squeeze into the available property. By only being interested in maximizing their profits, the developer has missed a golden opportunity to work with the people most directly impacted by this proposal and shows total disregard for being a "good neighbor" in this process. This proposal seems to continue to ignore a number of the planning principles put forth in the comprehensive plan for the Southwest District. A key question is, why does the comprehensive plan exist if a developer is not going to use it when proposing a new development within the appropriate district? Based on our understanding of what is being proposed, we would like to list a summary of our concems, followed with a more detailed list with recommendations for consideration on the issues we identified. • Lack of transition/integration, as called out in the comprehensive plan for the Southwest District, from the larger existing acreage lots in the adjacent neighborhood to proposed smaller RS5 lots. • The negative, long-term impact that a development of this density will have on the stream corridor, existing wetlands, sensitive areas, existing earthen dam (potential for breach) and lack of safety measures, and the lack of a sustainable long-term mitigation plan to offset the impact. • Lack of interconnected trails and adequate publicly accessible green/park space for a development of this size. Location of current park space is not centrally located or accessible to majority of proposed development. • Proposed road design (specifically Lake Shore Dr.) raises safety, noise and cut-through concerns. • Lack of preservation of rural character of existing area as called for in the Southwest District plan. • Impact on current infrastructure and available community services within the Southwest District area. More detailed concerns with related commentary and stated recommendations. Lack of effective transition/integration between existing larger RR1 zoned properties and proposed rezoned RS5 properties - Awell-planned transition will reduce the potential negative impact on existing property values of bordering properties. There are a large number of lots that are 0.2x acres with some having astreet- facing dimension of only 65' (feet). This lot size will not allow builders to build similar houses that will integrate. well with the current character of the existing Southwest Estates and existing Country Club Estates neighborhoods. o Recommendation -Our first recommendation is to leave the current zoning "as is" since this area already has available existing RS5 zoning that will allow for similar lot sizes for the adjacent Country Club Estates neighborhood. Leaving the current RR1 zoning intact will eliminate the concern regarding lack of transition and also will reduce the density of the development, helping to lessen the negative long-term impact on the stream corridor, existing wetlands, and sensitive areas. o Recommendation - If rezoning is to be allowed, then we propose rezoning by using an approach that utilizes a phased reduction of lot size from RR1 down to RS5. Inclusions of landscaping buffers should also be combined with this phased approach to further reflect a more orderly transition, as called for in the comprehensive plan's planning principles. Iowa City has clearly shown that there is a continual need to have close-in; larger lots that are marketable even in a down economy. The negative long-term impact on the stream corridor, existing wetlands and sensitive areas -Having lived in this neighborhood for more than 7 years now, one of the most surprising things to us is the amount, and variety, of wildlife that is able to co-exist in the Southwest District, despite the encroachment of continued development and farming. Due to the established pond, stream corridor, prairie and existing wetland areas, the Southwest District neighborhood families are currently able to enjoy viewing on a regular basis deer, bald eagles, red-tail hawks, foxes, numerous pheasants, muskrats, raccoons, herons, geese, a variety of ducks, coyotes, and I'm sure many other species we may have failed to notice. Any sustained development near the wetlands area (and corresponding buffers) will negatively impact this natural wild life habitat resource currently enjoyed by the neighborhood families and diminish the overall value of the area as a whole. Another key concern is the potential impact that changes may have on the water table level and future watershed/drainage problems. Our understanding is that this wetlands area is required as an easement due to the presence of the upstream earthen dam. In the event of a major breach of this dam, any development too close to this area will cause a significant safety concern for residents and introduce liability issues for all parties responsible for changes to this area. The pond, earthen dam and downstream wetlands are intimately connected. Decisions regarding development in this area must be made with this in mind. Based on our specific time here over the last 7 years, we have experienced some very wet years where we had a considerable amount of water running through the natural drainage ways. o Recommendation - We would recommend considering a redesign of the current lot layouts that would allow for a conservation easement along the wet land areas, which can also provide for the inclusion of required trails. Such an easement would help mitigate the impact of lawn chemical runoff into the wetlands, as well as help to add more of a focal point within the development. This would also help greatly support one of the key principles of "preserving the rural character" desired by its citizens of the Southwest District for this new neighborhood. • Minimal Park, Green space, Trail Allotment -although there is currently designated park space in the proposed development plan, it is woefully lacking to meet the needs of the currently proposed addition of 171 families (lots), along with the neighboring properties. This is the best opportunity at this stage of the development to plan adequate space to truly meet the needs of swell-planned, community-oriented neighborhood that can provide the 2 facilities for a good work-life balance. Once the land has been developed, there will be no going back to try to accommodate such requirements. o Recommendation -consider allotting additional, more centrally located park space, while planning sufficient trails and connecting sidewalk space to ensure an "interconnected" neighborhood and park system. This concept received "overwhelming support" from the citizens during the district planning meetings. Such family-friendly amenities will significantly enhance the perceived value of the lots and will likely offset any required trade-off in initial total projected lots envisioned by the developer to ensure a fair return on their investment. One idea to consider is to provide park space on both sides of the current stream corridor/wetland which can not only act as a conservation easement, it can also meet the need to provide for trails and act as a focal point for this neighborhood. This will also allow it to retain some of its rural character, which is currently missing in the proposed design of this development. Proposed Road Designs -the current proposed design of Lake Shore Drive increases the risk that this street will become a major cut-through street for nonresidential traffic accessing Rohret Road from Melrose Avenue (and vice versa), connecting these two heavily traveled roads. This could include heavy commercial traffic, as well as heavy traffic going to the county landfill, West high school, and even traffic to/from the Coralville area. Residential streets are not designed for this level/type of traffic and it introduces significant safety/liability issues, if this current design is approved. Awell-designed residential neighborhood should have streets designed with the neighborhood as the destination point, not as cut-through streets. o Recommendations -redesign the street layouts within the proposed development to prevent any possibility of them becoming through streets (now and in the future). This should include a more circuitous route to diminish its desirability to be used as acut-through route for non-local traffic. The intersection by the existing pooUtennis court area needs to be designed with the appropriate level of safety concern for the local bicycle/pedestrian traffic that will be present. • Impact on Infrastructure (roads, sewer, water, etc), schools and community services (police, fire, recreation, etc.) -allowing rezoning of current RR1 to a higher density RS5 will have significant implications on the existing and required infrastructure, schools and community services. o Recommendation -the new infrastructure requirements should be met in advance or at least in parallel with the plans to build out such a large development. A coordinated, comprehensive plan that incorporates all of the other departments and agencies impacted should accompany any approval of this proposal. Failure to do so will significantly impact existing residents and increase risks/liabilities associated with any short-fall in such areas. Although this letter reflects our specific concerns/recommendations, during this and the previous proposed rezoning efforts, we have had discussions with many of our neighbors who have expressed similar concems and ideas on this proposal. As such, you can anticipate that there will be more communication from the neighbors on these concerns during the upcoming meetings. Thank you for your time and consideration on these issues. We look forward to working with your team, the Developer, and the City Council to help ensure that Iowa City remains a city that continues to attract /retain families and businesses based on its well-planned neighborhoods and family-oriented perspectives. Sincerely, Larry and Sarah Jewell 53 Tucson Place Iowa City, Iowa 52246 ICJewellsfc~mchsi.com Cc: Robert Miklo 3 Christina Kuecker From: Gordon Dyer [dyergord@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 8:20 AM To: Christina Kuecker Subject: rezoning on Rohret Road Dear Ms. Kuecker I live at 4115 Rohret Road. I have a few concerns in relation to the proposed rezoning near our property. 1. Increased traffic - there is a safety issue with Weber school nearby. The plan includes three new streets entering Rohret Road. There is currently a problem with traffic driving driving considerably over the speed limit and many cars not stopping before entering Rohret Road from side streets - this will only get worse. 2. Weber School is full - where are these additional students going to go to school. 3. Density issues - many existing homes in the area are on large lots - this development is more dense than some of the adjacent or nearby homes. 