HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-15-2011 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, December 15, 2011 - 7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
D. Comprehensive Plan Item
Public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the boundary of the Northside
Marketplace to exclude properties at 228 & 232 Bloomington Street and 311 & 313 N Linn Street.
E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: November 28 and December 1, 2011
F. Other
G. Adjournment
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Informal January 2 * I January 16 * I January 30 I Fahriiary 13
9 1 February 2 1 Febrn
* Meeting cancelled due to
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Robert Miklo
Date: December 15, 2011
Re: Comprehensive Plan - Northside Marketplace Plan Map
When reviewing CPA11 -00003 and REZ11- 00012, applications pertaining to changing
the land use designation and zoning of property at the southwest corner of the
intersection of Linn and Bloomington streets, the Commission proposed changing the
boundary of the Northside Marketplace Plan Map to make it clear that the properties
located at 228 -232 Bloomington Street and 311 and 313 Linn Street are not within the
boundaries of the Northside Marketplace.
The attached Northside Marketplace shows the proposed revision.
r �
Northside Marketplace Plan Map
313
zz8
310
zsz
'
sit
'
404
'
318_ . 322
305
Imam
E BLOOMINGTON ST '
'
wiffiiakfia
225 230
rM
N
4
N 214
w
V
0
8
d2
Z
8
s30 m 10
'
m
z
J
J
Q
212 &
218 &
Z
(j 204
2Q4 214
220 , .
2
Z
'
Z
'
E MARKET ST
'
3
32
'
21 -227
127
125
'
19 -123
19
2
6
E JEFFERSON ST
-� Northside Marketplace Boundary
Q Single- family Residential Stabilization
W High Density Multi- family
� Office Commercial
Urban Commercial
[ Mixed Use
N
- Private Institutional
0 Public Institutional
Q National Register Properties
* Other Significant Historic Properties
313
zz8
zsz
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
NOVEMBER 28, 2011 — 5:30 PM — INFORMAL
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Tim Weitzel,
Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Michelle Payne
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS:
1. Consider setting a public hearing for December 15, 2011 to amend the
Comprehensive Plan to change the boundary of the Northside Marketplace to
exclude properties at 228 & 232 Bloomington Street and 311 & 313 N. Linn Street.
Miklo stated that the Commission and the Council requested the modification of the
boundary of the Northside Marketplace and to remove the three properties. The duplces
at 228 & 232 Bloomington is one property.
2. Public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use
designation from Office Commercial to High Density Multi - Family Residential for
property located at 821 E. Jefferson Street.
Freerks stated that this would be discussed with REZ11- 00018.
3. Public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use
designation from Private Institutional to Low to Medium Density Multi - Family
Stabilization for property located at 602 E. Washington Street.
Freerks stated this went with REZ11 -00017 / VAC11- 00002.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 28, 2011 - Informal
Page 2 of 5
REZONING ITEMS:
REZ11 -00017 / VAC11- 00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Hunter
Properties for a rezoning from Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone and Neighborhood
Stabilization Residential (RSN -20) zone to Planned Development Overlay Neighborhood
Stabilization Residential (OPD /RSN -20) zone for approximately 1 acre of property located
at 602 E. Washington Street and the vacation of a portion of the alley right -of -way located
east of Johnson Street, south of Ralston Creek.
Miklo stated that the Comprehensive Plan shows this property as institutional recognizing the
religious institution that is on the property. The synagogue will be moving to another location.
Staff feels that the Comprehensive Plan land use designation should be the same as the
adjacent properties which are Neighborhood Conservation.
The new development plan was delivered last Wednesday and staff is reviewing it. Staff feels
that the concepts are good but there are design details that may need to be changed. Miklo
stated that the current RM -12 zoning will allow 16 apartments with up to 3 bedrooms each for a
total of 48 bedrooms. If the developer doesn't purchase the property then it will be likely be
purchased from someone who would build 16 three - bedroom apartments. The applicant has
committed to building two- bedroom apartments. The floor plan is a bit different than most
apartment being built near and campus and downtown. The plan shows that the rooms have
more space and more amenities which may attract a variety of residents and not just students.
