HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-05-02 Public hearing1 '6'C_' �`?5.'..
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will
be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at
7:00 p.m. on the 2nd day of May, 2017, in Emma
J. Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa
City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the
next meeting of the City Council thereafter as
posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the
Council will consider:
1. AN ORDINANCE REZONING 38.49
ACRES FROM INTERIM
DEVELOPMENT MULTIFAMILY (ID -
RM) ZONE AND 3.52 ACRES FROM
RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR -1) TO
MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY (RM -
20) ZONE LOCATED SOUTH. OF
LEHMAN AVENUE, EAST OF SOCCER
PARK ROAD. (REZ15-00019)
2. AN ORDINANCE REZONING 12.28
ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM LOW
DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(RM -12) TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY/LOW
DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(OPD/RM-12) ZONE AND APPROVING
A PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
LARSON SUBDIVISION, A 2 -LOT,
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
LOCATED NORTH OF SCOTT
BOULEVARD BETWEEN HICKORY
HEIGHTS LANE AND FIRST AVENUE.
(R EZ 16-00008/SUB 16-00012 )
3. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE
14: ZONING, ARTICLE 2G,
RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS AND
EASTSIDE MIXED USE DISTRICTS
FORM -BASED DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS, TO ADD ZONING
STANDARDS FOR THE NEW
ORCHARD SUBDISTRICT WITHIN
THE RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS
DISTRICT LOCATED NORTH OF
BENTON STREET AND WEST OF
ORCHARD STREET.
4. AN ORDINANCE REZONING
PROPERTY FROM PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY — LOW
DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (OPD -RS -5)
ZONE TO RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS -
ORCHARD ZONE (RFC -O) FOR
APPROXIMATELY 30,710 SQUARE
FEET OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT
619 AND 627 ORCHARD COURT.
(REZ17-00003)
5. AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY
REZONING APPROXIMATELY 4.55
SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY FROM
CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE (CB -2)
ZONE TO CENTRAL BUSINESS
SUPPORT (CB -5) ZONE LOCATED AT
202 NORTH LINN STREET. (REZ17-
00004)
Copies of the proposed ordinances and
resolutions are on file for public examination in the
office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa.
Persons wishing to make their views known for
Council consideration are encouraged to appear
at the above-mentioned time and place.
JULIE VOPARIL, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Pugh '
Prahm.,
ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS
1?
March 2 , 2016
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
City Clerk, City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
(chris-guidry@iowa-city.org
RE: Rezoning Application — REZ15-00019
Dear Mr. Guidry:
425 E. OAKDAL 7a
CORALVILLE, IOWA 52241
PHONE 319-351-2028
FAX 319-351.1102
PUGHHAGAN.COM
MPUGH@PUGHHAGAN.COM
On September 4, 2015, Sycamore, L.L.C. and Lake Calvin Properties, L.L.C. (collectively
the "Owners") filed the above referenced Rezoning Application. The City's Planning and
Zoning Commission discussed this Application and rendered its recommendation to the City
Council on October 1, 2015. The Owners subsequently requested that the Application be
deferred from further consideration by the City Council.
The Owners respectfully ask that the Rezoning Application be placed on the City Council's
meeting agenda for April 41 to set the public hearing for the May 2id Council meeting
Representatives for the applicant are not available to attend the Council's April 18s' meeting.
I would appreciate it if you would confirm this schedule. Should you have any questions or
need any additional information, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
PUGH HAGAN P LC
Michael J. Pugh
MJP/dab
cc: Lake Calvin Properties, L.L.C. (via email only)
Ms. Eleanor Dilkes (via email only)
Mr. John Yapp (via email)
Mr. Robert Miklo (via email only)
(00068943)
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Bob Miklo
Item: REZ15-00019
Date: October 1, 2015
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Pugh Hagen Prahm PLC
Contact: Michael J. Pugh
11006 th Street, Suite 102
Coralville, IA 52241
(319)351-2028
mpugh@pughhagan.com
Requested Action: Rezoning from ID -RM and RR -1 to RM -20
Purpose: Development of multifamily dwellings
Location: South of Lehman Avenue and East of
Soccer Park Road
Size: 42.01 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Agricultural - ID -RM 38.49 acres and RR1
3.52 acres
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Open space (Sycamore Greenway)
-131
South: Wastewater treatment plant - P1
East: Open space (Sycamore Greenway) —
P1
West: Agricultural - ID -RS
Comprehensive Plan: South District Plan
File Date: September 4, 2015
45 Day Limitation Period: October 19, 2015
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant is requesting approval of a rezoning to Medium Density Multifamily Residential (RM -
20). This property was annexed into the city in 1994 as part of the 422 -acre Sycamore Farms
annexation. At that time of the initial application the applicant had requested that the subject
property be zoned Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12). The request was later amended
to seek RM -20 zoning for this property. In response to the applicant's request the City took the
position, as indicated in a staff memorandum, that given the lack of essential City services, the
requested zoning designation was premature, and that as the surrounding areas developed and
City services including arterial street access is provided, the merits of the requested multifamily
zoning designation could be re-examined. Staff also raised the concern about zoning such a large
area for multifamily development. Upon annexation the bulk of the subject property (38.49 acres)
was zoned Interim Development — Multifamily Residential (ID -RM); and 3.52 acres was zoned
Rural Residential (RR -1) and subject to conservation easement prohibiting development due to
the presence of wetlands. The annexation resolution states that this was a voluntary annexation
upon application by the owner, Sycamore Farms.
The rezoning was subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA — copy attached) containing
provisions mostly to address the environmentally sensitive features on the property, as well as a
requirement to dedicate land for a school, provide pedestrian access, and provide infrastructure
improvements.
This property is located within the South District of Iowa City. As with all rezoning requests, the
current application should be considered based on the Comprehensive Plan including the South
District Plan, Future Land Use Map, adequacy of infrastructure and services to accommodate
the uses and intensity of development allowed by the requested zoning.
ANALYSIS:
Current zoning: The property is currently zoned ID -RM. The purpose of an Interim
Development (ID) zone is to provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and
other nonurban uses of land may continue until such time as the City is able to provide City
services and urban development can occur. This is the default zoning to which all undeveloped
areas should be classified until City services are provided. Upon provision of City services, the
City or the property owner may initiate rezoning to zones consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, as amended. The principle uses allowed in the ID zone are plant related agricultural. Farm
dwellings are allowed if they are associated with an agricultural use. The minimum lot size of the
ID zone is 10 acres.
Although the ID -RM designation indicates the possible future consideration for multifamily
zoning, it is not a guarantee of such zoning. The permanent zoning designation must consider
the policies and land use map contained in the Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time a
rezoning application is made, as well as the development character of the surrounding
neighborhood and the adequacy of infrastructure and services to serve the proposed density.
Proposed zoning: The purpose of RM -20 zone is to provide for the development of medium
density multi -family housing. This zone is particularly well suited to locations adjacent to
commercial areas and in areas with good access to all city services and facilities. This zone
allows a mix of detached and attached single-family housing, duplexes, and multi -family
housing. The Zoning Code states that careful attention to site and building design is important to
ensure that the various housing types in any one location are compatible with one another.
The RM -20 zone requires a minimum of 1,800 square feet per 1 and 2 -bedroom units, and
2,700 square feet per 3 -bedroom unit. Based on these requirements up to 675 three bedroom
apartments or 1000 one and two-bedroom apartments could be developed on this property if it
were zoned RM -20. If public streets are platted to serve the development, the actual density
would be less than the maximum stated, but even assuming that 45% of the property is devoted
to public streets, over 600 dwelling units could be constructed under the proposed RM -20
designation.
Comprehensive Plan: The property falls within the South District Plan, which was adopted in
1997; the plan is currently undergoing an update that will be considered by the City Council on
October 20. The current plan states: `The predominate land use in the South District will be
single-family residential. However, neighborhoods will also contain areas where low to medium
3
density multifamily, town house and duplex style housing will mix compatibly with single-family
housing. The medium density housing options should be carefully designed and located to take
advantage of major infrastructure investments, such as arterial streets, and goods and services,
which are provided in the neighborhood commercial center. Medium density housing should be
compatible in scale and density to blend with single-family neighborhood." The plan contains
guidelines indicating that large concentrations of multifamily development should be avoided. To
a help ensure a variety of housing stock and control the scale and density of multifamily lots the
plan indicates that multifamily zoning should be located at the intersections of collector and
arterial streets and limited to no more than 24 units at any one in intersection.
The Future Land Use Scenario contained in the current South District Plan (see Exhibit A),
depicts this specific property as being appropriate for single-family lots on the south, smaller
single-family and duplex lots toward the north with townhouses along the northern boundary
adjacent to Lehman Avenue.
The proposed update to the South District Plan contains polices that are similar to the current
plan regarding encouraging a mix of housing types within new neighborhoods. Also, similar to
the existing South District Plan, the proposed land use map (see Exhibit B) depicts the majority
of this property as being appropriate for low to medium density single-family development with
the possibility of low to medium mixed density, including smaller lot single-family, duplex, zero -
lot line and townhouse development, adjacent to Lehman Avenue. The text of the plan indicates
the potential for small multifamily buildings for sites where clustering is desirable to protect
environmentally sensitive areas or to encourage single loaded streets (streets with development
only on one side with open space on the other side).
The proposed RM -20 designation does not comply with the current South District Plan or the
proposed draft plan. Specifically it is counter to the policy of not creating large concentrations of
multifamily development and the direction to place multifamily development in areas with
adequate infrastructure and access to goods, services and transit. It does not comply with the
adopted or proposed land use plan showing predominately single-family development with
townhouses and small areas of multifamily adjacent to Lehman Avenue.
It also does not comply with the overall Comprehensive Plan policy promoting compact and
contiguous development: "Encourage compact, efficient development that is contiguous and
connected to existing neighborhoods to reduce the cost of extending infrastructure and
services..." (IC2030: Comprehensive Plan Update - page 23). Similar goals and polices are
also repeated on page 27 of the Plan: "Encourage a diversity of housing options in all
neighborhoods. Concentrate new development in areas contiguous to existing neighborhoods
where it is most cost effective to extend infrastructure and services."
Adequacy of Infrastructure and Services: The proposed RM -20 zone is in an area that has
experienced limited development due to lack of adequate infrastructure. As stated by the Iowa
City Zoning Code, RM -20 zones are recommended in areas of the city that have good access to
commercial and City services. This property does not have good access to either. The nearest
commercial development, the Iowa City Market Place (formerly the Sycamore Mall) is located
two miles to the northeast. The closest transit stop is at the intersection of Sycamore and Burns
Avenue approximately 1.5 miles the northeast from center this property. Given the current
street pattern in this area it would be very difficult for the City to extend bus service to the area.
The limited street network would also make access for police and fire protection less than ideal.
It may be possible in the future that commercial development will occur closer to this property
and that transit routes will be expanded to come closer to this property. But at this time the
property falls short of meeting the criteria necessary to support multifamily development.
4
Sycamore Street, which was recently upgraded to arterial street standards, terminates
approximately 1,500 feet to the west of the property. Although a portion of Lehman Avenue is
being reconstructed as part of the Sycamore Street project, it is not being built to City standards.
It will be built as a chip seal surface to the intersection with Soccer Park Road. The remaining
400 feet of Lehman Road between Soccer Park Road and this property has a gravel surface.
The applicant has indicated a willingness to enter a Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring
improvement of Lehman Avenue, but would expect contributions toward these road costs from
the adjacent property owner and from the City. Other than a special assessment, a difficult
process the City has not undertaken in many years, the City does not have a mechanism to
require the adjacent owner to contribute to the cost of improving Lehman Avenue. The City's
contribution would have to come from the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for which there
are competing projects. The CIP currently does not include improvement of Lehman Avenue.
In staffs view there does not appear to be a compelling reason for the City to reallocate funds
from other planned infrastructure improvements to encourage development on the far outskirts
of the city, while there are intervening properties that could be more efficiently developed in
terms of infrastructure costs, maintenance and provision of City services.
Summary: The applicant contends that the ID -RM designation was negotiated as part of an
annexation agreement and implies that there was a commitment to zone this property RM -20.
Staff found no documentation to support the claim of an agreement to zone this property to
multifamily. Zoning decisions must be made in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan after
giving consideration to such factors as efficient urban development patterns, controlling
congestion of streets, safety, health and welfare of the public. Public policy dictates that this
police power be freely exercised by the City Council in order to respond to changes in the
community's needs and concerns.
The subject property is not in an area designated for extensive multifamily development. Further
this area is not adequately served by infrastructure or City services, and therefore the requested
zoning does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The portion of the property that is zoned
RR -1 is subject to a conservation easement that prohibits its development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that an application submitted by Pugh Hagen Frahm PLC for a rezoning from
Interim Development Multifamily (ID -RM) zone for 38.49 acres and Rural Residential (RR1)
zone for 3.52 acres to Medium Density Multifamily (RM -20) zone for property located south of
Lehman Avenue, east of Soccer Park Road be denied. (REZ15-00019)
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Applicants statement in support of rezoning
3. 1994 Conditional Zoning Agreement
4. Exhibit A — South District Future Land Use Scenario
5. Exhibit B — Draft South District Future Land Use Plan
Approved by:
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
http://www.iogov.org/site/CMSv2/File/planning/urban/ZoningMap.pdf
City of Iowa City es
REZ15-00019
Prepared by: Marti W<
Lehman Ave. and Soccer Park Rd. I lFeet Date Prepared: September 201
2.000 4.000
_ ..'` � ,� t _`_ � ice`"' r ++. ti ,. \ ',� � ..c...� =•.: -
1 01,
t �
y r f
1•-�...rt�.�y�� 'E �� .� �� 4T
M
a.
t .'� Proposed rezoning
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF REZONING
Sycamore, L.L.C. and Lake Calvin Properties, L.L.C. (the "Property Owners") acquired the
properties which are the subject of this Rezoning Application in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Originally, the properties were part of a larger 420 acre tract of land that was zoned for multi-
family development under Johnson County's zoning code. However, on September 15, 1994, the
City of Iowa City (the "City") annexed the original tract, including the properties at issue, within
the City's limits and jurisdiction.
The properties' annexation was the subject of lengthy negotiations between the Property
Owners and the City beginning in early 1992. The City desired to annex the properties so that the
newly constructed Wastewater Treatment Plant would be contiguous to City limits; the annexation
allowed the City to link the Plant's facilities to its corporate limits. The Property Owners, however,
opposed the annexation. Through negotiations, the City and the Property Owners were able to
reach a mutual agreement regarding the properties' annexation as well as their future
development.
Annexation of the properties was made possible through a series of bargained -for
considerations given between the parties. The City required the property owners to: (i) delineate
certain wetlands known as the "Snyder Creek Bottoms" and restrict those areas from
development; (ii) dedicate to the public a Conservation Easement protecting approximately 200
acres of the original tract from further development; and (iii) enter into a Conditional Zoning
Agreement for the development of the remaining property of the original tract. In return, the
Property Owners insisted that: (i) the City designate the properties with a RM -20 multi -family
zoning designation; and (ii) the City give proper consideration for the Snyder Creek Bottoms
wetlands. The City did so and zoned the properties as ID -RM, Interim Development Multi -Family
Residential. It classified the properties under the Interim Development designation because at the
time of the annexation, the properties were not served by adequate infrastructure and services,
namely a suitable road. The City also gave the properties' their multi -family residential zoning
status with the understanding that the "ID" moniker would be removed once an adequate road
was constructed to access the Properties.
The properties are now ripe for development under the City's Medium Density Multi -Family
Residential Zone (RM -20). Adequate infrastructure and services, including an access road, to the
properties is now feasible given the development of Sycamore Avenue and the construction of a
new elementary school. The properties will be served by a street network that has improved
substantially since 1994.(The Owners would be willing to enter into a Conditional Zoning
Agreement requiring the improvement of Lehman Road as a condition precedent to development I
of the properties, but would expect equitable contribution for these road costs from adjoining f
property owners and the City. Additionally, the properties are located adjacent to the Pleasant
Valley Golf Course, the Iowa City Kickers Soccer Park, the protected wetlands area, and less
than three miles from the commercial corridor of Highway 6, providing them with ideal access to
commercial amenities, and city services and facilities. This zoning designation will pwide this
area with a broader range of housing types, consistent with the City's goal of pi&idingWordable
housing. n
?- w
(00052141)
1994 CZA
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a Municipal
Corporation (hereinafter "City") and Sycamore Farms Company, an Iowa General Partnership
(hereinafter "Owner").
WHEREAS, Owner has requested the City to annex and rezone approximately 422 acres of
land located south of Highway 6, east of Sycamore Street and west of Sioux Avenue, legally
described on Exhibit A, from the County designation of RS, Suburban Residential and R3A,
Multi -Family Residential, to RS -8, Medium Density Single -Family Residential, RFBH, Factory
Built Housing Residential, RM -12, Low Density Multi -Family Residential, RM -20, Medium
Density Multi -Family Residential, RR -1, Rural Residential and ID -RM, Interim Development
Residential Multi -Family; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code § 414.5 (1993) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting Owner's rezoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the armexation policy of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the proposed
rezoning is subject to the developer agreeing to pay all of the costs associated with providing
infrastructure for development of the subject tract, except for any oversized costs for an east -
west arterial street if such an arterial street is located through the development; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to ensure the appropriate allocation and suitability of neighborhood
open space and the availability of a public school site; and
WHEREAS, the property contains wetlands, areas of hydric soils and other environmentally
sensitive features; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan, it is the City's policy to preserve and protect
environmentally sensitive areas; and
WHEREAS, a contractual agreement with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)
obligates the City to protect environmentally sensitive areas in the vicinity of the Southeast
Interceptor Sewer line from potential adverse effects of development; and
WHEREAS, Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are appropriate in
order to ensure appropriate urban development on the southeastern edge of Iowa City.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the Parties
agree as follows:
Sycamore Farms Company is the owner and legal title holder of the property located
south of Highway 6, east of Sycamore Street, and west of Sioux Avenue, legally
described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.
2. The Parties acknowledge that, pursuant to the annexation policy contained in the City's
Comprehensive Plan, the proposed rezoning is subject to the developer agreeing to pay
all of the costs associated with providing infrastructure for development of the subject
tract, except for any oversized costs for an east -west arterial street if such an arterial
street is to be located through the development.
:. 1; 33 OF 220
3. Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure appropriate allocation of
neighborhood open space and the availability of a public school site and that it is the
City's policy and obligation to preserve. and protect environmentally sensitive areas.
Therefore, Owner agrees to certain conditions over and above City regulations in order
to lessen the impact of the development on the area.
4. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property from County RS and R3A,
Owner agrees that development and use of the subject property will conform to the
requirements of the applicable zones: RS -8, Medium Density Single -Family Residential,
RFBH, Factory Built Housing Residential, RM -12, Low Density Multi -Family Residential,
RM -20, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential, RRA, Rural Residential and ID -RM,
Interim Development Residential Multi -Family. In addition, the development and use of
the subject property will conform to the following additional conditions:
a. Owner will take adequate measures to protect the area and natural features
generally described as the "Snyder Creek Bottoms" from any adverse effects
from development of adjacent areas. Owner shall specify the protection
measures in mitigation plans as required in subsections b and c below. Owner
must prepare the mitigation plans at its sole expense and the plans must receive
City approval.
b. Owner will initially submit a general concept plan for the entire subject property
entitled "Wetlands Mitigation Report for Sycamore Farms Development". This
mitigation plan will provide a general outline of the Owner's protection measures
including but not limited to storm water management. The general mitigation
plan must also include a concept plan for a trail or walkway system within the
"Snyder Creek Bottoms".
C. With each preliminary plat, Owner will submit a specific mitigation plan for the
platted area. This specific mitigation plan must contain the engineering details
for the mitigation and protection measures for the platted area, including but not
limited to design details, specifications, and materials. The specific details
regarding the location and construction of the trail system must be included in
the mitigation plan for each platted area.
d. Owner shall construct the trail or walkway system when either 50% of the
property in the RS -8 and RFBH zones has developed or when the ID -RM area
is rezoned, whichever occurs first.
e. Preservation of the "Snyder Creek Bottoms" via the establishment of a
conservation easement approved by the City.
Owner will establish a 100 foot no -build buffer zone around all jurisdictional
wetlands located outside of the conservation easement, except those for which
mitigation is approved, as set forth in the conservation easement. Owner will
also establish a 100 foot no -build buffer zone' around all jurisdictional wetlands
located within the conservation easement and within 100 feet of the conservation
easement boundary.
g. Owner shall inventory and document the jurisdictional wetlands, other
conservation values and the location of existing farming activities in the "Snyder
Creek Bottoms". The City must approve said inventory and documentation.
1153 .'AGF 221
r-
-3-
h. Owner shall dedicate neighborhood open space to the City or pay fees in lieu
of dedication. The amount of open space Owner must dedicate shall be based
on the formula contained in the neighborhood open space plan.
Owner shall grant a pedestrian access easement over the existing Southeast
Interceptor Sanitary Sewer easement or in an alternative location, approved by
the City, to connect the trails within the Whispering Meadows Subdivision and
the City -owned property to the south of the Sycamore Farms property.
Owner shall covenant with the City to reserve fifteen acres to be used for
construction of a public school. Owner, the City and the Iowa City Community
School District shall negotiate the location of the parcel for the potential school
site. Owner will retain possession of the parcel until the parcel may be
conveyed to the Iowa City Community School District as described herein. The
covenant will run with the title to that parcel which shall be designated a
"potential school site" on the Final Plat. This covenant shall remain in effect until
released of record by the City as set forth herein.
If the Iowa City Community School District decides to use the site and applies
for a Building Permit to build a school on the designated parcel within fifteen (15)
years from the date the parties execute this Conditional Zoning Agreement,
Owner shall convey the site to the School District. If the School District has not
applied for a Building Permit within fifteen (15) years from the date the parties
execute this Conditional Zoning Agreement, the covenant will expire and the use
of the parcel shall revert to the Owner. At that time, the City will execute a
release of the covenant so that the covenant will not constitute a lien and cloud
on the title to the parcel. That release will be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office at Owner's expense.
If during the time period the covenant is in effect, the City enacts an Ordinance
requiring the payment of a School Impact Fee as part of the Final Plat approval
process, Owner will pay the required fees for those subdivision parts which have
not yet received Final Plat approval. No impact fees shall be paid for those
subdivision parts which have already received Final Plat approval at the time of
the enactment of the impact fee ordinance. However, if the School District uses
the site to construct a school and accepts conveyance of the site, the City and/or
the School District will rebate to the Owner all fees previously paid and Owner
shall not be required to pay any additional impact fees for subdivision parts
which may subsequently be submitted for final plat approval. If at any time
during the fifteen (15) years following execution of this Conditional Zoning
Agreement, the School District determines that the reserved site will not be used
for a public school, the School District will notify the City and Owner, and the
City will execute a release of the covenant upon receipt of written notice that
Owner has paid the required impact fees, if any.
k. Owner shall pay all costs associated with providing infrastructure for
development of the subject tract, including oversized costs, except- for the
oversized costs for an east -west arterial street if such an arterial street is located
through the development.
1793 race 2�2
-4-
5. The Owner acknowledges that the conditions contained herein are reasonable
conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code § 414.5 (1993), and that said
conditions satisfy public needs which are directly caused by the requested zoning
change.
6. The Owner acknowledges that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold,
redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this
Agreement.
The Parties that this 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 running
with the title to the land unless or until released of record by the City. The Parties
further acknowledge that this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of.and bind all
successors, representatives and assigns of the Parties.
8. Owner acknowledges that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to relieve the
applicant from complying with all 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.
Dated this I5 day of 1994
SYCAMORE FARMS COMPANY
ByC--
Stephen F. Bddht,
General Partner
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office a
CITY OF IOWA CITY
By r
Susan M. Horowitz, Mayor
Attest:-%2see�.c�
Manan K. Karr, City Clerk
CORPORATE SEAL
1793 , ticl ��3
V
,in,J. Ynn.il,
Uarlex
1..,
emWl S. sry;k Ywmb
❑mmFrnrv.
\1ann0vonM nm.in.
YW.Ii. Oyan spn•e
- OrInr 111vn �nm
Exhibit A
Snni Ln) S.— M•nn
� � � t'+nc.ylunl arnnal .4M NiylnrcnU
Exhibit B
LOW Medium DensitySksylePamiy Residemial
Lour -Medium DensityMbeed Residential
■ Mulifarily
■ Cumnercel
■ Mixed use Commercial
■ School
■ Public Park/Open Space
■ Private Open Space/Sensiliee Arm
■ Other Public Property
Historic Property
..iaFlwrFn,.l l'.u,nim.;,J
-
Inlmti•rr nnunemd
-
In.riarJnul
17-
\\no-. iwu...
—
1'rd6
Snni Ln) S.— M•nn
� � � t'+nc.ylunl arnnal .4M NiylnrcnU
Exhibit B
LOW Medium DensitySksylePamiy Residemial
Lour -Medium DensityMbeed Residential
■ Mulifarily
■ Cumnercel
■ Mixed use Commercial
■ School
■ Public Park/Open Space
■ Private Open Space/Sensiliee Arm
■ Other Public Property
Historic Property
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission:
I'm writing in regards to the rezoning application for almost 40 acres of land in southeast
Iowa City on the Planning & Zoning Commission's agenda for Thursday. I would
appreciate it if you would share the comments with the commissioners.
I have lived in Iowa City since 1990 and the south planning district since 2003, and love
the growth and development the area has seen since that time. The mix of housing is a
great strength of our neighborhood.
However I am deeply concerned that the approval of this rezoning application will
inexorably harm our neighborhood, and urge the commission to deny the rezoning
request.
Despite the applicant's claims, this area is far from commercial centers, requiring
additional car traffic.
The roads are hardly adequate to serve the multi family housing in the county and already
adjacent to Lehman Avenue.
The developer's seeming unwilling to invest in the upgrades necessary to serve their
Property suggests an unwillingness to be a cooperative partner in the neighborhood.
The former Lakeside Apartments is a constant reminder of the negative long-term effect
large, dense multi family development has had this neighborhood. And this proposed
rezoning covers about twice as much area as that complex.
Additionally, I'm deeply concerned by the impact such a zoning designation and the
following development would have on the newly build Alexander and the older Grant
Wood elementary schools, as well as on the unique, important and environmentally
sensitive wetlands adjacent to the property.
I strongly urge the commission to deny the rezoning request.
Thank you for your time,
Nick Bergus
2231 California Ave., Iowa City
From:
Meggan Fisher <meggfisher@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, September 27, 2015 5:35 PM
To:
Bob Miklo
Subject:
Development in SE Iowa City
Good afternoon -
Today on Facebook I saw a post that said there was an unnamed development company vin
looking to re -zone an
area of 40 acres in Iowa City near the wetlands for the purpose of a very large scale apartme
any public information available on this? Based on what I know of it, which isn't much admittedlnt lig. Is there eal questions about a
Y, I would like
to express my disapproval at the threat to the wetlands of the SE side. I also have some r
complex of buildings at that scale and how it could/would be supported by the infrastructure, economically, etc.
Thank you for your time.
Megg Fisher
From:
Terri Gordy <terrigordy@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, September 27, 2015 9:22 PM
To:
Bob Miklo
Subject:
Rezoning request from Pugh Hagen Prahm PLC
Dear Bob and Iowa City P&Z Commission members:
I am writing in regard to the rezoning request from Pugh Hagen Prahm PLC coming up for review this week. I live in the
Grant Wood Neighborhood and would like to address a subject of great concern for me --housing development and,
specifically, the high density of multi -family units in Southeast Iowa City.
Nearly two years ago, my husband and I were looking for a house to buy in Iowa City. I had been commuting from
Muscatine to myjob in SE Iowa City when my husband was offered a new opportunity in Coralville. We jumped at the
chance to finally move to Iowa City.
We were adamant about living in Iowa City --not any of the surrounding areas. That was our first priority in our search for
a new house. Our second priority was to live within 10-15 minutes of each of ourjobs.
As we began our search, we were advised by a few folks to avoid looking at houses south of Highway 6 due to this area's
reputation of having pockets with high crime rates. As you know, this is a large area and, by not including it in our
search, we eliminated many possibilities. So we searched north of Highway 6 and didn't find anything we really liked.
Then one day it dawned on me: If living south of 6 is so terrible, why do so many people live there? I did MY own
research and determined, yes, there are pockets that aren't so great, but there many pockets that are great. Long story
short, we bought a house south of Highway 6, and it's been one of the best decisions we ever made. We love the
diversity of our neighborhood. We feel safe and at home here. We're just minutes from ourjobs and all the things we
love about Iowa City.
In the two years we've lived in this. neighborhood, a new elementary school has been built, new subdivisions have been
developed, new streets have been laid, and more than two dozen new single-family houses have been constructed.
Progress is great. My husband and I would much rather live in a town that's growing versus one that's doing the
opposite.
But like many of our neighbors, we're concerned about the types of developments that are growing up around us. We
feel fortunate to live in a part of the Grant Wood Neighborhood that doesn't have any multi -family units --not yet
anyway. While these units can help meet the demand for affordable housing in a community, they are not always the
best thing for established neighborhoods like Grant Wood. Too many of them in a dense space can have a negative
impact on an otherwise stable neighborhood --one only has to look at the Dolphin Point (now Rose Oaks) and Broadway
developments to see that's true.
It's my hope that the city will take the concerns of residents such as me and my fellow neighbors into consideration --and
our desire to keep our neighborhood stable, healthy, and crime -free for many years to come --when determining future
housing developments in Southeast Iowa City.
Thanks for listening.
Sincerely,
Terri Gordy
79 Stanwyck Drive
From: Rebecca Bergus <rbergus@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 3:43 PM
To: Bob Miklo
Subject: rezoning REZ 15-00019
I do not think the rezoning of this parcel of land in the southern par[ of Iowa City is appropriate at this time. It
would put a large number of people in an undeveloped and environmentally sensitive area.
The developer is unknown and there seem to be no preliminary designs. I don't think there is adequate
information for the city to move ahead with a change of this magnitude.
Thank you.
Rebecca Bergus
418 Wales Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
Dear Mr. Miklo,
Could you please pass along this correspondence to the members of the Planning & Zoning Commission?
I am writing to request that the Commission deny the application by Pugh Hagen Prahm PLC for rezoning
of approximately 42 acres to the RM -20 zone, item D on the agenda for the October 1, 2015 meeting.
I am a lifelong Iowa City resident. I grew up on Regal Lane, a short distance due north of the requested
rezoning. I now live on California Avenue, just a few blocks from where I grew up. My family and I
frequently use the Sycamore Greenway Trail and also run and bike on the adjacent roadways, all times of
year. I am very familiar with the area proposed for rezoning, and the fact that it is in no way primed for
multifamily development.
The rezoning requested should be denied for several reasons. First, it goes against the current and proposed
plans for the South District for medium -density single family and mixed low-to-medium density uses. This
request is for a huge, potentially homogeneous section of what would be very high density housing given
the surrounding area. This is not the place for hundreds of units that would be separated from any
contiguous development.
Second, the whole of Iowa City deserves and should demand a better allocation of public resources than
this rezoning would allow. Water, sewer, refuse, bus service, roads, and fire and police protection would
have to be extended far beyond their current (and planned) capacity to serve this development. All while
the City is facing years of anticipated budget shortfalls due to changes in property tax law. The proposed
density would require disproportionate infrastructure and support for many services that must leap -frog
over undeveloped land. That is wasteful and unfair to the public.
Third, non -City entities should not have to accommodate this intensity of use when it is not in the public
plans. For example, telecommunications, and energy providers could not anticipate the level of
infrastructure required for hundreds of units this far out of town, and such a build -out could easily harm
their ability to serve existing customers. The County of Johnson County must deal with impacts on its
infrastructure so near this development. And the Iowa City Community School District would be faced
with terrible overcrowding and renewed boundary concerns in its new school that was not built to serve
anything like the requested rezoning.
Fourth, the South District's history teaches us that big chunks of multifamily housing have not worked out
well. Look no further than the former Lakeside and Broadway Apartments for examples of failed or
struggling multifamily developments here. The developer is correct that we need more affordable housing.
But we do not need 42 acres of RM -20. What Iowa City needs here is more like a planned area
development with mixed uses and a variety of housing a building types, including commercial
opportunities closer than the three miles away. This rezoning proposal appears to seek to maximize the
number of units on property that is not adequately served, with an unwillingness to even pay for all the
basic infrastructure improvements to make it possible.
Please deny the request for rezoning this property to RM -20
Sincerely,
Laura Bergus
2231 California Avenue
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
319-541-9677
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 1, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
APPROVED
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch,
Max Parsons, Jodie Theobald
MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin
STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Ford, Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo
OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Pugh, Steve Gordon, Mark Signs, Emily Seibel, Nancy Bird,
Karen Kubby
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends the denial REZ15-00019 a rezoning from Interim
Development Multifamily (ID -RM) zone for 38.49 acres and Rural Residential (RR1) zone for
3.52 acres to Medium Density Multifamily (RM -20) zone for property located south of Lehman
Avenue, east of Soccer Park Road.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends the Proposed Renewal and Expansion of the
Self -Supported Municipal Improvement District for Downtown Iowa City petition be
recommended for approval and the Evaluative Report herein be forwarded to the City Council
for their consideration.
• •a*
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There were none
REZONING ITEM (REZ15-00019):
Discussion of an application submitted by Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC for a rezoning from Interim
Development Multifamily (ID -RM) zone for 38.49 acres and Rural Residential (RR1) zone for
3.52 acres to Medium Density Multifamily (RM -20) zone for property located south of Lehman
Avenue, east of Soccer Park Road.
Miklo began the staff report showing some images including a map showing the location of the
property and aerial photographs. Staff reviewed the application request for compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, both the existing South District Plan which was adopted in 1997 and the
proposed South District Plan that the Commission recommended approval to the City Council
who will review that proposal in October. The current plan shows the property as being
appropriate for single family development towards the southern portion of the property
transitioning to smaller lot single family duplexes to the north then onto townhouses adjacent to
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2015—Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 14
Lehman Avenue. The proposed South District Plan to be considered by the Council shows a
very similar land -use pattern plan for the future of this area. Both Plans have policies against
concentrating large areas of multi -family in any one neighborhood. As detailed in the staff
report the proposal is to zone approximately 40 acres to Medium Density Multi -family (RM -20),
which could result in 600 to 1000 multi -family dwelling units on this property.
Miklo explained that both the existing and proposed South District Plans indicate that multi-
family development should only occur where there is infrastructure (street access, sewer, water
and other utilities) and where there is access to goods and services such as shopping centers
and public transit. The larger Comprehensive Plan that covers the entire City also promotes
contiguous development, the idea is to grow out and not leap past large areas and then
develop. Miklo explained that the proposed multi -family zoning on this property does not
comply with these policies of the Comprehensive Plans, it is in an area that does not have
adequate street access, transit services, or access to commercial areas that is necessary to
support large areas of multi -family development.
Miklo said that applicant indicated a willingness to contribute to the cost of improving Lehman
Avenue but suggests that the City and also the neighboring property owner should also
contribute to that cost. Miklo stated that the City does not have a good method for forcing an
adjacent property owner to participate in construction improvements to Lehman Avenue. There
is an assessment process but it is very difficult to impose and has not been used in decades.
For these reasons Staff recommends that an application submitted by Pugh Hagen Prahm PLC
for a rezoningfrom Interim Development Multifamily (ID -RM) zone for 38.49 acres and Rural
Residential (RR1) zone for 3.52 acres to Medium Density Multifamily (RM -20) zone for
property located south of Lehman Avenue, east of Soccer Park Road be denied.
Eastham asked if the City has funded developments of roads for projects in the past, specifically
mentioning Foster Road when the Peninsula Development was constructed. Miklo explained
that the City built Foster Road for many reasons not just that one development. The City
needed access to water wells from the new water plant was one main reason for that road
improvement. He also noted that is not an isolated rural area, but adjacent to Dubuque Street.
Hensch mentioned the application claims that the City is committed to rezoning this area to RM -
20 eventually and wondered what that entailed. Miklo explained that when the property was
annexed into the City in the early 90's and that property as well as some surrounding areas
were discussed as possible developments. The applicant had asked that the subject portion of
the annexation tract he zoned Low Density Multifamily (RM -12). The northern portion of what
was Sycamore Farms that was adjacent to City infrastructure was approved for a combination of
zones. The northern portion that is adjacent to Highway 6 was zone RM -20 the middle area was
zoned for manufactured housing and the northwest area was zoned RS -8. But the City decide
not to zoned the southern portion as to RS -8 and RM -12 as requested by the applicant at the
time due to the need for wetlands preservation and lack of infrastructure. The property was
recommended to be zoned ID -RM which indicates the possibility of multi -family but is not a
guarantee. During the annexation process the applicant changed their application form RM -12
to ask for RM -20. Staff has reviewed minutes and staff reports from that time and notes that
there was concern at that time of concentrating a large area of multi -family in this area on the
part of both staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission. So the property was eventually
zoned ID rather than RM -20 that the applicant requested. Miklo explained that the ID code in
the zoning code it states it can be considered for future rezoning once infrastructure is in place
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 14
but that zoning should comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
Eastham asked about infrastructure and if water and sewer was available to this location. Miklo
said it is fairly close and the applicant would need to extend the water and sewer lines to the
property.
Eastham also asked about the concept and concern about "leap frogging" development and if
Staff felt development should not occur on Lehman Avenue. Miklo explained that Staff feels
development should not occur on Lehman Avenue until the road is brought up to City standards.
Freerks asked Miklo to talk about the RR1, which is the wetlands or conservation district, and is
there a designation that will protect that area. Miklo stated during the initial annexation process
it was determined that area was a jurisdictional wetland and should not be developed and that
is why it was zoned RR1 the City's lowest density and there was also a conservation easement
put in place indicating it would not be developed and the wetlands would be restored. The
space could be used for open space or for trails to serve the Sycamore Farms development.
Miklo also noted that in addition to the conservation easement there are also federal restrictions
on wetlands that would prohibit development.
Hensch asked if Lehman Avenue was chip -seal pavement or if part was gravel. Miklo said it
would be chip -sealed to soccer road and is gravel beyond that.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Mike Pugh noted he was before the Commission a few weeks ago for the discussion on the
amendment to the South District Plan and at that time was objecting to the land -use designation
colors on the maps for this property that showed it as only low to medium density development
along Lehman Avenue and the southern portion was slated as single-family. As articulated at
that time the history of the property and what was discussed at the time of annexation was the
reason for the objection. It was stated at the South District Amendment discussion that the
land -use map is not a zoning map it is more of a navigation for future development and what
may go on that property in the future. The process for the City is to have general concepts they
try to follow. The Commission noted that those shades on the map were not zoning and they
would only discuss zoning when specific applications came forward. So Pugh said his clients
decided to submit an application for the zoning they believe they were promised back at the
time of annexation.
Pugh said that when this property was annexed it was part of a 400 and some acre piece of
property, 190 acres is part of the conservation easement and wetlands. The property in the
application tonight was to be RM -12 per those annexation documents, and the property to the
east was a RS -8 request. During the annexation negotiations the City requested and the
property owners agreed that area be set aside for a conservation easement. Pugh does not
agree that it cannot be developed, it could be developed, even as a jurisdiction wetland, it would
just need mitigation to develop. So since the applicant agreed to the conservation easement
they asked the City to take the RM -12 piece and make it RM -20 so they could make up the
number of units they would be losing from not developing the wetlands area. That would then
justify the economics of the development.
Pugh does agree that the correct designation was ID because at that time the property was not
ready for development. He noted that IDRS was available back then as a designation and the
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2015—Formal Meeting
Page 4 of 14
City agreed this property would be appropriate for multi -family zoning. Per the Comprehensive
Plan it says multi -family should be located in an area that is adjacent to open areas. This
property is surrounded by open areas, the Sycamore Greenway, the soccer fields, the
wastewater treatment plant, and Pleasant Valley Golf Course.
Pugh noted with regard the Lehman Avenue the applicant is fully prepared as part of a
conditional rezoning to assist with the improvements to Lehman Avenue. The water and sewer
are available to serve the property. With regards to the contribution from the neighbors, Pugh
respectfully disagrees with Miklo that this type of contribution does not happen. Pugh says it
happens frequently when subdivision documents are drawn up. He noted Lower West Branch
Road as an example.
Pugh stated that the current zoning of the property is really more important than what is shown
on the land -use map of the proposed South District Plan, the property is zoned IDRM which
means the future intended use is for a multi -family zoning. So the application is really just
asking for the ID to be removed with a conditional zoning stating adequate infrastructure be
brought to the site. Pugh also stated that the conditional zoning agreement was a valid
agreement negotiated over a long period of time between the property owner and the City and
consideration was given to the City as part of the obligations by the owner (set aside area for
construction of a school, construction of a trial, set aside 190 acres for conservation) and the
owners have complied with all their obligations. Pugh reiterated they would like the ID
designation removed from the zoning and the zoning changed to RM -20.
Freerks clarified that the conditional zoning agreement from 1994 was for the entire 400 acres,
not just the property in question on this application. Pugh agreed.
Eastham asked what the development concepts might be for the property. Pugh replied they
are thinking of a mixed-use housing (similar to the Peninsula), a variety of different housing
stock, but predominately multi -family zoning. He said he is interested in hearing what type of
housing the Commission would like to see on that property. He knows affordable housing is a
big issue for the City and the developer is wanting to construct affordable units. They have not
gotten a concept of layouts developed yet.
Miklo noted that with regards to improvements to Lehman Avenue and having neighboring
properties contribute to that: he said that Lower West Branch Road was in the Capital
Improvement Program and the City up fronted the cost of building it and was able to collect
contributions from as development occurred. But Lehman Avenue is not in the Capital
Improvements Program and it is not a priority at this time, there are more pressing infrastructure
needs like McCollister Boulevard, which if built would encourage development to occur out from
the edge of current neighborhoods rather than leap frog out to the far edge of the city.
Freeks asked if the developer would be willing to do all the street improvements on Lehman
Avenue themselves. Pugh said that he would have to ask his clients, but they really just want
what is fair and feel the adjacent property owners who will benefit from the improvements
should contribute.
Hensch asked if the applicants at the time of the annexation regarded the IDRM as a guarantee
that in the future it would be rezoned as RM and not just as a possibility. Pugh said yes, during
the negotiations they discussed they needed so many units on the property to make it
economically feasible to allow 190 acres to go into conservation.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 5 of 14
Freerks asked if the area that was purchased by the City for the wetlands area was purchased
at fair market value. Miklo said part was purchased after the annexation and part was put into
a conservation easement.
Miklo noted that in terms of any guarantee this land would be zoned multi-family staff reviewed
minutes and staff reports and those clearly note the property was premature for development
because of lack of infrastructure and indicated when infrastructure was in place the zoning,
whether multi-family or single -family could be examined at that time.
Hektoen stated the staff report points out that future zoning cannot be guaranteed. Contract
zoning violates public policy, the zoning power is a police power which means that the City
Council needs to be able to respond to health, safety, welfare issues as they appear at the time
they are considering the application. The 1994 Council could not bind the 2015 Council to any
particular zoning designation. The City was not enjoined or otherwise encumbered to consider
this application based on anything other than the current Comprehensive Plan and the current
conditions as they exist today. Hektoen said there is not vested interest in a zoning designation
until development has begun.
Pugh noted the vested rights is a complicated process and his clients have a vest interest in the
whole 400 acres. The property to the north up by Highway 6 was developed in belief that a
multi-family zoning would be on the southern portion of the property.
Eastham asked about the sequence of development and what is the Staffs plan for
development in this area. If McCollister Boulevard is an important step in the process, would no
development happen until that is complete? Miklo said the development could occur if it
complies with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that McCollister Boulevard will allow the area
west of Sycamore Street to develop and will also provide better street access to the new school
and surrounding neighborhoods. He said that in addition to the infrastructure investment the
ongoing cost of providing services such as police, fire and snow removal needed to considered.
Hensch asked if either McCollister Boulevard or Lehman Avenue are in the City's construction
plans. Miklo said neither are at this time but Staff plans to make a proposal for Council to
consider in January to add a portion of McCollister Boulevard in the next few years.
Parsons asked where the nearest bus stop would be to this development. Miklo replied the
nearest bus stop is on Sycamore Street about a mile and a half away.
Pugh said that bus service should follow development so the bus service can come once the
development is there. Freerks said many would disagree, but agreed with Pugh that is a small
piece of the puzzle.
Steve Gordon (AM Management) works with the owners of this property. He noted that as part
of the initial annexation there was 190 acres set aside in a conservation easement, it's still
privately owned but in an easement that doesn't allow development or construction. As part of
the condemnation by the City for the Sycamore Greenway project the City purchased about 30
acres, 10 acres was from that 190 (so about 180 left privately owned) and 20 acres was from
the IDRM section.
Mark Signs (1925 Hollywood Boulevard) began by stating he has no financial interest in this
project but wanted to share a couple things. First the South District Plan needs to have more
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 6 of 14
high density areas and we need more throughout the City if we are ever going to meet the
demand for affordable housing. With this particular property, yes there is a "leap frog" issue
which can be a problem with infrastructure but from a reality standpoint there are not any large
parcels of land closer to do a large scale project, and if it was it would be highly expensive.
Signs noted that this piece of property is not an ideal piece of property, it's next to the sewage
treatment plant so the reality that the south end would be single family homes is wishful
thinking. This is a prime location for high density. He also added that another problem with the
"leap frog" idea is once another development is in the area, they will not want high density next
to them. High density will not be built after single family is already in the area, the high density
needs to be there first. He again reiterated that the city needs multi -family and there are not a
lot of options for where multi -family can be built. Signs said he plans to review all the
comprehensive plans for the City to see if any promote high density because he feels none do
and therefore there is not an option for building high density affordable housing in this city.
Signs noted that there has been conversation tonight and in past meetings about what was said,
or promised, or negotiated between the property owner and the City for this property and in the
Staff report they are very careful to say there is no documentation of such negotiations. Signs
said it is often the case that conversations are not documented and to look at the agreement
there is no benefit to the land owner, there is no documented incentive for them to have
annexed in the whole 420 acres at one time. They gave up conservation land, set aside land for
a school, and got nothing in return so it only seems sensible that they thought they had this
zoning in the future, that would be their only benefit.
Freerks asked if part of the annexation was the Saddlebrook development. Miklo said that yes
25 acres of multi -family zoning adjacent to Highway 6, manufactured housing and RS -6 zoning
were all part of the annexation.
Emily Seibel (47 Valley Avenue #7) stated she has lived in Iowa City for six years and is an
urban planning student at The University of Iowa and has spent a significant amount of time
over the past couple months looking at comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances for
assignments. She noted that present needs of the City make this land very interesting. In the
Staff memo there were a couple quotes from the Comprehensive Plan; "the South District will
be single-family residential. However, neighborhoods will also contain areas where low to
medium density multifamily, town house and duplex style housing will mix compatibly with
single-family housing..." Also mentioned is to "encourage compact, efficient development that is
contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods..." and then goes on to state "Encourage
a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods. Concentrate new development in areas
contiguous to existing neighborhoods where it is most cost effective to extend infrastructure and
services." Seibel noted that statement is repeated several times throughout the 1997
Comprehensive Plan document and the 2013 update. The Staff memo also states that the
proposed and future South District Plan sees the property in question as appropriate for single-
family, duplexes and townhomes. She commented on the City Council work session that was
held a month ago where a presentation was shown on how the current zoning ordinance does
allow for density adjustments in single-family density homes such as small lot sizes, zero lot
homes, duplexes permitted on corners. However Seibel noted that in that same work session
Councilors noted that these type of developments are not happening in residential
neighborhoods. Councilor Payne noted that she believes this could be due to lack of
incentivized on the part of developers and residential neighborhoods. Seibel believes unless
the City takes certain steps that will continue to be the case and as presented by Mark Signs
there will be very few or no support for building multi -family complexes contiguous to single-
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 7 of 14
family neighborhoods. It is extremely hard to find affordable land already next to single-family
developments unless there are intentional steps taken by the City. It is not diversity and not
providing for the needs of the city. As a planning student she does find building complexes far
from the center of the city a bit concerning due to environmental concerns and putting people far
from services but because of the need perhaps a hard compromise needs to be made. Seibel
stated she was tired of hearing and reading about the need for diverse housing and then not
seeing it happen in reality. Not just affordable housing that meets 60-80% AMI but also for
reasonable housing for young professionals that cannot afford to live in a 15 story building going
up downtown. She also said it is difficult to accept as a resident that a comprehensive plan will
be edited and amended to provide for downtown developments in Riverfront Crossings but is
much less willing to look at multi -family housing in a county with a vacancy of less than 1 %. If
this development isn't the "one", what will be? What is the City going to do to provide multi-
family options that are contiguous within the entire city?
