Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-11-06 Public hearingNOTICE 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 6th day of November, 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 amending Title 14, Chapter 2, Article G., Riverfront Crossings Form -based Development Standards, to allow minor adjustments to upper floor stepback requirements and the minimum building height standard. 2. An ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning, Chapter 4, Use Regulations and Article 14-21), Industrial and Research Zones, to restrict sales of consumer fireworks to Industrial Zones. 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. Kellie Fruehling, CITY CLERK r CITY OF IOWA CITY 6a -'� MEMORANDUM Date: October 5, 2017 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Plan Re: Follow-up regarding amendmen o the Riverfront Crossings form -based code related to upper floor stepback and minimum building height in the South Downtown Subdistrict. At your last meeting, Commission members expressed concerns about eliminating the upper floor stepback requirement in the South Downtown Subdistrict as proposed in the staff memo dated September 21, 2017. Concerns were expressed about allowing monotonous building facades with little visual interest, especially for the taller, block -scale buildings that are common in Riverfront Crossings. You requested alternative code language that would allow administrative flexibility for granting reductions or waivers of the stepback requirement in certain circumstances, but only if an acceptable alternative design solution was proposed to break up the vertical mass of taller buildings. As we discussed, there are a variety of ways to visually distinguish the upper floor fagade from the lower floors. Use of a raised cornice or other horizontal string course or banding above which changes in building material, texture, color, or window pattern can all be used effectively to create more interesting building facades and break up the vertical mass of a taller building. These techniques are often used on buildings that have a stepback, but can also serve as alternative design solutions on buildings where there is no significant break in the vertical plane of the building. There are many options that would work for both modern and traditional designs. During your discussion, the University of Iowa School of Music building was cited as an example of a modern building where there is not an upper floor stepback, but where other design techniques were used to visually reduce the vertical mass of the building wall along Clinton Street. A historical example mentioned was the Jefferson Hotel, where the top floors of the eight story building are distinguished from the middle floors through an elaborate raised cornice. Walking or driving around the city, you will find many similar examples on buildings of various architectural styles. Recommendation: As stated in the previous staff memo, there are instances where it would not be appropriate to waive or reduce the stepback requirement, but if circumstances warranted a reduction or waiver, the alternative design techniques mentioned above may be effective in meeting the intent of the standard. To that end, staff recommends the following amendments to the minor adjustment section of the form -based code. Staff also recommends allowing a waiver of the minimum building height standard as discussed in the previous staff memo and as outlined below. Page 2 Amend 14 -2G -7H, Minor Adjustments, paragraph 1, as follows: H. Minor Adjustments 1. The FBC Committee may approve deviations from the building placement, fagad�tepbas ks, build+ag prejestfens, and parking, loading, and service area placement standards set forth in Section 14-2G-3, Subdistrict Standards. Standards greater or lesser than the ranges allowed may be approved in the following circumstances provided the approval criteria listed below are met: a. For publicly -accessible outdoor plazas; b. For irregular lots that make meeting the requirements impractical or infeasible; c. For buildings along Ralston Creek; d. For liner buildings, civic, or institutional buildings where unique building needs or site constraints make it difficult to fully comply with the standards; e. For buildings along pedestrian streets designed to maximize access to and views of the Iowa River; or f. For other special circumstances, provided that the intent of the standard and the Downtown & Riverfront Crossings Master Plan or Central District Plan, whichever is applicable, is met. g. Approval Criteria: (1) There are unique characteristics of the site or neighboring properties that lend to alternative design approaches, or that make it difficult or infeasible to meet the requirements; and (2) The proposed design and placement of the building, parking, and service areas fit the characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood, are consistent with the intent of the standard being modified and the goals of the Downtown & Riverfront Crossings Master Plan or Central District Plan, whichever is applicable, and will not detract from or be injurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity. Amend 14 -2G -7H, Minor Adjustments, paragraph 5, as follows: 5. The FBC Committee may approve deviations from the facade stepback requirements set forth in Section 14-2G-3 Subdistrict Standards or building design standards set forth in Section 14 -2G -7F, provided the following approval criteria are met: a. The An alternative design solution has been proposed by the applicant and it equally or better meets the intent of the specific standard being modified; and b. The proposed building desiga is uniquely designed to fit the characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood, is consistent with the goals of the Downtown & Riverfront Crossings Master Plan or Central District Plan, as applicable, and will not detract from or be injurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity; and c. The proposed building demonstrates excellence in architectural design and durability of materials; and d. There are unique characteristics of the site or neighboring properties that lend to alternative Page 3 design approaches, or that make it difficult or infeasible to meet the requirements; and/or the proposed building is designed true to a specific architectural style and adherence to the building design standards would be impractical and/or compromise the building's architectural integrity. e. For requests for waivers of an upper floor stepback requirement, an alternative means of visually breaking up the vertical plane of the building has been proposed and meets all of the approval criteria stated above. Amend 14 -2G -7H, Minor Adjustments, adding anew paragraph 6, as follows: 6. In mid -block locations, the FBC Committee may waive the minimum building height standard to allow for a 2nd story pedestrian courtvard (an area surrounded by building facades on at least 3 sides) provided a screen wall that is at least as tall as the second story