Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-07-23 Ordinance��o V 61 �0 Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5236 (REZ13- 00012) ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE TO REZONE 0.85 ACRES FROM LOW- DENSITY SINGLE - FAMILY (RS -5) ZONE AND 2.87 ACRES FROM TO LOW- DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY (RM -12) ZONE TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC -2) ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF MUSCATINE AVENUE, WEST OF SCOTT BOULEVARD. (REZ13- 00012) WHEREAS, the applicant, John Hieronymus, has requested a rezoning of property located north of Muscatine Avenue and west of Scott Boulevard; .85 acres from Low - Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Community Commercial (CC -2) and 2.87 acres from Low - Density Multi - Family RM -12 to Community Commercial (CC -2); and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan- Southeast District Plan has been amended to indicate that the subject property is appropriate for Commercial use; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed rezoning and recommended that the application be denied; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the applicant's request and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation and has determined that the requested zoning is appropriate and complies with the amended Comprehensive Plan. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of RS -5 and RM -12 to CC -2: LEGAL DESCRIPTION The following described parcel from RM -12 to CC -2: Commencing at the East Quarter Corner of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian; Thence S87 035'12 "W, along the South line of the Northeast One - Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 50.00 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing S87 °35'12 "W, along said South line, 279.99 feet; Thence N01 °30'01 "W, 491.13 feet; Thence N88 029'59 "E, 84.56 feet; Thence Southeasterly, 193.71 feet, along and arc of a 300.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 190.37 foot chord bears S64 003'30 "E; Thence S82 033'24 "E, 26.78 feet, to a point on the West Line of Parcel "3" of "Ralston Creek South Property Acquisition" Plat of Survey, as recorded in Plat Book 19, at Page 84, of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence 501 °30'01 "E, along said West Line, 394.78 feet, to said POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 2.87 acres, and subject to easements and restrictions of record. The following described parcel from RS -5 to CC -2: Commencing at the East Quarter Corner of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian; Thence S87 °35'12 "W, along the South line of the Northeast One - Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 329.99 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing S87 035'12 "W, along said South line, 60.01 feet; Thence N01 030'01 "W, 527.19 feet; Thence N44 052'58 "E, 80.43 feet; Thence S45 °07'02 "E, 122.82 feet; Thence Southeasterly, 2.32 feet, along an arc of a 300.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 2.32 foot chord bears S45 020'19 "E; Thence S88 029'59 "W, 84.56 feet; Thence S01 °30'01 "E, 491.13 feet, to said POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 0.85 acre, and subject to easements and restrictions of record. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance by law. SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same, at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as provided by law. Ordinance No. Page 2 SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 7ved by City Attorney's Office Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319,356 -5336 (REZ13- 00012) ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE TO REZONE 0.85 ACRES FROM LOW - DENSITY SINGLE - FAMILY (RS -5) ZONE AND 2.87 ACRES FROM TO LOW - DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY (RM -12) ZONE TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC -2) ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF MUSCATINE AVENUE, WEST OF SCOTT BOULEVARD. (REZ13�0012) WHEREAS, the applicant, John Hieron mus, has requested a rE Muscatine Avenue and west of Scott Boulev rd; .85 acres from Low - Community Commercial (CC -2) and 2.87 cres from Low - Density Commercial (CC -2); and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan -So theast District Plan ha; subject property is appropriate for Commercial e; and / WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Com is that the application be denied; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewe Commission's recommendation and has determin with the amended Comprehensive Plan. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE C SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described designation of RS -5 and RM -12 to CC -2: reviewed ng of property located north of sity Single - Family (RS -5) zone to ulti - Family RM -12 to Community been amended to indicate that the rezoning and recommended the applicant's request and the Planning and Zoning d that the rJC el zoning is appropriate and complies I COUNOF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: low is by reclassified from its current zoning The following described parcel from RM -12 to CC -2: Commencing at the East Quarter Corner of Section 1 , ownship 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian; Thence S87 035'12 "W, along the So th I e of the Northeast One - Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 50.00 feet, to the POINT OF BE NIN ;Thence continuing S87 035'12 "W, along said South line, 279.99 feet; Thence N01 030'01 "W, 4 1.13 fe t; Thence N88 °29'59 "E, 84.56 feet; Thence Southeasterly, 193.71 feet, along and arc of a 0.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 190.37 foot chord bears S64 °03'30 "E; Thence S8 °33'24 "E, 26 78 feet, to a point on the West Line of Parcel "3" of "Ralston Creek South Property Acquisitio ' Plat of Surve as recorded in Plat Book 19, at Page 84, of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder' Office; Thence 01'30'01"E, along said West Line, 394.78 feet, to said POINT OF BEGINNING, contai ing 2.87 acres, an subject to easements and restrictions of record. The following described parcel from R -5 to CC -2: Commencing at the East Quarter Cor r of Section 13, Townshi 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian; Thence S87 035'12" along the South line of th Northeast One - Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 329.99 feet, to thO OINT OF BEGINNING; Then a continuing S87 035'12 "W, along said South line, 60.01 feet; Thence N 1 °30'01 "W, 527.19 feet; Then a N44 052'58 "E, 80.43 feet; Thence S45 °07'02 "E, 122.82 feet; Thenc Southeasterly, 2.32 feet, along n arc of a 300.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 2. foot chord bears S45 020'19 "E; Thence S88 029'59 "W, 84.56 feet; Thence S01 030'01 "E, 491.13 feet, to sa. POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 0.85 acre, and subject to easements and restrictions of record. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance by law. SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same, at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as provided by law. '16 ' Ordinance No. Page 2 SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Marian Karr From: Michael J. Pugh <mpugh @bradleyriley.com> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:45 PM To: Bob Miklo; Marian Karr Cc: Delisa A. Baker Subject: Hieronymous /Kum n Go Bob and Marian- I recently learned that John Hieronymous will be out of the country from June 24th through August 10tH I respectfully request that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA -13 -0002) and requested rezoning (REZ13- 00012) be deferred to the Council's August 20th meeting. Thank you both. Michael J. Pugh Attorney BRADLEY & RILEY PC ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS One South Gilbert Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -3914 Phone: (319) 358 -5562 Fax: (319) 358 -5560 Ward I Email I www.bradleyriley.com Please consider the environment before printing this email. Notice: Since email messages sent between you and Bradley & Riley PC and its employees are transmitted over the Internet, Bradley & Riley PC cannot assure that such messages are secure. You should be careful in transmitting information to Bradley & Riley PC that you consider confidential. If you are uncomfortable with such risks, you may decide not to use e-mail to communicate with Bradley & Riley PC. This message is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S. C. Sections 2510 -2515, is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and subject to the attorney - client privilege. It should also not be forwarded to anyone else. If you received this message and are not the addressee, you have received this message in error. Please notify the person sending the message and destroy your copy. Thank you. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with the requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that (1) any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein or any attachments hereto. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: June 6, 2013 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern RE: Change to REZ13 -00012 Muscatine and Scott Boulevard application The applicant, John Hieronymus, has requested a change to REZ13- 00012, a proposal to rezone approximately 3.72 acres of property located at the northwest corner of the Scott Boulevard- Muscatine Avenue intersection from Low - Density Multi - Family residential (RM -12) and Low - Density Single - Family residential (RS -5) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1), and rezone approximately 2.23 acres located immediately to the north on Terrence Lane from RS -5 to RM -12. The applicant now proposes rezoning the 3.72 -acre property from RM -12 and RS -5 to Community Commercial (CC -2) zoning. The intended use for the property would still be a gas station /convenience store. A gas station /convenience store requires a Special Exception in the CN -1 zone but is an allowed use in the CC -2 zone. The application also includes a request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan future land -use map for the property at the northwest corner of the Muscatine Avenue -Scott Boulevard intersection from Multi- family to Commercial. The intent of the CN -1 and CC -2 zone differs in the scale and intensity of activity. CC -2 zoning provides for major business districts that serve a significant segment of the entire population, whereas the CN -1 zone is intended to serve the immediate neighborhood. CC -2 zoning typically features a number of large traffic - generating uses that require access from major thoroughfares, while development in CN -1 zoning should be more pedestrian- oriented. CC -2 zoning permits most retail -type stores, restaurants and services such as hair salons, dry cleaners and banks. CN -1 zoning allows smaller -scale retail sales and personal service uses, with the size of allowed uses restricted to reduce the impact on nearby residential areas. The proposed change to the application from CN -1 to CC -2 does not address the issues raised in the May 16 Staff Report (copy attached): The gas station /convenience store, as proposed, is of an intensity, scale and design more appropriate for a highway location. Predominantly residential zoning and development surrounds the subject property. Although the applicant's family currently owns the residential property to the west, Comprehensive Plan and zoning decisions should May 30, 2013 Page 2 consider the long term quality of life for the residential neighborhood, not the current ownership. The effects of lighting and signs are of significant concern given the high visibility of the property at the topographic peak of Scott Boulevard and Muscatine Avenue, which will make it difficult to screen lighting and signs associated with a convenience store. The traffic into and out the subject property will increase considerably when compared to the residential development previously approved on this property. In summary, the proposed CC -2 zone allows more intense commercial uses and has fewer standards and requirements regarding site design and signs than the previously proposed CN -1 zoning. In staffs opinion the applicant has not presented a compelling reason to change the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation of this property from Multi- family Residential to Commercial. The proposed commercial development is likely to have negative effects on the existing and future residential uses in this area. Staff recommends that the request to amend the Southeast District Plan future land - use map from Multi- family to Neighborhood Commercial and rezoning from RM -12 and RS -5 to CC -2 for approximately 3.72 acres of property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Scott Boulevard and Muscatine Avenue be denied. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Revised concept plan 3. Previous staff report 4. Correspond nce Approved by. Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development � �s �Q LLOOS M-"""i C. W Tw 0 ODO#JWM 1WI lz� IFI �J LU s _ ICI :- � cn O A 74 OC V ca C FN LU ce ROes Ja ODO#JWM 1WI lz� IFI �J LU s _ ICI :- � cn mum a �o cancepf WON °� nr X0 To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: REZ13 -00012 and CPA13 -00002 GENERAL INFORMATION: E STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Sarah Walz and Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern Date: May 16 2013 Applicant: John Hieronymus 3322 Muscatine Avenue Iowa City, Iowa 52240 j.hieronymus@mchsi.com Requested Action: Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the future land -use designation from Multi - family to Commercial for approx. 3.72 acres at the northwest corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard, and rezone the site from RMA 2 and RS -5 to CN -1; and rezone approx. 2.23 acres adjacent to the north from RS -5 to RM -12 Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Development of a gas station /convenience store and three 4 -plex buildings multi - family buildings Northwest corner of the intersection of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard 5.95 acres Undeveloped (RS -5, RM -12) North: public (P -1) South: residential (RS -5) East: residential (RS -5 pending rezoning to RM -12) West: residential (RS -5) Southeast District Plan: Multi- family and low -to- medium density single - family or duplex April 11, 2013 May 26, 2013 The applicant, John Hieronymus, has requested a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the Southeast District Plan future land -use map from Multi- family to Commercial for the northwest corner of Scott Boulevard and Muscatine Avenue. The applicant has also requested a rezoning from Low - Density Multi - Family residential (RM -12) and Low - Density Single - Family residential (RS- 5) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) for approximately 3.72 acres of property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Scott Boulevard and Muscatine Avenue and a rezoning 2 0 from RS -5 to RM -12 of approximately 2.23 acres of property located immediately to the north on Terrence Lane. The applicant has indicated that the purpose of the amendments is to allow the construction of a gas /station convenience store at the Muscatine Avenue -Scott Boulevard intersection and three 4 -plex buildings on the property immediately to the north. In addition to a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning, the gas station will require approval of a Special Exception by the Board of Adjustment. The property located at the Muscatine Avenue -Scott Boulevard intersection was rezoned from RS -5 to RM -12 in January 2011. The rezoning was subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement, which specified that the applicant would install a sidewalk on the north side of Muscatine Avenue from Juniper Drive to Scott Boulevard, and that the applicant would build multi - family units (up to 23 townhouse style units) on the property as proposed on the submitted site plan —any substantial changes would require approval by the Staff Design Review Committee. A final plat for Terra Verde subdivision was approved for the subject property and property to the west in April 2011. The approved plat includes 3 multi - family lots (in the same vicinity of the proposed commercial zone) and 19 single - family lots as shown on the attached plat. If the current rezoning request is approved, then the property is likely to be replatted to show the change. The applicant has submitted the attached concept plan showing how that might occur. The applicant has indicated that they intend to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have conducted a neighborhood meeting. ANALYSIS: Current and Proposed Zoning: RS -5 zoning primarily provides housing opportunities for individual households. RS -5 zoning can feature some non - residential uses that contribute to the livability of residential neighborhoods, such as parks, schools, religious institutions and daycare facilities. RM -12 zoning provides for high- density, single - family housing and low- density multi- family housing, with the goal of creating diverse housing options. In the RM -12 zoning, the variety of housing types requires careful attention to site and building design to ensure compatibility with surrounding housing. No commercial uses are allowed in the RS -5 or RM -12 zone. The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) zone is "to promote a unified grouping of small -scale retail sales and personal service uses in a neighborhood shopping area; encourage neighborhood shopping areas that are conveniently located and that primarily serve nearby residential neighborhoods; promote pedestrian- oriented development at an intensity level that is compatible with the surrounding residential areas; and promote principles of site design, building articulation, scale and proportion that are typical of traditional main street design. Allowed uses are restricted in size to promote smaller, neighborhood serving businesses and to limit adverse impacts on nearby residential areas." The applicant is proposing a Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) rezoning in order to allow a gas station /convenience store. The Zoning Code categorizes these uses Quick Vehicle Servicing, which is permitted by special exception only. Sales- Oriented is considered a provisional use in the CN -1 zone and is limited to 2,400 square feet of gross floor area. The CN -1 zone restricts the size of allowed uses to limit adverse impacts on nearby residential uses. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Southeast District Plan's future land -use map (2011) designates the property at the northwest corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard as appropriate for multi - family residential uses, similar to the three other corner properties at the Muscatine Avenue -Scott Boulevard intersection (the southwest corner is depicted as single - family residential). Commercial areas within the district are shown in Sycamore Mall and First Avenue, along Scott Boulevard and north of Highway Six and PCD \Staff ReportsVez13 -00012 and cpa13 -00002 staff report.doc O 3 A V/ Towncrest. A small Neighborhood Commercial area is designated for the far -east boundary of the district at the intersection of Court Street and Taft Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan calls for focusing commercial development in defined commercial centers, including small -scale neighborhood commercial centers. In addition to commercial centers shown in the Southeast District Plan, established commercial centers serving east Iowa City are located at the intersection of Court Street and Scott Boulevard (approximately % mile north of the subject property) and Rochester Avenue and Scott Boulevard. The applicant has indicated that a CNA zone at this location would be appropriate given that it is the intersection of two arterial streets and based on the Neighborhood Design Concepts included in the Comprehensive Plan. The Neighborhood Design Concepts describe Neighborhood Commercial areas as "providing a focal point and gathering place for the neighborhood. The businesses within a neighborhood commercial center should provide shopping opportunities within convenient walking distance for residents in the immediate area. The design of the neighborhood commercial center should have a pedestrian orientation with the stores placed close to the street, but with sufficient open space to allow for outdoor cafes and patios or landscaping. Parking should be located to the rear and sides of the stores with additional parking on the street." In staff's opinion a stand -a -lone convenience store with several gas pumps is not what the Comprehensive Plan envisions for Neighborhood Commercial areas. Staff believes the neighborhoods in east Iowa City are already well - served by existing commercially zoned property and there has been no substantive change in conditions to warrant a change in the Southeast District Plan Map for a commercial zone in this area. The submitted site plan for the proposed CNA zone shows commercial development that is out of scale and character with the definition for Neighborhood Commercial zone and does not meet the intent of a Neighborhood Commercial Area, envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plan is the sort of large -scale gas station /convenience store that is characteristic along highways and within much larger commercial areas. The commercial building shown on the site plan is nearly double the size allowed as a provisional use in the code and includes none of the pedestrian- oriented or open gathering space amenities envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. It would essentially be an intensive auto - oriented use located in residential neighborhood. The Neighborhood Design Concepts of the Comprehensive Plan (Pages 21 -25) indicate that intersections of collector and arterial streets are appropriate for multi - family zoning and that these buildings should be of a similar height and appearance to the surrounding single - family homes. In general, multi - family zoning is encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan where it has access to arterial streets and city services such as transit and parks. The Southeast District Plan future land -use map shows the 2.23 -acre property to the north as suitable for low- to medium - density single - family or duplex development. The Southeast District Plan and Comprehensive Plan include the goal of creating a variety of housing options. For these reasons, staff believes the proposal to rezone this property to RM -12 for development of townhouses would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Compatibility with neighborhood: Low - density single - family residential zoning exists to the south, east and north of the site of the proposed gas station (City Council is now considering a rezoning request for the property at the northeast corner of Scott Boulevard and American Legion Road to RM -12). At the time of the 2011 rezoning, staff found the plans for multi - family housing at the site of the proposed gas station to be compatible with the nearby area. For the current application, staff believes the request to rezone the 2.23 -acre property to the north to RM -12 may also be appropriate depending on the outcome of the proposed commercial zoning P=Staff Reportslrez13 -00012 and cpa13 -00002 staff report.doc a 4 and the redesign of the previously approved Terra Verde Subdivision. The applicant has submitted a concept plan for the townhouse -style multi - family development, which staff believes to be compatible with the future single - family uses planned to the west. However the proposed multi - family development will need to be considered in the context of what will be developed on the south side of the proposed Silver Lane. If the commercial zoning is approved there will need to be some sort of screening provided to buffer the residential from the commercial directly the south. If the area to the south is developed with multi - family buildings, according to the current zoning, then site layout of the two multi - family areas will need to be coordinated. Staff believes that the proposed rezoning to CN -1 is incompatible with the residential neighborhood for the following reasons: The establishment of a use as intensive as the proposed gas station /convenience store in such close proximity to residential uses would generate additional noise, traffic and light that would, in Staff's view, adversely impact nearby residential property. This is of significant concern given the high visibility of the property at the topographic peak of Scott Boulevard and Muscatine Boulevard. The grade of the property will make it difficult to screen lighting and signs typically associated with convenience stores. • As stated above, the Neighborhood Design Concepts in the Comprehensive Plan describe Neighborhood Commercial areas as "providing a focal point and gathering place for the neighborhood." The applicant has proposed a gas station /convenience store of an intensity, scale, and design that is more typical in the Highway Commercial zone. In staff's opinion it would not be in keeping with the described character or scale of the CN -1 zone or the Neighborhood Design Concepts in the Comprehensive Plan. Traffic implications: The proposed commercial zone is at the intersection of two arterial streets that carry approximately 6,000 to 8,100 vehicles per day. The proposed convenience store is not likely to create a significant contribution to traffic on Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard, but the number of turning movements into and out the subject property will increase considerably when compared to the previously approved residential development on this property. As proposed the convenience store driveway to Muscatine Avenue is too close to the intersection with Scott Boulevard. If this proposal is approved the driveway would need to be moved to the west where turning traffic would affect more residential properties. The Southeast District Plan shows the route for Terrence Lane within the Terra Verde subdivision as a loop street from Muscatine Avenue along the west side of the site of the proposed gas station, serving future residential development to the north of the site of the proposed gas station, and reconnecting to Muscatine Avenue to the west. Instead of accessing the subdivision from Muscatine Avenue via Terrence Lane, as was originally approved with the Terra Verde subdivision, the applicant has proposed moving the access point to Scott Boulevard via a proposed street, Silver Lane. Staff found, after consultation with Transportation Planners, that street access from Scott Boulevard would meet sight distance requirements and thus be acceptable. The proposed Silver Lane would end in a cul -de -sac, which is discouraged by subdivision regulations unless unusual features preventing extension of the street to the property line or connection to other streets within the subdivision can be clearly demonstrated. The plan submitted by the applicant indicates that single - family residential lots would be arrayed around the cul -de -sac. This layout would impede the future connection of Silver Lane to Muscatine Avenue to the south. If the concept for the subdivision with access to Scott Boulevard proceeds, staff recommends changing the layout in this portion of the subdivision and building Silver Lane in a way that would allow the right -of -way to extend south from the cul -de -sac bulb to Muscatine PCMStaff Reportslrez13 -00012 and cpa13 -00002 staff report.doc G 5 Avenue as is provided on the existing approved Terra Verde plat STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the request to amend the Southeast District Plan future land -use map from Multi- family to Neighborhood Commercial and rezoning from RM -12 and RS -5 to CN -1 for approximately 3.72 acres of property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Scott Boulevard and Muscatine Avenue be denied. Staff recommends deferral of the proposal to rezoning of approximately 2.23 acres of property from RS -5 to RM -12, until a concept plan is submitted showing how it would coordinate with the existing multi - family site plan for Terra Verde subdivision. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Previously approved final plat for Terra Verde 3. Concept plan showing how property might be replatted to allow convenience store 4. Photographs and drawings of proposed development 5. Applicant's Narrative for Comprehensive Plan Amendment 6. Correspondence Approved by: / Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development PCD \Staff Reports\rez13 -00012 and cpa13 -00002 staff report.doc MO Rt V O 0 V O � A0088 G9- G 4 N a _O L Z O H O J W H H � O p o_ U 74 aw Q V di _ N 601s38083AIlc o M W LLI J 1. ce t` J I F- w i I� N a _O L Z O H O J W H H W N E.N., w.I. :-m m Ua. --- - .. - -.. .. ELI Z v ~i '� gan Hai N r U� n Om Q Q n1 yFg 5 NW �a E .. U 9 Z � Q Z Q U j �' at g a O LL 20 co j 16 W„Qy_� ^ 1 ! s S 2# €•lit i q e $ b : i :: zs 3 , R : s p to# $5s 3t lit apic 142 11 a IN -111, ps, # I If s ` O J I I I I na ^ u Asa I � LU - - -- — — — — usr uw a,xc wmwrourrm a. ssnoxu ••�- f1�Jd0,fS � � �'$ xn.7r }9 a t# aa� r• k � ��� 101 8 ;�� ► 1 = I� i �� �kd �� I co y � ;�� -�• `�. M.�r ._...— ..,ate..— _.. —... ]�•• _- � � C —� ��� I # ! r ► 'Y 7ERREN6E LAtJE �k `` e ' ��4.y_ , � a' . i � 1 ¢ s,am xo,ao'm•,r eau• c� � � 1:'k N } g R 4 It A C4 G I'111 a.T�m I E 11 �� I t s e Q�p rF� fit Ogg„ CID: 14 - - -- — O e —� — _ 506.5(r awr v..m„m, loos Mr' I[ fR 57..77 c .a11f w j k ON � � 4i FY a6S ' vix. � � nr,u •mv�si Arm w..a w w .menai w.r a aw. a I j � k w.s wwrrweyowrr A,roo IOW rrtu]�x mxnw mwa��]vuwww aMM�»rx � 6a xw arx x moo ary w ww aavasaH x .�M03 1T � .�Q?I�� d no k EEG CD FIV F LLJ (L 0 —j U) U) M. KIER N I-- $2 LU > w co X LLI w z CL < < 10 3t d 0 0 cn LL, Co >: > 0� Z— LLI co (1) C) ZW< z w T-> o W-j X (/) IL 2 0 0 m a FIV F LLJ (L 0 —j U) U) M. KIER N I-- $2 LU > w co t P. d 0 cn Z— LLI co J z z U) 0 m a m ili LLJ X �z w w w 0 (n z 0 Q x 200 Co O:CL 0 LO well Go F pppp{ss --LIN a , .5111 All r. g1l. �[ c o Narrative for Comprehensive Plan Amendment In connection with their rezoning request, the applicants also request that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to reflect a Neighborhood Commercial zoning designation for the 2.79 acre convenience store site. The subject property is located in the center of the Southeast District at the intersection of two arterial streets, Muscatine /American Legion Road and Scott Boulevard. Appropriate land uses at the intersection of arterial streets includes a good mix of higher density residential and neighborhood commercial. The establishment of smaller neighborhood commercial uses (convenience store) at the intersection of arterial streets is encouraged as part of the Comprehensive Plan's Neighborhood Design Concepts. A small neighborhood commercial site will provide shopping opportunities within convenient walking distance for the residents in the immediate area. Lighting and signage associated with the convenience store will be located, screened or buffered so it will not detract from nearby residential uses. The proposed rezoning of 2.79 acres to Neighborhood Commercial is a relatively small modification to the Comprehensive Plan, but is consistent with the land uses found at other arterial street intersections within the Southeast District, the Court Street/Scott Boulevard intersection and the Court Street/Taft Avenue intersection. This intersection includes a nice mix of low density single family (SW Corner) and planned medium density residential (SE Corner). The property immediately east of the subject property (NE Corner) is currently being rezoned to medium density residential (RM -12). The Eastside Growth Area to the south and to the east of the subject property will bring more residential development to the area. The resulting mixed use development on the NW Corner of the intersection will include low to medium density, single family residential development, low density multi - family units and a small neighborhood commercial area (convenience store) consistent with the Southeast District Plan. (01391488.DOCX) n -� (01391488.DOCX) E10 1164 Hampton Court Iowa City, Iowa 52240 May 8, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission 410 East Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 W RE: Muscatine Ave., west of Scott Blvd (CPA13- 00012 /REZ13- 00012) Dear Commission members: I am writing to express my opposition to the construction of a convenience store across the street from my backyard. When my husband and I built our home at 1164 Hampton Court we believed that we were building in a residential neighborhood. We believed it was a safe neighborhood where our daughters could walk to school. we believed it was a neighborhood where it would be quiet at night. We believed that our community of neighbors also valued the safety and quiet of this peaceful residential neighborhood. For more than twenty years our neighborhood has been all that we believed it would be when we built our home here. The construction of a convenience store /gas station across the street from our backyard will change everything. Increased traffic and additional light will replace our quiet, peaceful nights. Late -night business and customers passing through or hanging out will certainly replace our sense of safety. I do not wish to see this residential neighborhood rezoned for commercial use. Sincerely, Eileen M. Kjonaas 1164 Hampton Ct. Iowa City IA 52240 8 May 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 RE: Muscatine Avenue, west of Scott Boulevard (CPA13- 00012/REZ13- 00012) Dear Commission members: I am writing this letter to express my opposition to this rezoning request. My wife, Eileen, and I have lived in Iowa City for forty years. I practiced optometry in the Towncrest medical center for nearly 35 years until my retirement at the end of 2007. We carefully chose the site for our current home across from the proposed rezoning. Our goal was to live within the community where I worked so that I could walk to work, our children could walk to and attend Robert Lucas Elementary school and Southeast Junior High. In short, when many of my colleagues chose to live out of the city limits, commute to work and drive their children to school, we chose to be a part of the community where I worked. The location we chose on Hampton Court was completely surrounded by residential zoning. The parcel to the north of our home was rezoned in 2011 to RM -12. Although not ideal, this seemed to be a reasonable compromise enabling the property owner to better utilize this property. Now, a new request seems to be using the 2011 rezoning as a stepping stone to acquire commercial zoning with plans of building a convenience store in that location. I feel that such a change will decrease our property value. Just as importantly, it will add undesirable increases in lighting, noise, and congestion to this area which will affect our quiet enjoyment of our home and property. This area of Iowa City has significantly changed over the past forty years. The Towncrest area is now in the process of revitalization with two recently renovated convenience stores. There is a commercial zone nearby at Court Street and Scott Boulevard with a convenience store and another retail area with a convenience store near the intersection of Highway 6 and Scott Boulevard. A commercial zone in this proposed area could compete with the redevelopment of the Towncrest area, whereas low density multi- family, especially if designed for age 55 plus residents, could dovetail nicely with the surrounding medical, shopping, and senior living facilities available in the area. It is my hope that you will decide against approval of this rezoning request and urge the developer to move forward with plans to develop this property with the zoning changes approved in 2011. Thank you. Sincerely, M le K. Kjona , O.D. DAVID C. & JOYCE A.STOCHL 1158 HAMPTON CT. IOWA CITY, IA 52240 319 - 330 -4453 david.stochl @gmaii.com May 9, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission 410 East Washington Street Iowa city, IA 52240 RE: Muscatine Ave., West of Scott Boulevard rezoning request (CPA 13 -00012/REZ13- 00012) Dear Commission Members: The purpose of this letter is to voice our opposition to the rezoning request CPA 13- 00012/REZ13 -00012. My wife and I live directly across Muscatine Ave. from the proposed rezoning site. We purchased our lot and built our house in 1991 in an area that was zoned residential. Our house faces south and the majority of our living space, including, the bedrooms, family room, kitchen, dining room, 3 seasons porch and outside patio face north. We believe that rezoning the land on the north side of Muscatine Ave. to a commercial status and building a convenience store /gas station whose size will encompass 3.72 acres will create a negative impact for us and for our neighborhood. This negative impact includes an increase in traffic congestion, additional traffic noise, and extensive light pollution due to the fact that the convenience store elevation will be higher than our house. A high traffic volume business with extended hours is sure to affect the safety, quietness and family orientation of our current neighborhood. We feel that all of these negatives will also create a decrease in our property value and make our house less marketable in the future. Currently our area is well served by two major grocery stores and four convenience store /gas stations. All are located within approximately one mile to the north, south or west of the proposed rezoning site, thus eliminating the need for an additional business of this type. It is our hope that the Planning and Zoning Commission will deny approval of this rezoning request and that the developer will proceed with the existing plan approved in February, 2011. Thank you. S�in�cjerely�,,, David C. Stochl h Joyce A.Stoc I Bob Miklo From: Bob Roelf <broelf @yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:20 AM To: Bob Miklo Cc: SANDMANPAR @aol.com Subject: Rezoning of Scott Blvd and American Legion Road to Commercial Dear Mr. Mikio, I object to the rezoning of Scott Blvd. and American Legion Road to commercial. This is already a busy intersection with constant heavy truck traffic. Commercial development will only exacerbate this problem. Also, this corner contains the large Legacy retirement complex. Commercial activity such as a convenience store may not be compatible with such an activity. Thanks for your consideration of my concerns on this matter. :e- 403 Elmira St. Iowa City, IA 52245 We are emailing in regard to John Hieronymus' request for rezoning of his property at the corner of Muscatine Ave. and Scott Blvd. We would like to express our disapproval of the application as we are home owners on Hampton Ct. We feel the convenience store at this location would adversely effect our neighborhood. We are concerned about the lights reflecting into our development, the noise of semi traffic, the added foot traffic and the increase in traffic in general. We try to enter onto Scott Blvd at Hampton St, and often find it difficult now, due to the amount of traffic. This would only make it worse. The Legacy Gardens facility and the University of Iowa clinic has already increased traffic in this area, and has created more traffic congestion on Scott Blvd. Please forward this to the appropriate party to have our opinion heard. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Chuck and Maggie Brummond 1129 Hampton Ct Iowa City, Iowa From: airyoder @aol.com Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:17 PM To: PlanningZoning Public Subject: Proposed rezoning Scott Boulevard /Muscatine Avenue Planning and Zoning Commission, We are writing in regards to the proposed rezoning of the property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard to commercial. We live on Hampton Court and our backyard backs up to Muscatine Avenue. Our house is five houses from the corner listed above. The eastside of Iowa City is where we have lived since 1971 and specifically in our current residence for 23 years. When we moved to this residence it was only residential or farmland and this was the reason we loved the area. You felt like you were in the country, but yet were still close to the city. Through the years, on the southeast corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard, a large residence complex and other businesses have been built. There was already an increased amount of traffic on Scott Boulevard from traffic from Interstate 80 and Highway 6, but with all the additions the traffic and noise has greatly increased. We can't even imagine the extra increase of traffic and noise this convenience /gas store will bring. For the type of rezoning that is being proposed for the large convenience /gas store, we are a little confused as to the need of it, since there' are two other convenience /gas stores located to the north and south of the proposed location. The addition of this would only bring a higher volume of traffic and noise to a wonderful part of Iowa City. All this rezoning will only deter from the beauty and peacefulness of the area. Please take our thoughts into consideration for the proposed rezoning. Thank you again, Dale & Margie Yoder 1161 Hampton Court Iowa City, IA 06/06/13 Planning and Zoning 410 E Washington St Iowa City (319) 356 -5120 The following letter opposes a proposed zoning change. Planning and Zoning Commission - Iowa -City, I own a home and live on the East side of town. I am writing to express my concern over the proposed zoning adjacent to my neighborhood. It is my understanding that this new zoning ordinance will allow a truck -style convenience store to be built a short distance from my home. The proposed location is on the corner of Scott Blvd and Muscatine Avenue in Iowa City. Having recently sold my home at 661 South Governor Street to the City of Iowa City into a Univer- City program, I am very aware of how the neighborhood's fabric is very important to the harmony of a neighborhood. The Governor Street home consisted of mixed rental and single family homes. I lived and raised my young children at that location for 20+ years. The Longfellow School community was mostly a quiet neighborhood and had great neighbors. Just this morning I awoke to the sounds of birds outside my window. My home address is 1147 Hampton Court and is a very short distance from the proposed convenience store. Being a cool morning I rolled over and pulled the covers up as the morning's sun streamed through the window. Contrasting and projecting myself into the future I can not foresee how an addition of a fuel -stop would be beneficial to the neighbor hood. The evening's glow of an overhead fuel canopy, and awakening to hearing "Pump #7 is ready for a fill" would be a stark change from my current morning rise. This would impact the neighborhood negatively and force property values /resale down. Reducing the zoning level will allow apartment buildings and stores in among the family homes already here. Any zoning allowing all night businesses should not be allowed. This will clearly bring more outside people into the neighborhood — increasing the obvious traffic, noise and crime. The value of my house is its value for my children and my retirement. Please understand the incorporation of commercial property next to residential should be reviewed with strong reflection. Just as near- campus rental effects single - family valuations near campus and all night business can negatively affect the how we raise a family and effect property values. If my property declines in value, so does the security of my family. In addition, more crowding, more traffic, more noise and crime would be extremely upsetting to the many retired families in the immediate neighborhood. Impact of commercial properties adjoining residential. Commercial properties such as bars and all hour business have no place directly adjacent to residential property. Based on a discussion with neighbors the positive comments have been few. Any survey of the neighborhood by the developer regarding the expected use and value of a fuel stop should be reviewed as a likely paid survey with leading questions that would likely favor the developer goal. You have always been sensitive to the preservation of the unique character of our neighborhoods and maintaining the family strengths of our community. I urge you to vote against this zoning issue. Those wishing to build apartments and weighted more highly commercial property, rather than new homes, have many alternatives more appropriate than this from which to chose. If I can help in any way to defeat this proposal, let me know. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, • / / / / /ill �� Todd Shepherd Home Owner - Village Green 1147 Hampton Ct. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 2 of 16 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. Comprehensive Plan / Rezonina Items: A public hearing of an application submitted by John Hieronymus to amend the Comprehensive Plan - Southeast District Plan to change the land use designation from multi - family to commercial for property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard. CPA13- 00002/ REZ13- 00012: Discussion of an application submitted by John Hieronymus for a rezoning of a total of 5.95 -acres of land located north of Muscatine Avenue, west of Scott Boulevard, 2.23 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone, 0.85 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Community Commercial (CC -2) zone and 2.87 -acres from to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Community Commercial (CC -2) zone. Miklo said the proposal has three components. He said the first is to change the Comprehensive Plan for this area from residential to commercial; the second aspect is to rezone this property from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) and Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) to Community Commercial (CC -2), and the third is to rezone the northern part of the property from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12). Miklo showed the Commission slides of the property from different perspectives. He showed the Commission a concept plan of what the applicant proposes if the rezonings are approved. He said the Comprehensive Plan shows a limited amount of undeveloped land along Scott Boulevard that is appropriate and zoned for multi - family in this part of the city. He said there are many commercial areas in the East Side, some of them with convenience stores that are located within a relatively short distance from the proposed site. He said to change this property to commercial would displace one of the few suitable locations for multi - family in this part of the city. He said staff sees no compelling reason why this change should occur. Miklo said there are also site specific reasons why staff feels that this property should not be zoned for commercial development. He said the property is located at the highest point of the neighborhood, making it difficult to screen the property and deal effectively with lighting and signage. He said the Transportation Planners feel that the amount of turning traffic in this area will increase substantially compared to what exists with the current residential zoning. He said for those reasons and for those outlined in the staff report, staff does not recommend that the Comprehensive Plan be changed in this area; staff recommends that the request for commercial zoning be denied; and they recommend that the decision be deferred for additional multi - family zoning depending on what the Commission's decision is for the remainder of the property. Freerks clarified for the public that at the previous meeting this property had been proposed for Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) zoning , and that request has now been changed to Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 3 of 16 Community Commercial (CC -2). Miklo explained that the staff had also recommended against that zoning. Eastham asked Miklo to point out other places in the city where there are commercial areas that might fit easily into the Comprehensive Plan's description of a neighborhood commercial area that would perhaps be appropriate. Miklo named the Walden Square development and Olde Towne Village, where the residential and commercial areas were designed around each other. He noted that the commercial areas were planned at the same time the adjacent residential neighborhood to help assure compatibility. Martin asked about the multi - family plan in existence for that area. Miklo explained that a couple years ago there was a rezoning of this property that included a subdivision. He explained how that plan was configured and said that it was approved at that time. He said that is the zoning that is in place until the City Council changes it after a recommendation from the Commission. Freerks opened public hearing. John Hieronymus of 3322 Muscatine Avenue presented the history and background of his family's property. He said he worked with a developer for two years on a planned development for the subject property, but the bank would ultimately not make a loan to the developer because the appraisals were lower than the cost of the development. He said he then talked to City staff about how to replat the property and lower the costs. He said Kum and Go approached him about developing the property on the corner of Scott Boulevard and Muscatine. He said when they applied for the Neighborhood Commercial rezoning, the staff comments were negative, mostly due to the size of the proposed building, so they decided to apply for Community Commercial rezoning. Kolby Jones of Kum and Go Convenience Stores said they are different than the normal convenience store, and Iowa City has nothing like it here. He said their new stores are just under 5,000 square feet because they contain a full service kitchen. He said this new store would contribute to the tax base and to the economy. He talked about the benefits this store would provide to customers and to the community and how with their LEED certification, they can trap all the light onsite. Eastham asked in reference to the needs analysis the company did as part of the planning for this proposal how much of the need is reflected for motor vehicle fuel sales and how much for other things in the store. Jones said the analysis breaks it down into how well they will do inside, and how well they will do outside. He said the breakdown was an even distribution with inside and outside sales. Mike Pugh as a representative Kum and Go said they are seeking a land use amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, not a text amendment. He said the intersection of Scott and Muscatine has been designed as arterial streets, and the houses on Muscatine are designed so the backs of them back up to Muscatine Avenue. He said the City's traffic count for this intersection is 6,000 to 8,OOOcars per day. He said they don't expect additional traffic to be generated here because Kum and Go is not a destination site. He said this application is a relatively modest modification request of 3.79 acres to the land use map. He mentioned several areas along or near the Scott Boulevard corridor that have residential uses with commercial uses mixed into the development. He said from a planning perspective, it is appropriate to place commercial uses along arterials. Pugh said there is a plan in place for what will be built on this site, and there is no uncertainly Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 4 of 16 about what could go there under the Zoning Code in a CC -2 zone. He said the applicant's expectation is that in addition to the rezoning, he fully expects a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) stating exactly how this site will be developed. He said they have started a dialogue with two good neighbor meetings and meetings with City staff. He said what the Commission must look at is if a convenience store of this nature at the intersection of two arterial streets is appropriate if it were designed in a certain fashion. He said he thought the real issue was gas and intensity of use. He claimed they would be having a very different discussion if this was a small, locally owned grocery store that people could walk to, and that idea is looked upon favorably at Commission meetings for other sites. Pugh said he strongly disagrees with the statement in the staff report that the neighborhoods in Iowa City are already well served by commercially zoned property in the area. He said one of the frequent complaints about the east side of the city is that you have to drive to get to something. He said he also takes issue with the statement from the staff report that a convenience store would essentially be an intensive auto - oriented use located in a residential neighborhood. He said auto - oriented should be okay because the subject site is on an arterial intersection. He argued that the area is residential, but not single - family residential, and that how staff describes it is a bit of a mischaracterization. He said this site has a natural buffer between the subject property and some of the more single - family areas to the north. Pugh argued that contrary to the staff's report, the topography of the subject site really doesn't pose problems that aren't conducive to commercial uses. He said the site from Muscatine Avenue to the proposed side street falls away nineteen feet, and the parking lot will sit six feet lower than Muscatine Avenue. He said the tops of the canopies for the gas amenities are fifteen feet tall, meaning they are nine feet higher than the grade on Muscatine Avenue. He said the same type of thing happens on the Hampton Court side. Pugh said that important issues that have been discussed in good neighbor meetings are the issues of traffic, light, and noise. He said one thing in the application's favor is that all the houses in Hampton Court back up to Muscatine Avenue. He said there is also fairly mature landscaping along the backs of those houses to serve as buffer. Pugh said he has also heard some of the concerns mentioned above when other developments like Olde Towne Village were done. He said there really isn't a commercial amenity in this area, which will be growing residentially in the future. He said the applicant would like the Commission to defer the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan so he and the applicant can develop a comprehensive CZA that they could present to the Commission and work with staff and the neighbors and see if there's a way forward where this could potentially work. Ron Erwin of 1146 Hampton Court said his backyard backs up to Scott Boulevard right at the intersection with Muscatine. He said there is a tremendous amount of semi traffic moving on Scott Boulevard. He said he is strongly opposed to the application. He said with this new development there will be more traffic and there will be the signage and lighting issues. He said he doesn't see a reason for another business of this type in the area. Merl Knjeniss of 1164 Hampton Court said his views have already been expressed in a letter to the Commission, which is in their packet. He said he is definitely opposed to the commercial use of that property. He said it would damage the property values, the community, and the Comprehensive Plan. Margie Yoder of 1161 Hampton Court said she and her husband purchased their property years ago when there was mostly farmland in this area. She said contrary to what Jones said early, Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 5 of 16 she does think this development would become a destination site. She says there will be much more traffic, and she doesn't see a need for another such commercial use. She said she is really, really opposed to this application. Steve Schallow of 1115 Hampton Court said he hadn't been invited to either of the good neighbor meetings. He reiterated the comments of others who said there isn't a great need for a convenience store in that area, with four gas stations within a mile of the subject site and two grocery stores nearby, as well as two pharmacies and several restaurants. He said he is concerned about having something built on that high elevation on the corner of Scott and Muscatine and having more turning traffic because it will become a destination. He said he agrees with the staff report that this application should be denied. Todd Shepard of 1147 Hampton Court said he is not in agreement with amending the Comprehensive Plan in this case. He asked the Commission to review the comments in the letter he had given them at the start of the meeting. Dave Stochl of 1151 Hampton Court said he is proposing a denial to the planning and zoning change and does not support a deferral. He said he has submitted a letter to the Commission. He said he went to Cedar Rapids last night after he attended the good neighbor meeting and took pictures of a store that is nearly identical to the one being proposed. He explained how his house and the neighborhood will be impacted by the lighting of the proposed store and its location on a higher elevation. He said the additional traffic and the egress and ingress to and from the store onto Muscatine or Scott will be heavy and unsafe. Ken Johnson of 3116 Maplewood Lane said he had concerns with the drive to the proposed store being so close to the intersection, the turn not being readily visible, how fast traffic will be moving in terms of safety to both drivers and pedestrian, particularly children. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend deferral of the applicant's request of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning item until the Commission's next meeting. Dyer seconded. Eastham explained that he could not recommend approval of any rezoning request without a change in the Comprehensive Plan. He said what he wants most to see is if a corporate convenience store concept can fit within the Comprehensive Plan's description of a neighborhood commercial area. Freerks said that she doesn't see the need to change this particular area. She said this part of Iowa City which has been planned for and developed with residential in mind. She said to try and create this kind of change at this point without any good reason put forward is detrimental to the process of the Comprehensive Plan. She said it doesn't seem sensible to challenge a developer to come forward and see how they would try to make it work. Eastham said he is not at all wedded to the success of the motion. Freerks polled the Commission, and were not four members in favor of deferral. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 0 -6. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 6 of 16 Eastham moved to recommend approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Southeast District Plan to change the land use designation from multi - family to commercial property located at the northwest corner of the intersection Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard. Swygard seconded. Swygard said she agreed with a previous comment that this is a designated residential area with commercial located close by, and she sees no reason to change the Comprehensive Plan. Martin said putting commercial in that location is moving toward sprawl instead of nurturing what is already there. She said she lives in that area and finds it quite easy to get to commercial areas. She said although there is a great arterial intersection at this site, that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to populate it with a convenience store. Eastham said the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for those areas is providing focal points and gathering places for neighborhoods, and the businesses within those area are supposedly there to provide shopping opportunities within convenient walking distances for residents in the immediate area; the design of the neighborhood commercial centers are supposed to have a pedestrian orientation with stores located close to the street and sufficient open space to allow for outdoor cafes or patios and landscaping; and parking is supposed to be located at the rear and sides of the store, with additional parking on the street. He said that is the description of what would have to be located in this area if it's going to be developed as commercial. He said he can't make a standard convenience store fit into that description. He said he hasn't heard from anyone tonight that the proposed use in this area has a pedestrian orientation, or meets any of the other criteria described as above. Swygard said it was initially Neighborhood Commercial and then since the last Commission meeting it was changed to Community Commercial, which is for a larger area of population, so that seems to be even less appropriate for changing the Comprehensive Plan. Freerks says to change the Comprehensive Plan at this point would have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. She said the east side of town does need amenities, but this isn't the place for this particular amenity. She said she has nothing against Kum and Go, and it seems like a fine business. She said there's a lot of community input that happens with a Comprehensive Plan when it's put together and goes through a great deal of thought. She said she hasn't heard a compelling argument why at this point in time that needs to change. She said she also has some concerns about traffic. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 0 -6. Swygard moved to approve an application for a rezoning of 5.95 acres of land located north of Muscatine Avenue, west of Scott Boulevard, 2.23 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone, and 0.85 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Community Commercial (CC -2) zone. There was some confusion about the best way to break out the two motions. On advice of Greenwood Hektoen, and Miklo, Swygard withdrew her motion. Theobald moved to approve the change of 0.85 acres from Low Density Single Family Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 7 of 16 (RS -5) to Community Commercial (CC -2) and 2.78 acres from Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Community Commercial (CC -2) zone. Eastham seconded. Freerks said she agreed with Eastham's remark earlier that the Commission should not approve something that they just denied as a Comprehensive Plan change. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 0 -6. Martin moved to approve 2.23 acres from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) zone. Miklo mentioned that the staffs recommendation had been for deferral. There was no second on this motion, and the motion failed. Theobald moved to defer indefinitely a rezoning of 2.23 acres from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) zone. Eastham seconded. Freerks said whatever develops in this area needs to connect with what continues on the corner, and the Commission would like to see something develop there that can integrate into the neighborhood more than the proposed convenience store. Eastham said for this specific parcel, the Comprehensive Plan does support multi - family development, and he would agree to look at that option in the future. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6 -0. Freerks informed the applicant that they still have the right to bring this before City Council, and make their case there. Freerks called for a five - minute recess. Freerks called the meeting to order. Rezonina Items REZ13- 00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction for a rezoning of 1.05 -acres of land located on First Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue from Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Planned Development Overlay /Low Density Multi - Family (OPD /RM -12) zone. Nagle -Gamm showed a map of the subject site and photos of the property and the neighborhood, and photos taken from the subject property and from the building to the south. She reminded the Commission that this item had been deferred at the previous meeting pending attention to several items that had been identified and answers to several questions the Commission had. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 8 of 16 Nagle -Gamm summarized the outstanding items. She said the Commission had discussed moving the building further to the north, and in the latest plan provided by the applicant he has doubled the size of the buffering between the proposed building and the property line to the south from ten feet to twenty feet, resulting in a decrease in the buffer on the north end of the parking and the south end of Hickory Hill Park to seventeen feet, which staff finds to be reasonable. Nagle -Gamm said the next issue was the water drainage system. She said Public Works had expressed concern that not all the storm water on the property was being handled on site, so they worked with the applicant to create several different iterations of how to improve storm water management on site. She said the latest site plan submitted by the applicant includes modifications that would pick up all the storm water from the eaves and the front of the building and would drain to an inlet near the driveway. She said there's also a new grading plan to direct storm water to that inlet. She said the applicant has also added storm water tiling along the sidewalk and the retaining wall on the south end of the building to direct storm water to a newly created inlet. She said Public Works is now satisfied that storm water will be managed appropriately on site. Nagle -Gamm said the Commission had also requested a comparison of the existing building to the south of the proposed property and the proposed building in terms of height. She showed a drawing that shows approximately a thirty -six foot difference between the midlines of the roofs of the two buildings. Freerks asked why the proposed building was dug down so deeply. Miklo responded that it was in order to get the parking underneath it. Nagle -Gamm said a question had been raised about trees on subject property. She said the revised site plan indicates the location and species of trees that exist, and in some areas there are oak trees, some within the construction zone. She said the City Forester said when he looked at the property last year when it was initially rezoned from RS -5 to RM -12, there were no significant trees. Freerks said she thinks there is a difference in how a professional forester would assess trees and how significant trees are to a person who lives in an area. She asked if they are not to be salvageable if the Forester doesn't deem them significant. Miklo said the three oaks to the west of the no construction line could to be preserved as part of the development. Nagle -Gamm said another question that was raised was lot coverage ratios and the comparison between the proposal for the property and the property to the south. She said they looked at the original site plan for the existing property and determined that the impervious surfaces were approximately forty percent of the lot as compared to forty -two percent for the proposed development. Nagle -Gamm said the applicant was asked to provide a more detailed landscaping plan and include tree species that were recommended by the Johnson County Heritage Trust, and the applicant has made adjustments to the plan to include recommended trees and grasses. Miklo said that three possible invasive species have been removed from the original plan. Nagle -Gamm said in regard to the question about the purchase agreement, staff received a copy of it, and it appears to be in order. Nagle -Gamm showed the Commission proposals that the developer submitted showing how the building and the retaining walls for the sidewalk would look from First Avenue. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 9 of 16 Nagle -Gamm said staff finds that the applicant has adequately addressed discrepancies and deficiencies and recommends approval of the item. Theobald asked for a definition of inlet as pertains to storm water management. Nagle -Gamm said it's a drainage hole where water will be directed to drain in a pipe on the site. Freerks opened public hearing. Jeff Kersbergen of 513 S. First Avenue said he is representing the applicant. He said the applicant feels this is a good match for the neighborhood. Ed Wasserman of 555 N. First Avenue said he wants to make clear that the trees he is talking about are the gigantic trees along the property line that will provide the buffer between the two properties, not the ones beyond the building in the back of the subject lot. He said with the current plan, there won't be any trees retained between the buildings, and what he concerned about and what hasn't been addressed, is the root structure of these trees. He claimed that the newest elevations submitted show every view but the relevant one with the trees. He said all the trees will be removed. He said that according to the Comprehensive Plan, there is supposed to be green space in developments in this zone. He said he is against the building plan that is too much for the small site and for the slopes. James Buddenbaum of 557 N. First Avenue said he doesn't agree with the City Forester that these trees are insignificant because they aren't a museum quality. He said looking south on N. First Avenue, you would not be able to see his building because the trees are so lush. He said the eight foot retaining wall will never hold up under the proposed storm water drainage plan, and the water will never be completely drained off the property. He said they have had severe drainage problems on their own, similar piece of land. He said they had to replace half the driveway, dig out grass in order to try and divert drainage along the driveway, put in a conduit pipe, and it still doesn't work. Ann Wade of 524 N. First Avenue said she lives directly across from the existing building to the south of the subject site. She said on her side of the street every one of the houses have had problems with drainage because of the slope. She said she's also concerned about such a big building on the subject site because of the slope and the water issues and thinks that a smaller building won't prevent the flow of water as much. Walter Seaman of 551 N. First Avenue expressed his support for the people who had spoken tonight against this rezoning. He said the removal of those trees would be criminal. He said the proposed building seems out of proportion relative to the size of the lot. Freerks said it's always difficult to hear that what the Commission approved not so long ago has water issues and has caused financial problems for residents, and it makes one think about what happens next door to a property that has similar slopes. She asked the staff if they have any concern about water issues. Miklo replied that they have come to hear about drainage problems on the existing property through this process, but they can't speak to why they occurred. He said staff asked the City Engineers to review the plan for the proposed building carefully, they said it needed further study, and the last iteration of the plan that they reviewed was found satisfactory. He said he doesn't think they are capable of answering the questions comparing this with the problems with the property next door. He said that the Engineering Staff did closely review this and there will be further review of the retaining wall question when the building permit is reviewed. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 10 of 16 Greenwood Hektoen said it's the developer's obligation to insure that he installs the proper and necessary private utilities. Eastham asked if the Building Code requires a builder to demonstrate that the building won't have water infiltration into any part of the structure. Staff could answer that question. Freerks said it seems that some of the trees along the property line are within ten feet of the property line. Wasserman said that the plans show that no trees will remain along the property line. Freerks said she thinks it is unfortunate that more small natural areas around town aren't preserved unless they are examples of stellar trees. She said the Commission doesn't necessarily have a way to require that people have to preserve them. Wasserman said he questions what will happen to both properties per the drainage problem when so much of the root structure will be unearthed for the retaining wall and for the building itself. Freerks asked Kersbergen if there's a reason none of the trees can be kept. He said he can ask the applicant. He said the applicant has built a similar structure on a steep, narrow lot, and he was able to protect the properties that were high above that development, so he's been successful implementing a plan like this one before. Martin asked if the applicant had considered building up rather than out. Miklo said there was a prior plan for townhouses, and it required more grading and bigger retaining walls. Martin asked if this footprint could be more compact. Miklo said it could be, and that would add a floor to the building. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend approval of REZ13- 00004, an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction for a rezoning of 1.05 -acres of land located on First Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue from Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) zone to Planned Development Overlay /Low Density Multi- Family (OPD /RM -12) zone including a stipulation that the retaining wall design will need to be certified by a structural engineer before the permitting process. Martin seconded. Martin said she still has concerns about the stability of the building to the south of the subject property once that ground is disturbed, particularly after looking at the picture where the proposed building is situated so much lower than the adjacent one. Freerks said she has concerns about water and drainage. She said she would be willing to ask for deferral, but she's not sure how much further they'd get with it. She said she thinks there's value in trying to protect these trees. She said she's not sure she's inclined to support this item. Theobald said she went out and hiked around the whole subject property, and she would support requesting that if possible the trees be saved. However, she said the trees weren't in very good condition, some of them appeared to be volunteers, not pruned properly. She didn't see any oak trees, so they probably weren't very large, but said they have a very shallow root system, so any excavation around them would affect them. She said she does see a great value to trees. She said she's leaning toward supporting the application. She said drainage is an issue and the day she was there, the ground was very soggy. She said she does like to see storm water handled in more environmentally friendly ways. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 11 of 16 Martin said the new renderings were striking in that they clearly spelled out how much impervious area there will be on the subject site, more even than the adjacent site. She said she is questioning this application more than before, which has nothing to do with the fact of its location or that it's multi - family. Theobald said she liked the selection of trees in the new plan. Swygard said she shared Martin's concern of these buildings being so close together on this slope and whatever the quality of the trees, they do provide a buffer. She said they've seen this project grow larger. She said she has been out to the subject site, and something just doesn't feel right to her about this application. Eastham said he's inclined vote for approval. He said he doesn't know a way to address the stability of the building to the south through the Zoning Code. He would be in favor of having the applicant get an engineering report focusing on that if he knew how to do that. He said he hoped there were ways for the property owners on the adjacent site to protect themselves. He said he thinks the applicant and staff have worked very hard together to address the issue of surface water. He agreed that it would be preferable not to disturb the trees that exist on the subject property, he thinks that's a solvable problem and he would support a deferment if that's' a sticking point. He said he doesn't see a reason not to proceed because of the proposed building's size. Freerks said she really has concerns about the water, and she thinks there is more that can be done about the trees, so she's not quite ready to vote for the application. Dyer said the City Engineers have already approved the storm water system. Miklo explained that was just for the storm water and didn't deal with the questions that arose about the slope stability from the adjacent property. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 2-4 with Eastham and Theobald voting in favor. Swygard moved to defer to June 20. Eastham seconded. Freerks said the Commission wants to talk about all aspects of water, slope stability and about the issue of trees and the building placement. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. REZ13- 00014: Discussion of an application submitted by Chezik -Bell Properties for a rezoning of 2.30 -acres of land located southeast of the intersection of Highway 1 and Sunset Street in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to amend the Conditional Zoning Agreement regarding setback and landscaping adjacent to Highway 1. Miklo showed the Commission drawings and photographs of the subject property. He explained that the Jiffy Lube business has a thirty foot setback, and there's a Conditional Zoning Agreement that requires a thirty foot setback. He said the application is to reduce that setback PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED MAY 16 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: David Stochl RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: There were none. 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. —Z Comprehensive Plan / Rezonino Item A public hearing of an application submitted by John Hieronymus to amend the Comprehensive Plan - Southeast District Plan to change the land use designation from multi - family to commercial for property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard. Miklo said staff had received a request from the applicant to defer this item until the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of June 6th. He said that because there were interested neighbors present, he would present and abbreviated staff report. The current zoning of the subject property is low density multi - family (RM -12), and there's a zoning agreement that provides for up to twenty -three townhouse -style units on this property. He said in order for the rezoning of the corner property to occur, the Commission would have to amend the Comprehensive Plan. He showed photos of the neighborhood and explained what kinds of areas surround it. He said a unique feature of this site is that it is at the highest point in the neighborhood, so it is highly visible. Miklo said there was a previously approved plan for this area for a new street, Terrance Lane, that would loop around and end here near the western edge of the residential development with Planning and Zoning Commission May 16, 2013 - Formal Page 2 of 4 the idea that it could be extended to the south for additional lots in the future. Miklo said this included the three lots that had the twenty -three townhouse -style units on them. He said the applicant has submitted a concept plan showing how that would change if the rezoning is approved and the property is re- subdivided. Miklo said that staff does not see a compelling reason to change the Comprehensive Plan in this area. He said there are several commercial areas within a mile of the subject location, and they all contain convenience stores. He said that staff is not recommending approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment or the rezoning to commercial. Eastham asked if the Commission could get a list of areas that are zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) in the area encompassed by the district plan for this neighborhood. Miklo said he could show that on a map at the next meeting. Thomas said he would like to see examples of where commercial has been successfully integrated into areas of residential development like this one. Freerks opened public hearing. David Stochl of 1158 Hampton Court said he lives directly south of where the convenience store is being proposed. He said he built his house in 1991 with the understanding that this was a residential area. He said there is a convenience store a half mile north, there are two a mile west and one a mile south, and the area is serviced by two grocery stores. He said from a noise, traffic and lighting standard, the proposed convenience store would negatively impact the area. He said the proposed building would be five - thousand square feet, excluding parking space and gas pumps. He said he would urge the Commission to deny this application. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved that CPA13 -00002 be deferred to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of June 6th Swygard seconded. A vote was taken the motion carried 7 -0. CPA13- 00002/ REZ13- 00012: Discussion of an application submitted by John Hieronymus for a rezoning of a total of 5.95 -acres of land located north of Muscatine Avenue, west of Scott Boulevard, 2.23 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone, 0.85 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) zone and 2.87 -acres from to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) zone. (This item was discussed in the comments above.) Freerks opened public hearing. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved that these items be deferred to the Planning and Zoning th Commission meeting of June 6 Planning and Zoning Commission May 16, 2013 - Formal Page 2 of 4 the idea that it could be extended to the south for additional lots in the future. Miklo said this included the three lots that had the twenty -three townhouse -style units on them. He said the applicant has submitted a concept plan showing how that would change if the rezoning is approved and the property is re- subdivided. Miklo said that staff does not see a compelling reason to change the Comprehensive Plan in this area. He said there are several commercial areas within a mile of the subject location, and they all contain convenience stores. He said that staff is not recommending approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment or the rezoning to commercial. Eastham asked if the Commission could get a list of areas that are zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) in the area encompassed by the district plan for this neighborhood. Miklo said he could show that on a map at the next meeting. Thomas said he would like to see examples of where commercial has been successfully integrated into areas of residential development like this one. Freerks opened public hearing. David Stochl of 1158 Hampton Court said he lives directly south of where the convenience store is being proposed. He said he built his house in 1991 with the understanding that this was a residential area. He said there is a convenience store a half mile north, there are two a mile west and one a mile south, and the area is serviced by two grocery stores. He said from a noise, traffic and lighting standard, the proposed convenience store would negatively impact the area. He said the proposed building would be five - thousand square feet, excluding parking space and gas pumps. He said he would urge the Commission to deny this application. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved that CPA13 -00002 be deferred to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of June 6 th Swygard seconded. A vote was taken the motion carried 7 -0. CPA13- 00002/ REZ13- 00012: Discussion of an application submitted by John Hieronymus for a rezoning of a total of 5.95 -acres of land located north of Muscatine Avenue, west of Scott Boulevard, 2.23 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) zone, 0.85 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) zone and 2.87 -acres from to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) zone. (This item was discussed in the comments above.) Freerks opened public hearing. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved that these items be deferred to the Planning and Zoning tn Commission meeting of June 6. Planning and Zoning Commission May 16, 2013 - Formal Page 3 of 4 Dyer seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. Rezoning Item REZ13- 00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction for a rezoning of 1.05 -acres of land located on First Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue from Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Planned Development Overlay /Low Density Multi- Family (OPD /RM -12) zone. Miklo said the applicant is still working on a revised plan and has requested that this item be deferred to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of June 6th Freerks opened public hearing. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to defer REZ13 -00004 to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of June 6th Thomas seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: May 2, 2013 Swygard moved to approve the minutes of May 2, 2013 with corrections. Theobald seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. OTHER Miklo explained the changes that will be made in the Good Neighborhood Policy and how it will be reported in the staff report. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Theobald seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7 -0 vote. IL �J- 1 d4;4 Z 10 I I Q I IJ I I W I I = I I F § I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I � I I o I I O I LL W z I�I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .%6'S .o-1 2 O Q W J W �Q 1 W > I Q z I� 0 FIE IN z � �LL NK IL I I I I I I I I I I I I wF 5> N zz np �N n'2 �LL I I I I I I I I r I I I I I J \I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .9 U Q z -z z W a 0 or i' Nn gz w3 no w w n0 Y Y �e Z I ° I I Q I I � I I J I I w I I � I 150 i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II II II I IIIIIIIIIII li U � w I I I I I I w — = �101�1�110' IIIII�IIIII� 0�1I II I O � � a I I � I I CL Q �I I I I I Q — U I I O II IIIIIIII W5 N off N Q IIIIIIIIIII I'If'ililil ° ° I w O I 111111 IIIIIIIIIIII I � I I LL I � I a I � "J IIIIIIIiilll IIIIIIIIIII I I J IIIIIIIIIIII i i i i `� `� II�I���I�II�II IIIIIIIIIIII I I II I z 1111110 I r I O o 1 I O I I I IIIIIIIIIIII I J IIIIIIIIIII I I I I I I I I IIIIIIIIIIII IIIII I IIIIIII'Illl IIIII I IIIIIIIIIIII IIIII II IIIIIIIIIIII �IIII 4 Z O i# z O w o W N W I- 9 0 io 4 fh 4 4 Q 4 N z O H W W aHa G L� a N ,Y,7 I 'NIN„9 -,9L w ¢ 0 N z 4 0 Nw oz lh Q 2 a O > N Y U J W N J m o f m o z v O N W w � Q 4 z a z U O O u a z 4 Q F5 a M z w z W 2 O U 4 � a LL i0 U 0 w r i ro j � K 2 Z Z QO ll � n w w C o '4 in 4 LU (V a z O w o W N W I- 9 0 io 4 fh 4 4 Q 4 N z O H W W aHa G L� a N U) H V w H x u w H d V W w w x ,Y,7 I 'NIN„9 -,9L w ¢ z z O 0 Nw oz w Q 2 O > N O y U J W J m o f o z W O W Q 4 z U O O Q m a a z w z U 4 � a 0 w r i K 2 CIO Q '4 in LU a r O ~ O H > O W J W iM � q O O d 0- V' O w O1 z w z E � Y s � pA � o w m z a C-6 z r J Q O W K M W o Y Ow 0 w U ? Q Z Zi LL O o NU Z ap O m J H U) H V w H x u w H d V W w w x fY:�F F-W cnn QW :2im Qf:�t HC) U) C) QW �m Y O J _ LL `- Q II Z � N II b (n z Z m m Z W U Q Q 0 O W ry W LWi m (n W S U U) Of O 0 U tr O FW- w W F- O Z Z I[ El � II Q LLJ a D .iE cz LL Q) Q- 0 U) L m 4c Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5236 (REZ13- 00012) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING 2.3 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 1 AND SUNSET STREET IN THE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI -1) ZONE. (REZ13- 00014) WHEREAS, the Menards INC., is owner of certain real estate in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone located southeast of the intersection of Highway 1 and Sunset Street; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan -South Central District Plan indicates that the subject property is appropriate for Intensive or Highway Commercial development; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan -South Central District Plan states that entranceway aesthetics need to be considered along Highway 1 West; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, said property is subject to an existing Conditional Zoning Agreement (Ordinance No. 96- 3736) that requires a minimum 30 -foot front setback; and WHEREAS, the owner has requested that the existing Conditional Zoning Agreement (Ordinance No 96- 3736) be repealed and replaced with a new Conditional Zoning Agreement; and WHEREAS, this conditional rezoning would allow the minimum setback along the Highway 1 frontage to be reduced from 30 feet to 11 feet in exchange for a higher level of screening and landscaping along the property's frontage with Highway 1 and within the parking area/display area. Other relevant conditions from the 1996 conditional zoning agreement are included in the new conditional zoning agreement attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the applicant agrees to develop the property_ in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area of the city. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the rezoning and determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan -South Central District Plan policy for entranceway aesthetics provided the conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto are met; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I APPROVAL. The property described below is hereby zoned Intensive Commercial (CI -1), subject to the conditions stated in the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 1 Westport Plaza —Part Two, Iowa City, Iowa. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of the ordinance as approved by law. SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the City. SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Ordinance No. Page 2 SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 12013. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK App oved by City Attorney's Office .7 Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5251 (REZ13- 00004) CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City "), Menarc/) Inc. (hereinafter "Owner "), and Chezik -Bell Properties, L.C. (hereinafter "Applicant "). WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 2.3 acres of property located southeast of the intersection of Highway 1 and Sunset Street; and WHEREAS, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property to amend the Conditional Zoning Agreement by reducing the minimum setback requirement from the Highway 1 right -of -way from 30 feet to 11 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding installation of extensive landscaping along the property's frontage with Highway 1, side lot lines, and to the northeast and southwest corners of the property, along with adherence to the other conditions enumerated in the original Conditional Zoning Agreement (Ordinance No. 96 -3736) and restated in the current CZA, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, the Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the need for protection of environmentally - sensitive areas; and WHEREAS, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. MenardAlnc. is the legal title holder of the property legally described as: Lot 1 Westport Plaza —Part Two, Iowa City, Iowa, Book 38, Page 257 Johnson County Recorder. 2. Chezik -Bell Properties, L.C. has a leasehold interest in the above - described property. 3. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the South Central District plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change. 4. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions: a. The development of the subject property shall have no direct vehicular access onto Highway 1. Access to the subject property shall be through the existing access drives from adjacent properties. b. Prior to the issuance of a building permit on the subject property, Owner shall dedicate to the adjacent property owners a cross - access easement to allow vehicular access between properties located to the north and south of the subject property. This access easement shall be shown on all site plans for future development and may be located through the parking lot aisles. c. No outdoor storage of merchandise or material, except for that associated with auto vehicle sales, plant nurseries, and florist shops, shall occur within 100 feet of the Highway 1 right -of -way. Outdoor storage areas located beyond 100 feet of the Highway 1 right -of -way shall be screened with a solid wall at least six feet in height. A planted landscape bed a minimum of 15 feet in depth shall be located adjacent to any such wall between the wall and the Highway 1 right -of -way, and no parking or paving shall be allowed within the 15 -foot landscape bed. d. Loading docks and receiving areas shall not be located on any wall facing Highway 1. Loading docks in other locations that are visible from Highway 1 shall be screened in accordance with applicable performance standards set forth in the Iowa City Code of Ordinances. e. All parking aisles shall terminate with a landscape bed a minimum of nine feet in depth. The landscape beds shall be planted with parking lot trees, which may count towards the parking area trees otherwise required by City ordinances. f. Only one free - standing sign shall be permitted on the subject property. g. If signage is to be lighted, it shall be internally illuminated. h. The parking /display area shall be setback and landscaped in accordance with the attached landscape plan dated 5/29/13 and marked as revised on 6/11/13. The minimum setback along the Highway 1 frontage shall be 11 feet, but shall be deeper on the north and south ends of the parking /display aisle as shown. Landscaping shall extend along the side lot lines and into the parking lot islands as illustrated on said landscape plan with use of a minimum of three different species of trees. The attached landscape plan shall constitute the minimum standard that shall be maintained over time. Landscaped green space and setback areas may be increased, but shall not be reduced to less than what is shown on the attached plan. 5. The Owner, Applicant and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2013), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 6. The Owner, Applicant and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 7. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. 2 8. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 9. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this day of CITY OF IOWA CITY BY: Matthew J. Hayek, Mayor Attest: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Approved by: City Attorney's Office CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) 2013. Menard /Inc.,, pWNt By: i henn T e,�j gal Es P Mo.,�er By: Chezik -Bell Properties, L.C., APPLICANT This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2013, by Matthew Hayek and Marian K. Karr as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. y Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) 3 CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF WISCONSIN) ) ss: EAU CLAIRE COUNTY ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on �v1'1 / q , 2013 by 7herom ✓ Ben as Real j6rA?4C "40elel" of Menar4, Inc. Notary Public in nd for said County and State ti r ?° Z _ (Stamp or Seal) `" F O ...» --zo ' Title (and Rank) Ab � < •�i'9 F `N�����' �rrrUpM����� M7 Co„„*►rr"00 ►r�er�i4he�f� .....: . 4 Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by _ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Champion Dickens Dobyns Hayek Mims Payne Throgmorton that the First Consideration 7/23/2013 Voteforpassage: AYES: Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 =356= -5236 (REZ13-00012) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT REGARDING SETBACK AND LANDSCAPING FOR 2.3 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 1 AND SUNSET STREET IN THE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI -1) ZONE. (REZ13- 00014) WHEREAS, the applicant, Chezik -Bell Properties, is owner of certain real estate in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone located on southeast of the intersection of ighway 1 and Sunset Street that is subject to a conditional zoning agreement equiring a 30 -foot front set ack requirement; and WHEREAS, the applicant has reques d that the properly be re oned to release this condition from the zoning requirements, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan- uth Central District appropriate for Intensive or Highway Comme ial development; ar WHEREAS, the subject property falls with Subarea B, as gl Central District Plan, and the Plan states that ntrancewa) commercial uses in Subarea B develop and rede elop; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) pro 'des that conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning r uest, satisfy public needs caused by the requested chan ; an WHEREAS, the applicant agrees to develop the ro e maintain a extensive landscaping along the property's r nt and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement a& this area of the city. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commi sio determined that it complies with the Comprehensiv Plan - aesthetics provided that it meets conditions addr sing SL plan and additional landscaping in the northeast a southw indicates that the subject property is ineated in the Comprehensive Plan -South :tics need to be considered as intensive- City of Iowa City may impose reasonable and above existing regulations, in order to with a front set -back of 11 feet and plant and with Highway 1 in accordance with the terms hereto to ensure appropriate development in has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and 'outh Central District Plan policy for entranceway i stantial adherence to the submitted landscape e t corners of the subject property; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY TH CITY COUN L OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I APPROVAL. The property de cribed below is ereby zoned to CIA zone, subject to the conditions stated in the Conditional Zoning greement attache hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: Lot 1 Westport Plaza —Part Two, Iowa qty, Iowa. SECTION Il. ZONING MAP. The but ing official is hereby authorized) and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to onform to this amendment upo�i the final passage, approval and publication of the ordinance as approv by law. l SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZO ING AGREEMENT. The mayor is h�reby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk attest, the onditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the City. SECTION IV. CERTIFICATI AND RECORDING. Upon passage and pproval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized And directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the Office of the County Recor, r, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Ordinance No. Page 2 SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part th reof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VII. EFFECNVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in a ct after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided bj Passed and approved this MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office day of 2,113. Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5251 (REZ13- 00004) CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City "), Menards Inc. (hereinafter "Owner "), and Chezik -Bell Properties, L.C. (hereinafter "Applicant "). WHEREAS, Owner is the leg4l title holder of al southeast of the intersection of High y 1 and Sunset WHEREAS, the Owner has re uested the rez Conditional Zoning Agreement by reduciii the minimum 1 right -of -way from 30 feet to 11 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning o conditions regarding installation of extensive I. Highway 1, side lot lines, and to the northeast a adherence to the other conditions enumerated (Ordinance No. 96 -3736) and restated in the ci with the Comprehensive Plan; and ately 2.3 acres of property located and of said property to amend the ck requirement from the Highway mmissi n has determined that, with appropriate indsc ping along the property's frontage with d s thwest corners of the property, along with he original Conditional Zoning Agreement ar nt CZA, the requested zoning is consistent WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provid that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an appli nit's rez ing request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs c used by th requested change; and WHEREAS, the Owner acknowl dges that cert ain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the development f the property is 4onsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the need for protection of envi nmentally- sensitive areas; and WHEREAS, the Owner agrees to #velop this property in 4ccordance with the terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning Pygreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consid�ation of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: / 1. Menards Inc. is the Ioal title holder of the property legally described as: Lot 1 Westport Plaza —Part Two, loyfa City, Iowa, Book 38, Page 257 Johnson County Recorder. 2. Chezik -Bell Properties, L.C. has a leasehold interest in the above - described property. 3. The Owner nd Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the princip s of the Comprehensive Plan and the South Central District plan. Further, the parti acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change. 4. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions: a. The development of the subject property shall have no direct vehicular access onto ighway 1. Access to the subject property shall be through the existing access drives fro adjacent properties. b. Prior the issuance of a building permit on the subject property, Owner shall dedicate to the a 'acent property owners a cross - access easement to allow vehicular access between p perties located to the north and south of the subject property. This access easement s II be shown on all site plans for future develo ent and may be located through the pa 'ng lot aisles. c. No outdoor stora a of merchandise or material, except f r that associated with auto vehicle sales, plan nurseries, and florist shops, shall ccur within 100 feet of the Highway 1 right -of- y. Outdoor storage areas loca d beyond 100 feet of the Highway 1 right -of -way hall be screened with a solid II at least six feet in height. A planted landscape bed a inimum of 15 feet in depth hall be located adjacent to any such wall between the wall nd the Highway 1 right- -way, and no parking or paving shall be allowed within the 15 oot landscape bed. d. Loading docks and receiving a as shall not be loc ed on any wall facing Highway 1. Loading docks in other locations at are visible fr m Highway 1 shall be screened in accordance with applicable perfo nce standar set forth in the Iowa City Code of Ordinances. e. All parking aisles shall terminate wit a land ape bed a minimum of nine feet in depth. The landscape beds shall be pl ted ith parking lot trees, which may count towards the parking area trees otherwise q red by City ordinances. f. Only one free - standing sign shall be permitt d on the subject property. g. If signage is to be lighted, it shall be intern y 'lluminated. h. The parking /display area shall be setb k a landscaped in accordance with the attached landscape plan dated 5/29/ and arked as revised on 6/11/13. The minimum setback along the Highway frontage all be 11 feet, but shall be deeper on the north and south ends of the rking /display isle as shown. Landscaping shall extend along the side lot lines an into the parking of islands as illustrated on said landscape plan with use of a mini um of three differe species of trees. The attached landscape plan shall constitute a minimum standard hat shall be maintained over time. Landscaped green spac and setback areas may increased, but shall not be reduced to less than what is own on the attached plan. 5. The Owner, Applicant and C' y acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to im ose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2013), and that said conditions satisfyeloped, needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 6. The Owner, ApplicaCity acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, red or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditio ing Agreement. 7. The parties ackno`oGledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. 2 U) LW wlr' a 0 J co W Y N LU U • � I N Q J 0. 0 F- U) W r O J 0 U 0 �N ym � Jain a3�g; Rif PAN" w r- ism Z' IN H8,811a a -� mg, 1 e���:� � � � � W a�a � ■a� o�m E "e1R %oo LLJ my Yam NOIvo z o N %a 400040a0�wom €F `_o 0 �( / \�_� N a dog uyz =Z N 00 m U) LW wlr' a 0 J co W Y N LU U • � I N Q J 0. 0 F- U) W r O J 0 U 0 � x a3�g; Rif PAN" w E 19 ism Z' IN H8,811a a -� mg, 1 e���:� � � � � W a�a � ■a� �gMkNA "e1R %oo �' � o N %a 400040a0�wom €F U) LW wlr' a 0 J co W Y N LU U • � I N Q J 0. 0 F- U) W r O J 0 U 0 � e �\ (g �. '03 4,,b', O � no v NN Q " 0 1( � o� ��� \ be � x < yy N I N � e �\ (g �. '03 4,,b', O � no v NN Q " 0 1( � o� ��� \ be &R$vP Z fin V) ~ ° th L U m Z Jig 4 _ W WQ � Z � Z iY`s- a�Wyqybgy`Y6» �p�a �ggt € Yg�g y I�y1 Lu —{ W V. H HH19O 99LB . .$$NNi fill'ilgi`sfold ii i i 28'. ggQ�yay�� Hag \ gNpR�Rpb�gO�, yyyyi xx� ® 1 885 NCI VO z W Z aza ° - a s _� �gwo0o O V J CL W w. N 0<0 1 w�-U M .Y■ 0 NCO 2 U U) W r O � e 5r L U m X WQ � Z � ti Lu —{ Yam $ T S S> \ \ mU Y cn 0 NCI VO z W Z aza ° y a 3 _� �gwo0o N 6 g °� N a vx 3� C ryryh kk kk Q 3 O � e a o< o o zz x' w; j � tt CC 0 O � 00 O W Jz �w LS lJ 5r L U m X WQ � Z � ti Lu —{ Yam $ T S S> \ \ mU Y cn 0 NCI VO z W Z aza ° a 3 _� �gwo0o g °� a o< o o zz x' w; j � tt CC 0 O � 00 O W Jz �w LS lJ 5r S S> \ \ a vx ryryh � Q 3 3 \ .r ` It n N \ \ 8. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 9. The parties agr a that this Conditional Zoning Agreerylent shall be incorporated by reference into t e ordinance rezoning the subject propert ,and that upon adoption and publication of th ordinance, this agreement shall be re rded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office t the Applicant's expense. Dated this day of CITY OF IOWA CITY 2013. Menards Inc., OWNER BY: Matthew J. Hayek, Mayor By: Attest: By: i Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Approved by: City Attorney's Office CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGE STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) ezik -Bell Properties, L.C., APPLICANT By: This instrument was acknowledged 7ore me on Hayek and Marian K. Karr as Mayor a City Clerk, n Notary Public in (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) P , 2013, by Matthew of the City of Iowa City. for the State of Iowa CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF WISCONSIN) ) ss: To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: REZ13 -00014 GENERAL INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern Date: June 6, 2013 Applicant: Chezik -Bell Properties by Jon Bell 2835 Rosebay Court Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52411 217- 242 -6300 jonbell @chezikbell.com Contact Person: David Larsen 277 Hickory Street Kalona, Iowa 52247 319- 656 -5271 Larsen @kctc.com Property Owner: Menards Inc. C/o Timothy Enyeart, Legal Department 4777 Menards Drive Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54703 715- 876 -2776 tenyeart@menard- inc.com Requested Action: Amend the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached to the current CI -1 zoning Purpose: To reduce the front setback from 30 feet, as specified in the CZA, to 11 feet, in exchange for more extensive landscaping within the front setback Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: Highway 1 West and Sunset Street 2.3 acres Undeveloped, commercial (CI -1) West: Highway 1 and residential, Cl-, RS -5 and RM -12 East: Undeveloped and Iowa City Municipal Airport, CI -1 and P1 North: Undeveloped, CIA South: University of Iowa Studio Arts campus, commercial, CIA South Central District Plan— Intensive or Highway Commercial File Date: May 7, 2013 2 45 Day Limitation Period: July 1, 2013 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Chezik -Bell Properties, has requested an amendment to the Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) attached to the current Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zoning for an undeveloped, 2.3 -acre property located on the south side of Highway 1 West, east of Sunset Street. The CZA requires a 30 -foot front setback from the Highway 1 right -of -way, with ground cover within the setback. The applicant has proposed reducing the front setback to 11 feet in exchange for more extensive landscaping along the property's frontage with Highway 1. The applicant has indicated the property will be used for an auto dealership. The concept plan submitted by the applicant shows that the reduced setback requirement would allow the space to be used as an auto display area. The applicant has stated that the irregular shape of the lot restricts the display space available to the point where an auto sales lot would not be able to function if the 30 foot setback is not reduced. The applicant also pointed out that the property at 809 Highway 1 West, also used for an auto dealership, was allowed to reduce the front setback from 30 feet to 11 feet subject to more extensive landscaping. The subject property was rezoned in 1996 from General Industrial (1 -1) to CI -1, subject to a CZA. At the time, City policy called for preserved and enhanced entrances to Iowa City. The CZA specifically identified Highway 1 as a primary entrance to Iowa City from the southwest. The conditions included measures to lessen the impact of the development on surrounding areas and allow for coordinated development of properties in the area. In addition to the 30 -foot front setback, the conditions prevented direct vehicular access from Highway 1 to the subject property, limited outdoor storage within 100 feet of the Highway 1 right -of -way to that associated with auto sales and plant nurseries, required an access easement between nearby properties and the subject property, and allowed just one free - standing sign on the subject property. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: CI -1 zoning provides areas for light industrial uses — businesses with operations typically characterized by outdoor storage and display of merchandise, and repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles. The types of retail uses allowed in this zone are limited in order to create opportunities for more land- intensive commercial uses. Typical uses found in CIA zoning include vehicle -sales lots, mechanics, warehousing and contractor's yards. Dimensional requirements for CI -1 zoning require a minimum front setback of 10 feet (CZA requires 30 feet for this and other properties in the area) and no minimum requirements for side and rear setbacks. There are no requirements for building size in the CI -1 zoning, apart from a maximum height of 35 feet and a maximum floor -area ratio of 1 (floor area within building divided by total area of the lot). A concept plan submitted by the applicant shows the building footprint, positioned at the rear of the lot, would be approximately 10,150 square feet (building height has not been specified). In addition, the Zoning Code requires one parking space per 500 square feet of floor area (20 parking spaces, if the building has one floor). Therefore, setbacks, building size and parking spaces, as indicated on the concept plan, would meet requirements for the CI -1 zone. But it does not appear the building size and parking requirements would limit the amount of display space available, as stated by the applicant. When considering the applicants request to reduce the setback in exchange for more extensive landscaping, staff notes that the front property line is already set back approximately 60 feet from the Highway 1 roadway due to the extensive right -of -way width in this area. There is also a PCD \Staff Reportskez13 -00014 chezik -bell hwy 1.doc �3 notable change in grade, a decline of approximately 10 feet, from the roadway to the property line that acts as a sort of natural buffer. The incline of the slope begins close to the front property line. In staffs view, what would be, in effect, a 90 -foot setback from the roadway (60 feet within the right -of -way plus 30 feet on the subject property), covered with grass, would be less- aesthetically pleasing than the proposed 11 foot setback with extensive landscaping. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The South Central District Plan future land -use map depicts the subject property as appropriate for Intensive or Highway Commercial development. The subject property falls within Subarea B. The plan addresses intensive commercial uses in Subarea B, and states that entranceway aesthetics need to be considered as these intensive commercial properties develop and redevelop. Extensive landscaping along the frontage of the property would likely add to the visual appeal of the property. Thus, staff believes that with more extensive landscaping than would otherwise be required, even the reduced setback proposed by the applicant would meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has submitted the attached landscape plan depicting ornamental trees and shrubs within the proposed 11 foot setback. Based on staff's recommendation the plan shows the landscaping treatment extending along the sides of the property for a distance of approximately 100 feet. There are two approximately 30 by 30 foot wide lawn areas shown in the northwest and southwest corners of the property where the 30 foot setback area is shown as remaining on the applicant's landscape plan. To assure that these areas are not converted in additional paving staff recommends that landscaping be added to those two areas. Access and street design: The property does not have direct vehicular access from Highway 1. Vehicular access to the property from Highway 1 is provided between the properties located at 1335 Highway 1 and 1411 Highway 1. The property at 1335 Highway 1 features a drive running northwest - southeast across the property. The property at 1335 Highway 1 abides by the 30 -foot setback. The concept plan shows an aisle on the subject property connecting to the drive across 1335 Highway 1. The reduced setback would not interfere with vehicular access to the subject property. There are no sidewalks along this section of Highway 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ13- 00014, a proposal to amend the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached to the current CI -1 zoning by reducing the required front setback from 30 feet to 11 feet, subject to adherence to the attached landscape plan showing more extensive landscaping in the remaining areas of the frontage including extension of the landscaping to the side lot lines as shown on the attached plan and subject to additional landscaping in the northeast and southwest corners of the property. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Concept Plan 3. Applicant's statement as to why change is warranted Approved by: /- d'y-- x— /l�Lt� Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development PCMStaff Reports\rez13 -00014 chezik -bell hwy 1.doc .. ...... . .. N LU ce �. v Jr v�jb0 ... ..... ... ... 4-P — T­­­ 4-J V) Is ------ Qs ---- -------- cz Ir FM Ul 9 . . .... 430 -- - - — - -­- - 1 �l N= \ N 55 a � OO OO QO s\ p Q N $i� rr� D Oo g? D g D Z N 2Z OZ NO n 0 9 m 0 z :. d \ SfjggiN fly♦ 3 i_ mti 8 3 se n e_�y mn c Cs�z Ul �. g £N D 7C -I WDm A '��'Dr�i �Zm 2 W V) -C mV r r W � N to c-f O m m po 4A Vo A 20 p ¢� r u N R° \ \ \ q S \ �F'Nfgyf0 \ \ M \ \ � \ N 55 a � OO OO QO p Q N $i� rr� D Oo g? D g D Z N 2Z OZ NO n r- 0 R�m � t x x l f Y a �a oA i g? g 0 DZD V Z 0 9 m 0 z N O- v 1. Z 1 o�IU) m \!�] Z nT D r m-0 T� 3 i_ mti 8 3 se n e_�y mn c Cs�z Ul - g £N 7C -I WDm A '��'Dr�i �Zm 2 W V) -C mV r r W � N to c-f O m m N 4A 9 A N R° V m to �m O � N �O� ,Z7 m 0 V _rte 0 > -0 *Nm ;o m D /v O z 7r Z �pFn a 0 �;a� 0 SB�� ❑a %9I ®a�ir���g +i ;8g 9 6 m 181.1 m i F $$£ °{ -use e�N�ss$e€ z ig 29 $g ya migN w g aka 1 Run mom oA i g? g 0 DZD V Z 0 9 m 0 z N O- v 1. Z 1 o�IU) m \!�] Z nT D r m-0 T� 3 i_ mti 8 3 se n e_�y mn c Cs�z Ul - g £N 7C -I WDm S� '��'Dr�i �Zm 2 W V) -C mV r r W � N to c-f O m m Applicant's Statement as to change in Zoning Agreement Item # 5 from Application To whom it may concern: This Application and Statement is to not change the zoning designation CI -1, but only to make a change to the Conditional Zoning Agreement associated with Lot 1 WESTORT PLAZA - -- -Part Two, Iowa City, Iowa found starting at Vol. or Book 2139 Page 193. Actual page of change is found at Vol. or Book 2139 page 195 4t ", item Paragraph h., which reads "There shall be a 30 foot setback from the Highway 1 right -of -way, which setback shall be landscaped with ground cover such as grass. No parking or paving other than sidewalks shall be allowed within this 30 —foot setback." Our request is to change the "30 foot" to "11 foot ", and in exchange to implement a more advanced and detailed landscaping plan, which landscape plan will be contained within the 11 foot area, just like Nissan Auto dealership ( shown in photos attached and similar landscape plan attached). The Nissan dealership was allowed a similar arrangement where in exchange for other consideration they could implement an Eleven foot setback with and more detailed an advanced landscape plan. It is our view that this allowance or change is warranted due to the fact a nearby property on Highway One was allowed a similar change to incorporate advanced and a more detailed landscape plan in exchange for a consideration. Factors to be considered for change: 1. The shape of Lot 1 presents design issues not normally found, and is difficult because of its shape to get the required number of parking spaces and size of building. 2. The Use of the property is for a car dealership, and currently if a 11 ft setback is not allowed there will not be enough spaces per manufactures desired number of parking spaces, on the lot as needed. As a result the purchase of the dealership will not be able to be completed. Q- 0 3. Pushing the building back further on the lot cramps the ability to get parking, fire trucks and further inhibits and restricts the size of the building. 4. Every square inch is going to be needed to make this property viable and useable. We need every possible space that is available in order to not cramp the dealership out of being productive. It is our intent to be compliant in every way. Our use fits into the comprehensive plan as well as the current zone of CI -1. Please notice pictures of nearby properties. Our intent is to develop an attractive landscape plan and building in order to become an asset to the entrance into the City on Highway One. On behalf of Jon Bell Applicant David Larsen Contact Person Bob Miklo From: Bob Miklo Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 10:14 AM To: 'Mary Hitchcock' Subject: RE: REZ13 -00014 Chezik -Bell Application Mary, Thank you for your comments regarding the proposed amendments to the Conditional Zoning Agreement. I will pass them onto the Planning and Zoning Commission. See comments below in blue ink regarding the easement. The City Engineer is reviewing the drainage question. I will let you know what I find out. :•• From: Mary Hitchcock [ mailto :Mary_Hitchcock @hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 8:50 AM To: Bob Miklo Cc: Chuck Meardon Subject: REZ13 -00014 Chezik -Bell Application Department of Planning & Community Development. Att: Bob Miklo RE: REZ13 -00014 Chezik -Bell Application The Ruppert Family, adjacent property owners who farmed this parcel for many years before selling it to the Menard's company a decade ago, note with concern two problems. 1. The roadway easement through our adjoining parcel which was planned to connect with the intersection of Highway 1 and Sunset Street ends at this parcel's eastern property line. It is totally blocked by the new building and does not appear elsewhere on the map. Years ago the City insisted the continuation of this easement, through this site, was a necessary part of the development in this area. Relocation of this easement was denied to us at that time. Nothing has changed. The easement must be added to this plan in the location originally designated. Yes, the easement is still required and will need to be included before a site plan or building permit can be issued for this property. The purpose of the plan attached to the letter was to illustrate the applicants proposal for landscaping - it is not a full site plan. 2. This 2.3 acre parcel is currently well below the grade of the University Arts parking lot. A great deal of rain runs off from the Arts parking lot and collects on this parcel and yet there appears no provision for water retention. The plan must be adjusted to prevent water from this area from flowing onto the adjacent Ruppert Family parcel. I have asked the City Engineer to review this question. Thank you for addressing these points. Sincerely Mary Hitchcock, Executive Director Ruppert Family LLC 319 - 855 -4300 Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 11 of 16 Martin said the new renderings were striking in that they clearly spelled out how much impervious area there will be on the subject site, more even than the adjacent site. She said she is questioning this application more than before, which has nothing to do with the fact of its location or that it's multi - family. Theobald said she liked the selection of trees in the new plan. Swygard said she shared Martin's concern of these buildings being so close together on this slope and whatever the quality of the trees, they do provide a buffer. She said they've seen this project grow larger. She said she has been out to the subject site, and something just doesn't feel right to her about this application. Eastham said he's inclined vote for approval. He said he doesn't know a way to address the stability of the building to the south through the Zoning Code. He would be in favor of having the applicant get an engineering report focusing on that if he knew how to do that. He said he hoped there were ways for the property owners on the adjacent site to protect themselves. He said he thinks the applicant and staff have worked very hard together to address the issue of surface water. He agreed that it would be preferable not to disturb the trees that exist on the subject property, he thinks that's a solvable problem and he would support a deferment if that's' a sticking point. He said he doesn't see a reason not to proceed because of the proposed building's size. Freerks said she really has concerns about the water, and she thinks there is more that can be done about the trees, so she's not quite ready to vote for the application. Dyer said the City Engineers have already approved the storm water system. Miklo explained that was just for the storm water and didn't deal with the questions that arose about the slope stability from the adjacent property. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 2-4 with Eastham and Theobald voting in favor. Swygard moved to defer to June 20. Eastham seconded. Freerks said the Commission wants to talk about all aspects of water, slope stability and about the issue of trees and the building placement. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. REZ13- 00014: Discussion of an application submitted by Chezik -Bell Properties for a rezoning of 2.30 -acres of land located southeast of the intersection of Highway 1 and Sunset Street in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to amend the Conditional Zoning Agreement regarding setback and landscaping adjacent to Highway 1. Miklo showed the Commission drawings and photographs of the subject property. He explained that the Jiffy Lube business has a thirty foot setback, and there's a Conditional Zoning Agreement that requires a thirty foot setback. He said the application is to reduce that setback Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 12 of 16 to eleven feet, and in lieu of the grass setback, which is all that's required, the applicant is proposing more extensive landscaping. He said staff feels that the enhanced landscaping may result in a better looking entrance to the city than the thirty foot setback would. He said they are also recommending landscaping in two corner areas. He said the applicant submitted a new drawing proposing paving one more space on each end and planting some day lilies in the remaining areas. He said the Commission will have to decide if that's acceptable or whether they would rather see the larger landscaping island that was shown in the original plan, preferably with bushes or shrubs as recommended by staff. Eastham said in the new site plan the driveway to the adjacent lot is shown as curved as opposed to straight. Miklo said it wasn't shown on the original plan, but it's a requirement that can't be waived. He said this addresses the issue of the easement raised by Mary Hitchcock, but the issue of storm water will need to be addressed at the time of any site plan approval. Eastham asked if the reduction in setback is only if the property is developed as a car dealership according to the site plan before the Commission. Miklo said it could be used for another use, but staff is recommending that this new site plan be a condition of approval in terms of what happens in those thirty feet. Theobald said the crabapple species shown on the plan is susceptible to disease. Miklo said the Commission can make an alternative tree selection a condition of approval. Freerks opened public hearing. Dave Larsen said he was here on behalf of the Chezik -Bell properties. Eastham said he would like to hear the applicant's rationale for changing staff's recommendation. Larsen said staff told the applicant that they wanted to implement that easement and put it on the plan, so they did, but then realized that some of the measurements were incorrect, and they also wanted to better define what had been designed as a general area, so they trimmed it up but still left room for more landscaping. He agreed to change the tree that Theobald had referred to. Freerks closed public hearing. Martin moved to recommend approval of REZ13- 00014, an application submitted by Chezik -Bell Properties for a rezoning of 2.30 -acres of land located southeast of the intersection of Highway 1 and Sunset Street in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to amend the Conditional Zoning Agreement regarding setback and landscaping adjacent to Highway 1 referencing the plan of June 6, 2013, using the larger, corner landscape area and replacement crabapple trees. Eastham seconded. Freerks said she thinks this continues what has gone before, and it's is a great solution. Eastham agreed that this does continue earlier decisions by Commissions and Councils to pay attention to the appearance of developments along Highway 1 as a main entrance into the city. He said reducing the buffer area and increasing the plantings will all work toward that end. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 13 of 16 Theobald said her only concern is the lack of diversity in the landscaping of all the businesses along this route. She said it's all of the same pattern. She said a disease could be a disaster if all the trees along a long expanse are the same. Theobald moved to amend Martin's motion by deleting "and replacement crabapple trees" and adding "and replacement trees of three different varieties." Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and the amendment carried 6 -0. A vote was taken and the amended motion carried 6 -0. Zoninq Code Amendment Items: Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to allow Schools of Generalized Instruction by special exception in the Community Commercial (CC -2) Zone. Miklo said Schools of Generalized Instruction are grade schools and high schools that aren't allowed in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone to avoid conflicts with school traffic and retail areas. He said there are CC -2 zones within the city that aren't of a great retail nature, as well as parts of shopping centers that schools might fit in. He said staff is recommending an amendment of the Zoning Code to allow the Board of Adjustment on a case by case basis to consider Schools of Generalized Construction in the (CC -2) zone with the criteria specified in the staff report that the Board would look at the character of the area and whether it would be displacing retail; that there's adequate drop -off and pick -up areas to provide for safety; and that there is adequate pedestrian access for school children. Eastham asked if a consideration would be the number of students at a location. Miklo said the Board of Adjustment could look at the specifics and could put conditions on or deny a proposal. Eastham asked if that could be adjusted in the future if the school attendance grows. Miklo said that generally a special exception approves a size or a plan, and if the applicant wants to expand that, they would need to come back before the Board and amend the special exception. Freerks opened public hearing. Craig Nierman said he was here on behalf of Parkview Church. He said they had identified the Southeast Side Neighborhood as one that needed encouragement and outreach. He said they tried bussing children to their facility on Foster Road, but that was not successful, so they currently lease a portion of the old Best Buy building. He said the plan is to start a school beginning with kindergarten and first grade and then increasing grade level each year. He said for this school to be viable, they need to use an existing building. Wisdom Nwafor of Parkview Church explained how this school will function. Swygard asked if this school will be accredited by the State. Nwafor said they plan on getting that accreditation after the school grows, but they do have regulations they have to comply with. Eastham asked if the Zoning Code required Schools of Generalized Instruction to be accredited. Greenwood Hektoen said it does not. Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5240 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW SCHOOLS OF GENERALIZED INSTRUCTION BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC -2) ZONE. WHEREAS, General Educational Facilities are currently not permitted in the CC -2 zone; and WHEREAS, the intent of the CC -2 zone is to provide for major business districts serving a significant segment of the total community population with large traffic- generating uses; and WHEREAS, CC -2 zones serve primarily as retail centers, but in some locations educational facilities could be a compatible use; and WHEREAS, allowing General Educational Facilities in the CC -2 zone by Special Exception will provide for review by the Board of Adjustment to consider the compatibility of the use for the specific commercial location, based on factors such as traffic patterns and provision of safe pedestrian access to the school; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the ordinance and recommended that the proposal be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows: A. Amend Table 2C -1, Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones, by labeling Educational Facilities, General as "S" in the column for the CC -2 Zone. B. Insert a new paragraph 8 within Subsection 14 -4B4D as follows, and re- number subsequent paragraphs accordingly: 8. General Education Facilities in the CC -2 Zone: a. The use will be functionally compatible with surrounding uses and will not inhibit retail and service uses for which the zone is primarily intended. The Board may consider such factors as siteyayout, size and scale of the development, and traffic circulation. b. The use must provide a drop- off /pick -up area in a location that is convenient to, or has good pedestrian access to, the entrance to the facility. The drop- off /pick -up area must contain sufficient stacking spaces and /or parking spaces to ensure that traffic does not stack into adjacent streets or other public rights -of -way. c. The site must be designed to promote safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation to the school according to the standards set forth in subsection 14- 2C-6F, Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Vehicular Circulation. Pedestrian walkways must be established connecting the main entrance(s) of the school to adjacent public sidewalks and trails. SECTION Il. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 2013. Ordinance No. Page 2 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by _ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Champion Dickens Dobyns Hayek Mims Payne Throgmorton First Consideration 7/23/2013 that the Voteforpassage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published 4� Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5240 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW CHOOLS OF GENERALIZED INSTRUCTION BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN THE COMMUNITY COMME CIAL (CC -2) ZONE. WHEREAS, General Educational Facilities are currently not permitte in the CC -2 zone; and WHEREAS, the intent of the CC zone is to provide for major b siness districts serving a significant segment of the total community popula ion with large traffic- generatin ses; and WHEREAS, CC -2 zones serve pr arily as retail centers, but n some locations educational facilities could be a compatible use; and WHEREAS, allowing General Educ ional Facilities in the C -2 zone by Special Exception will provide for review by the Board of Adjustment t consider the compat' ility of the use for the specific commercial location, based on factors such as traffic p tterns and provisio of safe pedestrian access to the school; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning ommission has r viewed the ordinance and recommended that the proposal be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINE Vityo ITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of ta City, Iowa is hereby amen ded as follows: A. Amend Table 2C -1, Principal Uses Almercial Zones, by labeling Educational Facilities, General as "S" in the column for the C B. Insert a new paragraph 8 within SuJ6sectiolQ 14 -46-4D as follows, and re- number subsequent paragraphs accordingly: �� \ 8. General Education Facilities in Ye CC -2 Zone. a. The use will be function ly compatible w h surrounding uses and will not inhibit retail and service uses for which a zone is primaril intended. The Board may consider such factors as site layout, size an scale of the develop nt, and traffic circulation. b. The use must provi a drop- off /pick -up are in a location that is convenient to or has good a pedestrian acces to the entrance to the f ility. The drop -off /pick -up area must contain sufficient stackin spaces and /or parking spades to ensure that traffic does not stack into adjacent street or other public rights -of -way. c. The site must a designed to promote safe and circulation t the school according to the sty Pedestrian, icycle, and Vehicular Circulation. connectin the main entrance(s) of the school to All ordinances and parts of ordi nt pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular set forth in subsection 14- 2C-6F, an walkways must be established public sidewalks and trails. in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. ' SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. - SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its finat-passagw, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 12013. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: June 6, 2013 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner RE: General Educational Facilities (primary and secondary schools) in the CC -2 Zone Proposed Zoning Code Amendment Steve Kholi, on behalf of Faith Academy, has requested that the Zoning Code be amended to allow General Educational Facilities (primary and secondary schools) in the Community Commercial (CC -2) Zone (see attached written request). General Educational Facilities are defined as elementary and secondary schools below university grade (ordinarily grades one through 12), including denominational and sectarian schools, kindergarten and military academies. Such schools are currently allowed as provisional uses in the Commercial Office (CO -1) and Mixed Use (MU) zones. They are permitted in the Central Business (CB -2, CB -5 and CB- 10) zones. They are not permitted the other commercial zones, including the CC -2 Zone. The Intent of the CC -2 Zone is to provide for major business districts to serve a significant segment of the total community population. In addition to a variety of retail goods and services, these centers typically feature a number of large traffic generators requiring access form major thoroughfares. Although CC -2 zones primarily serve as retail centers, staff believes that in some locations, educational facilities could be a compatible use. Allowing General Educational Facilities in the CC -2 zone by special exception would provide for review by the Board of Adjustment to consider the compatibility of the use for the specific commercial location. Factors such a traffic patterns and provision of safe pedestrian access to the school could be considered by the Board. Staff recommends that in addition to the general approval criteria considered by the Board of Adjustment for all special exceptions, the following specific approval criteria apply: a. The use will be functionally compatible with surrounding uses and will not inhibit retail and services uses for which the zone in is primarily intended. The Board will consider such factors as size and scale of the development and projected traffic generation. b. The use must provide a drop -off /pick -up area in a location that is convenient to or has good pedestrian access to the entrance to the Page 2 facility. This drop- off /pick -up area must contain sufficient stacking spaces and /or parking spaces to ensure that traffic does not stack into adjacent streets or other public rights -of -way. c. A sidewalk must be constructed connecting the main entrance of the center to the adjacent public right -of -way. Pedestrian access must be clearly separated or distinguished from vehicular circulation areas to minimize the extent to which users of the facility are required to walk across drives or aisles to gain access to the facility. The City Attorney has yet to review this draft and may offer revision prior to Thursday's meeting. Recommendation Staff recommends amending the Zoning Code to allow General Educational Facilities by special exception in the CC -2 zone as indicated above, subject to approval of code language by the City Attorney. Approved by: d� Jeff Davidson, Director Department of Planning and Community Development Request for Zoning Code Amendment We request an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow General Educational Uses in the CC -2 Zone. Reason for request: The Zoning Code needs to be adjusted to improve the educational opportunities of students in the Broadway neighborhood. Thus, it is essential that the Broadway neighborhood receive an injection of new educational resources. In targeting this specific neighborhood we understand that it vitally critical that any educational facility be within easy walking distance of the students' homes. It is not financially viable to construct a new facility within the neighborhood we are trying to serve. Accordingly, we must rely on pre- existing structures, which are exclusively in areas zoned for commercial use. Put another way, the absence of a zoning code amendment will preclude these impoverished students from reaching their educational potential. Compatibility with existing CC -2 uses: While it has been traditional in Iowa City that schools are located in residential;zones- - -it is not universal nor has it always been so. .1 would point out that SE Junior high is bounded on the south by commercial zoning and Horace Mann at Dodge and:Ghurcli�oth educate students to no adverse effect. Critical issues effecting compatibility: Traffic: In canvassing the area for suitable facilities one of our major concerns was traffic and the safety of students regarding pick up and drop off. Traffic on site can easily be controlled by critical placement of ingress /egress driveways. In addition those possible sites located along HWY 6 are fronted with access roads. As noted above the primary purpose of our request to assist the Broadway Neighborhood in their educational needs and as such realize that any facility must be within walking distance and so we expect very little vehicular traffic. We would also note the area is serviced by a very comprehensive system of walkways and side walks. The proposed interim location (1030 Cross park Ave.) is immediately across the street from apartment complexes, so it already is, in a de facto sense, a residential area. The large parking lot is used almost exclusively for The Spot (interim location), so it serves as a "safe harbor" for picking up and dropping off students as well as limited outdoor activities. Outdoor Activity Areas: Playground, activity areas are a very important criteria for our facility to be student friendly. Preschool regulations require 100 sq.ft. Per child on the playground. Private schools in general and Faith in particular have a much lower enrollment than public schools and will naturally require much less activity areas, adequate activity areas will have to be decided upon on a case by case basis. The current location (1030 Crosspark) X F has abundant outdoor activity area in paved area behind Pepperwood Mall and green space behind the old Mayor's youth facility. Safety and Security: Fortunately, CC -2 areas generally have more than adequate outdoor lighting for both visual and security reasons. Internally, standard security protocol will be enacted. These actions include but not limited to: Building Entrance security, signin/signout. Recorded visitor sign in, etc. Additionally, students will be required to wear uniforms, making non student interlopers immediately visible. We believe allowing a General Education Use in the CC -2 zone would not adversely affect any existing businesses in the proposed area and conversely, any existing businesses would not adversely effect an educational institution in the area. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 13 of 16 Theobald said her only concern is the lack of diversity in the landscaping of all the businesses along this route. She said it's all of the same pattern. She said a disease could be a disaster if all the trees along a long expanse are the same. Theobald moved to amend Martin's motion by deleting "and replacement crabapple trees" and adding "and replacement trees of three different varieties." Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and the amendment carried 6 -0. A vote was taken and the amended motion carried 6 -0 Zoning Code Amendment Items: -�1 Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to allow Schools of Generalized Instruction by special exception in the Community Commercial (CC -2) Zone. Miklo said Schools of Generalized Instruction are grade schools and high schools that aren't allowed in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone to avoid conflicts with school traffic and retail areas. He said there are CC -2 zones within the city that aren't of a great retail nature, as well as parts of shopping centers that schools might fit in. He said staff is recommending an amendment of the Zoning Code to allow the Board of Adjustment on a case by case basis to consider Schools of Generalized Construction in the (CC -2) zone with the criteria specified in the staff report that the Board would look at the character of the area and whether it would be displacing retail; that there's adequate drop -off and pick -up areas to provide for safety; and that there is adequate pedestrian access for school children. Eastham asked if a consideration would be the number of students at a location. Miklo said the Board of Adjustment could look at the specifics and could put conditions on or deny a proposal. Eastham asked if that could be adjusted in the future if the school attendance grows. Miklo said that generally a special exception approves a size or a plan, and if the applicant wants to expand that, they would need to come back before the Board and amend the special exception. Freerks opened public hearing. Craig Nierman said he was here on behalf of Parkview Church. He said they had identified the Southeast Side Neighborhood as one that needed encouragement and outreach. He said they tried bussing children to their facility on Foster Road, but that was not successful, so they currently lease a portion of the old Best Buy building. He said the plan is to start a school beginning with kindergarten and first grade and then increasing grade level each year. He said for this school to be viable, they need to use an existing building. Wisdom Nwafor of Parkview Church explained how this school will function. Swygard asked if this school will be accredited by the State. Nwafor said they plan on getting that accreditation after the school grows, but they do have regulations they have to comply with. Eastham asked if the Zoning Code required Schools of Generalized Instruction to be accredited. Greenwood Hektoen said it does not. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 14 of 16 Steve Kohli of 3129 Dubuque Street reminded the Commission that staff has structured this amendment to function on a case by case basis. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to allow Schools of Generalized Instruction by special exception in the Community Commercial (CC -2) Zone. Martin seconded. Freerks said she was all in favor of having smaller schools peppered throughout the community that can offer something in the community, in the neighborhood, nearby, or in a commercial area, re -using structures that otherwise might go unused. Martin said she thinks this is a brilliant idea to re -use this structure, and it makes so much sense. Eastham said although he's supportive of the type of school being proposed, he thinks one the Commission's responsibilities is to make sure that student safety is considered as well as surrounding users being considered in terms of a specific location and intensity of use at that location. He commended both the staff and the applicant for recognizing that those concerns of safety and access are very real. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to modify the regulations regarding the spacing of drinking establishments so that the 600 -foot spacing rule would only apply to the University Impact Area and the Riverfront Crossings District. Miklo said staff feels these regulations have been effective in preventing additional bars from opening. He said the ordinance was primarily concerned about downtown, but it applied. citywide. He said there are some areas where the City has been told by potential restaurant/bars that this has been problematic. He said the City Council asked staff to look at this question and staff is comfortable recommending this change for areas outside the University Impact Area and Riverfront Crossings. Freerks opened public hearing. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to modify the regulations regarding the spacing of drinking establishments so that the 500 - foot spacing rule would only apply to the University Impact Area and the Riverfront Crossings District. Martin seconded. w @ p C Y ~ c T m a) c N a 2 COL -0 N y m c a v o N y 7 N V 1p -Op 'O C N Y U C i C T aJ+ N L N Co N 'E > v U O O C V 7 V1 L a l.i N O I o N y L y a0+ N p N N Q d U W —_ O A L -p m vYi 7 r' Q O N C i.m E 3-p O vi " o • v u wa L = 41 w Y C O Y N J W Gl Yo OD J N vYi rn t ° O O C c u^ L u 9 C O = a) O p Y p 0 1] O M N y (D E o -C w o �' v a° 3 L a O w JO L vN E0 E �o > d O Y T y d d J cob aw0'w eo' g 3 >> -5o= >oa m m � ate-„ v -�" d y N N= a+ > 0 0> L — c GJ E= O V— C 7 v vi 7 01 y C v O o° X V a p O L J Q X N O O Vi W a y L c =_ J W L o LT 3 a W IQ Y Y Y Y Y V GJ N O L O G _ u C 0 N O! T E o -O p L L t0 L L C «. 