Freerks closed the public discussion
Eastham moved to defer this item until the next meeting for more consideration.
Dyer seconded the motion.
Eastman stated that the history of what the owners of this property and the City negotiated in
the past is of a concern to him and is not sure that is a consideration the Commission needs to
be concerned with because of the Comprehensive Plans that do include this area. Eastham
would like Staff to bring forward alternate acceptable development. Freerks was unsure that
was something Staff should be asked to do. Hektoen said the applicant could be requested to
do so, and Eastham agreed that would suffice.
Freerks stated she is often in agreement for taking time to make a decision but in this case it is
a huge area of RM -20. Hawks Ridge is 230 units, Lakeside is 400 units so that is 630 units and
this area would have the density of those two put together and more (up to 1000) and doesn't
feel that is quality living. She is not opposed to multi -family and when they talk about diversity
of housing that doesn't mean 40 acres of multi -family density.
Hensch asked if RM -20 of this size, 40 acres, was in any other area of the city. Miklo said the
northern part of Saddlebrook was about 20 acres of multi -family. Hensch is unsure of the
reason for the deferral. Eastham feels this area could be used in a way similar to the Peninsula
neighborhood, which is not RM -20. Hensch asked what is the current zoning in the Peninsula.
Miklo stated the underlying zoning is RS -5 (5 units per acre) with a planned development that
allowed the clustering of development.
Freerks noted that multi -family could be in this area, just perhaps not the quantity and mass.
A vote was taken and the motion was denied 1-5 (Eastham voting in the affirmative).
Theobald moved to approve REZ15-00019 a rezoning from Interim Development
Multifamily (ID -RM) zone for 38.49 acres and Rural Residential (RR1) zone for 3.52 acres
to Medium Density Multifamily (RM -20) zone for property located south of Lehman
Avenue, east of Soccer Park Road.
Eastham seconded the motion.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2015—Formal Meeting
Page 8 of 14
Hensch stated it would have been nice to see a plan from the applicant not just a rezoning.
Parson agrees he is uneasy putting a blanket RM -20 over 40 acres of land.
Theobald noted she lives between two large multi -family complexes and doesn't feel it is good
planning and the Comprehensive Plan is trying to discourage that. The current Comprehensive
Plan talks about a diversity of housing in this area. Additionally when there are other needs in
the City to address first, such as McCollister Boulevard and development along that road, and
this application is out of sequence and not a good idea.
Eastham stated that RM -20 does not fulfill the goals of the area. He doesn't have a problem
with the out of sequence nature of this application, there have been other developments such as
the Peninsula that have been out of sequence and away from commercial development and City
infrastructure. Eastham noted that he believes the owners will have to pay for the updates and
extension of Lehman Avenue themselves. He feels a concept of 800 units on this 40 acre is too
much, something more like 400 units would be better, well designed with a mix of housing
types.
Freerks noted that this area of the city is very important and the City has poured time and
money into the planning of this area. It is growing and now has a new school. She feels more
thought needs to be put into this application and not just a blanket RM -20 designation. That
designation is not listening to what the community wants nor what the Comprehensive Plan
states.
Parsons agreed, thinking perhaps after McCollister Boulevard is extended things might change
but as it sits right now this area is not ready for development.
A vote was taken and the motion failed (0-6).
OTHER BUSINESS:
Consider a recommendation on the Proposed Renewal and Expansion of the Self -Supported
Municipal Improvement District for Downtown Iowa City.
Ford stated that the City has received and City Council has forwarded for your review a petition
by property owners within a Proposed SSMID Renewal and Expansion District. Staff is
recommending the Planning and Zoning Commission review of the petition for "merit and
feasibility" and to submit an evaluative report to the City Council. Ford explained that the
procedure for adopting a SSMID, or renewing a SSMID requires first verifying the signatures,
the amount of signatures, and the valuation of the property represented by those signatures.
Staff has completed that verification and found that the minimum thresholds have been met.
Next Council refers the SSMID to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an evaluative report
on the merits and feasibility of the project (or SSMID). After Council then receives the
evaluative report they will set a public hearing and the notice is published along with the
requisite notification by registered or certified mail to all of the property owners within that
district. Then finally, not less than 30 days after Council has set the public hearing, a public
hearing is held and the ordinance could be adopted at that point.
Ford noted at this time it appears that if the Commission were to forward a recommendation to
City Council a public hearing could be set for as soon as November 10 and a final adoption date
could be as soon as December 15.
•V
O
m
i -S -t
Prepared by: Marti Wolf, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 310 (Zi019)
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE REZONING 38.49 ACRES FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT MC-TIFAMILY
(ID -RM) ZONE AND 3.52 ACRES FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR -1) TO MEDIUM
DENSITY MULTIFAMILY (RM -20) ZONE LOCATED SOUTH OF LEHMAN AVENUE, EAST
OF SOCCER PARK ROAD. (REZ15-00019)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Saddl rook Meadows Development, has requested a rezoning of property
located south of Lehman Avenue, eas of Soccer Park Road, from Rural esidential (RR -1) zone to Medium
Density Multifamily (RM -20) zone; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive PI , specifically the South Di rict Plan depicts the majority of this
property as being appropriate for low toad um
density single-f ily development with low to medium
mixed density, including smaller lot sin e -family, duplex, zer lot line and townhouse development,
adjacent to Lehman Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Co ission has r/edwdenial;
ed the proposed rezoning, found it to be
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and s recommen and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY
IOWA:
be considered by the City Council.
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described Io is hereby reclassified from its current zoning
designation of RR -1 and ID -RM to RM -20:
DESCRIPTION -REZONING PARCEL (RR1 TO RM )
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER THE SOUTHEAS QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP
79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, OF THE FIFT PRINCIPAL MERI N, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY,
IOWA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Beginning at the Southeast Corner o Section 26, Township 79 rth, Range 6 West, of the Fifth
Principal Meridian, Iowa City, Johns County, Iowa; Thence S88°2 'S4"W, along the South Line of
the Southeast Quarter of the Sot
ast Quarter of said Section26, a istance of 765.64 feet; Thence
N24'36'43"E, 220.66 feet, to the uthwest Corner of Parcel lOG, in ac rdance with the Plat thereof
Recorded in Book 2771, at Pag 23 of the Records of the Johnson Cou Recorder's Office; Thence
Northeasterly, 684.72 feet al g a 1400.00 foot radius curve, concave N hwesterly, whose 677.91
foot chord bears N80"47'121. to a Point on the East Line of the Southeast uarter of the Southeast
Quarter of said Section 26; Thence S00"51'02"E, along said East Line, 287. 8 feet, to the Point of
Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel contains 3.52 Acres (153,410 square feet), and is subject to
easements and restrictions of record.
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL (ID -RM TO RM20)
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER AND THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, OF
THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Beginning at the Southwest Corner of Auditor's Parcel 2003 131, in accordance with the Plat thereof
Recorded in Plat Book 46 at Page 244 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence
N00'56'37"W, along the West Line of said Auditor's Parcel 2003 131, and the West Line of Auditor's
Ordinance No.
Page 2
Parcel 2003 129, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 46 at Page 245 of the
Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office, 2054.62 feet, to the Northwest Corner of said
Auditor's Parcel 2003 129; Thence Southeasterly, 656.11 feet along the North Line of said Auditor's
Parcel 2003 129 on a 1275.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 648.89 foot chord
bears S83°45'05"E, to the Northeast Corner thereof; Thence Southeasterly, 739.14 feet along the East
Line of said Auditor's Parcel 2003 129 on a 1943.27 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose
734.69 foot chord bears S33°19'34"E, to the Southeast Corner thereof and the Northeast Corner of
Auditor's Parcel 2003 131; Thence S21°33'37E, along the East Line of said Auditor's Parcel 2003 131, a
distance of 110.05 feet, to the Southwest Corner of Parcel 8 , in accordance with the Plat thereof
Recorded in Book 2771 t Page 248 of the Records of the Joh son County Recorder's Office; Thence
N87°33'36"E, along the S uth Line of said Parcel 8C, 69.62 fee , to the Southeast Corner thereof, and
the Northwest Corner of arcel 10G, in accordance with the lat thereof Recorded in Book 2771, at
Page 223 of the Records f the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S24°36'43"W, along the
West Line of said Parcel OG, and the Southwesterly ojection thereof, 1380.50 feet, to its
intersection with the South me of the Southeast Quarte of the Southeast Quarter of Section 26,
Township 79 North , Range 6 est, of the Fifth Principal eridian; Thence 588°23'54"W, along said
South Line and the South Line f said Auditor's Parcel 200 131, a distance of 550.12 feet, to the Point
of Beginning. Said Rezoning Pa cel contains 38.49 Acr (1,676,721 square feet), and is subject to
easements and restrictions of rec rd.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The quilding Inspe
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, to to conform
and Dublication of this ordinance by law.
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed t certify
office of the County Recorder of Johnson Coun , to
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances n I
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, c
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication she n
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged in alid
SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Or inanc
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MA'
Of
is hereby authorized and directed to change the
this amendment upon the final passage, approval
�. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
copy of this ordinance and to record the same, at the
at the owner's expense, all as provided by law.
Is of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
,ision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
unconstitutional.
i)iiihall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
Approved by:
am
City Attorney's Office
N
O_
`r
J
.moo
rrn
m
_-;a
:V;7F
s
r
��
ry
rn
Late Handouts D sisu bu�
Julie Vooaril
From: Nick Bergus <nick@bergus.org> 5//'i/
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 7:31 PM
To: Council (Date)
Subject: Please deny rezoning request along Lehman Avenue
Dear Councilors,
I am writing to ask you deny the request of Pugh, Hagen, Frahm, PLC for rezoning of approximately 40 acres to RM -20, for
which you will hold a public hearing on May 2, 2017. (This hearing is item 7a on your agenda for May 2, 2017.)
I'm familiar with the area for which rezoning is being requested because my family and I are often in the area, whether it's to
visit the nature at the Sycamore Greenway, to play at Kickers Soccer Park or for my regular year-round runs down the
Sycamore Greenway Trail.
For the past 14 years, I lived with my family on California Avenue. We've stayed so long because we love this neighborhood: its
vibrancy, its diversity, its schools, its parks and its trails. We participated when the city looked to update its plan for the South
District.
That plan, which the council adopted in the fall of 2015, calls for mixing densities and building types in new residential
developments. This 40 acre rezoning is likely to lead to homogeneous buildings of up to 1,000 apartments in a relatively dense
cluster.
While Iowa City certainly need more homes and additional affordable housing, large pockets of multifamily housing have had a
poor history in the South District, often caused by poor management, insufficient maintenance and investment, or poor
construction and site design. The property formerly known as Lakeside, Dolphin Point Enclave and Rose Oaks is one example.
The material facts that led staff and planning commissioners to recommend denial of this rezoning have not changed. This area
remains unprimed for development, and would require city services, including buses, water, sewer, to be extended. It would
strain others, including our schools district, social services and private utilities. It would have homes without nearby
commercial to serve them. It would create another large pocket of multifamily housing, particularly when viewed in the
context of the multifamily homes just to the north.
Please deny the requested rezoning of this property to RM -20.
Yours,
Nick Bergus
2231 California Avenue
Iowa City IA 52240
Rezoning/Development Item
REZ15-00019:
Discussion of an application submitted by Pugh Hagan
Prahm PLC for a rezoning of 38.49 acres from Interim
Development Multi -Family (ID -RM) zone and 3.52 acres
from Rural Residential (RR -1) zone to Medium Density
Multi -Family (RM -20) zone for property located south of
Lehman Avenue, east of Soccer Park Road
_ nrA :;- -. .- . _.. - eoa+�rQ `J9in'ZDNni/.R1C tM =...^Nrt PiO� � PCA Locxbn 4Up�S 15'REIfS{GC 14^aC
The property south of Lehman Ave, north of the
Wastewater Plan, is currently zoned Interim
Development — Multi -Family Residential (ID -RM).
Interim Development is the default zone for
undeveloped areas until infrastructure and City services
can be provided.
The proposed zone is Medium Density Multi -Family (RM -
20). The Zoning Code states that this zone "is particularly
well suited to locations adjacent to commercial areas and
in areas with good access to all city services and
facilities" [Zoning Code Section 14-213-1C]
Under the RM -20 Zone, staff estimates that over 600
dwelling units could be constructed under the proposed
RM -20 zoning.
The rezoning request had been reviewed under the 1997
South District Plan. The plan contained guidelines
indicating that large concentrations of multi -family
housing should be avoided. The future land use scenario
contained in the South District Plan depicted this
property as being appropriate for single family lots on
the south, smaller single family and duplex lots toward
the north, with townhomes closer to Lehman Ave
The proposal was also reviewed under the 2015 South
District Plan, which the Planning and Zoning Commission
had recently approved in 2015. The proposed land use
map in the 2015 plan depicts the majority of the
property as low to medium density single family
development with the possibility of higher densities
adjacent to Lehman Ave.
R,Llia Ogen S".-
00 ...
pae
ONrr 0". fpm
ni.mnr
— General C..o,m.+eid
_ NeiphbmhmA Cwmnetid
- [nlenrive Convnrmel
_ le"iluYmal
Nnler rer am
1'nul.
,.i i.. n.erial e4eY+Jitnnan4
Public Park/Open Space
0 Private Open Spate/Sensitive Area
Other Public Property
Historic Property
1997 South District Plan 2015 South District Plan
ln.,Je Family
Daplex n„ thn
small Lm sb,Kk f'w„ilr
IV �9
nae,hou"
��j
�LaunmhlrM n,nl.in�
®
dlrarlmmin
R,Llia Ogen S".-
00 ...
pae
ONrr 0". fpm
ni.mnr
— General C..o,m.+eid
_ NeiphbmhmA Cwmnetid
- [nlenrive Convnrmel
_ le"iluYmal
Nnler rer am
1'nul.
,.i i.. n.erial e4eY+Jitnnan4
Public Park/Open Space
0 Private Open Spate/Sensitive Area
Other Public Property
Historic Property
1997 South District Plan 2015 South District Plan
RM -20 zones are
recommended
in areas
of the City that
have good access
to commercial
and city
services.
The nearest commercial area is the Iowa City Market
Place (formerly Sycamore Mall) approximately two miles
to the northeast
The street network to get to and serve the property is
limited
The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan states "Encourage
compact, efficient development that is contiguous and
connected to existing neighborhoods to reduce the cost
of extending infrastructure and services... " (page 23)
�o a :. � ,.��_
vw,
0
z
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of REZ15-00019, an
application submitted by Pugh Hagen Prahm PLC,
for a rezoning from Interim Development Multi -
Family (ID -RM) zone for 38.49 acres and Rural
Residential (RR -1) zone for 3.52 acres to Medium
Density Multi -Family (RM -20) zone.
The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended denial by a vote of 6-0 in October,
2015
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ16-0008/SUB16-00012
Larson Subdivision
GENERAL INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Bob Miklo
Date: March 16, 2017
Applicant: Kevin Hanick
88 Hickory Heights Lane
Iowa City, IA 52245
Contact Person:
Mark Seabold
Shive Hattery
2839 Northgate Drive
Iowa City, IA 52245
319-354-3040
Requested Action:
Rezoning to OPD -12 and preliminary plat and
sensitive areas development plan approval
Purpose:
Development of a single family residential lot and
one lot with 60 multi -family dwellings
Location:
2201 North Dubuque Road (the property also has
frontage on Scott Boulevard)
Size:
12.28 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Residential RS -5 and ID -RS (in process of being
rezoned to RM -12)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Office (ACT Campus) - ORP
East: Office (ACT Campus) - ORP
South: Undeveloped - ID -RS
West: Residential and undeveloped — RS -5 and ID -
RS
Comprehensive Plan: Northeast District Plan — office park with residential
as a potential alternative use.
File Date: February 23, 2017
45 Day Limitation Period: April 9, 2017
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Kevin Hanick, is requesting approval of the preliminary plat of Larson Subdivision,
a 2 -lot, 12.28 -acre residential subdivision located at 2201 North Dubuque Road. The northern
tract, Lot 1 is planned to be the location of a new single family dwelling for the property's current
2
owners. The existing house and accessory buildings are planned to be removed from Lot 2. The
City Council has approved first reading of an ordinance rezoning Lot 2 to Low Density Multifamily
Residential (RM -12) with a Conditional Zoning Agreement allowing a maximum of 60 dwelling
units.
The property contains regulated slopes and woodlands. The preliminary plat includes a sensitive
areas development plan indicating grading and tree clearing within the 50 -foot buffer for the
protected slope located in the southeastern portion of Lot 2. The zoning ordinance requires
approval of a Planned Development Overlay where disturbance of a protected slope buffer is
proposed. Therefore this application requires a rezoning from Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) to
Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily (OPD/RM-12).
The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy".
ANALYSIS:
Comprehensive Plan: As noted in the staff report for the recent rezoning of this property (REZ16-
00008) The Northeast District Plan map shows the area north of Scott Boulevard, including this
property, as being appropriate for Office Research Park development, but the text of the Plan
notes that alternative uses, including residential should be considered. The text of the Plan also
encourages a diversity of housing including multifamily near Scott Boulevard. In Staff's view, the
proposed subdivision for two residential lots is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning: Lot 1 is currently zoned RS -5. The proposed lot exceeds the minimum 60 foot lot width
and 8,000 square foot minimum lot area required in that zone. The sensitive areas plan shows
that there will sufficient land area for a single family dwelling and associated accessory buildings
outside of the sensitive areas.
Lot 2 is in the process of being rezoned to RM -12. Lot 2 exceeds the minimum 60 foot lot width
and 8125 square foot lot area required in the zone. The sensitive areas plan illustrates that
development will be in conformance with the Conditional Zoning Agreement currently be
considered by the City Council.
Subdivision design: No new streets are proposed for this subdivision. Access to Lot 1 will be
from Dubuque Road. Lot 2 will have one driveway access to Scott Boulevard. The proposed
driveway onto Scott Boulevard has been located where it will provide for adequate site distance.
The steep ravines located on this and adjacent properties would make the creation of an
interconnected street network typically required in residential subdivisions infeasible.
The portion of Dubuque Road adjacent to the north side of Lot 1 is currently in an easement.
The subdivision plat includes dedication of the owners half of the road to the City as street right-
of-way (Outlot A.)
Sensitive Areas: The property contains regulated slopes and woodlands. Lot 1 includes a
construction limit line that confines potential development areas to the portions of the property
that do not contain regulated slopes and woodlands.
On Lot 2, disturbance of woodlands and slopes is generally limited to the area necessary for the
stormwater management facilities proposed in the southern part of the ravine. Smaller areas of
disturbance will occur along the west edge of the driveway for Lot 2.
Tree removal and grading necessary for the stormwater management facilities will impact the
50 -foot protected slope buffer. Stormwater detention facilities are permitted within buffer areas
if they are designed and constructed to minimize their impact upon the protected sensitive
P=Stafr Rep raWaH report preliminary platcoo[
3
areas and associated buffers. The design and construction should include measures to protect
against erosion, pollution and habitat disturbance, and result in minimal amounts of excavation
and filling. The City Engineer is currently reviewing a revised stormwater management plan
and anticipates completing the review prior to the March 16 Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting.
As proposed the 17.5% of the steep slopes, 2.5% of the critical slopes and 18.9% of the
woodlands will be affected. This may change depending on City Engineer review of the
stormwater management facilities.
Neighborhood Open Space: A subdivision of this size requires the dedication of .70 acres of
neighborhood open space or fees in lieu of. The Parks and Recreation Department has
determined that fees are appropriate in lieu of land dedication. The fee will be equivalent to the
value of 30,867 square feet of property. This requirement will need to be addressed in the legal
papers for the final plat.
Infrastructure fees: The water main extension fee of $435 per acre will apply to this subdivision
and should be noted in the legal paperwork. There are no sanitary sewer tap fees that apply to
this area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral pending resolution of any deficiencies
identified on the recently submitted preliminary plan and sensitive areas development plan. Upon
resolution of any identified issues, staff recommends approval of a rezoning of approximately
10.26 acres from Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) to Planned Development
Overlay/Low Density Multifamily Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone and a preliminary plat and
sensitive areas development plan of Larson Subdivision, a 2 -lot, 12.28 -acre residential
subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue.
(REZ16-00008/sub 16-00012)
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
Revised Plan: A revised preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan were submitted
on March 10. Staff is in the process of reviewing the plans to assure that all deficiencies and
discrepancies have been resolved. We anticipate the staff review will be completed prior to the
March 16 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan
—
Approved by: / ,4 Z ���
John Yapp, Develop ent a ices Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
PC MtaM RepptMsWff repot preliminary plat.d r
7 r SUB16-00012
S Larson Subdivision
0 0.0275 0.055 0.11 Milt's Prepared By: Marti Wolf
I I 1 I
Date Prepared: Dec. 201
A j
t
l der
■ i
Poe
An application submitted by
a 2 -lot, 12.28 -acre residential
�pp;; 111 ■ ii..
■
■
y
eI c o
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Leo�o
LARSON SUBDMSIONtI
Ul
IOWA CT', JOHNIMN COUNTY, IOWA
l�jpl
i\i,1
��__
,.. .................
_
1' ❑ � �11�N��` j11\\\`H\\il..
, E ,r
m�'vfoa
1
SIA
p
, / / it I A\\\ILl 1,
/ I�
waemvchePW
y
iMllY l/
11tt,ff .11 �r%il l i'i r-yytlmill ti J�1'
r
S, �
l'T Ine,-1
a ..m
0
'f ei[E<Fii�ERI[t �II i '•'• -OFIlf4I�IG'11 'I pl�'1��1
N �V, �1I1,1
1
:I11lil
___—
Illi `\ �. 'j l
IIII�PI IM
z
,intl yb
N
1 i ' % 1'•
NOM.
1'i II
r.cuu
[
u�
e o
e
- -_ --_
SITE GRADING, EROSION CONTROL AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
))
------
SUBDIVISION
CARSON SUBDSION
u. ippp
IOWA CRY, JOHNSON COUNTY,
0. mx
S
EROSIONCONTROLLEGEND
SENBITNEAREAS LEGEND
�.°rxer
a
Q m,erw...oa"®
.�.o.rcn 1 rzry n •
�: �? �
wnmmaE
o.�..� o
n
r M1
u I 1
I
1
r
z
11
I
I 5
I�;
�IIII I/A II TII'IHy Y Ih 9{bl� T
z
z
h1f14A1,��11
Al p�
N
9p� 111'
111I
�\��✓
_
�\\ l� 1 11 tI �t n • ll/ '�✓I X11/1
R n �.
�I
ENTRA CONTRACTOR STAGING
i 0_
(LAND LAYDOWN AREA
Q'
&3
L V
LOT 1
11 I ;JJ ; 1, "!1 yLY( mnrtmor y,�;
w¢
z Z
Al'
z
/
F
�
`f.`� gyp tY
1
de✓
. 5i1•
_
A
COMPOST FILTER TUBE DETAIL
a
`'�• __ -� ' '
8.t F
T em
jwa•aa
_
�wrxv.W
�• O
�� x..1.1• �s�'
LDTI
oa1°uw ♦
O �w��a'�
5 wu�.�,nmmwr�". °ao°W1iv.woxr,e.,.,c.x..ea
� y
N w a'- °d � u
�LSILT FENCE OETAIL
x�
2
A
s c !
A
E
°
E
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE
AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LARSON SUBDIVISION
IOWA CITV,.gNN80N
COUNTY, IOWA
_=
fffjF
DOW
.—
x�nx5suicx�
®
1
PgVINO LEGEND —
�1 a!
1
Ze 13
�
O
o
A
eDa
eax
iam. anon p
E
nrrtL
_
ru..aun Will
w` x
\I
i�neue
z.nonwm avwxn
Y t� I. 1
mmxu
a aRwe®xrrmr¢wmwn, n
i
Q N-� 1
I
rmxvumro
mmua a xry
Z
i
�
y, ,I
Tm �mw.onxuw•,anxu
O
�
•
sWLnvwnirtuo
5
mn®.wmnmwawremmaxmr. o �xrw
Q
A
I
h•.
t
�
srcc vnwnnaEe wa
Eo
N
wn,awmx
sa" w m `� _ _ _
0
F{j
Evory EM D.E1PoAYa
wlnx A[W
Z
ao sxa
0
O
hr-:
a /'
•+e «r µExwo�,xsuDD..E
'
mE
co'R°''nrc n»ar «,D"DExa
<0
'
aumw«TDaE MMEDro AOEnxo.,r MD
"EcaxrAmeoroea»suxoxxD
? LL
I
rx«roa oexeR.
0
F
]. ...E
Z
OIPECrKK10in1AVEL
LL) W
Z
d E
&:CC�DEWALK
O
ixr,ax�
—
u�
�
r w
,Y.Bl5E 6xALLFIWr
>DaDxAD r
��
�-
_ _
�
—
/
r,a,mrn
Ws��
5" PCCDRCRO-5ECTIONxox
IVE
C
C O
-_-_ARD_-
_.....
(ZQ
deem
3
°c
D
e e
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LARSON SUBDIVISION
i
IOWA ClMHMN COUNLY• IOWA
Lu
p
_=
�
W
9
w�wn mxxv.a
� owmr.um,. nvw m.. u.ae ox. m..uma
�; j3
O
—yN
\ DUBUQUE RD
%
rl
I
iq
m
\
Ir'.. � •
5
1\�
�
1
i
iiiii4S�\�\I
�`I
m .nwvne
O
lii �li
I
O
•1 •\
/p
'%,
i4�'grrjn iol'gfvr
;%•-,
i
fA
g
-- ---
,'lade 111°'�7'' �
i��EYpjy', e1
r `
O
rl
�Ill�llpif�
LL
'
�ZIn
s
•1 � i1,111
I
'ii r(r�1 9
ylr%
\ 1�\ �
'1911 II/l lri II mei
A'
r'l/r�ir
\
,I
1\1,1
O�
\
�\
1111
11111\\\\4TRI�%i'111
4,T 1I I \1'1Y 1111111
G�
S �
\ �
I
In11g1I1M
115111�i1
1y � O
i l / l�
r rr •
' -
� r
Fimq
- i1111,11011ry1
e
4
i
i
•
I o
y
s
a
z
z
III o
-�I I �IIII
vap�uESE<�. a o
Z_LL
W Z
Bill
5
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SUBDIVISION
•�•O'LARSON
IOWA CIW. JOHNSON COUIM. IOWA
-
ire
I o
y
s
a
z
z
III o
-�I I �IIII
vap�uESE<�. a o
Z_LL
W Z
Bill
5
r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 30, 2017
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Bob Miklo, Senior Planner
Re: Larson Subdivision REZ16-0008/SUB16-00012
Date: March 16, 2017
This application was deferred at the March 16 meeting pending correction of deficiencies and
approval of the stormwater management plan. Revised plans have been received and reviewed
by staff and the City Engineer has approved the stormwater management plan.
Staff recommends approval of a rezoning of approximately 10.26 acres from Low Density
Multifamily Residential (RM -12) to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily
Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone and a preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan of
Larson Subdivision, a 2 -lot, 12.28 -acre residential subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard
between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue. (REZ16-00008/Sub16-00012)
B p
B
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LeceNo
LARSON SUBDIVISION
_
IOWA CRY, JOHNSON COUIM, IOWA
1
avnmw
rs�f•[I¢I
;
I '
•
_
��
1 , � n•�p V�hPq
Mon
� illi'I ;I
�I/II
im
` 1
it
Iglrpr I I\2'1 it '4 ✓Yr
YOI 1
Z
OO,
luryrlln \ , r { M
yl� 9 nNw��c�e
�
f 1 Il..
/ %
0/
Er
� 4
1
S
I
SITE GRADING, EROSION CONTROL AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LARSON SUBDIVISION
IOWA CRY. JOHNSON COIINrv, NAPA
amrn.xm �ox�.wme
EROSION CONRtOL LEGEND
SENSRNE AREAS LEGEND
aaa.s..amxw ..101'.. uaw
-�
�oxanura.a
O
C ..
Iww®ww.aa..,a.Ow.wro.wr..,a�
SENSRNE AREAS LEGEND
aaa.s..amxw ..101'.. uaw
-�
C
O
STMLa DCONSIItucrroN _— I _ �...,.. _.._
ENTRANCV CONTRAOfOR STAGNG
SAND LAYDDWN AREA
s
a. 4F6g
�— auufw azr�accaw..rws
tQ a rnemro. e.�xarvwnwcmnmm.
Qa .",EaiM"aacmarawv.moewmcww,mrw.
3 SIgTFENCEDUNL
2
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LARSON SUBDIVISION
IOWA COY, JOHNSON COUNfY, IOWA
c..m..xm. c��san.xeme A..��arv.xmx .um.e
PAVING LEGEND
waioumxM wax lsa a+nwrvarwervN
ovum �w�Nnr�ermn
rcwre
Evalv�aieoosnoxrwu
sNscame To ee srnNureo ro. oerm or r aw
xremus.
__ uveNaae Fwisrv�a�wwunro,r
(1PCC SIDEWALK rte.
awaemv---
xmea
mao
d
s
e
O
m
m �
m
—
7
N
ars
waioumxM wax lsa a+nwrvarwervN
ovum �w�Nnr�ermn
rcwre
Evalv�aieoosnoxrwu
sNscame To ee srnNureo ro. oerm or r aw
xremus.
__ uveNaae Fwisrv�a�wwunro,r
(1PCC SIDEWALK rte.
awaemv---
xmea
mao
wx mooinso sxocrw oe Nsin
Z TYPA'nC�CTON
ly
O
LL
F
O
Z
d
s
e
O
m
m �
m
—
7
N
wx mooinso sxocrw oe Nsin
Z TYPA'nC�CTON
ly
O
LL
F
O
Z
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SNS SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CARSON SUBDIVISION
IOWA CfTY. JOHNSON COUNTY. IOWA
0
m
m
N
I
91 lid 9
W
J % U
���/ 5
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PIAN
J}y f
---�—
LARSON SUBDIVISION
LE' „
IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY. IOWA
• §
1�
894
Pt INGARE
x 3
3I
a�
ul
I
z
0
i
I
91 lid 9
W
J % U
���/ 5
z
0
rn
0
m
z
z
0
I1=T�
�
/>ivwweroswuesEcriox
a
Q O
ZLL
j0
Z
w
91 lid 9
W
J % U
���/ 5
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 17
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM (CPA17-00001):
Consider a motion setting a public hearing for April 20 for discussion of an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to address mitigating impact of redevelopment on existing tenants of multi-
family buildings.
Miklo explained this item is a formality to set a date for community input and the Staff report
regarding this item will be delivered at the April 20, 2017 meeting.
Theobald moved to set a public hearing for April 20 for discussion of an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan to address mitigating impact of redevelopment on existing
tenants of multi -family buildings (CPA17-00001).
Martin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Freerks absent).
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ16-00008/SUB16-00012):
Discussion of an application submitted by Kevin Hanick for a rezoning of approximately 10.26
acres from Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) to Planned Development Overlay/Low
Density Multifamily Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone and a preliminary plat of Larson Subdivision,
a 2 -lot, 12.28 -acre residential subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory
Heights Lane and First Avenue.
Miklo noted that this property was reviewed by the Commission earlier this year for a rezoning
to Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) and the Commission recommended approval and the
Council has since approved. The Applicant then submitted a subdivision application for a
preliminary plat to create two lots, a larger lot for the multi -family development and a smaller lot
for a single family home. During the review of the subdivision Staff determined there was
development activity proposed in the protective slope buffer for the stormwater management
basin and that requires a Planned Development Overlay, which is beyond what Staff can
approve with regards to sensitive areas. Therefore this item is a rezoning as well as a
preliminary plat application.
Both proposed lots conform to the underlying zoning and conform to the subdivision
requirements. The subdivision standards typically require street connectivity to adjacent
properties. However in this case due to steep ravines Staff is not recommending a street
connection and rather a private lane or driveway serve the multi -family development and then
the existing single family home will be served by Dubuque Road.
Miklo stated there will some disturbance to the environmentally sensitive areas, the ravines, in
order to allow the installation of a stormwater management facility. The plan does show a
grading limit line which generally coincides with the edge of the woodland with the exception of
the area for the stormwater basin. The ordinance does allow for reduction of buffers if done in a
design that is sensitive and minimizes the damage to slopes and woodlands. Staff has
reviewed this plan and the recommendations approval of the buffer reduction.
Signs mentioned the issue of connectivity to another street, and in the future if this area is
further developed is there a proposal to put another street in the area. Miklo said because of
the ravines that run through the area, Staff would not recommend that they be disturbed for a
street.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 17
Hensch opened the public hearing
Seeing no one Hensch closed the public hearing
Signs moved to approve an application submitted by Kevin Hanick for a rezoning of
approximately 10.26 acres from Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) to Planned
Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone and a
preliminary sensitive areas development plan and plat of Larson Subdivision, a 2 -lot,
12.28 -acre residential subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory
Heights Lane and First Avenue (REZ76-00008/SUB16-00012).
Dyer seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Freerks absent).
CODE AMENDMENT:
Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Article 2G, Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use
Districts Form Based Development Standards, to add zoning standards for the new Orchard
Subdistrict within the Riverfront Crossings District located north of Benton Street and west of
Orchard Street.
Howard reminded the Commission that last year they recommended amending the City's
Riverfront Crossings Master Plan to include a new subdistrict on the west side of Riverfront
Crossings north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street. Based on the Commission's
recommendation, the City Council amended the master plan to expand the boundary of the
district to include a new Orchard Subdistrict. Several new pages were added to the plan
describing the desired character of this new subdistrict and the goals of objectives for
redevelopment of the area. In order to facilitate implementation of these goals, the form -based
code for Riverfront Crossings needs to be amended to include zoning standards for the Orchard
District. Howard stated that the area is currently fully developed under the current zoning with a
mix of duplexes, multi -family buildings and a few single family dwellings. She noted that the
existing development creates an unpleasant environment for walking and biking. The duplexes
along Orchard Street have auto -oriented frontages with large garages and driveways that
interrupt the sidewalk, there is front yard parking and few street trees. Several of the single
family dwellings are located with no street frontage or pedestrian access and can only be
accessed from a narrow gravel drive. There is also an abrupt change from the scale of the
single family neighborhood to the west and the higher intensity mixed use and commercial
development planned along Riverside Drive. The existing zoning is low density single family
and medium density single family (RS -5 & RS -8), which doesn't create any incentive for
redevelopment. Adopting a new form -based zoning district will help achieve the goals of the
Master Plan while at the same time create an incentive for redevelopment.
Howard showed some photos of the area. Next she showed some images of the area from the
Master Plan of redevelopment concepts that would be complementary in mass and scale to the
adjacent single family neighborhood, create a transition from the larger scale mixed-use and
commercial buildings along Riverside Drive to the single family neighborhood to the west,
improve the design quality of development and create a better and more visible street access.
The development character and scale of buildings should be appropriate for transition from the
larger scale mixed-use to the adjacent single family. Buildings should front tree -lined streets,
parking should be located behind or within buildings with minimal surface parking lots, using
rear or side yard setbacks, upper floor setbacks and landscaping to create that transition to the
single family neighborhood to the west, and a development program that limits the types of
N
O_
ZEE? 3�
Prepared by: Bob Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 5:%101,:31j;356 -52r"
(REZ16-00008) �r rn
< r1 O
ORDINANCE NO. Q
AN ORDINANCE REZONING 12.28 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM L& DENSITY
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -12) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY/LOW
DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (OPD/RM-12) ZONE AND APPROVING A
PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LARSON
SUBDIVISION, A 2 -LOT, RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIO LOCATED NORTH OF SCOTT
BOULEVARD BETWEEN HICKORY HEIGHTS LAN AND FIRST AVENUE. (REZ16-
00008/SUB16-00012)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Kevin Nanick, has requested ai rezoning of 12.28 acres of property located
north of Scott Boulevard between Hic ry Heights Lane a� First Avenue from Low Density Multi -Family
Residential (RM -12) Zone to Planned D elopment Overlay/ow Density Multifamily (OPD/RM-12) zone; and
WHEREAS, the property contains regglated slopes
and
WHEREAS, the Sensitive Areas Deve pment Plan ill allow one single family lot and two multifamily
buildings to be clustered on a portion of the\adruc/tn
ya reserving a portion of the land for preservation of
regulated slopes and woodlands; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requestedf a protectedslope buffer to allow the installation of
stormwater management facilities; and
WHEREAS, stormwater detention facilities permitted within buffer areas if they are designed and
constructed to minimize their impact upon a rotected sensitive areas and designed to include
measures to protect against erosion, pollution nd bitat disturbance, and result in minimal amounts of
excavation and filling, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning C mission \ reviewed the proposed rezoning, Sensitive Areas
Development Plan, and requested protecte slope buffer Auction and determined that they comply with the
Comprehensive Plan; and \
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT O DAINED BY THE C, COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Prop rty described below is he4by reclassified from its current zoning
designation of Low Density Multif mily Residential (RM -12) Zone to Planned Development Overlay/Low
Density Multifamily Residential (O , /RM -12) Zone: \,
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 2 AND THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP SEVENTY-NINE (79) NORTH,
RANGE SIX (6), WEST OF THE 5T" P.M. THAT IS DESCRIBED AS AUDITOR'S
PARCEL 2005108 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 52, PAGE 144 OF THE
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, RECORDER'S OFFICE.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
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.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions
of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. SEVERABILI Y. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged
to be invalid or unconstitutionak such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision ck part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE VATE. This
approval and publication, as provid d by law.
Passed and approved this drqy of
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
shall be in effect after its final passage,
by:
20_
City Attorney's Office
3
O
rii
Rezoning/Development Item
R EZ 16-00008 / SUB 16-00012 :
Discussion of an application submitted by Kevin Hanick
for a rezoning of approximately 10.26 acres from Low
Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) to Planned
Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily
Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone and a preliminary plat of
Larson Subdivision, a 2 -lot, 12.28 -acre residential
subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard between
Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue
REZ16-00008
0. C a 14 Mil— Prepara� _,� I•idr'i ;:'�-It
n r
No
10
AD
An
Y
�#
.s.r.
�■ at"`"
application submitted
by Kevin Hanick to rezone
d
lrY.,
*eA.--
t• KOka i
` r 3f1 ,r� F y •,
'3 \14.'6 • ,. •_.
If+. a ++sem •r +•...... ♦w?&irlip �. a5w5w.►r+wMa
u•.TY'V. �� • T•
� 2; . ♦ r � f �x � � f 1 [..
,�, .4 Y t •, +� ; F.,.. 5 Mr 'Y y,�1 <+h( � J. � � \. yy F•r �� \ 5.. �., ry h • � r q,�
� ' , P �.L� r �.5 �"i .'� Y'.� �, 1. 1... e�11�i.'`"b. '�fY .�4.. �, E..t� 1 1fr;a �•5� •... •dam .�"+� •`r,A {4h�.Y�v�,'"�#:
11
SITE GRADING, EROSION CONTROL AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CARSON SUBDIVISION
IOWA CT/, J0IW30N COUNTY, IOWA
® wa.amr u.m. uvv vrrn um� owvr. u�a�
EROMN CONTROL LEGEND 3EN3MWEAREA3LEGEND
Lir_- _-I
,- CONP037 FILTER TJEE DETAIL , _' y
0 —
t
mu�arlawr� rc.c •oma r O
rKmcwr� � —
rarr � is erc a
0
.I 3TAEILRED CIW3TRUOT'_•. �•�u
. ENTRANCE' CONTRACTOR_ AOINO
1 � . mo LLAYD Aw AREA
I �
Ct 3U FENCE DETNL P'—T
'RF
,- CONP037 FILTER TJEE DETAIL , _' y
0 —
t
mu�arlawr� rc.c •oma r O
rKmcwr� � —
rarr � is erc a
0
.I 3TAEILRED CIW3TRUOT'_•. �•�u
. ENTRANCE' CONTRACTOR_ AOINO
1 � . mo LLAYD Aw AREA
I �
Ct 3U FENCE DETNL P'—T
'RF
Staff recommends approval of REZ16-00008, an
application to rezone approximately 10.26 acres from
Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -12) to
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12)
Approval will allow a reduction of a protected slope
buffer to permit installation of stormwater management
facilities
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval by a vote of 6-0
r
�.�11?.® I, CITY OF IOWA CITY 7c
''4 ' MEMORANDUM
Date: April 6, 2017
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
Re: Zoning Code amendments to create the Riverfront Crossings — Orchard (RFC -0)
Zone, a new form -based zone in Riverfront Crossings
Background: In spring of 2016, The City Council amended the City's Comprehensive Plan
based on the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to expand the boundaries of
the Riverfront Crossings District to include properties north of Benton Street that front on
Orchard Street and Orchard Court and along an unused east -west remnant of City right-of-way
that extends west from the intersection of Orchard Street and Orchard Court (see attached
Comprehensive Plan Map). This new area of Riverfront Crossings, the Orchard Subdistrict, was
established to encourage redevelopment that would provide a better transition from the low -
scale single-family neighborhood to the west and the higher intensity mixed-use development
along Riverside Drive in the West Riverfront Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings. The attached
pages from the Orchard District section of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan describe the
master plan objectives, desired development character, and recommended development
program of this new district.
Implementation: In order to facilitate redevelopment in the Orchard District consistent with the
master plan objectives and desired development character, staff has drafted zoning standards
for the Orchard District and incorporated them into the Riverfront Crossings form -based zoning
code. The standards are intended to ensure that buildings are complementary in mass and
scale to the adjacent single family neighborhood by limiting the building height to three stories
with upper floor stepbacks along street frontages and along the single family zone boundary to
the west. A 30 foot yard is also required along the western boundary of the subdistrict, which in
addition to the natural drainageway that extends along this west boundary, will create a green
buffer between new development and RS -8 zoned property to the west. Following is a more
detailed summary of the provisions that would apply in the Orchard Subdistrict.
Regulating Plan
The Orchard subdistrict currently includes a limited street network. Benton Street and Orchard
Street are the major streets that provide for both vehicular and pedestrian travel from this area
to other areas in the community. These streets are both designated as primary streets on the
attached regulating plan for the Orchard District. New buildings constructed along these streets
must be designed with active frontages and street -facing entries. Parking must be located
behind active ground floor building space in mid -block locations. Benton Street is an arterial
street that was widened years ago to add travel lanes and turn lanes near the intersection with
Riverside Drive. Unfortunately, the public right-of-way was not widened sufficiently at the time to
Page 2
provide for adequate pedestrian infrastructure, leaving little space for a sidewalk, a parkway
buffer and street trees. When properties with frontage on Benton Street are rezoned to the new
Orchard designation, additional right-of-way will need to be dedicated to the City for pedestrian
improvements necessary to accommodate the increased residential density allowed with the
upzoning to Riverfront Crossings.
As illustrated on the regulating plan, a new block pattern will be established with a new
pedestrian street west of and parallel to Orchard Street extending north from Benton to an
intersection with the east -west portion of the Orchard Court cul-de-sac. Since residential entries
and active building uses will likely front on this street, as illustrated in the master plan concept
drawing, it will be considered a primary street. The existing Orchard Court cul-de-sac is also
designated as a primary street on the regulating plan, which will ensure that active uses are
located along this street with parking located behind. In order to allow a more efficient pattern of
development in the future, the cul-de-sac should be reconfigured through a subdivision process
to intersect at a right angle with a new east -west street that would extend west from Orchard
Street in the location where the remnant City right-of-way is currently located. This future street
is designated as a secondary street on the regulating plan. When property is rezoned in this
area of the subdistrict, the right-of-way will need to be widened to 60 feet to create a complete
street to access rear parking locations and with sidewalks and street trees to create a safe and
comfortable environment for pedestrians.
Dimensional Standards
• Building setbacks:
o Primary street and secondary streets: 6' minimum, 12' maximum (porticos,
terraces, stoops and other allowed frontage features may extend into the
setback)
o Side setback: 10' minimum
o Rear setback: 10' minimum or 5' minimum if along an alley
o Setback from RS -8 Zone boundary: 30' minimum
• Maximum Building Height: 3 stories, with a 10' stepback above the 2nd story along street
frontages and along any lot line that abuts the RS -8 Zone. Alternatively, if approved by
the form -based code committee, the required stepback may occur above the 1s' story.
This allowance may be particularly useful to encourage residential liner units that would
screen ground level structured parking.
• Parking located behind buildings or within buildings with access from the alley or private
lane. Along primary streets parking must be located behind active building uses. Surface
parking is allowed along secondary streets behind buildings that front on a primary
street, but must be screened with low masonry walls and landscaping. Parking must also
be setback a minimum of 30 feet from the RS -8 Zone boundary.
• Building Types and Allowed Land Uses: The Orchard District is primarily a residential
district, so all residential building types are allowed. As this is such a small district with a
limited street network, mixed-use, commercial, and civic/institutional buildings are not
allowed. Live -work townhouses are the only building types allowed in the district that
would be designed to accommodate small commercial uses, which due to the size and
Page 3
constraints of construction of this building type would be self-limiting. In addition, the only
location that may be suitable for live -work townhouses, would be along the Orchard
Street frontage, which faces existing commercial uses located across the street and
along Benton Street and Riverside Drive. Therefore, the code restricts live -work
townhouses to the Orchard Street frontage and limits the types of commercial uses to
those that would be compatible with residential living, similar to the restrictions adopted
in the Eastside Mixed Use District.
• Streetscape and frontage area improvements, open space requirements, and building
design standards will be the same as required in other Riverfront Crossings subdistricts.
To ensure that buildings are appropriately scaled to provide a transition from the lower -
scale single family neighborhood to the west, bonus height will not be allowed in the
Orchard subdistrict.
Additional proposed changes to the Riverfront Crossings Code:
There have been a number of new buildings proposed in Riverfront Crossings that are designed
with residential units on the ground level floor along a street frontage that screen structured
parking. In the more urban subdistricts of Riverfront Crossings and the Eastside Mixed Use
District, the minimum required setback for structured parking is 30 feet behind active building
uses. While 30 feet is an appropriate minimum depth for ground floor commercial, attractive
and livable residential units can be designed with a minimum 20' depth. For example, the Sabin
Townhomes that line the new City parking structure along South Dubuque Street are
approximately 20 feet in depth and several of the residential buildings planned for "The
Crossings" development in the South Gilbert Subdistrict have ground floor residential units that
are 20' in depth. The first building planned for the Orchard District has residential units that are
25 feet deep. While the code does allow the FBC committee to grant a minor adjustment to
reduce the parking setback for these types of situations, since this type of building design will
likely occur on a regular basis, staff recommends amending the parking setback standard for
buildings with ground level residential units that screen structured parking to from 30 feet to 20
feet and making this standard consistent across all the subdistricts of Riverfront Crossings.
Staff also recommends making several changes to Table 2G-5, Permitted Frontage Types. For
Apartment Buildings and Multi -Dwelling Buildings that have ground floor units with individual
entries, terrace frontages would be an attractive and appropriate choice. Staff recommends
adding this frontage type to the table for these building types. There is also a typo in the column
for forecourt frontages. Since a forecourt is always a subordinate frontage type that has to be
combined with another frontage type, note 1 should also apply to Apartment Buildings.
Recommendation: Staff recommends amending Title 14, Article 2G, Riverfront Crossings and
Eastside Mixed Use District Form -based Development Standards, as described in this memo
and as indicated on the attached pages.