building facade is constructed co -planar or recessed a maximum of 3' from the street -facing facade. The screen wall must be constructed of high quality building materials that faithfully imitate an architecturally finished exterior facade of the building with complementary window openings and articulation. Alternatively it may be designed as a decorative screen wall that has a semi -transparent, open pattern provided the top of the screen wall aligns generally with the top of the second story. For purposes of this provision the screen wall will be considered a building wall for purposes of regulating signage. P tCITY OF ;.IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: September 21, 2017 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner Re: Amendments to the Riverfront Crossings form -based code related to upper floor stepback and minimum building height in the South Downtown Subdistrict. Introduction: The developers of a proposed building at the southeast corner of Burlington and Clinton Streets have requested amendments to the Riverfront Crossings form -based zoning standards to allow a waiver of the upper floor stepback requirement and the minimum height requirement for a portion of the building. The property is located in the Riverfront Crossings — South Downtown Subdistrict and is zoned RFC - SD. The proposed project consists of a one-story base with two 6 -story towers separated by a second floor outdoor plaza that is approximately 40 feet wide and opens toward Clinton Street. The north tower of the seven story building would extend approximately 162 feet along Burlington Street and approximately 70 feet along Clinton Street. This portion of the building would have retail and office on the first 2 floors with residential apartments above. The south tower would be approximately 52 feet wide with frontage on Clinton Street and would contain an extended stay hotel. The hotel would be adjacent to the Hilton Garden Inn, recently constructed on Clinton Street. The second floor plaza between the two towers would be shared open space for hotel guests, apartment residents, and office tenants. (See attached illustrations of the proposed building). The maximum building height in the RFC -SD Zone is 8 stories with floors above the 5th story required to step back 10 feet from the lower story fagade in order to reduce the perceived height of the building. At street corners, tower elements or similar corner emphasis treatments may be exempt from the stepback requirement for a maximum of 35 feet as measured from the corner of the building. The RFC -SD District also has a minimum building height of 2 stories to maintain a minimum street wall and well- proportioned facades that create a comfortable sense of enclosure for pedestrians. Background: The City encourages development and redevelopment in the Riverfront Crossings District, in part, by allowing higher residential densities, taller block -scale buildings, and lower parking requirements. To ensure that new development results in neighborhoods that are safe and walkable and that create a high quality environment for residential living, there are form -based standards that help break up the mass and scale of larger, bulkier buildings and frontage standards that address how buildings "meet the street' with clearly defined street -facing entries, landscaping, ample window coverage and careful delineation between public and private space. The combination of frontage standards and building design standards work together to create a more human -scaled environment that is rich in visual Page 2 interest along street frontages making it a pleasant place to walk, bike, and spend time at local shops and restaurants. The upper floor stepback requirement and the fagade composition standards are the provisions in the code that specifically help to visually reduce the mass and scale of taller, bulkier buildings. Articulating the horizontal plane of a building wall with fagade recesses or projections in combination with changes in window pattern, building materials, textures, or color visually breaks the building into smaller modules that helps to reduce the mass of long, flat building facades that otherwise might be imposing or monotonous. To reduce the perceived height of the building, the upper floor stepback standard requires a break in the vertical plane of a building wall by stepping back the upper stories from the lower floors above a certain base height. The standards are intended to establish a consistent base height for each subdistrict in Riverfront Crossings and any stories above that base height are required to step back a minimum of 10 feet. From a pedestrian vantage point the height of a taller building appears to be more consistent with the base height because the floors above the stepback recede from view, open views along a street corridor and to the sky and allow more light to reach the sidewalk level. Discussion of Solutions: Upper Floor Stepback Requirement: The importance of the upper floor stepback standard varies based on the context. The stepback requirement is of heightened importance in the following instances: • For buildings that are granted bonus height where the building will be taller than other buildings in the vicinity; • For buildings located on streets where compatibility with the historic or lower -scale neighborhood context is of particular concern; • For buildings located on narrower street rights-of-way; and • In cases where preservation of views of iconic buildings or other features are important to the community, such as views of the Old Capitol. Along a street with a wider right-of-way or where existing buildings in the immediate vicinity exceed the base height without an upper floor stepback, meeting the standard may not be as important as achieving other community goals and objectives. The primary objective in South Downtown is to serve as an extension of the Downtown by encouraging a mix of high quality residential, office, retail, and civic uses at an urban intensity similar to downtown. The South Downtown Subdistrict abuts the University District on the west and Downtown Iowa City on the north. The Central Business District (CB -10) Zone does not have an upper floor stepback requirement for taller buildings and the University is not subject to local zoning regulations. Along the southern edge of the South Downtown, most properties have either recently redeveloped or are government buildings (county and federal). Along the east edge along Gilbert Street, the South Downtown subdistrict abuts the Gilbert subdistrict, which provides a transition to the lower -scale neighborhoods to the east. Given that the South Downtown is an area where taller buildings exist or may be developed without an upper floor stepback, staff believes that requiring a stepback above the 5`" story is not particularly important to achieving the objectives of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, except for buildings granted bonus height to exceed the maximum eight story Page 3 height standard