The previous application was just to rezone to RNS -20. The applicant amended the application
to include the plan development process which allows the commission to consider a slightly
taller building. The plan proposes to raise the height to 44 feet from 35 feet.
Miklo stated that the applicant did submit an elevation study showing how the building would fit
into the neighborhood. Mid - American Energy has given their input on needing an easement in
the alley way. Freerks asked about occupancy. Miklo stated that with RNS -12 zone would
allow three unrelated persons. The proposed RNS -20 zone would allow 4. Freerks stated that
they are only required to have two parking spots per unit. Miklo confirmed that was correct.
Eastham asked if staff felt that the elevation sketch showing the proposed building in relations to
the existing buildings was fairly accurate. Miklo stated that it was an approximation and if you
were to look at the property it is much lower than the surrounding properties. Dyer stated that
the new building would be almost twice as high as the building located across Johnson Street.
Weitzel asked if the Commission could make a recommendation continued upon successful
review by Preservation Commission. Miklo stated that this is a planned development so part of
the development Commission will approve the building design or ask for a new design. Dyer
stated she had concerns with the west and east elevation and there is not an obvious entry way
on the eastside. Staff stated that the plan has not yet been reviewed for compliance with the
zoning code, but there is a requirement that the street level cannot look like a garage. Koppes
stated that she doesn't have any issues with the building design. She just knew that there had
been discussion before regarding compatibility with the neighborhood and she feels that the
plan currently doesn't reflect that. Miklo advised Commission to bring up their points at
Thursday's meeting.
Freerks stated that this will be a major change for that location and that it is important to make
sure the building is compatible with the neighborhood. Weitzel stated that it should be a style
that matches what is on the block. The building should not be its own style. Dyer stated she
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 28, 2011 - Informal
Page 3 of 5
thought the design makes it look like a commercial building.
Freerks stated she feels that parking is a concern. Payne stated she didn't think it was realistic
to think that there would be students and nonstudents living in the same building. Miklo stated
that the applicant said his intent is to market to nonstudents. Eastham noted that there are
families living in that neighborhood.
REZ11- 00018: Discussion of an application submitted by Prime Ventures Construction,
Inc. for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO -1) zone to High Density Multi - Family
Residential (RM -44) zone for approximately .47 acres of property located at 821 E.
Jefferson Street.
There was a short discussion on the 45 -Day Limitation Period being waived and not having a
set date. Howard stated that she would check with the applicant.
Howard stated that she provided information from the Central District Plan. She asked the
Commission if there was any more information that is needed. Koppes stated that her concern
was that there have been a lot of up- zoning of properties and there are already problems and to
continue to up -zone will only create more problems. Freerks stated that she was bothered by
the zone change because across the street it is a much lower density zone.
Eastham asked what the Council's plan is to review the RM -44 zone and does that effect the
application. Howard stated that there was not a lot of direction because it was an informal
meeting time and the discussion was brief. There were concerns discussed about the RM -44
zoning and that it is not resulting in attractive neighborhoods. Staff anticipated reviewing the
occupancy and parking standards for the zone.
Eastham stated that there was a property to the north of the applicant that has been
redeveloped. He asked if this was done in the last two years. Howard stated it was the
property to the west and it was built in the last two years. It is one building with five townhouse
style units with four and five bedrooms. The building just opened this past fall. Eastham asked
if was already zoned RM -44. Howard stated that was correct that the property was already
zoned RM -44 prior to purchase.
Weitzel stated that what he is hearing that four and five bedroom units seem to be a problem
and it seems that three bedrooms are getting grouped in as well. He asked what staff's view
was on number of bedrooms per unit. Howard stated for three bedrooms apartments there is a
question as to whether they would be rented out to other population as well as students.
Howard stated that four and five bedroom units were no longer allowed in CB -5 and CB -10
zones. Eastham asked staff if they knew what the percentage was in allowing three bedrooms
over one and two bedrooms. Miklo stated that for Hieronymus Square it is limited to no more
than 30% of the total dwelling units. Koppes asked if there was information on vacancy rates.