A red -lined version of the new code language (without the graphics) is attached, which
highlights the changes. The underlined text is new language to be added to the code and the
strike -through notation indicates language to be deleted. Graphics in the code will not change
Page 4
other than modifications adding the Orchard District to the Riverfront Crossings regulating plan,
height diagram, and subdistrict locator map. The amended regulating plan and height diagram
are attached.
Attachments:
1. Excerpts from the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan related to the Orchard District
2. Proposed amendments to the zoning code language
3. Amended Riverfront Crossings Regulating Plan and Height Diagram
Approved by: / '4 /
John Yapp, Develo ment Services Coordi
Neighborhood and Development Services
Orcha
DIStrh
orchard district
orchard district
The Orchard District is fully developed with duplexes along
Orchard Street, small multi -family buildings around the cul-
de-sac and a few single family dwellings. Three of the single
family homes were moved onto Orchard Court and have no
paved street frontage (the only access is via an unpaved drive
from Benton Street). There currently is an abrupt change
from the larger scale multi -family and mixed commercial
development east of Orchard Street to the residential on the
west side of the street. Redevelopment at a higher density
than exists today will provide an incentive to create a better
transition and a more pleasant neighborhood. Development
should be restricted to building typologies, such as cottage
clusters, townhomes, live -work townhomes and mufti -dwelling
buildings that are designed and scaled in a manner that is
complementary to the rhythm and scale of the single family
neighborhood located to the south and west, where the goal is
to preserve the existing housing stock.
Orchard District Summary
Master Plan Objectives.
r Encourage redevelopment that is complementary in mass and
scale to the adjacent single family neighborhood
r Create a transition from larger -scale mixed-use and commercial
buildings along Riverside Drive to single family
> Improve design quality of development
Create better and more visible street access
Development Character
> Buildings that are articulated and scaled in a manner appropriate
for transition from the larger -scale, mixed-use corridor to the
adjacent single family neighborhood
> Buildings fronting free lined streets
> Parking located away from street frontages with minimal surface
parking lots
> Use rear or side yard setbacks, upper floor stepbacks, and
landscaping to create transitions to single family neighborhood
Development Program
> Limited to cottage homes, rowhouses, townhouses, live -work
townhouses, and two to three-story multi -dwelling buildings with
third floor stepback.
> High level of design in exchange for increased density
Rendering showing redevelopment north of Benton Street
Landscaping to create, transitions
Orchard Street redevelopment
Riverfront Crossings Height Diagram
Legend
_
3 stories max.
_
4 stories max.
2 stories min., 6 stories max.
_
2 stories min., 8 stories max.
_
8 stories max. with Iowa River frontage
Public Parks and Open Space
Green Space
Downtown
Kirkwood Avg.
O
•\ 1
Amend 14 -2G -1B, Subdistricts (in Riverfront Crossings), by adding a new paragraph 8, as
follows:
8. Orchard Subdistrict (RFC -0)
Amend Figure 2G-1: Regulating Plan for the Riverfront Crossings District, to include the
Orchard Subdistrict (as attached).
Amend Figure 2G-2: Building Height Diagram for the Riverfront Crossings District to
include the Orchard Subdistrict (as attached).
Amend subparagraphs related to setbacks for building/structured parking along primary
streets, pedestrian streets, and Ralston Creek frontages in all Riverfront Crossings
Subdistricts and the Eastside Mixed Use District, as follows:
• Building/Structured Parking: 30' min. from primary street building facade and located
behind fully -enclosed, occupied building space. For buildings with ground -level
residential uses, the setback may be reduced to 20'.
Amend 14 -2G -3B, as follows:
B. Central Crossings and Orchard Subdistricts and Eastside Mixed
Use District
1. INTENT
The Central Crossings subdistrict (shaded in dark in Figure 2G-6) is intended for moderate
intensity mixed-use development in buildings with entries opening onto pedestrian -friendly
public streets and streetscapes. The Eastside Mixed Use District (shaded in dark in Figure 2G -
6b) is intended for lower intensity mixed use and residential development in buildings with
street -facing entries opening onto pedestrian -friendly streetscapes that provide a transition
between higher intensity mixed-use areas in downtown Iowa City and residential neighborhoods
to the east. The Orchard District (shaded in dark in Figure 2G -6c) is intended for lower intensity
residential development in buildings with street -facing entries opening onto pedestrian-friendlv
streetscapes that provide a transition between higher intensity mixed-use areas along Riverside
Drive and low -scale residential neighborhoods to the west. Buildings are designed with facades
aligned along primary streets and parking located within buildings behind active uses and in
mid -block parking lots and structures.
Figure 2G-6: Subdistrict Locator— Central Crossings & Orchard
Figure 2G -6b: District Locator— Eastside Mixed Use
2. USES
The principal uses allowed in the Central Crossings and Orchard Subdistricts, and Eastside
Mixed Use District are the same as allowed in the CB -5 Zone, as specified in Table 2C-1 within
Article 14-2C , except as noted below. Provisions and special exception approval criteria that
apply in the CB -5 Zone also apply in these districts as set forth in Article 14-413, except as noted
below. In addition, the following restrictions and allowances shall apply:
a. In the Orchard Subdistrict commercial and industrial uses are not allowed except in live -
work townhouses, which may contain commercial uses allowed in the CB -5 Zone provided
the building is constructed to accommodate such uses and provided the use is not
prohibited in the list below.
b. In the Central Crossings Subdistrict, Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses are not allowed on any
frontage designated as Primary Street or Ralston Creek Frontage, as specified in the
Riverfront Crossings Regulating Plan. In the Eastside Mixed Use District, Quick Vehicle
Service Uses are not allowed, except by special exception on property at the corner of
Burlington and Van Buren Streets. Quick Vehicle Service Uses are not allowed in the
Orchard Subdistrict.
c. Household Living Uses shall be allowed within permitted Building Types as specified in
Section 14-2G-5. For Multi -Family Uses, the provisions in Section 14-413-4 are superseded
by the standards in this Article and, therefore, do not apply, unless specifically listed in this
section. Residential occupancy is limited to one "household" per dwelling unit, as this term is
defined in Article 14-9A, General Definitions. The maximum number of bedrooms per
dwelling unit is three, except for single family uses within Cottage Homes, where the number
of bedrooms is unrestricted. Residential density (units per acre): No maximum. However, in
the Central Crossings Subdistrict, for Apartment Buildings, Multi -Dwelling Buildings, and
Mixed -Use Buildings, the number of 3 -bedroom units per lot may not exceed 30% of the
total number of units on the lot, except for south of the Iowa -Interstate Rail line, where the
number of 3 -bedroom units for these building types may not exceed 20%. In the Eastside
Mixed -Use District and Orchard Subdistrict, the number of 3 -bedroom units for these
building types may not exceed 20%.
d. Residential Uses are not allowed within required retail storefronts, as specified in the
Riverfront Crossings Regulating Plan.
e. Assisted Group Living Uses shall be allowed within permitted Building Types as specified in
Section 14-2G-5. Residential occupancy is limited to 1 roomer per 300 square feet of floor
area, not including floor area within a garage or structured parking area.
f. Drinking Establishments are not allowed.
Animal -Related Commercial, Repair -oriented Retail, and Alcohol Sales -oriented Retail uses
are not allowed in the Eastside Mixed Use District or the Orchard Subdistrict.
h. In the Eastside Mixed Use District and Orchard Subdistrict, Commercial Recreational Uses,
Eating Establishments, Sales -oriented Retail, and Personal Service-oriented Retail uses
shall not be open to the public between the hours of 11:00 PM and 6t00 7:00 AM, except if
located in a storefront with frontage on Van Buren Street or Burlington Street.
3. PRINCIPAL BUILDING PLACEMENT AND FORM
a. Building Types
(1) Principal buildings shall comply with Section 14-2G-5, Building Type Standards. The
following Building Types are permitted in the Central Crossings and Orchard subdistricts
and in the Eastside Mixed Use District (see also Table 2G-6):
Table 2G-2: Permitted Building Types - Central Crossings
Notes:
1. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Van Buren Street or Burlington Street.
2. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Orchard Street.
b. Building Placement
(1) Principal buildings shall be placed to the front and corner of lots and aligned along
setbacks in compliance with the following requirements as shown in Figure 2G-7.
Figure 2G-7: Building Placement Diagram
(a) Primary (A) and Secondary (B) Street Setback:
Permitted Building Types
m
c
�
�
O
C
o
Districts d
m
3
m
a
m
E
0
m
.d
F
f0
'V
pp
c
V
w
o
m
3
2
N
>
>
C
`o E
m
o
s
r
c
o
�°
E
.o
m
v
0
0
0
0.
_
>
>
o
m
v
L)
W
a
m
Central Crossings
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Eastside Mixed
Use
x
x
x
x
x
x
X(1)
X(1)
x
Orchard
x
x
x
x
x
X(2)
x
Notes:
1. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Van Buren Street or Burlington Street.
2. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Orchard Street.
b. Building Placement
(1) Principal buildings shall be placed to the front and corner of lots and aligned along
setbacks in compliance with the following requirements as shown in Figure 2G-7.
Figure 2G-7: Building Placement Diagram
(a) Primary (A) and Secondary (B) Street Setback:
Central Crossings: 10' min., 16' max.
Orchard: 6' min.. 12' max.
Eastside Mixed Use:
Primary (A) 20' min., 30' max.
Secondary (B) 10' min. 20'max.
(b) Lots Fronting on Pedestrian Streets: 5' min., 10' max. from public right-of-way or
access easement. See Section 14 -2G -7B for additional requirements.
(c) Ralston Creek Frontage Setback: 5' min. from stream corridor buffer line.
(d) Side Setback (C): 10' min. or 0' if building abuts or will abut the adjacent building,
except for apartment buildings and multi -dwelling buildings where the minimum is
always 10'. For mixed-use buildings, facades on residential floors must be set back
at least 10' from the side lot line.
(e) Rear Setback (D): 10' min. or 5' min. if set back along public alley or private rear
lane.
(f) In the Central Crossings Subdistrict and Eastside Mixed Use District, above the 3Fd
fleer (er abeye the O..rl flexr if the height of the first O stmrips is ..{ teed 20' Ahnve
grade) he maximum setback does not apply above the 2nd floor. In the Orchard
District, the maximum setback does not apply above the 2nd floor and is increased to
a max. of 25' above the 1st floor.
(g) Approved forecourt frontages may exceed the maximum setbacks stated above.
N In the Orchard District. 30' min. from RS -8 Zone boundary.
c. Building Height and Facade Stepbacks
(1) Central Crossings: Except as provided below, principal buildings shall be 4 stories max.
in height above grade.
(a) Additional building height may be granted through transfer of development rights or
through bonus height provisions as set forth in the Section 14 -2G -7G, Building
Height Bonus Provisions.
(b) Building heights may be further restricted by FAA regulations.
(2) Eastside Mixed Use and Orchard: Principal buildings shall be 3 stories max. in height
above grade., not to exGeed 35'.
(3) In the Central Crossings Subdistrict, above the 3rd floor, building facades facing and
visible from streets, plazas, or parks shall step back 10' min. from the lower floor facade.
(a) At street corners, tower elements or similar corner emphasis treatments may be
exempt from the stepback requirement for up to one fagade bay (max. 35 feet) as
approved by the FBC Committee.
(b) The required facade stepback may be established at a lower floor than stated above,
provided it is established at least 30' in height above grade.
(4) In the Orchard Subdistrict, above the 2nd floor, building facades facinq streets and
RS -8 zone boundaries shall step back 10' min. , 25' max. from the lower floor facade.
At street corners, tower elements or similar corner emphasis treatments maV be
exempt from the stepback requirement for up to one facade bay (max. 35 feet) as
approved by the FBC Committee. Alternatively, if approved by the FBC, the required
facade stepback may be established above the 1" floor or may be tiered with the 10'
min stepback achieved with smaller stepbacks above both the 15` and 2 n stories.
d. Building Projections
(1) The following building features may project into setbacks as follows:
(a) Bay windows, eaves, roof overhangs, cornices, belt courses, buttresses, sills, and
other similar features: 2' max.
(b) Balconies on upper floors may project up to 6' into front setbacks. Balconies may
project beyond non -street -facing facades on upper floors up to 4' max., but shall
extend no closer than 8' from a side or rear lot line, unless said lot line abuts an alley
or permanent open space.
(c) Canopies, awnings, stoops, terraces, covered building entries, and similar elements
as permitted in Section 14-2G-4, Frontage Type Standards.
(2) Awnings and canopies may also project into public rights-of-way according to the
applicable provisions of the Building Code. Certain permitted signs may also project into
public rights-of-way according to applicable standards set forth in Article 14-5B, Sign
Regulations. Projections into the right-of-way shall not interfere with utilities, street trees
and other important right-of-way features.
(3) Arcades and galleries projecting beyond ground -level street -facing building facades are
not permitted. (An arcade is a fagade with an attached colonnade that projects over the
sidewalk/walkway with upper story building space above. A gallery is a colonnade that is
attached to a ground level fagade that projects over the sidewalk/walkway). Upper floor
facades may not project closer to the streetside property line than the ground -level
building fagade, except for building features noted above.
e. Building and Frontage Types
(1) Principal buildings and building facades shall be designed in compliance with Section
14-2G-4, Frontage Type Standards, and Section 14-2G-5, Building Type Standards.
f. Facade Continuity
(1) Central Crossings and Orchard: To define pedestrian friendly streetscapes and create a
mostly continuous frontage of buildings along primary streets, principal buildings shall
occupy a min. of 75% of the primary street lot frontage. In Central Crossings, in the
absence of a building along the remainder of the lot frontage, a streetscreen shall be
built in compliance with Section 14 -2G -7D.
(2) Eastside Mixed Use: To define pedestrian friendly streetscapes while maintaining a lower
intensity development character along primary streets, principal buildings shall occupy a
min. of 50% and a max. of 75% of the primary street lot frontage.
4. PARKING, LOADING, AND SERVICE AREAS
a. Parking shall be provided using a permitted Parking Type appropriate for the selected
Building Type in compliance with Section 14-2G-6, Parking Type Standards, and at the
minimum ratios specified in 14-5A-4, Minimum Parking Requirements.
b. Parking, Loading, and Service Area Placement & Screening
Parking, loading, and service areas shall be located within and behind principal buildings in
compliance with the following requirements as shown in Figure 2G-8.
Figure 2G-8: Parking and Service Placement Diagram
(1) Primary Street, Pedestrian Street, and designated Ralston Creek Frontage Setback (E)
and Screening
(a) Surface Parking and Service Areas: 30' min. from primary street building facade and
located behind fully -enclosed, occupied building space.
(b) Building/Parking Structure: For parking in the ground floor of a building or structure,
30' min. from primary street building facade and located behind fully -enclosed,
occupied building space. Per parking in upperfloors, 1' ..... • from _t._et faGiRg
For buildings with ground -level residential uses the setback may be reduced to 20'.
(c) Underground Parking: 0' min. from primary street building facade.
(2) Secondary Street Setback (F) and Screening
(a) Surface Parking, Loading, and Service Area: 10' min. and set back 3' min. from the
secondary street building facade and screened by low masonry walls and
landscaping as specified for S2 standard - alternative materials (option B), set forth
in Article 14-5F, Screening and Buffering Standards.
(b) Building/Structured Parking: I()' FniR. ARd set b 1' min. from the secondary street
building facade and screened from public view by architecturally -finished building
facades, according to the standards for structured parking set forth in 14 -5A -5F.
(c) Underground Parking: 10' min. and set back 0' min. from secondary street building
facade.
(3) Side (G) and Rear (H) Setbacks and Screening
(a) Surface Parking, Loading, and Service Area: Must comply with the same side and
rear setback requirements as principal buildings, or 0' where parking is shared with
the adjacent property. Setback area shall be landscaped to the S2 standard.
(b) Building/Structured Parking: Must comply with the same side and rear setback
requirements as principal buildings. Parking must be screened from view by
architecturally -finished building facades, according to the standards for structured
parking set forth in 14 -5A -5F.
(c) Underground Parking: Must comply with the same side and rear setback requirement
as principal buildings.
(4) Underground parking shall be designed to ensure ground floor finished floor elevations
meet elevation requirements for permitted frontage types.
(5) For buildings with ground floor residential use, no surface parking shall be closer than
10' to any residential portion of a building (i.e. not including portions of the building
containing garage space). This 10' area must be used for walkways and landscaping
and/or may be included as part of a larger open space area. If parking spaces are
located where headlights of vehicles shine onto a wall containing ground floor windows,
said parking spaces must be screened from view of the windows to at least the S2
standard.
c. Access to Parking, Loading, and Service Areas
(1) All parking, loading, and service areas shall be accessed from public alleys, private rear
lanes or driveways on secondary streets consistent with the applicable regulating plan,
except as allowed in paragraph (2), below.
(2) If access from an alley, private rear lane, or driveway from the secondary street is not
feasible due to topography, site conditions, configuration of the lot, and/or other
constraints, access to a primary street may be granted by the FBC Committee. Any
request for a curb cut on an arterial street will be reviewed according to the applicable
provisions set forth in Section 14-5C-6, Arterial Street Access Requirements.
d. Construction and Design Standards for Parking and Loading Areas
(1) The following subsections of Section 14-5A-5, Construction and Design Standards, shall
apply:
A. Purpose
B. Paving Materials
C. Parking and Stacking Space Size
D. Drainage
E. Location
F. Standards for Structured Parking
H. Design and Layout of Surface Parking Areas
I. Landscaping and Tree Requirements within Parking Areas
J. Screening and Setback Areas
K. Design of Bicycle Parking Areas.
5. ACCESSORY USES, BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
a. Accessory uses, buildings and structures shall comply with the provisions of Article 14-4C.
However, if the provisions contained in this article are more specific or restrictive, said
provisions shall supersede the provisions of Article 14-4C.
b. Garages and parking structures must be located and constructed in compliance with the
provisions of paragraph 4, Parking, Loading, and Service Areas.
c. Accessory buildings other than garages and parking structures must be located behind
principal buildings according to the same setback standards as surface parking. Facades of
accessory buildings within public view must be architecturally finished in a manner that is
consistent with the principal building.
Amend Table 2G-5: Permitted Frontage Types as follows:
Table 2G-5: Permitted Frontage Types
Notes:
1. Subordinate frontage type — to be used in conjunction with other permitted frontage
type(s)
2. Frontage type may be allowed by the FBC for appropriate horizontal mixing of uses,
e.g. for large mixed-use buildings with multiple street frontages.
3. Allowed for access to individual dwelling units or live -work units.
Permitted Frontage Types
Building Types
d
G
C
w
LL
e
W
V
a
a
L
v
u
B
u>
m
:°
o
'C
>
H
U)
ao r
ao
ao
Cottage Home
x
x
Rowhouse
x
x
x
Townhouse
x
x
x
Apartment Building
X(3)
X(3)
x
X(1)
Multi -Dwelling Building
XX32
X(3)
x
x(1)
Live -Work Townhouse
x
x
x
Commercial Building
x
x
x(1)
Mixed -Use Building
x
x
X(2)(3)
X(2)(3)
X(2)
x(1)
Liner Building
x
x
X(3)
X(3)
Civic or Institutional Building
x
x
x
x
x(1)
Notes:
1. Subordinate frontage type — to be used in conjunction with other permitted frontage
type(s)
2. Frontage type may be allowed by the FBC for appropriate horizontal mixing of uses,
e.g. for large mixed-use buildings with multiple street frontages.
3. Allowed for access to individual dwelling units or live -work units.
Amend Table 2G-6: Permitted Building Types, as follows:
T..I nn_ c- Oer iffnrl Rnilriinn Tvnas
aI V • vv..v
..' ,r
Form -based Zoning Districts
Permitted Building
c
N
w
c
m
Types
t'
a
y
X
d
c
❑
t7
c>
>a
a
E
o
M
M
V
7
d
m
M
C
T=
Gi
.D
Y
N
cc
)
A
7
rp
a
U
in
•`�—
C7
O
N
w ❑
Cottage Home
x
x
x
Rowhouse
x
x
x
x
Townhouse
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Apartment Building
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Multi -Dwelling Building
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Live -Work Townhouse
x
x
x
x
x
x
X(2)
x
Commercial Building
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x(1)
Mixed -Use Building
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x(t)
Liner Building
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Civic or Institutional
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Building
11
Notes:
1. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Van Buren Street or Burlington Street.
2 Only allowed on properties with frontage on Orchard Street.
Amend 14 -2G -7G -1d.(5), as follows:
(5) Height bonuses are not allowed in the Eastside Mixed Use District or the Orchard
Subdistrict.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 17
Hensch opened the public hearing
Seeing no one Hensch closed the public hearing
Signs moved to approve an application submitted by Kevin Hanick for a rezoning of
approximately 10.26 acres from Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) to Planned
Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone and a
preliminary sensitive areas development plan and plat of Larson Subdivision, a 2 -lot,
12.28 -acre residential subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory
Heights Lane and First Avenue (REZ1 6-00008/SUB1 6-00012).
Dyer seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Freerks absent).
CODE AMENDMENT:
Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Article 2G, Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use
Districts Form Based Development Standards, to add zoning standards for the new Orchard
Subdistrict within the Riverfront Crossings District located north of Benton Street and west of
Orchard Street.
Howard reminded the Commission that last year they recommended amending the City's
Riverfront Crossings Master Plan to include a new subdistrict on the west side of Riverfront
Crossings north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street. Based on the Commission's
recommendation, the City Council amended the master plan to expand the boundary of the
district to include a new Orchard Subdistrict. Several new pages were added to the plan
describing the desired character of this new subdistrict and the goals of objectives for
redevelopment of the area. In order to facilitate implementation of these goals, the form -based
code for Riverfront Crossings needs to be amended to include zoning standards for the Orchard
District. Howard stated that the area is currently fully developed under the current zoning with a
mix of duplexes, multi -family buildings and a few single family dwellings. She noted that the
existing development creates an unpleasant environment for walking and biking. The duplexes
along Orchard Street have auto -oriented frontages with large garages and driveways that
interrupt the sidewalk, there is front yard parking and few street trees. Several of the single
family dwellings are located with no street frontage or pedestrian access and can only be
accessed from a narrow gravel drive. There is also an abrupt change from the scale of the
single family neighborhood to the west and the higher intensity mixed use and commercial
development planned along Riverside Drive. The existing zoning is low density single family
and medium density single family (RS -5 & RS -8), which doesn't create any incentive for
redevelopment. Adopting a new form -based zoning district will help achieve the goals of the
Master Plan while at the same time create an incentive for redevelopment.
Howard showed some photos of the area. Next she showed some images of the area from the
Master Plan of redevelopment concepts that would be complementary in mass and scale to the
adjacent single family neighborhood, create a transition from the larger scale mixed-use and
commercial buildings along Riverside Drive to the single family neighborhood to the west,
improve the design quality of development and create a better and more visible street access.
The development character and scale of buildings should be appropriate for transition from the
larger scale mixed-use to the adjacent single family. Buildings should front tree -lined streets,
parking should be located behind or within buildings with minimal surface parking lots, using
rear or side yard setbacks, upper floor setbacks and landscaping to create that transition to the
single family neighborhood to the west, and a development program that limits the types of
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 4 of 17
buildings to cottage homes, row houses, townhouses, live/work townhouses, and two to three
story multi -dwelling buildings with upper floor stepbacks. The master plan calls for a high level
of design in exchange for the higher level of density.
Howard stated that Staff looked at the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and from that guidance
created form -based zoning standards for the new Orchard subdistrict. These new standards
would be incorporated into the Riverfront Crossings form -based code, so that properties within
the area can be rezoned and redeveloped according to the new standards. Similar to the rest of
the Form Based Code there is a regulating plan, standards that apply to just this subdistrict, and
frontage type, building type and parking type standards. The larger regulating plan for
Riverfront Crossings has been amended to add the Orchard Subdistrict and designates the
primary streets. Orchard Street and the cul-de-sac bulb (Orchard Court) will become primary
streets. The regulating plan also shows the location of a proposed pedestrian street that would
run parallel to Orchard Street and provide an opportunity for additional buildings frontages
opening toward this new green space. As the area redevelops, this regulating plan will provide
guidance to location of new street frontages and street alignments that will provide the
opportunity for redevelopment according to the plan. This new street pattern would be created
through a subdivision process. Howard next showed the amended building height diagram for
Riverfront Crossings with the Orchard Subdistrict added. It will have the same three story
limitation as is on the far east side of Riverfront Crossings, and will require an upper floor
stepback above the 2"d story. Since this area is so close to low -scale single family residential,
no bonus height will be allowed. Howard discussed the building placement. Setbacks along
street frontages is 6' minimum, 12' maximum, side setback is 10' minimum, rear setback is 10'
minimum or 5' minimum if along an alley and the setback from RS -8 zone boundary is 30'
minimum. The RS -8 zone setback was included to allow for a larger buffer between this district
and the single family neighborhood to the west. Howard noted that in addition to this zoning
setback there is a natural wooded drainageway along the western boundary of the district that
will provide additional buffer.
Howard noted that the code also includes parking placement standards that restrict parking
areas to locations behind or within buildings and screened from street frontages.
Since the Orchard Subdistrict is primarily intended for residential uses, commercial and mixed
use building types are not allowed. The only residential building types that would allow small
commercial spaces would be live -work townhouses, which would only be allowed along the
Orchard Street frontage.
Howard stated that residential densities will be controlled by the limit on building height, required
setbacks and the amount of parking required. The number of three bedroom units could not
exceed 20% of the total number of units within a building. Building design standards would be
the same as other subdistricts in Riverfront Crossings (fagade composition, building articulation,
windows, entries, building materials, etc.) Howard noted that the minimum parking
requirements will need to be added to the applicable parking table in the parking chapter of the
zoning ordinance. Parking would be required at the same ratios as the West Riverfront
Subdistrict. This will be included in the ordinance amendments forwarded to Council. Usable
open space would be required as it is in the rest of Riverfront Crossings (10 square feet per
bedroom).
Howard concluded describing a couple of additional minor amendments proposed to the
Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code, including a reduction in the required parking setback
for buildings with ground level residential uses from 30' min. to 20' min. This situation has come
up a number of times with residential liner buildings, such as the Sabin Townhomes where the
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 5 of 17
current 30' minimum is difficult to comply with. While Staff does have the ability to adjust the
setback for these situations, it is likely to be a regularly requested adjustment, so staff
recommends that the code be amended. Staff also recommends making several changes to
Table 2G-5, Permitted Frontage Types. For Apartment Buildings and Multi -Dwelling Buildings
that have ground floor units with individual entries, terrace frontages would be an attractive and
appropriate choice. Staff recommends adding this frontage type to the table for these building
types.
Hensch asked about the live -work townhomes and what type of businesses might choose that
type of building. Howard stated that they haven't had any built in Iowa City yet so it is just a
possibility. A live -work townhouse is designed with ground level flex space in an open floor plan
that can be used for a small business combined with living quarters that extend onto a loft space
or upper floor. The living area can be accessed directly from the commercial space, so may be
ideal for someone that wants to live and work in their home.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Paula Swyaard (426 Douglass Street) shared with the Commission a bigger picture of the
neighborhood and drew their attention to the greater area known as the Miller Orchard
Neighborhood. She also pointed out there is no other traffic outlet for this new district (Orchard
Subdistrict) other than Orchard Street, which flows onto Benton Street which is a busy street
and people will (and do) use Hudson Avenue and Miller Avenue to cut through to the
commercial areas along Highway 1. It is so busy now that she can no longer in the mornings
access Benton Street from Orchard Street due to traffic. Swygard next showed photos of the
neighborhood, the new Kum & Go with the duplexes behind. When discussing a transitional
neighborhood, everything is at the same height and there is no need for transition behind it. If
the duplexes are redeveloped into a three-story building it will be a step up from Riverside Drive,
and then a step back down to the residential area to the west. The next photo was of the
Riverside West Building and she commented on how nice that the bottom three stories were
darker in color and the top areas lighter. There is no transition from the height of the Riverside
West Building and the Kum & Go. She showed a picture of the backside of the Riverside West
Building and pointed out that they nicely stepped down the dark area two stories so it draws the
eye almost level with the current housing. The next picture was of the house that is immediately
to the west of the proposed three-story building the Commission has seen designs for. Some
call it a two-story house but it is really a one and a half story so the size of the homes are not
compatible with a three-story building even with a pedestrian walkway in between. Swygard
also showed images of the proposed three-story building and the length of it, noting the mass of
the building. It will also result in a large increase in the number of units and people along one
street. Riverside West has 96 units, the proposed building on the corner has 36 units, and then
another building of 21 units. There is also another proposed rezoning that would result in an
additional 45 units in that area. So that will total 198 units along Orchard Street. That includes
81 one bedroom units. The neighborhood looks at that area, realizing it will be redeveloped, it is
disappointing to see all the one bedroom units that will encourage student housing so close to
campus. This area is part of the University Impact Area which was established to help stabilize
areas next to the University. The neighborhood is eligible for efforts to preserve affordable
housing in the area and with these proposed buildings it will be reducing the area available for
affordable housing. Swygard noted that if this is intended to be a lower density residential
development why are there so many one bedroom units proposed. If anything, what can the
Form -Based Code do to mitigate. Moving forward, looking at the Form Based Zoning Code, she
asked for the Commission to keep in mind it is an affordable area close to the University which
is rare. Swygard has a few suggestions, there is the three-story building but could there be a
transition to two-story buildings, or to encourage more traditional residential style rather than the
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 6 of 17
urban design on Riverside Drive. Swygard noted that when Staff mentioned a low wall and S-2
screening she would like to see a requirement added for fencing because even with the best
efforts to put in sidewalks and pathways are not always honored by pedestrians. Because the
area is so close to commercial, people cut through residential areas to get to the commercial.
She would also like to see RS -8 and RS -5 privacy protected with higher screening standards
than just S-2. Swygard finished by showing options of more residential for the area and asked if
the purpose was to blend in with the neighborhood or with Riverside Drive.
Mark Seabold (Shive-Hattery) talked about the process they have been going through with the
City since the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was approved through the Commission and
Council. He stated that City Staff has done a great job of keeping the neighborhood and
transitions and scale in the forefront of the discussions and have been very mindful. He noted
there are a lot of things with the Orchard Subdistrict that are very nice including the pedestrian
walkway and the plan for how future streets will be laid out. With regards to scale of units, the
market right now for units is smaller, the trends show people want a small affordable place that
allows them to use their money more wisely and live a little more sustainably. So the one
bedroom and efficiency units are very desirable right now. It is not just from a student stand
point but young professionals and people just starting out choosing to live in these units.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Martin moved to add the new zoning standards for the Orchard Subdistrict amending
Title 14, Article 2G, Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use District Form -based
Development Standards, as described in April 6, 2017 packet.
Parsons seconded the motion.
Hensch agreed with the traffic congestion in the area and asked whether there would be a street
connection in the future to the west to Michael Street. Howard showed the aerial photo and
noted that anytime there is increased development there needs to be the streets available to
support the added density. It is during the rezoning and subdivision process that streets and
access are looked at and added to support the increased density. She noted there is a ravine
and drainage way along the western boundary of the new district that causes a natural buffer
from those single family houses to the Orchard Subdistrict. She noted that there are no plans to
create a new street connection west to Michael Street for several reasons. Such a street
connection would add traffic from this higher density area into the lower density area to the
west. In addition, the topography and natural drainageway would make it difficult and costly to
create this connection, not to mention that there is currently a house that would have to be
demolished in order to create the connection. While a new street would need to be extend to
support additional development it would dead end with a turn -around or cul-de-sac on the
western edge of the district. Howard acknowledged that would mean that all traffic from the
Orchard District would flow from Orchard Street out to Benton Street.
Signs asked about the plan to create the pedestrian tunnel on the west side of Riverside Drive.
Howard said they are working on the plans for that now and believes it is in the budget for the
next construction season.
Signs asked if there were any plans to put a signal at the Orchard Street/Benton Street
intersection. Howard explained that unfortunately it is so close to the signalized intersection of
Benton Street/Riverside Drive that it is not possible from a traffic control standpoint. There may
be a possibility for a left turn lane to be added, which will have to be taken into account during
any future rezoning and subdivision process for property at the northwest corner of that
intersection.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 7 of 17
Hensch asked what the elevation change was form the ravine to the houses. Howard believes it
is between 5' and 10' elevation change, but is uncertain.
Signs noted that through the Comprehensive Plan change the Commission has already
authorized this district and the activity discussed tonight is primarily to set the criteria for
development in line with the rest of the Riverfront Crossings District and the comprehensive
plan. Howard confirmed that was the case, the idea behind the Form -Based Code is supposed
to be specifically designed for what the goals were expressed in the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment that was made last year. So with regard to building height, scale, frontage
conditions, etc. are done through building articulation standards, building design standards,
building height and upper floor stepback requirements.
Hensch asked what the process would be if this were approved to get the traffic engineer to
study this area. The traffic issues with redevelopment are a valid concern. Howard stated that
once the City gets applications for rezoning and subdivision of property at the intersection, it
would be appropriate to study the traffic implications to see if any improvements are needed.
Signs agreed that one of the biggest concerns is the traffic in the area. Even now with just
adding the Kum & Go on the corner, the ability to turn left onto Benton Street from Orchard
Street is very difficult. Adding new development, and the fact that the Riverside West Building
isn't at full capacity yet, it is apparent there will be a traffic problem down the road. Signs stated
in response to the first speaker (Swygard) he is afraid that ship has already sailed when the
Comprehensive Plan was amended. Signs reiterated he voted against that amendment but will
be voting in favor of this code amendment because he feels it is a step that has to be taken to
allow for developments to even be considered. The next opportunity for review of specific
issues is at rezoning and site plan approvals.
Theobald noted that she sees now why Signs did not want to approve the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, unfortunately now too late. She stated Swygard did a good job showing how much
increased housing would be allowable in one spot. When the Commission saw a plan for just
part of it, there wasn't just one long building but two with a walkway. She added that she drives
down Benton Street every day and it does seem to be just one long building after another and
this will just add to that feeling and it will be a big transition from those single family houses to a
building of this size.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Freerks absent).
REZONING ITEMS:
1. (REZ17-00003): Discussion of an application submitted by M&W Properties for a rezoning
from Planned Development Overlay - Low Density Single Family (OPD -RS -5) zone to
Riverfront Crossings- Orchard Zone (RFC -O) for approximately 0.705 acres of property
located at 619 and 627 Orchard Court.
Howard stated that the owners of the property along the cul-de-sac bulb of Orchard Court
have indicated they would like to redevelop the properties with a new 3 -story multi -dwelling
building designed according to the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code once the
Orchard District standards are approved by the City Council. The properties right now are
zoned OPD -RS -5 through a Planned Development Overlay which is why multi -family
buildings were allowed in a single family zone. The properties along Orchard Street are
zoned RS -8 and then to the east is the Riverfront Crossings West Subdistrict. Howard
noted that the property currently contains a four-plex, a single family house and a front
surface parking lot. The proposed concept is for a three-story multi dwelling building. On the
�L
Prepared by: Karen Howard, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5251
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14: ZONING, ARTICLE 2G, RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS
AND EASTSIDE MIXED USE DISTRICTS FORM -BASED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, TO
ADD ZONING STANDARDS FOR THE NEW ORCHARD SUBDISTRICT WITHIN THE
RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS DISTRICT LOATED NORTH OF BENTON STREET AND WES OF
ORCHARD STREET.
WHEREAS, in 2016, The City Council amended the City's Comprehensive Plan to expand the
boundaries of the Riverfront Crossings District to include properties north of Benton Street that
front on Orchard Street and Orchard Court and along an unused east -west remnant of City right-
of-way that extends west from the intersection of Orc and Street and Orchard Court and named
this new area the Orchard Subdistrict; and
WHEREAS, the Orchard Subdistrict was establish d to encourage redevelopment that would
provide a better transition from the low -scale single fa ily neighborhood to the west and the higher
intensity mixed-use\development along Riverside rive in the West Riverfront Subdistrict of
Riverfront Crossings; nd
WHEREAS, in ord to facilitate redevelopment iri(the Orchard District consistent with the master
plan objectives and desir development character jet forth in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan,
new zoning standards for a Orchard subdistrict will need to be incorporated into the Riverfront
Crossings form -based code;\then
WHEREAS, the zonings will ensure that buildings are complementary in mass and
scale to the adjacent singleighborhood by limiting the building height to three stories with
upper floor stepbacks alonontages and along the single family zone boundary and will
establish a 30 foot setback velopment in the Orchard Subdistrict and the adjacent single
family zone, which in additin uralidrainageway located along the west boundary of the
subdistrict, will provide a grr be en the single family neighborhood and higher density
residential development in thSub trict; and
WHEREAS, the regulating plan, build' g h�
will ensure that future redevelopment is Pedesl
streets and parking located behind buildi gs and
WHEREAS, furthermore, it is in tl
provisions of the Riverfront Crossings
confusing, or have been falling sho
Plan; and
d Zoning Commission h�k recommended approval of the
m dments.
DAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as
N
O
B, Subdistrict (in Riverfront Crossings), by a i� g` -a n w paragraph
8. Orchard Subdistrict (RFC -O) --In ro rD f
—C r"
B. Amend Figure 2G-1: Regulating Plan for the Riverfront Crossings Dii tl".ii tezmclu the
Orchard Subdistrict, as attached hereto; = ca '17
w
WHEREAS, the Planning
aforementioned zoning code a
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT O
IOWA:
SECTION I. The Code f
follows:
A. Amend subsection 14- G-1
8, as follows:
diagram, and accompanying zoning standards
oriented with buildings opening onto tree -lined
ened from public view; and
best interests f the community to clarify and refine certain
,m -based zonin ode that have been difficult to administer,
achieving the objee�tives of the Riverfront Crossings Master
Ordinance No
Page 2
C. Amend Figure 2G-2: Building Height Diagram for the Riverfront Crossings District to include the
Orchard Subdistrict, as attached hereto;
D. Delete subparagraphs 14-2G-3A-4b(1)(b), 14-2G-313-4b(1)(b), 14-2G-3C-4b(1)(c), 14-2G-3D-
4b(1)(d), which regulate setbacks for building/structured parking along primary streets,
pedestrian streets, and Ralston Creek frontages in all Riverfront Crossings subdistricts and the
Eastside Mixed Use District, and substitute in lieu thereof, with this paragraph numbered
accordingly:
Building/Structured Parking: 30'min. from primary street building fagade and located behind
fully -enclosed, occupied building space. For buildings with ground -level residential uses
located along the primary street, pedestrian street, or Ralston Creek frontage, the setback
may be reduced to 20'.
E. Delete subsection 14-aG-313, and substitute in lieu thereof the following language, retaining
existing graphic figures,\except as noted below:
B. Central Crossingsd Orchard Subdistricts and Eastside Mixed Use District
1. INTENT \
dark in Figur 2G-6) is intended for moderate
hentries//opening onto pedestrian -friendly
Mixed Uss District (shaded in dark in Figure
and r idential development in buildings
n-frie dly streetscapes that provide a
downtown Iowa City and residential
aded in dark in Figure 2G -6c) is
t in buildings with street -facing entries
t provide a transition between higher
and low -scale residential neighborhoods to
igned along primary streets angarking
mid -block parking lots�,str�tures n
1 -'*J
a d Orchard (insert new fiytfe tls aRched—
N 1�
��
fire -o
rn =
w
The Central Crossings sub strict (shaded in da
intensity mixed-use develop nt in buildings with
public streets and streetscapes The Eastside M
2G -6b) is intended for lower inte ity mixed use
with street -facing entries opening to pedestria
transition between higher intensity m ed -
neighborhoods to the east. The Orch d
intended for lower intensity residential d vi
opening onto pedestrian -friendly streetsca
intensity mixed-use areas along Riverside
the west. Buildings are designed with faca
located within buildings behind active use
use areas
District
Figure 2G-6: Subdistrict Locator - Central
hereto).
Figure 2G -6b: District Locator - Eastside Vixed Use
2. USES
The principal uses allowed in th Central Crossings and Or and Subdistricts, and Eastside
Mixed Use District are the sa as allowed in the CB -5 Zone, s specified in Table 2C-1
within Article 14-2C , except s noted below. Provisions and sp cial exception approval
criteria that apply in the CB Zone also apply in these districts a set forth in Article 14-46,
except as noted below. In ddition, the following restrictions and allowances shall apply:
a. In the Orchard Subdistrict, commercial and industrial uses are not allowed, except in
live -work townhouses, which may contain commercial uses allowed in the CB -5 Zone,
provided the building is constructed to accommodate such uses and provided the use is
not prohibited in the list below.
Ordinance No.
Page 3
b. In the Central Crossings Subdistrict, Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses are not allowed on
any frontage designated as Primary Street or Ralston Creek Frontage, as specified in
the Riverfront Crossings Regulating Plan. In the Eastside Mixed Use District, Quick
Vehicle Service Uses are not allowed, except by special exception on property at the
corner of Burlington and Van Buren Streets. Quick Vehicle Service Uses are not
allowed in the Orchard Subdistrict.
c. Household Living Uses shall be allowed within permitted Building Types as specified in
Section 14-2G-5. For Multi -Family Uses, the provisions in Section 14-46-4 are
superseded by the standards in this Article and, therefore, do not apply, unless
specifically listed in this section. Residential occupancy is limited to one "household" per
dwelling unit, as\this term is defined in Article 14-9A, General efinitions. The
maximum numbEX of bedrooms per dwelling unit is three, exc pt for single family uses
within Cottage Ho es, where the number of bedrooms is un stricted. Residential
density (units per ac e): No maximum. However, in the Cent al Crossings Subdistrict,
for Apartment Buildin , Multi -Dwelling Buildings, and Mixe -Use Buildings, the number
of 3 -bedroom units per t may not exceed 30% of the tot number of units on the lot,
except for south of the to a -Interstate Rail line, where th number of 3 -bedroom units
for these building types ma not exceed 20%. In the Ea tside Mixed -Use District and
Orchard Subdistrict, the num r of 3 -bedroom units fo these building types may not
exceed 20%.
d. Residential Uses are not allowed 'thin required re ail storefronts, as specified in the
Riverfront Crossings Regulating Pla
e. Assisted Group Living Uses shall be al wed w' in permitted Building Types as
specified in Section 14-2G-5. Residential cc pancy is limited to 1 roomer per 300
square feet of floor area, not including floo rea within a garage or structured parking
area.
f. Drinking Establishments are not allow
g. Animal -Related Commercial, Repair riented Ret i, and Alcohol Sales -oriented Retail
uses are not allowed in the Eastsid Mixed Use Dis 'ct or the Orchard Subdistrict.
h. In the Eastside Mixed Use DistrO and Orchard Subdi rict, Commercial Recreational
Uses, Eating Establishments, les -oriented Retail, an ersonal Service oriented
Retail uses shall not be open o the public between the h rs of 11:00 PM and 7:00
AM, except if located in a s refroin with frontage on Van B en Str@et or Bt0ington
CD Z
Street. T
3. PRINCIPAL BUIL ING PLACEMENT AND FORM C-) fa
ic - r
a. Building Types m
n
(1) Principal buildin s shall comply with Section 14-2G-5, Building:,. 1etbnclalj�!JThe
following Buil g Types are permitted in the Central Crossings-' nd Or' hard
subdistricts d in the Eastside Mixed Use District (see also Table 2G-6):
Ordinance No.
Page 4
Table 2G-2: Permitted Building Types - Central Crossings
Permitted
Building Types
rn
d
'S
'o
c
t
Districts
'o
m
C
d
E
9
rn
S
c
F-
m
m
2
m
d
7
C
d
N
3
'o
s
E
O
M
t
�
r
d
U
Y
H
CL
Q
J
Central Crossings
x
x
x
x
x
Eastside Mixed
x
Use
Orchard x
Notes:
1. Only allowed on properties with
2. Only allowed in locations with fr
x x LX/X(2) X I x
b. Building Placement
(1) Principal buildings shall be placed
setbacks in compliance with the fo
Figure 2G-7: Building Placement
X(1) x(t) x
x
e on Va Buren Street or Burlington Street.
on Or and Street.
rolyt and corner of lots and aligned along
req rements as shown in Figure 2G-7.
N
_O
V
A
�-: - N
(a) Primary (A) an/en a (B) Street Setback: --q C-) _ �--
r—
Central Crmin., 16' max.
Orchard: 6max.C'
W
Eastside MPri0' min., 30'max.
Se) 10'min. 20'max.
(b) Lots Frontingrian Streets: 5' min., 10' max. from public right-of-way or
access easement. See Section 14 -2G -7B for additional requirements.
Ordinance No.
Page 5
(c) Ralston Creek Frontage Setback: 5' min. from stream corridor buffer line.
(d) Side Setback (C): 10' min. or 0' if building abuts or will abut the adjacent building,
except for apartment buildings and multi -dwelling buildings where the minimum is
always 10'. For mixed-use buildings, facades on residential floors must be set back at
least 10' from the side lot line.
(e) Rear Sgtback (D): 10' min. or 5' min. if set back along public alley or private rear lane.
(f) In the CN
setback di
setback di
1" floor.
(g) Approved
Crossings Subdistrict and Eastside Mixed Us District, the maximum
not apply above the 2nd floor. In the Orchard istrict, the maximum
(h) In the Orchard
apply above the 2nd floor and is increa§bd to a max. of 25' above the
frontages may exceed the
c. Building Height and Facade
30' min. from RS -8 Zone
(1) Central Crossings: Except asrovided below,
height above grade.
(a) Additional building height may granted
through bonus height provisions s set for
Bonus Provisions.
(b) Building heights may be further
(2) Eastside Mixed Use and Orchard: Pri
above grade.
setbacks stated above.
buildings shall be 4 stories max. in
igh transfer of development rights or
the Section 14 -2G -7G, Building Height
by FAA regulations.
ings shall be 3 stories max. in height
(3) In the Central Crossings Subdistrict, #ove the d floor, building facades facing and visible
from streets, plazas, or parks shall tep back 10' in. from the lower floor facade.
(a) At street corners, tower elem nts or similar corn r emphasis treatments m@g be
exempt from the stepback r quirement for up to o fagade bay (max. 35 Wt) as_,
approved by the FBC Co
�-4 N
(b) The required facade
provided it is establi
(4) In the Orchard St
zone boundaries
corners, tower
back may be established at a ower floor thE'rmtated abWe,
ad at least 30' in height above gra e. M
._
above the 2nd floor, building facad facing streets did RS -8
c.a
back 10' min., 25' max. from the low r floor facade rAt street
or similar corner emphasis treatments may be exempt from the
stepback require nt for up to one fagade bay (max. 35 feet) as approved by the FBC
Committee. Alter atively, if approved by the FBC, the required fagade \stepback may be
established abve the 1st floor or may be tiered with the 10' min stepback achieved with
smaller stepbacks above both the Vt and 2nd stories.
Ordinance No.
Page 6
d. Building Projections
(1) The following building features may project into setbacks as follows:
(a) Bay windows, eaves, roof overhangs, cornices, belt courses, buttresses, sills, and
other similar features: 2' max.
(b) Balconies on upper floors may project up to 6' into front setbacks. Balconies may
project beyond non -street -facing facades on upper floors up to 4' max., but shall extend
no closer than 8' from a side or rear lot line, unless said lot,ine abuts an alley or
permanent open space.
(c) Canopies, awnings,toops, terraces, covered building entr s, and similar elements as
permitted in Section ZG-4, Frontage Type Standards.
(2) Awnings and canopies ma also project into public rights -of- ay according to the
applicable provisions of the uilding Code. Certain permitte signs may also project into
public rights-of-way accordin to applicable standards set f rth in Article 14-5B, Sign
Regulations. Projections into t e right-of-way shall not int ere with utilities, street trees
and other important right-of-wa features.