4. A rumor is floating in the area that there are plans to include subsidized low income housing in the development - if true, this would be a major problem as it would devalue existing property and potentially increase crime in an area that is currently very low crime. Thank you for your consideration, Gordon Dyer 4115 Rohret Road Iowa City dyergord@gmail.com 1 Staff Report To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Sarah Walz Item: REZO8-00012 & SU608-00011 Date: January 15, 2009 Hickory Pointe (a re-subdivision of lots 39-41 of First and Rochester, Part One) GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Three Bulls, LLC 250 12`h Avenue Iowa City Contact Person: Casey Boyd cjboyd@msn.com Property Owner: Plum Grove Acres, Inc. PO Box 2208 Iowa City, IA 52244-2208 Phone: 319-354-8118 Requested Action: Rezoning from RS-5 to OPD-8; Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan approval Purpose: Development of a 3-lot planned development with 3 buildings each consisting of 6 attached townhouse- style condominium units. Location: West of First Avenue as an extension of Hickory Trail. Size: 2.97 acres / 2.6 net acres (acreage less street ROW) Existing Land Use and Zoning: Residential Single-Family (RS-5) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North:Undeveloped (ID-RS) South: Park (P1) East: Undeveloped, Residential Single-family (RS-5) West: Undeveloped (ID-RS) Comprehensive Plan: The Northeast District Plan identifies these lots for townhouse development. Neighborhood Open Space District: Hickory Hill (C8) File Date: November 13, 2008 Revised plan submitted January 5, 2009 45-day limitation period: February 20, 2009 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The subject property consists of 3 undeveloped, single-family lots, approximately 2.97-acres total, located along the west side of First Avenue and north of the intersection of First Avenue and Hickory Trail. Undeveloped land directly to the west is owned by ACT and is zoned ID-RS. To the south is the First Avenue (west) entrance to Hickory Hill Park. Property directly to the east contains two undeveloped single-family lots. Property along First Avenue to the south of Hickory Trail is zoned RM-12 and is a mix of duplex and multi-family units, including apartment-style condominiums. Further east along Hickory Trail, the neighborhood is low-density single-family residential. The applicant, Three Bulls, is requesting a rezoning from Low-Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to Planned Development Housing, Medium-Density Single-Family (OPD-8) with a Sensitive Areas Development Plan. The applicant is also requesting approval of the preliminary plat of Hickory Pointe (a re-subdivision of lots 39-41 of First and Rochester, Part One). The re-subdivision is necessary to reconfigure the existing 3 lots and to provide for the extension of Hickory Trail west of First Avenue. The applicant has indicated that they have used the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have had a meeting with neighboring residents as well as with a representative of Friends of Hickory Hill Park. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting a rezoning of 2.97 acres of land from Low-Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to a Planned Development Overlay, Medium-Density Single-Family (OPD-8) zone. The applicant is proposing the Planned Development Overlay in order to allow alternative ownership development (condominiums) and the development of regulated slopes. The proposed plan shows 3 buildings, with each divided into 6 townhouse-style condominiums for a total of 18 units. At the recommendation of staff, the applicant has proposed a concept plan to reserve a large area of space on the southwest side of the site, north of Hickory Trail, to serve as private open space for the development and as a buffer from Hickory Hill Park. Vehicle access is provided from a private rear lane that runs behind the units with two curb cuts-one on Hickory Trail (south) and another on First Avenue (north). Current zoning: The current RS-5 zoning is primarily intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households. The minimum lot size in the RS-5 zone is 8,000 square feet for detached housing. The density bonus provisions in the code (14-2A-7), allow the lot size for detached housing in the RS-5 zone to be reduced to 6,000 square feet if vehicular access to garages and off-street parking is restricted to an alley or private rear lane. Under this zoning, the developer could build approximately 10 detached units along the First Avenue frontage if vehicle access were restricted to a private rear lane. Proposed Zoning: The RS-8 zone is primarily intended to provide for development of small lot single-family dwellings. The minimum lot size in the RS-8 zone is 5,000 square feet for detached housing. The density bonus provisions allow the minimum lot size to be reduced to 4,000 square feet if vehicle access is restricted to a private rear lane. Under the RS-8 zoning, the applicant could build approximately 13 detached units along the First Avenue frontage if vehicle access was restricted to a private rear lane. The Planned Development Overlay is intended to permit flexibility in the use and design of structures and land in situations where conventional development may be inappropriate, and where modification to requirements of the underlying zone will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of the zoning, inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, or harmful to the surrounding neighborhood. The OPD zone is intended to: 1. Provide flexibility in the design, placement, and clustering of buildings; mixture of land uses; PCD\Staff Reports\rez08-00012 hickory pointe.doc 3 use of open space; traffic circulation and parking; and related site design considerations. 2. Encourage the preservation and best use of existing landscape features through development that is sensitive to the natural features of the surrounding area; 3. Promote efficient land use with smaller utility and street networks while maintaining pedestrian oriented street frontages; 4. Encourage and preserve opportunities for energy-efficient development ; 5. Promote an attractive and safe living environment compatible with surrounding residential developments; 6. Provide and alternative method for redeveloping older residential areas; and 7. Encourage infill development. The subject site contains regulated slopes and the topography is such that vehicle entry from First Avenue would be impractical. Moreover, it is the policy of the City to restrict the number of curb cuts along arterial streets. The applicant has proposed a plan that takes advantage of the private rear lane, which reduces the number of curb cuts along First Avenue. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan's design guidelines for new neighborhoods emphasize efficient and compact design, stating that densities of 5 to 7 dwelling units per acre "allow the expense of installing streets and sewer and water lines to be spread out among more homeowners and will make it easier and less expensive for the City to provide municipal services." While the predominant land use in the Northeast District neighborhoods is detached, single- family housing, the plan envisions a mix of housing types throughout the district, including the location of townhouses and small apartment buildings along arterial streets and near institutional facilities and parks. The Bluffwood Neighborhood subsection of the Northeast District Plan designates these particular parcels as appropriate for townhouse development and calls for such buildings to be "compatible with neighborhood architecture in terms of design and scale." The plan states, "Where density increases occur or lot sizes are reduced, the design of both the streetscape and structures within the development should receive careful review to ensure compatibility in terms of appearance and scale." A number of apartment-style condominium buildings are already developed to the south along First Avenue. The nearby apartment building at the southeast corner of the Hickory Trail and First Avenue is a two-story structure that blends in well with the neighborhood further to the east, which is low-density single-family residential. Property to the west of the site is currently undeveloped, but is identified in the future land use map for single-family uses. The Northeast District plan stipulates aconservation-style subdivision with access off a continuation of Hickory Trail as asingle-loaded street (houses along one side of the street only) to preserve access and views of Hickory Hill Park to the south and west. The Northeast District Plan also addresses the potential impact of urban development on the integrity of Hickory Hill Park. Among its neighborhood planning principles, the plan calls for incorporating and maintaining a green open space buffer between Hickory Hill Park and urban development to preserve the natural integrity of the park." As explained above, the applicant has proposed a concept plan to reserve a large area of space on the southwest side of the site, north of Hickory Trail, to serve as private open space for the development and as a buffer from Hickory Hill Park. In staff's opinion the applicant's proposal is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan's vision for this neighborhood. General Planned Development Approval Criteria Applications for Planned Development Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following standards according to Article 14-3A of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. PCD\Staff Reports\rez08-00012 hickory pointe.doc 4 1. The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass, and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout. Densi :The overall density of the planned development proposed for this site is approximately 7 dwelling units per net acre. After accounting for the streets, storm water management and open space, RS-8 zones have typically developed with approximately 5.2 units per acre, although theoretically up to 8 dwelling units per acre are allowed. Lot sizes for the proposed townhouse-style development vary from 3,600 square feet to 12,365 square feet, with 14 of the lots being more than 5,000 square feet. In staff's view, the density proposed for this development is compatible with the neighborhood, as it is situated adjacent to the higher density development on lots along First Avenue, south of Hickory Trail, and the lower density single-family neighborhood located further to the east beyond the ravine. Land uses proposed and~eneral layout: Because the land is steeply sloped toward First Avenue, there is limited opportunity to create typical detached-single family housing. Moreover, because the City seeks to limit the number of curb cuts onto arterial streets, a development that provides access from a rear lane is preferable. The planned development process provides flexibility to arrange and attach units in a way that fits the limitations of this site. The use proposed is attached, townhouse-style condominiums. The topography of the site along with its location along an arterial street (which requires 40-foot setbacks) and the preference for a rear lane to limit curb cuts, all reduce the amount of useable private space for the development and make the construction of traditional detached housing more difficult. Thus the applicant is proposing attached housing. At the recommendation of staff, the applicant has reserved the area at the southwest corner of the site for common open space and has provided a concept plan for how this space could be developed as an amenity for the residents. Mass and Scale The proposed buildings will be 139 feet in length and approximately 4,500 square feet. Given the size of the buildings, staff believes that attention to design detail is necessary to assure that they are compatible with the neighborhood. The applicant has addressed this by proposing quality materials consisting of cement board siding and stone veneers as well as front porches. To break up the mass of the buildings the applicant has separated the facades into six distinct units (each unit is approximately 23 feet wide) through variation in materials, colors, roofline and window pattern. The maximum height of the building will be within the 35-foot height limit for single-family zones. 