Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-01-2012 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, February 27, 2012 - 5:15 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Helling Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Roll Call Thursday, March 1, 2012 - 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda D. Zoning Code Items 1. Discussion of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning, Article 9A, General Definitions, changing the definition of "household" as it applies in the RM -44, PRM, RNS -20, RM -20, and CO -1 zones, so that the maximum number of unrelated persons allowed to reside within a dwelling unit is three, which would make the definition the same as currently applies in all other zones in the city. 2. Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, to establish three as the maximum number of bedrooms allowed within a multi - family dwelling unit in the multi - family zones and in commercial zones that allow multi - family dwelling units and establish new residential density formulas in multi- family zones and in commercial zones that allow multi - family dwelling units. 3. Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Article 5A, Off - Street Parking and Loading Standards, to increase the number of required parking spaces for multi - family dwelling units that contain three or more bedrooms when located within a designated University Impact Area (UTA). E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: February 13 and February 16, 2012 F. Other G. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Informal March 12 Aril 2 Aril 16 Aril 30 Formal March 15 April 5 April 19 Mav 3 r - -Wgwfi _4 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM 7M, Date: February 24, 2012 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner Re: Proposed Zoning Code Amendments related to Neighborhood Stabilization Introduction: In November of 2011 the City Council directed staff to review the High Density Multi - Family (RM -44) zoning designation. The Council asked if the zone should be eliminated. The question arose as a result of concerns expressed by neighborhoods pertaining to large parties, excessive noise, vandalism and spillover parking. Due to these concerns, there has been focused neighborhood opposition to recent infill developments proposed within central neighborhoods close to downtown and the University of Iowa campus. In January, after considerable public concern about redevelopment in the Central Business Service (CB -2) zone in the 500 block of Washington Street, the Council directed staff to broaden the review of the RM -44 zone to include other zoning districts. We were asked to consider issues that affect the strategic plan priority of neighborhood stabilization including parking requirements, building height and scale, open space, dwelling unit density and occupancy (essentially the number of bedrooms per unit). History /Background: The most significant concern has been the proliferation of apartment buildings with large numbers of bedrooms (3, 4 and 5 bedrooms) per unit. Such properties often function as unsupervised dormitories attracting large numbers of college students, but without the amenities and supervision usually present with on- campus housing. A review of nuisance complaints and crime reports reveals a high number of complaints in higher density housing areas near campus. Significantly fewer complaints occur for older buildings containing 1- and 2- bedroom apartments. In the 1970's when the dwelling unit densities per acre that currently apply in the zoning code were established, most apartments being built contained 2- bedroom units. However since the mid- 1990's the majority of apartments being built near campus and downtown have been 4- and 5- bedroom units, resulting in a doubling of the density of bedrooms per acre than what was anticipated when the density standards were originally adopted. This change is likely in response to a significant increase in enrollment at the University over this time period without a commensurate increase in the number of on- campus dormitory units, which has increased the number of undergraduate students searching for off - campus housing. With these current market pressures, the density formulas adopted in the 1970's that require the same amount of lot area per unit regardless of whether the units are 1- bedroom or 5- bedroom units, have created a significant market incentive to build units with the largest number of bedrooms possible and created a disincentive to build smaller units. In other words, rather than allowing the market to respond freely to the relative demand for apartments of different sizes, the zoning rules are incentivizing 3 -, 4- and 5- bedroom dormitory- style apartments that are only attractive to one market segment — undergraduate college students. In addition, if there are singles, couples, retirees, older students, or families that are searching for an affordable apartment, it is financially difficult for them to compete in a market where up to 5 unrelated undergraduate students can pool their resources and outbid them for most of the apartments units being offered in the market (In neighborhoods close to the University campus rents for large apartments typically range from $400 -600 per bedroom per month; $2000 and up for a 5- bedroom apartment). This is problematic not only because there is February 24, 2012 Page 2 a relative lack of smaller units being built that would be more affordable and attractive to non - student populations, but also because if enrollment at the University tapers off or decreases in the future, the large dorm -style apartments may be unmarketable to other populations. There has been an effort on the part of the City and the University of Iowa to promote programs and policies that help to create a stable, healthy, and livable environment within central neighborhoods that will be attractive and affordable to both student and non - student residents. New nuisance policies were adopted several years ago to help curtail nuisance issues and over - occupancy and to educate young students on their rights and responsibilities. The UniverCity Partnership program is another successful ongoing effort between the City of Iowa City and the University of Iowa to purchase homes within central neighborhoods, invest in rehabilitation of the structures and make these available to income - qualified individuals and families wanting to live close to the amenities and employment opportunities in downtown Iowa City. Despite these ongoing efforts, it has become apparent that more needs to be done. One of the goals adopted in the Central District Plan is to "work to achieve a healthy balance of rental and owner - occupied housing in the district's older neighborhoods to promote long -term investment, affordable housing opportunities, and preservation of historic homes and neighborhoods. One of the specific objectives listed under this goal is to "examine existing zoning rules to ensure that they support housing goals and neighborhood stabilization efforts." Discussion of Solutions: To that end, we have researched zoning techniques used in cities that have large universities including Ames, Madison, Lawrence, Lincoln, and East Lansing. These cities have addressed concerns related to apartments that are designed for the student market. Based on this research, staff has identified techniques that we believe will help address the concerns as they apply to Iowa City. Establishment of a University Impact Area (UTA) would apply to neighborhoods close to the University of Iowa Campus (See attached Map). Properties within the UTA would be subject to standards designed to allow continued development of multi - family housing, including student housing, but with controls and requirements that will help to prevent some of the negative effects associated with large concentrations of dormitory-style apartments. In addition, we are proposing to reformulate the density and occupancy standards to eliminate the incentives created by our current zoning standards to build large apartments and the relative disincentives to build smaller units. While we are still researching and analyzing a number of different strategies for enhanced enforcement, and to re- examine standards for building height, scale and lot coverage, and to address the relative lack of open space in central neighborhoods, we have prepared three zoning code amendments for your immediate consideration. Reduce the number of unrelated persons allowed to live within one dwelling unit to a maximum of three: Currently, in a majority of the zones across the city, including all single family zones, the low density multi - family zone, and almost all commercial zones, including the Central Business zones, the maximum number of unrelated persons that may reside within one dwelling unit is three. It is only the RM -44 and PRM Zones that still allow up to 5 unrelated persons per unit and the RM -20, RNS -20 and CO -1 Zone that