(3) Arcades and galleries projectingt�
permitted. (An arcade is a fagade ti
sidewalk/walkway with upper story b�
attached to a ground level fagade t
facades may not project closer to the
fagade, except for building features n
e. Building and Frontage Types
id ground -levels eet-facing building facades are not
an attached col nnade that projects over the
ding space ab ve. A gallery is a colonnade that is
rojects over he sidewalk/walkway). Upper floor
,ti etside pr perty line than the ground -level building
(1) Principal buildings and building facades
2G-4, Frontage Type Standards, and SE
f. Facade Continuity
designed in compliance with Section 14-
1 2G-5, Building Type Standards.
(1) Central Crossings and Orchard: To de ne pedestria friendly streetscapes and create a
mostly continuous frontage of buildin s along primary treets, principal buildings shall
occupy a min. of 75% of the prima street lot frontage. p Central Crossings, in the
absence of a building along the r cinder of the lot front�e, a streetscreen shall be built
in compliance with Section 14-2 -7D.
N
(2) Eastside Mixed Use: To defin pedestrian friendly streetscap s while rnWntainQ a lower
intensity development chara er along primary streets, princip buildings-halk'4ccupyn
min. of 50% and a max. of 5% of the primary street lot frontage Ys ro —+
ZiC-)
4. PARKING, LOADING, A SERVICE AREAS �r' : m
�� o
a. Parking shall be provid using a permitted Parking Type appropriate for the selected
Building Type in com lance with Section 14-2G-6, Parking Type Standards, anc� at the
minimum ratios specified in 14-5A-4, Minimum Parking Requirements.
Ordinance No.
Page 7
b. Parking, Loading, and Service Area Placement & Screening
Parking, loading, and service areas shall be located within and behind principal buildings in
compliance with the following requirements as shown in Figure 2G-8.
Figure 2G-8: Parking and Service Placement Diagram
(1) Primary Street, Ped strian Street, and designated Ralston Creek Frontage Setback (E)
and Screening
(a) Surface Parking a Service Areas: 30' min. from primary stet building facade and
located behind fully- ncloa
(b) Building/Parking Stru ure
behind fully -enclosed,
residential uses located
frontage, the setback may
i, occupied building space.
30' min. from primary street
upied building space. For
ng the primary street, ped
e reduced to 20'.
(c) Underground Parking: 0' min.`ffom primary street
(2) Secondary Street Setback (F) and Sdfe
(a) Surface Parking, Loading, and Se
secondary street building facade an
as specified for S2 standard - altern
Screening and Buffering Standards.
ling fagade and located
lings with ground -level
street, or Ralston Creek
facade.
Area: 10'Imin. and set back 3' min. from the
y low masonry walls and landscaping
Is (option B), set forth in Article 14-5F,
(b) Building/Structured Parking: set back 1' m' rom the secondary street principal
building facade and screened from publi view y arch itectu ral ly-fin ished building
facades, according to the standards for tructuredlparking set forth in 14 -5A -5F.
(c) Underground Parking: 10' min. ands back 0' min.,from secondary street building
facade.
(3) Side (G) and Rear (H) Setbacks and
(a) Surface Parking, Loading, and
setback requirements as princi Ya
adjacent property. Setback ar a
S&vice Area: Must comply Witt
I buildings, or 0' where parkin
shall be landscaped to the S2
N
the.same Me and rear
is j fa ed Vjth they ]
_.1 7
�andard. ry
_;c)
(b) Building/Structured Parkin . Must comply with the same side and tset4ck M
requirements as principal uildings. Parking must be screened frorrf;:
Itured
architecturally-finished uilding facades, according to the standarc 4or
parking set forth in 1 5A -5F.
(c) Underground Parking: Must comply with the same side and rear setback requirement
as principal buildings.
(4) Underground parking shall be designed to ensure ground floor finished floor elevations
Ordinance No.
Page 8
meet elevation requirements for permitted frontage types.
(5) For buildings with ground floor residential use, no surface parking shall be closer than 10'
to any residential portion of a building (i.e. not including portions of the building containing
garage space). This 10' area must be used for walkways and landscaping and/or may be
included as part of a larger open space area. If parking spaces are located where
headlights of vehicles shine onto a wall containing ground floor windows, said parking
spaces must be screened from view of the windows to at leapt the S2 standard.
C. Access to Parking, Loading, and Service Areas
(1) All parking, loading, and
lanes or driveways on sr
except as allowed in par
areas shall be accessed
ry streets consistent with 1
(2), below.
In public alleys, private rear
applicable regulating plan,
(2) If access from an alley, priv a rear lane, or driveway fr m the secondary street is not
feasible due to topography, siN conditions, configurati n of the lot, and/or other
constraints, access to a prima street may be grante by the FBC Committee. Any request
for a curb cut on an arterial stree will be reviewed 4(quirements. ording to the applicable provisions
set forth in Section 14-5C-6, Arteri Street Access
d. Construction and Design Standards 1r Parking a d Loading Areas
(1) The following subsections of Section 1 5A-5, C nstruction and Design
Standards,
shall
apply:
A.
Purpose
B.
Paving Materials
C.
Parking and Stacking Space Size
D.
Drainage
E.
Location
F.
Standards for Structured Parki
N
o
H.
Design and Layout of Surfac Parking Areas?
I.
Landscaping and Tree Req irements within Parking eas
J.
Screening and Setback eas
K.
Design of Bicycle Parki g Areas.
ca
N
5. ACCESSORY USES, BUIL INGS AND STRUCTURES
a. Accessory uses, buildings structures shall comply with the provisions of Article 14-4C.
However, if the provision contained in this article are more specific or restrictive, said
provisions shall supersede the provisions of Article 14-4C.
b. Garages and parking structures must be located and constructed in compliance with the
provisions of paragraph 4, Parking, Loading, and Service Areas.
Ordinance No
Page 9
c. Accessory buildings other than garages and parking structures must be located behind
principal buildings according to the same setback standards as surface parking. Facades of
accessory buildings within public view must be architecturally finished in a manner that is
consistent with the principal building.
F. Delete Table 2G-5: Permitted Frontage Types, and substitute in lieu thereof:
Table 2G-5: Permitted Frontage Types
Building Types
Cottage Home
Rowhouse
Townhouse
Apartment Building
Multi -Dwelling Building
Live -Work Townhouse
Commercial Building
Mixed -Use Building
Liner Building
Civic or Institutional Building
Notes:
Permitted Frontage Types
X o
(D c
LL d R
C O O. L
A O `
7 F N d M
x Jt
x x x
x x / x
X(3) X(3)
Vx3) X(3)
x
X(2)(3) X(2)('.
X(3) X(3)
C
U V
d
O O
d LL
x X(1)
x x(1)
X(11)
X(2) x(1)
1. Subor ate frontage type — to be used in conjunction with ot"r perrrgljed frontage
tYP ) a'
2 outage type may be allowed by the FBC for appropriate hoTltorJtal oyyxing oFdses
r
e.g. for large mixed-use buildings with multiple street frontag@�n
3. Allowed for access to individual dwelling units or live -work um
zz
M
w
Ordinance No.
Page 10
G. Delete Table 2G-6: Permitted Building Types, and substitute in lieu thereof:
Table 2G-6: Permitted Building Types
c
Permitted Building c
Types ;
O
L
Y
O O
U) a
Cottage Home
Rowhouse
Townhouse
x
Apartment Building
x k
Multi -Dwelling Building
x x
Live -Work Townhouse
x
Commercial Building
x x
Mixed -Use Building
x x
Liner Building
x x
Civic or Institutional
a
Building
x x
Form -based Zoning Districts
y
rn
t
c
..
c
a T
!=
o
U
m
L d
i
y
0
M
c
a
x
x(2)
x
d
x
d
9
r
M N
W 7
x
x
x
Notes: o
1. Only allowed on properties w/frontn Van Buren Street or Burlington i �2. Only allowed on properties wn Orchard Street. r'5
-�C - r
rn
H. Delete paragraph 14 -2G -7G -1d.(5), and substitute in lieu thereof: oX
Z w
(5) Height bonuses are not allowed in the Eastside Mixed Use District or the Orchard
v
Subdistrict.
I. Amend a portion of Table 5A-3: Minimum Parking Requirements for the Riverfront Crossings
District & Eastside Mixed Use District, incorporating the new Orchard District into the table, as
shown below. Those portions of Table 5A-3 not shown below shall remain unchanged.
Ordinance No.
Page 11
Table 5A-3: Minimum Parking Requirements in the Riverfront Crossings District & Eastside Mixed
Use District
USE
SUBDISTRICT$
MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT
BICYCLE
PARKING
CATEGORIES
Household Living
South Downtown, University
Efficiency,i-bedroom: 0.5 space per dwelling unit.
Units within the
2 -bedroom: l spaces per dwelling unit
1 per d.u.
following Building
w
3 -bedroom: 2 spaces per dwelling unit
Tye'
Elder Apartments: 1 space for every 2 dwelling units.
Apartment Building;
For Multi -Family dwelling units located within the University Subdistrict
or on property directly abutting or across the street from the UI campus
Multi -Dwelling
as illustrated on the Regulating Plan, Fig.2G-1, the parking requirement
Building;
is 0.25 per bedroom.
Park, South Gilbert, Central
Efficiency, I -bedroom: 0.75 space per dwelling unit.
1 per d.u.
Mixed -Use Building
Crossings, Orchard, Gilbert,
2 -bedroom: 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit
West Riverfront, Eastside
34bedroom: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
Mixed -Use District
Elder Apartencs: l space for every 2 dwelling units.
Non -Residential
South Downtown, University
None Requi
111500
Uses
square feet
of floor area
Park, South Gilbert, Central
1 space per 500 Nuare feet of floor area. On treet parking provided
111500
Crossings, Orchard, Gilbert,
and this parking
along the frontage a property may c4sparking
square feet
West Riverfront, Eastside
requirement. Buildin with less than 1are feet of non-
of floor area
Mixed Use
residential floor area a exempt from requirement.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and part of
of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, pr
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adju ICE
Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision orp rt tl
tutional. nt
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ord' ae
approval and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of
MAYOR
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
in conflict with the provisions
or part of the Ordinance shall be
shall not affect the validity of the
f not adjudged invalid or unconsti-
in effect after its final passage,
ATTEST:
CLERK
N
_o
�?
1� _I
V
a'
-0
o
w
r.,
O
Prepared by: Karen Howard, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, 140 �9-35fj1
�-� r
ORDINANCE NO. �c� Co
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14: ZONING, ARTICLE 2G, RF N7 ZhOSSINGS
AND EASTSIDE MIXED USE DISTRICTS FORM -BIASED DEVELOPMENT. -STANDARDS, TO
ADD ZONING STANDARDS FOR THEW
OR HARD SUBDISTRICT WITHIN THE
RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS DISTRICT LOATED NOR! OF BENTON STREET AND WES OF
ORCHARD STREET.
WHEREAS, in 2016, The City Council amended the C y's Comprehensive Plan to expand the
boundaries of the Riverfront Crlgssings District to includ, properties north of Benton Street that
front on Orchard Street and Orchid Court and along an' unused east -west remnant of City right-
of-way that extends west from the l tersection of Orchard Street and Orchard Court and named
this new area the Orchard Subdistrict; `N. d
WHEREAS, the Orchard Subdistrict etas estat
provide a better transition from the low -scale single
intensity mixed-use development along Riverside
Riverfront Crossings; and
WHEREAS, in order to facilitate redevelopment
plan objectives and desired development character
new zoning standards for the Orchard subdistric
Crossings form -based code; and
d to encourage redevelopment that would
ly neighborhood to the west and the higher
ve in the West Riverfront Subdistrict of
ih the Orchard District consistent with the master
t forth in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan,
will need to be incorporated into the Riverfront
WHEREAS, the zoning standards wilV
a that buildings are complementary in mass and
scale to the adjacent single family neighbby limiting the building height to three stories with
upper floor stepbacks along street frontad along the single family zone boundary and will
establish a 30 foot setback between develin the Orchard Subdistrict and the adjacent single
family zone, which in addition to the natuinageway located along the west boundary of the
subdistrict, will provide a green buffer behe single family neighborhood and higher density
residential development in the Orchard Su; and
WHEREAS, the regulating plan, buil ng height diagram, and accompanying zoning standards
will ensure that future redevelopment i pedestrian -oriented with buildings opening onto tree -lined
streets and parking located behind build' gs and screened from public view; and
WHEREAS, furthermore, it is in t best interests of the community to clarify and refine certain
provisions of the Riverfront Crossing form -based zoning code that have been difficult to administer,
confusing, or have been falling sho of achieving the objectives of the Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning a d Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the
aforementioned zoning code ame dments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT OR AINED 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 subsection 14-2 -1B, Subdistrict (in Riverfront Crossings), by adding a new paragraph
8, as follows:
8. Orchard Subdistrict (RFC -O)
B. Amend Figure 2G-1: Regulating Plan for the Riverfront Crossings District to include the
Orchard Subdistrict, as attached hereto;
Ordinance No.
Page 2
C. Amend Figure 2G-2: Building Height Diagram for the Riverfront Crossings District to include the
Orchard Subdistrict, as attached hereto;
D. Delete subparagraphs 14-2G-3A-4b(1)(b), 14-2G-3134b(1)(b), 14-2G-3C-4b(1)(c), 14-2G-3D-
4b(1)(d), which regulate setbacks for building/structured parking along primary streets,
pedestrian streets, and Ralston Creek frontages in all Riverfront Crossings subdistricts and the
Eastside Mixed Use District, and substitute in lieu thereof, with paragraph numbered
accordingly: \
fully -enclosed, oc
located along the
be reduced to 20'.
E. Delete subsection 1
noted below:
Parking: 30'min. from primary street building fapade and located behind
,ed building space. For buildings with ground -level residential uses
rn ry street, pedestrian street, or Ralston Creek frontage, the setback may
B. Central Crossings and
1. INTENT
and substitute in lieu there taining existing figures, except as
Chard Subdistricts and Eas ide Mixed Use District
The Central Crossings subdistrici
intensity mixed-use development
public streets and streetscapes. l
2G -6b) is intended for lower inter
with street -facing entries of
transition between higher it
neighborhoods to the east.
intended for lower intensity
opening onto pedestrian-fri
intensity mixed-use areas
the west. Buildings are d
located within buildings el
Figure 2G-6: Subdistrict *al
Figure 2G -6b: District
in dark in Figure 2G-6) is intended for moderate
3s with entries opening onto pedestrian -friendly
ide Mixed Use District (shaded in dark in Figure
J use and residential development in buildings
streetscapes that provide a
(y mixed- a areas in downtown Iowa City and residential
Orchard Di nct (shaded in dark in Figure 2G -6c) is
ential develop ant in buildings with street -facing entries
streetscapes th t provide a transition between higher
Riverside Drive a low -scale residential neighborhoods to
d with facades alit
active uses and in
- Central Crossings
- Eastside Mixed Use
along
Figure 2G -6c: District Locator - Orchard (insert new figure as
2. USES
primary streets and parking
parking lots and s%ctures.
The principal uses allowed in the Central Crossings and Orchard Subdistli -, and Eastside
Mixed Use District are the same as allowed in the CB -5 Zone, as specified i Table 2C-1
within Article 14-2C , except as noted below. Provisions and special exception approval
criteria that apply in the CB -5 Zone also apply in these districts as set forth in Article 14-4B,
except as noted below. In addition, the following restrictions and allowances shall apply:
a. In the Orchard Subdistrict, commercial and industrial uses are not allowed, except
in live -work townhouses, which may contain commercial uses allowed in the CB -5
Zone, provided the building is constructed to accommodate such uses and provided the
�C
r
heereto) t rn
-o
M
�
0
X
7
fV
F
m
The principal uses allowed in the Central Crossings and Orchard Subdistli -, and Eastside
Mixed Use District are the same as allowed in the CB -5 Zone, as specified i Table 2C-1
within Article 14-2C , except as noted below. Provisions and special exception approval
criteria that apply in the CB -5 Zone also apply in these districts as set forth in Article 14-4B,
except as noted below. In addition, the following restrictions and allowances shall apply:
a. In the Orchard Subdistrict, commercial and industrial uses are not allowed, except
in live -work townhouses, which may contain commercial uses allowed in the CB -5
Zone, provided the building is constructed to accommodate such uses and provided the
Ordinance No.
Page 3
use is not prohibited in the list below.
b. In the Central Crossings Subdistrict, Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses are not allowed
on any frontage designated as Primary Street or Ralston Creek Frontage, as specified
in the Riverfront Crossings Regulating Plan. In the Eastside Mixed Use District, Quick
Vehicle Service Uses are not allowed, except by special exception on property at the
corner of Burlington and Van Buren Streets. Quick Vehlicle Service Uses are not
allowed in the Orchard Subdistrict.
C. Householl Living Uses shall be allowed within permitted Building Types as
specified in S tion 14-2G-5. For Multi -Family Uses, th provisions in Section 14-4B-4
are supersede by the standards in this Article and, th afore, do not apply, unless
specifically liste in this section. Residential occupant is limited to one "household" per
dwelling unit, as t is term is defined in Article 14-9A, eneral Definitions. The
maximum number o bedrooms per dwelling unit is t ree, except for single family uses
within Cottage Home where the number of bedro ms is unrestricted. Residential
density (units per acre): o maximum. However, i the Central Crossings Subdistrict,
for Apartment Buildings, Iti-Dwelling Bui
of 3 -bedroom units per lot y not exceed
except for south of the Iowa -I erstate Rail
for these building types may no xceed 2C
Orchard Subdistrict, the number o 3-bedrS
exceed 20%.
, and Mixed -Use Buildings, the number
of the total number of units on the lot,
where the number of 3 -bedroom units
In the Eastside Mixed -Use District and
units for these building types may not
d. Residential Uses are not allowed in required retail storefronts, as specified in
the Riverfront Cros/nthe
Regulating P
e. Assisted Group Uses shal be all wed within permitted Buildinglypes as
specified in Section -5. Resi ntial occ pancy is limited to 1.raomeF3er 300
square feet of floornot incl ing floor ar within a garage oristrwctrRd pg
area. — '—
f. Drinking Establints ar not allowed. �r �{
rrt D 1
g. Animal-Relateder ial, Repair -oriented Reta and AlcohpFles�rienfo
Retail uses are not d n the Eastside Mixed Use D�trict or the Orcha�Subdistrict. �h. In the Eastside Use District and Orchard Subdistrict, Commercial
Recreational Uses, Establishments, Sales -oriented RetaR, and Personal
Service-oriented Res shall not be open to the public betw�en the hours of 11:00
PM and 7:00 AM, aif located in a storefront with frontage on Van Buren Street or
Burlington Street.
3. PRINCIPAL BUILDING PLACEMENT AND FORM
a. Building Types
(1) Principal buildings shall comply with Section 14-2G-5, Building Type Standards. The
following Building Types are permitted in the Central Crossings and Orchard
Ordinance No.
Page 4
subdistricts and in the Eastside Mixed Use District (see also Table 2G-6):
Table 2G-2: Permitted Building Types - Central Crossings
Permitted Building Types
rn y
c
Eastside Mixed
Use
Orchard
Notes:
1. Only allowed on 1
2. Only allowed in k
b. Building Placement
(1) Principal buildings .
setbacks in com is
Figure 2G-7:
x x \ x A x x x x(t) x(1)
x x / x \ x x X(2)
x
s with frontage on Va uren Street or Burlington Street.
with frontage on Orchard treet.
be placed to the front and corner c
with the following requirements as
Placement Diagram
and aligned along
n in Figure 2G-7.
x
N
p7
C
(a) Primary (A) an Secondary (B) Street Setback:
Central Crossings. 10' min., 16' max.
C G
7 =
C
c
rn
Districts
m
s
'o m c
•5
Primary (A) 20' min., 30' max.
a
E
0)i
m C C
m
m
IMr
E
Secondary (B) 10' min. 20'max.
N
`o
A
h
y
0
c
c
d ;
r ��
E E
>
7
m
c
rn
�
s°
m
E
CL
o
0
_
,. U
F
Q J
J
U
m
Central Crossings \
x
x/ x x
x
x
x
x
Eastside Mixed
Use
Orchard
Notes:
1. Only allowed on 1
2. Only allowed in k
b. Building Placement
(1) Principal buildings .
setbacks in com is
Figure 2G-7:
x x \ x A x x x x(t) x(1)
x x / x \ x x X(2)
x
s with frontage on Va uren Street or Burlington Street.
with frontage on Orchard treet.
be placed to the front and corner c
with the following requirements as
Placement Diagram
and aligned along
n in Figure 2G-7.
x
N
O_
(a) Primary (A) an Secondary (B) Street Setback:
Central Crossings. 10' min., 16' max.
Orchard: 6' min., 12' m
rn
..........
Eastside Mixed Use:
m
s
Primary (A) 20' min., 30' max.
m
Secondary (B) 10' min. 20'max.
(b) Lots Fronting on Pedestrian Streets: 5' min., 10' max.
from public right-of-way or access
easement. See Section 14 -2G -7B for additional requirements.
Ordinance No.
Page 5
(c) Ralston Creek Frontage Setback: 5' min. from stream corridor buffer line.
(d) Side Setback (C): 10' min. or 0' if building abuts or will abut the adjacent building, except
for apartment buildings and multi -dwelling buildings where the minimum is always 10'. For
mixed-use buildings, facades on residential floors must be set back at least 10' from the
side lot line.
(e) Rear Setback (D): 10' min. or 5' min. if set back along public alley or private rear lane.
(f) In the CentrI Crossings Subdistrict and Eastside Mixed Use District, the maximum setback
does not appl above the 2"d floor. In the Orchard District, the maximum setback does not
apply above the nd floor and is increased to a max. of 25' above the 1" floor.
(g) Approved forecour`t,frontages may exceed the maximum setbacks stated above.
(h) In the Orchard Distri , 30' min. from RS -8 Zone boundary.
c. Building Height and Fa ade Stepbacks
(1) Central Crossings: Exce as provided below, principal s shall be 4 stories max. in
height above grade.
(a) Additional building height m be granted throu transfer of devel pment rights or through
bonus height provisions as se forth in the Se ion 14 -2G -7G, Buildin Height nus
Provisions.
(b) Building heights may be further r tricte by FAA regulations.
0 co
(2) Eastside Mixed Use and Orchard: cipal buildings shall be 3 stories mit: � hcrht
above grade. {�? r�
(3) In the Central Crossings Subd
from streets, plazas, or parks
(a) At street corners, towe/ele e
from the stepback req r
FBC Committee.
- -i-
ct, above the 3rd floor, building facades Being arf visible
all stepback 10' min. from the lower floor facade.
its or similar corner emphasis treatments may be exempt
for up to one fagade bay (max. 35 feet) as approved by the
(b) The required facade tepback may be established at a lower floor than stated above,
provided it is esta fished at least 30' in height above grade.
(4) In the Orchard/Su bd istrict, above the 2nd floor, building facades facing streets and RS -8
zone boundaries shall step back 10' min., 25' max. from the lower floor facade. At street
corners, tower elements or similar corner emphasis treatments may be exempt from the
stepback requirement for up to one facade bay (max. 35 t) as approv d by the FBC
Committee. Alternatively, if approved by the FBC, the require ad tepback may be
established above the 1s` floor or may be tiered with the 10' min stepback achieved with
smaller stepbacks above both the 1s` and 2nd stories.
d. Building Projections
Ordinance No.
Page 6
(1) The following building features may project into setbacks as follows:
(a) Bay windows, eaves, roof overhangs, cornices, belt courses, buttresses, sills, and other
similar features: 2' max.
(b) Balconies on upper floors may project up to 6' into front setbacks. Balconies may project
beyond non -street -facing facades on upper floors up to 4' max., but shall extend no closer
than 8' from a side or rear lot line, unless said lot line abuts an alley or permanent open
space.
(c) Canopies, awnings, stoops, terraces, covered building entries, and similar elements as
permitted in Section 14-2G-4, Frontage Type Standards.
(2) Awnings and canopies may also project into public rights-of-way according to the
applicable provisions of the)uilding Code. Certain permitted signs m also project into
public rights-of-way according applicable standards set forth i rticle 14-56, Sign
Regulations. Projections into the r4g
ht-of-way shall not interf with utilities, street trees
and other important right-of-way features.
(3) Arcades and galleries projecting beyo ground-lev street -facing building facades are not
permitted. (An arcade is a fagade with a at
colonnade that projects over the
sidewalk/walkway with upper story buildin s ce above. A gallery is a colonnade that is
attached to a ground level fagade that pr ' is over the sidewalk/walkway). Upper floor
facades may not project closer to the eetsi a property line than the ground -level building
fagade, except for building features oted abo
e. Building and Frontage Types
(1) Principal buildings and build' g facades shall be esigned in compliance with Section 14-
2G-4, Frontage Type Sta ards, and Section 14- G-5, Building Type Standards.
f. Facade Continuity
(1) Central Crossingsa d Orcd: To define pedestri n friendly streetscapes and create a
mostly continuous outharage of buildings along prim ry streets, principal buildings shall
occupy a min. of 5% of the primary street lot front ge. In Central Crossings, in the
absence of a bu ding along the remainder of t/Istreetscapes
frontage, a streetscreen shall be built
in compliance ith Section 14 -2G -7D.
(2) Eastside Mixed Use: To define pedestrian frienwhile maintaining a lower
intensity devel pment character along primaryts, principal buildings shall occupy a
min. of 50% an a max. of 75% of the primaryt lot frontage.
4. PARKING, LOADI=withection
AS
a. Parking shall be Parking Type appropriatejgoHhe�lectech
Building Type in com-6, Parking Type Standark-OndIR the --
minimum ratios specified in 14-5A-4, Minimum Parking Requirements.
b. Parking, Loading, and Service Area Placement & Screening z rn
-.moi'•" 7` N 0
3" r
rn
Ordinance No.
Page 7
Parking, loading, and service areas shall be located within and behind principal buildings in
compliance with the following requirements as shown in Figure 2G-8.
Figure 2G-8: Parking and Service Placement Diagram
(1) Primary Street,
and Screening
(a) Surface
and located
(b) Building
behind full
residential uses
Street, and designated Ralston Creek Frontage Setback (E)
and Service Areas: 30' min. from primary street building facade
ully-enclosed, occupied building sp
Structure: 30' min. from primary treet b 'ding fagade and located
frontage, the setback
occupied building spac For build i s with ground -level
\\along the primary stree , For
stre t, or Ralston Creek
Vibe reduced to 20'.
(c) Underground Parking: (Y\min. from primalstreet building facade.
(2) Secondary Street Setback (F) an Screening
(a) Surface Parking, Loading, d Servic
secondary street building facade and scr
as specified for S2 standard - alte natio
Screening and Buffering Standards
(b) Building/Structured Parking:
building facade and screened fr
facades, according to the stan
e rea: 10' min. and set back 3tIandscaping
n. from the
ened by low masonry walls an
materials (option B), set forth inicle 14-5F,
1' min. from the secondarystree incipal—
c.)
view by architecturally-finisbi@ b ing
X, -.-1
ructured parking set forth ip>145 tgF. r
(c) Underground Parking: 1 'min. and set back 0' min. from secondaqp,
',— egbuildjp
facade. N KD
(3) Side (G) and Rear (H) Se acks and Screening r
(a) Surface Parking oading, and Service Are Must comply with the arr side and
rear setback requi ments as principal buildings, 0' where parking ' shared with the
adjacent propert . Setback area shall be landscaped the S2 sta ard.
(b) Building/S uctured Parking: Must comply with the same side and rear setback
requirement as principal buildings. Parking must be screened from view by
architectur ly-finished building facades, according to the standards for structured
parking set forth in 14 -5A -5F.
(c) Underground Parking: Must comply with the same side and rear setback
requirement as principal buildings.
(4) Underground parking shall be designed to ensure ground floor finished floor elevations
Ordinance No.
Page 8
meet elevation requirements for permitted frontage types.
(5) For buildings with ground floor residential use, no surface parking shall be closer than 10'
to any residential portion of a building (i.e. not including portions of the building containing
garage space). This 10' area must be used for walkways and landscaping and/or may be
included as part of a larger open space area. If parking spaces are located where
headlights of vehicles shine onto a wall containing ground floor windows, said parking
spaces rn st be screened from view of the windows to at least the S2 standard.
C. Access to Harking, Loading, and Service Areas
(1) All parking, I ading, and service areas shall be accessed from public alleys, private rear
lanes or drive ays on secondary streets consistent with the applicable regulating plan,
except as alto ed in paragraph (2), below.
(2) If access from a alley, private rear lane, or driveway from the secondary street is not
feasible due tot ography, site conditions, co nfiion o lot, and/or other
constraints, acces to a primary street mire
b ranted by the F Committee. Any request
for a curb cut on a arterial street will be ewed according to th applicable provisions
set forth in Section -5C-6, Arterial Streccess Requirements.
d. Construction and Design Standards for/Parking and Loading Areas
ection 4-5A-5, Construction and Desigr�Standards, shall
(1) The following subsecXg
apply:
A.
Purpose
B.
Paving Mater
C.
Parking and ce Size
N
o a
T
D.
Drainage
E.
Location
c� l' Co
rn
F.
Standards ford rkingH.
Design and Lurfac Parking AreasI.
Landscaping Requir ents within Parking AreasJ.
Screening ank AreasK.
Design of Bicing Areas.\
5. ACCESSORY USES. BUILDINGS AND
a. Accessory use , buildings and structures shall comply with the provisions of Article 14-4C.
However, if the ovisions contained in this article are more specific or restrictive, said
provisions shall supersede the provisions of Article 14-4C.
b. Garages and parking structures must be located and constructed in compliance with the
provisions of paragraph 4, Parking, Loading, and Service Areas.
Ordinance No
Page 9
C. Accessory buildings other than garages and parking structures must be located behind
principal buildings according to the same setback standards as surface parking. Facades of
accessory buildings within public view must be architecturally finished in a manner that is
consistent with the principal building.
F. Delete Table 2G-5: Permitted Frontage Types, and substitute in lieu thereof:
Table 2G-5: Permitted Frontage Types
Building Types
Cottage Home
Rowhouse
Townhouse
Apartment Building
Multi -Dwelling Building
Live -Work Townhouse
Commercial Building
Mixed -Use Building
Liner Building
Civic or Institutional Building
Notes:
c
O
d
0
M
X
d
LL
C
M
a
Permitted Frontage Types
'a Y
c
V @ O
O
d
1. Subordi ate frontage type — to be used in conjunction wit other
types
2. Fron ge type may be allowed by the FBC for appropriate hori
e.g or large mixed-use buildings with multiple street frontages.
3. 1 wed for access to individual dwelling units or live -work units.
permitted frontage
ntal mixing,bf uses,
Ordinance No.
Page 10
G. Delete Table 2G-6: Permitted Building Types, and substitute in lieu thereof:
Table 2G-6: Permitted Building Types
I. Amend a portion of Table 5A-3: Minimum Parking Requirements or he Riverfront Crossings
District & Eastside Mixed Use District, incorporating the new Orchard District into the table, as
shown below. Those portions of Table 5A-3 not shown below shall remain unchanged.
Form -based Zoning Districts
Permitted Buildingc
N
c
o
Types
3
a
o
O
t7
2 U
m
d
> v
m
L
7
L
M 7
d
C
d L
d N 2
r
N d
N
d (A
c
7 U
t7 O
W D
Cottage Home
x x
x
Rowhousex//
x
x
Townhouse
x x
x
,rf x x
x
Apartment Building
x
x
x
x x x
x
Multi -Dwelling Building
x
x
x
x
x
x x x
x
Live -Work Townhouse
x
x
x
x x x(2)
x
Commercial Building
x
x
x
x
x x
x(1)
Mixed -Use Building
x
x
x x
x x
x(1)
Liner Building
x
x x
x x
x
x x
Civic or Institutional
Building
x
x x
x x
x
x —+
x
"h
Notes:
r
1. Only allowed on
pro
rties with frontage on
Van Buren Street o
'17,
urlington Straus -o
711
2. Only allowed on
p parties with frontage on
Orchard Street.
„ ry
m
H. Delete paragraph
-2G -7G
-1d.(5), and substitute in Itthereof:
(5) Height bonu es
are not allowed in the Eastside Mixed Use District o the Orchard
I. Amend a portion of Table 5A-3: Minimum Parking Requirements or he Riverfront Crossings
District & Eastside Mixed Use District, incorporating the new Orchard District into the table, as
shown below. Those portions of Table 5A-3 not shown below shall remain unchanged.
Ordinance No.
Page 11
Table 5A-3: Minimum Parking Requirements in the Riverfront Crossings District & Eastside Mixed
Use District
USE
SUBDISTRICTSBICYCLE
MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT
CATEGORIES
PARKING
Household Living
South Downtown, University
Efficiency,) -bedroom: 0.5 space per dwelling unit.
Units within the
2 -bedroom: t spaces per dwelling unit
1 per d u.
following Building
34)edroom: 2 spaces per dwelling unit
Types'
Elder Apartments:1 space for every 2 dwelling units.
Apartment Building;
For Multi -Family dwelling units located within the University Subdistrict
or on property directly abutting or across the street from the UI campus
Multi -Dwelling
as illustrated on the Regulating Plan, Fig.2G-1, the parking requirement
Building;
is 0.25 per bedroom.
Park, South Gilbert, entral
Efficiency, ) -bedroom: 0.75 space per dwelling unit.
1 per d.u.
Mixed -Use Building
Crossings, Orchard, ' bed,
24)edrcem: 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit
West Riverfront, Eastsi
3 -bedroom: 2.5 spaces per dwell' it.
Mixed -Use District
Elder Apartments:) space for eery 2 dwelling units.
Non -Residential
South Downtown, Univershy
None Required
1/1500
Uses
square feet
of floor area
Park, South Gilbert, Central
1 ace per 500 square f t of floor area. On -street parking provided
1/1500
Crossings, Orchard, Gilbert,
alon the frontage of a operty may count toward this parking
square feet
West Riverfront, Eastside
requir ant. Buildings ith less than 1200 square feet of non-
of floor area
Mixed Use
residen' I floor area re exempt from this parking requirement.
D. Delete paragraph 14 -5A -4F -5a(3), re
District, and substitute in lieu thereof:
(3) Must include uses, elements or fea e!
or other goals of the Comprehens' e I
Crossings Master Plan.
E. Delete 14 -5A -5F, regarding constructi n and
substitute in lieu thereof:
F. Standards for Structured/tructures,
Use District, and the R
structured parking in all Family
Zone, and on property zrfront C
zoned Riverfront Crossin
mid-block structures, lineas described ii Article 1specified in Subsection 1
F. Delete paragraphs
lieu thereof:
2. On property zoned
placed in accorda
Form -Based Devoe
Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking
o
that further housing, eco mrnic d�elot5' &t,
n, including the Downtow�a4r d Rmerfrorl
c�-< co
pesign standards for offs et parkin , Ind
\ -- � S Q
in Multi -Fan
Crossings
mil Zones,
stside Mixed U
integrated
andardsfor st
above.
Commercial Zones, a Ea*side Mixed
es: The following standard? apply to
Commercial Zones, except the CB -10
or Eastside Mixed Use. On properties
e these standards apply to tuck -under,
A ctures, and underground structures,
ict ed parking in the CB -10 Zone are
7., standards for structured
:rfront Crossings or Eastside Mixed US
with the provisions set forth in Article
tent Standards.
facilities, and substitute in
Dred parking shall be
Riverfront Crossings
7. Garage Entrances/Exits.
a. Vehicular access to parking within buildings should be located and designed to
minimize traffic congestion and hazards to pedestrians and to preserve street
frontages for active building uses.
Ordinance No.
Page 12
b. Garage entrances/exits should be located along a building wall that does not face a
public street and accessed from a private drive, private rear lane or public alley. In CB -
2, CB -5, MU, Eastside Mixed Use, and Riverfront Crossings Zones, alley or rear lane
access is preferred. If the Form -Based Code Committee, in consultation with the
Director of Neighborhood and Development Services, determines that such access is
not feasible due to lack of alley access, topographical limitations, or other unique
circumstances, or if allows irect ac from a street will better meet the objectives
as stated in subparag ph a., above, garage enings may face a street, but must be
designed in a magder that will best meet the objectives listed in subparagraph a,
above, and mus meet the standards listed in ub-subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3),
below.
(1) If the
the q
one
(2) For stn
should
adequ;
#tured parking is intended for n
ral public, there may be no more
openings per building. Double-wi
single -wide openings may not
Is where it is not possible to
ints of the building, the Building
ntrance/exit
ditional garage eth t
on approval criteria are
its effect on the streetsa
fired parking intended fo
limited in width and
access for the types ancy
s
la
nts or tenants of a building and not
YIh n one double -wide or two single -wide
i openings may not exceed 20 feet in
ceed 10 feet in width. For existing
meet this standard due to structural
fficial may adjust this provision to allow
faces a street, provided that the minor
m* and the garage opening is designed to
>e/and minimize hazards to pedestrians.
for
by the general public, garage openings
mber to only what is necessary to provide
numbers of vehicles using the parking facility.
(3) Except in t e CN -1, CB -2, MU a d CB -5 Zones, the opening(s) must occupy no
more than % of the length of a street -facing building wall. On corner lots, only
one street -fa 'ng garage wall st meet this standard. In the Eastside Mixed Use,
Riverfront Cro ings Zones a d in the CN -1, CB -2, MU and CB -5 Zones, garage
openings) alon the primarytreet frontage are not permitted if access is feasible
from another loca or collec r street or from a rear alley, private street or private
rear lane. If there ' no f sible alternative, garage opening(s) may be allowed
along the primary st etontage, provided that they occupy no more than 35
percent of the length otIJe primary street frontage of the lot and provided that all
provisions of Article 14 -EA Access Management are met.
G. Delete paragraph 14 5A -4F-1, and s bpa graphs b. and c., regulating alternatives to minimum
parking requirements, leaving all o er sub ragraphs (a, d, e, and f.) the same, and substitute
in lieu thereof:
1. Off -Site Parking on Private roperty
Off-street parking may be ocated on a separ a lot from the use served according to the
following rules. When th proposed off-site park g is located in a Residential Zone or CB -
10 Zone, or is intended or a use located in the C 10 Zone, the Board of Adjustment may
grant a special except' n for the proposed parking, rovided the conditions contained in
subparagraphs a. thr gh g. are met. When the propo d off-site parking is located in the
Eastside Mixed Use istrict, a Riverfront Crossings Zo , an Industrial ZorVA Research
Zone, or Commerci I Zone, except the CB -10 Zone, the ' ector oBJeigh%rhoq'nd
Development Services may approve the proposed parking, prov th%cond�ns
contained in subparagraphs a. through g. are met.
rn
b. Location of Off-site Parking
t' s
CT
Ordinance No.
Page 13
(1) In Residential, Commercial Zones, Eastside Mixed Use, and Riverfront Crossings
Zones, any proposed off-site parking space must be located within 300 feet from an
entrance to the use served.
(2) In Industrial and Research Zones, any proposed off-site parking space must be
located within 600 feet from an entrance to the use served.
c. Zoning
Off-site parkin'
served, or loca
(1) in a Multi4
Eastside Mixed
(2) in a Comrr
Industrial Zone,
spaces must be located in the same zone as the principal use(s)
ted as follows:
ily Zone serving a use located) in a different Multi -Family Zone,
District, or in the MU Zone or ice versa.
(3) in an Industrial
Commercial zone.
(4) in a Riverfront
Crossings Zone or
Zone serving a use
de Mixed Use, or Riv
serving a use
Zone serving
Zone.
H. Delete paragraph 14 -3C -2A-10 within the Desii,
10. Design Review for Form -based Code Di t1
J in a different Commercial zone,
Crossing Zone.
I in a different Industrial Zone or
use located in a different Riverfront
section, and substitute in lieu thereof:
Any exterior alterations to, additions to, or a construction of buildings and structures, or
alterations or additions to site developme , including but not limited to parking areas,
landscaping, screening, signage, lighting, a access on property zoned to a form -based
code designation shall be subject to De gn 1eview as specified in 14 -2G -1D, Design
Review.
I. Delete paragraph 14 -3C -3A -1a(10),
thereof:
(10) Design Review for Form -based
J. Delete paragraph 14 -3C -3A-1 b, regulati
b. Applications for Level I Review
by the staff Design Review
by the Form -Based Code C
Approval Procedures.
Level I `pesign Review, and substitute in lieu
Level I Design RevieW. and substitute in lieu thereof:
ill be reviewed and appr
mmittee or, in the case o'
mittee, in accordance with
modified, or disapproved
-m-based Code Districts,
-le 14-813, Administrative
K. Delete paragraph 14_3C-313-9 ,e ing forth approval criteria for design rev%and3ubstitute in
lieu thereof: J -�
�
9. Form -based Code Dis ict Design Review accordingto 14-2G-1 D.
L. Delete paragraph 2 within Section 14 -4C -2J, Uncovered Decks and Patios, annci �ubsgtutei I u
thereof: -o
2. In Riverfront Crossings Zones and the Eastside Mixed Use District: F-
a. Decks are not allowed in private frontage areas, as defined in Section`94-2G-7A,
Streetscape and Frontage Area Improvements.
Ordinance No.
Page 14
b. Patios are not allowed in private frontage areas unless expressly permitted according
to the standards for the applicable Frontage Type, as specified in Section 14-2G-4.
c. Uncovered patios and decks constructed 2 feet or less above grade must be set back
at least 2 feet from any alley right-of-way. No side setback is required.
d. Uncovered patios and decks constructed more than 2 feet above grade must be set
back at least 5 feet from any side lot line and at least 2 feet from any alley right-of-
way.
M. Delete paragraph 14-4C-2LY,
subparagraphs a. and e., provisions related to location and
height requirements for fence , wall, and hedges, and substitute the following language in lieu
thereof (all other subparagrap\doesn
the same):
a. Except as otherwiseor required in Article 14-2G, Riverfront Crossings and
Eastside Mixed UseForm-based Development Standards, no portion of a
fence or wall more thcent solid shall exceed eight feet in height. The solidity
is the percent of theer a random area Is made up of solid, opaque
material, and which allow light or air t pas through. Retaining walls are
exempt from the prohis subparagrap .
e. In Riverfront Crossings Zones nd the Easts' a Mixed Yse District, fences and walls
located within private frontage reas are trictly regylated and, if allowed, must
comply with the applicable Fronta Type andards as specified in 14-2G.
N. Amend Table 4C-1: Drive -Through Facilities, adding a row labeled "Eastside Mixed Use
District', as shown below:
Zone
Drive -Through Facilities lowed
Additional Requirements
Eastside Mixed Use
District
None permitted
Not Applicable
O. Delete 14 -4C -2T-1., subparagraph ., regulating setbdcks for swimming pools, hot tubs, and
tennis courts, and substitute in lie hereof:
a. In Residential Zones, Riverfr t Crossings Zones, and \ e Eastside Mixed Use District:
(1) The use must be set ba k a minimum of 10 feet fro any side or rear lot line.
(2) The use may not be I ated in the front yard (See d finition of FRONT YARD in Article
14-9A) unless the us is setback at least 40 feet from a frontproperty line.
P. Delete 14 -4C -2W. paragrohs 1. and 2., regulating storage
and substitute in lieu ther f:
warehouse facilities,
In residential zones and for residential buildings types in the Riverfront Crossings and
Eastside Mixed Use District, accessory storage and accessory storage buildings are
allowed as follows:
a. Accessory storage and storage buildings are permitted for the stprage�f peroral
vehicles, wood, lumber, gardening equipment and other materials ati�equi}�nen d
exclusively by residents of the premises or by persons affiliated with a -permitted us F,2" -
b. On properties where the principal use is household living, st-__ Oiildinda for
commercial purposes are prohibited. ` *t l � �
m
Ordinance No.
Page 15
2. In Commercial, Industrial, and Research Zones, and for non-residential uses allowed within
Commercial and Mixed Use Buildings in the Riverfront Crossings Zones and Eastside
Mixed Use District, accessory storage and warehouse facilities are permitted, provided the
floor area devoted to such a use does not exceed 40 percent of the total floor area of the
buildings on the property. If storage and warehousing exceeds this floor area limit it is
considered a principal use and is subject to the base zone regulations and any relevant
approval criteria in Chapter 4, Article B of this Title.
Q. Delete 14 -4B -4B-12, sub Naragraphs i. and j., regulating Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses, and
substitute in lieu thereof:
i. For properties loca d in the Riverfront Crossings District and Eastside Mixed Use
District, Quick Vehic Servicing uses are only allowed by special exception in certain
locations and must omply with the standards set forth in Chapter 2, Article G,
"Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use District Form -Based Development
Standards", of this Title.
j. For properties located
Eastside Mixed Use Dis ri
demonstrated that the pr
specific standard as Indic
Board of Adjustment may
provided that the intent of
Board of Adjustment may
mitigate the effects of any
R. Delete 14 -5G -4A, Height limitations (of
the C% Zone Zo Riverfront Crossings District,
ct, or Towncrest esign R view District, where it can be
posed Quick V icle Servi ng Use cannot comply with a
ed in the su ections B12h and B12i of this section, the
g an a speci I exception to modify or waived the provision,
th develop ent standards is not unduly compromised. The
im ose a condition or conditions that are warranted to
varia 'on fr m these development standards.
A. Height Limitations
1. Light fixtures located within 300
the Eastside Mixed Use District
2. Light fixtures located further ty
Zone, or the Eastside Mixed
grade.
S. Delete 14 -5G -4C., paragraph
3. Lighting fixtures must be
any adjacent residential i
not apply in the CB -2, CP
T. Delete subsection 1
fixtures), and substitute in lieu thereof:
et o a Residential Zone, Riverfront Crossings Zone, or
ist b mounted no higher than 25 feet above grade.
300 f t from a Residential Zone, Riverfront Crossings
District must be mounted no higher than 35 feet above
light
ated and shielded
or public right -of-\
or CB -10 Zones.
Lighting Environment
and substitute in lieu thereof:
i that the bulb is not directly visible from
The right-of-way trespass standard does
and substitute in lieu thereof:
B. Lighting Environ ent Districts
All Zones, exceptPublic (P) Zones, are grouped into hree lighting environment districts
that control lighti g output on applicable lots in each z ne. Uses, for which the I hting
standards are a plicable, located within the Public (P) on must comps with lighting
requirements o the adjacent zone; those on the border een two or��e 20es myit
comply with the standards of the strictest adjacent zone. Zones are gro in%the
lighting environment districts as follows.f-
1. Low Illumination District, E1 m
Areas of low ambient lighting levels. This District includes single-f"arl3low rnrn
density multi -family residential zones. This District applies to the fr *;Mng�nes--
Ordinance No.
Page 16
RS, ID -RM, RR -1, RS -5, RS -8, RS -12, RM -12, and RNS-12.
2. Medium Illumination District, E2
Areas of medium ambient lighting levels. This District includes higher density multi-
family zones and lower intensity commercial and office zones. This District applies to
the following zones: ID -C, ID -I, ID -RP, CN -1, CO -1, PRM, RM -20, RM -44, RNS-20,
MU, EMU, and all RFC Zones, except the RFC -WR.
3. High Illumi tion District, E3
Areas of high bient lighting levels. This District includes higher intensity
commercial, ind trial, and research zones. This istrict applies to the following
zones: CC -2, CH- , CI -1, CB -2, CB-5/adjuication
, I-2, RDP, and ORP, and the RFC -
WR.
SECTION II. REPEALER. Al rdinances anddinances in conflict with the provisions
of this Ordinance are hereby repeal
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any sectin or part of the Ordinance shall be
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitut nal, suchn shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a wholeor any section, ovision reof not adjudged invalid or unconsti-
tutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. Th' Ordll be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of 2016.