2. The development will not over burden existing streets and utilities. The density of development is appropriate along First Avenue, which is an arterial street. In general, the Comprehensive Plan recommends higher density development along arterial streets and the future land use scenario in the Northeast District Plan identifies these lots as townhomes. As stated above, vehicle access to the development will be restricted to the private rear lane shown behind the buildings, with access from an extension of Hickory Trail and via a single curb cut onto First Avenue at the north end of lot 1. This will minimize the number of curb cuts along the arterial street. Transportation planners have reviewed the site plan and have determined that sight distance for these access points are safe. Staff received a number of calls from area residents expressing concern that traffic turning into the development would be difficult or unsafe. A memo from the transportation planner regarding the efficiency of turning traffic at this location is attached. PCD\Staff Reports\rez08-00012 hickory pointe.doc 5 3. The development will not adversely effect views, light and air, property values and privacy of neighboring properties any more than would conventional development. Properties directly to the north, east and west of the site are currently undeveloped. To the south is Hickory Hill Park. Distance, topography and existing trees along the border of the park will minimize views of the development. The applicant has proposed to provide evergreen trees along the west side of the site and these will provide additional screening. The proposed buildings provide the required 40-foot setback from the First Avenue right-of- wayand 20 feet from Hickory Trail. The three buildings are separated by a minimum of 20 feet. Rear setbacks for the townhomes are a minimum of 40 feet at the north end of the development and more than 160 feet at the southernmost unit. The proposed buildings meet the 35-foot height limitation for single-family homes in the RS-8 zone. While the proposed development will be a change to what has been appreciated by area residents and visitors to the park as open space, staff finds that the proposed development is not a significant departure from what would be allowed under the current zoning with regard to views, light and air, property values and privacy. Preserving the large area of open space at the southwest corner of the site and providing additional landscaping shown on the plan will mitigate views of the development from the park. Because the Northeast District Plan calls for sensitive development adjacent to the park, and because there continues to be considerable concern about the impact of development on the park, staff has recommended two things that the developer could do to mitigate views of the development from the park: • First, choose landscaping that is sensitive to the site's proximity to Hickory Hill Park. Trees and shrubs for the site from a list of native species provided by Johnson County Heritage Trust. In addition, less accessible, sloped areas to the west of the site (along the west property line) might be planted in wildflowers or native grasses, preserving a minimum 4- to 6-foot swath of turt grass adjacent to the rear lane. This could minimize maintenance for the condominium association and reduce the potential for erosion on the site. The applicant has chosen species from the list for landscaping the site. • Second, give careful consideration to the color of the buildings in order to soften the views of the development from the parking. For example, the existing houses that abut the park along Seventh Avenue, near the Bloomington Street entrance to the park, are sided/painted in dark earth-tone colors, and this mitigates their impact on views from the park. 4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony with the purpose of the zoning code, and with other building regulations of the City. The applicant is seeking approval to allow attached units-townhouse-style multi-family buildings. Townhouse-style units such as those being proposed must meet the criteria for attached housing in the RS-12 zone (as described in 14-4B provisional uses) as well as the dimensional and site development standards of the underlying base zone (RS-8), unless a modification is specifically approved. Page 5 of the preliminary plat and sensitive areas site plan, depicts the lot lines and lot areas that would be in place if this property were to be subdivided into individual lots for each dwelling unit. The proposed development requires waivers for the minimum lot width on 15 of the 18 units: 15 units are less than 24 feet in width; 35 feet is the minimum allowed in the zone. The development also requires waivers for 2 units that do not meet the minimum lot area in the RS-8 zone: (4,000 square feet is the minimum). The zoning code allows variations in the dimensional requirements for the following purposes: •to facilitate the provision of desired neighborhood amenities or open space; •to preserve or protect natural, historic, or cultural features; •to achieve compatibility with surrounding development; PCD\Staft Reports\rez08-00012 hickory pointe.doc 6 •or to create a distinctive or innovative neighborhood environment for area residents. As described above, the applicant has clustered all development along the First Avenue frontage and, at the suggestion of staff, reserved a large area of space at the southwest corner of the site as an amenity--private open space for the development. The applicant has provided a concept for the development of this area, which includes level space with a shelter and seating. The concept shows additional landscaping on this portion of the site and the landscaping complies with the recommended species list provided by Johnson County Heritage Trust. This landscaping will provide shade and a sense of privacy for the residents of development anal will screen views of the buildings from the park. The proposed open space .and its associated amenities (shelter, seating, paths, etc.) will be owned by the future condominium association, which will be responsible for maintenance. Staff recommends that the details of amenities provided as part of the open space be approved by the Commission. If a detailed plan is not available by the time of the Commission's meeting on Thursday, we recommend staff approval. Level II Sensitive Areas Review The applicant has applied for approval of a Sensitive Areas Development, a type of planned development. The purposed of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) is to permit and define reasonable use of properties that contain sensitive environmental features and natural resources, and allowing reasonable development while protecting these resources from damage. The subject site contains steep and critical slopes, both of which are regulated through the (SAO). The purpose of regulating development on and near steep slopes is to promote safety in the design and construction of developments; to minimize flooding, landslides, and mudslides; to minimize soil instability and erosion; and to preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly wooded hillsides. Given the size, shape ,and topography of the subject property, it is not possible to develop the site without disturbing the regulated slopes, which run along the front third of lots 1 and 2. To build the development as proposed will require disturbing more than 85% of the regulated slopes. The sensitive areas ordinance requires that disturbance of steep and critical slopes be minimized and sets a maximum of 35% for critical slope disturbance with administrative staff approval. Disturbance of more than 35% triggers Level II Sensitive Areas Review, requiring Planning and Zoning Commission review and City Council approval. The applicant has indicated that all regulated slopes have been humanly altered and is requesting permission to disturb more than 85% of the slopes. There is agreement on staff that these slopes were altered at the time of construction of First Avenue. Because the slopes are manmade and because they are not wooded, staff believes it is reasonable to allow the level of disturbance proposed. Other Environmentally Sensitive Features There is a mature oak tree that is located on public land adjacent to the southwest corner of the property, south of Hickory Trail. Measures should be taken to protect this tree with temporary fencing to ensure that the roots are not disturbed at the time that. street construction is commenced. No other sensitive features have been identified on the site, and the state archaeologist has indicated that no archaeological sites are believed to be present in the area. Traffic implications access, and street design The site plan shows direct vehicular access onto First Avenue is limited to a single 34-foot curb cut/driveway (allowing two-way access) at the north end of the property. The code requires that curb cuts be located 25 feet from the property line, however given that the adjacent property line is PCD\Staff Reports\rez08-00012 hickory pointe.doc 7 for a narrow remnant of City property that is not developable this requirement may be waived through a minor modification. An access point is also provided from another curb cut along the west extension off Hickory Trail. A private drive to the rear of the buildings provides access to parking under the building, for occupants, with 8 additional (non-required) guest parking spaces provided along the west side of the drive. The Hickory Trail extension will terminate at the west property line until such time that is extended onto the ACT property. The plan shows all required pedestrian access from the existing 8-foot sidewalk along First Avenue to the front entries as well as a new 5-foot sidewalk on the north side of the extension of Hickory Trail. Because any future development on property to the west will be along a single loaded street (on the north side of Hickory Trail only), a sidewalk is not required along the south side of the Hickory Trail right-of-way. The proposed plan shows all required street trees and the appropriate building setbacks from street rights of way. Neighborhood Open Space: The zoning ordinance requires the dedication of .1033 acres (4,500 square feet) of neighborhood open space for a development of this size. The developer has agreed to dedicate the 1,920-square-foot portion of land on the south side of Hickory Trail such that the boundary of Hickory Hill Park will extend to the street. This proposal will be referred to the Parks and Recreation Commission. In lieu of additional open space, the applicant will be required to pay fees equal to the value of 2,580 square feet of land. Sanitary Sewer:A sewer connection is available