3 L p a 010 0-0 1�l E p Y v Y Y V d N V Y 'O C C CU p N T �C O Y U O) m y yU, r O -0 Y -p V L o 0 !n c o C 0. CL Yp N aw N V J H 0 d) CL M Z E v — E - c T E L N i ry N ^ v -• c Q O J= E w -L' pL E 7 N —__ a C Q) -o N L"3u3u E v- Nw 3 nor u)' �c� a a+ Y Y O Y U C O w 3 N U C m p yY J 0-0 O -> O O) d Y C m Y W N> « N Y > r w v V O ! it N N> N L- -p -° E r N O 0) y C CL fO ` ,L u, Y (O Y N d E N 'D CL O 00 O Y O~ V E 3 Y 'v !6y Y L u v c l7 c N v Vp.. a� J c c v v rn v W 4)> J J O J v 'N O) • 7 0 0 W L 'O C L L i m L O 6 Y E T G/ C r V Y L H CL A R N u V 7! F N E V N JO .i' N U/ N �E uE33 riu'3��3 ri¢mmu :0b D �� v< � 4yd` 07 � +o O —^ Y 3 E c ° N d v m C C C Q r N to O O +' N v °> t O O- +N+ O L N ,3 v j j N m Y v= CL Lo t N 3 - D 3 a O Y ±' 0 3 a Y v 3 m Q v a m m c ° O v Y O N C �_^ 7 E 3 r- O C N •- V Y p L Y =. O N i� N L— aj C m 0 v rCO v 0 H N N C C> a `a'C+ V a rpt Nov O m 01 ro VI L Y L 3 t•� p, 0 j'a O Q N YO r Q O 3 O LD N GJ 0 C 7° O Y N Q aN+ a w O e4 E p O Y rn rn '^ v 3 01 l7 �' v 'O N 0 C L 0 0 0 3 L v L6 ..O Q L ++ Y N I N L L Y a O Fl ON 2 i' L L 3 Y L Y Y N •� L •E C Y C E m L r6 U , Y v C (L) y ^ p 0 YO QYE� CL Y Y n N L Y N v N Y i�l v C O C v T Oi L c C �s L-a va L Y Y v u C Q N N v . p Ln L N c jj t L yL. L O v( { N ro m 3 V rY0 Y CL aL.+ N f N ° aL+ > d N m= 0 v Qu olo o o aa, v> Q O 7 v `` i N E C Ol N F (0 O 3 O C O N O V ` C O -p L Ol N r0 O N N O •a s¢ 3 a ( Q E O� o Y v P 3° v E o v R a T m C N V u v o E f r E Y v v m VJ a C -p rNa L C �¢v °3cE CL N N J y a O v a 7 3 V.� = =v� v�LLav= 0 E a; a 01 3 ° O N p s 3 a N v O OC C Y V TY o 7 C ° r- 0 3 ? N c °- v o m Q .vo 0 3 O L Y 3 3 � y O c s LL a Y_ Y 3 Q v+ v Q N n a •° p a C j a Y a M ° C a E m l7 O v t 0 c C (L) T O — V Y ° cn M v Y n N C j Q C p V v O" O E Oi a) 01 O O 3 s ��r wm °'O ° C = p — 01 3 >.o 0 o v '�z�3vvQj Y N N7 Q t"a '0 Qj O +"C+ C y C o L.L 3 V N 0 N N V Ul c O Q Q 7 E v L p Y Ul v a N O L Y Q� a v o E 4e M Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDNANCE AMENDING TITLE 14: ZONING CODE TO MODIFY THE REGULATIONS REGARDING THE SPACING OF DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS SO THAT THE 500 -FOOT SPACING RULE WOULD ONLY APPLY TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY IMPACT AREA AND THE RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS DISTRICT. WHEREAS, studies show that the increase in the concentration of alcohol - related uses is correlated to the overconsumption of alcohol and prevalence of underage drinking; and WHEREAS, studies also show that an increase in the concentration of alcohol - related uses contributes to an increase in violence and crime; and WHEREAS, in 2009 the City established spacing requirements for drinking establishments throughout Iowa City; and WHEREAS, due to the negative externalities associated with a concentration of drinking establishments such as bars and pubs, it is in the public interest to prevent further concentration of these types of uses in locations within and near downtown Iowa City and the University of Iowa campus where the demand for these types of land uses is highest; and WHEREAS, a concentration of drinking establishments outside the central city and the University Impact Area has not occurred and is less likely to occur such that spacing requirements for drinking establishments is not necessary and may be unduly restricting economic development opportunities in outlying commercial areas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows: A. Deleting subparagraph 14- 413- 413-9e. and substituting in lieu thereof: e. In any CN -1 Zone within the University Impact Area, as illustrated on Map 213.1 within Section 14 -213-6, or the Riverfront Crossings District, as illustrated in Figure 2C.8 within Section 14- 2C -11, a Drinking Establishment, as defined in this Title, must be separated by a minimum distance of 500 feet from any other Drinking Establishment. Distance shall be measured along a straight line from the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of the proposed use to the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of any other Drinking Establishment. For example, in the case of a Drinking Establishment that is located on a lot with multiple leased spaces, such as a shopping mall, the distance is measured from the nearest point of the leased building space occupied by a Drinking Establishment to the nearest property line or leased building space of any other Drinking Establishment. B. Deleting paragraph 14- 4B -4B -10 and substituting in lieu thereof: 10. Drinking Establishments in the CH -1, CC -2, CB -2, CB -5, CB -10 Zones Within the University Impact Area, as illustrated on Map 2B.1 within Section 14 -213-6 or the Riverfront Crossings District, as illustrated in Figure 2C.8 within Section 14- 2C-11 a Drinking Establishment, as defined in this Title, must be separated by a minimum distance of 500 feet from any other Drinking Establishment. Distance shall be measured along a straight line from the nearest property line (or nearest point of Ordinance No. Page 2 the leased building space) of the proposed use to the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of any other Drinking Establishment. For example, in the case of a Drinking Establishment that is located on a lot with multiple leased building spaces, such as a shopping mall, the distance is measured from the nearest point of the leased building space occupied by a Drinking Establishment to the nearest property line or leased building space of any other Drinking Establishment. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication. Passed and approved this day of 12013. MAYOR Approved by r l / ATTEST: Gl,� C-4 1 9'det CITY CLERK City Attorney's Office &112 -113 Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by _ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Champion Dickens Dobyns Hayek Mims Payne Throgmorton First Consideration 7/23/2013 Vote for passage: AYES: Payne, Throgmorton, NAYS: Mims. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published that the Champion, Dickens, Dobyns,Hayek. C7 Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, Ik52240 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDNANCE AMENDING TITLE 14: ZONING CODE TO MODIFY THE REGULATIONS REGARDING THE SPACING OF DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS SO THAT, THE *,SOO-FOOT SPACING RULE WOULD ONLY APPLY TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY IMPACT AREA AND THE RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS DI TRICT. WHEREAS, studies show that the increase in the co centration of alcohol - related uses is correlated to the overconsumption of alcohol and prevale ce of underage drinking; and WHEREAS, studies "also show that an increase in th concentration of alcohol - related uses contributes to an increas)p in violence and crime; and WHEREAS, in 2009 f throughout Iowa City; and City established spacing requirements for drinking establishments WHEREAS, due to the negative externalities establishments such as s and pubs, it is concentration of these types uses in locations University of Iowa campus whe the demand for t WHEREAS, a concentration f drinking esta University Impact Area has not ccurred and requirements for drinking establis ents is n as ociated with a concentration of drinking i the public interest to prevent further Ni hin and near downtown Iowa City and the i se types of land uses is highest; and lishments outside the central city and the is less likely to occur such that spacing necessary and may be unduly restricting economic development opportunities I outlying ommercial areas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAI ED B THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances follows: A. Deleting subparagraph 14 -413-4 e. In any CN -1 Zone within the Section 14 -213-6, or the Riv within Section 14- 2C -11, a I separated by a minimum di Distance shall be measur d nearest point of the lea c property line (or nearest Do Establishment. For e on a lot with multip measured from the n Establishment to th'y Drinking Establishme City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as d substituting in lieu thereof: U ivershy Impact Area, as illustrated on Map 213.1 within �rfront C District, as illustrated in Figure 2C.8 rinking E ablishment, as defined in this Title, must be Lance of 50 feet from any other Drinking Establishment. along a str ' ht line from the nearest property line (or I building spa e) of the proposed use to the nearest int of the leas building space) of any other Drinking in the case of Drinking Establishment that is located ed spaces, such s a shopping mail, the distance is point of the leased uilding space occupied by a Drinking st property line or ased building space of any other B. Deleting paragraph 14 413-413-10 and substituting in lieu hereof: 10. Drinking Establi .tments in the CH -1, CC -2, CB -2, B -5, CB -10 Zones Within the Univ sity Impact Area, as illustrated on Map 2B.1 within Section 14 -213-6 or the Riverfro t Crossings District, as illustrated in Fire 2C.8 within Section 14- 2C-11 a Dri ing Establishment, as defined in this Title, must be separated by a minimum distance of 500 feet from any other Drinking Establishment. Distance shall be measured along a straight line from the nearest property line (or nearest point of t Ordinance No. Page 2 the leased building space) of the proposed use to the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of any other Drinking Establishment. For example, in the case of a Drinking Establishmel that is located on a lot with multiple leased building spac s, such as a shopping nn I, the distance is measured from the nearest point of the I ased building space oc pied by a Drinking Establishment to the nearest propert line or leased bui ing space of any other Drinking Establishment. SECTION II. REPEALER. All or finances and parts f ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repeale SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. I adjudged to be invalid or unconstitut Ordinance as a whole or any sec unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE approval and publication. any section, Rfovision or part of the Ordinance shall be nal, such a udication shall not affect the validity of the Jon, provisiqh or part thereof not adjudged invalid or Passed and approved this day of MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Ord4ance shall be in effect after its final passage, 2013. Approved by City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 31, 2013 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner RE: Zoning Code Amendment to Modify the Drinking Establishment Spacing Requirements Background In 2009, due to the concentration of drinking establishments in downtown Iowa City and in commercial areas within proximity of the University of Iowa campus and the resulting increase in underage drinking, violence and crime, the City Council adopted a minimum spacing requirement of 500 feet between drinking establishments (bars). The concentration of bars in downtown Iowa City is largely a consequence of the proximity of the downtown to the University of Iowa campus combined with the increase in available storefronts that occurred after the Coral Ridge Mall opened in 1999. Since its passage in 2009, the drinking establishment spacing ordinance has achieved the goal of preventing further concentration of bars in the downtown area. In addition, the community has benefited from the opportunity created by the ordinance for a greater mix of businesses downtown as a few nonconforming bars have gone out of business and have been replaced by retail and office uses. It has come to our attention, however, that the broad application of the 500 -foot spacing requirement to outlying commercial areas may be unduly restricting economic development opportunities in areas where an unhealthy concentration of drinking establishments is unlikely to occur. For example, sit -down restaurants are an important element in creating neighborhood - serving commercial areas. Many if not most restaurants of this type have liquor licenses. Since many of the outlying commercial areas are fairly compact in size, the 500 -foot spacing requirement presents an obstacle to development if more than one or two restaurants would like locate in the same commercial area and stay open late during bar hours (midnight to 2:00 AM). Discussion of Solutions Given the low risk that outlying commercial areas will experience the same market conditions that created the concentration of bars downtown, staff recommends amending the zoning ordinance so that the 500 -foot spacing rule only applies in downtown areas and in areas proximate to the University of Iowa campus. The zoning ordinance already designates a specific part of the city as a "University Impact Area." In addition, the Riverfront Crossings District is the area where the downtown is intended to grow in the future and will likely contain a considerable amount of university student housing due to its proximity on both the east and west sides of the Iowa River to the university campus. Therefore, staff recommends maintaining the 500 -foot drinking establishment spacing rule in the University Impact Area and the entirety of the Riverfront Crossings District and eliminating the spacing requirement in all other areas of the city. Page 2 Recommendation Staff recommends amending the Zoning Code as indicated below. New language is underlined. Language to be deleted is indicated with strike - through notation. Amend paragraph 14- 4B- 4B -9e. as follows: e. In the any CN -1 Zone that is within the University Impact Area, as illustrated on Map 26.1 within Section 14 -213-6 and /or the Riverfront Crossings District, as illustrated in Figure 2C.8 within Section 14- 2C -11, a Drinking Establishment, as defined in this Title, must be separated by a minimum distance of 500 feet from any other Drinking Establishment. Distance shall be measured along a straight line from the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of the proposed use to the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of any other Drinking Establishment. For example, in the case of a Drinking Establishment that is located on a lot with multiple leased spaces, such as a shopping mall, the distance is measured from the nearest point of the leased building space occupied by a Drinking Establishment to the nearest property line or leased building space of any other Drinking Establishment. Amend paragraph 14- 4B -48 -10 as follows: 10. Drinking Establishments in the CH -1, CC -2, CB -2, CB -5, CB -10 Zones Within the University Impact Area, as illustrated on Map 213.1 within Section 14 -213-6 and /or the Riverfront Crossings District, as illustrated in Figure 2C.8 within Section 14 -2C -11 a Drinking Establishment, as defined in this Title, must be separated by a minimum distance of 500 feet from any other Drinking Establishment. Distance shall be measured along a straight line from the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of the proposed use to the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of any other Drinking Establishment. For example, in the case of a Drinking Establishment that is located on a lot with multiple leased building spaces, such as a shopping mall, the distance is measured from the nearest point of the leased building space occupied by a Drinking Establishment to the nearest property line or leased building space of any other Drinking Establishment. Approved by: / `,-/ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 14 of 16 Steve Kohli of 3129 Dubuque Street reminded the Commission that staff has structured this amendment to function on a case by case basis. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to allow Schools of Generalized Instruction by special exception in the Community Commercial (CC -2) Zone. Martin seconded. Freerks said she was all in favor of having smaller schools peppered throughout the community that can offer something in the community, in the neighborhood, nearby, or in a commercial area, re -using structures that otherwise might go unused. Martin said she thinks this is a brilliant idea to re -use this structure, and it makes so much sense. Eastham said although he's supportive of the type of school being proposed, he thinks one the Commission's responsibilities is to make sure that student safety is considered as well as surrounding users being considered in terms of a specific location and intensity of use at that location. He commended both the staff and the applicant for recognizing that those concerns of safety and access are very real. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to modify the regulations regarding —� the spacing of drinking establishments so that the 500 -foot spacing rule would only apply to the University Impact Area and the Riverfront Crossings District. Miklo said staff feels these regulations have been effective in preventing additional bars from opening. He said the ordinance was primarily concerned about downtown, but it applied citywide. He said there are some areas where the City has been told by potential restaurant/bars that this has been problematic. He said the City Council asked staff to look at this question and staff is comfortable recommending this change for areas outside the University Impact Area and Riverfront Crossings. Freerks opened public hearing. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to modify the regulations regarding the spacing of drinking establishments so that the 500 - foot spacing rule would only apply to the University Impact Area and the Riverfront Crossings District. Martin seconded. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 15 of 16 Freerks said this is how they work with the Code to try to fine tune it in ways that work for the community, and she thinks this is an example of that. She said she will be voting for it. Theobald said she will be strongly opposed to it. She said she taught "Alcohol in Your College Experience" at the University, and said the research shows that controlling the environment in which the individual is drinking has the largest impact on both the individual and the community. She said research shows that controlling the number of drinking establishments is not effective at all in reducing problem drinking. She said in the class she taught, the largest category shared by the most students was near -death experiences. She said she feels it's not that large of a community, and there are plenty of drinking establishments. She says she looks at the University Impact Area as the entire community. Swygard asked if there have been the same type of problems outside of the impact area but where there are still establishments serving drinks. Miklo said if an establishment closes at or before midnight, they are considered a restaurant, and if they are open past midnight they are considered alcohol - related. Freerks said she lives close to downtown and has seen some incredible alcohol - related sights, but she said most of those people get their alcohol at home, so she thinks it goes well beyond establishments serving alcohol. Theobald said there are livability standards in a community and one of those is measured by how many drinking establishments, both in -house and out of house a community has. Eastham said he is uncertain about what actually clearly contributes to young people over using alcohol, and certainly one of those factors is access. He said he is less inclined to restrict the use of the 500 foot rule to just a smaller area of the community. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 2-4 with Freerks and Martin opposed Consideration of Meeting Minutes: May 16, 2013 Eastham moved to approve the minutes of May 16, 2013. Martin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. OTHER ADJOURNMENT: Martin moved to adjourn. Swygard seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6 -0 vote. Prepared by: Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5030 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, CHAPTER 5, PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, SECTION 8, PERSONS UNDER THE LEGAL AGE IN LICENSED OR PERMITTED ESTABLISHMENTS, SUBSECTION B, TO MODIFY THE CALCULATION OF TICKET SALES FOR EXCEPTION CERTIFICATE PURPOSES. WHEREAS, under the current ordinance, ticket sales for theater performances on stage are counted as non - alcohol sales for exception certificate purposes; and WHEREAS, ticket sales for viewing films at a movie theater would be counted as alcohol sales, because they are not performed, "on stage" WHEREAS, the Council wishes to foster movie theaters, while preserving the significant gains the Under 21 ordinance has generated; and WHEREAS, the continuing requirement that the "entire audience area is consistent with traditional theater seating" should discourage gamesmanship: and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. TITLE 4, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, CHAPTER 5, PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, SECTION 8, PERSONS UNDER THE LEGAL AGE IN LICENSED OR PERMITTED ESTABLISHMENTS, SUBSECTION B, PARAGRAPH (3)(a) is hereby amended by deleting the words, "on stage ", leaving the fourth sentence to read as follows: Ticket sales for any event performed in a theater in which the entire audience area is consistent with traditional theater seating shall be counted as nonalcohol sales. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication. Passed and approved this day of 2013. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Appr ved by City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Champion Dickens Dobyns Hayek Mims Payne Throgmorton First Consideration 7/23/2013 Vote for passage: AYES: Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published