MAYOR
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
N
O
•
J
C-)�
'
M
G�
fV
-7G
Prepared by: Karen Howard, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5251
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14: ZONING, ARTICLE 2G, RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS
AND EASTSIDE (MIXED USE DISTRICTS FORM -BASED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, TO
ADD ZONING S NDARDS FOR THE ORCHARD SUBDISTRICT
WHEREAS, in 2016, The City Council amended the City's Comprehensive Plan to expand the
boundaries of the iverfront Crossings District to include properties north of Bento Street that
front on Orchard St et and Orchard Court and along an unused east -west remnant o City right-
of-way that extends st from the intersection of Orchard Street and Orchard Cou and named
this new area the Orcha d Subdistrict; and
WHEREAS, theOrch d Subdistrict was established to encourage redev pment that would
provide a better transition fr m the low -scale single family neighborhood to west and the higher
intensity mixed-use develop ent along Riverside Drive in the West iverfront Subdistrict of
Riverfront Crossings; and
WHEREAS, in order to facilita redevelopment in the Orchard strict consistent with the master
plan objectives and desired develo ent character set forth in t Riverfront Crossings Master Plan,
new zoning standards for the Orch d subdistrict will need be incorporated into the Riverfront
Crossings form -based code; and
WHEREAS, the zoning standards'll ensure t
scale to the adjacent single family neigh, rhood by
upper floor stepbacks along street frontagand
establish a 30 -foot setback between develop a in
family zone, which in addition to the natural aina
subdistrict, will provide a green buffer betty en he
residential development in the Orchard Su istrict; I
is ?buildings are complementary in mass and
iting the building height to three stories with
long the single family zone boundary, and will
the Orchard Subdistrict and the adjacent single
leway located along the west boundary of the
single family neighborhood and higher density
WHEREAS, the regulating planding height diagram, and accompanying zoning standards
will ensure that future redevelopmen Is pedestrian- Tented with buildings opening onto tree -lined
streets and parking located behind b Ildings and screen d from public view; and
WHEREAS, furthermore, it i in the best interests f the public to clarify and refine certain
provisions of the Riverfront Cro Ings form -based zoning c de that have been difficult to administer,
confusing, or have been fallin short of achieving the objec'ves of the Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan, namely certain setbac for building/structured parking\hrrecommended
buildings, and certain permitted
frontage types; and
WHEREAS, the PI nning and Zoning Commission approval of the
aforementioned zoning ode amendments.
NOW, THEREFORV, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL\THECITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa Cithereby amended as
follows:
A. Amend subsection 14-2G-1 B, Subdistrict (in Riverfront Crossinging the following:
h. Orchard Subdistrict (RFC -O)
B. Amend Figure 2G-1: Regulating Plan for the Riverfront Crossings DI trict to include the
Orchard Subdistrict, as shown on the Regulating Plan attached hereto.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
C. Amend Figure 2G-2: Building Height Diagram for the Riverfront Crossings District to include the
Orchard Subdistrict, as shown on the Building Height Diagram attached hereto.
D. Delete subparagraphs 14-2G-3A-4b(1)(B), 14-2G-3C-4b(1)(C), and 14-2G-3D-4b(1)(D), which
regulate setbacks for building/structured parking along primary streets, pedestrian streets, and
Ralston Creek, and substitute in lieu thereof this paragraph numbered accordingly:
"Building/Structured Parking: For parking on the ground floor of a uilding or structure,
the minimum setback shall be 30' from the primary street buildingfacade and located
b hind fully -enclosed, occupied building space, except the se ack may be reduced to
20' or buildings with ground -level residential uses locate along the primary street,
pede ian street, or Ralston Creek frontage."
E. Amend those ce in provisions of subsection 14 -2G -3B se orth below as follows:
1. Section 1 " TX
: Add the following langu a thereto and add the Figure 2G -6c
"Subdistrict Locat ard" attached hereto.The Orchard Sstrict (shaded in Fi re 2G -6c) is intended for lower intensity
residential devent in buildings wi street -facing entries opening onto pedestrian -
friendly streetsct t provide a nsition between higher intensity mixed-use areas
along Riversidee an low-sc a residential neighborhoods to the west. Buildings
are designed wacades li ed along primary streets and parking located within
buildings behindve uses d in mid -block parking lots and structures.
2. Section 2 "USEdd Or and ubdistrict to the list of districts in which this section
applies and:
a. add the folloa (a), and renu ber the subsequent paragraphs accordingly: "In
the Orchard Sur' t, commercial an industrial uses are not allowed, except in live -
work townhoushich may contain c mmercial uses allowed in the CB -5 Zone,
provided the buis constructed to acco modate such uses and provided the use is
not prohibited inlist below. Quick Vehicle ervice Uses are not allowed."
b. amend par graph (c) to add "Orchard Subdist ct" to the last sentence, which states
that the nu er of 3 -bedroom units for these buildi types may not exceed 20%.
c. amend aragraph (g) to add "Orchard Subdistrict".
d. ame d paragraph (h) to add "Orchard Subdistrict".
3. Secti6n 3 "PRINCIPAL BUILDING PLACEMENT AND
mend a. (1) to add "Orchard Subdistrict" to the list of appli ble districts
amend Table 2G-2 to add the following line and footnote ther o:
1 Districts 1 Permitted Building Types
— — -- --
Ordinance No.
Page 3
rn m
S 0)
W M n c W N
O
O m C O C
E m m 5 FO- m m c
Z y
7m 30:O ` O)
m O r E D °7 R m o
` c
�+ t 3 E v U 'v
m
m E m m
> > x c >
Q
U W F J U �) J U m
Orchard x x x x xXsetbacks
x
Not : 2. Only allowed in locations with frontaeet.
c. amend 1)(a) to state that the primary and shall be 6'
minimum and ' maximum in the Orchard Subdi
d. amend b(1)(f) by deleting the current
Central Crossings Nbdistrict and East
does not apply abovetqe 2nd floor. In t
not apply above the 2nd oor and is inpl
iglge and replace with the following: "In the
Mixed Use District, the maximum setback
Orchard District, the maximum setback does
sed to a max. of 25' above the 1st floor."
e. amend b(1)(h) add the Ilowin . "In the Orchard District, 30' min. from RS -8 Zone
boundary."
f. delete c(2) and replace it the following: "Eastside Mixed Use and Orchard:
Principal buildings shall be ?AtoriN max. in height above grade."
g. amend c(3) to add"Ip the Cent i@I Crossings Subdistrict" to the beginning of the
sentence. �
h. amend c(4)to add a following langu e: "
floor, building faca es facing streets and
min., 25' max. fro the lower floor facade. A
corner emphasi treatments may be exempt
one fagade b (max. 35 feet) as approved
approved by a FBC, the required fagade st
floor or may/ a tiered with the 10' min stepba
both the 1 and 2nd stories."
In the Orchard Subdistrict, above the 2nd
S-8 zone boundaries shall step back 10'
street corners, tower elements or similar
m the stepback requirement for up to
b the FBC Committee. Alternatively, if
epba may be established above the 1st
ck achi6yecl with smaller stepbacks above
i.amen f(1) to add "Orchard Subdistrict" thereto and a nd the last sentence so that
the pr, ision in the last sentence is applicable only to the C tral Crossings Subdistrict.
4. ction 4, "PARKING, LOADING, AND SERVICE AREAS'
a. delete b(1)(b) and replace with the following: "Building/S ctured Parking: For
p rking on the ground floor of a building or structure, the minimu setback shall be 30'
om the primary street building fagade and located behind fully- closed, occupied
building space, except the setback may be reduced to 20' for buil gs with ground -
level residential uses located along the primary street, pedestrian st et, or Ralston
Creek frontage."
b. amend b(2)(b) by deleting "10' min and setback".
F. Amend those certain lines of Table 2G-5 "Permitted Frontage Types", located in Secti n 14 -2G -
4(A) as follows and add the following footnote:
Ordinance No.
Page 4
Building Types
Building
ing
Permitted Frontage Types
c
O
y
m
LL
y
O
O
R
L
O
O
V
r
0
O
d
Co
7
F
(n
d
Y
C
ti
X(3) X(3) x X(1)
X(3) X(3) x x(1)
Mixed-Use\ittedildi
x X(2)(3) X(2)(3) ) x(1)
Liner Buildx X(3) X(3)
Note: 3.ss to individ dwelling units or live -work units.
G. Amend Table 2G-6:,"ing Type , located in Section 14-2G-5 by adding a column
for the Orchard Sus and dd the following footnote:
m -Based Zoning District
Permitted Building Ty s Orchard
Cottage Home x
Rowhouse
iownnou x
Apart nt Building x
M i -Dwelling Building x
ive-Work Townhouse x(2)
Commercial Building
Mixed -Use Building
Liner Building x
Civic or Institutional Building
Notes: 2. Only allowed on properties with fron\thereto.
H. Amend paragraph 14 -2G -7G -1d.(5), to add Orchard SI. Amend Table 5A-3: Minimum Parking Requiremenro
Eastside Mixed Use District, located in 14-5A-4 to regulate the Orchard Subdis
manner as the Park, South Gilbert, Central Crossings, Gilbert, West Riverfront,
Use subdistricts.
s District &
in the same
stside Mixed
V
Ordinance No.
Page 5
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 unconsti-
tutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage,
Riverfront Crossings
Orchard Subdistrict
Form -based Zoning Standards
Why create a new zoning district?
In 2016, the City's Riverfront Crossings Master Plan was amended
to include a new Orchard Subdistrict.
i 4 Vio,".4111
-�ivwVlIV AM
Request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan to add properties located north of
Benton Street. west of Orchard Street
to the Downtown and Riverfront
Crossinas Master Plan.
11
1
�I r
11
1
orchard district
Why create a new zoning district?
Comprehensive Plan was amended for the following reasons:
Area is fully developed under the current zoning with a mix of
duplexes, multi -family buildings, and a few single family dwellings.
Existing development creates an unpleasant environment for walking
and biking:
Duplexes along Orchard have auto -oriented frontages with large garages
and driveways that interrupt the sidewalk, front yard parking
Older single family with no street frontage, no pedestrian access
Abrupt change from low -scale single family to high intensity mixed-use
and commercial development along Riverside Drive
Current zoning does not create an incentive for redevelopment.
A form -based zoning district is a good tool to encourage
redevelopment that will create a more walkable neighborhood that
creates a better transition.
A
i..
Fo
VA
Abrupt Transition
Current zoning
does not create
an incentive for
redevelopment
OPD -5
Comprehensive P
Orchard District Summary
Master Plan Objectives:
> Encourage redevelopment that is complementary in mass and
scale to the adjacent single family neighborhood
> Create a transition from larger -scale mixed-use and commercial
buildings along Riverside Drive to single family
> Improve design quality of development
> Create better and more visible street access
Development Character:
> Buildings that are articulated and scaled in a manner appropriate
for transition from the larger -scale, mixed-use corridor to the
adjacent single family neighborhood
> Buildings fronting tree -lined streets
> Parking located away from street frontages with minimal surface
parking lots
> Use rear or side yard setbacks, upper floor stepbacks, and
landscaping to create transitions to single family neighborhood
Development Program:
> Limited to cottage homes, rowhouses, townhouses, live -work
townhouses, and two to three-story multi -dwelling buildings with
third floor stepback.
> High level of design in exchange for increased density
Street redevelopment
Regulating Plan
Sub -District Standards
Intent of the Subdistrict (describes the general character of
development)
Uses Allowed
Building Types, Building Placement and Height
Placement of Parking, Loading, and Service Areas
Frontage Type Standards
Building Type Standards
Parking Type Standards
General Requirements
❖ Orchard Street and
existing cul-de-sac are
designated as primary
streets (potential re-
alignment of cul-de-sac in
the future)
❖ New pedestrian street
designated between
Benton and Orchard Court
❖ To fully realize
redevelopment potential
a new secondary street
will need to be extended
to the west boundary of
the district
Regulating Plan
0
.ono S\,
go 0,0
Building Height Diagram
❖ Amend Riverfront
Crossings Height
Diagram to include the
Orchard District
❖ Maximum building
height 3 stories with
upper floor stepback
❖ No bonus height
allowed
Downtown
I
c
i
Legend
:.,i'♦. 3 stories max.
_ 4stories max.
- 3 stories min, 6 stories max.
_ 3 stories min., 8 stories max.
- 8 stories max. with Iowa River hontape
Public Parks and Open Space
Green Space
Subdistrict Standards
Figure 2G-7: Building Placement Diagram
I ! Adjacent Property I
r•.-.-.-------.-.-.-.-.-1
c I
r- I
D
I
I g,
c Id
I
0
- a
A D —CE
I'
I � j
--- —B— -- -----.—.L
Secondary Street
Intent: The Orchard District is intended for lower
intensity residential development in buildings with
street -facing entries opening onto pedestrian -
friendly streetscapes that provide a transition
between higher intensity mixed-use areas along
Riverside Drive and low -scale residential
neighborhoods to the west.
Building Placement
Primary and Secondary Street (A &B):
■ Min. setback: 6 ft.
■ Max. setback: 12 ft.
Pedestrian Street:
■ 5' min. , 10' max.
Side setback (C):
■ 10 feet min.
Rear setback (D):
■ 10 ft. min. or 5 ft. min. from an alley
Setback from RS -8 Zone boundary:
■ 30 feet min.
Buffer between RS -8 and Orchard District
Subdistrict Standards
Figure 2G-8: Parking and Service Placement Diagram
i Adjacent Property
fI ----------------G ._.J
I
I
i
i
1 i
—+ H I�--
i
. - - - - - -------1-
r I G f I
A
E
'C
a
H I,
4 1
I. _._._.—A._._._._.�
Parking and Service Placement
Primary Street & Pedestrian Street (E):
20' min. setback from primary street
building fagade and located behind fully
enclosed occupied building space
Secondary Street (F):
Setback and screened with low walls
and landscaping or by finished building
walls.
Side and Rear Setback(G & H):
Must comply with the same side and
rear setback requirements as principal
buildings
Along RS -8 Zone boundary parking area
setback is 30 feet.
Land Uses Allowed
Residential uses allowed
Commercial and industrial uses are not allowed, except in
live -work units located with frontage on Orchard Street.
Hours and uses limited similar to the Eastside Mixed Use
District.
Residential density controlled by building height, setbacks,
and parking, but number of 3 -bedroom units within a
building may not exceed 20%
Building Types
(with appropriate frontage types)
Building Types Allowed in Orchard District
4 Cottage Home (stoop, porch & yard)
• Rowhouse & Townhouse (stoop, terrace, porch & yard)
• Live -Work Townhouse (urban flex, terrace, stoop)*
• Apartment Building (stoop, terrace, portico, forecourt)
• Multi -Dwelling Building (stoop, terrace, portico, forecourt)
• Liner Building (stoop, terrace, urban flex)
*Only allowed along Orchard Street
Building Standards
Same standards as in other Riverfront Crossings Subdistricts
Facade Composition (articulation and modulation)
• Building Entries
• Windows
Building Materials
• Roof Design
• Awnings and Canopies
Parking Requirements
Residential parking requirement the same as in most Riverfront
Crossings subdistricts (amend Table 5A-3 to add the Orchard
District)
1 -bedroom: 0.75 spaces
2 -bedroom: 1.5 spaces
3 -bedroom: 2.5 spaces
r,.� vIrir,
36
ill
.N
I
Other Revisions to the RFC Form -based Code
Amend minimum parking setback for residential buildings
types from 30' to 20'.
O This change will be particularly helpful for residential units that
line structured parking.
O This will acknowledge minor administrative adjustments that
have been made for liner units on a number of buildings.
Other Revisions to the RFC Form -based Code
Amend Table 2G-5: Permitted Frontage Types:
Amend Table 2G5: Permitted Frontage Types as follows:
Table 20-5: Permitted Frontage Types
F___
Permmed Frontage Types
Building Types
p
m
e
It
LL
Y
O
O
O
M
Cottage Home
x
x
Rowhouse
x
x
x
Townhouse
x
x
x
Apartment Building
x
Multi -Dwelling Building
x
x(1)
Live -Work Townhouse
x
x
x
Commercial Building
x
x
x(1)
Mixed -Use Budding
x
x
X(2)(2)
X(2XM
X(2)
x(1)
Liner Budding
x
x
X(2)
M
Civic or Institutional Building
x
x
x
x
x(1)
Notes:
1. Subordinate frontage type—to be usedin conjuncdonwith other permikedfrontage
type(s)
2. Frontagetype maybe allowed bythe FBCforappropmfle horizontal mixing of uses,
e.g. for large mixed-use buildings with multiplestreetfrontages.
3. Allowed for access to individual dwellina units or live -work units.
orchard district
♦
Questions?
LA�^
me"
a...,�1�'.yl
eeep•k
m,♦w•e. n�
/tel •
•
g
"em
♦
•
♦
� P� ••�e ammm
P a mm
•
♦ ✓�
mYP
Orchard 1'
♦� _
L•• • •• .
District
.
• .. .. r w*.
. p•+ PP.
• :•
� ♦ ♦ ..
..,
m
•
♦ •
•
.d
n6
•
!Pw "
'a
•
� 1
I• • •
• •� • •
e O
•-i
4
•
w
I
\ N, ♦
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ17-00003
GENERAL INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Karen Howard
Date: April 6, 2017
Applicant:
M & W Properties
P.O. Box 5152
Coralville, IA 52241
319-430-5991
ryanwade 1000CcDg mail. com
Contact:
Michael Muhlenbruch — Shive Hattery
2839 Northgate Drive
Iowa City, IA 52245
319-354-3040
mmulen bruch(a)shive-hattery.com
Property Owner
Thomas Bayliss and Hartwig Properties, LLP
627 and 619 Orchard Court
Iowa City, IA 52240
Requested Action:
Rezone 619 and 627 Orchard Court from Low
Density Residential Planned Development (OPD -5)
to Riverfront Crossings -Orchard (RFC -0)
Purpose:
Redevelop the property according to the Riverfront
Crossings — Orchard District Standards
Location:
619 and 627 Orchard Court
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
Approximately .705 acres (.495 and .21 acres,
respectively)
A single family dwelling and a MF dwelling(4-plex)
OPD -5
North: Iowa Interstate Railroad
South: Residential duplexes (RS -8)
East: MF dwelling (RFC -WR)
West: four MF dwellings (4-plexes) (OPD -5)
February 23, 2017
Undetermined. 45 day period begins from the date
the RFC -O zone is adopted by Council
2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The applicant, M & W Properties, has requested a rezoning from Planned Development Overlay—
Low Density Single Family Residential (OPD -5) Zone to Riverfront Crossings Orchard (RFC -0)
Zone for 0.705 acres at 619 and 627 Orchard Court. The applicants have indicated they would like
to redevelop the properties with a new 3 -story multi -dwelling building designed according to the
Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code once the Orchard District standards are approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
The applicants requested the change to the Comprehensive Plan in 2016 that resulted in the
expansion of the Riverfront Crossings District to include the new Orchard Subdistrict, which
encompasses properties located along Orchard Street and Orchard Court north of Benton
Street. The Orchard Subdistrict was created to encourage residential redevelopment that would
create a better transition between the higher intensity mixed-use area along Riverside Drive and
the lower -scale single family residential neighborhood to the west. If the subject properties are
rezoned, the new form -based standards for the Orchard Subdistrict will apply.
In early March, the City Council adopted a resolution of support for M&W Properties' application
for Workforce Housing Tax Incentives from the Iowa Economic Development Authority to
construct multi -family housing on the subject properties. If the tax incentives are approved by
the State and provided the applicant obtains zoning and building approvals for the proposed
building, the City Council has committed to provide a local match equal to at least $1000 per
dwelling unit.
The applicants held a Good Neighbor meeting prior to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in
2016, but have not held a Good Neighbor meeting for this specific rezoning application.
ANALYSIS:
Proposed zoning: With this proposed rezoning, the new form -based zoning standards of the
Orchard Subdistrict (RFC -O) will apply to these two properties, including the affordable housing
requirement that applies in Riverfront Crossings. The form -based zoning standards for the
Orchard District are described in detail in a staff memo dated April 6, 2017, which was also
included in your agenda packet for this meeting. It should be noted that the requested rezoning
cannot be approved until the zoning code amendments are adopted that create the new RFC -O
Zone.
Comprehensive Plan: The subject properties are located in the Orchard Subdistrict of Riverfront
Crossings as described in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Following is an
excerpt from the master plan that lists the plan objectives, desired development character for the
district, and the types of development envisioned for this area. Rezoning the property to the new
designation will facilitate the type of redevelopment envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
Orchard District Summary
Master Plan Objectives:
r Encourage redevelopment that is complementary in mass and
scale to the adjacent single family neighborhood
> Create a transition from larger -scale mixed-use and commercial
buildings along Riverside Drive to single family
r Improve design quality of development
> Create better and more visible street access
Development Character:
> Buildings that are articulated and scaled in a manner appropriate
for transition from the larger -scale, mixed-use oDnidor to the
adjacent single family neighborhood
> Buildings fronting tree -lined streets
r Parking located away from street frontages with minimal surface
panting lots
> Use rear or side yard setbacks, upper floor stepbacks, and
landscaping to create transitions to single family neighborhood
Development Program:
> Limited to cottage homes, rowhouses, townhouses, live -work
townhouses, and two to three-story multi -dwelling buildings with
third floor stepback.
> High level of design in exchange for increased density
Compatibility with neighborhood: The goal of the Orchard Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings
is to improve the aesthetics of development in the area and encourage the development of high-
quality housing that meets the needs of the community. The form -based standards will ensure that
development on the properties will be designed in a manner consistent with the residential
character envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan and provide new affordable housing options
consistent with to the Riverfront Crossings inclusionary zoning ordinance.
While the rezoning to RFC -O would provide a number of different options for redevelopment of
the subject properties, the applicant is currently contemplating a 3 -story, multi -dwelling building
containing approximately 45 efficiency/1-bedroom units. A preliminary concept for the building
shows the main entry to the building opening to the south along the east -west portion of
Orchard Court and entries to individual ground level units will be located along the west side of
the building, which will front on the existing north -south portion of the cul-de-sac. Shared open
space would be provided on a second floor terrace and private open space will be provided on
street level terraces and upper level balconies. All parking for the residents will be enclosed
within the structure. Along the west side of the building upper floors will step back from the
ground level floor 20-25 feet. The applicants are exploring the feasibility of installing a green
roof system on the large terrace created with this stepback. They have successfully
implemented this type of system on a smaller scale on a previous multi -family project located
near the UI medical campus. The upper floor fagade will also step back on the south side of the
building. The proposed concept demonstrates that the applicants have a good understanding of
the new zoning standards that would apply with this rezoning.
Traffic and Pedestrian circulation: The proposed rezoning will result in a considerable
increase in the residential density in the area. The subject properties front on Orchard Court,
which has a 50 -foot right-of-way leading to the wider 100 -foot right-of-way at the bulb of the cul-
de-sac. The City's current width standard for a local residential street is 60 feet, which provides
adequate space for a 5 -foot sidewalk and a 10-12 foot parkway buffer to support healthy street
trees. One of the objectives of the Riverfront Crossings Plan is to create high quality residential
neighborhoods with tree -lined streets that encourage walking and biking. As properties are
4
rezoned along this frontage, staff recommends requiring a dedication of land on both sides of
Orchard Court to ensure that the streetscape and frontage area improvements required in the
Riverfront Crossings form -based code can be achieved. The applicants have agreed to dedicate
land along the frontage of the subject properties to create a right-of-way with a minimum 10 -foot
parkway for street trees and a new 5 -foot sidewalk. The applicants will be responsible for
installing the new sidewalk and street trees at the time of development according to the
standards in the form -based code.
In the future as more of the properties along Orchard Court are proposed for redevelopment,
reconfiguring and re -aligning the streets as illustrated on the regulating plan should be
encouraged during the rezoning process. Such a re -alignment would require a re -subdivision of
some of the properties in the area. However, the properties that are the subject of this rezoning
can develop as envisioned in the master plan without a subdivision. Therefore, with a
conditional zoning agreement to widen the right-of-way as described above, staff finds that the
street right-of-way will be adequate to support this rezoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ17-00003, a proposal to rezone approximately 0.705 acres of
property at 619 and 627 Orchard Court from Planned Development Overlay - Low Density Single
Family (OPD -5) Zone to Riverfront Crossings -Orchard (RFC -O) Zone, subject to a conditional
zoning agreement requiring dedication of land along the Orchard Court frontage to widen the
pedestrian area within the public right-of-way to a minimum of 15 feet measured between the
street curb and the new front property line.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
Approved by: / 1/4
John Yapp, Develooment Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
CITY OF IOWA CIT'
A
W
RFC -WR o
Y :.. o i
-- i
7
T � ..
RFC -WR x
e
o
An application submitted by M & W Properties for a
rezoning of .705 acres from OPD-RS5 Zone to Riverfront
Crossings — Orchard (RFC -0) at 619 and 627 Orchard b,
Court
M
CC2
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017—Formal Meeting
Page 7 of 17
Hensch asked what the elevation change was form the ravine to the houses. Howard believes it
is between 5' and 10' elevation change, but is uncertain.
Signs noted that through the Comprehensive Plan change the Commission has already
authorized this district and the activity discussed tonight is primarily to set the criteria for
development in line with the rest of the Riverfront Crossings District and the comprehensive
plan. Howard confirmed that was the case, the idea behind the Form -Based Code is supposed
to be specifically designed for what the goals were expressed in the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment that was made last year. So with regard to building height, scale, frontage
conditions, etc. are done through building articulation standards, building design standards,
building height and upper floor stepback requirements.
Hensch asked what the process would be if this were approved to get the traffic engineer to
study this area. The traffic issues with redevelopment are a valid concern. Howard stated that
once the City gets applications for rezoning and subdivision of property at the intersection, it
would be appropriate to study the traffic implications to see if any improvements are needed.
Signs agreed that one of the biggest concerns is the traffic in the area. Even now with just
adding the Kum & Go on the corner, the ability to turn left onto Benton Street from Orchard
Street is very difficult. Adding new development, and the fact that the Riverside West Building
isn't at full capacity yet, it is apparent there will be a traffic problem down the road. Signs stated
in response to the first speaker (Swygard) he is afraid that ship has already sailed when the
Comprehensive Plan was amended. Signs reiterated he voted against that amendment but will
be voting in favor of this code amendment because he feels it is a step that has to be taken to
allow for developments to even be considered. The next opportunity for review of specific
issues is at rezoning and site plan approvals.
Theobald noted that she sees now why Signs did not want to approve the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, unfortunately now too late. She stated Swygard did a good job showing how much
increased housing would be allowable in one spot. When the Commission saw a plan for just
part of it, there wasn't just one long building but two with a walkway. She added that she drives
down Benton Street every day and it does seem to be just one long building after another and
this will just add to that feeling and it will be a big transition from those single family houses to a
building of this size.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Freerks absent).
REZONING ITEMS:
1. (REZ17-00003): Discussion of an application submitted by M&W Properties for a rezoning
from Planned Development Overlay - Low Density Single Family (OPD -RS -5) zone to
Riverfront Crossings- Orchard Zone (RFC -0) for approximately 0.705 acres of property
located at 619 and 627 Orchard Court.
Howard stated that the owners of the property along the cul-de-sac bulb of Orchard Court
have indicated they would like to redevelop the properties with a new 3 -story multi -dwelling
building designed according to the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code once the
Orchard District standards are approved by the City Council. The properties right now are
zoned OPD -RS -5 through a Planned Development Overlay which is why multi -family
buildings were allowed in a single family zone. The properties along Orchard Street are
zoned RS -8 and then to the east is the Riverfront Crossings West Subdistrict. Howard
noted that the property currently contains a four-plex, a single family house and a front
surface parking lot. The proposed concept is for a three-story multi dwelling building. On the
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 8 of 17
side facing the cul-de-sac it would step back after the first story and along the south side the
building would step back above the second story. It will contain approximately 45 efficiency
units. There will be a structured parking within the building behind ground level dwelling
units. There would be shared open space on the second floor terrace. The applicants are
considering a green roof system facing on the terrace facing west. The applicants have
received a resolution of support from the City Council for workforce housing tax credits. As
discussed earlier, the largest issue is traffic and pedestrian circulation. Of course as the
area exists today it is not ideal, all the units along Orchard Street have street facing
garages/driveways that interrupt the sidewalks. The redevelopment will result in a higher
density but Staff believes it will create a better condition along the street for pedestrians.
While there will be an increase in traffic, the only way to encourage redevelopment in this
area is to allow for greater density. Howard noted that Orchard Street has a right-of-way of
60' and Orchard Court only has a 50' right-of-way width so Staff is recommending an
increase to 60' along the edge of the property until it reaches the cul-de-sac bulb so there is
at least 15' between the edge of the curb and the property line to allow for a 5' sidewalk.
The applicant has agreed to dedicate this additional right-of-way with this rezoning. If there
were any additional development in the Orchard District, it is likely that a subdivision would
be necessary in order to create adequate street infrastructure.
Staff recommends approval of REZ17-00003, a proposal to rezone approximately 0.705
acres of property at 619 and 627 Orchard Court from Planned Development Overlay - Low
Density Single Family (OPD -5) Zone to Riverfront Crossings -Orchard (RFC -0) Zone,
subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring dedication of land along the Orchard
Court frontage to widen the pedestrian area within the public right-of-way to a minimum of
15 feet measured between the street curb and the new front property line.
Hensch asked if in the concept plan submitted it was all efficiency units. Howard confirmed
that was correct. Hensch asked then if the target audience would be individuals that work at
The University of Iowa or UIHC and is there a way to encourage those to be pedestrians or
bicyclists to get to and from work. That may be a way to help with the traffic congestion.
Howard noted that the parking requirements are lower in Riverfront Crossings so not
everyone in this building will have a parking spot and be able to have a car. Therefore
constraining the parking in the area may encourage residents to use alternative
transportation. Howard said the requirement is 0.75 parking spaces per bedroom.
Dyer asked if there were any provisions for bicycle parking in the parking area. Howard
stated that there is a bicycle parking requirement in Riverfront Crossings of one space per
unit. Howard said the City has only received a concept for the building, so it is unclear
where they would put the bicycle parking, but perhaps the applicants could address the
question.
Signs asked if in the Riverfront Crossings District there is a 10% affordable housing
requirement and there is City input (i.e. City Workforce Zoning) would that trigger 15%
affordable housing. Howard said the Workforce tax credit is a State tax credit program that
the developer can apply for. They would also be required to comply with the Riverfront
Crossings affordable housing requirement of 10%. Hektoen stated that the 15% is triggered
when a developer requests Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and that is not the case in this
application as of this point. Signs noted that the state tax credit places a cap on the cost of
construction of the units, not a cap on the rent of the units.
Dyer asked if there was any intention to provide affordable units. Hektoen replied that they
have to provide at least 10% of the units as affordable per Riverfront Crossings Code.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 9 of 17
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Mark Seabold (Shiva Hattery) has been working with the applicants throughout the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment process as well as this rezoning request. He reiterated
that they have been working closely with City Staff and the design of this concept works
within the zoning. Everything they are planning for this property is directly related to the
Code Amendment item the Commission just approved. Seabold stated that all the parking
will be within the building so they will be eliminating all the surface parking and increasing
the frontage to be more walkable and pedestrian friendly. Additionally above each parking
spot will be a bicycle hanging rack as well as other bicycle parking around the building. The
linear structure of the building will provide for a green space on the second story and a
potential green roof. The first story will all have patios at grade level so while they will be
smaller units there are lots of opportunities for open spaces and large windows for lots of
light in the units. Seabold noted that the Riverfront Crossings area is exciting and makes fol
lots of opportunities.
Dyer asked if there would be sidewalk access to the other development on Riverside Drive.
Seabold said that has not been discussed and he is unsure of what their pedestrian access
is through their property. From the images it appears there is a sidewalk they can connect
to that would lead right up to their building.
Signs stated he encourages them to do whatever they can to cool the environment around
Orchard Court, right now it feels like a concrete jungle, so adding the green roof and more
green space is a plus. Additionally to encourage tenants to be pedestrians and bicyclists
will be important as the traffic circulation in that area is a real concern.
Dyer shared a concern that this development would eliminate the affordable housing that is
in that area now. Seabold stated these units are being designed to be affordable, and will
be much nicer. Dyer noted a concern about the people being displaced and Seabold said
the rents should be comparable so they will have options.
Dyer also noted that there would not be a sidewalk that would take pedestrians to the
proposed tunnel, for those walking to UIHC or the law school, one would have to walk all the
way around. Seabold noted that the railroad tracks on the north side of this property is very
steep and not conducive to a sidewalk.
Howard clarified with regards to the affordability issue and student housing, she noted that
when there are larger units, students can typically outbid a family or a single person. So,
even many of the older, lower quality large units around campus are renting for $1500-
$2500 per month, which prices out singles or families, whereas students can live together
and pool their funds to afford the higher rents for the larger units. In recent years the City
has been encouraging development of smaller, more affordable units to create an
opportunity for more permanent residents to afford to live in areas near downtown and
campus.
Paula Swyaard (426 Douglass Street) commented that once they put the tunnel in under the
railroad the sidewalk there will end at Myrtle Street because across from there is University
property. One can go up Myrtle Street and access UIHC that way.
Howard noted at the same time they are doing the tunnel they will be installing a signalized
crossing at Myrtle Street and Riverside Drive. So pedestrians will be able to cross there and
travel along the trail on the east side toward downtown.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 10 of 17
Swygard noted that currently one could cross at Benton Street and Riverside Drive and take
the bike/walking path to downtown. However she would not recommend riding a bicycle on
Benton Street. She noted there is also a well-known path to UIHC that is a loosely kept
secret in the neighborhood. Swygard stated she would prefer a development that looked
more residential but understands the look of Riverfront Crossings is more an urban look.
Where this particular development will be built it won't matter as much, but as development
happens closer to the residential area she hopes developers and City Staff will keep that in
mind. Swygard added that the ravine area is a mess and hopefully it will get cleaned up.
With regards to the concept of people wanting to live close to downtown and this will be
workers at the University, she has her doubts. The pedestrians in the area now are
students.
Hensch closed the public hearing
Parsons moved to approve REZ17-00003 a proposal to rezone approximately 0.705
acres of property at 619 and 627 Orchard Court from Planned Development Overlay -
Low Density Single Family (OPD -5) Zone to Riverfront Crossings -Orchard (RFC -O)
Zone, subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring dedication of land along
the Orchard Court frontage to widen the pedestrian area within the public right-of-way
to a minimum of 15 feet measured between the street curb and the new front property
line.
Martin seconded the motion.
Signs commented that students do have an amazing ability to find the shortest path
between any two points. Based on everything else that's been done in this area, he
believes this is a natural addition that seems to make sense. He has seen the similar
structure built over by the Dental School and likes it, so based on the visuals the
Commission has seen for this development he likes what he is seeing and hopes it is
developed that way. Signs believes there is a market for smaller units, and yes there will
likely be students in some of them, but there is a market for young professionals and
graduate students that want to live in a building like this.
Martin agreed and is very excited to see some development in this area, it is a good
revitalization. She praised City Staff on working so close with the developers, architects,
designers to put together a nice development for this area.
Theobald stated she likes the proposed development a lot and has been in one of the units
that this development will replace and it will be a good thing to have that unit gone. She
added she hopes the green roof concept works, it would be wonderful to have that.
Parsons agreed that it is nice to see this area take shape and this development will be a
nice addition.
Hensch stated this is a good opportunity to show how to do this right and hopes it moves
forward with the concepts of a more cool environment with a green roof and promotion of
pedestrian and bicycle traffic rather than cars. He empathized with the concerns of students
moving into the units and hopes that will not be the case, there needs to be a place for
young professionals that work at UIHC. It would help individuals to be able to live in Iowa
City and not have to commute in from other areas of Johnson County.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Freerks absent).
7�
Prepared by: Marti Wolf, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5941 (REZ17-00003)
ORDINANCE NO. ? v
AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATLEY .705 Aa-6 PRDPERTY
LOCATED AT 619 AND 627 ORCHARD COURT FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMOV LAMOW
DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (OPD-5) ZONE TO RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS - ORIC714RD RFC-QONE
(REZ17-00003)
WHEREAS, the applicant, M & W Properties, has requested a rezoning of property locally Rnown as 619
and 627 Orchard Court from Planned Development Overlay Low ensity Single Family (OPD-5) zone to
Riverfront Crossings — Orchard (RFC-O) zone; and
WHEREAS, the subject properties are located in the Orchard Sub istrict of Riverfront Crossings; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, an integral part of the Comprehensive
Plan, indicates that theOr hard Subdistrict should create a transitio from the larger scale mixed use and
commercial buildings along Riverside Drive to the lower scale singl family neighborhood to the west and
encourage redevelopment th t will create a better pedestrian envir nment along streets, and improve the
quality of housing in the area to erve the needs of the community; a d
WHEREAS, the form-bas zoning standards that apply n the Orchard Subdistrict encourage
development that is of a scale d design to provide the desir d transition described in the Riverfront
Crossings Master Plan and will imp ve the quality of the neighb rhood by reserving frontage areas along
streets for pedestrians and restricting rking and vehicular acces to areas behind buildings; and
WHEREAS, the existing Orchard urt has a substandar right-of-way width that does not provide
adequate space for a sidewalk and park buffer with street ees to meet requirements in the Riverfront
Crossings form-based zoning code; and
WHEREAS, the requested rezoning will re ult in a signific nt increase in the residential population in the
area, which will increase the pedestrian and bI cle traffic ong Orchard Court and, therefore, additional
public right-of-way to widen pedestrian areas alon rchard ourt and the provision of affordable housing will
be needed; and
WHEREAS, Iowa City Code 14-2G-8 requires t t, pon rezoning to RFC-O, the owner must enter
into an agreement with the City establishing how th wner will provide affordable housing when the
property is redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commis n s the reviewed the proposed rezoning and
determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Ian pr ided that it meets conditions addressing the
need for the dedication of land along the Orchard Co rt frontage widen the pedestrian area within the right-
of-way to a minimum of 15 feet in width; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2017) provas that the Cit of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing egulations, in order to satisfy public
needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the owner and applicant ha v agreed that the property hall be developed in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the Conditi nal Zoning Agreement attach d hereto to ensure appropriate
development in this area of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORrED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached'hereto and incorporated
herein, property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of Planned
Development Overlay -Low Density Single Family (OPD -5) zone to Riverfront Crossings -Orchard (RFC -O)
zone:
LOTS 1, 2, AND 3 IN ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION, IOWA CITY, IOWA ACCORDING TO THE
PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 16, PAGE 29. PLAT RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY,
IOWA, ACCORDING TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
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, following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
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 ordinancein conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are herebv repealed.
SECTION VI. SEVERABIL TY. If any section, provision or part of a Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such djudication shall not affect the valid' of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof n t adjudged invalid or unconstitutio al.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of \ /2017
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
ro
+o
o
)>
A.i
_+
n -C
�
N
�I n
CJ
Prepared by: Karen Howard, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5251 (REZ16-00002)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City"), and M&W Properties, L.L.C., (referred to hereinafter as "Owners").
WHEREAS, Owners are the collective legal title holders of approximately 0.705 acres of
property locally known as 619 and 627 Orchard Court in Iowa City; and
WHEREAS, the Owners have requested the rezoning of the subject properties from
Planned Development — Low Density Single Family (OPD -5) to Riverfront Crossings — Orchard
(RFC -0); and
WHEREAS, wa Code §414.5 (2017) provides that the City of to a City may impose
reasonable conditions n granting an applicant's rezoning request, over Ind above existing
regulations, in order to s isfy public needs caused by the requested chang ;and
WHEREAS, the inc ased density of residential living allowed with a RFC -O zoning will
result in the need for an imp ved "public realm," including improved stre s with safer and more
attractive areas for people to w k and bike; and
WHEREAS, the requeste
population in the area, which will i
and, therefore, additional public rig
be needed; and
WHEREAS, certain cond
development of the property is cor
a safe, attractive, and comfortable
rezoning will result in a significant ' crease in the residential
rease the pedestrian and bicycl raffic along Orchard Court
h f -way to widen pedestrian a0as along Orchard Court will
and restrictions ar reasonable to ensure the
Ith the Comprehe sive Plan, including the need for
i ent for residen 'al living and improved streets that
will encourage walking and biking; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning C
conditions to ensure improved pedestrian anc
safe traffic circulation upon redevelopment,
Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the high percentage of hi
common housing problem within the City of Iowa
face housing affordability challenges is near the
/has determined that, with appropriate
safety and comfort and to provide for
ested zoning is consistent with the
cost -burdened households is the most
d one of the primary areas where people
t campus and the City's urban core; and,
WHEREAS, the Riverfront Crossings (strict is we -situated to support a mix of housing
due to its close proximity to/ena
wn Iowa ity and the U 'versity of Iowa campus, its existing
and planned mix of uses, cot acces to public transit a municipal parking facilities; and
WHEREAS, the RiCros gs Form Based C de is intended to encourage a
walkable, pedestrian-friendlher residents can work, liv and play, and will increase the
need for housing that is affoot workforce; andWHEREAS, the rezo FC -O will allow residential velopment at a density not
previously permitted; and,WHEREAS, the Rivrossings Form Based Code requir that upon a rezoning to
a riverfront crossings zoninnation, the property owner must ente into an agreement with
the city to establish which or methods the Developer will use t rovide the required
affordable housing.
0
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained �e n, the parties
agree as follows:
1. Owners are the collective the legal title holders of the property le8y dscrias
follows:
Q
1 of 4 �'
LOTS 1, 2, AND 3 IN ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION, IOWA CITY, IOWA
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 16, PAGE 29.
PLAT RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, ACCORDING TO EASEMENTS
AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
2. The Owners acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles
of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Orchard Subdistrict of the Downtown and
Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, and the Owners intend to comply therewith. Further,
the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2017) provides that the City of Iowa
City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above
the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested
change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners agree that
development of the subject property will conform to al ( requirements of the zoning
chapter, as well as the following conditions: l
a. Prior to issuance f any building permit, land shall a dedicated to the City along
Orchard Court to i rove conditions along the st eet necessary for the increase
in pedestrians and b yclists anticipated with the rezoning according to the goals
and objectives of the iverfront Crossings M ter Plan. The ROW dedication
shall result in a minim 15 foot wide pede rian area The
the new front
property line and the s eet curb alo/he
Orchard Court frontage. Upon
redevelopment, Owners s II improve sdestrian area with a minimum 5
foot wide sidewalk located g %erally alonfront property line and a minimum
10 foot landscaped parkwanted treet trees located between the
sidewalk and the street curb ading torm-based zoning standards;
b. Owner shall satisfy the affordable h ing obligations imposed pursuant to Iowa
City Code of Ordinances 14-2G-8 rough the provision of on-site owner -
occupied dwelling units, on-site rent d elling units, and/or the payment of a fee
in lieu of the remaining dwelling un' s not ng
on-site or as otherwise agreed
to between Owner and the Cityi an affor ble housing agreement entered into
prior to issuance of a building pe it for devepment of any portion of the above-
described property.
4. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditio to impose on the land under
Iowa Code §414.5 (2017Vand,and
said conditions satisfy ublic needs that are caused
by the requested zoning
5. In the event the subjecs transferred, sold, redeve ped, or subdivided, all
development will conformrms of this Conditional Zoni Agreement.
ti
6. This Conditional Zoning shall be deemed to be a covenartCrunni® with the
land and with title to the hall remain in full force and effect co�gnan vith
title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa 6rJte'' b a 1
7. This agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, f-,69psenntatives, and
assigns of the parties. rs
8. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve.lhe Owner or
2 of 4
Applicant from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
9. 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 Owners' expense.
Dated this day of
CITY OF IOWA CITY
James Throgmorton, Mayor
Attest:
Julie Voparil, Deputy City Clerk
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before
Throgmorton and Julie Voparil as Mayor and
City.
2017.
OWNERS
By: M&W Properties,
1.711
City Clerk,
2017 by James
, of the City of Iowa
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission expires:
3 of 4
N
O
C
U
�.a
2017 by James
, of the City of Iowa
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission expires:
3 of 4
M&W PROPERTIES, LLC ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was
(type of authority, such as officer or
4of4
N
O
_
�!
w
N
O (\vVn1
J
0� b�Mn
it
Prepared by: Marti Wolf, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240,--9R56,Y40 (IM7-00003)'
ORDINANCE NO.�
AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATLEY .705 ACRE§1OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 619 AND 627 ORCHARD COURT FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY — LOW
DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (OPD -5) ZONE TO RNERFRONT CROSSINGS - ORCHARD (RFC -O) ZONE
(REZ17-00003)
WHEREAS, the applicant, M & W Properties, has requested a rezoning f property located at 619 and
627 Orchard Court from Planned Development Overlay Low Density S gle Family (OPD -5) zone to
Riverfront Crossings — Orchard ( FC -O) zone; and
WHEREAS, the subject grope ies are located in the Orchard Subdistri t of Riverfront Crossings; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown an Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, a ntegral part of the Comprehensive
Plan, indicates that the Orchard Su district should create a transition om the larger scale mixed use and
commercial buildings along Riversid Drive to the lower scale singl family neighborhood to the west and
encourage redevelopment that will cr to a better pedestrian envir nment along streets, and improve the
quality of housing in the area to serve th needs of the communitv: nd
WHEREAS, the form -based zonInjX standards that
development that is of a scale and desi§q to provide the
Crossings Master Plan and will improve theuality of the n
streets for pedestrians and restricting parking d vehicular a
WHEREAS, Orchard Court has a substan rd rigl
for a sidewalk and parkway buffer with street tr s to
based zoning code; and
WHEREAS, the requested rezoning will result in
area, which will increase the pedestrian and bicycle
public right-of-way to widen pedestrian areas along Or
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Com
determined that it complies with the Comprehensi e I
need for the dedication of land along the Orchard cur
of -way to a minimum of 15 feet in width; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2015) pr vides
conditions on granting a rezoning request, o War and
needs caused by the requested change; and
appV in the Orchard Subdistrict encourage
d fired transition described in the Riverfront
ei6hborhood by reserving frontage areas along
Wass to areas behind buildings; and
,ay width that does not provide adequate space
requirements in the Riverfront Crossings form-
ficant increase in the residential population in the
along Orchard Court and, therefore, additional
Court will be needed; and
has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and
t�rovided that it meets conditions addressing the
qe to widen the pedestrian area within the right -
that tl
above
WHEREAS, the owner and applicant h ve agreed that the
with the terms and conditions of the Con ional Zoning Agreei
development in this area of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY
of Iowa City may impose reasonable
I regulations, in order to satisfy public
shall be developed in accordance
;had hereto to ensure appropriate
THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Subject o the Conditional Zoning Agreement a ched hereto and incorporated
herein, property described below i hereby reclassified from its current z Ing designation of Planned
Development Overlay -Low Density Single Family (OPD -5) zone to Riverfront rossings-Orchard (RFC -O)
zone:
LOTS 1, 2, AND 3 IN O HARD COURT SUBDIVISION, IOWA CITY, IOW ACCORDING TO THE
PLAT THEREOF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 16, PAGE 29. PLAT RECORDS O JOHNSON COUNTY,
IOWA, ACCORDING TO SEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
SECTION IL 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, following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
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.
SECTION Vt. 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
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorneys Office
G
,.e
aU
cn
rn
Prepared by: Karen Howard, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5251 (REZ16-00002)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City"), and M&W Properties LLC, (referred to hereinafter as "Owners").