along First Avenue right of way. A new sewer line will be constructed along the Hickory Trail for any development to the west. Water Service: Water mains will need to be extended to serve this development. A water main extension fee of $395.00 per acre is required. Resolution of some technical deficiencies on the plan will need to be resolved prior to approval of the preliminary plan. Storm water management: Storm water drains are indicated on the site plan on the private rear lane and on the new section of Hickory Trail. This system will tie into the existing storm water system on First Avenue and Hickory Trail. Summary: This proposal complies with the land use map included in the Northeast District Plan, which identifies these lots for townhouse development, and the Comprehensive Plan's design guidelines for new neighborhoods that emphasize efficient and compact design with densities of 5 to 7 dwelling units per acre. By restricting vehicle access to a private rear lane, the proposed plan minimizes curb cuts onto the arterial street and provides for efficient and safe ingress and egress from the development. In staff's opinion the proposed density is appropriate and compatible in the context of neighboring development, which includes multi-family development in the RM-12 zone along First Avenue. Staff believes the proposed design of the buildings, which show variation in the facade materials, colors, roofline and window pattern in order to break up the mass of the building, are compatible with the character of the neighborhood, including those areas that are predominantly single-family in character. Staff believes that the size, shape, and topography of the site, as well as its location along an arterial street, which requires additional setbacks, make it difficult to develop traditional detached housing on these lots. Reserving a large portion of lot 1 for private recreation space not only provides an amenity for the residents to offset reductions in the lot dimensions, but also provides an opportunity to screen the development from the adjacent park. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ08-00012 & SUB08-00011, an application submitted Three Bulls, for a rezoning from Low-Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Overlay Planned Development, Medium-Density Single-Family Housing (OPD- RS8) zone and preliminary plat of Hickory Pointe for approximately 2.97 acres of property PCD\Staff Reportslrez08-00012 hickory pointe.doc 8 located on the east side of First Avenue, at the intersection of First Avenue and Hickory Trail be approved subject to the following: 1. Substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted; 2. Detailed plan for shared open space, including a grading plan; 3. All landscaping (trees and shrubs) to comply with the species list provided by Johnson County Heritage Trust or similar list from the Iowa State Extension; 4. A minor modification to allow location of the north drive within 25 feet of the property line. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary plat 3. Elevations 4. Letter from the applicant 5. Memo from transportation planner Approved by: ~%~ ~~" Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development PCD\Staff Reports\rez08-00012 hickory pointe.doc K~~ ~~ U C O -~. ;. O ~ s ~aa~J u~~sln~~ ~_`~~ N e-i 0 OQ N 0 1 M0M F~ . ~...r ~T ~ ~ C e».~ *~ U - ~,-- N _ -, N ~ Q T a~ ~ O oC J zo ~_ ~~ O ~-.~ H ~ _ ~ ~ / ~-' ~ o a w a ~T~ 0 ... ~ 1 ' ~~-_~ -ti. ~ ~ rH^ V ~~ d;~ `~~,'. °a 1 ~_:. s~ ..; ~ -.-. ,; ~ ., ~n ~~ ~ , ~s~ ~~~~~~~ ,~ O N Z _ P~`~~ p~ ~ ~ '.. 0 ~ ~- o ~, j~MP icy ~~ m J ~_ ~~ _._ ..c`~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ i!i fi - ~ !x 1 ~ ~~ _ w~o~~~~~~~~n X19 ~ Z ~ ~ ~~} ~'d- ~ , m U~~~~ ~ ~ ~a88 ~ o00 ~~.~ ~ ~ E°~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ Z P~~„i ~ 6~~ ~ q•~i'G i ~ ~' ,~3 Edgb €~~ a sx k "d F ~ z 3hg5r~ ?y~~"~1 Q~ ~gyi 3~a~ ~~ vs'a $ ~ e ~ ~~ o K~ E. ~'~58~1Sy ~~'ig~b'~bY~' ~5~~~'~ ~ € C t r,~k ~ ~ ;~wP,.g I .~s °z ~ I i ti ~ ' _ z~~a v~i ~ ~ ,~.„i '~~ ~ ,egg a ~ i ii ~ 5 ~ ~ I Y l ~~ ~s ~n~~ ~~s~ ~$ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ a ~ ~~ w ~' ~~~ p-. ~ ~o~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ o ~°~ aoR ,~~~ ~_ ~~" yo~ W ~ ®9 3 S ~ ~ y ~ a ~ 3 s ~ ~ ,~~~ 3~~~ ~_._ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 4 ~ i _~_L_ ~ __ ~ --1- _ E i 'J Q h _._1- ,U 0.~ ( ~o~ I N~ ~r ' a ~ I °xo ~ E-',t- U.- Qiz U~ I~/ ~ O, ~L--~ ~; ~' - \` .~ ~~'33`~~ ~ n 1 ' i ~'~C .C1~T L_ /~ ~ ~ ~. a ~ & °~~~a ~J ~~o ~~ ~~a~~~ u ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~s € ~~= ~~ ~~ ~~s ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~$ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~k ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~u ~~ ~' g~ ~ & s~ ~~ ~ ~ es ~~ 8 ~ ;~ -, ', i ~~ ~yay~ ~ , ,i ~~ ~ ~ ~!S % N ~ §a6 y y: ;~: ,, ,- e~ ~~ _ - sP6 ,r-''~T'j'~` ``-,---'~~~ 3 ~', s ~~~ t ~~ ;. ~I ~~~ ~f Syd l~+cK17+~'lfrhrR~hc~a ~`- 'i Z591^FM 217AY^' 1JTOm ~-~ 6~~E S~ t ~ 6 ~P~.bz9.~ " x3-td-9 ~ .~e~,,,, • . ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ s. zs: onw• nat 7n ~ : ' ivm 'A9 t1n\Vt10 a~~jtg~ ~8 ~ ~~ { i G I~ I '.~ • '~alN l '1N m 'm D TJy'1 1~J lit: l 1N~"~b • •" J~~ O S~ • 900dRZ/A ~7~V0 ~e~~° ~ t ~ ~ it , 1 ~ . l , ~ i,~ ~ •~~+J'~~•'J ~J•I'/~~• ~wi /'\ bA /'~...{ r/ // D-1 ~.91n •7'IV7S ~i a p ~ 162F88C2~~~pSY~~ Noi~.~n~.~sr~o~ ~o~ ~or~ -,~-trvo N~r-~d ,~~vNiwrt~~-d r Pkk yi ~¢6 9S ~6 Vi i; t ~ ~ ~^ ~ ,.~ Z 0 a ~ ~ ~ O !i ~~ 0 ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ a -~~--. z O 0 e 0 0 a 8 0 X ~~ `- ~ i$ i~„:^°~^°~ ~`'-sxr-' `--s--' a~ia`~ i ~ i~ i i,~ :am i ~~ ~g~ i 4 ~ E ~ December 12, 2Q08 RE: First & Rochester Part One Iowa City, IA 52245 To Whom It May Concern: it is my desire to deve]op the three lots I recently acquired known as lots 39, 4d & 41 First & Rochester Part One Iowa City, IA. Myself as well as Duane Musser from MMS Consultants have been working with City Staff, Friends of Hickory Hill Park & ACT to come up with a mutually agreeable product that serves to provide quality workforce housing on the east side. To date and after several meetings we have come up with a solid concept that we feel will not only meet the design elements but will be economically sensible given our current market and will provide a solid product at a fair and competitive price. With that being said, part of what will make it possible to produce a product that wil] meet the added exterior design elements and cost associated with such is simply the .ability to spread the cost over more units. Doing so keeps the price point at an easier to obtain number allowing these units to be sold to working people in our local area. These units will be produced at the highest quality possible for the price and will back up to Hickory Hill Park thus giving them a serene feel while being in the middle of town. In addition to we feel the visua] appeal will be more than pleasing to neighbors as well as passers by because of the details given to the units and the fact that this type of housing is not found around or near where our "Hickory Point Town Homes" would be. Our request is simply for the City to allow for the zoning of this area to be altered to one which will give us the ability to follow the concept plans we have all meet about and looked at. The reasoning behind our request this is obviously for the cost benefit to our end product as well as the fact that our project is adjacent to an arterial street and our townhouse design/density matches the current comprehensive plan. In closing 1 would just like to so that at the end of the day this request is not about more profit for the developer but rather producing a quality product we can all be proud of that helps to keep the upscale units more affordable. We all look forward to keeping this project on track and appreciate all of your help in doing so. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Be~R~gards & Happy Holidays, `~~_-- ': .t ~; Caseyd ~~ (3l9} 631-5574 Ambrose & Boyd, REALTORS 250 12`x' Ave Suite 150 Coralville, IA 52241 Cjboyd 1 Cmsn.coFn r ~:~,1~,..p~,~ CITY OF IOWA CITY ~~~ ~ ~EMCJRAN D UM Date: December 23, 2008 To: Bob Miklo, Senior Planner Sara Walz, Associate Planner 1 ~~ From: Kent Ralston, JCCOG Assistant Transportation Planner tit `- Re: Hickory Trail / 1st Avenue Intersection At your request, staff observed traffic patterns at the Hickory Trail / 1st Avenue intersection. Specifically, the observations were intended to address concerns that northbound traffic would have difficulty making left-turns (westbound) into the proposed residential development west of 1St Avenue and north of Hickory Hill Park. The following assumptions were made for the purposes of this study: • The proposed development would include 20 (3 bedroom) units that would generate a total of approximately 140 trips per day (7 trips a day per household), all entering/exiting via an access opposite from Hickory Trail • Approximately 12 percent of the total generated daily trips (17) would be entering/exiting the proposed drive during peak travel times; 12 percent is a generally accepted rule per traffic engineering standards • Delay for current southbound to eastbound turning movements will be similar to that of future northbound to westbound turning traffic • Said intersection operates relatively well from a traffic engineering perspective and has had no collisions since 2001. Staff observed that during PM peak hour traffic, a majority of southbound to eastbound motorists turning left from 1St Avenue to Hickory Trail experienced no delay and were able to freely negotiate said movement. The remaining vehicles that were required to stop and wait for a gap in northbound traffic experienced no more than an 11 second delay to perform the desired movement (this is an acceptable level of delay per traffic engineering standards). Using the stated assumptions, and the results of our observations, staff does not feel that motorists will experience unacceptable delays when accessing the proposed drive at said location. Staff recommends re-evaluating the intersection before any significant development to the east or west of this intersection is proposed. Jccogtp/memos/lstave hickorytr.doc MINUTES Preliminary PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 2008 - 6:00 PM -INFORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Wally Plahutnik, Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne, Josh Busard MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: None CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. ZONING CODE ITEM: Discussion of amendments to the Zoning Code Article 14-5A, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, to include minimum parking requirements for Household Living Uses in the Central Business (CB-10) zone. Howard stated that the Commission had been asked to revisit a portion of its amendments to the CB-10 zoning code. Two developers attended the City Council meeting and expressed concerns with the parking requirements included in the amendment. The City Council would like recommendations from the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission for addressing the concerns about the proposed parking requirements in the CB-10 Zone. Howard said the Council was particularly concerned that the proposed