Miklo stated that he thought it was at 1 % within a mile of the Pentecrest and as you go out it
goes up. Freerks asked how long the property has been on the market. Miklo stated that staff
first became aware it was being marketed in the spring of 2011. Dyer asked if there have been
any elevation plans. Howard stated that there is one in the packet of information.
Eastham stated that the staff recommendation was to support the rezoning request subject to
the Comprehensive Plan amendment and general compliance with the submitted drawing. He
asked what the submitted drawings were. Howard stated that they were the elevation drawings.
Howard stated that if there are concerns about the building design they could be addressed.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 28, 2011 -Informal
Page 4 of 5
Weitzel stated that he understands that it is easier to build fewer apartments with more
bedrooms and students like it because it makes their rent cheaper. He stated that his concern
is that it will lead to problems with parking. Freerks stated that it looked like it would be
marketed for a mix of people to rent and not just to students. Howard stated that there has
been discussion on the number of bedrooms in the higher density zones. There was some
discussion on what the layout and size is like for a student versus a nonstudent by way of
bedrooms and common living space. Dyer asked what else was on the block, renters or owner
occupied. Howard stated that she thought most were renting. Eastham stated that he was
trying to think of an appropriate zoning for the property. Weitzel stated that it would be good to
get the percentage of three - bedrooms versus other sizes as well as if commercial would be
appropriate on the ground floor. Howard stated that the issue has been the floodplain the
current building does not comply with the floodplain regulations.
ADJOURNMENT:
Koppes motioned to adjourn.
Payne seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6 -0 vote.
z
O
N
cn p
0 U
vLu
Zw�
V G
O Q N
Np
ad W
O�
z
za
z
J
a
z
w
w
2
O
LL
z
p
w
w
m
O
LL
z
x-
X
X
X
X
r
M
XXXXXX
;
X
T-
0
oxxxXO
;
x
T-
r
oxxXXXXX
xxxxx-1
X
,xxxxxxx
CD
�
XX
-
XXXx
co
x
x
uj
0
X
x
x
X
co
XXOX�XX
nXXXXX0X
Z
X
X
x
X
x
�
X
�XXXX��X
w0XXOxxx
oxxxxxx
co
N_'
XXXXXX
Z-
�XXxx�X
T-
M_i
XXXXXX
L
x
X
x
X
O
X
O
N_i
_�
xoxxxx
XXXXOx
M_:
xxxxxx
tnM
N_,
xxxoXx
WE X
00000
o
o
o
o
o
o
N_
X
X
X
X
X
X
w
>-
z
J
J
�wCDC4MNCnLOM
z
Z
=
Z
z
�X0000000
J
2
w
?�
w
OL)<w
w
}
�
z
J
cn
w
J
J
V=
Z
=
w
w
J
2
waz
w
=H
EwfAwa,Q-
0
C)
-4
LU
Q>-
zbwwYaa3:
Q
2
N
2
_
z
J
V=
M
W
w
W�
w�E—waz
=�
2wcowCL
Q�Q�OQJw
zoww�Ca.a�
z
p
w
w
m
O
LL
z
E
0
-00
N p
�z
L
U p�
X
LU
N
c E
u�iU) -00
a).Qz
a n
n n w 2
XOOz
r
w
Y
co
XXXXXX
;
X
r-xxxxx
;
x
T-
r-
T-
xxxxx-1
X
,Xxxxxxx
Cn
Nxxxxxxx
co
XXOX�XX
co
Z
X
X
x
X
x
�
X
�
oxxxxxx
co
N_'
XXXXXX
N
T-
M_i
XXXXXX
r
O
N_i
xxxxxx
tnM
aw(000MNLo
WE X
00000
o
o
o
o
o
o
w
w
>-
z
J
J
Z
=
J
2
w
?�
OL)<w
�
Q
cn
E
z
J
V=
w
W
w
w
F -
waz
W�
=H
EwfAwa,Q-
Q>-
zbwwYaa3:
QWOQJw
E
0
-00
N p
�z
L
U p�
X
LU
N
c E
u�iU) -00
a).Qz
a n
n n w 2
XOOz
r
w
Y
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
DECEMBER 1, 2011 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth
Koppes, Tim Weitzel, Michelle Payne
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Gary Watts, Nancy Carlson, John Thomas, Karen Hopp, Mike Wright,
Leslie Schwalm, Doris Stormoen, Tim Taffe
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 5 -0 (Payne abstaining) to recommend denial of an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Office Commercial to High
Density Multi - Family Residential for property located at 821 E. Jefferson Street.