WHEREAS, Owners are the collective legal title holders of approximately 0.705 acres
acres of property located at 619 and 627 Orchard Court in Iowa City; and
WHEREAS, the Owners have requested the rezonhq of the subject properties from
Planned Development — Low Density Single Family (OPD -5) tt5l Riverfront Crossings — Orchard
(RFC -0); and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2015) provides that
reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the req
WHEREAS, theincre ed density of residential living
result in the need for an impro d "public realm," including i
attractive areas for people to wal and bike; and
WHEREAS, the requeste rezoning will result in a i
population in the area, which will in rease the pedestrian a d
and, therefore, additional public righ of -way to widen ped tr
be needed; and
WHEREAS, certain condition and
development of the property is consiste with
a safe, attractive, and comfortable enviro e
will encourage walking and biking; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning
conditions to ensure improved pedestrian an(
safe traffic circulation upon redevelopment,
Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the high percentage of h
common housing problem within the City of Iowa
face housing affordability challenges is near the I
WHEREAS, The Riverfront Crossings Di
due to its close proximity to downtown Iowa Cil
and planned mix of uses, convenient access
WHEREAS, the Riverfront Crossim.
walkable, pedestrian -friendly area where re
need for housing that is affordable to the w r
WHEREAS, the rezoning to RF C
previously permitted; and,
WHEREAS, the Riverfront Cros ing:
the Com
en
for resj
City of Iowa City may impose
test, over and above existing
ed change; and
ied with the RFC -0 zoning will
ed streets with safer and more
3nificant increase in the residential
bicycle traffic along Orchard Court
ian areas along Orchard Court will
are reasonable to ensure the
msive Plan, including the need for
al living and improved streets that
has determined that, with appropriate
safety and comfort and to provide for
zoning is consistent with the
a n cost -burdened households is the most
b a done of the primary areas where people
ersit
ivcampus and the City's urban core; and,
Act is w -situated to support a mix of housing
and the U 'versity of Iowa campus, its existing
public transit a municipal parking facilities; and,
Form Based C e is intended to encourage a
dents can work, live nd play, and will increase the
force; and
will allow residential d elopment at a density not
Form Based Code
a riverfront crossings zoning designat' n, the property owner must ente
the city to establish which method r methods the Developer will use
affordable housing.
that upon a rezoning to
to an agreement with
to rovide the required
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained Ivrei
agree as follows: 1_2
1. Owners are the collective the legal title holders of the property le(r)-w;
ll�r
follows: C rn
c�
i
1 of 4
N
r,=khe parties
=o �
describQas
'U
LOTS 1, 2, AND 3 IN ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION, IOWA CITY, IOWA
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 16, PAGE 29.
PLAT RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, ACCORDING TO EASEMENTS
AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
2. The Owners acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles
of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Orchard Subdistrict of the Downtown and
Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, and the Owners intend to comply therewith. Further,
the parties acknoledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2015) provi es that the City of Iowa
City may impose r asonable conditions on granting a rezonin request, over and above
the existing regula 'ons, in order to satisfy public needs aused by the requested
change.
3. In consideration of t City's rezoning the subject roperty, Owners agree that
development of the su 'ect property will conform to II requirements of the zoning
chapter, as well as the foil wing conditions:
a. Prior to issuance of &
Court to improve coi
pedestrians and bicyc
and objectives of the
building permit, Ian shall be dedicated along Orchard
ions along the str et necessary for the increase in
s anticipated with he rezoning according to the goals
rfront Crossin Master Plan. The ROW dedication
5 foot wide edestrian area between the new front
e curb al g the Orchard Court frontage. Upon
ria area all be improved to Riverfront Crossings
5 fo wid sidewalk located along the front property
t land a ed parkway planted with street trees loated
the str t curb according to the form -based zoning
shall result in a minimum
property line and the str
redevelopment said pedes
standards with a minimum
line with a minimum 10 foo
between the sidewalk and
standards;
b. Owner shall satisfy the affo
City Code of Ordinances
occupied dwelling units, on -
in lieu of the remaining dwe
to between Owner and the
prior to issuance of a buildir
described property. i
4. The conditions contained he
Iowa Code §414.5 (2015), a
by the requested zoning cha
5. In the event the subject
development will conform
abl hou ing obligations imposed pursuant to Iowa
4- -8 th ugh the provision of on-site owner-
)
ental dw ling units, and/or the payment of a fee
I units not pr vided on-site or as otherwise agreed
I
n an afforda le housing agreement entered into
permit for develolkment of any portion of the above-
irl/are reasonable conditions o impose on the land under
Khat said conditions satisfy p lic needs that are caused
e.
erty is transferred, sold, redevelo ed, or subdivided, all
the terms of this Conditional Zoning greement.
6. This Conditional Zonin Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenInt running with the
land and with title to to land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with
title to the land, unle s or until released of record by the City of Iowa City.
J
7. This agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, repfesentatives-prd
73
assigns of the parties. =� .s
c�-t —
8. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to reti0e tie' Owiaer or
2 of 4
rn
Applicant from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations
9. 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 Owners' expense.
Dated this day of 2017.
CITY OF IOWA CITY OWNERS
James Throgmorton,
Attest:
Julie Voparil, Deputy City Clerk
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLE
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
By: M&W
This instrument was acknowledged t bfore me on
Throgmorton and Julie Voparil as Mayor and Deputy City
City.
LLC
2017 by James
respectively, of the City of Iowa
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission expi
3of4
N
d
J
�rn
r
rn
cJ1
rn
2017 by James
respectively, of the City of Iowa
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission expi
3of4
M&W PROPERTIES, LLC ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me
(Name(s) of individual(s) as
(type of authority, such as officdt or trustee) of M&W Properties
Notary Public
(Stamp or
Title (and
4of4
2017 by
for the State of Iowa
expires:
N
Q
Q
J
qp .
• 1
G
t�.■+,�
U7
rn
Prepared by: Karen Howard, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5251 (REZ16-00002)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City"), and M&W Properties LLC, (referred to hereinafter as "Owners").
WHEREAS, Owners are the collective legal title holders of approximately 0.705 acres
acres of property located at 619 and 627 Orchard Court in to a City; and
WHEREAS, the Owners have requested the rezoni g of the subject properties from
Planned Development — Low Density Single Family (OPD -5) to Riverfront Crossings — Orchard
(RFC -0); and
WHEREAS, Iowa ode §414.5 (2017) provides th the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on ranting an applicant's rezoni request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisf public needs caused by the equested change; and
WHEREAS, the increa ed density of residential li Ing allowed with the RFC -O zoning will
result in the need for an improv d "public realm," includi g improved streets with safer and more
attractive areas for people to wal nd bike; and
WHEREAS, the requested ezoninq will result in a significant increase in the residential
population in the area, which will in ease the I
and, therefore, additional public right f -way to
be needed; and
WHEREAS, certain condition and
development of the property is cwnsisten with
a safe, attractive, and comfortable enviro el
will encourage walking and biking; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning
conditions to ensure improved pedestrian r
safe traffic circulation upon redevelopme t,
Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the high percentage of I
an and bicycle traffic along Orchard Court
pedestrian areas along Orchard Court will
trictions are reasonable to ensure the
Comprehensive Plan, including the need for
residential living and improved streets that
mission has determined that, with appropriate
bicycle safety and comfort and to provide for
1e requested zoning is consistent with the
cost -burdened households is the most
common housing problem within the City Iowa City, and one of the primary areas where people
face housing affordability challenges is n ar the Univer 'ty campus and the City's urban core; and,
WHEREAS, The Riverfront Cro Ings District is ell -situated to support a mix of housing
due to its close proximity to downtown Iowa City and th\Codere
sity of Iowa campus, its existing
and planned mix of uses, convenient cess to public traunicipal parking facilities; and,
WHEREAS, the Riverfront rossings Form Bae is intended to encourage a
walkable, pedestrian -friendly area ere residents can and play, and will increase the
need for housing that is affordable o the workforce; and
WHEREAS, the rezonin to RFC -O will allow rI development at a density not
previously permitted; and,
WHEREAS, the Riverfr nt Crossings Form Basee uires that upon a rezoning to
a riverfront crossings zoning esignation, the property ost ter into an agreement with
the city to establish which ethod or methods the Deill u e to provide the required
affordable housing.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. Owners are the collective the legal title holders of the property legally described as
follows:
1 of 4
LOTS 1, 2, AND 3 IN ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION, IOWA CITY, IOWA
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 16, PAGE 29.
PLAT RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, ACCORDING TO EASEMENTS
AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
2. The Owners acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles
of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Orchard Subdistrict of the Downtown and
Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, and the Owners intend to comply therewith. Further,
the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2017) provides that the City of Iowa
City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above
the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested
change.
3. In consideration of e City's rezoning the subject roperly, Owners agree that
development of the s ject property will conform to II requirements of the zoning
chapter, as well as the fo owing conditions:
a. Prior to issuance o r
Court to improve co
pedestrians and bicyc
and objectives of the
shall result in a minim
property line and the
redevelopment said pe
minimum 5 foot wide
building permit, land Ahall be dedicated along Orchard
ions along the stre t necessary for the increase in
s anticipated with t e rezoning according to the goals
verfront Crossings 7Master Plan. The ROW dedication
15 foot wide
het curb alc
trian area sl
minimum 10 foot landscaped p rkway
the sidewalk and the street curb ccor i
b. Owner shall satisfy the affordable sl
City Code of Ordinances 14-2G- tt
occupied dwelling units, on-site re to d
in lieu of the remaining dwelling its
to between Owner and the City' an ai
prior to issuance of a building p rmit for
described property.
)estrian area between the new front
91 the Orchard Court frontage. Upon
II be improved by the Owners with a
along the front property line and a
anted with street trees located between
a to the form -based zoning standards;
g obligations imposed pursuant to Iowa
)ugh the provision of on-site owner -
ailing units, and/or the payment of a fee
provided on-site or as otherwise agreed
rrdable housing agreement entered into
kvelopment of any portion of the above -
4. The conditions contained herein aro reasonable con tions to impose on the land under
Iowa Code §414.5 (2017), and th said conditions sa ' fy public needs that are caused
by the requested zoning change.
5. In the event the subject propgfty is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all
development will conform with)he terms of this Conditional 4ning Agreement.
6. This Conditional Zoning Agr ement shall be deemed to be a venant running with the
land and with title to the Ian , and shall remain in full force and ect as a covenant with
title to the land, unlessor til released of record by the City of to a City.
7. This agreement shall in a to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and
assigns of the parties.
8. 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.
2of4
9. 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 Owners' expense.
Dated this day of
CITY OF IOWA CITY
James Throgmorton, Mayor
Attest:
Julie Voparil, Deputy City Clerk
App oved by: \
City Attorney's Office 2a/ �7
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
2017.
OWNERS
0
This instrument was acknowledged before/me on
Throgmorton and Julie Voparil as Mayor arfd Deputy
City.
2017 by James
Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa
Notary Public in
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission
3of4
for the State of Iowa
M&W PROPERTIES, LLC ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2017 by
(Name(s) of individual(s)) as
(type of authority, such as officer o
4of4
Rezoning Item
REZ17-00003
Discussion of an application submitted by M & W
Properties for a rezoning from Planned Development
Overlay — Low Density Single Family (OPD -5) zone to
Riverfront Crossings — Orchard (RFC -O) zone for
approximately .705 acres of property located at 619 and
627 Orchard Court.
R
- �tti
L lii'r— �tP.:A ll—l.
thw e
f•e
A
An application submitted by M & L"✓ Properties 1
for a rezoning of .705 acres from OPD -RS -5 to 1
Riverfront Crossings Orchard Court (RFC -O) atsT
619 and 627 Orchard Court i
Rvt
'R
cy�i i y ,rIKM
MVt l:Yh'.
�\H
S
cn
— I
.fl
Itw
P58 I I I I RSB
1
i�
RW
_
C RS8 L
O - I R58 I RSB I RSB I R�
�
1 .•"
1
I r14 I p
A
RFC -WR
I
1�'
Fr,
Rcx
I I �
I I I F
Rsti I i
pp
O
RVf
An application submitted by M & W Properties
for from OPD to-
a rezoning of .705 acres -RS -5
_ W
Riverfront Crossings Orchard Court (RFC -0) at
W RENTON sr
619 and 627 Orchard Court.I)%
ft
ax
v u...
NY1
y f
B�tl RAY t ■ _ MCL2
Proposed Redevelopment Concept
3 -story multi -dwelling building with upper floor stepbacks
Approximately 45 efficiency units
Main portico entrance aligned along east -west portion of Orchard Court
facing south
Parking enclosed within and behind active residential uses
Liner units facing cul-de-sac bulb with individual terrace frontages
Upper floor shared open space facing south
Considering green roof system on top of liner units facing west
Resolution of support from the City Council for workforce housing tax
credits
Traffic &Pedestrian Circulation
10' of additional ROW needed
along Orchard Court (excluding
the cul-de-sac bulb)
Applicant has agreed to
dedicate additional ROW
(approx. 5') along the north
edge of Orchard Court to create
room for an improved sidewalk
and street trees
Subdivision will be necessary
for additional development to
occur in the Orchard District
Create pedestrian street
Create east -west street
Re -align cul-de-sac
614
622 6191
C][76�27r
630
ORCHARD CT
650 652 1
330 22 6 22d
n
u 725
727
741
n nnnnnnnfi = 743
�, y a�
302 224 220 218 206 204
1µ
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of REZ17-00003, a proposal to
rezone approximately 0.705 acres of property at 619 and 627
Orchard Court from Planned Development Overlay - Low
Density Single Family (OPD -5) Zone to Riverfront Crossings -
Orchard (RFC -O) Zone, subject to a conditional zoning
agreement requiring dedication of land along the Orchard
Court frontage to widen the pedestrian area within the public
right-of-way to a minimum of 15 feet measured between the
street curb and the new front property line.
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ17-00004
202 N. Linn Street
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: April 6, 2016
Ross Nusser
1519 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-331-5206
rossnusser@urbanacres.com
Owner: Central State Bank
2530 Corridor Way
Coralville, IA 52241
319-625-2050
Abbe.stensland@centralstate. bank
Requested Action
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
Rezone from Central Business Service Zone (CB -2)
Zone to Central Business Support Zone (CB -5)
To allow redevelopment for mixed use based on
lower parking requirements in the CB -5 zone.
202 N. Linn Street
4,550 square feet
Commercial bank; CB -2
North: Commercial (CB -2)
South: Commercial (CB -5)
East: Commercial (CB -2)
West: Commercial (CB -5)
February 23, 2017
April 11, 2017
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Ross Nusser, is seeking a rezoning from CB -2, Central Business Service Zone, to
CB -5, Central Business Support Zone for a 4,520 square foot property located at the northeast
corner of the Market Street/ Linn Street intersection.
The property includes a one-story commercial building that was the former site of Pearson's
pharmacy and more recently has served as home to the Corridor State Bank. The lot includes a
non -conforming surface parking area with 5 parking spaces located between the building and the
Market Street right-of-way.
The applicant proposes to redevelop the property for a mixed use building with commercial uses
on the ground floor and residential units above.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan: The Central District Plan contains a discussion of the Northside
Marketplace, which includes this property (see Central District Plan pages 55-59). The plan
notes a desire to preserve the "distinct identity and scale" of the commercial district as different
from the Downtown:
"Locally owned businesses that have become institutions in the community, such as John's
Grocery, Pagliai's Pizza, and the Hamburg Inn, serve as commercial anchors for the neighborhood,
which is defined by an eclectic mix of small-scale, locally owned specialty shops and restaurants.
Many participants describe the area as 'Old Iowa City'—an urban commercial district that is not
dominated by the undergraduate student market."
The Central District plan identifies the historic character of the Northside Marketplace as one of
its greatest assets. While redevelopment of vacant and non -historic property is considered
appropriate, the Central District Plan notes a concern that too much redevelopment or
development at too large a scale or density may diminish the traditional mainstreet character of
the neighborhood. Development that is sensitive to the neighborhood's history and architectural
elements is encouraged. The subject property is not considered a historically significant
structure and does not currently contribute to other goals of the Northside Marketplace.
The following goals of the Northside Marketplace include encourage development that is
consistent with the mainstreet character of the area with parking located behind or underneath
the building.
Northside Marketplace Goals and Objectives:
Goal 1: Preserve and promote the unique aspects of the Northside Marketplace
a. Establish policies and regulations that will preserve the existing scale and mainstreet commercial
character of the Northside Marketplace
c. Adopt zoning rules that ensure that redevelopment occurs in a manner that promotes pedestrian -
oriented street frontages
e. Explore and implement initiatives to clean up, maintain and improve service alleys
Goal 4: Encourage development and redevelopment that will maintain the character and economic vitality of
the Northside Marketplace:
a. Adopt zoning regulations to ensure that new development is consistent with the existing mainstreet
character of the area and compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods, i.e. encourage
2.3- story building located close to the street, storefront windows, accessible and attractive building
entrances and parking located behind or beneath buildings.
b. Establish policies and regulations that encourage mixed-use buildings with 1- to 3- bedroom
apartments above commercial storefronts in order to provide opportunities for a variety of tenants.
Goal 7: Improve public safety
b. Study pedestrian activity at the intersection of Linn and Market Streets and implement changes that
will improve safety for all pedestrians
This stated desire to maintain a small scale commercial character in the Northside Marketplace
has influenced zoning and development decisions for other properties in the business district:
The 2012, a rezoning of the corner property at 221-225 North Linn Street from a RNS-12 to CB -
2 included requirements for design review approval, a maximum number of dwelling units, and a
limit on the height of the building to 3 stories with a step -back at the third story. In addition the
developer was required to make improvements to the streetscape and alleyway. This property
is adjacent to and across the street from residential properties.
In 2013, the Board of Adjustment granted a variance from the parking requirements to allow
redevelopment of property at 211 North Linn Street within the CB -2 zone. (The property had no
alley access and was too narrow to provide vehicle access from the street.)The new building
was required to secure design review approval and was limited to 3 stories with a step back at
the third story. This property is at a mid -block location.
In 2014 the City approved the rezoning of 203 North Linn Street (the former Northside and
Haunted Bookshop), a 4,000 sq. foot property directly to the west of the subject property, from
CB -2 to CB -5 with a historic landmark designation. The rezoning was requested by the owner
specifically to alleviate the commercial parking requirements (similar to this application), which
greatly limited the kinds of uses permitted in the rather large ground -floor space. Based on
concerns regarding future redevelopment of the property if the historic building were ever
destroyed, the City Council approved a CZA requirement that "any redevelopment of the
property shall comply with the CB -2 building standards".
Other corner properties at the intersection, which are all zoned (CB -5), include the 2'/z -story,
historic Brewery Square building on the southwest corner of Market and Linn Streets and the
recently developed Writers Block, a 4 -story building on the southeast corner. Properties located
along Jefferson Street, west of Linn Street, are zoned CB -5. East of Linn Street, properties that
front onto Jefferson are zoned Mixed Use (MU) zone.
Differences between the CB -2 and CB -5 zone:
There are a number of ways that rezoning the property would better enable redevelopment of
the property.
1. The CB -5 allows a greater residential density than is permitted in the CB -2 zone:
2. The CB -5 zone also allows a taller building than would be permitted in the CB -2 zone:
The maximum building height in the CB -2 zone is 45 feet with a maximum floor area ratio
(FAR) of 2.0. This means that the building can have a maximum of 2 square of floor area for
each one square foot of lot area. Through bonus provisions, the FAR of building may be
increased to 3.
The maximum building height in the CB -5 zone is 75 feet with a FAR of 3.0. Similar to the
CB -2 zone, bonus provisions may allow an increase the FAR up to 5.0.
The applicable bonus provisions in the CB zones include the following:
Masonry finish or architectural metal; not including metal siding, on all non -fenestrated
areas of walls. +0.75 floor area ratio.
13
• Provision of a theater. 5 square feet of floor area for every 1 square foot of theater area.
• Provision of pedestrian activity areas, such as sidewalk cafes, adjacent to but not within
the public right-of-way, provided such areas do not exceed a depth of 12 feet from the
front lot line. +3 square feet of floor area for every 1 square foot of pedestrian
activity area.
• Usable open space for passive recreational use of the residents (i.e. balconies, terraces,
and rooftop gardens designed and improved for outdoor activities. Balconies serving
individual dwelling units and required setback areas are not eligible. +2 square feet of
floor area for every 1 square foot of usable open space.
An additional FAR bonus provision may be granted for the provision of funds for all street
furniture, lighting and landscaping improvements along the adjacent street right-of-way in
accordance with any adopted streetscape plan approved by the City, however an approved
streetscape plan has already been installed for this area and so this provision would not
apply.
3. As with the dimensional standards above, the parking requirements in the CB -5 zones
better enable redevelopment. That is to say, there is a reduction in the minimum
parking requirement for both commercial and residential uses in the CB -5.
In both the CB -5 and CB -2 zone, parking requirements for residential uses are lower than in
most other zones due to the location of these zones in the near Downtown and campus area.
The CB -2 zone requires a minimum of 0.75 parking spaces for one bedroom and efficiency
apartments and 1.5 spaces for two-bedroom units. The CB -5 zone is slightly lower with 0.5
spaces for one -bedroom units and 1 space for two-bedroom units. Both zones require 2.5
parking spaces for 3 -bedroom units. In the CB -5 zone, elder apartments require 1 space for
every 2 dwelling units.
Residential parking requirements
1 bedroom or
Parking efficiency 1 0.75 1 0.5
Requirement peri 2 bedroom unit 1 1.5
The parking requirement for elder housing (a permanent designation) is 1 space for every two units. A parking benefit is only
realized with 2- or 3- bedroom elder units, since the 0.5 parking space per unit for 1 bedrooms is equivalent to 1 space per two
units of elder housing.
The most significant difference in terms of parking is for commercial uses. The CB -2 zone
requires parking for all commercial uses permitted in the zone, while the CB -5 zone has no
minimum parking requirement for commercial uses. Changing the zoning of this property to
CB -5 would therefore eliminate the commercial parking requirement. On a small lot such as
this one, on which there is very limited parking potential, the reduction in parking of the CB -5
significantly increases the development potential. By alleviating the parking requirement for
commercial uses a greater variety of commercial uses is possible, and a pedestrian -oriented
building is much more feasible.
Commercial parking
requirements
Sales oriented retail
1 per 300 sq It NO MINIMUM
Minimum
Parking
1 per 300 sq It parking
Personal Seriwe
Requirement
1 per 300 sq ft requirement for
General office
Medical office
1.5 spaces per commercial
office or exam uses
room
1 per 150 sq It
Eating & Drinking
or 1/3 of the
occupantload
Business owners cite the availability of on -street and surface parking, in addition to affordable
rents and pedestrian traffic, as reasons for locating in the area. However finding and maintaining
the right balance of parking is critical as much of the surface parking in the area is privately
owned and could be developed. There is also a City public parking lot on the north side of
Market St, east of the subject property.
A small, publicly owned service alley that runs between the subject property and the CB -2
property to the east (George's Buffet) allows for the opportunity to provide access to parking at or
below grade. The applicant will propose that the City re -open this 10 -foot wide lane as right -of
way. This would contribute to a 22 -foot wide alley providing access to any parking required for the
residential uses, with the additional 12 feet coming from the subject private property. (The zoning
code recommends that garage entrances and exits should be provided along a building wall that
does not face a public street and is accessed from a rear lane or alley.) This proposal and the
design of the access drive would be reviewed as part of eventual design plans for the property.
Structured parking may not be provided within the ground floor level of the building for the first 30
feet of lot depth. Because the subject property is fairly small, just 65 x 70 feet, there is somewhat
limited space to meet the parking requirements for the residential uses at grade—there is room for
3-4 cars to park off an alley at the ground level, which would allow 6-8 one -bedroom apartments.
The applicant has indicated that he is able provide 7 spaces underground, which would allow up
to 14 one -bedroom or efficiency units. The residential parking requirements address parking
demand but also influence the development potential and the scale of the building that can be
built.
While the supply of on -street parking and parking in surface lots (public and private) is currently
fixed in the Northside Marketplace, alleviating the commercial parking requirement will allow for a
more pedestrian -oriented building which is consistent with the goals of the Central District Plan.
There is a public parking garage, the Clock Tower Place facility located on Iowa Avenue, two
blocks to the south, which also has capacity for short-term parking needs.
Summary: The lower parking standards required for the CB -5 zone along with the additional
density and FAR would greatly enhance the development potential of this somewhat small corner
lot. The Floor -to -Area ratio requirement of 3.0 built -into the CB -5 zone (with design -related
incentives the FAR may be increased to up to 5.0), combined with the limited ability to provide
parking on-site, will help keep redevelopment to an appropriate scale. The redevelopment of the
property with a pedestrian -oriented building, designed to complement the main street character
and scale of the historic Northside Marketplace as envisioned in the Central District Plan, would
contribute to the commercial vitality of the neighborhood and be consistent with recently approved
zoning changes for other properties in the neighborhood.
Staff believes that the rezoning of this small, corner property will allow it to redevelop in a manner
that is in keeping with the goals of the Central District Plan by removing the non -conforming
surface parking in front of the building and bringing the building closer to the side walk with the
sort of retail store windows and entrances required by code. Allowing redevelopment will also
create a better balance in scale with the other corner properties at the intersection, which all have
CB -5 zoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ17-00004, a request for a rezoning from CB -2, Central Business
Services Zone, to CB -5, Central Business Support Zone be approved subject to design review.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Images
3. Application materials
Approved by:
John Yapp, Development Services
... Z
A
r
!j
CITY OF IOWA CITY
7
View of the subject property at 202 North Linn Street.
up
MrAm PF m YEW III ! I f .._ Iy'
View of the subject property at 202 North Linn Street.
View looking west on Market Street. The property at 202 S. Linn is on the right.
A ten -foot alley between the subject property and George's to the east could help to provide access to at -grade or
underground parking.
View to the south along Market Street—the Writers Block (a 4 -story building) and Brewery Square (a 2 % story building)
are located on adjacent comers.
10
View of the commercial mixed use building (3 stories) on the northwest corner of Linn and Market. Streets.
Recently developed commercial mixed use building on the corner of Linn and Bloomington Streets.
'r
r
9I
i b 4
^--
HOLLAND, MICHAEL, RAMER & SITTIG PLC
Attorneys at Law
123 North Linn Street, Suite 300
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
319-354-0331
www.icialawyers.com
C. Joseph Holland
jholland@icialaw.com
Robert Michael
rraichael@icialaw.com
April 5, 2017
Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission
Civic Center
RE: REZ17-00004 (202 N. Linn St.)
Dear Commission Member:
Crystal Raiber
craiber@icialaw.com
Erek Sittig
esittie@icialaw.com
I just recently became aware of an application to rezone the property at 202
N. Linn Street. I tend to agree that the site is under utilized and redevelopment is
appropriate. However, I have serious reservations about yet another property in the
neighborhood with seriously limited on-site parking.
I have had an office in Brewery Square, which sits on the opposite corner from
202 N. Linn for nearly 25 years. During that time I have seen redevelopment of
properties in the area and significant changes in the existing land uses. Changes in
the area, in addition to residential units, has been some increased retail activity and
a shift of uses to food and beverage to an extent greater than the past. Two of my
clients have built significant structures withmixed residential and commercial uses.
Both of those properties provide significant below grade parking beneath the
building. Both have some additional at grade parking..
Those redevelopments and changed land uses have put serious strain on the
parking resources in the neighborhood. If you look at the aerial photo
accompanying the staff report on this rezoning application, you will see the Market
Street municipal parking lot, which sits just east of the site. Notice that every
parking space in that parking lot is occupied. Also, every surface parking space
along Market Street is occupied. This is not at all unusual.
There are no available parking permits for that lot. In fact, there is a lengthy
waiting list. I have has a permit for that lot for close to 25 years I have regularly seen
people who work in the area repeatedly putting additional time on meters, with
increasing frequency in recent years..
As a business owner in this area we have clients and visitors who come to our
office for a variety of purposes. We have very limited on-site parking, and
encourage clients to use that when it is available. However, often that limited
parking is all taken and they must rely on parking on the street or in the Market
Street municipal lot.
Just today I had a meeting with a client and some consultants. The client was
late because she had to circle the area looking for a parking space. I am not
convinced that seven parking spaces adequately addresses the residential use, let
alone adding additional commercial uses to the area. The current commercial use,
Central State Bank, utilizes virtually no parking. They have their own surface
parking, which I have almost never seen fully occupied.
There is also reference in the staff report to a 10 foot wide publicly owned
service alley. That it is used for parking on a nearly around the clock basis by some
of the businesses in the area. I do not know that I have ever seen it passable from
north to south, so if the City does open that as a public right of way, something will
need to be done to replace the parking for those businesses.
I like the location of my Firm in the near northeast side of Iowa City and I
have watched this neighborhood transition over the years. I think very careful
attention needs to be paid to not disrupting the current businesses in the area by
overburdening the parking which is already, in very, very tight supply. Less parking
for visitors is going to make the area less attractive to some businesses.
I am not able to attend your meeting on April 6"'. so I wanted to pass along
my comments in writing.
Very truly yours,
C. Joseph Holland
CJH:ses
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 11 of 17
2. (REZ17-00004): Discussion of an application submitted by William Nusser for a rezoning
from Central Business Service (CB -2) zone to Central Business Support (CB -5) zone for
approximately 4,550 square feet of property located at 202 North Linn Street (Corridor State
Bank property).
Walz presented the staff report and stated the applicant, William Nusser, is seeking a
rezoning for the property widely known as the Pearson's Pharmacy and more recently the
home of Corridor State Bank. It is located at the corner of Market and Linn Streets, and the
other three corner properties at this intersection are all zoned CB -5. The lot includes a non-
conforming surface parking area with 5 parking spaces located between the building and the
Market Street right-of-way. In this zone the parking is meant to be at the rear of the building,
not in front. It is meant to be a pedestrian oriented zone. Additionally the zone calls for
street facing windows, which this building lacks along its fagade. Walz stated this property is
appropriate for development and part of the reasons for seeking the rezoning is the change
in parking.
The Comprehensive Plan, Central District Plan, contains a discussion of the Northside
Marketplace, which includes this property and notes a desire to preserve the "distinct
identity and scale" of the commercial district as different from the Downtown. Many describe
this area as "Old Iowa City" and attracts more long-term residents, there is less of the hustle
and bustle of downtown and less of a student orientation. The Central District plan identifies
the historic character of the Northside Marketplace as one of its greatest assets. It is known
for an area that has a lot of unique, locally owned businesses so when the Central Business
Plan was created there was a concern that too much redevelopment or development at too
large a scale or density may diminish the traditional main street character of the
neighborhood.
The Plan encourages development that is sensitive to the neighborhood's history and
architectural elements. The subject property is not considered a historically significant
structure and does not currently contribute to other goals of the Northside Marketplace. The
goals of the Northside Marketplace are to preserve and promote the unique aspects of the
Northside Marketplace and establish policies and regulations that will preserve the existing
scale and main street commercial character of the Northside Marketplace. Walz explained
that the Downtown District to the south is more intensive commercial and is separated from
the Northside Market Place by University buildings.
This area takes a step down, although there are taller buildings on the corners but are still
limited in height to three or four stories. Then as one travels north the neighborhood steps
back further to one story or two story buildings. There are some three story buildings, but
they have set backs at the upper level. It is a transitional area between the higher intensity
downtown to the lower density residential area. Another goal was to adopt zoning
regulations to ensure that new development is consistent with the existing mainstreet
character of the area and encourage mixed-use buildings with 1 • to 3- bedroom apartments
above commercial storefronts. Additionally the Plan encourages the improvement of the
environment for pedestrian safety.
Walz explained that a number of these goals have shaped recent zoning decisions. In 2012
a rezoning of the comer property at 221-225 North Linn Street from a RNS-12 to CB- 2
included requirements for design review approval, a maximum number of dwelling units, and
a limit on the height of the building to 3 stories with a step -back at the third story. In 2013 the
Board of Adjustment granted a variance from the parking requirements to allow
redevelopment of property at 211 North Linn Street within the CB -2 zone. (The property had
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 12 of 17
no alley access and was too narrow to provide vehicle access from the street.) The new
building was required to secure design review approval and was limited to three stories with
a step back at the third story. In 2014 the City approved the rezoning of 203 North Linn
Street (the former Northside and Haunted Bookshop), a 4,000 sq. foot property directly to
the west of the subject property, from CB -2 to CB -5 with a historic landmark designation.
The rezoning was requested by the owner specifically to alleviate the commercial parking
requirements for the commercial floor of the building based on the concerns of preserving a
historic building. Developers were required to make updates such as a sprinkler system and
also a conditional zoning agreement put on the property that if it were ever to be destroyed
by fire or a disaster; the building height would be limited. Other corner properties at the
intersection, which are all zoned (CB -5), include the two story, historic Brewery Square
building on the southwest corner of Market and Linn Streets and the recently developed
Writers Block, a four story building on the southeast corner.
Walz stated the application property is currently zoned CB -2 and explained the differences
between the CB -2 and the CB -5. The CB -5 allows a greater residential density than is
permitted in the CB -2 zone. There was a chart in the Commissioners packet to show the
density differences. The CB -5 zone also allows a taller building than would be permitted in
the CB -2 zone which gives greater redevelopment potential. The building height is based
on a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and in CB -2 a maximum of two square of floor area for
each one square foot of lot area. Through bonus provisions, the FAR of building may be
increased to three. The maximum building height in the CB -5 zone is 75 feet with a FAR of
three. Similar to the CB -2 zone, bonus provisions may allow an increase the FAR up to five.
Walz listed the applicable bonus provisions in the Staff report. The logical ones that may be
applied to this property would be the architectural elements such as masonry, provision of
pedestrian activity areas, or usable open space for passive recreational uses of residents
(i.e. balconies, terraces, and rooftop gardens designed and improved for outdoor activities).
An additional FAR bonus provision may be granted for the provision of funds for all street
furniture, lighting and landscaping improvements along the adjacent street right-of-way in
accordance with any adopted streetscape plan approved by the City, however an approved
streetscape plan has already been installed for this area and so this provision would not
apply.
Walz explained the biggest difference in creating development potential here in the CB -5 is
the reduction in parking. CB -5 has a lower parking requirement for both commercial and
residential uses. For commercial uses in the CB -5 zone there is no parking requirement.
The differences in the parking requirements for the residential uses are outlined in the Staff
report. In a CB -2 zone the minimum parking requirement for a one bedroom or efficiency is
0.75 parking space per unit, and in the CB -5 that is reduced to 0.50 parking space per unit.
Walz noted there is a parking benefit for elder housing (a permanent designation) of one
space for every two units but this parking benefit is only realized with two bedroom elder
units.
Walz stated on such a small lot as the applicant property, the ability to provide parking is
quite limited. Staff had suggested to the applicant to make use of the service alley but the
applicant is probably not going to pursue that opportunity because they would like to provide
underground parking with a ramp directly off Market Street. Walz did acknowledge that
parking is somewhat of a delicate issue in the Northside Marketplace. There are a number
of surface lots: one is a public, city -owned, lot but the other is private and could be
developed. Parking in this area is scarce at peak hours, the closest public parking garage,
the Clock Tower Place facility located on Iowa Avenue, two blocks to the south.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017—Formal Meeting
Page 13 of 17
Walz summarized that the lower parking standards required for the CB -5 zone along with
the additional density and FAR would greatly enhance the development potential of this
somewhat small corner lot and would anchor that corner in a way that is more pedestrian
friendly.
Staff recommends that REZ17-00004, a request for a rezoning from CB -2, Central Business
Services Zone, to CB -5, Central Business Support Zone, be approved subject to design
review. The applicant has submitted a concept to City Staff in the last 24 hours and will
show that to the Commission this evening. He has also conducted two neighborhood
meetings, and Walz distributed an email received from one neighbor (Patrick Gilpin) that
speaks to the issue of parking as well as a letter from Joseph Holland expressing concerns
about parking.
Hensch asked about the service alley and if that was public owned alley. Walz stated it is
public owned but is not a right-of-way so it functions a bit differently. Most of the businesses
along the alley use it for trash and recycling services. A car can pass through, but it is tight.
Hensch commented upon a quick review of the email from Gilpin is that his opposition is that
there is not a minimum of one parking place per unit, but that is not consistent for either a
CB -5 or CB -2 zone.
Parsons asked if the City has ever considered turning that public service parking lot into a
small ramp. Walz said that has not been explored in detail, it is a rather small area but not
out of the realm of possibilities. Miklo added the cost versus the amount of spaces achieved
was not reasonable when looked at several years ago.
Dyer asked when the bank building was built. Miklo replied in the late 1950's. Dyer asked if
the building could be considered historical as an example of Mid-century architecture. Miklo
said it could likely have been prior to the remodel, but would no longer be eligible because
of the significant changes to the exterior.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Ross (William) Nusser (13 Briar Ridge) thanked the Commission for considering the request
before them and for City Staff for working with him on this application. This property is not
easy to work with, it is a small parcel and has many challenges in designing a concept. He
will share a concept with them on what the building could be, but wanted to stress it is just a
concept. He would like to continue to hold neighborhood meetings to get better feedback on
design, noting that this rezoning will also be subject to design and site review.
The CB -2 zoning in the Northside, which is what his property is currently zoned, is very
prohibitive to any use, commercial or residential. The parking requirement, especially for a
lot that is 65' by 75' prohibits some uses. For example, if a restaurant wanted to build on
that spot there would need to be 36 parking spots, retail is significantly lower.
He said that parking in Iowa City has always been a problem, and he feels there are two
options. One is to require more parking on spaces throughout downtown, but that would
stunt the growth of the city. The other is to deal with parking as the city grows and be
thoughtful on how to deal with it. Other cities of the same size are dealing with the exact
same problem.
Nusser said that the Northside today looks nothing like it did 25 years ago. The restaurants
are excellent and the streetscapes have been improved dramatically and the neighborhood
has developed in a very pleasing way. 25 years ago the neighborhood looked very different,
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 14 of 17
where Bluebird is was once a paint store and Bluebird was able to tie in the history of that.
Tying in the history of the neighborhood is very important. Nusser just wants to add to this
neighborhood, enhance the pedestrian experience, add an element of housing that is more
inclusive to all, and to provide if possible a public experience for this property. Many folks
remember Pearson's and that was a phenomenal place where people gathered. Nusser
would like to keep with that history and provide a new development. The new development
will not look anything like the old Pearson building but there are ways to incorporate the
Northside atmosphere into the new development. Nusser stressed again that the concept
plan is just a concept and he is 100% open to changing, it is just an idea of what could be
there.
Nusser shared the concept plan and stated it is an example of what the maximum concept
for the lot could be. As previously mentioned there were Good Neighbor meetings held, one
with the general public, one with the Downtown District, and one with the Northside
Business owners. One of the key items was they wanted to tie in the existing streetscape as
well as the lines of the buildings so that is what they tried to achieve with the differential of
materials proposed. The glass above as well as the balconies keep it less intrusive to the
surrounding buildings. The rooftop area is undecided but could either serve the residents of
the building or be a public space, but if it were to be a public space that would be a separate
proposal.
Nusser said that another point that was brought up at the Good Neighbor meetings was the
importance of a variety of businesses, so they are showing perhaps a restaurant and a retail
experience. Nusser noted that in the current zoning this would not be possible regardless
because of the residential above. With regards to the composition of units, especially
residential, it is also undecided. He has had conversations with TRAIL (Tools and
Resources for Active, Independent Living) regarding senior living as that is scarce in Iowa
City and he is exploring that as an option. Additionally the first level above the commercial
space is undecided if it will be office or residential space, and there are different parking
requirements for each.
In closing Nusser reiterated that this site is underutilized and redevelopment is truly
appropriate. When it was Pearson's it was great, the bank has been phenomenal in the
redevelopment process, but the site is currently not serving the neighborhood in a way that it
could potentially do.
Hensch asked how he envisions handling what parking they will have to provide. Nusser
said there would be an entrance off Market Street near George's to a parking garage under
the building and that would allow for seven spaces. Walz added they would need to either
obtain a new curb cut on the property or widen the existing one.
Hensch asked if the top story was a bonus height story. Nusser said it was not, it will just be
an open area, and he respects the neighborhood and will not seek a bonus provision.
Hensch asked how close this concept was to Nusser's actual vision of the property. Nusser
said it was very close, the things he is amendable to is how the building will impact
surrounding areas as with building materials, etc. but is open to feedback and wants to be a
good partner with the City and community.
Parsons asked how much underground parking is possible for a 4500 foot building. Nusser
replied it is seven spaces, there needs to be space for a stairway and an elevator.
Dyer asked about bicycle parking. Nusser replied there will be bicycle parking.
Signs asked the vision for number of units and how many bedrooms per unit. Nusser stated
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 —Formal Meeting
Page 15 of 17
he cannot speak directly to the number of units at this time as that has not been figured out.
If it is to be senior housing it will likely be two bedroom units, for any other type of housing
they will be one bedroom.
Dyer asked why senior housing would be two bedrooms. Nusser stated that when he met
with TRAIL it was mentioned that as people downsize they are downsizing from large
houses with four or five bedrooms and it is important to them to have a guest bedroom or
space for a home office. Dyer noted there are other seniors that may come from smaller
houses and Nusser acknowledged that is correct.
Walz clarified that the FAR would allow for three stories where the build -out wall is to the
property line and to get the additional two stories bonus requirements would have to be met.
If upper stories were stepped back it could be different.
Nick Lindsey (Architect, Neumann Monson) stated the intent would be to provide bicycle
parking for every resident in the building both below ground and above ground. They are a
big proponent of encouraging sustainable transportation.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved to approve REZ17-00004, a request for a rezoning from CB -2, Central
Business Services Zone, to CB -5, Central Business Support Zone be approved
subject to design review.
Martin seconded the motion.
Dyer commented that she believes the project is premature, there needs to be a clearer
concept of what it will be so they can better judge the impact on parking. Since parking is so
limited in this area, there needs to be more information on how many units there will be.
Dyer noted it is often impossible to find parking in this neighborhood and often forgoes
patronizing the businesses in the neighborhood because she cannot find parking.
Signs stated that he has never had trouble finding parking in that neighborhood, but did
admit he is probably not there on evenings and weekends as much. Signs noted he loves
the concept and is pleased that the applicant has been reaching out to the community and
getting input. He likes the change of building materials on the two floors to acclimate to the
neighboring buildings and does think a taller building on this corner makes sense and fits in
with a lot of the concepts they discuss in the downtown. He understands Dyer's concern
about not seeing a more solid concept but his feeling is based on the presentation there is a
good idea of a concept and are taking a lot of important things into consideration.
Hensch noted it appears it will be a pedestrian oriented building which he is completely in
favor of in the Northside Neighborhood. Parking is an issue, but noted similar to Signs he
has never had an issue parking there but is often there midday and not evenings or
weekends.
Dyer noted another parking problem in that area is the churches and in the daytime funerals
cause parking issues in that neighborhood. Hensch agreed and often wondered why the
churches haven't banned together and tried to come up with a parking solution. Parsons
said there is on street parking allowed all along the streets on Sundays so that helps out and
special funeral signs are placed to add parking as well.
Signs also commented on the issue of the two bedroom units, and sees it as part of the
thought process and proof that it is well thought out, if the idea is the next level from the
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 16 of 17
family home but not yet to an assisted living situation, based on his experience with his
customers they want more than one bedroom. As for the parking issue, he believes as a
community there needs to be a bigger conversation about parking in the downtown and near
downtown areas. There needs to be a larger vision.
Martin agreed, she has never had a parking issue there and she is there evenings. What
she likes about zoning this to CB -5 regardless of what goes there, the Downtown Master
Plan denotes the corner lots as the "bookends" and this concept fits that very well.
Conceptually she likes the vision.
Theobald added she has had numerous parking issues in this neighborhood, but the parking
problem already exists and while this will add to it, the issue is already there. The idea of
senior housing is good and is needed. It would be an area that would be popular.
Martin asked if this is rezoned to CB -5 now, will the Commission ever see the concept plan
again. Miklo said it would not come before the Commission. Martin asked if this were to be
senior specific housing, could it only be senior housing or could it be mixed. Walz said it
could be mixed and once something is senior housing it must always be senior housing, due
to the parking benefit.
Parsons noted that the area is underutilized and seeing that the other properties at this
intersection are CB -5 it would tie that intersection in together.
Hensch stated he was originally concerned about approving this application, but after
hearing concept from the applicant and trusting they will follow through with their concepts
he is in support.
Dyer reiterated it is still premature as they don't know if it will be a three story or five story
building and they will not see the final plans. They won't know what benefits will be applied
for, whether there will be a setback, and although the other buildings on the corners are CB -
5 one is because of a historic designation exemption. If this building were to be five stories
it would be higher than any other buildings in the area. A five story building in this area
would not comply with the step down envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
Martin asked the process if this was approved. Walz said the rezoning would go to City
Council, if approved the site review would come before Staff and design review. Martin said
that she liked the materials shown in the concept with brick on the lower floors to tie into the
existing buildings. Miklo noted that the drawing showed corten steel, not brick. Nusser said
it could be brick.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1 (Dyer voting no, Freerks absent).
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of March 2 and March 16, 2017.
Theobald seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Signs moved to adjourn.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0.
Sarah Walz
To: Patrick D Gilpin
Subject: RE: 202 N Linn Street Rezoning request
From: Patrick D Gilpin [mailto:patgilpin@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 6:15 PM
To: Sarah Walz
Cc: Hotie Gilpin; Victoria Gilpin
Subject: 202 N Linn Street Rezoning request
Sarah,
My name is Patrick Gilpin. I am the property manager of the 330 E. Market Street building owned by my
mother Joan Gilpin.
My mother has one primary concern regarding this rezoning request, and proposed development of a 4 story
building with commercial on the ground floor, and apartment units on the upper three floors... parking.
You indicated the developer is proposing 1 and 2 bedroom units, with the possibility of Senior apartments that
could only be rented by someone over the age of 55. You also indicated they would only be required to
provide one parking place for every other unit. If there were to be 14 units, that means they would only have
to provide 7 spaces. It would be difficult to get that many spaces in the proposed footprint. You also indicated
the commercial space would not be required to provide any parking spaces. Where are their customers going
to park? There aren't enough places in the existing parking lot on Market street between Gilbert and Linn
streets to meet the demand.
While some would say senior apartments would not utilize parking places, I would beg to differ. They may be
the most likely to want to use them. My mother is a resident of the independent living unit of the Legacy
retirement community. Underground parking is provided for the residents. At the age of 88, it is very
convenient for my mother coming and going during inclement weather. I suspect there would be a greater
demand for available parking than what could be provided in this location.
She is also concerned for the current renters of her property, Bluebird Diner and Riverside Theatre. Bluebird
Diner depends on parking for their customers. The owner confided if people cannot find a parking place near
the restaurant, they go on to others where they can. Riverside Theatre has a 100 seat performance space.
Their performances typically are in the evening when parking is at a premium for other businesses in the
immediate area.
My mother, strongly opposes the proposed rezoning request unless they can provide a minimum of one
parking place per unit.
The only way we would support any future higher density development is if the parking issue is addressed,
perhaps a parking ramp where the current parking lot is located.
Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,
Patrick Gilpin
Property Manager
SinSerelI�,
PatrickjGilpin
Property Manager
1�_
Prepared by: Marti Wolf, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-5240 (REZ17-00004)
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 4,550 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY FROM
CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE (CB -2) ZONE TO CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT (CB -5) ZONE
LOCATED AT 202 NORHT, LINN STREET (REZ17-00004)
WHEREAS, the ap
Linn Street from Central
WHEREAS, both zones
on upper floors; and
William Nusser, has requested a rezoning of property located at 202 North
ss Service (CB -2) zone to Central Business Support (CB -5) zone; and
WHEREAS, the existing devel
and a building that lacks the facade
commercial uses on the
on the property i
is required in the
WHEREAS, the lower minimum parkin standards
Area Ratio in the CB -5 zone greatly enhance a redevc
WHEREAS, redevelopment of the pr
building design requirements the zone and
WHEREAS, all the other corner properties at
5; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan (Central
of the Northside Marketplace as different from the
the existing scale and mainstreet commercial chat
nd floor with the option for residential uses
des a non -conforming surface parking area
e and district; and
tional residential density and minimum Floor
potential of this small corner property; and
I bring the property into conformance with parking and
the p destrian character and safety of the corner; and
of Market and Linn are already zoned CB -
;t Ian) emphasizes the "distinct identity and scale"
ito n, and encourages development that preserves
of thR Northside Marketplace
WHEREAS, the minimum parking requirem nts and FI or Area Ratio (FAR) for the CB -5 zone
effectively control the potential scale of the buildin ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning C mmission has revie ed the proposed rezoning and has
recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED B THE CITY COUNCIL OF T CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Prope described below is hereby reel sified from its current zoning
designation of Central Business Servi (CB -2) zone to Central Business Su ort (CB -5) zone:
THE SOUTH 65.75 FEET OF LOT FIVE (5), BLOCK FIFTY EIGHT (58), ORIGINAL TOWN PLA=F IOWA
CITY, IOWA, SUBJECT TO RIGHT OF WAY OVER THE EAST TEN (10) FEET THEREOF, BY THE
OWNERS OF LOT 5. 31.
y 'n
SECTION Il. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and di toaangM
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the finfkmsa_%, apTni
and publication of this ordinance by law. q = ' ' 1
SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approvalg_fFre Ofdynancoj e
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to retdrd the-bme, at the
Ordinance No.