parking requirements may prevent building owners from putting a few apartments on the upper floors of existing buildings. City Council did not want to discourage this sort of renovation, and they expressed concern that the parking requirements may serve as a disincentive. Council also expressed a concern that requiring a 1:1 ratio of parking spaces to bedrooms for efficiencies and one-bedrooms was excessive. Council noted that if there is a goal of encouraging one and two-bedroom apartments, such a high ratio of parking spaces to bedrooms may have the opposite effect. Staff's recommendation is to change the language so that one-bedrooms and efficiencies are required to have only 0.5 spaces per bedroom. Howard referred Commissioners to a staff memo for a more detailed analysis of possible changes to the parking requirements in the CB-10 zone. She summarized Staff's recommendations as follows: 1) change the parking ratio on one-bedrooms and efficiencies so that 0.5 parking spaces are required for each bedroom, 2) allow the first ten bedrooms in existing buildings to be exempt from parking requirements, 3) waive the current distance requirement for buildings requesting a special exception to use spaces in parking ramps to fulfill their parking requirements, and 4) allow above-ground structured parking by special exception regardless of the proposed FAR (floor area ratio) of the project, provided certain conditions are met. Koppes asked how the City could ensure that buildings did not simply let their leases for long-term parking expire after a few years. Miklo said that in most cases there would be a rental permit that would help enforcement and monitoring. Payne asked if, hypothetically, developers could sub-lease parking spaces if their renters did not use them. Miklo said he believed they could. Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2008 -Informal Page 2 Howard said the policy consideration is that the City cannot provide large numbers of spaces for large projects, but that there may be some capacity for smaller projects. Payne said the code was written so that a project could get 100% of the necessary parking spaces from City-owned facilities. Miklo said that this was true, but that the code also required the approval of the Parking Manager, who would not necessarily approve large projects if spaces were not available. Payne asked how applications would be prioritized, and how it would be determined who was able to lease City parking spaces and who could not. Miklo said it would probably be on a first-come, first-serve basis. Payne said that under the current rules developers would be taking from the available parking stock but would not be paying anything directly into the parking fund. Eastham said that his interpretation of the parking impact fee requirement is that it is an attempt to provide some capital for new parking ramps. Eastham said that the lease fees developers would be required to pay could be seen as another way of providing that capital, rather than seeing it as developers simply taking from existing parking stock. Miklo noted that the money to build parking ramps comes out of parking revenues. Plahutnik pointed out that if a developer does not intend to provide on-site parking, they would have to procure a commitment from the City to provide 100% of the necessary parking before they would be able to proceed with building. Miklo said such a scenario would likely only be approved for a fairly small building, needing a dozen or fewer parking spaces. Payne said the leases would be held for those parking spaces forever. Miklo noted that it would have to go through a public process before the Board of Adjustment. Plahutnik pointed out that the developer would also be required to pay forever. Eastham said it seems clear that the parking ordinance contemplates that the City will provide some number of parking spaces when possible. Howard said that private parking could be obtained off-site just as it would be acquired through the City's parking system. She noted that this provision has been in the code for a long time, and that just because the City receives requests for parking leases, the City does not have to grant that request. Payne asked what the percentage of parking stalls that can be leased is, versus the percentage of stalls left for the general public. Howard said that would be up to the Parking Manager. Greenwood-Hektoen said that Chris O'Brien, Parking Manager, had told Staff that audits of the parking ramps are utilized to make those kinds of determinations. Koppes asked how Staff came up with the number ten as the number of bedrooms that would be exempt from parking requirements for existing buildings. Miklo said that Staff looked at a number of existing buildings downtown and determined through their footprints approximately how many bedrooms could fit into them. Miklo said that for almost all of the buildings studied, ten was the maximum number of bedrooms that could be configured in the building. Miklo said there are some larger buildings that could fit more than ten bedrooms, but most of them are historic buildings that could apply for a special exception based on that status. One policy question that must be considered, Miklo added, is whether or not Iowa City wants a large portion of its office space downtown converted to residential uses. Converting larger buildings should trigger a review. Plahutnik asked if any provision was going to be made for a pedestrian drop-off/loading zone for buildings that wind up without on-site parking. Miklo said that sort of thing would tend to be in the public right-of- way. He said he did not know if the City wanted to get into that level of management. Plahutnik said that was fine, but if the Commission wanted people to live downtown, downtown has to be livable. Eastham noted that in the past drop-off spaces have sometimes been included in conditional zoning agreements, and that this may be a useful tool in the future as well. Eastham asked if there was a reasonable way to estimate the number of residences that might be added over time that would not have a parking requirement attached to it. Miklo said that some assumptions could be made based on worst-case scenarios of every building turning into residential space, but that would not be very reliable. Miklo stated that there is still one floor of commercial space required on the ground floor in the CB-10 zone. Howard pointed out that there has been no parking requirement until the present, and that there have not been a lot of renovations of existing buildings such that it has overwhelmed the downtown. The concern is largely about construction of new large-scale residential projects. Miklo noted that all of the issues coming up simply cannot be addressed with this one amendment. There was some discussion of the Hieronymus Square project and the conditional zoning agreement put in place to address some of the concerns that were brought up when it was first presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2008 -Informal Page 3 Commission. Eastham asked how Section 14-5A-3D-4a (requirement for a parking demand analysis for on-site parking requested in the CB-10 Zone) was still applicable given the new ordinance. Howard explained that this section would still be applicable for other uses (such as commercial) that want to provide on-site parking. They have to show that there is a demand within their building for the parking spaces so the City can make sure that developers are not building parking that will compete with the City's parking system. Eastham said he is trying to understand when a developer would have to seek a special exception for parking in the CB-10. Eastham noted that no special exception is required for underground, on-site parking. Howard said that the idea is that if the City is going to require parking, then a special exception should not be required to get it, as the Board of Adjustment could deny it. There will be a distinction between parking for residential uses, which would be required and for other uses, for which parking is not required. Eastham said that a special exception is required for above-ground parking even though the City is requiring it. Eastham said he was wondering how best to alleviate developer anxiety of the inherent uncertainty in the special exception process while also ensuring adequate parking arrangements. Miklo explained that above-ground parking can have a real effect on the streetscape and, as a result, requires an extra level of scrutiny. Howard added that presently above-ground parking cannot be built downtown without getting a special exception. Eastham asked if there was some way to modify or tailor back the need for special exceptions so that developers can reduce their level of risk. Howard said that it is important to note that the Board of Adjustment does not have the complete power to say yes or no to a special exceptions. There is a list of criteria and standards that must be met for each special exception. The process does allow for some flexibility, however, Howard said, so that code that does not meet each situation can be adjusted to make sense in different situations. Miklo said that it was important to keep in mind during these discussions the desire for the downtown to have a commercial aspect, so the regulations should not be so lax as to encourage residential to the displacement of commercial uses. Plahutnik stated that the Commission was offering the path of least resistance to underground parking because that is the form of parking the City most wants to see. Discussions centered on the downtown building stock and the number of historic buildings in the area. Miklo pointed out that they did not want to create an incentive to tear those buildings down by failing to allow for the uniqueness of their lots and the inability to create on-site parking; that is the genesis of the ten-bedroom exception. Plahutnik noted that all buildings are not suitable for all uses. Eastham asked if the proposed changes to the parking amendments had been sent out to developers in the area. Miklo said they were mailed to anyone who spoke at the City Council meeting. Payne addressed a few "housekeeping" issues, pointing out places in the ordinance where she felt the wording could be tweaked or changed. Eastham asked about the lack of provisions for apartments with more than three bedrooms. Eastham said that while the new occupancy requirements are intended to discourage building apartments with more than three bedrooms, they do not actually prohibit it. As a result, Eastham felt that the possibility of a developer building four or five-bedroom units should be addressed in the parking requirements, remote as the possibility may be. Greenwood-Hektoen said she felt the wording was adequate as it is. Eastham asked about.the exemption of affordable housing from parking standards. Miklo explained that it had been put in when the CB-5 zone was written to provide an incentive for affordable housing, but he did not think it had ever actually been used. Howard said it was put in the CB-10 zone for consistency's sake. Payne asked if in the future parking impact fees would be added into the mix of these discussions. Miklo said that was another discussion entirety and will garner a whole new debate. Miklo said the demand