allow up to 4 unrelated persons per unit. It is this occupancy standard that has helped to create an incentive to build large dorm -like apartments containing 4- and 5- bedroom units. Limiting the number of bedrooms per apartment to 3 would help assure that as demographics and student enrollment change over time, the design and layout of apartments will be attractive and rentable to populations in addition to students. Students are able to live in 1 -, 2 -, and 3- bedroom apartments, but 4 and 5 bedrooms are generally not attractive to any tenants other than students. Eliminating the possibility of additional 4- and 5- bedroom apartments will help to address the negative effects that such high densities have on the community as well as help assure that a form of housing with limited market is not overbuilt. • Increasing the number of parking spaces for 3 bedroom units within a designated University Impact Area (UTA): In all multi - family and commercial zones the parking requirement for large apartments is lower on a per bedroom basis than it is for smaller apartments. For February 24, 2012 Page 3 example, in all zones except the PRM Zone, CB -5 and CB -10 Zones, efficiency, 1- bedroom, and 2- bedroom apartments all require 1 parking space per bedroom. However, for apartments than contain 3 bedrooms, the parking requirement is only 2 spaces, 4- bedroom apartments require 3, and 5- bedroom apartments require 4. In the PRM Zone, the multi- family zone typically located closest to the University campus, and also the City's highest density multi - family zone, 3- bedroom apartments only require 2 parking spaces, while 4- and 5- bedroom apartments only require 3. This provides another incentive to build 3- bedroom units over smaller units. In addition, in central neighborhoods close to downtown and the University campus where there is a higher demand for both on- and off - street parking, this may be contributing toward parking congestion, illegal parking, and parking spillover into adjacent neighborhoods. It should be noted that the proposed amendments to increase the parking requirement for 3- bedroom units would only apply within the UTA. It would not apply to 3- bedroom apartments in outlying neighborhoods. Further, if the other proposed amendments to dis -allow new 4- and 5- bedroom apartments are not recommended for approval, the Commission should consider increasing the parking requirement for any new 4- and 5- bedroom units in the UTA to 1 parking space per bedroom. • Ad*usting residential density formulas for multi - family dwellings to allow the market to more freely respond to the demand for a mix of apartment sizes and limit the number of bedrooms allowed within a multi - family dwelling unit to three: The attached zoning amendments include new tables that list graduated density formulas for the multi - family zones and for commercial zones that allow multi - family units. These are summarized below: • In the RM -44, PRM, and CB -2 Zones these new formulas would in effect allow twice as many 1- bedroom apartments as would be allowed under the current density formulas, but would increase the lot area needed for 3- bedroom units, so that approximately the same amount of lot area would be needed per bedroom regardless of the size of the units. • In the medium density multi - family zones (RM -20 & RNS -20), additional lot area would be needed for 3- bedroom units. For 1- and 2- bedroom units the density standard would remain the same. Given that these zoning designations are fairly prevalent in the central and often more historic neighborhoods and in areas that were previously down -zoned from higher zoning designations no longer in existence, we would not recommend a density bonus for 1- bedroom units. In these more historic areas, it might serve as an incentive to tear down existing buildings that already contain 1- bedroom units in order to construct larger buildings that might be out -of- scale with surrounding homes and further deteriorate the residential character of these older neighborhoods. • There would be no change in the RM -12, CO -1, and CC -2 Zones. These zones already have a relatively modest residential density that is more compatible with single family areas and with mixed central neighborhoods where stabilization is a goal. • The CN -1 and MU Zone density standard would be changed to match the standard in the CO -1 and CC -2 Zones. The Neighborhood Commercial Zone is typically located directly adjacent to lower density residential areas. The Mixed Use Zone is a relatively new zoning designation that replaced the Residential Office Zone. It is intended to allow a mix of lower density residential uses and small -scale commercial uses that are compatible with each other and with nearby lower density residential areas. It also provides the opportunity for residents to run a business out of their home or re -use an older home for a small -scale or start-up business. Staff finds that the current residential density formula that would allow up to 24 multi - family dwellings per acre would create an incentive to consolidate properties and build larger -scape apartment complexes that would be counter to the intent of these zones. Therefore, staff recommends that the density standard be lowered to match what is allowed in the RM -12, CO -1, and CC -2 Zones. • In the CB -10 and CB -5 Zones where there is no limit on the residential density other than the limit on floor area (FAR) and limit on building height, staff recommends February 24, 2012 Page 4 establishing a limit on the percentage of 3- bedroom multi - family units. This will provide some impetus for building 1- and 2- bedroom units that would broaden the mix of apartment sizes in the central business district and provide opportunities for both student and non - student households to live downtown. o It should be noted that these new standards would not apply to single family, single family attached dwelling units (townhouses) or two- family (duplex) units, nor would they apply to multi - family dwellings located in planned developments where the underlying zoning is single family (OPD -5, OPD -8, OPD- RS12). This provision would only apply to multi - family uses in multi - family zones and commercial zones where multi - family uses are allowed. Recommendation: Staff recommends amending the zoning code as indicated on the following pages. The underlined text is the suggested new language and strike - through notation indicates text that will be deleted. All other language in the subject code section will remain unchanged. Staff finds that these changes are consistent with zoning practices used in other college towns to create better living environments in high density multi - family areas and mixed neighborhoods close to campus. These techniques would also benefit commercial zoning districts which allow multi - family housing and further the City Council's strategic goal of stabilizing and improving neighborhoods. These changes are also consistent with the City's comprehensive plan goals of stabilizing neighborhoods and encouraging a diversity of housing opportunities throughout the community. Approved by: /" `! ��/ «� , Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development Attachment: Proposed zoning amendments In Article 14 -9A, Definitions, amend the definition of "Household" as follows: HOUSEHOLD: iT1-the Tn, DD 1, DC 7.. s, RNS 2 DIVA . 12, MY, GN i, GG 2, GB 2, GB G, and GB 19 Zenes a A Household is defined as: TCf'� • One person; or • 2 or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or placement by a governmental or social service agency plus up to 1 unrelated person, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization; or • a group of not more than 3 persons unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization; or • A group of persons that meet the definition of a Group Household, as defined in this Title. - - - -- - -- -- - -- - - - -- -- -- - -- -- - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- -- -- - - -- - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- -- - - -- - - - -- -- -- - - -- -- / this 1 1 'e .. In Section 14 -4E -9, Regulation of Nonconforming Residential Occupancy, amend subsection C as follows: C. The maximum occupancy, as determined by the Building Official based on the applicable regulations effective NeyembeF 3 February 21, 2012, will be applied to: 1) any development activity associated with establishing or constructing a residential use for which a valid permit was issued, if substantial part of the permitted development activity has begun on or prior to Neyembep 3, 2998 February 21, 2012; or, 2) any residential use for which a valid rental permit was issued prior to (the effective date of this ordinance), the effective date of the current maximum occupancy regulations. For such uses, legal nonconforming rights will be granted for this maximum occupancy. bleed, / this 1 1 'e In Section 14 -4E -9, Regulation of Nonconforming Residential Occupancy, amend subsection C as follows: C. The