The Commission voted 5 -0 (Payne abstaining) to recommend denial of REZ11 -00018 an
application submitted by Prime Ventures Construction, Inc. for a rezoning from Commercial
Office (CO -1) zone to High Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -44) zone for approximately
.47 acres of property located at 821 E. Jefferson Street.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS:
1. Consider setting a public hearing for December 15, 2011 to amend the
Comprehensive Plan to change the boundary of the Northside Marketplace to
exclude properties at 228 & 232 Bloomington Street and 311 & 313 N. Linn Street.
Payne made a motion to set a public hearing.
Eastham seconded.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 1, 2011 - Formal
Page 2 of 9
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0.
2. Public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use
designation from Office Commercial to High Density Multi - Family Residential for
property located at 821 E. Jefferson Street.
Freerks noted this item is with REZ11- 00018.
3. Public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation
from Private Institutional to Low to Medium Density Multi- Family Stabilization for
property located at 602 E. Washington Street.
Freerks noted this item is with REZ11 -00017 / VAC11- 00002.
REZONING ITEMS:
REZ11 -00017 / VAC11- 00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Hunter Properties
for a rezoning from Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone and Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential (RSN -20) zone to Planned Development Overlay Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential (OPD /RSN -20) zone for approximately 1 acre of property located at 602 E.
Washington Street and the vacation of a portion of the alley right -of -way located east of
Johnson Street, south of Ralston Creek.
Freerks noted that the 45 -day limitation has been waived and the applicant has asked to defer the
item until the January 5, 2012.
Miklo stated that they did receive a plan last Wednesday and staff has done an initial review and
found that there were several aspects that did not comply with the code requirements or the
historic preservation standards. The applicant is reworking the plan for the January meeting.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved to defer the Comprehensive Plan Item and REV 1 -00017 / VAC11 -00002
until January 5, 2012.
Koppes seconded.
Eastham stated that he has look carefully at the floor plans and he stated he understood that the
applicant intends to market the property to mix of young professionals and older persons. The
floor plan for the units seems to be favorable to that. Eastham discussed specifics of the floor plan
that makes the units desirable.
Weitzel stated that the exterior of the property doesn't go with the historic neighborhood. The
applicant should work with staff to find a style that matches the historic properties.
Freerks stated that the lot is important and it is across from College Green Park with a lot of
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 1, 2011 - Formal
Page 3 of 9
historical significance for Iowa City. She stated that the exterior of the property does not fit in with
the historic neighborhood. Freerks agreed with Eastham on that the interior layout of the units
would be attractive to a variety of tenants.
Eastham stated that it is important to keep in mind the location of the property when trying to
decide if the proposed design is compatible with the neighborhood.
Koppes stated her concerns are the parking for the area and the occupancy for the building. She
asked for more information to be able to understand those two issues. With the up- zoning going
from RM -12 to RSN -20 with a planned development overlay and Koppes stated she was
concerned with the reasoning for this up- zoning. She asked for information on how many units
there could be with the current zoning.
Dyer stated that all of the other buildings around the park have a pitched roof. This property would
be out of place with a flat roof. She noted another concern with the mass of the building. Dyer
stated that the building would be twice as high as the other buildings across the street.
Eastham noted to the applicant the possibility of having unrelated occupancy limits that are lower
than provided in RSN -20. He is hoping for a possibility to reduce that to the current zoning which
only allows three unrelated occupants.
A vote was taken for deferral and the motion carried 6 -0.
REZ11- 00018: Discussion of an application submitted by Prime Ventures Construction, Inc.
for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO -1) zone to High Density Multi - Family Residential
(RM -44) zone for approximately .47 acres of property located at 821 E. Jefferson Street.