Page 2
office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as provided by law.
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.
Passed and approved this
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
day of , 20_.
N
O
v
--tC7
�x
3
N
Rezoning Item
REZ17-00004
Discussion of an application submitted by William Nusser
for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB -2) zone
to Central Business Support (CB -5) zone for approximately
4,550 square feet of property located at 202 North Linn
Street (Corridor State Bank property).
CM of Ion>A CIM
� �t'•HNSI'1 [tlL +Y
1
RNS]L RNS12 S]L CtlL LUZ C82 '1 Col
NNcui
T ST w,
1.
An application submitted by William Nusser
for a rezoning of 4,550 square feet of property
from Central Business Service (CB -2) to
Central Business Support (CB -5) at
202 North Linn Street.
13
LU:
CLI iIUI
fVI
Y�{
-t F
1,
�r
_� ....
E
6
...—. �ep. „,..
Residential parking requirements
CB -2 zone
CB -5 zone
Minimum
Parking
Requirement per
unitl
1 bedroom or
efficiency
0.75
0.5
2 bedroom unit
1.5
1
3 bedroom unit
2.5
2.5
The parking requirement for elder housing (a
permanent designation) is 1 space for every
two units
Commercial parking requirements
CB -2 zone
CB -5 zone
Minimum
Salesoriented retail
1 per300sgft
NO MINIMUM
Parking
parking
Personal Serie
1 per 300 sq ft
Requirement
requirement for
General office
1 per 300 sq ft
commercial
Medical office
1.5 spaces per
office or exam
uses
room
Eating & Drinking
1 per 150 sq ft
or 1/3 of the
occupant load
Staff recommends approval of REZ17-00004, a
rezoning from Central Business Support (CB -2) zone
to Central Business Service (CB -5) zone for property
at the north east corner of Market St & Linn St,
subject to design review committee approval of the
building design
Approval would allow redevelopment of the
property in accordance with CB -5 height and
parking standards
The
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission
recommended
approval
by a vote of 5-1
(Dyer voting
no)
STAIR
m 8F
PARKING f DOWN
3541 BF
ELEV. MECH.
238F
ELEV.
588F O
CI
STAT
1358F
COMPACTECH.
458E
LOWER LEVEL
Al3/32 -1-0
NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS
202 LINN ST
1] 010
05/02/1]
LEVEL 1
3/32" -1'-0"
FLOOR PLANS
N
Z
Z� W
YK�Y
KFO�
dwLL�
PM -01
STAIR
2fil BF
TENANT 2
RETAIL
583 BF
CORR.
1]98F
;STAIR
i 888E
PARKING
8098F
TENANTI
MAIL
LEVEL 1
3/32" -1'-0"
FLOOR PLANS
N
Z
Z� W
YK�Y
KFO�
dwLL�
PM -01
-�nmm%
mn-nn
I -BR
143R
I 4968F
665 8F
I -BR
I 6628F
CORR. LEV.
261 8F
143R
4H�F
rwml�
LEVEL 2
Al3/32 —1-0
NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS
202 LINN ST
1] 010
05/01/1]
STAIR
1608F
2-3R SENIOR) CORK ELEV. 2 -BR SENIOR)
18fi08F 261 8F 98F 1]918F
STAIR
�� 1tin eF
LEVEL 3 AND 4 (SENIOR HOUSING)
A2 3/32"=1'-0"
FLOOR PLANS
PM -02
2 -BR
1174 sF
ELEV.
ss sF
243R
1278 sF
LEVEL 5
Al3/32 —1-0
NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS
202 LINN ST
1] 010
05/01/1]
2 -BR
nnsF
ROOF TERRACE
3/32"=1'-0"
FLOOR PLANS
PM -03
�nmmi
�mmm�
ROOF TERRACE
3/32"=1'-0"
FLOOR PLANS
PM -03
NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS LOOKING NORTHEAST DOWN MARKET STREET PM - 4
loor
;:i �L�
7�� • _
r05
��^i.® CITY OF IOWA CITY 7f
� '= MEMORANDUM
Date: March 10, 2017
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: John Yapp, Development Service Coordinator
Re: Consideration of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site
Development Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and Loading, to eliminate the
parking requirement for properties in the Downtown Planning District, Zoned CB -5
and, in part, Historic District Overlay, and to increase the required bicycle parking
and to allow modification to the structured parking placement standards for non-
commercial uses.
Introduction
At its January 3151 Work Session, the City Council directed staff to develop a parking code
amendment to allow for an up to 100% reduction of required off-street parking in limited
circumstances. In other words, there would be no minimum parking requirement. This request
was in the context of discussing the proposed mixed-use project on the north side of City Hall,
through which the historic Unitarian Church would be preserved. Points made during this
discussion included the fact that for near -downtown locations, residents are more likely to walk
to nearby destinations; there are other forms of transportation available (bicycling, public
transit), there are nearby parking facilities to accommodate off-street parking, additional forms of
transportation such as shared vehicles are available, and the proposed project would meet one
of the City Council's goals i.e. historic preservation.
At its March 2 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed a proposed
amendment that would allow a reduction in the parking requirement by the Building Official.
Concerns raised by the Commission included the desire for a public process, limitations in
numbers or percentages of a reduced parking requirement, requirements for mitigating a
reduction in required parking (alternative forms of transportation), and the need for a map of CB -
5 properties which have historic and potential historic landmarks.
Staff is proposing a more narrowly focused amendment to address these concerns.
Discussion
1. A map of CB -5 properties with historic and potential historic structures is attached. As
shown on the map, there are several other CB -5 properties which have historic or potential
historic structures which could, hypothetically, take advantage of the original proposed
amendment discussed by P&Z.
To address this concern, staff proposes narrowly focusing the proposed amendment to
apply only to CB -5 Zones which are in the Downtown Planning District, as shown in the
Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, for a development project that results in
the preservation of a designated historic landmark. CB -5 Zones in the Downtown Planning
District are distinct in that the height and scale of buildings and subsequent parking demand
March 10, 2017
Page 2
are limited compared to the CB -10 properties in the remainder of the Downtown Planning
District. There is only one such property that is zoned CB -5 in the Downtown Planning
District that has a potential historic landmark property — the Unitarian Church property and
surrounding parking lot north of City Hall.
This code amendment furthers policy statements in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings
Master Plan, which states as a goal:
DT -1: Historic Preservation — Downtown Iowa City contains a number of buildings of
historic value. In the Analysis section of this document, these buildings were identified
as key historic buildings, contributing historic buildings, and potential buildings of historic
significance. The high concentration of these buildings within the District provides
character and ambiance, and gives Downtown Iowa City its own unique sense of place.
In order to maintain this, the City should take measures to preserve and actively protect
these buildings. This aforementioned diagram should be utilized to help determine
where infill development should, and should not occur. In addition, it should be utilized
to help identify properties that could receive density bonuses in return for the protection
and renovation of these historic structures. In order to facilitate preservation of historic
structures, density bonuses, waiver of parking requirements and other entitlements will
be considered. (Page 55, Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan)(itaiics
added).
This goal is also consistent with the City Council goal of facilitating development on an
under-utilized surface parking lot in the Downtown Planning District, and allowing for a
waiver of required parking, in order to achieve not only urban development but also
designation and preservation of a historic landmark.
2. To mitigate the demand for on -street parking created by redevelopment of a qualifying
project, Staff notes that for the affected property there are two public parking facilities within
300 feet, nearby public transit routes, shared vehicles available for rent within '/< mile (Zip
Cars), several grocery stores and other goods and services within % mile (a common metric
used in transportation planning for 'walking distance'), and several public facilities within '/<
mile including the Recreation Center and Public Library. Staff also recommends that 25%
more bicycle parking be required than the Code would normally require, in order to provide
additional opportunity for bicycle storage and use (the normal Code requirement is one
bicycle parking space per unit).
3. Regarding a public process to consider a reduction in required parking, by narrowly focusing
the amendment to a particular area with particular & unique characteristics, the impact of the
amendment will be limited. The Commission had raised concerns over reducing the parking
requirement by up to 100%. Given the limited area to which this amendment would apply,
the close proximity of nearby parking facilities, the fact that it only applies to properties
zoned CB -5 zone (which have more limited development potential than CB -10 zones) and,
in part, Historic Overlay, and that there are several grocery stores, restaurants, services and
public facilities within walking distance, staff recommends that the parking requirement be
eliminated.
30' lot depth requirement for structured parking
March 10, 2017
Page 3
Currently, the City Code requires that, in the CN -1, CB -2, CB -5 and MU zones, structured
parking is not permitted on the ground level floor of the building for the first 30 feet of lot depth.
This code requirement is meant to ensure a minimum depth for commercial uses facing the
street, by ensuring any ground -level parking is at least 30 feet back from the setback line.
Staff notes that the Zoning Code was recently amended to allow residential uses on certain CB -
5 -zoned properties, subject to the design meeting Rivertront Crossings Form Based Code
standards. These standards do not require a 30 -foot depth for residential uses. Staff continues
to recommend the amendment to the Off -Street Parking Chapter to provide clarity that for
residential uses, structured parking may be permitted closer than 30 feet, as approved by the
Building Official.
Recommendation
Staff recommends amending City Code Section 14 -5A -4B — MINIMUM PARKING
REQUIREMENTS, as follows:
2. For properties located within the Downtown Planning District zoned CB -5 and in part
Historic District Overlay, the bicycle parking requirement shall be 1.25 spaces per
dwelling unit. For such properties there shall be no vehicular parking requirement Table
5A-1 of this section lists the minimum parking requirements and minimum bicycle
parking requirements for all other properties within the CB -5 and CB -10 zones, where
parking is only required for household living uses.
Table 5A-1: Minimum Parking Requirements in the CB -5 And CB -10 Zones, except as
otherwise set forth in 14 -5A -4B above.
2. Staff recommends amending City Code Section 14-5A-5F(1a) as follows:
14 -5A -5F(1 a):
In the CN -1, CB -2, CB -5, and MU zones, structured parking is not permitted on the
ground level floor of the building for the first thirty feet (30') of lot depth as measured
from the minimum setback line, except for buildings where the around level floor use is
residential. the Building Official may allow structured parking closer to the setback line
than thirty feet (30'). In the CN -1 zone it is measured from the "build -to" line.
Approved b
Doug Bootrot, , Director
Departmen ol Neighborhood and Deve opment Services
4
N
O
CD
r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 28, 2017 — corrected memo and recommendation
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: John Yapp, Development Service Coordinator
Re: Consideration of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site
Development Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and Loading, to allow the
parking requirement to be reduced by the Building Official in certain circumstances,
and to allow modification to the structured parking placement standards for non-
commercial uses.
Introduction
At its January 31st Work Session, the City Council directed staff to develop a parking code
amendment to allow for reduction of required off-street parking in limited circumstances. This
request was in the context of discussing the proposed mixed-use project on the north side of
City Hall, through which the Unitarian Church would be preserved. Points made during this
discussion included the fact that for near -downtown locations, residents are more likely to walk
to nearby destinations; there are other forms of transportation available (bicycling, public
transit), there are nearby parking facilities to accommodate off-street parking, and additional
forms of transportation such as shared vehicles can be induced.
Background
The Zoning Code currently has several avenues for reducing the off-street parking requirement,
including allowances for providing parking on a separate property, shared parking for uses that
are not open during the same hours (such as schools and churches), exempting the parking
requirement for affordable housing units, paying a few in -lieu -of providing on-site parking, and
up to a 50% reduction for 'unique circumstances' through the Board of Adjustment (or up to
100% reduction through the Board of Adjustment for historic landmark properties).
Parking requirements have been modified in recent years, and in general, less parking is
required the closer a property is to downtown:
Efficiency and 1-
bedroom units
2 -bedroom units
3 -bedroom units
CB -10
0.5
1.0
2.5
CB -5
0.5
1.0
2.5
CB -2
0.75
1.5
2.5
General multi -family
zones
1.0
2.0
2.0
Riverfront Crossings —
South Downtown
0.5
1.0
2.0
Riverfront Crossings —
Central Crossings
0.75
1.5
2.5
March 29, 2017
Page 2
Staff has been asked to evaluate a code amendment for allowing reductions in parking
requirements for projects that result in the preservation of a historic landmark property, and to
consider other factors such as close proximity to public parking facilities, close proximity to
goods (groceries, clothing, retail), services, and existing or created alternative transportation
options such as bicycling, public transit and/or shared vehicles. In general, the Comprehensive
Plan supports strategies to encourage infill development where services and infrastructure are
already in place.
Comprehensive Plan
The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan states that:
• Support compact, contiguous development to ensure the efficient use of land and to
enhance opportunities for alternatives to commuting by car (page 28)
• Identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where
services and infrastructure are already in place (page 27)
• Support the Historic Preservation Commission's efforts to meet its goals (page 28)
These Comprehensive Plan policies provide the basis for the proposed code amendments in
this memorandum, as the proposed amendment will allow for a reduction in parking in an area
where services and infrastructure are already in place, for a development project that results in
the preservation of a Historic Landmark.
Discussion of Solutions — Reduction in Off -Street Parking Requirements
Staff recommends updating City Code Section 14 -5A -4F(6) — Parking Reduction for Other
Unique Circumstances. This code section currently states:
6. Parking Reduction For Other Unique Circumstances: Where it can be demonstrated
that a specific use has unique characteristics such that the number of parking or
stacking spaces required is excessive or will reduce the ability to use or occupy a
historic property in a manner that will preserve or protect its historic, aesthetic, or cultural
attributes, the board of adjustment may grant a special exception to reduce the number
of required parking or stacking spaces by up to fifty percent (50%) (up to 100 percent for
properties designated as a local historic landmark, listed on the national register of
historic places, or listed as key or contributing structures in a historic district or
conservation district overlay zone). (14 -5A -4F(6))
The recommended updates to this section include adding a second section to allow the Building
Official to reduce or waive off-street parking requirements in certain situations, along with
factors for making the determination. These factors include:
• Preservation of a Historic Landmark
• Close proximity of public parking facilities (within 300 feet of the proposed
project)
0 Availability of public transit
Needs and goals
A public -funded sculpture and marker (Wings Return) is present at the jjuncture of two
trail segments in the southern part of the Longfellow Nature trail. Woody vegetation,
grape vines and other undesireables currently block much of the sculpture virew by mid-
summer. We propose to remove existing vegetation on the north side of the sculpture
and replace it with a variety lower -growing native pollinator species that would enhance
the view of the sculpture, contribute pollinator habitat, and increase biodiversity along
the nature trail.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 8 of 12
Freerks stated she understands progress and things changing but feels it is important to
keep an eye on these things so that there doesn't become sign pollution, or take away
from the Iowa City charm.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
2. Consideration of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development
Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and Loading, to allow the parking requirement to
be reduced by the Building Official in certain circumstances, and to allow modification to
the structured parking placement standards for non-commercial uses.
Miklo stated that in conjunction to the potential development of the parking lot north of City
Hall and the preservation of the Unitarian Church the Council asked Staff to look into this
amendment to allow more flexibility in waiving parking for residential uses in a situation like
this. Miklo noted in the proposal when an historic landmark is part of the project and the
proposal is to preserve that landmark, this amendment would give the Building Office the
ability to waive parking requirements that would otherwise be needed for residential
development. Miklo stated there is other criteria the Building Official would look at such as
proximity to grocery stores, public parking or transit. An earlier draft would have allowed
the amendment under broader circumstance but that was thought perhaps too broad so it
has been changed to only if in preservation of a landmark.
Miklo stated the second amendment is related to a liner building around a parking
structure. Right now in the CB -5 zone the Code states that the first 30 feet of the property
has to be devoted to something other than parking (so there is not parking right up against
the street). There is a provision in the recent adopted CB -5 amendments that allows some
waiver of that, but this amendment would go further to clarify that it doesn't apply for
residential uses. This code requirement is meant to ensure a minimum depth for
commercial uses facing the street, by ensuring any ground -level parking is at least 30 feet
back from the setback line.
Staff is recommending approval of these two amendments.
Freerks noted her concern about these amendments, understanding the concept but thinks
this needs to be tighter. She reviewed the City Council minutes where this was discussed
to try to better understand as well. Freerks questions why this would not be under the
purview of the Board of Adjustment, instead of the Building Official. It should be done in
the public arena, as some things have impact on the neighbors and should have public
comment. If this were decided by the Board of Adjustment there would be discussion and
opportunities for public comment. Freerks stated she has other concerns and perhaps to
defer this item would be best.
Hensch asked what the advantage if of this revised process versus how it is currently
handled. Miklo stated that the current process would not allow a complete waiver of the
parking, so the Council wanted to provide more incentive to preserve a landmark. Freerks
remarked that this situation is very specific and her fear is in the bleed. Hensch also asked
who the Building Official is, if that is an official title of a City employee. Miklo stated it is the
Director of Neighborhood and Building Services. Hensch felt it would be more clear to
have that title listed then rather than Building Official.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2017—Formal Meeting
Page 9 of 12
Dyer asked if the image Miklo showed was the current proposal. Miklo replied that the
image he showed was of the Sabin Townhouses being built on South Dubuque Street, it is
not this particular project. Dyer commented she thought the proposed structure would be
more compatible with the Unitarian Church. Miklo explained that the image he showed
was to illustrate that there can be a building with only 20 feet of depth before the parking
starts.
Hensch asked if one had to go through the Board of Adjustment, how long would that
process take. Miklo said it is a 30 day period.
Freerks said the way the amendment is written, it seems that someone in a CB -5 could
purchase a historical structure and have additional other land and be able to say they will
keep the historic structure but state they will have no parking on the other land they will
develop. Hektoen said it must all be part of one project. Freerks noted there is no limit
stated, it is open ended, as to how much parking can be waived. She noted a map might
be helpful to see where historic structure might lie in the city and what potential future
situations could arise. Freerks also asked if there is a plan for mitigation such as bike
parking and/or cover for a bus stop. Miklo said one of the criteria the Building Official
would look at is if there are things such as Zip Cars, public transportation, or some means
to address the lack of parking.
Freerks noted there are five bullet points in the amendment, the first is preservation of
historic landmark, which is in the end recommendation as a must, but then it is followed by
four other bullet points. She asked if all of those must be met as well. Hektoen said this
amendment only applies if it is in relation to preservation of a historic landmark
designation. Therefore the other bullet points are factors the Building Official will take into
consideration if the historic preservation is met and then the level of percentage of waiver.
Freerks commented that seemed very iffy as written on how that would be carried through
and could be unfair from one applicant to another and there should be some types of
assessment, mitigation, and plan to avoid favoritism. Even if that is never the case, the
impression is there.
Freerks opened the public hearing
Alicia Trimble (Director of Friends of Historic Preservation) is here to speak in favor of this
idea and in the case of the Unitarian Church waiving the parking was the only way to save
that historic building. Her one concern as a citizen, separate from her job, she is always
uncomfortable when power is taken out of a commission or committee and given to one
person. Trimble agrees with Freerks that the wording of the amendment could use some
tightening so it is clear what the conditions are but overall this is a good idea to have the
ability waive all the parking if it is absolutely necessary to save a landmark.
Helen Buford stated her main concern is suddenly introducing into an ordinance the right of
someone internally to have jurisdiction over a decision that should be in the power of the
community and be allowed public address.
Mary Bennett (1107 Muscatine Avenue) appreciates the Commissions understanding that
this amendment takes away from community involvement. It allows a City staffer to have
unlimited and arbitrary power and if someone wishes to appeal the decision would have to
pay a fee to do so, which also limits the ability of a property owner or neighbor to make a
complaint. Bennett acknowledges that it is all in the language, language is very powerful.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2017—Formal Meeting
Page 10 of 12
In the current Code, it says in specific terms that it will "preserve and protect its historic
aesthetic cultural attributes" and that is much more than one building being an historic
landmark. It is also important to recognize the surrounding area of that landmark and the
context in which it exists. One precious building could be disturbed and therefore ruined of
its historical value by something next door. Bennett shared a concern about the density of
development currently underway in Iowa City and that is going to create a lot of pressure
on the existing parking. She acknowledged that people have long tried to make Iowa City
more pedestrian, but the cars are still here, and it is actually very treacherous with this high
density to walk in certain areas. Additionally with the high density everyone will be fighting
for limited parking spaces. Bennett views this as a 40 year setback to historic preservation
of this town and all the old houses that are not in landmark status will be attacked once this
provision is enacted. So it should not just be about preservation of an historic landmark,
but conservation of aesthetics of the community. This is a very short sided solution to one
very specific problem.
Ginalie Swaim (1024 Woodlawn Avenue) is the chair of the Historic Preservation
Commission and has two remarks. One, there is no getting around the problem of parking
in Iowa City. Secondly, she appreciates the Commission looking at this carefully and
working with City Staff on this but as stated the City Council asked the City Staff to work
more closely with the developer to try to come up with a better solution for the
development and they did. Saving this landmark church is important to the historic
preservation of Iowa City.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to defer this item until the next meeting.
Martin seconded the motion.
Hensch stated he is fine deferring this item but as with all deferrals the Commission needs
to be very specific with why they are deferring, what their expectations are for information
they want, and to not have another meeting with unanswered questions.
Freerks requested the following information from Staff prior to the next meeting discussing
this item:
• A map of areas this amendment could affect, with historic and potential historic
structures noted on the map. Miklo said they can do a map showing all CB -5 and all
known landmarks and others that may have historical importance. Freerks said that
would be a first visual to have an understanding of what the impact of this might be.
She reiterated that it may not be the historic structures only, but also what is in-
between, and how will in play in with the character and feel of the area. Her goal is to
not do damage to everything else just to save one structure.
• She stated she is interested in the Board of Adjustment taking care of these items, not
just having it be the decision of the Building Official. It is not a negative on any one
person, these things need to have public input so everyone can understand the impact.
• She would like limitations in numbers or percentages on parking spaces, as a governor
on this for impact over time, especially in larger areas.
• The language in the amendment needs to be more clearly stated on what criteria
needs to be met for the waiver. This is especially important if this is to go before the
Board of Adjustment, people need to know exactly what the requirements are.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 11 of 12
• Need for mitigation, bike racks, bus stops, etc. There is mention of places where there
will be Zip Cars, but if parking is being removed then there has to be a requirement for
mitigation options.
• Need clarification on how this fits in with the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings parking
plan. Howard noted that this is covered under the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings
parking plan and typically a developer would pay a fee in lieu of parking. The fees are
then used to support public parking structures. Freerks stated then with this
amendment there would be no fees and therefore could result in a lack of funds to the
City.
Freerks reiterated that this amendment would be a very big waiver and should be thought
through carefully and how the City plans to address parking demands over time. She
stated her concern is that a historic structure could be purchased and then other property
could be purchased that is really quite charming and part of the city and the City will be
held hostage to having to lose out on parking in an area. She also agrees with Bennett's
concern regarding community character and how this will develop if in a broader area and
will pieces fall apart just to make other things happen.
Hensch stated his concern is that Iowa City is a community that wants to have lots of
citizen participation and he doesn't want to do anything to impede that.
Signs asked if an exception like this cannot be made under current regulations. Miklo
confirmed it cannot. The Board of Adjustment could waive parking for the building itself,
but not for adjacent buildings without charging the impact fee which then may make it
financially unfeasible to save the church.
Freerks understands that but it could be worded as the area within the borders of Gilbert
Street, Iowa Avenue, Van Buren, and Burlington Street to make it more specific. Miklo
stated that the map Freerks is requesting is a good idea and it should show the
implications if any beyond this area.
Martin agreed that it is a concern to have this decided by just the Building Official and
having the Board of Adjustment conversation is worth exploring.
Theobald agreed. Additionally would like to know what the City is looking at for future
parking issues. Anecdotally the parking has gotten worse and this was the first Christmas
she didn't buy a single gift downtown because she couldn't find parking, the ramps were
full. Theobald also commented that this is an aging population and their habits are hard to
change.
Freerks agreed and that is why she thought the Downtown District Parking Plan was in
place and made accommodations for mitigation.
Signs agreed with Freerks' comments on mitigation because the amendment refers to the
options of bike parking, shared vehicles, etc. but there is not a requirement for that. Signs
came out as a car driver, and he is very concerned about anything that takes away parking
in the downtown area. He also admitted he doesn't shop downtown very often because of
parking limitations. He said having a parking ramp four or five blocks away is not close
enough for many customers.
Martin noted while she is also a car driver, she is very anti -car and loves the idea of no
parking, but that may not be realistic.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 12 of 12
Signs also noted he feels this should be a Board of Adjustment issue. He also feels that
this issue was already dealt with when the property was rezoned and now the Commission
is being held hostage that if this is not approved the church will be torn down. That is very
frustrating.
Freerks noted that with the recent walkability session they all attended (with Jeff Speck),
there were ideas (such as rideshare within buildings or bus passes as part of leases) so
there are options out there and need to be explored before just taking away parking.
Dyer noted her concern is with the amount of development, the current parking structures
are not enough to support it. Stating there is a parking ramp nearby was made in support
of the Chauncey Building, and there is the other student apartment building going up
across Iowa Avenue, and presumably something by the rec center and the thinking that
one parking ramp will solve all these problems (in addition to having the farmers market) is
short -sided. Cars cannot park on top of one another. Dyer noted that during the daytime
there are lots of empty spaces on Iowa Avenue by Seashore Hall but suspects that is
because the parking meters are for only one hour and classes longer than that. But then
at night all the parking is full downtown. The Chauncey Building will be adding
entertainment venues so that will add impact as well.
Signs asked if the City has a parking plan. Miklo replied that the Transportation and
Resource Management Department manages the public parking facilities.
Theobald also commented on the bus system in Iowa City, which has not been changed
for a very long time, and she lives in a neighborhood that has a poor street network design
and her home is not convenient to a bus stop. She noted that the west side of the city has
an aging population that would likely want to take buses if available.
Miklo suggested having the Director of Transportation Services come talk to the
Commission about the City's parking/transit plans. He said he would try to schedule that
for a meeting when there is a light agenda.
A vote was taken and the motion for deferment carried 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: FEBRUARY 2. 2017
Hensch moved to approve the meeting minutes of February 2 2017.
Signs seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Theobald moved to adjourn.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0.
MINUTES APPROVED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 16, 2017 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Max
Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo, John Yapp
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
1. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of amendments to Title 14,
Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and
Loading, to eliminate the parking requirement for properties in the Downtown Planning
District, Zoned CB -5 and, in part, Historic District Overlay, and to increase the required
bicycle parking and to allow modification to the structured parking placement standards
for non-commercial uses.
2. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends that the requested rezoning from County
Commercial (C) to County Residential (R) for approximately 11 -acres of property located
in Johnson County at 4665 Herbert Hoover Highway SE be approved, subject to an
agreement requiring future annexation and granting City approval for any subdivision, lot
split or development of the property to assure compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
and Fringe Area Agreement.
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There were none
CODE AMENDMENT:
Consideration of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development
Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and Loading, to eliminate the parking requirement for
properties in the Downtown Planning District, Zoned CB -5 and, in part, Historic District Overlay,
and to increase the required bicycle parking and to allow modification to the structured parking
placement standards for non-commercial uses.
Yapp reviewed the staff memo, which addressed the concerns raised by the Commission at the
last meeting. He recommended approval of the revised amendment.
Dyer noted that when they looked at the concept presented when the property was rezoned to
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 7
CB -5, the proposed parking lot for the development included a liner building with parking behind
it, and asked if that is City parking and not the parking that would otherwise be required for the
residential units. Yapp replied that when that project was first proposed it was proposed as a
combination of City parking and parking for the residential units and that is still the case. The
difference is the last time the City Council discussed the project it was stated there would not be
as much parking for the residential units. The City Council direction was to reduce or waive the
parking requirement for the residential units, but the goal is to still provide some parking for the
residential units.
Freerks noted that in the staff recommendation part one subsection two it states "for properties
located in the Downtown Planning District (which is a much larger area) zoned CB -5 and in
part..." and in the past the Commission has stated exact boundaries (street names) because in
the future the Downtown Planning District can change.
Hektoen noted her concern about allocations of spot zoning so there needs to be articulation for
a reasonable reason for distinguishing this property from other CB -5 zones and therefore in the
Commission's recommendation it would help to keep the area listed as Downtown Planning
District and not state exact boundaries.
Hensch asked for the reason it is delineated the way it is. Hektoen stated at this point this is the
only property that applies, but the rationale is based on the Comprehensive Plan and wanting to
preserve historic properties. The rationale is the parking is not necessary in this situation and
the public is better benefitted by preserving that historic property. Freerks reiterated her
concern about this specific area eventually trickling into other areas.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one Freerks closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site
Development Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and Loading, to eliminate the parking
requirement for properties in the Downtown Planning District, Zoned CB -5 and, in part, Historic
District Overlay, and to increase the required bicycle parking and to allow modification to the
structured parking placement standards for non-commercial uses.
Theobald seconded the motion.
Freerks noted that the change to the language is positive and outlines the rules without special
exception needs. But it does make her nervous to have the blanket area.
Parsons asked what were the boundaries of the Downtown Planning District. Yapp said it was
Van Buren Street on the east, Iowa Avenue on the north, Clinton Street on the west, and
Burlington Street on the south.
Signs agreed with the issues Freerks raises and questions that himself.
Hektoen stated that while this is a code amendment, in the eyes of the law it is a rezoning. If
the Downtown Planning District is rezoned in the future, the Commission will have the ability to
look at this area again.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017—Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 7
Hensch said he is sympathetic to Freerks concern but noted that anything can change in the
future and will have to just be addressed at that time.
Martin stated that she is fine with the recommendation
Parsons asked if another structure in the CB -5 zone of the Downtown Planning District gets
historical status, would this new rule apply as well. Yapp confirmed it would and buildings would
have to be designated as landmark status for this code amendment to apply, and to get that a
historic zone overlay would have to put in place which does come before the Planning and
Zoning Commission for approval.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
ZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ16-00008/SUB16-00012):
Discussion of an application submitted by Kevin Hanick for a rezoning of approximately 10.26
acres from Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) to Planned Development Overlay/Low
Density Multifamily Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone and a preliminary plat of Larson
Subdivision, a 2 -lot, 12.28 -acre residential subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard
between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue.
Miklo stated that the City is still working on the stormwater management issues as well as a few
other technical issues so Staff recommends deferral until the April 6 meeting.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Freerks closed the public hearing.
Hensch moved to defer this item until the April 6 meeting.
Martin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
COUNTY ITEM (CZ17-00001):
Discussion of an application submitted by Linda S. Lovik for a rezoning from County
Commercial (C) to County Residential (R) for approximately 11 -acres of property located in
Johnson County at 4665 Herbert Hoover Highway SE in Fringe Area B.
Miklo stated that the Fringe Area Agreement between Iowa City and Johnson County provides
for City review of any rezoning within the fringe area, and the City then makes a
recommendation to the County Planning & Zoning Commission and then the County Board of
Supervisors has the final say. For any subdivision in the area, the City also has review.
Although the City only recommends on rezonings, they do have to approve any subdivisions.
This particular property is clearly within the City's growth area. Miklo noted they do anticipate it
will be annexed into the City relatively soon. In terms of the current zoning it is commercial in
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON
PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF
CONTRACT AND ESTIMATED COST
FOR CITY PARK CABIN
RESTORATION PROJECT IN THE CITY
OF IOWA CITY. IOWA
TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED
PERSONS:
Public notice is hereby given that the City
Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will conduct
a public hearing on plans, specifications, form of
contract and estimated cost for the construction of
the City Park Cabin Restoration Project in said
City at 7 p.m. on the 2nd day of May, 2017, said
meeting to be held in the Emma J. Harvat Hall in
City Hall in said City, or if said meeting is
cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council
thereafter as posted by the City Clerk.
Said plans, specifications, form of contract and
estimated cost are now on file in the office of the
City Clerk in City Hall in Iowa City, Iowa, and may
be inspected by any interested persons.
Any interested persons may appear at said
meeting of the City Council for the purpose of
making objections to and comments concerning
said plans, specifications, contract or the cost of
making said improvement.
This notice is given by order of the City Coun-
cil of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and as provided
by law.
JULIE VOPARIL, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
5.1 MGw mmm BuftMs a Fa ftManagmnoMWmjatl =y Pm Colin R�n
PJmma sm bitl EwmiorPSVi Jure2017u�TIa,CT PF CF [NP TOMMON
PROJECTWNIB2017. o
04/17
NPH -1
CITY OF IOWA CIT
COUNCIL ACTION REPOR 22
May 2, 2017
Resolution to accept plans and specifications on May 2, 2017 for
the rebid of the City Park Cabin Restoration Project
Prepared By: Kumi Morris - Facilities Manager
Reviewed By: Juli Seydell-Johnson - Parks & Recreation Director
Geoff Fruin - City Manager
Fiscal Impact: The estimated cost for this project is $190,500 and will be funded
from a $25,000 State of Iowa REAP Historic Preservation Grant,
$11,263 in private donations and $154,237 from the City Park Cabin
Restoration CIP account #R4187.
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: NIA
Attachments: Resolution
Executive Summary:
This is a rebid of the City Park Cabin Restoration Project. The City received no bids
earlier this spring. The restoration project involves the preservation and rehabilitation of
two significantly historic log cabin structures in upper City Park. The project has been
repackaged to extend the bidding and construction period and simplified the foundation
work.
Background / Analysis:
The cabins were constructed by the Old Settler's Association of Johnson County, and
are both individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places (c.1889 and
1913). They are significant examples of the country's first generation of log houses and
a visual reminder of Iowa's pioneering past.
The cabins were used for recreation camps and programs from 1976 -2008. The
programming stopped at the site due to the deteriorating condition of the cabins. Plans
are to offer interpretive historical recreation programs again once the cabins are
restored.
Since the late 1990s the cabins have remain dormant. The cabins were deemed unfit
and unsafe for any programming or even basic interior access, and were officially
closed in 2009.
The foundation, structure and roofs have deteriorated over time and require specialized
restoration following preservation guidelines and rehabilitation to the Secretary of
Interior's Standards due to their historic designation.
r 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY
Z-^�� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
The project is also partially supported by a grant from the Historic Resource
Development Program; the grant is to restore the roof structures of both cabins.
The project will be bid with six separate line items prioritizing the repairs in the project:
1. Roof repairs- structurally repairing or replacing the roof rafters with salvaged old
growth boards, felt and split shake shingles.
2. Foundation repairs- requires lifting existing log structures and hand digging the
trench footing for the new foundation to shore and square up the existing
structures, and to allow the log buildings to have natural air circulation to reduce
moisture and further deterioration.
3. Flooring repairs- repairing the rotted floor joists to rehabilitated condition with
salvaged old growth boards.
4. Window and Door repairs- windows are currently boarded up and have been
augmented, they will be restored. There are as many as six types of window
designs on the structures.
5. Log rehabilitation and restoration- the two log cabin structures have different
structural constructions and assemblies and will require specialized repair and
replacement for each individual building.
6. Concrete and site work.
It should be noted, that due to the extent of restoration and costs, all items may not be
accomplished under this contract. The intent is to maximize the repairs within the
current allocated funds, to expedite the stabilization of the current structures from
further deterioration, and plan for future phases.
Staff recommends proceeding with approving plans and specifications on May 2, 2017
for the City Park Cabin Restoration Project.
Publish 4/24
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON
PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND ESTIMATED COST FOR THE
BURLINGTON CLINTON STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Public notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will con-
duct a public hearing on plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost for the
construction of the Burlington Clinton Street Intersection Improvements Project in said city
at 7:00 p.m. on the 2nd day of May, 2017, said meeting to be held in the Emma J. Harvat
Hall in the City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street in said city, or if said meeting is cancelled,
at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk.
The Burlington Clinton Street Intersection Improvements Project includes the construction
of new water main and ADA and sidewalk improvements along Clinton Street between
Court Street and Burlington Street, the construction of new turn lanes and signal
improvements at the Burlington and Clinton intersection, and the restriping of Clinton
Street to include a 4 -Lane to 3 -Lane conversion and the addition of bike lanes within the
Clinton Street corridor.
Said plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost are now on file in the office
of the City Clerk in the City Hall in Iowa City, Iowa, and may be inspected by any interested
persons.
Any interested persons may appear at said meeting of the City Council for the purpose of
making objections to and comments concerning said plans, specifications, contract or the
cost of making said improvement.
This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and as
provided by law.
JULIE VOPARIL, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
cCXI Y U�_ IC°VV/X k.l I
C®UNCILACTION REPOR 9-
April 18, 2017
Resolution Setting a Public Hearing on May 2, 2017 on Plans, Specifications, Form
of Contract, and Estimate of Cost for the Construction of the Burlington Clinton
Street Intersection Improvements Project, Directing City Clerk to Publish Notice of
Said Hearing, and Directing the City Engineer to Place Said Plans on File for Public
Inspection.
Prepared By: Jason Reichart, Civil Engineer
Reviewed By: Jason Havel - City Engineer, Ron Knoche - Public Works Director
Geoff Fruin - City Manager
Fiscal Impact: $1,100,000 available in the Burlington/Clinton Intersection Imp account
#S3840
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments: Resolution
Executive Summary:
The Burlington Clinton Street Improvement Project is expected to improve traffic and pedestrian
safety and multimodal travel at the Burlington Street and Clinton Street intersection, and
throughout the Clinton Street corridor. This project includes the construction of new water main
and ADA and sidewalk improvements along Clinton Street, between Court Street and Burlington
Street, and the construction of new turn lanes and signal improvements at the Burlington and
Clinton intersection. In addition, this project was designed to maximize the use of the existing
pavement, and includes the restriping of Clinton Street to include a 4 -lane to 3 -lane conversion
from Jefferson Street to Court Street, and the addition of continuous bike lanes on Clinton Street
from Church Street to Benton Street.
Background / Analysis:
Shive-Hattery, Inc, of Iowa City, Iowa was selected to design the project, which included an
original concept of constructing turn lanes and other safety improvements at the Burlington and
Clinton intersection. During the design process, the City expressed the desire to explore the
option of a 4 -lane to 3 -lane conversion for the Clinton Street corridor within and adjacent to the
project area. This was also included as part of the Downtown Iowa City Multi -Modal Traffic
Modeling Study. In addition, Alta Planning & Design is currently working on a Bicycle Master
Plan for the City of Iowa City. In an effort to integrate planning and construction efforts, City
staff coordinated with Alta Planning & Design during the project design process to develop a
concept that would implement recommendations that are expected to be included within the
final Bicycle Master Plan.
The plans, specifications, form of contract, and estimate of cost for construction of the
Burlington Clinton Street Intersection Improvements Project have been filed in the Office of the
City Clerk for public examination.
The estimated cost of construction is $1,100,000, and the project is expected to be completed in
2017.
Burlington Clinton Street
Intersection Improvements
Project
Council Presentation
May 2, 2017
Project Overview
R1 ---- \.,-1--- " "-.--
• From Court Street to Burlington Street
Burlington Intersection Improvements
• Right turn lanes on Clinton Street
• New traffic and pedestrian signals
• ADA curb ramps and sidewalk
New Pavement Markings on Clinton Street
• New bike lanes from Church St to Benton St
• 4 -1 -ane to 3 -1 -ane Conversion from
Jefferson St to Court St
New Right Turn Lane
0M---
Clinton St Restriping Overview
•a
2 Lane
�,n �.r
4 to 3 Lane
����► �.
r
q
kl Riey e
M
1171
,f
Clinton St Restriping Overview: 4 to 3 -Lane
isting 4 -lane Section
From Jefferson St to Court St
Proposed 3 -lane Section with Bike Lanes
SII
From Jefferson St to Court St
5 foot bike lanes (minimum)
8 foot parking
11 foot lanes preferred (maximum)
Additional width will be placed in
bike lanes
Clinton St Restriping Overview: 2 -Lane
Existing 2 -lane Section
• From Church St to Jefferson St
• From Court St to Benton St
Proposed 2 -lane Section with Bike Lanes
5 foot bike lanes (minimum)
8 foot parking
11 foot lanes preferred (maximum)
Additional width will be placed in
bike lanes
Project Schedule
• June 2, 2017 — Bid Letting
• June 20, 2017 —Award
• July 10, 2017 —Start
• September 2017 -Completion
!®
Publish 4/24
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON
PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND ESTIMATED COST FOR THE
RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS PARK — PHASE I PROJECT
IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Public notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will con-
duct a public hearing on plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cast for the
construction of the RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS PARK — PHASE I Project in said city
at 7:00 p.m. on the 2nd day of May, 2017, said meeting to be held in the Emma J. Harvat
Hall in the City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street in said city, or if said meeting is cancelled,
at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk.
This project includes generally, preparation, site clearing and site improvements for a
wetland park located at site at 1001 Clinton Street, Iowa City, Iowa. Scope of work
includes earth moving and associated work for the realignment of Ralston Creek, a
tributary of the Iowa River, and the creation of an off -channel wetland; construction of
hard surface trails; construction of two pedestrian crossings over the creek; seeding;
planting; and other related site construction. This project will include add -alternates for
construction of vehicular access road; parking lot; and nature play area as indicated in
the Plan Documents.
Said plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost are now on file in the office
of the City Clerk in the City Hall in Iowa City, Iowa, and may be inspected by any interested
persons.
Any interested persons may appear at said meeting of the City Council for the purpose of
making objections to and comments concerning said plans, specifications, contract or the
cost of making said improvement.
This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and as
provided by law.
JULIE VOPARIL, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
P 1CITY OF IOWA CIT
^ � COUNCIL ACTION REPORLriiiiiiiml0
April 18, 2017
Resolution setting a public hearing on May 2, 2017 on plans, specifications, form
of contract, and estimate of cost for the construction of the Riverfront Crossings
Park, Phase 1 Project, directing City Clerk to publish notice of said hearing, and
directing the City Engineer to place said plans on file for public inspection.
Prepared By: Juli Seydell Johnson, Parks & Recreation Director
Reviewed By: Jason Havel - City Engineer, Ron Knoche - Public Works Director
Geoff Fruin - City Manager
Fiscal Impact: The estimated cost for this project is $2,760,000 and will be funded with a
State Sales Tax Hazard Mitigation Grant and GO Bonds.
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: Park Commission reviewed project and recommended
approval on December 14, 2016
Attachments: Resolution, Master Plan Drawing and Phase 1 Drawing
Executive Summary:
This agenda item begins the bidding process for the Riverfront Crossings, Phase 1 Project.
Background / Analysis:
Riverfront Crossings Park is located at the site of the City's decommissioned North Wastewater
Treatment Plant. In an effort to move critical infrastructure facilities out of the floodplain after
the major flood event in 2008, the City secured funding through the Iowa Flood Mitigation
Program to decommission and demolish the City's North Wastewater Treatment Plant (WVVTP)
and convert the area into a new riverfront park. The approximately 25 acre park site is located
on the banks of the Iowa River. The City -owned portion of the site (approximately 17 acres) has
been cleared of the wastewater treatment plant in preparation for future park development.
The goal of the Riverfront Crossings Park is to transform the riverside area into a new flood
resilient park that includes walkable/bikeable connections from urban areas to the river and
enhance Ralston Creek to become a community asset. Phase 1 includes creation of a 5 acre
wetland, grading of the site in preparation for future park amenities, construction of trails in the
park with a new connection to Gilbert Street along Highway 6 and a bridge crossing of Ralston
Creek at Second Street. A north entrance, parking area and nature play area are being bid as
alternates with this project.
Project Timeline:
Set Public Hearing —April 18, 2017
Hold Public Hearing — May 2 , 2017
Bid Letting — May 25, 2047 May 30, 2017
Award Date — June 6, 2017 or at the next Council Meeting
Construction Start—June, 2017
Riverfront Crossings Park
'- Phase 1 DevelopmentIFY
a
id
rotrd
0�f(-
j
r
?0050
C
w;s p;
Bey 4 W
� �Yn
A
lT ��
13
f iV
YIJ::
r,
11111
467
� ii
1yy
click to aaaaomV
G
�
Bey 4 W
� �Yn
A
lT ��
13
f iV
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND
ESTIMATED COST FOR THE DAVENPORT
BRICK RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT IN THE
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED
PERSONS:
Public notice is hereby given that the City Council
of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will conduct a public
hearing on plans, specifications, form of contract
and estimated cost for the construction of the
Davenport Brick Reconstruction Project in said
city at 7:00 p.m. on the 2nd day of May, 2017, said
meeting to be held in the Emma J. Harvat Hall in
the City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street in said
city, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next
meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted
by the City Clerk.
Said plans, specifications, form of contract and
estimated cost are now on file in the office of the
City Clerk in the City Hall in Iowa City, Iowa, and
may be inspected by any interested persons.
Any interested persons may appear at said
meeting of the City Council for the purpose of
making objections to and comments concerning
said plans, specifications, contract or the cost of
making said improvement.
This notice is given by order of the City Council
of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and as provided by
law.
JULIE VOPARIL, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
CITY OF IOWA CIT
COUNCIL ACTION REPOR 11
May 2, 2017
Resolution approving plans, specifications, form of agreement, and estimate of cost for the
construction of the Davenport Brick Street Reconstruction Project, authorizing execution
of a temporary construction easement agreement with the University of Iowa, establishing
amount of bid security to accompany each bid, directing City Clerk to post notice to
bidders, and fixing time and place for receipt of bids.
Prepared By: Dave Panos - Senior Civil Engineer
Reviewed By: Jason Havel - City Engineer, Ron Knoche - Public Works Director
Geoff Fruin - City Manager
Fiscal Impact: The estimated cost for this project is $990,000, and will be funded with
Road Use Tax funds and Water and Stormwater revenues available in the
Davenport Brick Street Reconstruction account #33850.
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments: Resolution, Temporary Construction Easement Agreement and Plat
Executive Summary:
This project will replace the brick street surface and upgrade storm sewer and water utilities
along Davenport Street from Linn Street to Clinton Street. Work on this project also includes
replacement of curb and gutter and replacement of curb ramps to current ADA standards.
Background / Analysis:
This resolution begins the bidding process for the Project.
Added to this resolution is the authorization to execute a temporary construction easement with
the University of Iowa. The work within the temporary easement area includes reconstruction of
curb ramps to ADA compliance on the west side of Clinton Street, which is University property,
to bring the Davenport Street and Clinton Street intersection into ADA compliance. The ramp
replacement provides a mutual benefit to the University of Iowa and the City.
The easement is signed by the University of Iowa, however requires approval by City Council
and Mayoral signature.
Davenport Brick Street
Reconstruction
SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTS
MAY 2, 2017
�r f
IT 4OP77
. i
n...
7d
Gu
W�C
� a
W � ,
Davenport Street Brick Reconstruction
EAMNG
PARKWAY 15.NY
2.50' 13.00'
B' CURB
FORM GRADE
\ L-1 JOINT ox
1
6- SUBDRAIN 1}1
\ 11 WBGRADE PREPARATION)
6' MODIFIED SUBBASE
T P.L.C. SUB SLAB --
* H.M.A. SETTING BEO
PROFILE GRADE
L4 JOINT 2M L-1 JOINT
31 BRICK PAVEMENT TYPICAL SECTION
DAVENPORT STREET
,.110 q1
r D11RM
FORM GRADE
I
6-SUBDRAIN
DAVENPORT BRICK STREET
NOUN RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
(DUBUQUE STREET TO LINN STREET)
nocnaww•az: axawroxaanc mio::ww sr. mewwaw•a.. �. .