maximum occupancy, as determined by the Building Official based on the applicable regulations effective NeyembeF 3 February 21, 2012, will be applied to: 1) any development activity associated with establishing or constructing a residential use for which a valid permit was issued, if substantial part of the permitted development activity has begun on or prior to Neyembep 3, 2998 February 21, 2012; or, 2) any residential use for which a valid rental permit was issued prior to (the effective date of this ordinance), the effective date of the current maximum occupancy regulations. For such uses, legal nonconforming rights will be granted for this maximum occupancy. Amend the parking requirements for Multi- Family Dwellings in Tables 5A -1 and 5A -2 as follows: Table 5A -1: Minimum Parking Requireme nts in the CB -5 and CB -10 Zones USE CATEGORIES I SUBGROUPS Parking Requirement Bicycle Parkin Residential Uses Household Multi- family CB -5 Efficiency,1- bedroom, and 2- bedroom units: 1 space per dwelling unit. Living Uses Dwellings None 3- bedroom units: 2 3 spaces per dwelling unit 1.0 per each additional unrelated person in excess of two. For example, if a Single required Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per dwelling unit d.u, Elder Apartments: 1 space for every 2 dwelling units. Two Family Uses CB -10 For buildings built on or before December 31, 2008: 1.0 per household with more than 2 unrelated persons, 1 additional parking space is Zone Bedrooms 1 -10: no parking required d.u. required for each additional unrelated person in excess of two. required All additional bedrooms: 0.5 spaces per bedroom 3 spaces None (For purposes of this standard an efficiency apartment will be counted as one bedroom) required Multi- family All zones, For buildings built on or after January 1, 2009: 0.5 per d.u, Dwellings except PRM Efficiency and 1- bedroom units: 0.5 space per dwelling unit 1.0 per d.u. 3- bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit 2- bedroom unit: 1 space per dwelling unit 4- bedroom units: 3 spaces per dwelling unit 3- bedroom unit: 2 2 spaces per dwelling unit Table 5A -2: Minimum Parking R29ulrements for all zones, except the CB -5 and CB-10 Zones USE CATEGORIES SUBGROUPS Parking Requirement Bicycle Parkin Residential Uses Household Living Single Family Uses 1 space per dwelling. However, for a SF use that contains a household with more than 2 unrelated persons, 1 additional parking space is required for None each additional unrelated person in excess of two. For example, if a Single required Family Use contains 4 unrelated persons, then 3 parking spaces must be provided. Two Family Uses 1 space per dwelling unit. For a Two Family dwelling unit that contains a household with more than 2 unrelated persons, 1 additional parking space is None required for each additional unrelated person in excess of two. required Group Households 3 spaces None required Multi- family All zones, Efficiency & 1- bedroom units: 1 space per dwelling unit 0.5 per d.u, Dwellings except PRM 2- bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit 1.0 per d.u. 3- bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit 4- bedroom units: 3 spaces per dwelling unit 5- bedroom units: 4 spaces per dwelling unit 1.5 per d.u. In the University Impact Area:1 space per bedroom (see Map 2B.1 in Article 14 -2B) PRM Zone Efficiency, 1- & 2- bedroom units: 1 space per dwelling unit 3- bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per dwelling unit 1.0 per d.u. In the University Impact Area:1 space wr bedroom (See Mao 2B.1 in Article 14 -213) Elder 1 space per dwelling unit for independent living units and 1 space for every 2 Apartments dwelling units for assisted living units, except in the PRM and CB -2 Zones. 5 % In the PRM and CB -2 Zones, 1 space for every 2 dwelling units. Insert the following map, labeled Map 2B. 1, into Section 14-28 -6, Multi-Family Site Development Standards, immediately following the Central Planning District Map: pis P UNIVERSITY IMPACT AREA Re- formulating Density Standards for Multi - Family Dwellings in Multi - Family Zones Amend Table 2B -2, Dimensional Requirements for Multi - Family Residential Zones, deleting the current "Area /Unit" standards for Multi - Family, and substituting cross - references to a new Table 2B -3, Maximum Density Standards for Multi - Family Dwellings in Multi - Family Zones, as shown below (standards that are different from the current standard are underlined and highlighted): Table 2B -3: Maximum Density Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings in Multi-Family Zones' Zone RM -12 RM -20 & RNS -20 RM -44 PRM Efficiency or 1- Bedroom Unit 2,725 1,800 4999500 87-5435 Minimum Lot Area per Unit (in square feet) Two - Bedroom Unit 2,725 1,800 1,000 875 Three - Bedroom Unit 2,725 499 2,700 49891,500 8751,315 Maximum # of bedrooms per 3 — 3 — 3 — 3 multi -famil dwellin unit Notes: 'For purposes of the provisions within this table, -any room that is larger than 70 square feet in size, meets the egress requirements as specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living space, such as a living room, dining area, kitchen, or bathroom may be considered a bedroom, as determined by the Building Official. Bedrooms that are of a size or dimension that can be easily split into more than one bedroom may be counted as such as determined by the Building Official. Re- formulating Density Standards for Multi - Family Uses in Commercial Zones • Amend paragraph 14- 2C -4A -2, deleting reference to residential density standards as indicated below and instead referencing the new Table 2C -2(c), Maximum Density Standards for Multi- Family Dwellings in Commercial Zones. 2. Standards Generally, the minimum lot area and width standards for the various Commercial Zones are stated in Tables 2C -2(a) and 2C -2(b), located at the end of this Section. Most commercial zones do not have minimum lot size or width requirements. However, for mixed commercial /residential buildings, the number of dwelling units allowed is based on the size of the 'e} residential density formulas as stated in Table 2C -2(c), located at the end of this Section. in the GG 1 and GG 2 zenes, mixed use buildings iS SifflilaF te the Fesidential density ef multi faFnily buildings in the the Fesudentia' density ef multi family buildings On the RM 20 Zene. in the GB 2 zene the - . - �s"dentia' density is similaF te the Fesidential density ef multi family buildip@9 deigsity in the GB 5 and GB 19 zene us limited enly by the Fmaximum FAR. • Amend Paragraph 14- 4B -4A -7, Multi- Family Uses in the CO -1, CN -1, CC -2, CB -5, CB- 10 Zones, subparagraph b, as follows: b. Maximum Density The maximum residential density standards for Multi - Family Uses in Commercial Zones is stated in Table 2C -2(c) located in Section 14 -2C -4, Dimensional Requirements. • Amend Table 2C -2(a), Dimensional Requirements for all Commercial Zones, except the MU Zone, deleting the current "Areal dwelling unit" standards, and substituting cross - references to a new Table 2C -2(c), Maximum Density Standards for Multi - Family Dwellings in Commercial Zones, as shown below. Amend Table 2C -2(b), Dimensional Requirements for the Mixed Use Zone (MU), deleting the current "Area /Unit" standards for Multi- Family, and substituting cross - references to the new Table 2C -2(c), Maximum Density Standards for Multi - Family Dwellings in Commercial Zones, as shown below (standards that are different from the current standard are underlined and highlighted). Table 2C-2(c): Maximum Density Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings in Commercial Zones' Zone CO-1 & CC -2 CN -1 & MU CB -2 CB -5 & CB -10 aw.. ; ; Z; - • Amend Table 2C -2(a), Dimensional Requirements for all Commercial Zones, except the MU Zone, deleting the current "Areal dwelling unit" standards, and substituting cross - references to a new Table 2C -2(c), Maximum Density Standards for Multi - Family Dwellings in Commercial Zones, as shown below. Amend Table 2C -2(b), Dimensional Requirements for the Mixed Use Zone (MU), deleting the current "Area /Unit" standards for Multi- Family, and substituting cross - references to the new Table 2C -2(c), Maximum Density Standards for Multi - Family Dwellings in Commercial Zones, as shown below (standards that are different from the current standard are underlined and highlighted). Table 2C-2(c): Maximum Density Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings in Commercial Zones' Zone CO-1 & CC -2 CN -1 & MU CB -2 CB -5 & CB -10 Minimum Lot Area per dwelling unit (in square feet Efficiency or 1- Bedroom Unit 2725 4800-2725 — 87-5435 — There is no minimum lot area per unit standard. However, the number of 3- bedroom units per lot Two - Bedroom Unit 2725 4�A9 2725 875 may not exceed 30% of the total number of units on the lot. Three- Bedroom Unit 2725 48W2725 1,315 Maximum # of bedrooms Per 3 I - 3 3 I - multi-faMh dwelling unit Notes: 'For QuMgses of the provisions within this table, any room that is larder than 70 square feet in size, meets the egress requirements as specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living space, such as a living room, dining area, kitchen, or bathroom may be considered a bedroom, as determined by the Building Official. Bedrooms that are of a size or dimension that can be easily split into more than one bedroom may be counted as such, as determined by the Building Official. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY FEBRUARY 13, 2012 — 5:15 PM — INFORMAL HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Paula Swygard, John Thomas, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None REZONING ITEM: REZ12- 00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Parish Apartments, LLC for a rezoning from Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS -20) zone to Planned Development Overlay / Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (OPD /RNS -20) zone for approximately 1.25 -acres of property located at 108 McLean Street. The application expires March 10, 2012. Miklo explained that this property had been used as the St. Thomas More Parish House since the mid -40's. In 2009, the new church was built in Coralville, and the church building was sold to The University of Iowa. The property is in the process of being purchased by Parish Apartments, LLC. Their proposal is to convert it into 16 one - bedroom efficiency apartments. The zoning on the property is Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS -20). The underlying zone would allow 24 -30 units of apartments on this property. There is a protected slope on the property, and that is why this application is before the City. If the slope were not there, anything could be built that is allowed in the RNS -20 zone. Because of the slope, there is a slope buffer that is 2 feet for every 1 foot of vertical rise up to a maximum of 50 feet. Any development activity on the slope is prohibited unless approved by the City as part of a Sensitive Areas Site Plan which requires a planned development overlay rezoning. That is the action the Commission is being asked to consider. Planning and Zoning Commission February 13, 2012 - Informal Page 2 of 8 Miklo pointed out a grove of trees on the property. He said that the Sensitive Areas Ordinance encourages the preservation of groves of trees to the extent possible. That issue would be subject to staff level review. There is no Council or Planning or Zoning Commission review in that case. The objective of this proposal under consideration is to protect the slope to the extent possible but also to preserve the grove of trees. Miklo said this is the best proposal of those that have been submitted, as one of them would have taken the building down and another would have converted it to a fraternity house. Miklo explained that the ordinance allowed the City to reduce that buffer down to 0 if it can be demonstrated by an engineer or geologist that the construction activity within that buffer will not erode the slope or create hazards for this or adjacent properties. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct a portion of the parking lot and to use concrete curbs to channel storm water to 2 locations at the bottom of the ravine. Miklo said that the applicant would need to build in some permanent erosion techniques at the bottom of the ravine. In order to do that, they will need to have the alley vacated and added to this property or receive an easement from the City to allow that work to occur. Thomas asked if the applicant intended to repave the parking lot and referred to a letter from MMS Consulting dated February 2, 2012, indicating that the lot would be used in its current condition. Miklo said any plans in this regard would be confirmed prior to any action. He also stated that the zoning code requires at least 10 feet of green space or sidewalk between a parking area and a building. The applicant will be seeking a minor modification requiring staff level approval to allow that 10 feet requirement to be reduced. Freerks asked how much disturbance would be on the slope. Miklo said there would only be the construction of the flumes and the storm water control facilities at the bottom of the slope. Miklo said that engineering review considered this plan an improvement to the way the water sheet currently runs down the slope. Thomas asked if the loop road is required. Miklo explained that the reason for the loop road is that in order to have two -way traffic an 18 foot driveway is required, but for one -way traffic the requirement is only 10 feet. The purpose of the loop road is to minimize paving. Thomas asked if that could be reduced to 9 feet, at least in the sensitive area. Miklo said that he learned that the fire marshall informed him this afternoon that one area will have to be widened in order to get a fire truck within 150 feet of all points of the building. Thomas said he thought this was a great project in terms of preserving the site but he said that all that's really being added is the loop road and 4 parking stalls. It seemed that the disruption here is not only to the existing conditions but on the southeast side of the site as well. He said he thought where the parking is proposed is significantly impacted and he asked if the applicants had looked at any other options. Planning and Zoning Commission February 13, 2012 - Informal Page 3 of 8 Miklo said the other proposed option was putting the parking on the west side of the building. Staff thought that was the more destructive of the options due to the sensitivity of the oaks being there. Thomas pointed out an area in the southeast corner of the property where the slopes are not nearly as steep. He said it's possible to use that area, with far less disruption to the existing conditions. Additionally, the parking would not be right adjacent to the building. Thomas suggested that by using that area, the parking could be screened with hedges and made fairly attractive. Miklo said perhaps the reason they proposed this idea was because of the regulations that prohibit parking in front of the front plane of a building. Thomas said he thought that given the size of the site, the parking could be put in a location that wouldn't be disruptive to the actual view of the building and the grounds. He said it would be far less expensive to develop the site in that way and far less disruptive to the sensitive areas. Miklo said staff could explore that option with the applicant. Freerks asked if the proposed change in the amount of drainage would be an issue for the developed properties north of the site. Miklo said that City engineers are not concerned as long as a certain type of erosion contral matting is installed along the concrete flumes carrying the water to the bottom of the ravine. Thomas suggested that using pervious paving materials might be an option especially in the back parking lot area. Miklo said that option had been explored, and the City engineers had determined that the amount of site work necessary to make pervious paving work in this type of soil would be more disruptive than conventional paving. Freerks noted that the Commission had looked into pervious paving materials in a number of other cases, and it just hadn't worked. Thomas suggested that they could tie the run -off from paved areas into the existing storm drains. Freerks stated her appreciation for Thomas's expertise but suggested that some of these details could be talked about at the formal meeting on Thursday. Miklo said he would ask the City engineers about the possibility of tying in with the storm drains. Freerks suggested that staff talk with the applicant before the formal meeting about the issues brought up tonight. Rezoning /Development Item REZ11- 00020/SUB11- 00017/SUB12- 00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Peninsula Development Corp. for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay Plan and a preliminary plat of The Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 3 and 4, a 44 -lot, 17.37 - acre residential subdivision located at Foster Road and Willenbrock Circle and a Planning and Zoning Commission February 13, 2012 - Informal Page 4 of 8 preliminary plat of The Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 5, an 8 -lot, 2.0 -acre residential subdivision located on Foster Road and Walker Circle. Miklo explained that for years the Comprehensive Plan has limited density west of Dubuque Street to 5 units per acre maximum because there is only one reliable road, Foster Road, into the area. The other road into the area, Taft Road, is subject to frequent flooding. In the long- term, the Plan calls for Laura Dr. to continue to the west and loop back to Foster Road, which will help in terms of secondary access. Until that occurs, staff feels that density should continue to be no more than 5 units per acre. The Peninsula Plan was developed according to this agreement that the City entered into with Peninsula Development Co. in 2001 when this property was first designed. It allows for a total of 410 