to lease spaces is already present. Payne said that the demand for parking is one of the reasons that she cannot find a parking space when she goes downtown. Miklo said that that is an issue the City Manager, Director of Planning, and Parking Director will take very seriously. Payne asked if the City would wind up making it so that non-residents of downtown do not even want to go downtown for lack of parking. Miklo Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2008 -Informal Page 4 said that this was one of the reasons the transportation manager's job would be very important in this issue. Miklo said that in terms of this amendment, the City will have much more control over how to manage the parking situation downtown. Presently, a residential building can be built downtown with absolutely no parking required and all of the resident parking can be on the street or in the ramps. This ordinance will actually require alternative parking arrangements. Eastham said that as a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission he is trying to provide many people the opportunity to use the downtown fvr a variety of uses. All of those uses require some sort of parking. However, the Commission does not have any central control over the management of the current parking. This amendment tries to balance developer-provided parking and City-provided parking. Koppes said that today no parking is required at all in the CB-10; it is possible that more parking will be available than is now. Eastham said the Commission is trying to provide the opportunity to change who lives in the downtown area. Freerks said that she believes there are many sides to the coin, and that she disagrees that the Commission is simply trying to change who lives downtown. Eastham said that the broad purposes of the Commission include that view. Howard asked if there was anything else the Commission needed from Staff for the formal meeting on Thursday. There was nothing further. OTHER: Howard stated that 1,000 Friends of Iowa, a group advocating responsible land use, has awarded the City of Iowa City a "Best Development Award" for its new subdivision code. There is an awards ceremony in Des Moines on December 16~h, and Howard asked if any of the Commissioners would like to attend to accept the award. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m. c .y w .~ 0 U~ v~ o c ~ 'c ~ N v o o~ C o ~ ~ N c 'a 'c m c RQ a r 3 O .- X X X X X X co r X X X ~ ~ X X o X X X X X ~ X X X X X X X X rn X X X X X X X X X X ~ ~ X X ~ ~ X X X ` X X X X X X X X X ti 0 X X X i X X ~ X X X X X X ~ ~ X X X ~ ~ X ~ N X X X X X X X X . w o X x x x ~ x v X X X ; X N ~ X X X ~ X ~ r1 ~ i i T 1 ~ X X X ~ ~ X ~ X X X ~ X ~ ~~ •- ~ M N O O M ~-w ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ Y ~ ~ Y ~ °~ y ~ d a ~ ~ z o0 ~j~ i Y a 1° 3 N X X X X X X T ~ r X X X X X X ~ M .= T X X X X X X X M o •- x x x x x x x X X X X X X X rn ~ X X X X X X ~ ~ X X X W 0 ; ~ W ~ X X X X X X X I ~ ~ X X X X X i X X X ~ X X ~ ; x x x ; x N ~ X X X ' I W O ; N N i ; X X X ~ 7 O i i ~ ~ r- ~ c'') N O O M W ~' W ~ 0 ~ 0 V/ 0 0 0 0 0 N 10 t L ww~~ O. ~ Y C (~ '4d W Q ° 4 ° z m W ~i ~ C ' - a 3 ~ v d ui ~ ~ ~ U X W C C ~ C N N ~ .a ~~a a Q n >, n ii w YXOO MINUTES Preliminary PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4, 2008 - 7:30 PM -FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Clark RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 6-1 (Payne voting in the negative) to approve amendments to the Zoning Code Article 14-5A, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, to include minimum parking requirements for Household Living Uses in the Central Business (CB-10) zone. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. ZONING CODE ITEM: Discussion of amendments to the Zoning Code Article 14-5A, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, to include minimum parking requirements for Household Living Uses in the Central Business (CB-10) zone. Howard stated that the goal of this particular initiative was. to ensure that the downtown remains healthy and economically viable over the long-term with a wide variety of businesses, including: retail, office, restaurant, service and entertainment venues. Howard said that to maintain the vitality and variety of businesses downtown it is important to attract a diversity and mix of residents living in the downtown. Howard said it was important to keep these two perspectives in mind in discussing the parking issues. Howard stated that the Commission had forwarded to the City Council recommendations addressing both attracting a mix of residents downtown and parking issues, including a reduction in occupancy limits and a new parking requirement for residential projects. Howard said that the City Council basically agreed to the occupancy standards, but deferred the parking amendment, asking the Commission to review their recommendations. Howard said a recommendation is expected for Council's consideration at their December 16th meeting. Howard said that some of the concerns Council expressed about the parking requirements as currently written were that it could: 1) discourage renovation of existing buildings, 2) wind up actually discouraging efficiency and one bedroom apartments because of the required bedroom to Planning and Zoning Commission December 4, 2008 -Formal Page 2 parking space ratio, and 3) may not provide enough flexibility for smaller residential projects needing parking in City-owned facilities. Howard shared staff recommended revisions to the parking language, which they felt addressed concerns expressed by Commissioners in their informal session as well as those expressed by Staff and members of the Housing and Inspection Services Department (HIS). Previous language, Howard said, was confusing in that it mixed language concerning apartments and bedrooms, possibly lending itself to misinterpretation. Staff suggests language stating that for the first 10 bedrooms, no parking is required, but for all additional bedrooms, 0.5 spaces per bedroom will be required. For new buildings, the layered approach would continue, requiring 0.5 parking spaces for efficiencies and one-bedrooms, one parking space for two-bedroom apartments, and two parking spaces for three-bedroom apartments. Howard said that Staff also recommends allowing developers to lease parking spaces in City-owned parking ramps to fulfill smaller-scale parking requirements regardless of the distance between the parking ramp and the apartment building. Applications for these parking spaces would be carefully considered and would be granted by special exception through the Board of Adjustment. Staff also suggests eliminating the requirement that a building have a floor area ratio (FAR) of at least 7 to building above-ground structured parking. She noted that there are currently no buildings in the downtown that have achieved an FAR that high. Howard offered to answer questions from Commissioners. Eastham noted that the wording in Table 5A-1 may not make it clear to users of the code that an efficiency apartment is considered to have one bedroom. Howard concurred and said Staff could make the language more clear. Koppes pointed out that with the current formula existing buildings converted to three-bedroom units would only be required to have 1.5 parking spaces, whereas new buildings with three-bedroom units would be required to have 2 parking spaces. Howard said that there is a limited supply of existing buildings available for conversion to apartments and that it was Staff's feeling that the very slight advantage that may be given to developers of three-bedrooms in existing buildings versus those in new buildings did not warrant creating a more complicated formula. Eastham stated that for buildings built after January 1, 2009, parking requirements are only listed for 3- bedroom apartments and smaller. He said that while occupancy standards have changed in the CB-10 zone, allowing for only three unrelated persons to reside together, there was nothing actually prohibiting developers from building units with more than three bedrooms. Howard said that the likelihood of developers building apartments that were larger than what the occupancy standards allowed was quite small. Eastham said he understood this, but that for the sake of clarity he feels language should be added to address the possibility of apartments larger than three-bedrooms. Greenwood-Hektoen and Howard stated that adding such language could confuse the occupancy issue, and perhaps misleadingly indicate that four and five-bedroom apartments were more possible than they actually are. Plahutnik said he feels the words "or more" added to the ordinance would cover every possibility. No changes to the wording were agreed upon at that time. Payne asked if Staff knew if there was a current waiting list for those wishing to lease parking spaces in city ramps. Howard said she believed it varied from ramp to ramp, but that conversations with Chris O'Brien, Parking Director, had indicated that there is flexibility to move parking spaces around to different ramps as necessary. The purpose of requiring parking for large-scale projects, Howard reminded Commissioners, is to alleviate the strain the City feels they would place on city parking facilities. City parking facilities cannot accommodate multiple large-scale projects; if they could, no parking requirement would be necessary. That said, Howard went on, there is flexibility within the parking system to provide a small number of spaces to more moderately-sized projects. Howard said that on one hand, the City Council had concerns about jeopardizing small-scale renovations and additions that could not possibly put parking on site; on the other hand, they felt that large-scale projects should have to provide some on- site parking. Eastham asked if Staff had considered what criteria to use in evaluating large-scale parking requests from a developer. Greenwood-Hektoen replied that the standard would be the same regardless of size; capacity would be evaluated based on an audit of parking needs and demands. Howard said it was difficult to speculate on how much parking would be available for any given project as the ordinance is Planning and Zoning Commission December 4, 2008 -Formal Page 3 being written for the long-term. She said there are already a number of criteria set up in the zoning ordinances for the Board of Adjustment to use when evaluating whether or not to grant a special exception. However, Howard said there is no set mathematical formula. Plahutnik pointed out that when the City agrees to supply parking spaces to a developer they are agreeing to lease those spaces to the developer in perpetuity. He said he believed the City would be very hesitant to have parking spaces tied to the occupant of a building in perpetuity. Plahutnik said that while some on the Commission are worried about the over-leasing of parking spaces in City-owned ramps, it is just as reasonable to worry about a kind of under-leasing, in which the City is very hesitant to grant leases as they would be for such a long term. Freerks opened the public hearing. Jeff Clark, AUR Property Management, said that the new occupancy and parking requirements took his company by surprise when they were introduced a few weeks ago. He said they are not