Payne recused herself due to conflict of interest with the applicant and her campaign. Payne left
the meeting.
Howard showed a location map noting it is along Jefferson Street and is mid -block between Lucas
and Governor Street. The property used to be a medial office and is now vacant and the land if for
sale. The proposed application is to take down the empty building and put up a high density multi-
family building. The property is located in the Ralston Creek flood plain. The idea is to put parking
on the ground level and the residential units would be raised above the flood plain level. Howard
noted the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Most of the area surrounding the property
is a mix of single family, duplex, and multi - family rental units and the zoning for the area is single
family residential stabilization to the north, multi - family stabilization to the south and the
immediately abutting properties on the east and west within the same block as 821 E. Jefferson
are zoned high density multi - family residential (RM -44). The current CO -1 zoning allows office
uses and this zone also allows multi - family units above a commercial space at a density that is
similar to the RM -12 (low density multi - family zone) which would allow for seven dwelling units with
up to four bedrooms per unit. The RM -44 zone is intended for high density multi - family
development. On this particular property, which is approximately a half acre in size and there could
be a maximum of 20 apartments with up to five bedrooms per apartment, but the actual number of
apartments that can be achieved is largely based on how many parking spaces will fit on the
property.
Howard stated that the Central District Plan has a section addressing housing and quality of life
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 1, 2011 - Formal
Page 4 of 9
issues within the central neighborhoods with the intent to balance the need for university student
housing with the demand for housing for families and other populations within the older
neighborhoods close to downtown and campus. With regard to these issues, the RM -44 zone has
been recently discussed at the City Council and they have expressed concerns about whether the
zoning rules for his zone have been resulting in a quality living environment for the residents and
for the surrounding neighborhood. Concerns have been expressed that this zone has not always
achieved the high quality that is expected. The Council has asked staff to look at the zone and see
what could be improved. While the staff have not had time to analyze how this zone could be
improved, one of the suggestions that staff has heard is to eliminate the option for four and five -
bedroom apartments and perhaps even require a mix of apartment sizes in anyone building. The
applicant is proposing to do 12 three - bedroom units, two two- bedroom units and one one - bedroom
unit for a total of 15 apartments, 41 bedrooms, and 29 parking spaces. The applicant has
intentionally avoided including 4- and 5- bedroom units based on the concerns expressed by the
neighborhood and by the Council.
Weitzel asked if the Commission was going to be able to restrict the occupancy numbers versus
the number of bedrooms per unit as discussed at Monday's meeting. Howard stated that there has
been precedent for conditional zoning agreements to restrict the larger apartments (3 bedroom +) to
a certain percentage so that there is a mix. Hektoen stated that would be fine. Hektoen also
asked the Commission if trying to restrict the occupancy permit would the Commission want to
consider why they would allow for the upzoning in the first place. Weitzel stated he was thinking
the number of bedrooms not the occupancy. Howard clarified that the number of bedrooms per
apartment relates to the occupancy and the residential density is determined by how many
dwelling units are allowed per acre of land according to the zoning district. Weitzel asked what the
evidence was for three - bedroom units and if they were as problematic as four and five - bedroom
apartments. He asked if there were ways that the Commission could control the number of
unrelated people in a unit and still maintain the density. Howard stated that you would do that by
restricting the number of bedrooms per apartment and by bolstering that with a restriction on the
number of unrelated occupants per unit.
Koppes asked about the different zones and the zones having different allowed occupancies.
Howard confirmed that was correct to some extent. She stated that RM -20 and RNS -20 zones
allow up to four bedrooms /unrelated occupants per unit and the RM -12 zone only allows three
bedrooms /unrelated occupants. Eastham stated that he thought the occupancy limits were
independent of how many bedrooms that each dwelling unit contained. Howard stated that is
technically true but generally with student housing most will want to have their own bedroom and
not share. The trend gives a general sense of the technical occupancy of the units that doesn't
mean that a two- bedroom unit couldn't have five in a RM -44 zone that allows up to five unrelated
occupants. Howard stated that if the Commission wants to address occupancy itself and put a limit
on occupancy through a conditional zoning agreement that could be tied to the number of
bedrooms. Hektoen stated that it makes sense to tie occupancy to the number of bedrooms.