units on the land Miklo showed the Commission pictures of two areas where significant changes are being proposed to the current plan: Phase 5 in the northern portion of the development and Phase 3 and 4 in the southern part. He said there are also some proposed changes to the Peninsula Development Code. Miklo said that for Phases 3 and 4, the current plan has a single - loaded street that would loop around and back to Foster Road. The land currently used by the Elks for a golf course is owned by the City, and should the Elks ever vacate this, it would become City property for public open space or development. Miklo said the plan is to replace the street that would have run along the golf course with a new street more toward the north and to pull Foster Road back the edge of the bluff to the east so not as much grading is necessary to build that road. This will bring about a cost savings as well as saving the wooded ravine above the Peninsula Park. Miklo explained that the single - family homes in the previous plan are to be replaced with multi- family units that could have from 12 to 18 units in each building until the overall development reached a maximum density of 410 units. He said one reason the applicant is proposing this is because some of the earlier phases where there were multi - family buildings proposed were changed to single family. Koppes asked how many units this converts. Miklo said in the original plan there was a 36 -unit apartment building on Swisher Street that was replaced with 4 single family units. He said that in the other phases that are built or under construction, 1 or 2 units were lost in several places. Miklo explained that in Lots 1 -7 of Phase 1 the proposal is to change 7 of those lots from single family to row house lots, and each of those would have 2 units, except lots 4 & 5 would have 4 units on them. This would result in a gain of 7 units. Miklo showed the Commission a drawing of a potential multi - family unit that would face McCleary Lane. He said every other side of the units would have a courtyard and the other would have a driveway that would go to underground parking. He also pointed out an elevation showing how the underground parking would work tucked under the building and not be an obvious feature on the landscape. Thomas asked what was across the street from the higher density units. Miklo explained that these would be single family homes with the sides of the building facing the Planning and Zoning Commission February 13, 2012 - Informal Page 5 of 8 multi -unit buildings. Miklo said staff feels it's very important to have multiple fagade designs so the same building is not repeated up and down the street. Miklo showed the Commission various photos of the site. Koppes asked how many live /work units actually have commercial space on the ground floor. Miklo said one of them does, but live /work building on lot 117 is being designed more specifically to have ground floor commercial space. Miklo explained that the current code requires that on most lots, wherever there is an alley, garages must be sited on an alley. He said there are some lots that don't have alleys where the garages are required to be at a 90 degree angle from the street, which makes it hard to get in and out of them. Miklo explained that the proposal is to amend the code to allow where there is not alley access, the garage could have a door facing the street as long as it's set back 60 feet from the front property line, which is a condition that is seen commonly in the city's older historic neighborhoods. He described how in other areas where there are alleys the code restricts the garage to the rear 30 feet of the lot, making it hard to get a small driveway behind the garage. Staff is recommending allowing garages within the rear 40 feet of the lot. Miklo described how the current code for many of the lots requires full width porches. He said the proposal is to allow porches that cover only half of the front of the house. He explained that the other significant change to the code would be to allow a restaurant or cafe on lot 117. Koppes asked how secondary access and the flooding of Foster Road will be handled. She asked when the improvements will be done. Miklo explained that there are 3 potential ways to deal with that in the long -term. He stated that one is the levee that would be built on Taft Speedway; another possibility is elevating a portion of Foster Road; and the ultimate method is that Laura Drive will connect, providing another way in and out that wouldn't be subject to flooding. Miklo reminded the Commission that they aren't proposing to change the zoning to increase the density, but rather to change the configuration to allow what was originally contemplated. Greenwood - Hektoen said she thinks it's significant that they purchased the property based on what they are paying for 410 units. Miklo explained that the development agreement says that the City is selling 82 acres on which 5 units per acre, or 410 units, can be built, and whether or not 410 units are achieved, the price is for 410 units. Dyer asked if there was a plan for any single story units. Miklo said there were already single story homes that had been built, but he did not know if additional single story homes would be built. Zoning Code Item Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Subsection 14- 2C -8Q, Bonus Provisions, adding a floor area bonus for constructing Class A office space on upper floors within a multi -story building in a Central Business Zone. Planning and Zoning Commission February 13, 2012 - Informal Page 6 of 8 Howard explained that last year new standards were adopted by the City for the Central Business (CB -10) zone that required that at a minimum, the first and second floors of any new building in the CB -10 zone be built to the commercial code of standards. She said other standards adopted included the amount of window area and the floor to ceiling height on the second floor in an attempt to construct a building so it could accommodate commercial uses on the second floor of a building as well as the first floor. Howard said the proposed amendment will create a bonus opportunity for developers who would want to build that kind of space and reserve it for office use or other non - residential uses. She said this provision would be added to Table 2C -4: Bonus Provisions in the Zoning Code. Eastham asked if staff had had communication with developers about this provision. Howard affirmed that they had and that there is interest in this type of provision. Koppes asked if the developer couldn't get the space rented as office could the space be converted back to residential. Howard explained that if the developer wants to get the bonus, they have to reserve it for commercial or non - residential use. Eastham said that he had heard a number of comments about how people who see new buildings downtown with commercial space on the first floor not occupied say there's too much commercial space downtown. He suggested that staff clarify at a public meeting the reasons why the City is continuing to require ground floor commercial space. Howard said that since certain changes have been made to the Code, commercial space in newer buildings is more leasable and that there's very little unoccupied commercial space in the immediate downtown area. Thomas asked how this provision would affect building size in the CB -2 zone. Howard reminded the Commission that to build something that is Class A office space would be a significant, high - quality commercial building, so in order to qualify for this amendment, it would have to be something exceptional: it would not be standard student housing with some space on the second floor. She said staff anticipated that most of the demand for Class A office space would be in the immediate downtown and eventually, in the Riverfront Crossings area. Other Miklo told the Commission about an issue that will be before Council at the February 21St meeting. He said Council had asked staff to look at the RM -44 zone and some neighborhood stabilization issues and part of that study would be the number of bedrooms allowed in some of the higher density zones. Miklo said that potentially Council could set a public hearing at the February 21s' meeting to eliminate the 4 and 5 bedroom units, restrict the number of 3- bedrooms and provide a bonus for 1- bedrooms, with an ordinance to come before the Commission for review and recommendation to Council. He said there is concern that there will be a rush to build 4 and 5 bedrooms built before any Code work is done, which is why the Council is considering setting a public hearing before the ordinance actually gets to the Commission. He perceives much interest on the part of the developers and the community about how these amendments proceed. Planning and Zoning Commission February 13, 2012 - Informal Page 7 of 8 Howard explained that by setting up a public hearing, that puts a moratorium on building the 4 and 5- bedroom units for 60 days. Freerks said she thought it was wise to be able to have some discussion on this issue. Howard explained that this discussion would apply to all zones that allow 4 and 5- bedroom units. Freerks asked if a City representative is involved in discussion with the University about the plans for the Bank of the West site. Miklo said that Jeff Davidson, the director of Planning and Community Development, has had conversation with the University and been invited to meetings to see some of the concepts. Eastham asked about two emails that were sent to the Council. Miklo explained that there's a possibility that a parking lot near the University will require vacation of a city right -of -way which would come before the Commission as a right -of -way vacation so they should probably not be discussing this until it appears on their agenda. He said that if they do proceed with the alley vacation, it will become a public item and the Commission will be able to discuss it. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel moved to adjourn. Koppes seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7 -0 vote. z O 55 U) O v O z z N z_ z z a O c� U z M w VN w � Qz J N C Q D � z W OW F- H Q O z w w O LL z YIR■ M N X X X X X X X �wtoCOMNIntnM w IL x( W Lo 0 Lo 0 Lo 0 V) 0 V) 0 U') 0 V) 0 wGCF= 2wv)wa Q z J 0VQwa0� C)YWQaW >-QWO 0 w J 2 — W z= W LL. a02� `1U) J a 2 O 2W H3: - ■ O z w w O LL z E O N O �z U X � W .r c d c w E n Q Z X< n u n w OOz W Y M N X X X X X X X �wtoCOMNIntnM w IL x( W Lo 0 Lo 0 Lo 0 V) 0 V) 0 U') 0 V) 0 wGCF= 2wv)wa Q z J 0VQwa0� C)YWQaW >-QWO 0 w J 2 — W z= W LL. a02� `1U) J a 2 O 2W H3: - E O N O �z U X � W .r c d c w E n Q Z X< n u n w OOz W Y PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY FEBRUARY 16, 2012 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Paula Swygard, John Thomas, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Dwayne Musser, John Beasley, John Rummelhart RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of REZ12- 00002, an application submitted by Parish Apartments, LLC for a rezoning from Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS -20) zone to Planned Development Overlay / Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (OPD /RNS -20) zone for approximately 1.25 -acres of property located at 108 McLean Street with the conditions that any oak trees removed as part of the site plan work be replaced on a one -to -one basis at some spot on the site, and that the plan be reviewed by the City Engineer, the City Forester, and the Fire Marshal. The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of REZ1 1-00020/SUB1 1-0001 7/SUB1 2- 00001, an application submitted by Peninsula Development Corp. for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay Plan and a preliminary plat of The Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 3 and 4, a 44 -lot, 17.37 -acre residential subdivision located at Foster Road and Willenbrock Circle and a preliminary plat of The Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 5, an 8 -lot, 2.0 -acre residential subdivision located on Foster Road and Walker Circle. The Commission voted to recommend approval of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning, Subsection 14- 2C -8Q, Bonus Provisions, adding a floor area bonus for constructing Class A office space on upper floors within a multi -story building in a Central Business (CB -10) Zone. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2012 - Formal Page 2 of 10 REZONING ITEM: REZ12- 00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Parish Apartments, LLC for a rezoning from Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS -20) zone to Planned Development Overlay / Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (OPD /RNS -20) zone for approximately 1.25 -acres of property located at 108 McLean Street. (45 Day Limitation Period: March 10. 2012) Miklo showed different views of the property and the slope under discussion, which comprises the northern 30 -40 feet of the property and the eastern section of the property. Miklo explained that this slope is protected by the Sensitive Areas provisions of the Zoning Code. He said that in addition to the slope there was a buffer required to prevent development adjacent to the slope. Miklo said that the ordinance provides for a reduction of that buffer if a geologist or engineer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that development activity will not destabilize the slope or cause erosion or landslides or hazards. Miklo said that the property also contains a grove of oak trees. The ordinance encourages the protection of the oak trees to the extent possible. In the existing proposal, one oak tree would be removed to accommodate more parking. Miklo explained that the proposal is to convert the building into 16 one - bedroom apartments. He said that would require 16 parking spaces. The applicant proposes to reuse 8 parking spaces, build 2 new parking spaces and put the remaining spaces on the west side of the property. Miklo said the staff received a revised plan today that does not encroach into the slope or the slope buffer to the extent that the previous plan proposed, but does require the removal of one oak tree. Miklo said that grading for the parking area could damage the root system of the other trees, so the City Forester will review the issue. Miklo noted that the revised plan would require less construction activity within the slope area. He said staff is recommending approval of the proposed Sensitive Areas Plan, which is a rezoning overlay subject to review by the City Forester and the City Engineer. Eastham asked if the developer could be required to plant two additional trees. Miklo said that the Commission's approval could be subject to conditions that are reasonable. He said he doesn't know if there is a suitable place on the property to plant more trees, and the City Forester would need to be consulted. Weitzel asked if the revised plan retains the walkway with the pedestrian bridge. Miklo said the walkway still shows on the plan, but there is some discussion whether or not the bridge will be retained in the long -term. Freerks asked if the loop road would remain. Miklo said that the loop drive will not be a feature, as it was in the previous proposal. Freerks asked if the existing driveway would need to be expanded for fire purposes. Miklo affirmed that the new plan shows a new fire lane in a different location which would be subject to the review of the Fire Marshal. Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2012 - Formal Page 3 of 10 Thomas said that he thought the purpose of the loop road was to provide as much access as a 10 foot wide single lane road would and asked if there was a change in the allowance of providing just one way in to the property. Miklo explained that the Commission is able to reduce the buffer and that is the question before the Commission. There are other City approvals that will be needed in order for this project to go forward and those would be granted by special exception to waive site development standards for a historic property or approved by minor modification of site development standards at staff level. He said the driveway configuration would require approval under one of these provisions of the code. Eastham asked what part of the slope buffer this plan actually affected. Miklo said that is existing paving that would be reused and most of the new paving would be outside the buffer area. Eastham said that it seemed to him that the new plan encroached less into the buffer than previous plan. Miklo replied said that is correct. Dwayne Musser from MMS Consultants explained that in the revised plan the only impact to the buffer is those 2 new parking places on the east end. He said that all the other vehicular parking within the buffer will use the existing pavement, which will be repaired as needed. He said there will be minimum impact on the buffer and the protected slope. Musser said they are proposing to plant trees to comply with the street tree requirements that the City has. He explained that there will be a small portion of the drive that will be one -way between the parking spaces that will be added on the west side and fire access portion of the drive. He said that the only way to make the entire drive two -way would be to remove another oak tree. Musser indicated that several years ago the City Forester looked at the oak tree that they are proposing to remove and determined that the root system is growing underneath the parking surface and this compromises the health of that tree. Eastham said he understood that they are proposing to replace 4 trees along the front right -of- way and asked if they could also replace any oak trees that are removed. Musser said they could either put oak trees along the right -of -way if that's what is recommended or insert a couple oak trees within the existing grove. Eastham asked if Musser was comfortable with the amount one -way traffic and it would be enough for drivers to get through. Musser replied