philosophically opposed to the changes, but said they wondered if there was a way fo tweak the changes to make them work for developers in the downtown area. Clark said his company had been working on a project at 328 E. Washington, the Northwest Mutual Building, for over a year, trying to move the current occupants to other locations and designing a building. He said he is disappointed because the project has been halted due to the new occupancy standards. The original plan called for sixteen four-bedroom apartments; this is no longer possible. Clark said the building could nicely accommodate one and two-bedroom units; however, it could not do so with the new parking requirements. Clark said that his company paid $1.1 million for the lot based on what they could put on there. When the new occupancy requirements passed, Clark said, the lot became worth $500,000-$600,000. Clark said there are a lot of questions with the new parking requirements. He said there is no guarantee that a special exception will be approved for additional parking, and a lot of lives are affected by the change. Clark said he did not know if this amendment was ready to go through, although he acknowledged that the Planning staff had done a good job of trying to think it over. Clark said it would be nice to see something laid out so that developers know what they are looking at when they. want to develop something. He acknowledged a need for one and two-bedroom units in the downtown, and stated his desire to build them. However, the topography of their current lot simply will not allow for enough parking. He said it was possible they would not be able to develop the lot and may have to let it sit the way it is. Clark noted problems in the economy and that a lot of potential job hours will be lost in the delay and possible discontinuation of his project. He estimated that for every unit put in there will be roughly 1,500- 3,000 man hours required. This helps the local economy in a difficult time. Clark also noted that prior to this ordinance, on-site residential parking was not even allowed in the CB-10 zone, and now it will be required. He suggested a transition period of a year or two that allowed some time wherein parking was allowed in the CB-10 but not required, and then abetter-working ordinance could be designed based on the needs discovered during that time period. Clark said he hoped the Commission would take these concerns into consideration. Eastham asked if it was correct that the ordinance as currently proposed would not allow Clark to develop the property at 328 E. Washington Street at all because of the parking requirements. Clark said that currently he could fit approximately 12 parking spaces on-site, which allows only 24 one-bedrooms. He said the lot is fairly large for downtown, and 24 one-bedrooms would make for a pretty small building. Clark said that he would not be guaranteed any parking from the City, based on the way the ordinance is currently worded, and would have to apply for a special exception to receive any. Clark said that 24 units would not be acost-feasible project based on the amount of money they already have invested in the land. Clark said that to have to slow down a project based on inadequate parking is a real financial burden. Eastham asked Clark if he would accept parking in a City-owned parking lot if it were available. Clark replied that he would. Clark said that the uncertainty lies in the special exception process and the availability of parking at the time it is requested. Clark added that if the available parking is 600 feet away it is virtually worthless, as renters will not use it anyway. Clark said if parking is more than 300 feet from Planning and Zoning Commission December 4, 2008 -Formal Page 4 the building, developers would essentially be just paying a fee for parking that residents would not use. He acknowledged that if parking were guaranteed to be available then developers would not have to worry about purchasing properties that could not then be developed due to parking constraints. Clark said rents are based upon costs, and he would rather have cheaper buildings and cheaper rents than high cost buildings and high cost rents. Freerks asked how many parking spaces he would be short for his current project based on his calculations of the new parking and occupancy standards. Clark said he would be approximately 20 spaces short. Freerks asked Staff if it seemed reasonable that the City could come up with 20 additional spaces. Greenwood-Hektoen said it was not really possible to speculate. Howard said the idea is that if you have a site of a certain size that can accommodate a certain number of parking spaces, then the question becomes how much more development can be accommodated on that site. Howard said that in this particular case the site is fairly close to a parking ramp and she presumed the chances of approval were better than if 50 spaces were being requested. Freerks asked how many residential spaces had been granted to date. Staff did not know. Howard said that the idea that the City does not allow parking downtown is misleading. She said that special exceptions to provide on-site parking are allowed under the current ordinance; already, Howard said, the system functions in such a way as to allow long-term permits. Busard asked Clark if he had considered creating higher-end apartments. Busard said he thought the whole point of these two ordinances was to encourage long-term residential and family living in the downtown area. Busard said based on the predicament Clark is in it seems as though the ordinance may be working. Clark said that his intention was to build extremely nice one and two bedroom apartments. He said that his company does not do high-rises; the Moen group does high-rises and high-end building. Clark said that his building on Market and Linn Street has a mix of residents; however, students will remain the predominant market for downtown. Plahutnik pointed out that although Clark said parking that was 600 feet away would be useless, the closest parking would be at least four or five blocks away if there was no parking requirement. The social cost of passing the parking problem off into neighborhoods is what the Commission is attempting to address, Plahutnik said. Clark said that where parking is not required, fewer people park. That is to say, people are disinclined to bring or use their cars regularly when they know that there will not be easy access to parking near their home. Clark said that AUR does have parking lots in areas where they are not required; some years they are completely packed, and some years there are availabilities. He said he would obviously rather transfer people to AUR-owned parking lots if necessary rather than rent additional stalls from the City. Plahutnik noted that off-site parking was allowable as long as it is developer- provided. Howard said that the use of parking ramps was just one option, parking spaces anywhere in the city can be procured through the same special exception process. Clark noted that parking availability in his lots changes from year to year, so that would be a difficulty unless he could procure some sort of blanket statement saying any ten stalls would be acceptable. Eastham asked Clark if dropping the need for a special exception, while keeping all other aspects of the requirement the same, would make a difference in the problems he was describing. Clark said that either way there would be no guarantee of parking space availability in city ramps. Clark said he believed Staff would do a great job in reviewing the projects, but that he felt it would be nice if there was a standard that would dictate exactly what a developer was required to do to have parking allowed, rather than designing a project, spending thousands of dollars, and then having the necessary parking denied. Clark said it was his opinion that every layer of these requirements would hurt development and building downtown. Howard said that there are a lot of special exceptions in the zoning code that are there for good reasons. Howard said there are criteria set up for the Board of Adjustment to review each of those. When a special exception is required, most people will do preliminary design and submit that to the Board of Adjustment. Full blown designing and planning is not generally done prior to securing a special exception. Howard noted that there are a number of criteria in securing a special exception above and beyond simply the number of parking spaces; these criteria include: how the parking looks, how it is accessed, how it is screened from the street, etc. Howard said that generally a special exception is granted if the specified criteria are met; however, it would still be necessary to go through the Parking Department to secure the necessary spaces from the ramps. Planning and Zoning Commission December 4, 2008 -Formal Page 5 No one else wished to comment and the public hearing was closed. Freerks said she would entertain a motion. She reiterated that a goal had been set to give something to City Council for their December 16~h meeting. Eastham motioned to approve the amendments to the Zoning Code Article 14-5A, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, to include minimum parking requirements for Household Living Uses in the Central Business (CB-10) zone. Plahutnik seconded. Freerks opened the floor for Commission discussion Eastham made a second motion to eliminate the provision that required a special exception for when the applicant was seeking to satisfy parking requirements off-site within aCity-owned parking ramp. Plahutnik said he would be interested in hearing more about this idea. Freerks noted that in order to proceed to discussion of the matter, the motion must be seconded. There was no second and that motion died for lack of a second. Freerks returned discussion to the initial motion Busard said he believed the ordinance would not discourage any small-scale development and would definitely help to curb the dormitory-style apartments that had been developing downtown. Busard said it was his wish that the downtown was more business-oriented rather than residential, and that he believed that these ordinances would go a long way toward keeping the downtown viable for business. Payne said that she believed the new occupancy standards addressed the dormitory-style living, but did not see that the parking ordinance was doing anything to address that. Payne said that she sees the current parking ordinance as more of a hurt than a help. Freerks asked Payne if she believed that the parking ordinance hurt the whole community or just the developers. Payne said she felt it hurt both. She said she did not like the idea of long-term residential parking in municipal ramps because she felt it would perpetuate a perception that more ramp parking was needed than actually is. Freerks asked Payne where she suggested the parking should be done. Payne acknowledged that presently parking was spilling over into the nearby neighborhoods. Freerks said that simply not addressing the parking problem is not a solution to the problem. Koppes noted that mention had already been made of the option of renting space from another building. Payne noted that you could not simply rent space from another building; the special exception