Koppes brought up the fact that the parking area is being used by a lot of surplus parking. She
asked that the applicant bring up any suggestions that they may have on the issue.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Gary Watts stated he was with Prime Ventures. He stated the property was located between two
RM -44 zoned properties. Watts stated that they have gone through four different sets of plans to
come up with the building. The building would be worth two and half million and they feel it is very
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 1, 2011 - Formal
Page 5 of 9
compatible with the neighborhood. Koppes asked if he had any suggestions on the parking issue.
Watts stated that he did not and he was following City code. Eastham stated that the applicant
indicated that their marketing strategy is to market some of the units in the building to young
professionals. The floor plan shows eight of the three - bedroom units with a living area opening
toward the east and west, which faces the walls of the buildings next door, while the bedrooms
open up to the north and south, which are the more open views. He asked the applicant to
comment on why he chose the directions for the rooms, because it seemed counter to what most
renters would want, particularly if the units were marketed for young professionals or families.
Watts noted they would not discriminate on who would rent the units and students could live there
if they wanted. He stated that his designer was not present for the meeting to discuss the direction
of the rooms but he would be willing to look into it.
Nancy Carlson, 1002 E. Jefferson Street, Iowa City, IA, talked about the introductory provisions of
the zoning code. She stated that the property may be compatible with the two properties next to it
the area is an island surrounded by two zones with entirely different land uses and focus. Carlson
stated by changing this property it will affect the surrounding area for years and decades. There
are two buildings in the area that have a total of 58 residents, most likely students, and by adding
this new building you are adding another 41 residents for a total of 99 residents in this one half of a
block. Carlson submitted letters from other residents in the area that were not able to make it to
the meeting that expresses their concern for the new proposed property.
John Thomas, 509 Brown Street, Iowa City, IA, stated he would read a letter and a petition that
was signed by eight landlords in the surrounding area that have properties on Market, E. Jefferson
and Iowa Avenue. Thomas read the letters and it expressed their concerns and gave the copies to
the Commission.
Karen Hopp, 26 N. Governor Street, Iowa City, IA, stated she is a long term resident and her home
is her haven and she would like it to stay that way. Hopp stated that the neighborhood has
changed over the years. There are more rental, rooming, and apartment complexes in the area.
The green spaces have disappeared and there are more vehicles in the area. Hopp stated that
she has a concern about overcrowding. She asked the Commission to review the items listed
under the purposes stated in the zoning code and to keep the property zoned as CO -1, which
would allow a lower density.
Mike Wright, 225 N. Lucas Street, Iowa City, IA, stated his disclaimer that he is a City Council
member at present but by the time this reaches the City Council he will no longer be a member.
Wright stated he was against the Comprehensive Plan change and the rezoning issue. RM -44
zoning is not compatible with lower density RNS -12 that is across the street. He stated that earlier
in the week at a strategic planning session the City Council stressed that neighborhood
stabilization would be the key in their planning over the next few years. He asked that the
Commission to consider the scale and density that is being proposed. Wright encouraged the
Commission to vote against the two items.
Leslie Schwalm, 819 E. Market Street, Iowa City, IA, stated she has lived on her property since
1991. They have worked hard to maintain a sense of community of long term residents, people
that preserve their property, and to get to know each other. The change of zoning that has been
proposed will work against their effort in stabilizing a neighborhood. Schwalm stated that her main
concern was the number of people and the number of bedrooms. The change in zoning will take
away the quality of life and the peace and quiet that neighborhoods get to enjoy. She asked the
Commission to not approve the items.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 1, 2011 - Formal
Page 6 of 9
Doris Stormoen, 819 E. Market Street, Iowa City, IA, stated she agrees with all that have
commented. Stormoen expressed her concern on the number of people who will live in the units
and how that will be monitored. She stated that she would like the zoning to not change rather
than try to limit the damage that would result with a zone change.