�arsm� oa• .�� I
I
rua o µma
o, I
PDPT STREET _— _ — •.': '`
r - - -
I aEoe..mw.m ercnxwm u,a.n - �
1 JL�t
C17 -Y OF IOWA CITY
i
LEGEND
-
wcx aEcaumuc>lu
m
I _
�I
i
j I
0E1 Nt
i
m
I _
�I
IIIA
McCLURE'
DAVENPORT BRICK STREET
"uLL5 NORTH RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
(CLINTON STREET TO DUBUQUE STREET)
NORTH
.. _ `.. .. 4..n I Ma.ElNi�nvp va FufFxNe�wax5
L®Sx Y'SPoT
1
CITYOFIOWA CITY
6
Nawux acaorn�rnw
1
aroma acreN nl
m
oeo>Srow:n�
'RONtxYAW
F
CITYOFIOWA CITY
IIIA
MCC LURE"
LEGEND
Nawux acaorn�rnw
prw.rLe».s
aroma acreN nl
m
IIIA
MCC LURE"
Davenport Street Brick Reconstruction
Project Schedule
• Approve Plans and Final Cost Opinion
• Authorize Advertisement for Bids
• Approve Temporary Construction Easement with
University of Iowa
• May 24, 2017 - Bid Letting
• June 6, 2107 - Award
• June 19, 2017—Start
• August 11, 2017 - Completion
iti
OFFICIAL PUBLICATION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS:
Public notice is hereby given that the City of Iowa City, Iowa will conduct a public hearing on the City's FY2018 Iowa DOT
Consolidated Transit Funding grant application. The application will be for approximately $486,265 (3.371213) in Iowa
DOT State Transit Assistance formula funds to be used for operating and/or purchasing capital items for Iowa City
Transit during FY2018. Said application will also include a listing of projects to be applied for in FY2018 from the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307, Section 5310, and/or Section 5339 programs. The FTA Section 5307
program provides formula federal funds to be used for the operating and capital needs of Iowa City Transit. The Section
5310 program provides federal funds to be used for programs assisting persons with disabilities and Section 5339 is a
discretionary capital funding program. Section 5307, Section 5310, and/or Section 5339 projects to be applied for in
FY2018 include (total cost and federal amount):
Iowa City Transit/Program of Projects
Total: FTA:
6. Purchase 2 light-duty 176" expansion buses with cameras $172,000 $146,200
Total Capital Funds: $20,441,625
FTA Capital Funds: $16,361,900
FTA Operating Funds: $1,735,256
The public hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. on May 2, 2017, in the Emma J. Harvat Hall of the Iowa City City Hall,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City.
A preliminary application will be on file April 1, 2017, at the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County
(MPOJC) Transportation Planning Division Office, Iowa City City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, and may be
inspected by interested persons. Any questions or comments regarding the application, the projects, or the public
hearing, should be directed to Brad Neumann, MPOJC Assistant Transportation Planner (319-356-5235) or e-mail brad-
neumann@iowa-city.org
The projects are in conformance with the MPOJC Long Range Transportation Plan for the Iowa City Urbanized
Area.
Any interested persons may appear at the public hearing for the purpose of making objections or comments. Written
comments will be accepted by MPOJC at the above address through the date and time of the hearing specified above.
The proposals in this notice, including the Program of Projects, will become final unless amended and republished. This
notice is given by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa.
CHRISTOPHER GUIDRY, CITY CLERK
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
C:Ws lrs anMppDateLLt=PM=o%Winda \Temporary Intent Fles\Content.Oulook\3RVESOOWPH-Consolidated Fund IGFY2018.doc
$1,622,763
1.
Operating assistance
(estimated)
$112,493
2.
Contracted services for persons with special needs (5310)
$1,200,000
(estimated)
3.
Bus Shelters
$50,000
$40,000
4.
Associated capital bus maintenance (spare parts)
$219,625
$175,700
5.
Transit Storage and Maintenance Facility
$20,000,000
$16,000,000
6. Purchase 2 light-duty 176" expansion buses with cameras $172,000 $146,200
Total Capital Funds: $20,441,625
FTA Capital Funds: $16,361,900
FTA Operating Funds: $1,735,256
The public hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. on May 2, 2017, in the Emma J. Harvat Hall of the Iowa City City Hall,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City.
A preliminary application will be on file April 1, 2017, at the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County
(MPOJC) Transportation Planning Division Office, Iowa City City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, and may be
inspected by interested persons. Any questions or comments regarding the application, the projects, or the public
hearing, should be directed to Brad Neumann, MPOJC Assistant Transportation Planner (319-356-5235) or e-mail brad-
neumann@iowa-city.org
The projects are in conformance with the MPOJC Long Range Transportation Plan for the Iowa City Urbanized
Area.
Any interested persons may appear at the public hearing for the purpose of making objections or comments. Written
comments will be accepted by MPOJC at the above address through the date and time of the hearing specified above.
The proposals in this notice, including the Program of Projects, will become final unless amended and republished. This
notice is given by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa.
CHRISTOPHER GUIDRY, CITY CLERK
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
C:Ws lrs anMppDateLLt=PM=o%Winda \Temporary Intent Fles\Content.Oulook\3RVESOOWPH-Consolidated Fund IGFY2018.doc
CITY OF IOWA CIT -.
COUNCIL ACTION REPOR 12
March 16, 2017
Resolution for the May 2, 2017 City Council Meeting Regarding
the Iowa Department of Transportation Consolidated Funding
Application for Iowa City Transit
Prepared By: Chris O'Brien, Director of Transportation & Resource Management
Reviewed By: Ashley Monroe, Assistant City Manager
Fiscal Impact: Permits application for State and Federal transit operating and capital
funds which may require matching funds
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments: Resolution
Executive Summary:
The consolidated transit funding application is an annual application filed with Iowa Department
of Transportation ([DOT) listing capital and operating expenses that we wish to see funded by
IDOT and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The projects contained in the application
have been programmed by Iowa City Transit for FTA Section 5307, 5310 and/or 5339 funds in
FY2018. The projects will be included in the FY2018 Iowa DOT Consolidated Transit Funding
Application that the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC) is
completing and in the FY2018-2021 MPOJC Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Iowa
City Transit may not seek funding for all of the projects; however, each project needs to be
listed in order to be eligible for funding. The total amount of funds being included in the funding
application is over $18.5 million.
Background / Analysis:
Due to our potential application for and receipt of federal grant funds, we are required to hold a
public hearing so that the public can have the opportunity to comment on our funding request.
This is an annual process and we must provide a minimum of thirty days' notice prior to the
public hearing.
The specific allocations for the funds being applied for are detailed below:
State Transit Assistance Program: approximately $486,265 — These are formula
funds for operations awarded to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and then
distributed between Iowa City Transit, Coralville Transit and the University of Iowa —
Cambus.
Federal operating assistance for transit: $1,622,763 — These are funds awarded
from FTA to provide operational assistance to the transit agency.
From federal funds for transit in non -urbanized areas and/or for transit serving
primarily elderly persons and person with disabilities: $112,493 — These funds are
awarded to Iowa City and committed to para -transit services that are contracted through
a 28E Agreement with Johnson County SEATS
r 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY
Ari COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
State-wide federal capital assistance for transit: $16,361,900 — These funds include
all of the capital projects that Iowa City Transit wishes to see funded. This sum includes
replacement and relocation of the transit facility, busses and bus shelters. A local match
of 15% - 20% is commonly required for the award of these funds.
r�
Prepared by: Brad Neumann, Asst. Transp. Planner, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5235
RESOLUTION NO,
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION WITH THE
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FY2018 IOWA DOT STATE
TRANSIT ASSISTANCE AND FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
FUNDING.
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City, Iowa has undertaken to provide its residents with a public
transportation system; and
WHEREAS, the Iowa Departrr
governmental units for their public
WHEREAS, this is an annual pr
requested for operating and capital
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL
CITY, IOWA, THAT:
of Transportation offers financial assistance to local
portation systems; and
that Iowa City under+akes, outlining federal funds
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
We, hereby, authorize the City Manager, on be alf of the City f Iowa City, to apply for financial
assistance as noted below and to ent/$41a
r ated contra (s) with the Iowa Department of
Transportation.
From the State Transit Assistancm:3.371213% (approximate265) o mula FundsFrom federal operating assistancnsit 2,763;From federal funds for transit inanized areas an or for transit serving primarily
elderly persons and person with s:2,493;From state-wide federal capital ae for transit:
$16,361,900, and
We understand acceptance of federal transit assistance involves an agreement to comply with
certain labor protection provisions.
We certify that the City of Iowa City has sufficient non-federal funds to provide required local
match for capital projects and at time of delivery will have the funds to operate and maintain
vehicles and equipment purchased under this project.
We request the State Transit Assistance formula funding be advanced monthly as allowed by law,
to improve transit system cash flow.
Resolution No.
Page 2
s
Passed and approved this
ATTEST:_
CITY
It was moved by
adopted, and upon roll call there
AYES:
jccogtp/res/sta-app-l2.da
day of 20
MAYOR
A oved by
City Attorney's Office
and seconded by
the Resolution be
NAY ABSENT:
Botchway II
Cole
Dickens
Mims
Taylor
Thomas
Throgmorton
Publish 4/18
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF
A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY -UNIVERSITY
PROJECT I URBAN RENEWAL PLAN IN THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA
The City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa will hold a public hearing at its meeting on
May 2, 2017 which commences at 7:00 P.M. in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, Iowa City,
Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted
by the City Clerk to consider adoption of the City -University Project I Urban Renewal Plan,
Amendment No. 15 (the "Plan").
A copy of the plan is on file for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall,
Iowa City, Iowa
The City of Iowa City, Iowa is the local agency which, if such Plan is approved, shall
undertake the urban renewal activities described in such Plan.
The general scope of the urban renewal activities under consideration in the Plan is to
assist qualified industries and businesses in the Urban Renewal Area through various public
purpose and special financing activities outlined in the Plan. To accomplish the objectives of
the Plan, and to encourage the further development of the Urban Renewal Area, the plan
provides that such special financing activities may include, but not be limited to, the making of
loans or grants of public funds to private entities under Chapter 15A of the Code of Iowa. The
City also may install, construct and reconstruct streets, parking facilities, open space areas and
other substantial public improvement, and may acquire and make land available for
development or redevelopment by private enterprise as authorized by law. The Plan provides
that the City may issue bonds or use available funds for such purposes and that tax increment
reimbursement of such costs will be sought if and to the extent incurred by the City.
Any person or organization desired to be heard shall be afforded an opportunity to be
heard at such hearing.
This notice is given by order of the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, as provided by
Section 403.5 of the State Code of Iowa.
Dated this 18th day of April 2017.
s/Julie Voparil
Deputy City Clerk, Iowa City, Iowa
(END OF NOTICE)
'r CITY OF IOWA CIT
Z-r �� COUNCIL ACTION REPO 21
May 2, 2017
Resolution approving amendment No. 15 to the City -University
Project 1 Urban Renewal Plan to add projects to the urban
renewal area.
Prepared By:
Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed By:
Simon Andrew, Assistant to the City Manager
Fiscal Impact:
No Impact
Recommendations:
Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:
Resolution approving Amendment #15 to City -University Project 1 Urban
Renewal Plan Amendment #15
Amendment #15 City -University Project 1 Urban Renewal Plan
Executive Summary:
Any urban renewal activities undertaken in an urban renewal area must be included in the
respective urban renewal plan. This proposed amendment includes a list of potential projects in
the City -University Project 1 Urban Renewal Area, the timeframe in which they would be
undertaken and a 'not -to -exceed' dollar amount that may be contemplated by Council.
The potential projects being added to the Urban Renewal Plan include several redevelopment
projects including the redevelopment of the City Hall north parking lot and several public
improvement projects including the improvements to the intersection of Burlington and Clinton
Streets. It is important to note that the amendments to the plan do not constitute the approval of
the projects listed within the plan; rather, they afford Council the opportunity to consider those
projects.
Background / Analysis:
The projects listed in Amendment #15 for possible consideration include the following private
redevelopment projects:
• Redevelopment of City Hall parking lot to include restoration and reuse of historic church
for a commercial enterprise, and residential development for low and moderate income
families
• A redevelopment project at the corner of Burlington and Clinton Streets
• Renovations to the historic buildings housing the Englert Theater and Film Scene
• Workforce housing tax credit matching source for project at 1201 S. Gilbert Street
Public improvement projects for possible consideration include the following:
• Kirkwood Avenue to Capitol Street Connection
• Gilbert Street intersection improvements
• Pedestrian Mall reconstruction
CITY OF IOWA CITY
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
This report also documents the required processes following adoption of a resolution of
necessity, including the public notice given of a public hearing and consultation meeting with
other taxing entities prior to adopting an amendment to an Urban Renewal Plan.
• Resolution of Necessity
A Resolution of Necessity (resolution #17-109) to consider Amendment #15 to the City
University Urban Renewal Plan was adopted by City Council on April 4, 2017.
Consultation with Taxing Entities
On April 5, a meeting notice and invitation were sent for a consultation with the City of Iowa
City and the other taxing entities, Johnson County and the Iowa City Community School
District, concerning the proposed Amendment #15 to the City -University Urban Renewal
Area.
The consultation was held on April 17, 2017 at 12:00 p.m. in the City Manager's Conference
Room in City Hall. No one from the Johnson County Board of Supervisors or the School
District attended.
State law requires that the taxing entities must submit any written recommendations for
modification regarding the proposed division of revenue within 7 days after the consultation.
There were no submissions.
• Notice of Public Hearing
On April 18, 2017, notice of a Public Hearing to be held May 2, 2017 on Amendment #15 to
the City -University Urban Renewal Plan was published in the Iowa City Press Citizen.
Amendment No. 115
City -University Pro ect 1
Urban Rlenewal Ian
City of Iowa Cityd IA
Original Area Adopted 1969
Amendment No. 1 -1972
Amendment No. 2 -1973
Amendment No. 3 - 1973
Amendment No. 4 - 1976
Amendment No. 5 -1977
Amendment No. 6 -1979
Amendment No. 7 -1984
Am
FILED
HM 0 3 7017
City Clerk
IoWa cl`,d I, ,..
No. 8 -1987
No. 9 - 2001
No. 10 - 2012
No. 11 - 2013
No. 12 - 2014
No. 13 - 2015
No. 14 - 2016
Table of Contents
Section 1 —Introduction
Section 2 — Urban Renewal Pian Objectives
Section 3 - Proposed Urban Renewal Projects
Section 4 — Propose
Section 5 - Debt
Section 6 — Urban Ri
Section 7 - Effective
Section 8 - Repealer
Section 9 - Severabil
-2-
SECTION 1- INTRODUCTION
The City -University Project 1 Urban Renewal Plan ("Plan") for the City -University
Project 1 Urban Renewal Area ("Area" or "Urban Renewal Area"), adopted in 1969 and
amended fourteen times since, is being further amended with this Amendment #15 to
add projects to the Urban Renewal Area.
No land is being added to the Area by this amendment. The amendment does
not change the Plan's previously approved project area objectives or urban renewal
activities. Except as modified by this Amendment, the provisions of the original City -
University Project 1 Ur an Renewal Plan, as previously amended, are hereby ratified,
confirmed, and approve and shall remain in full force an effect., In case of any conflict
or uncertainty, the terns f the Amendment shall control/
In addition to the obje Ives listed in the Ian, as previously amended, the
following objective is added: Promotion of re dentia) development for low and
moderate income families.
SECTION 3 - PROPOS D URBA RENEWAL PROJECTS
Although certain project activities ay cur over a period of years, in addition to
the projects previously proposed in the Pla s amended, the following prcvm
renewal projects are hereby added to the PI r B ur
1. Public Improvements RAR 0 3 2017
Project
Approximat
Estima d Cost
Rationale
Date
Iowa City. to
Kirkwood Avenue to Capitol
2021
$3,0 0,000
Supports transportation
Street Connection
network that encourages
walking, biking, and public
transit, provides opportunity
to develop parkland, trail and
reen space along River.
Gilbert Street Intersection17-2018
$925,000
Supports more livable
Improvements
ommunity with integration of
s fe, reliable transportation
ne Mrk
Pedestrian Mall
2018-2019
$7,800,000
Pro 'des for opens spaces
reconstruction
and p destrian ways that
reinfor pedestrian
orientation of downtown.
Strengthens the core area for
commerce, culture,
-3-
is
education, entertainment, etc.
2. Planning, engineering fees, costs and attorney fees to support urban
renewal plan -related projects
Project
Date
Estimated
Attorney fees to support
Ongoing
Cost
1
urban renewal projects
To preserve and protect buildings that,
$100,000
3. Development Agreements
Project
Date
Estimated cost
Rationale
Redevelopment of2017
$6,000,000
To preserve and protect buildings that,
City Hall parking lot,
for re' of age, history, architecture or
to include
significan a are listed or are eligible for
restoration and
listingon he National Register of
reuse of historic
Historic laces, strengthen the economic
church for a
well -be' g of the area and provide
commercial
reside tial development for low and
enterprise, and
mod ate income families
residential
development for low
and moderate
income families.
Redevelopment
2017-2019$9,
00,000
emediate blight; strengthen core area
project at the corner
for commerce, culture, entertainment.
of Burlington and
Clinton Streets
Englert/Film Scene
2018-2020
$1,000, 0
Strengthens the core area for
Building
commerce, culture, education,
Renovations
entertainment, etc. To preserve and
rotect buildings that, for reason of age,
h tory, architecture or significance are
lis d or are eligible for listing on the
Nati nal Register of Historic Places.
Workforce Housing
2018-2020
$312,000
To cr ate residential living spaces young
Tax Credit matching
profes ionals and members of the
source for project at
creative class by offering a variety of
1201 S. Gilbert St.
housino 4otions.
FILED
All activitieso actions from previous Plan amendments continue, as deta14ta2 M 2017
previous Plan ame rents.
City Clerk
SECTION 5 - DEBT Iowa City, Iowa
1. 1 FY 2017 constitutional debt limit: $267,511,393
2.
Outstanding general obligation debt:
$52,295,000
3.
Proposed amount of loans, advances, indebtedness or
bonds to be incurred: The specific amount of debt to be
incurred for the Proposed Urban Renewal Projects has not
yet been determined. The Projects authorized in this
Amendment are only proposed projects at this time. The City
Council will con 'der each proposed project on a case-by-
case basis to d termine if it is consistent with the Plan and in
the public's bes�interest. These proposed Projects, if
approved, will commence and be concluded over a number
of years. In no a ent will debt be incurred that would exceed
the City's debt ca acity. It is expected that such
indebtedness, incl ding interest thereon, may be nanced in
whole or in part wit tax increment revenues fro the Urban
Renewal Area. Sub ct to the foregoing, it is a timated that
the cost of the Propo d Urban Renewal Proj cts described
Not to exceed:
above will be approxi tely as follows:
$28,037,000
If the City of Iowa City desi s to
with applicable state and local laws.
This Urban Renewal Plan At
adoption by the City Council. Notwiti
Renewal Plan, any prior amendment,
shall remain in effect until terminated
property tax revenues, or the "division
403 of the Code of Iowa, will be consis
this Plan, it may do so in conformance
ent #15 will become effective upon its
ng anything to the contrary in the Urban
on, or document, the Urban Renewal Plan
City Council, and the use of incremental
ue," as those words are used in Chapter
;h haoter 403 of the Iowa Code.
Any parts of the previous Ian, as previous amended, in conflict with this
Amendment are hereby repealed
If any part of the A ndment is determined to be invalid or unconstitutional, such
invalidity or unconstitutiopAlity shall not affect the validity of the previously adopted Plan
as a whole or the previous amendments to the Plan, or any part of the Plan not
determined to be invalid or unconstitutional. FILED
-5- MAR 032017
City Clerk
Iowa City, Iowa
City -University Project 1
Urban Renewal Area
o As Amended
a
wren PVE
RAE
jw wnsHlncron
s* -
N ry
RRAA'O A,
M
MELROSE ME p
fin Z
ECOURT ST
a
8RVERY
ST
i MY0.ttEPVE
Od�
„H
p
PAMST
PRI9T
W BENTOX
E
A Qy OOVO✓399T BJG
y 4p
rep8ry
o
m
p
OS
C0p
NIWMIPYIW __ p
O O.T,OY CT
4V pOi
F
IcxuNOPVE
4OAEl8J
EAHE91S
RUPPERT0.O
^
F
n
RVMBT �
\\h��E
/
Urban renewal area boundary
OLYMPIC CT
® 1969 Original Area
2001 Amended Area
9O..TE
TPrE
®2012 Amended Area
ZE
C8 �(H��PV
gar "'EJ ,..E
® 2016 Amended Area
s PET 4AVE
8
-
I—Lr1rw
o mA vn SAO p
9Pxouslty OR
�z
Publish 4/24
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OF THE IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL ON THE MATTER
OF THE PROPOSAL TO ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH
AUGUSTA PLACE, LLC, AND THE HEARING THEREON
PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the Iowa City City Council will hold a public
hearing on May 2, 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in Emma Harvat Hall, at City Hall, 410 E. Washington
Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or, if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council
thereafter as posted by the City Clerk, at which meeting the Council proposes to take action on
the proposal enter into a Development Agreement (the "Agreement") with Augusta Place, LLC.
(the "Developer").
The Agreement would obligate the Developer to invest $35,163,653 in development costs toward
the construction of certain Minimum Improvements as defined in the Agreement on certain real
property located within the City -University Urban Renewal Area as defined and legally
described in the Development Agreement. Said land is located to the North of City Hall on the
North half of the Block bordered by Gilbert Street, Iowa Avenue and Van Buren Street and
consists of two parcels, one owned by the City of Iowa City and used as a surface parking lot,
and the other the site of the historic Unitarian Church and owned by the Developer. The
property owned by the City would be conveyed to Augusta Place pursuant to said Development
Agreement. The project requires certain Minimum Improvements including the designation of
the Unitarian Church as a historic landmark and rehabilitation of the church as a commercial
venture, affordable housing both on and off site, a parking facility to include surface parking for 60
City vehicles, 26 townhomes rimming the parking facility and 100 apartments. In exchange for
construction of the Minimum Improvements and the creation of a $14,384,905 minimum
assessment value on the project once complete, the City proposes to convey land to the
Developer for the appraised value of $3,330,000,which land is legally -described as:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 44, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY, IOWA,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 116 IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON
COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE S00045'22"E, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, AND ITS
SOUTHERLY EXTENSION, 160.46 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE PLATTED ALLEY; THENCE
S89° 19'44"W, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, 319.30 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 44;
THENCE N00°46'57"W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 50.58 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH
110 FEET OF LOT 4, SAID BLOCK 44; THENCE N89021'01"E, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTH 110
FEET OF LOT 4, A DISTANCE OF 79.84 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTH 110 FEET OF
LOT 4; THENCE N00°46'56"W, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 4, A DISTANCE OF 110.00 FEET; THENCE
N89°21'01"E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOTS 3,2 AND 1, A DISTANCE OF 239.53 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 0.98 ACRE (42,477 SQUARE FEET) AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
The City also agrees to provide annual economic development grants paid through the use of tax
increment financing over a maximum 9 years in the maximum amount of $4,020,292 for the
commercial and on-site affordable housing components of the project, a forgivable loan in the
amount of $650,831, purchase of the improved surface parking lot for $602,843, and purchase of
six 1 bedroom apartments with Housing Authority funds for use as affordable housing at a total
price of $1,080,000.
A copy of the Agreement is on file for public inspection during regular business hours in
the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, City of Iowa City, Iowa.
At the above meeting the Council shall receive oral or written comments from any
resident or property owner of said City, to the proposal to enter into the Agreement with the
Developer. After all comments have been received and considered, the Council will at this
meeting or at any adjournment thereof, take additional action on the proposal or will abandon the
proposal to authorize said Agreement.
This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, as
provided by Section 364.6 of the City Code of Iowa.
Dated this 24th day of April, 2017.
Julie Voparil
Deputy City Clerk, City of Iowa City, Iowa
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OF THE IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL ON THE MATTER
OF THE PROPOSAL TO ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH
AUGUSTA PLACE, LLC, AND THE HEARING THEREON
PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the Iowa City City Council will hold a public
hearing on May 2, 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in Emma Harvat Hall, at City Hall, 410 E. Washington
Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or, if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council
thereafter as posted by the City Clerk, at which meeting the Council proposes to take action on
the proposal enter into a Development Agreement (the "Agreement") with Augusta Place, LLC.
(the "Developer").
The Agreement would obligate the Developer to invest $35,163,653 in development costs toward
the construction of certain Minimum Improvements as defined in the Agreement on certain real
property located within the City -University Urban Renewal Area as defined and legally
described in the Development Agreement. Said land is located to the North of City Hall on the
North half of the Block bordered by Gilbert Street, Iowa Avenue and Van Buren Street and
consists of two parcels, one owned by the City of Iowa City and used as a surface parking lot,
and the other the site of the historic Unitarian Church and owned by the Developer. The
property owned by the City would be conveyed to Augusta Place pursuant to said Development
Agreement. The project requires certain Minimum Improvements including the designation of
the Unitarian Church as a historic landmark and rehabilitation of the church as a commercial
venture, affordable housing both on and off site, a parking facility to include surface parking for 60
City vehicles, 26 townhomes rimming the parking facility and 100 apartments. In exchange for
construction of the Minimum Improvements and the creation of a $14,384,905 minimum
assessment value on the project once complete, the City proposes to convey land to the
Developer for the appraised value of $3,330,000,which land is legally -described as:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 44, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY, IOWA,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 116 IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON
COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE S00045'22"E, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, AND ITS
SOUTHERLY EXTENSION, 160.46 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE PLATTED ALLEY; THENCE
S89°19'44"W, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, 319.30 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 44;
THENCE N00046'57"W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 50.58 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH
110 FEET OF LOT 4, SAID BLOCK 44; THENCE N89021'01"E, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTH 110
FEET OF LOT 4, A DISTANCE OF 79.84 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTH 110 FEET OF
LOT 4; THENCE N00046'56"W, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 4, A DISTANCE OF 110.00 FEET; THENCE
N89°21'01"E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOTS 3, 2 AND 1, A DISTANCE OF 239.53 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 0.98 ACRE (42,477 SQUARE FEET) AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
The City also agrees to provide annual economic development grants paid through the use of tax
increment financing over a maximum 9 years in the maximum amount of $4,020,292 for the
commercial and on-site affordable housing components of the project, a forgivable loan in the
amount of $650,831, purchase of the improved surface parking lot for $602,843, and purchase of
six 1 bedroom apartments with Housing Authority funds for use as affordable housing at a total
price of $1,080,000.
A copy of the Agreement is on file for public inspection during regular business hours in
the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, City of Iowa City, Iowa.
At the above meeting the Council shall receive oral or written comments from any
resident or property owner of said City, to the proposal to enter into the Agreement with the
Developer. After all comments have been received and considered, the Council will at this
meeting or at any adjournment thereof, take additional action on the proposal or will abandon the
proposal to authorize said Agreement.
This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, as
provided by Section 364.6 of the City Code of Iowa.
Dated this day of 2017.
City Clerk, City of Iowa City, Iowa
Julie Voparil
From:
Eleanor M. Dilkes
Sent:
Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:43 PM
To:
Julie Voparil
Subject:
PUBLICATION NOTICE - AUGUSTA PLACE.docx
M�
PUBLICATION
NOTICE - AUEU...
Julie — Here is the Notice to be published for Augusta Place per Resolution of Intent to Enter into Development
Agreement -4 and 20 rule; hearing on May 2
CITY OF IOWA CIT
COUNCIL ACTION REPOR 22
April 18, 2017
Resolution of intent to consider a proposed development
agreement with Augusta Place, LLC, which includes the transfer of
land described therein, and setting a Public Hearing for May 2,
2017 thereon and providing for publication of notice thereof.
Prepared By:
Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed By:
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney
Simon Andrew, Assistant to the City Manager
Fiscal Impact:
1. City financial assistance of $4,671,123, which will be paid with
$4,020,292 in TIF rebates and $650,831 in a forgivable loan.
2. Sale of City land for $3,330,000, purchase of Affordable Housing units
for $1,080,000 and improved surface parking for $602,843.
Recommendations:
Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:
1) Request for Financial Assistance from Developer
2) Memo regarding NDC financial analysis of request
3. Resolution of Intent to Consider a Proposed Development Agreement
Executive Summary:
Allen Homes is proposing a project, Augusta Place, to be built on land that is currently the
parking lot north of City Hall. The $35 million project will accomplish several goals including the
preservation and rehabilitation of a historic Church for a commercial venture and the
commitment of 6 new city -owned affordable apartment units on site and 12 affordable units at
another site. Additionally, it will afford the City a covered surface parking lot with a total of 60
spaces to serve our public safety operations. In total, there will be 126 dwelling units on site.
The developer is seeking City financial assistance totaling $4.7 million.
Background / Analysis:
About a year and a half ago, Jesse Allen approached the City with a proposal for the
redevelopment of a portion of the block occupied by City Hall. Allen had recently purchased the
historic Unitarian Church at the corner of Iowa Avenue and Gilbert Street. He knew the City had
expressed interest in finding a way to save the church from demolition and that he would need
some additional land to accommodate parts of a larger project he envisioned.
In the fall of 2015, he presented an initial concept to the City Council that would require the City
to sell the parking lot north of City Hall. In exchange, he would build 3 new drive-through fire
truck bays and a parking deck for purchase by the City, 2 floors of office space for lease, 26
townhomes and 3 stories of apartments above the parking facility. Financial analysis determined
Z CITY OF IOWA CITY
-r� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
the purchase price of the fire truck bays and the parking structure alone to exceed $15 million
and Allen and City staff were encouraged to consider other ideas.
Project Description
Over the winter of 2016-2017, several new concepts were vetted and the project presented to
you in this packet was determined to be mutually agreeable. It is a $35 million multi -use project
with a request for $4,671,123 in City financial assistance. The project includes the following
features:
The former Unitarian Universalist Church will be designated as a historic landmark. Upgrades to
the church will include repair of damage done when the connection between the church and the
education building was removed; replacement of the heating, ventilation and air-conditioning
systems for the entire building; making the building accessible by installing an elevator serving
each floor and adding accessible restrooms. The Church will ultimately be adapted for reuse by
one or more commercial endeavors.
A two-level parking structure will provide covered parking for the City's use at ground level (60
spaces) and one level of parking above for residential parking (57 spaces). The City will
purchase its parking lot as a Parking Condominium Unit consisting of 55 non -compact sized
spaces in the structure and 5 non -compact sized spaces along the exit drive to Gilbert Street.
The main entry and exit to the parking facility will be from the alley on Van Buren Street. The
access to Gilbert Street will be provided for use by City vehicles only. The 57 parking spaces on
the second floor of the parking facility are for the residents of the building. A parking code
amendment eliminating the parking requirement for properties in the downtown planning district,
zoned CB -5 and in part, in a historic district overlay is currently under consideration.
26 Townhome-style residential units will be built around and provide a visual screen to the
parking structure. Townhomes will be two stories each stacked upon each other for a four story
building height lining the parking structure. Each townhome will have its own front door access
from the street, and back door access from the parking structure.
100 apartments will be built on levels 3 through 7 above the parking structure and extend to
both Gilbert and Van Buren Streets. There will be 6 one bedroom, 67 two bedroom and 18 three
bedroom units. The 6 one bedroom units will be purchased by the City satisfying a portion of the
required affordable housing. The on-site Affordable Housing Units shall be approximately 550
square feet and will be managed by the Iowa City Housing Authority.
There will be an outdoor terrace above the parking garage on the same level as the lowest floor
of apartments and the third level of townhomes. The outdoor terrace will be accessible to all
residents of the building and include a well-maintained mix of plant material and patio amenities
such as seating.
Sidewalks will be relocated slightly northward along the Iowa Avenue frontage to provide more
area for planting and to enhance green space in front of each townhome unit. This realignment
will require the replacement of street trees between the sidewalk and the curb and additional
tree plantings near the townhome entries. New trees shall be a minimum 2.5" caliper and meet
the City's tree diversity standards.
The north side of the Fire Station will require improvements to the Fire Station entrance and to
r 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY
not
VIA
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
the 2"' floor outdoor balcony for fire station residents. The replacement balcony will also serve
as a cover over the sidewalk to the entry door from Gilbert Street. Signage indicating the Fire
Station entrance will be placed over the walk and be visible from Gilbert Street.
The developer will also be responsible for relocating any City owned infrastructure in the project
area, including water, sanitary and storm sewer, electric, communication, fiber optic lines, and
radio antennas.
The Developer is also exploring the feasibility of the use of solar energy on site and will
incorporate solar into the Project if feasible as determined by the Developer and as approved by
the City Manager or designee
Financial Analysis
The City contracts with the non-profit National Development Council (NDC) to review and assist
in the financial analysis of proposed TIF development projects. Karen Garritson, an NDC
Director, led the financial analysis of each iteration of the proposed project and a memo
detailing her review follows. In summary, total development costs for the project are $35.1
million of which $5.78 million is land acquisition of the church and city parcels, with construction
costs of $24.1 million. The cost breakdown is further detailed in the developer's Request for TIF
and in Karen Garritson's memo, attached.
City Financial Assistance
Ms. Garritson's analysis confirms a project gap of $3.8 million which will require City financial
assistance totaling $4,671,123 comprised of TIF rebates and a forgivable loan in the form of a
discount on the sale price of the land.
Because this portion of the urban renewal area does not allow the use of TIF for market rate
housing, a large part of the Augusta Place project is not eligible for TIF. In fact, the only parts of
the project that are eligible are the church and the on-site affordable housing. The church costs
of $3,014,238 plus the financial gap of $149,184 created by the 6 units of affordable housing
total $3,163,473.
Since the project gap of $3.8 million is greater than the eligible expenses of $3.1 million, staff
has proposed a contribution by the City to the price of the land in the form of a forgivable loan to
account for the difference, or $650,831.
As shown below, the total City financial assistance of $4,671,123 is comprised of TIF eligible
expenses of $3.1 million funded by future TIF rebates, which require the developer to take out a
loan for $3.1 million to be repaid with TIF rebates using the estimated $437,000 annual TIF
rebates over approximately 8 years and a $650,831 forgivable loan.
TIF eligible expenses covered by a loan to be repaid by TIF $3,163,473
+ Interest on TIF eligible expenses loan 856,819
assistance $4,671,123
Sale of City Property
The north parking lot parcel was appraised at $3,330,000 in January, 2016. The appraised
value less the $650,831 forgivable loan results in $2,679,169 sales proceeds to the City. Using
CITY OF IOWA CITY
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
the sales proceeds, the City will purchase the Parking Condominium unit for $602,843 and the
remaining sale proceeds will placed in the City's Parking fund.
City Parking Condominium Unit
The Developer will convey to the City a City Parking Condominium unit for $602,843 when
construction is complete. Because the number of City parking spaces will be fewer upon
completion of the project than before the conveyance of the land, staff is working on a plan to
move current permit holders to two nearby parking structures and to relocate parking for the City
fleet vehicles parked at the east entrance.
Affordable Housing
The City will also purchase 6 one bedroom apartment units for $180,000 each or a total of
$1,080,000. This satisfies 1/3 of the 15% affordable housing required of TIF financed projects.
The developer will also provide 12 additional 2 bedroom apartments located at 104 Westside
Drive for the remaining 2/3 of his affordable housing requirement. These units will be rented to
applicants whose household income is at 60% or less of area median income (AMI), Rents for
the twelve off-site units shall be calculated based on a 40% AMI in order to reduce the rent from
that which the Developer is currently charging.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending the approval of the proposed Development agreement because it is
aligned with at least two of City Council's strategic planning priorities:
• Encourage a vibrant and walkable core
• Maintain a solid financial foundation
The Project will generate, when complete, an actual minimum taxable value of $14,384,905 of
new tax base upon which taxes will be paid to the local taxing entities.
Further, it aligns with the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan, including the Downtown and
Riverfront Crossings sub district plan which includes the Development property. The project also
provides for preservation of a historic building for commercial use, represents strategic infill
development on an under-utilized surface parking lot, is pedestrian oriented by adding to the
number of residences in the downtown within walking distance of grocery stores, services,
restaurants and retail, brings the active part of the building close to the property line with parking
hidden behind and provides 6 units of on-site affordable housing as well as a commitment by
the Developer to provide additional off site affordable housing and replace the City owned
parking necessary for the public safety departments housed at City Hall.
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 6, 2017
To: Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator
From: Karen Garritson, Director, National Development Council
CC: Geoff Fruin, City Manager; Iowa City City Council
RE: 10 South Gilbert Street
At your request, NDC has reviewed the materials submitted by and on behalf of Jesse Allen and Allen
Development (hereinafter, "the Developer") in support of a request for City financial assistance of
$4,671,123 for the development of the project described below.
The project requires the acquisition of a parcel of city land adjacent to City Hall, currently used as a
surface parking lot. This parcel will be combined with land already acquired by the developer,
contiguous with the city parking lot and including the historic Unitarian Church.
The project on the combined site will include:
• Residential - Twenty-six (26) residential Townhomes and one hundred (100) residential
apartments. Six one -bedroom units, will be sold to the City of Iowa City with Housing Authority
funds for affordable housing. The Developer will also be providing 12 units of affordable
housing of a period of 20 years off-site at a different Developer -owned property.
i A AvE
mrn.ar.
FORMER CM H
e
IERR�GE W, PmmU BFLOW
3
79
t
>
I
an HALL
1
_
The project on the combined site will include:
• Residential - Twenty-six (26) residential Townhomes and one hundred (100) residential
apartments. Six one -bedroom units, will be sold to the City of Iowa City with Housing Authority
funds for affordable housing. The Developer will also be providing 12 units of affordable
housing of a period of 20 years off-site at a different Developer -owned property.
10 S. Gilbert Street
April 6, 2017
Page 2
Commercial - The second element of the project is the acquisition and renovation of the
former Unitarian Church on the corner of South Gilbert Street and Iowa Avenue. The church
building was dedicated in 1908 and was recently sold to the Developer. Preserving the historic
church, which otherwise would be torn down for redevelopment, is consistent with goals for
use of TIF assistance. The renovation plan for the building includes stabilization of exterior
elements of the building, freshening the interior, installation of new HVAC, and adding an
elevator and accessible restrooms. Once renovated, the space will be leased for a commercial
endeavor.
• Parking —A total of 117 spaces in a two level parking structure. Sixty-six (60) spaces will be
purchased by the City following completion as a condominium unit and fifty-six (57) spaces will
serve the residential units.
• Fire Station Entrance - As part of the overall redevelopment a new, accessible entrance to Fire
Station No.1 will be constructed giving access directly from Gilbert Street. The fire station
outdoor deck will be replaced and a new loading dock and trash enclosure will be provided.
NDC and City development and planning staff have met with the Developer and his representatives on
multiple occasions since September 2016 and have exchanged questions and updated information by
email between on-site visits. The Developer has refined the projections on the project's development
costs and operating revenues/expenses as the project's design, specifications and unit mix have been
modified in response to City concerns.
Given the numerous iterations of the development plan, it is still in the conceptual design stage as
described in the developer's most recent submittal to the City for financial assistance. This indicates
cost estimates are still preliminary so the project's development budget, revenues, expenses and
occupancy levels may change as the project moves toward actual development.
Likewise, all of the factors influenced by the final design will impact the amount of senior debt the
project can attract. His latest sources and uses estimates project bank financing of $23.5 million at
4.5% interest with a 25 -year amortization. Taken together with the developer's $4.67 million Request
for Financial Assistance, the project's sources and uses are projected as follows:
10 S. Gilbert Street
April 6, 2017
Page 3
Church Acquisition $ 2,450,000
City Land Acquisition (appraised value) $ 3,330,000
Site Improvements $ 300,000
Construction $24,155,197
Contingency $ 1,222,760
Architecture/Engineering $ 1,956,416
Project & TIF Interest, Soft Costs, DF $ 1,749,280
Total Project Costs $35,163,653
Bank Loan $23,510,530
City Lease -Purchase of Parking & Fire Entry $ 602,000
HA Purchase of 6 AH units $ 1,080,000
City Financial Assistance $ 4,671,123
Required from Developer $ 5,300,000
Total Sources
$35,163,653
Due to the nature of the project's TIF District, support of general residential development is not an
eligible use of TIF proceeds. However, Affordable Housing and commercial development are.
Therefore, project costs eligible for TIF benefits are noted below.
Historic Church Preservation and Rehab $3,014,289
Affordable Housing Gap $ 149,184
TIF Eligible $3,163,473
Since not all of the project's $3,814,304 financial gap is supportable through TIF, staff suggest that the
balance of the gap be funded with a forgivable loan against the value of the city's land in the amount of
$650,831.
To cover the TIF eligible expenses in the form of rebates over a period of years, the developer will take
out a loan to be paid back using annual TIF rebates. The principal of the eligible $3,163,474 plus
interest totals $4,020,292. Based on valuation and property tax estimates, the project would generate
annual property tax rebates of approximately $437,461, enabling the developer to repay the TIF
eligible expenses in about 7-8 years.
In total, the combination of City financial assistance is as follows:
TIF eligible expenses with borrowing costs $4,020,292
Forgivable loan $ 650,831
Total City financial assistance $4,671,123
10 S. Gilbert Street
April 6, 2017
Page 4
The developer has provided the following documentation to support their projections and request for
gap financing:
• A proforma statement of operating revenue and expenses
• Conceptual floor plans for the project's 7 levels produced by Neumann Monson Architects
• A development budget based on conceptual designs and construction estimates provided by
McComas-Lacina Construction
Assuming the appraisal, when ordered, supports the amount of debt the developer is projecting,
NDC's analysis of the developer's current projections suggests that total City Financial Assistance
including interest of $4,671,123 will be required to bring the project's sources in line with projected
uses.
1) Selling the six (6) affordable one -bedroom units to the Housing Authority reduce the project's
potential gross income by $76,824 in the first year. The resulting reduction in the project's net
operating income reduces its capacity for debt and equity attraction.
2) The cost of acquiring and preserving the historic church are far in excess of the economic benefits
to be derived from renting the space overtime - and as a result, this aspect of the project would
not be undertaken without public sector support
3) A stabilized vacancy rate of 3% on the commercial (church) element of the project, is below what
might be anticipated in similar markets. This vacancy rate was accepted for NDC's analysis because
it represents a relatively small portion of the project's income and, as noted previously, no market
study, appraisal or tenant Letter of Intent has yet been completed to challenge the developer's
assumption that he will be able to achieve occupancy of the space.
4) The developer's assumption of the amount of bank debt the deal will be able to attract appears to
be maximized given its projected operating proforma and very favorable underwriting criteria: 80%
loan to value with no Debt Coverage requirement and a very strong cap rate below 7%.
5) The developer's equity contribution of $5.3 M yields a 9.75% internal rate of return (IRR) given the
projected after-tax cash flow and net sales proceeds of the project if held as a rental property for
25 -years. The 9.75% IRR is accepted by NDC as within the norm for purposes of its analysis. In
addition, the amount of developer equity required will likely increase as Senior lender
requirements for operating reserves etc. are imposed on the project and/or if project costs
increase as the project matures.
Conclusion: the project as presented demonstrates a need for City Financial Assistance totaling
$4,671,123. If the terms of the selected senior debt and updated project costs are substantially
different from what the Developer has projected, NDC will review this evaluation as requested by the
City.
Augusta Place
$35.1 million project
$4.7 million subsidy request
Commercial
• In preserved church
Residential
• 100 apartments
• 26 townhomes
Parking — 2 levels
• 60 spaces on ground floor
for City's public safety
vehicles
• 57 spaces on 2nd level for
apartments
Augusta Place - minimum improvements
1. Parking structure
• 60 spaces on grade condominium unit, covered, for City purchase
• 57 spaces on level 2 for residential use
2. Fire station entry and modifications to City Hall
• Both entries on north side of City Hall; fire station and loading
• Rebuilt balcony for fire station residents
3. Townhomes
• 26 two-story units, stacked upon each other for 4 story liner
4. Apartments
• 6 — 1 bedroom, 67 — 2 bedroom, 18 — 3 bedroom
• 6 onsite affordable units for sale to Housing Authority
• 12 off-site affordable units at 104 Westside Drive
• Tenants at or < 60% AMI; Rents affordable to 40% AMI
5. Terrace
• Level with 15Y floor of apartments and 2nd tier of townhomes
6. Utility connections
7. Streetscape enhancements
• Slight relocation of Iowa Ave. sidewalk to enhance green space
8. Solar Power possibilities
• Exploring feasibility
9. Preserving the Church
Augusta Puce — preserves the church
UU Church, 1908, State Historic Society
• Preserves 109 year old Unitarian Universalist Church
• Requires rezoning of property as historic landmark by the City Council
• Honors Augusta Jane Chapin, an early Iowa City Universalist minister
• Ensures exterior of building restored to complement original structure
Augusta Puce —future commercial space
UU Church, 1908, State Historic Society
• Creates unique new commercial spaces
• Ensures accessibility to both levels
• Builds new accessible restrooms
• Replaces ancient heating system with new HVAC system
Augusta Place — Level 1
IOWA AVENUE
Limro.. ,o..c.. rar,u.e• +owuw. roruw.
FUTURE COMMERCWL I, �,� I\\..���'\\\\\\\\\\\`o�000�00000�0000��00000�o�������R�«000�o�o�o��0000c ■ .w.,�,
EIMM\�O�O\OMM [o O�1IIIIIIIIIIIIImIIII101 �MWAi � II Ovmoi ..�.•
I i I
CRY HALL
LEVEL 01 - PARKING $ TOWNHOMES
R
Augusta Place — Level 2
IOWA AVENUE
/ :xx.:�..�.. :owx��u,. �,.xx�.,x_•. :xx.::,�x�. �:,x,::.x.. :.:,,�„x_•, ���.,::,... :,�x.:��xr...
r. FUTURE COMMERCIAL 1-1 1 IA t � ■ w
W W
K
F V Z
a, W
W I I V � ( ( � � I iowxxoxe• �
m m
■ _J___J___t ■ ■ >
rwmmn x o,rxxoxe • w ox i ,,,,.xxn
¢wrxx nr
romxmx,♦ conexax
roxxa
F7 F/7Z
LEVEL 02 - PARKING & TOWNNOMES
Augusta Place —Level 3
Augusta Place
Augusta Place
®M-4=
Augusta Place
6
7NO
Noel
a 4
Augusta Place
Augusta Place
Uses
Church acquisition
City land acquisition
(appraised value)
$2,450,000
3,330,000
Site improvements
300,000
Construction
24,155,197
Contingency
1,222,750
Architecture and Engineering
1,956,416
Project & TIF Interest, soft
costs, developer fee
1,749,280
Total project costs
$35,163,653
Sources
Bank loan
$23,510,530
City purchase of parking &
fire entry
602,000
Purchase of 6
Affordable Housing units
1,080,000
Required from developer
(equity)
5,300,000
Financial Gap
3,814,304
Interest
856,819
City Financial Assistance
4,671,123
Total project sources
$35,163,653
Augusta Place
Overview of Financial Gap and TIF eligible expenses
Financial Gap on entire project $ 3,814,304
Gap due to Church Acquisition, Rehab, soft costs - $ 3,014,289 TIF eligible
Gap due to Affordable Housing - $ 149,184 TIF eligible
Remaining gap = discount on land price $ 650,831 Discount
Overview of purchases by Developer and City
Sale price of City land $ 3,330,000
Discount in form of forgivable loan $ 650,831
Developer pays cash to City $ 2,679,169
and
City purchase of improved parking & fire station entry $ 602,843
Housing Authority Purchase of 6 Aff. Housing apartment
units $ 1,080,000
Overview of City financial assistance
TIF eligible portion of gap principal amount $ 3,163,473 Developer takes out loan based on repayment from TIF rebates
interest over TIF rebate time frame — 9 vears max + $ 856.819
Total TIF $ 4,020,292
Discount on land sale + S 650.831
Total City financial assistance $ 4,671,123
Augusta Place—next steps
• August 1, 2107 deadline for Construction Plans to be
submitted to City
• Rezoning of Church property as Historic Landmark before
conveyance of City property
• Approval of developer's staging and phasing plan
• Approval of preliminary plans and specs for the City
Parking Condo unit
• Impact on current lot use
• Construction begins in early fall of '17
• Estimated completion — 18 months