process would actually require property owners to deed those parking spaces over to the other building with a restrictive covenant. Howard said it was important to keep in mind that for the majority of new projects these requirements would make developers build the parking on site. That, she said, is the purpose of this ordinance. Freerks said that she felt that the city has come a long way, noting that Clark was correct when he said that at one point on-site parking was not even allowed in the CB-10 zone. She said that Clark had acknowledged that people want to park near their homes, and she noted, nothing could be more ideal than parking right beneath your building. Payne said that a better alternative may be to require that developers have some parking on-site rather than requiring that they have a certain number of spaces (which could be off-site). Freerks said that for her that would not address the issue. Payne said if the goal is to encourage on-site parking, then that should be what the ordinance addresses. Busard said that having parking on-site would almost force developers to create higher-end apartments. He said that it is not affordable to build underground parking for standard student apartments. Busard said that the intent of the ordinance was to curb dormitory-style living in the downtown area. He said forcing developers to build underground or provide on-site parking would be more conducive to family-friendly development. Eastham asked Busard to elaborate, because he did not see how requiring on-site parking would result in higher-end units. Busard said that the additional costs would require ahigher-end market. Eastham asked if he meant that the parking cost per unit would be significantly higher, and Busard said that was correct. Plahutnik said that in the CB-10 zone the problem that is being faced is high-rise, high-density residential buildings. Plahutnik said that when the switch is made from several floors of office space to residential, Planning and Zoning Commission December 4, 2008 -Formal Page 6 then the parking needs increase to semi-permanent spaces needed for day and for overnight. This is something the City has not been faced with before in the downtown area. Plahutnik said the Commission had been quick to pull the trigger in moving the CB-10 zone across Burlington Street without really considering the parking repercussions. The Hieronymus Building was a situation that was solved due to the close proximity of a parking ramp. However, when the Clarks came up with a similar plan the question of where all of these people would be parking came up. Plahutnik said the parking ordinance is partially a response to that situation and partially a response to Big Ten's ten-story project of five- bedroom units. Plahutnik said that the three-bedroom requirement is to help prevent ten stories of dorm- style apartments, and the parking ordinance is to address what to do with the cars belonging to these ten stories of people. The intent is to contain some of the vehicles on-site, Plahutnik said. He noted that the parking ramp issue was intended as a tweak to the language which would provide flexibility to those near ramps, or on very small lots. Plahutnik said that in a simple two to three story building downtown parking is not that big of an issue. Parking becomes a big deal when you are dealing with ten stories of residential. Plahutnik said the Commission was attempting to give developers something by reducing the parking requirements from the original draft; however, the Commission is also trying to give the neighborhoods who receive the parking overflow some relief. Payne said that the issue she has is that developers will continuously come to the City and ask for more spaces. The City will then talk to the Parking Director who will continuously try to accommodate the developers. The special exceptions wilt be granted over and over, Payne said, because the necessary criteria will have been met. Soon parking will reach capacity, Payne said, and then the City will want to build another ramp. Payne said her concern is that the public will be subsidizing the parking. Eastham said he was not sure about the subsidy angle, although he did understand her concerns for capacity issues that could arise in the future. If the parking systems are well managed, Eastham contended, the lease fees developers pay will pay for the cost of providing and maintaining the parking. Payne asked if lease fees go back into the parking system, and was told that they do. Eastham contended that if there are empty spaces in the ramp and full parking systems on the street then it is not a parking capacity problem but a user preference issue. Plahutnik said he was thinking that the parking department would be loathe to give out parking spaces in perpetuity. He said he understood that Payne's fear was in the opposite direction. Eastham said he believes the Council had asked the Commission to consider at least two issues: 1) giving developers the opportunity to develop residential units in buildings built before December 31, 2008, and 2) what is a reasonable parking policy for new buildings. In his view, parking is basically an infrastructure issue, like police, fire, and water. Freerks had pointed out that what is being attempted is to retain the commercial viability of the downtown. Eastham said he hoped this would be at least an initial attempt to do that. He said that he did not know if it was adequate to incentivize the building of underground parking for existing buildings. Eastham said he was not so sure the availability of ramp space or privately owned parking has really been determined. Eastham said that in considering this ordinance he is bothered by the lack of data that can be used to determine if these specific measures accomplish the stated goals of providing residential living in the CB-10 areas without overburdening the City-owned parking system. Eastham said he is nonetheless going to vote for this measure, although he believes it is possible that it may need some tweaking as development progresses in the downtown area. Plahutnik said he has been fairly clear that he supports this measure. He said that not all development downtown should be residential, and that the City needs to encourage business uses and strive to keep downtown as a viable business area. He said this ordinance is one more method of trying to encourage business development and steer residential development in a different direction. Koppes said she would be supporting the amendment. Payne noted that the people who currently park on the street overnight in residential neighborhoods already have the ability to go lease a spot in a City-owned garage and choose not to do so. Payne said she believes the ordinance needs more thought. Planning and Zoning Commission December 4, 2008 -Formal Page 7 Weitzel said he believes that planning is not an exact science and there are too many variables for the Commission to come up with a formula agreed on by everyone. He said the Commission is doing its best to come up with some compromises and make some predictions. Weitzel said he believed the current one was a very practical solution. He said he was not sure that it was a permanent solution, but that he felt it was good for the time being. Freerks said she saw this measure as a compromise. The downtown is a unique and fragile atmosphere that is always changing. That being said, downtown has many wonderful aspects that need to be nurtured and protected. Things will always change, said Freerks, and development will always be needed. Freerks said that change needs to be thought about in a way and at a pace that the community can accept and integrate. Development may go forward at a pace that better suits and accommodates with these parking changes, Freerks said. She said that the issue is two-pronged for her and includes both the residential aspects and the need to maintain a viable commercial presence downtown where people can walk and park. Freerks said she will support the measure, noting that while it is not perfect, it is something that she can support. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-1 (Payne voting in the negative) CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: November 17 & November 20 2008: Eastham motioned to accept the minutes. Payne seconded. There was discussion of some wording changes noted by Payne. The minutes were approved on a vote of 7-0. OTHER: Busard notified Commissioners and Staff that he would be absent the week of December 14tH Plahutnik stated that the University of Iowa is in the process of figuring out what to do with the riverfront, and, he noted, the City has its own problems with riverfront areas south of Benton Street. He said that now is a crucial time to start working seriously on a comprehensive plan for those riverfront areas along Burlington Street and to the south. Plahutnik said the University will be making some decisions about which the Commission will have no say, but those decisions will affect what happens down-river. He said that if the City could integrate in with the University's planning process and make that area a better part of town, this would be a crucial opportunity. Plahutnik said this is an area the Commission should address pretty quickly because it is the area where the fastest change is going to happen. Howard said that there are some areas of the Central District plan that can be looked at; specifically, there has been interest in the creation of the urban mixed use zone addressed in the plan. Plahutnik said he expects to see fewer large-scale subdivision projects over the next eighteen months as the financial world sorts itself out; and these would be the issues addressed in the Southeast District Plan, which is the next plan on the agenda. Plahutnik said that once the University gets rolling on its planning for the riverfront in the Central District things will begin happening pretty quickly. Howard said she knows that the City is having ongoing conversations with the University about the use of the riverfront. She agreed that were a few implementation items from the Central District Plan that could be put on the Commission's list in the near future. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel motioned to adjourn. Busard seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote at 8:50 p.m. O .~ N .~ 0 U~ ~ O c v •~ d N ~ o ~ ~ N ~ ~ c 'a 'c ~ m c Y ~Q a w U 3 O N r x x x x x x x O r X X X X X X ~ X X X ~ ~ x X co o X X X X X O X T ~ x x x x x x x ~ x x x x x x x X X X ~ ~ X X X X X ~ X X X X X X X X O X X X X X ~ X X X X ~ X X ~ ~ X X X ; ~ X ~ ~ X X X ~ X X N N ~ X X X ~ ~ X ~ X X X I X i I I ~ X X X X ; M X X X i X r I X X X I X I `= r" ~ x x x ! ~ x ~ ~~ ~-- ~- M N O O M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f-W o o o o o 0 0 ~ !~4 Y d d Y C z m W~ i Y a ~ ~ ~ ~ a ci a w ~ F- N r X X x x X x o ~ X X X X X X ~ M ~ x x x x x x x M o e- X X X X X X X ~ X X X X X X X w ~ X X X X X X ~ ~ n X X X W ~ ; ~ W ~ X X X X X ~ X X i X X X ~ X X x x x x x ~ ' ~ x x x ; x ; . N j i X X X I I w O I i ~ N ~ ' X X X I w O I I ~ ~ ~ M N O O M ~. ~_ ~ r 7 r ~ .- ~ r ~ ~- ~ ~- ~ r ~ I-W t 0 0 0 0 t f) 0 0 0 ~ IC Y d d Y C d a ~ Z m ly ~i Y a ~ ~ v d ui ~ 3 ~ U X W C ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ Q a Q n >, n n w YXOO