that once the site is widened the drive will be 2 lanes on the west side adjacent to those new parking spaces and if you would need to pull off to accommodate an incoming or out outgoing driver, you would have that space as well as the fire lane. He said he thought with the dumpster placement, the garbage truck would have room to make a 3 -point turn. Freerks opened the public hearing. John Beasley, the attorney for Parish Apartments, LLC, introduced the developers and stated that their goal has been to preserve and protect this property. He urged the Commission to Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2012 - Formal Page 4 of 10 approve the proposal. John Rummelhart, a neighbor to the west of the property in question, said he thought that the developer was trying to do the right thing for the property. He asked Miklo if it was normal procedure for plans to change after the notification had been sent to neighboring property owners. Miklo explained that the City sends out a letter when a plan is submitted with a copy of the plan, but the plan can change, sometimes more than once, and the plan that is actually approved is the one that appears before the Commission at a public meeting. Rummelhart asked how many total parking spaces are proposed in the plan as it exists now. Miklo reiterated that there are 16 parking spaces proposed. Rummelhart asked what the ratio was of full -size to compact car spaces is. Miklo pointed out the compact spaces on the plan. He noted that the zoning code allows up to 50% of the parking spaces to be compact. Rummelhart said the developers seem to be firm on putting in 16 units. He said he thought that the Commission would have some say in how many units are ultimately allowed. He suggested that perhaps the historic designation could somehow be required if zone waivers are being approved to allow the renovation of the property. Rummelhart noted that he owned property to the west of the site where he could have developed a 6 -plex, but he chose not to. He said he thought there was a potentially better place for the parking on the east side of the building away from the single - family homes in the. He concluded by saying that it was tough not having had the time to digest all the different plans. Freerks explained that whatever the Commission decides, the plan goes to City Council so there's always more time for the neighbors to review the plan before a final decision. Rummelhart closed by saying that he was favorably inclined toward the developers and the proposed project. Miklo noted that the applicant has applied for Historic Landmark status. He said designation of the property as a landmark will allow the Historic Preservation Commission and Board of Adjustment to modify site development standards, such as the driveway width. He said designation will also protect the building from demolition. Musser addressed Rummelhart's concerns about the new parking on the western side, saying that if the oak is removed and that portion of the site is re- graded, the parking surface will be approximately 5 foot lower than the property line, thus screening Rummelhart's property from headlights. He explained that in the plan they are also proposing shrubs to screen that part of the parking from the street. Weitzel asked if he knew what standard the screening will be at. Musser said he believed it was an S -2 standard, which is a two to four foot high hedge. Miklo said that is the required standard for more than 4 spaces. He also explained that another Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2012 - Formal Page 5 of 10 option in that area that they will explore with the City Forester is a retaining wall to minimize any disturbance of the root system of the other oak trees. Freerks closed the public hearing. Freerks asked for a motion to approve. Eastham moved to approve REZ12 -00002 with the conditions that any oak trees removed as part of the site plan work be replaced on a one -to -one basis at some spot on the site, and that the plan be reviewed by the City Engineer, the City Forester, and the Fire Marshal. Dyer seconded. Dyer asked if it would be better not to specify the kind of replacement trees because of the potential of a disease that could wipe them out. Weitzel said that and the spacing issue might make the site more preferential for another type of tree. Thomas said he was concerned that they would crowd too many trees into the fence line. Eastham explained that the condition he added to the application was that the replacement trees be planted under the direction of the City Forester. Freerks stated that she thought this was a great project. She said it's not that often people take this much care in restoring such wonderful buildings. She thinks there is a market for this and hopes the property proves to be successful for the developer and will be a trend for the future. Eastham said he also thought this was a wonderful re -use of this building. He said locating the parking on the west side has the advantage of not further disturbing the sensitive slopes, the damage of which is harder to redress than the trees. Based on the plans, he believes the parking on the west will direct the headlights away from Rummelhart's property. Thomas said that the sensitive slopes on the east are now more protected than they were in the previous plan reviewed by the Commission. He suggested that the applicant look into the retaining wall concept to better minimize the effect of the parking lot. He said he's very happy to see both the site and building preserved and expects that the development will conform to that character. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. REZONING /DEVELOPMENT ITEM REZ11- 00020/SUB11- 00017/SUB12- 00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Peninsula Development Corp. for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay Plan and a preliminary plat of The Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 3 and 4, a 44 -lot, 17.37 - acre residential subdivision located at Foster Road and Willenbrock Circle and a preliminary plat of The Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 5, an 8 -lot, 2.0 -acre residential subdivision located on Foster Road and Walker Circle. (45 -day Limitation Period: March 16, 2010) Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2012 - Formal Page 6 of 10 Eastham recused himself from the discussion due to a conflict of interest as a board member of an organization that owns property within the 200 foot objection limit. Miklo showed a map of the property in relationship to the Comprehensive Plan. He explained the City purchased approximately 200 acres in this area with the intention of developing well- heads for the new water treatment plant in the lowlands and also to remove the flood plain from the potential for development. Miklo said the upper part of the property was sold to a private developer for a new urbanism -type neighborhood featuring a mix of housing and some limited commercial uses. He showed the Commission the original plan that was approved in 2001. Miklo said that the agreement between the City and the original developer called for up to 410 housing units on the property, based on 5 housing units per acre. Miklo said the original plan has changed over the years and the plan now has 365 housing units. He said the applicant would like to achieve closer to the 410 that was originally contemplated in the development agreement. Therefore, the applicant has proposed some amendments to the plan, which also concern some grading issues. Miklo explained that the amendments for Phase 3 and 4 would no longer include a road along the edge of the golf course but would include a new road, McCleary Lane, and multiple housing units replacing what would have been single - family units along the edge of the golf course. Miklo said that in the northern portion of the subdivision, lots 52 and 53 and Lots 1 -7, Phase 1, the proposal is to re- subdivide that as Phase 5. Lots 52 and 53 would remain single - family while Lots 1 -7 would be re- subdivided and designated for row houses or townhouses or attached units. He said that would make a net gain of 7 units in this area. Miklo showed elevations that demonstrate how the garages would be tucked under the units, unlike the previous plan that would have had detached garages. Miklo said the applicant has submitted drawings that show the kind of proposed apartment buildings that would face McCleary Lane. He explained that there would be courtyards between the apartment buildings, and on the rear side of the building there would be parking areas and a driveway leading to an under building garage. Miklo stated that the applicant is also proposing some changes to the Peninsula Code that has specifications for the siting of individual buildings on the property. He said that currently the code requires that if there isn't an alley, the garage door must have a side entrance at a 90 degree angle from the street (if there is an alley the garage must be access from the