or along the Gilbert Street frontage where a transition to the lower scale neighborhood to the east is of importance. As a case in point, the proposed development at the corner of Clinton and Burlington Street will incorporate several desirable features that further important goals and objectives of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan: • Ground floor retail space and Class A office space in a prime downtown location; • A high quality extended stay hotel; • Outdoor amenity space on a large second floor courtyard that will serve hotel guests, office tenants, and apartment/condo residents. Both the Class A office space and the extended stay hotel would qualify this project for bonus height under the provisions of the Riverfront Crossings Code. However, the developers would like to keep the building at seven stories. Eliminating the upper floor stepback requirement from the South Downtown subdistrict standards would, in effect, provide an alternative density bonus for this particular building by allowing additional floor area in the top two stories of the building while also allowing the developers to maintain a greater separation between the towers and therefore more generous outdoor plaza space on the second floor. With regard to context, the building will be located directly across Clinton Street from the new University of Iowa School of Music, which does not have an upper floor stepback and across Burlington Street from the Central Business District (CB -10 Zone) where an upper floor stepback is not required. Staff finds that eliminating the stepback requirement in the South Downtown is a reasonable solution that will allow additional buildable area in a district where high intensity development is encouraged, except for buildings that are granted bonus height or for building frontages along Gilbert Street, where reducing the perceived height of taller buildings is of greater importance. Minimum Building Height Standard: The developers of the proposed building at the corner of Burlington and Clinton are also requesting a waiver of the minimum building height requirement to allow second floor plaza space between the two towers. Locating the plaza on the second floor instead of the 3`0 floor will allow additional outdoor views and access to the courtyard from the second floor office space and from the second floor of the hotel. In lieu of second floor building space they propose to construct a semi -transparent screen wall that will provide a similar sense of enclosure from a pedestrian perspective. As part of this screen wall they are considering incorporating creative signage for the hotel, which will provide additional visual interest to the fagade. Staff finds this to be a reasonable approach to achieving the same goal and recommend amending the code to allow the flexibility for staff to administratively approve a minor adjustment in such a case. By limiting such an adjustment to mid -block locations and requiring a screen wall in lieu of a second story, the goal of providing a consistent minimum street wall will be achieved, while the additional outdoor space will enhance the living and working environment for building residents/tenants. Page 4 Recommendation: Staff recommends amending Title 14, Article 2G, Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use District Form -based Development Standards, as set forth below. The underlined text is new language to be added to the code. Amend 14 -2G -3A -3c., Building Height and Facade Stepbacks, as follows: c. Building Height and Facade Stepbacks (1) Principal building heights shall be regulated as provided below: (a) In the South Downtown subdistrict buildings shall be 2 stories min. and 8 stories max. in height above grade. (2) Upper floor building facades facing and visible from streets, plazas, or parks shall step back 10' min. from the lower floor facade as follows: (a) In the South Downtown subdistrict on building facades facing Gilbert Street or for buildings that are granted bonus height, a stepback is required above the 5th floor. (b) In the Park, South Gilbert, and University subdistricts above the 4th floor. (c) At street corners, tower elements or similar comer emphasis treatments may be exempt from the stepback requirement for up to one fagade bay (max. 35 feet) as approved by the FBC Committee. (d) 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. Amend 14 -42G -7H, Minor Adjustments, adding a new paragraph 6, as follows: 8 In mid -block locations the FBC Committee may waive the minimum building height standard to allow for a 2nd story pedestrian courtyard (an area surrounded by building facades on at least 3 sides) provided a screen wall that is at least as tall as the second story building facade is constructed co -planar or recessed a maximum of 3' from the street -facing facade. The screen wall must be constructed of high quality building materials that faithfully imitate an architecturally finished exterior facade of the building with complementary window openings and articulation. Alternatively, it may be designed as a decorative screen wall that has a semi -transparent, open pattern provided the top of the screen wall aligns generally with the too of the second story. The screen wall will be considered a building wall for purposes of regulating signage. Attachments: • Concept plans for the proposed building and second story pedestrian courtyard. Approved by: l 4.1, / John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator Neighborhood and Development Services Au: NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE Plot HIERONYMUS 16 050 OW1117 MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 2017 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Karen Howard OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of amendments to Title 14, Chapter 2, Article G, the Riverfront Crossings Form -based Development Standards, related to upper floor stepback and minimum building height as discussed in the staff memo dated September 21 and in the follow-up staff memo dated October 5, as amended. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Chapter 4, Use Regulations and Article 14-2D, Industrial and Research Zones, to restrict sales of consumer fireworks to Industrial Zones as described in the Staff report. CALL TO ORDER: Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CODE AMENDMENT: Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Chapter 2, Article G. the Riverfront Crossings form - based code related to upper floor stepbacks and minimum building height standards. Howard stated this is a continuation of discussion from the last meeting where the Commission asked Staff to bring forward alternative language for the Code Amendment. The original proposal was to eliminate the stepback requirement in the South Downtown District except for buildings receiving bonus height and for building frontages along Gilbert Street. Rather than eliminating the stepback requirement in the South Downtown Subdistrict, the Commission requested alternative language that would allow for administrative approval of minor adjustments to allow stepback reductions or waivers with added approval criteria that would make it clear that if requesting an minor adjustment an alternative design solution must be proposed that equally or better meets the intent of breaking up the vertical mass of taller buildings. Howard shared the proposed changes to the Minor Adjustment section of the Form - Based Code language and noted in paragraph 1 Staff is proposing to strike the allowance for Planning and Zoning Commission October 5, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 2 of 6 minor adjustments for fagade stepback requirements as that section addresses requests for adjustments to building and parking placement rather than adjustments to the building design. Instead staff recommends moving the allowance for minor adjustments for fagade stepbacks to paragraph 5, which addresses requests for minor adjustments for building design standards. Staff also added some language in paragraph five to clarify situations where the stepback waiver could be considered and what the approval criteria are. Howard noted that requests for minor adjustments are review by the Staff Design Review Committee. For cases located in the Riverfront Crossings District this committee is considered the Form -Based Code Committee. This committee reviews every project in the Riverfront Crossings District and reviews all requests for minor adjustments to the form -based code standards. Currently, in order to qualify for a minor adjustment, the applicant must demonstrate that there are site characteristics or other conditions that make it difficult or infeasible to meet the requirement. The proposed change to the code language would broaden the administrative discretion to consider if there is something unique about the property or neighboring property that lends to other design approaches. In the case of requests for adjustments to building design elements, including stepbacks, the applicant must propose an alternative design solute that equally or better meets the intent of the specific standard being modified. With regard to requests for a waiver of the upper floor stepback requirement the applicant must propose an alternative means of visually breaking up the vertical plane of the building. The FBC Committee reviews all the criteria listed in paragraph five for every application. Martin asked who sits on the FBC Committee. Howard said the membership of the Committee has varied over the years but typically is staff from the Neighborhood & Development Services Department and more recently staff from the City Manager's office. Howard showed the Commission examples of buildings where other means besides fagade stepbacks are used to visually break up the vertical mass. There is typically some horizontal element, such as a band, raised cornice, etc, that creates a visual break between the middle floors and the upper floor or floors of the building, with the upper floors having a different material, color, texture, window pattern or other design distinction from the floors below the horizontal break. Howard said in most instances it will be important to maintain the stepback requirement particularly where reducing the perception of the height of the building is particularly important. Dyer noted the addition of the new paragraph six in section 14 -2G -7H and that paragraph seems to be specific to the one proposed building on the corner of Clinton and Burlington Streets. Dyer questioned if the City should adopt a rule or law that only applies to one building. In this situation the applicant could design the building as two stories and then ask for a waiver for the second floor to be open patio space and avoid having to adopt this new paragraph. Howard explained that a pedestrian plaza on a floor above the second story would be allowed by right since the minimum building height is 2 stories. Howard believes that while rare, there may be other similar situations on large sites where a U-shaped building would be proposed where a second story pedestrian courtyard would be preferred over a courtyard on an upper floor. It is also important to only allow such an adjustment to a midblock location, since it would not be desirable to have such a short building anchoring a street corner. That is why the standard is written so specifically. Freerks asked a question under paragraph five, sections a. and e. where it states an applicant must propose an alternative design solution that equally or better meets the intent and in E visually breaks up the vertical plane. However it doesn't say it must be agreed upon or Planning and Zoning Commission October 5, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 3 of 6 accepted or adopted so is that how the language is always written. Howard noted that Ms. Freerks has called earlier in the day asking for clarification to this question. After consideration, staff agrees the language could be more clearly stated as affirmative approval criteria. Howard showed a slide with this alternative sentence construction, which would make it clear that the FBC Committee must determine that all the approval criteria have been met before an adjustment is approved. If the answer is no to any single one of the items, the application cannot be approved. The applicant would then have the option to propose an alternative design solution that would satisfy the criteria. Howard showed the Commission the following alternative wording of the proposed code amendment. a. An alternative design solution has been proposed by the applicant and it equally or better meets the intent of the specific standard being modified; and e. For requests for waivers of an upper floor stepback requirement, an alternative means of visually breaking up the vertical plane of the building has been proposed and meets all the approval criteria stated above. Freerks thanked Howard for the language update and feels it is much more clear Dyer stated that if they are discussing language updates, in item b is states "proposed building design is uniquely designed" and could just state "the building is uniquely designed". Howard agreed. Dyer asked with these adjustments can the building that was presented to the Commission at the last meeting still be built. Howard said that proposal has not gone through design review so she cannot comment on the result. Freerks opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Freerks closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14, Chapter 2, Article G. the Riverfront Crossings form -based code related to upper floor stepback and minimum building height in the South Downtown Subdistrict as listed in the Staff report and amended. Parsons seconded the motion. Freerks feels this will set up the framework to put better buildings into the downtown area. Dyer noted she hopes is will be regarded as applied with the term minor adjustments and not major adjustments. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7.0. CODE AMENDMENT: Discussion of an amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Chapter 4, Use Regulations and Article 14- 2D, Industrial and Research Zones, to restrict sales of consumer fireworks to Industrial Zones. Howard stated that recently State legislation allowed for the sale of first- and second-class consumer fireworks in Iowa during certain time periods during the year. While local jurisdictions Planning and Zoning Commission September 21, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 5 of 11 CODE AMENDMENT Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Chapter 2, Article G. the Riverfront Crossings form - based code related to upper floor setback and minimum building height in the South Downtown Subdistrict Howard stated this Amendment was requested by the developers of the Hieronymus property, the undeveloped parcel at the corner of Burlington and Clinton Streets. They are requesting a code amendment to allow a waiver of the upper floor stepback requirement and the minimum height requirement for a portion of the building. Howard showed some images of the proposed building. It is a seven -story building with commercial on the ground floor, offices on the second floor, and then apartments above. There will also be a second tower that is adjacent to the Hilton Garden Inn that will be an extended stay hotel (The Element). Between the two towers is a second story plaza space. In the South Downtown District there is a two-story minimum height requirement but in this situation they are proposing a second story screen wall that would give the appearance of a two story building. Behind this screen wall there would be an open air plaza. In the South Downtown there is a requirement for a fagade stepback of 10 feet above the 50 story, except at street corners tower elements or other similar corner emphasis treatments may be exempted from the stepback. Freerks pointed out that the rendering is a bit misleading because it doesn't correctly show how the upper floors of the proposed building will be forward of the stepped back area on the Hilton Garden Inn on the abutting property. Howard stated that this appeared to be a function of the perspective in the drawing, but acknowledged that the stepped back area on the Hilton Garden Inn will not be as visible from certain vantage points if the upper floors of the new building are not similarly stepped back. Howard continued with the staff analysis. She noted the City encourages development and redevelopment in the Riverfront Crossings District, in part, by allowing higher residential densities, taller block -scale buildings, and lower parking requirements. To create a high quality environment for residential living, there are form -based standards that help break up the mass and scale of larger, bulkier buildings both on the horizontal and vertical plane. On the horizontal plane, the building fagade has to be articulated with a fagade recess every 50 feet that create modules. Each of these modules then has to be differentiated in some way from the adjacent module to create visual interest and break up long building walls. While there are several different options for how to modulate the horizontal plane, the only standard in code currently to break up the vertical plane is the requirement for a fagade stepback if the building is over a certain base height, which differs between subdistricts. This standard has the effect of reducing the perceived height of a building. Howard noted the importance of the upper floor stepback standard varies based on the context. The stepback requirement is of heightened importance in the following instances: • For buildings that are granted bonus height where the building will be taller than other buildings in the vicinity; • For buildings located on streets where compatibility with the historic or lower -scale neighborhood context is of particular concern; • For buildings located on narrower street rights-of-way; and • In cases where preservation of views of iconic buildings or other features are important to the community, such as views of the Old Capitol. Planning and Zoning Commission September 21, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 6 of 11 Along a street with a wider right-of-way or where existing buildings in the immediate vicinity exceed the base height without an upper floor stepback, meeting the standard may not be as important as achieving other community goals and objectives. The primary objective in South Downtown is to serve as an extension of the Downtown by encouraging a mix of high quality residential, office, retail, and civic uses at an urban intensity similar to downtown. The Central Business District (CB -10) Zone does not have an upper floor stepback requirement for taller buildings and the University is not subject to local zoning regulations. Signs asked what the maximum height of buildings is allowed on the north side of Burlington Street. Howard said it is zoned CB -10 which doesn't have a specified height limit and is limited only by the airport clearance needed and the ability to provide the necessary parking if there are residential units in the building. Howard continued that along the southern edge of the South Downtown, most properties have either recently redeveloped or are government buildings (county and federal). Along the east edge along Gilbert Street, the South Downtown subdistrict abuts the Gilbert subdistrict, which provides a transition to the lower -scale neighborhoods to the east. Freerks asked if a current structure was demolished and redeveloped, the new South Downtown District guidelines would be used, nothing can be grandfathered in. Howard confirmed that was the case. However, with the proposed amendment, the stepback requirement would not be required except in cases where bonus height is granted and along Gilbert Street where there is a transition to a district with a lower height limit. The height limit is the South Downtown Subdistrict is eight stories and if a building were to be granted bonus height, or if located along Gilbert Street there would still be a stepback required above the fifth story. However in other areas of the South Downtown given the context, Staff believes an eight story building does not need a stepback to achieve the objectives of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Howard noted in this area many of the buildings have been constructed in the past 10 years, so redevelopment is not likely in the near future. Freerks agreed but noted most of those building are not as high. Howard stated that any building over seven stories has to meet additional building code requirements, which make high rise buildings significantly more costly to build. This is why most developers stay with seven stories or under. So by eliminating the stepback it will allow developers to have some additional building floor area without having to add stories with the greater expense. Hensch asked if the MidWestOne Bank building was six stories, Howard said it is six stories with no stepback because it was developed before the Riverfront Crossings