Loading...
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