Tim Taffe, 726 Iowa Avenue, Iowa City, IA, stated he was the owner of the property. He told a
story that happened two weeks ago after the last meeting he found the next morning that his wood
fence had been vandalized. Taffe talked about the semantics and the wording that the developer
is using toward the property. He pointed out specific words that were used that don't really apply
to what is being built. Taffe stated that he feels that the project has been misrepresented and that
the Commission should reject it.
Nancy Carlson, 1002 E. Jefferson Street, Iowa City, IA, stated that when they were told about the
development they were under the impression it would be two separate items on the agenda. The
first letter that was signed was signed for the change to the comprehensive plan. The second
letter has to do with the project itself. Carlson read the letter regarding concern about the project
and submitted it for the record.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved to approve the amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use
designation from Office Commercial to High Density Multi- Family Residential for property
located at 821 E. Jefferson Street.
Weitzel seconded.
Freerks noted that this request is a difficult issue and for the Comprehensive Plan change there
are items that need to be supported in the community such as stabilization and the quality of living.
Freerks stated that she wasn't sure that this was the time to make an additional piece of property
RM -44 in the community.
Eastham stated that the area is an unusual area to try and fit into the code, as well as into the
overall needs of the Comprehensive Plan which is to provide a living space that is desirable for all
income groups and all family types. Eastham asked if the Comprehensive Plan change that is
proposed would only allow RM -44 zoning. Howard explained that the designation on the plan map
would be "high density multi - family residential" and that would indicate that RM -44 or PRM would
be appropriate zoning for properties with that comprehensive plan map designation. Eastham
asked if by approving the Comprehensive Plan it would allow only the PRM or RM -44. Howard
stated that by approving the comprehensive plan map change it would indicate that either of those
zones would be appropriate. She explained that in the CO -1 zone it does allow multi - family
residential density similar to the RM -12 but it has to be located above commercial space.
However, one of the differences between the CO -1 zone and the RM -12 Zone is that the CO -1
Zone allows four - bedroom apartments and the RM -12 allows a maximum of three - bedroom
apartments. Eastham stated that he has difficulty on the redevelopment because the two
properties to the east and west seem to be designed almost exclusively for undergraduate student
occupancy and in his opinion the property for this application seems to also be designed to mainly
be attractive to undergraduate student occupancy. It would be better if the building was designed in
a manner that would also be attractive to other populations such as for professionals, graduate
students, or family occupancy, either rental or owner - occupied at an appropriate density. Eastham
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 1, 2011 - Formal
Page 7 of 9
stated that he is not inclined to go ahead with the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Koppes agreed with Eastham. She stated that she is not in favor of changing the Comprehensive
Plan to only high density multi - family. Koppes stated she didn't think it would be good to change
the zone to RM -44 when across the street are lower density single family uses. She stated she
would not be in support of the amendment.
Dyer stated she shares the same concerns. She stated that parking isn't set at what the residents
need. Dyer stated that it doesn't seem right to approve something that will aggravate the parking
problem. Requiring more parking spaces would not deal with the issues of visitors. She stated
that the parking is a serious problem that needs to be looked into.
Weitzel stated that there have been a lot of comments on the concern of the density of the area.
He stated that he has not been persuaded to go beyond the density that would be allowed in the
low density multi - family zone (RM -12).
A vote was taken and motion was denied 0 -5 (Payne recused).
Freerks asked for a motion on the Rezoning Item REZ11- 00018.
Weitzel moved to approve REZ11- 00018.
Eastham seconded.
Freerks asked for discussion.
Koppes stated that in the past it has been required to have extra parking spaces for visitors. She
feels the Commission needs to be more responsible about making sure there is enough parking.
Miklo stated that staff has been asked by the City Council to reevaluate RM -44 zone and parking is
included.
Eastham stated his idea with parking is to have the number of parking spaces available for the
number of people that will reside in the apartments. There has been a lot of information on families
and young professionals that are interested in one and two - bedroom units regardless of whether it
is rental or owner - occupied. He feels that the proposal should be geared toward that. Eastham
stated he is okay with the Concept Plan for the exterior it would be a compatible with the
neighborhood but for the other reasons he will not support the rezoning request.