alley). He said the applicant is proposing to modify that requirement to allow garages that face the street provided they are at least 50 feet back from the front property line. He said this is a common condition in historic neighborhoods. Miklo said other changes to the code would include allowing a cafe on one of the live -work lots at the end of the park, update references to the City Code, and allow half -width porches. Miklo said that Foster Road is currently designed to go along the top of the bluff. The proposal is to pull it back from the bluff, which would require much less grading and tree removal, and also resulting in shallow lots. Staff recommends limiting these lots to bungalows and row houses. Miklo showed the Commission pictures of Lots 1 -7 and Phase 5. Miklo summarized by saying that the proposed changes would revise the Peninsula Plan to reconfigure lot lines and the street design and the mix of single - family row house and multi- Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2012 - Formal Page 7 of 10 family buildings. He said the proposed revisions are intended to address grading concerns on the western portion of Foster Road and to allow achievement of the density originally contemplated in the development agreement. Miklo said staff received a new plan today, and staff believes that with a few minor revisions, the plan is in order. Staff recommends that because the plan came today, approval be subject to final review by the City Engineer. Freerks opened the public hearing. Musser said MMS Consultants has been working with staff and the Peninsula Group for several months on redesigning the original plan. They have been through a number of revisions and they have made the alleyways more accessible. He said one of the challenges of the ring road is that there is a chain link fence by the golf course and if your road doesn't match the grade of the fence you have to build retaining walls. Pulling the road back on the west side will also save more trees. He explained that the proposed courtyards will have retaining walls at their ends so you wouldn't be able to see the fence over them if you were in the courtyards. Dyer asked what the timeline was for developing. Musser said the applicant is hoping to get started on Phase 3 & 4 this spring /summer and be able to start building in that area this fall. He explained that it will all get built at the same time, and they are discussing ways to reconfigure the Dog Park Road during construction. Dyer asked if there were plans for any single story buildings in the development. She said she had always thought of this as a mixed community and mixed communities always contain single -story buildings. Musser said they are working with the developers to get the grade from the garages in the alleys to the living units reduced in the proposed Phase 5. Freerks closed the public hearing. Freerks asked for a motion to approve. Weitzel moved to approve REZ11- 00020/SUB11- 00017/SUB12- 00001, an application submitted by Peninsula Development Corp. for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay Plan and a preliminary plat of The Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 3 and 4, a 44 -lot, 17.37 -acre residential subdivision located at Foster Road and Willenbrock Circle and a preliminary plat of The Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 5, an B- lot, 2.0 -acre residential subdivision located on Foster Road and Walker Circle, subject to approval of the final plan or plat by Staff. Dyer seconded. Weitzel said he thought it was an improvement to the plan, adjusting to conditions as they changed. Freerks said it had been nice to see the changes that have occurred yet have stayed within the true vision of the plan. Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2012 - Formal Page 8 of 10 A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. ZONING CODE ITEM Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Subsection 14- 2C -8Q, Bonus Provisions, adding a floor area bonus for constructing Class A office space on upper floors within a multi -story building in a Central Business Zone. Howard explained that in 2011 the Zoning Code was changed to adopt some new standards in the Central Business (CB -10) Zone to facilitate the construction of second floor commercial space with the intention of trying to create the opportunity for new office or commercial space on the upper floors. She said that market research indicated at that time there was high demand for residential space in the downtown area due to its proximity to The University of Iowa campus and because of that demand for residential space, the changes that were made earlier in 2011 may not be enough to create the incentive for developers to construct the Class A office space. Staff is recommending that an additional incentive be provided by adding a floor area bonus in the CB -10 Zone whereby for every 1 square foot of Class A office space provided in the building on the upper floors, up to an additional 2 square feet of additional floor area may be added to the building above that base floor area ratio. Howard explained that in addition to constructing the Class A office space, the developer would have to reserve that space for non - residential uses in order to get the bonus. Howard said that when the Commission looked at this issue at the Informal Meeting on February 20, there was some concern that this incentive would be put in Table 2C -4: Bonus Provisions and apply to the CB -2 and CB -5 Zones as well as to the CB -10 Zone. She said there's been concern in the community because there are CB -2 zones along the edge of downtown next to low- density neighborhoods. Howard noted that the CB -5 Zones are either in the Northside Marketplace, a historic commercial area, or south of Burlington Street in Riverfront Crossings. She said that the latter will likely have a new zoning plan when the new plan for Riverfront Crossing is adopted. Staff discussed the issue and decided that the bonus provision is better placed just in the CB -10 Zone. Howard distributed a re- worked table to the Commission reflecting that change. Freerks asked how they go about reserving the space over time. Howard explained that the uses that would be allowed for that space would only be commercial, so instead of having the first floor reserved for commercial as it is in the current code, it would be the first 2, or however many floors of office space they would have. Greenwood - Hektoen suggested that making a change to read "the resulting Class A office space may only be used for non - residential uses" might help clarify the issue of reserved. Eastham asked Staff to comment on the public perception that requirements for commercial space on the ground floor in the downtown area has resulted in an unusual amount of unused commercial space and that this provision would not result in more of the same. Howard explained that this additional commercial space would be at the request of the developer, so it is not a requirement. Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2012 - Formal Page 9 of 10 Miklo said the perception of vacant commercial space tends to be more in the CB -5 Zone along Gilbert St. rather than in the heart of the downtown area. Many of those spaces were not designed to accommodate Class A office space, so if this is truly Class A office space there's likely to be a better demand for it. Freerks opened public hearing. Freerks closed public hearing. Koppes moved to amend Title 14, Zoning, Subsection 14- 2C -8Q, Bonus Provisions, adding a floor area bonus for constructing Class A office space on upper floors within a multi -story building in a Central Business (CB -10). Weitzel seconded. Freerks said that in market studies the Commission has seen that more Class A office space is needed, especially in the CB -10 Zone. She thinks the CB -2 and C13-5 areas are transition zones and it would not be a good idea to add this bonus provision to those zones. Weitzel said he likes that the provision gets residential and commercial uses into the same space. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: February 2, 2012: Eastham moved to approve the minutes. Weitzel seconded. The motion carried 7 -0. OTHER: Miklo noted that the Comprehensive Plan meeting was held last week at SE Junior High with at least a couple of Commissioners attending. Staff will be sharing comments from that event within the next couple of meetings. ADJOURNMENT: Koppes moved to adjourn. Weitzel seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7 -0 vote. z O N U0 20 00 0 U, CD W z V zzN Na O 06 z OLLI z� zQ z a O z w w O LL. O z w w O LL z ■1 M ;xxxxxxx N U) w(OCOMNIntoM WX0000000 w w 2wv)wa z J 0Vama0� V ay G w J 2 W z z= Y -LU(L w N Y J Q Q 0 Z 2 Q O- H L j O z w w O LL z E O O 7 0 O � Z U p� X a C (on E II Q Z X Q n II n w � 0 0 z w Y M ;xxxxxxx N U) w(OCOMNIntoM WX0000000 w w 2wv)wa z J 0Vama0� V ay G w J 2 W z z= Y -LU(L w N Y J Q Q 0 Z 2 Q O- H L j E O O 7 0 O � Z U p� X a C (on E II Q Z X Q n II n w � 0 0 z w Y