Code was adopted. Signs asked about the added language regarding building facades and what the purpose of that added language is. Howard said that clarifies that a stepback is only required in the South Downtown on buildings that have facades facing Gilbert Street or granted bonus height. Therefore for everything else, a stepback is not required. Howard stated the second Code Amendment is really to allow the staff Form -Based Code Committee (that reviews all proposals for development in Riverfront Crossings) to waive the 2 story minimum building height requirement in cases there is a second story outdoor plaza space planned in a mid -block area and provided a screen wall is constructed to meet the intent of the Planning and Zoning Commission September 21, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 7 of 11 requirement. She doubts this request will occur very often, since most developments seek to maximum building area rather than reduce it. She noted that particularly in an urban setting, where open space is more limited, providing additional usable outdoor space is a benefit to the residents and commercial tenants of a building. Freerks asked who was on the Staff Form -Based Code Committee. Howard noted it currently includes staff from Neighborhood and Development Services and the City Manager's office. Dyer stated she does not like the proposed amendment (to eliminate the stepback requirement), but that City Council has already approved the building for this project. Freerks stated that the Commission can still recommend changes. Dyer noted that the stepback requirement is there for a purpose. She feels the builders in this city insist on using every square inch of a lot so there are just chunks all over the place and changing the stepback will just permit more chunks. She noted that although the University's Music Building doesn't have a stepback it does have the curved front so when walking by it the eye only goes up as high as the curved front. She noted that in cities like Chicago and New York there are so many examples of interesting things that can be done with buildings than just apartments with Hawkeye things hanging from the railings. Dyer feels the stepbacks should be required as there doesn't seem to be any articulation of the buildings. Freerks noted that the idea of stepbacks was to create a better streetscape and make buildings more interesting downtown. This seems to be stripping that away. This particular corner has been an issue with finding something to develop there, but even more so is the fear of what could be redeveloped someday throughout this area of downtown. She also noted that the Music Building is lovely, and doesn't have a stepback, so there have to be options. Are there ways in the Code to enforce some vertical design standards to address larger buildings from being just large cubes. Howard stated that in the Riverfront Crossings section of the Design Code there is quite a bit of language about breaking up the horizontal plane, but the stepback is the only standard for breaking up the vertical plane. As to the comments about cube -like buildings, she clarified that the proposed building will be articulated more than is currently shown in the drawing, since the recesses where the balconies are located will have to be carried all the way to top of the building at least every 50 feet, so the building will look less flat than is currently shown in the drawings. This property hasn't been through the Design Review process so it will be addressed then, but the change in plane does have to be carried all the way to the roof per the Code. Howard did confirm however that in the Form -Based Code there is nothing required for the vertical plane of a taller building except for the stepback. Howard agreed there are other ways to break up the vertical plane than just a stepback. For example, she referred to the drawing of the UI Music School, there is a slight change in the plane at a certain height with a change in windows on the upper floor and also a change in texture, color, and materials. Howard said there are many ways to break up a vertical plane and language could be inserted into the Design Standards of the Form -Based Code for options required to break up a vertical plane in cases where a stepback is not as important to reduce the perceived height of the building. Martin stated that she also doesn't want to see every building on a block have a stepback because then it is just the same issue — all the same, nothing to make buildings unique. She agrees that it would be good to add language about options for architectural design to make the buildings unique. Planning and Zoning Commission September 21, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 8 of 11 Freerks noted the Commission is not saying they are dictating how buildings are designed, but want to make sure City Staff have the tools to enforce that the Community is not stuck with ho- hum building designs filling up every block in this area. The Riverfront Crossings Plan and code were thoroughly thought through with the intent of creating a unique area with high quality building designs. She noted that there was a lot of community input on this plan. Hensch stated for this particular one building he doesn't have a problem with no stepback because it is nice to have the one story base with the two towers but agrees there should be something to break it up. If they are going to give up the stepback then there should be some architectural design in compensation. Dyer questioned that it is required that there be commercial on the ground floor however so many of the buildings in the downtown area designed this way (with commercial on ground floor and apartments above) are vacant — there doesn't seem to be a demand for commercial and all the pedestrians see is a bunch of empty glass space. Parsons agreed and said he's seen in many larger cities where it is all residential, no need for the commercial at the bottom. Howard stated that the Riverfront Crossings Code doesn't require commercial on the ground floor, however it is required in the corner space on this particular property because it is on a major street corner, but wouldn't have to extend all along the block. The code allows the developer to decide and to gauge the market demand in that location. Signs stated he is struggling with this issue, the new Hilton Garden Inn building has a stepback but it is still a boring flat view to be honest. He does agree it would be worse if there was no stepback. He feels the rendering for Hieronymus property are similar to what is in every other city but also feels that is not what the residents of Iowa City want, to be like every other city. He also stated that so much time is spent on creating the guidelines for an area like Riverfront Crossings and then because one particular project wants something, we change the code. The Plan in in place, developers know there is a code, but they still design things how they want and then come to the City and ask for change. Freerks opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Freerks closed the public hearing. Freerks feels this item should be deferred to allow Staff to come up with the appropriate language to add per this discussion this evening. Howard asked the Commission to confirm that the desire of the Commission is to have language added to the Design Standards regarding vertical plane similar to the design standard required for horizontal planes and that the vertical plane options could be used in lieu of a stepback. So it would be to add a paragraph in the minor modification section to talk about the specific instances where it is reasonable to adjust the stepback requirement, but require some other design solution instead of the stepback. Howard noted that Staff already have the ability to waive the stepback standard in cases where it is difficult or infeasible to provide it. For example at the Sabin Townhomes, since it is a shallow liner building that is only 20 feet deep, if there were a 10 foot stepback there would only be 10 feet on the top floor, which is not cost effective or particular useable space. Planning and Zoning Commission September 21, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 9 of 11 Freerks agreed that was fine, but they also want the addition of the vertical design standard as well, so it is notjust a waiver without any other design solution to meet the intent. Signs added that the Commission hasn't address the second story courtyard option, but he likes the solution Staff has come up with and the rendering does look like it is two stories. Martin agreed. Dyer feels the language is so specific to just this one building that it might not be useable for another situation. Hensch moved to defer the Code Amendment Item to the next meeting. Signs seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 7,201 Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 7, 2017, Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Dyer gave a report from the National American Planning Association Conference. It was Dyer's first visit to New York City in 27 years and felt is seemed to be more open, friendlier, and accessible than in the past. There are parklets in the streets and bike lanes in the streets now and just seemed to be more diversity everywhere. She noted there is an exceptional amount of construction going on and it is hard to even recognize the skyline. The skyline used to be just the World Trade Center, Empire State Building, and Chrysler Building and is so much more now. At the convention there were 175 sessions to choose from, including a lot of field trips. The keynote speech was by the editor of The Wired magazine and he talked about the millennial generation impact on the workforce and in the world. According to him the millennials are tech - savvy, collaborative, specific minded, racially diverse, globally oriented, green, and lead to growth in cities of walkability. Dyer met up with former Iowa City intern Marti Wolfe at the convention and noted that there were a lot of sessions about millennials, but they didn't include any millennials as speakers or on the panel. In contrast, Dyer went to a co -housing conference a few weeks later and there were several sessions about millennials conducted by millennials. Another speaker at the National American Planning Association Conference made the comment that with millennials so concerned about urbanization and walkability in central cities he wonders what will happen when the millennials have kids and there are no longer any schools in the central cities. Dyer shares that concern with Iowa City. There were also a lot of sessions on affordability and sustainability. Affordability is an issue absolutely everywhere, especially on the built -out cities on the coasts. New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut (and other perhaps) have by law or court ruling require cities to provide affordable housing in new market rate developments and must demonstrate the government themselves support affordable housing (financially or by providing land). Cities have done it in a number of ways that Iowa City does Prepared by: Sylvia Buchner, Planning Intern, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE G., RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS FORM -BASED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, TO ALLOW MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO UPPER FLOOR STEPBACK REQUIREMENTS AND THE MINIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT STANDARD. WHEREAS, the City encourages development and redevelopment in the Riverfront Crossings District, in part, by allowing higher residential densities, taller block -scale buildings and lower parking requirements. However, to ensure that new development results in neighborhoods that are safe, walkable, and that create a h h -quality environment for residential living, there ar form -based standards that help brea up the mass and scale of larger, bulkier buildings; WHEREAS, the Riverfront rossings Form -Based Code req res fagade stepbacks above a certain building height with the ' tent of breaking up the verti al mass of taller buildings and reducing the perceived building he' ht from a pedestrian pers ctive; and WHEREAS, the stepback requi ment is of particular im ortance in certain instances, such as for buildings granted bonus height here the building w' be taller than other buildings in the vicinity, for buildings located on stree where compati ility with the historic or lower -scale neighborhood context is of particular con ern; for buildi s located on narrower street rights-of- way; and in cases where preservation of vi w corridors ' of community importance; and WHEREAS, if there are unique chair ac ristics the site that warrant an adjustment or waiver of the upper floor facade stepback, a erna ' e design techniques may be effective in meeting the intent of the stepback standard; an WHEREAS, in the absence of an upper floor pade stepback, there are a variety of ways to visually distinguish the upper floor fagade from t e ower floors in ways that help break up the vertical mass of the building; and WHEREAS, allowing administrative revie and proval of requests for reductions or waivers of the upper floor stepback require m int in cas where it is warranted will streamline the approval process without compromisi g building uality and livability, provided an alternative design is proposed that equally better meets a intent of the stepback standard; and WHEREAS, the Riverfront Crossings orm-Based Code for a South Downtown Subdistrict also has a minimum building height o two stories to create street wall that provides a comfortable sense of enclosure for ped trians; and WHEREAS, allowing administrati review and approval of re ests for a Qgver of the minimum height would be appropriat to allow for a second story pede triaEcourtyard in a mid - block location, provided a second tory screen wall is constructed that is nR to pr W de the intended sense of enclosure f pedestrians at the street level; and"— WHEREAS, the Planning