Freerks stated that the exterior building design is fine but the density proposed and the number of
bedrooms is not a very good transition from the lower density RNS -12 across the street. Freerks
feels that it is not the right time to make the zoning change.
A vote was taken and motion was denied 0 -5 (Payne recused).
Miklo noted that if the applicant chooses to take it to the City Council they would need to write a
letter of request within 30 days.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: November 17th, 2011:
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 1, 2011 - Formal
Page 8 of 9
Dyers moved to approve the minutes with corrections.
Eastham seconded.
Eastham noted he was not at the November 2nd meeting. The vote totals are therefore incorrect for
all the votes. The attendance table as well is incorrect. Weitzel noted he had some wording
corrections that he would email to staff.
The motion carried 4 -0 (Payne absent).
OTHER:
Miklo noted that they have had productive meetings on Riverfront Crossings. They hope to have a
draft plan complete by February. Weitzel stated he attended a couple of the meetings and feels
that the market analysis pushes down the size and number of buildings that are likely to be built
there. Howard stated the market analysis was for office and residential. The student housing
market is driving up prices of the land. It is difficult for applicants that want to market other
populations to compete with the developers that can bid up the land price for student population
housing. The student housing market is the hot items right now and that is what banks will lend
money for and universities are finding increased enrollment because of the economy.
ADJOURNMENT:
Koppes moved to adjourn.
Weitzel seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5 -0 vote.
Cxxxxlxl;lx
�IXOXXX XI
M
�xxxxx;x
0
Q X X X X 0 X
T-
o x x x X X X X
�XIXXXXXx
X Xlw X XlxlX
_1 xXXxoX
M =' xlXxxXX
ti
xxxoXX
N_i XXXxxx
2W WCOMNOOM
WMOOOOLOOO
�XCOOOOOOO
04 Y �
� W-
V = W W : W
ww►-waZ2�
2wcnwCL LJJ
� n Q I O Q n 2
�XXOXXXX
z
o
T-
X
X
X
O
X
1
X
X
X
X
x
X
�o
04
xxxxxOu
ti
oxXXXX_l
ti
X
X
X
X
wwX
0
0
20 0
0(-)
z
F-
C� w
Z
X
X
x
X
w LU
X
x
rn
Z V e
O
X
X
O
X
x
X
O 0 N
Q Q
�
x
�
X
-
X
X
co
as
N 2
06 Z
BUJ
U)
O
�XXxXx�X
LuX
O
O
W 0
C7 LL
z
�
i
ZF"
Z Q
LoLUXXXX�X
co
N_'
x
x
X
x
x
x
Z
�
X-
X
X
X
X
CL
N_i
XXXXXX
_1 xXXxoX
M =' xlXxxXX
ti
xxxoXX
N_i XXXxxx
2W WCOMNOOM
WMOOOOLOOO
�XCOOOOOOO
04 Y �
� W-
V = W W : W
ww►-waZ2�
2wcnwCL LJJ
� n Q I O Q n 2
O
7
a_0 0
O
(n
(nz
X p�
X
Z:) N
c a)
c (UD) E
u0i N O
0 z
CL Q 11 n
u n w
x o 0 z
w
Y
o
T-
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
x
X
i
X
T"
ti
oxXXXX_l
X
Irl
Z
X
X
x
X
X
X
x
rn
NXXXxXXX
o
x
x
�
X
-
X
X
co
�XXxXx�X
�
oXXxxxx
co
N_'
x
x
X
x
x
x
N
xXXxxx
N_i
XXXXXX
r
�u=000OMN�U.)M
Fw- X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
w
w
>-
z
J
w
J
z
=
J
2
w
V
Q
m
—
Y
Q�tn
mzJ
V
=�WLLI�w
w
WHwCLzX
--
2wcnw0.
zawwYaa�
[-U
O
7
a_0 0
O
(n
(nz
X p�
X
Z:) N
c a)
c (UD) E
u0i N O
0 z
CL Q 11 n
u n w
x o 0 z
w
Y