Ind Zoning Commission has reviewed t 7oplAedoonning amendments and recommend approval. a M NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ISI OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows: A. Delete 14 -2G -7H, Minor Adjustments, paragraph 1, and substitute in lieu thereof the following, with subsequent subparagraphs a. through f. remaining the same, but Ordinance No. Page 2 substituting in lieu thereof subparagraph g, below: 1. The FBC Committee may approve deviations from the building placement, and parking, loading, and service area placement standards set forth in Section 14- 2G-3, Subdistrict Standards. Standards greater or lesser than the ranges allowed may be approved in the following circumstances provided the approval criteria listed below are met: g. Approval Criteria: 1) There are unique characteristics of the site or neighboring properties that lend to alternative design approaches, or that make it difficult or \racteristics to meet the requirements; and (2) sed placement of the building, parking, and service areas fit teristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood, are with the intent of the stan and being modified and the goals of n & Riverfront Crossin Master Plan or Central District he r is applicable, and ill not detract from or be injurious to erty improvements in he vicinity. B. Delete 14 -2G -7H, Minor Adjust through e., and substitute in lieu 5. The FBC Committee may approve d1\1 set forth in Section 14-2G-3, Subdistrict in Section 14 -2G -7F, provided the followii a. An alternative design solution has or better meets the intent of the s b. The proposed building is unique) and the surrounding neighborh i & Riverfront Crossings Master la will not detract from or be inj iou: vicinity; and c. The proposed building de nstra durability of materials; an d. There are unique charac ristics alternative design appro ches, or requirements; and/ort a propose architectural style an adherence mpractical and/or c promise th e. For requests for w vers of an up means of visually reaking up the proposed and m ets all the appro 5 and associated subparagraphs a. ati s from the fa;ade stepback requirements a dards or building design standards set forth pproval criteria are met: e proposed by the applicant and it equally -cifi standard being modified; and lesign d to fit the characteristics of the site is con ' tent with the goals of the Downtown or Centr I District Plan, as applicable, and to other pr perry or improvements in the excellence\n architectural design and of the site or neig oring properties that lend to that make it difficu or in to meet the N d building is design\buil a speMc to the building desirds wwld bei., e building's architecri; arrtJ per floor stepback rq an altern iv vertical plane of th{As bAen val criteria stated a?o 0 C. Amend 14 -2G -7H, Minor Adjustments, adding a new paragraph 6, as follows: 6. In mid -block locations, the FBC Committee may waive the minimum building Ordinance No Page 3 height standard to allow for a 2nd story pedestrian courtyard (an area surrounded by building facades on at least 3 sides), provided a screen wall that is at least as tall as the second story building fagade is constructed co -planar or recessed a maximum of 3' from the street -facing fagade. The screen wall must be constructed of high quality building materials that faithfully imitate an architecturally finished exterior fagade of the building with complementary window openings and articulation. Alternatively, it may be designed as a decorative screen wall that has a semi -transparent, open pattern, provided the top of the screen wall aligns generally with the top of the second story. For purposes of this provision, the screen wall will be considered a building�yiall for the purposes of regulating signage. SECTION ll. REPEA R. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are: reb repealed. SECTION III. SEVERAB\DATE. ection, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or uuch adju cation shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole orrovision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIOrdinan a shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication. Passed and approved this 2017. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by: City Attorney's Office E5 o c' .n rn v .gyp Proposed New Language Moves minor adjustment for facade stepbacks from the paragraph that applies to building and parking placement (site design) to the paragraph that applies to building design. Adds language to make it clear that if a waiver of the stepback requirement is granted, that there must be an alternative design solution proposed that visually breaks up the vertica plane of the building in lieu of the stepback. Adds language to the approval criteria for minor adjustments for building and parking placement that allows for requests in situations where there "unique characteristics of the site or neighboring properties that lend to alternative design approaches." This is in addition the discretion allowed for adjustments in situations whether it is difficult or infeasible to meet the requirements. I I toIII 1` 1���N I,�'�� 'low �r J i norArrr��rirr -- so r-1 mm, .i Q'G 11 111 11 �6 A u r �i . 4It CITY OF IOWA CITY '�mm- MEMORANDUM Date: October 5, 2017 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard. Associate PI Re: Proposed amendments to the ZoninyCode regarding sales of consumer fireworks Background: Recently enacted State legislation allows for the sale of first- and second-class consumer fireworks in Iowa during certain time periods during the year. While local jurisdictions are still allowed to restrict or prohibit use of fireworks within their communities, they are not allowed to prohibit the sale of such fireworks. Zoning restrictions, however, may be adopted to restrict the location and conditions under which these types of fireworks may be sold. Based on experience from the first sales period last summer, the City Council requested more information regarding how fireworks sales might be better managed and controlled. Discussion of Solutions: The memo from the City Manager's office to the City Council on this matter is attached, which provides background information on the recent State legislation and outlines staff recommended changes to City policies and codes. After receiving this information, the City Council directed staff to prepare amendments to the zoning code that would restrict the sale of fireworks to Industrial Zones. These changes will improve safety and allow for more efficient and effective oversight of the sale of fireworks. In addition, restricting sales to Industrial Zones will reduce impulse purchases that may have contributed to the widespread police calls for service regarding the use of fireworks within city limits during the first sales period in June and July. Recommendation: Staff recommends creating a new use category for consumer fireworks sales and restricting such uses to the Industrial Zones (1-1 and 1-2). The amendments also clarify that temporary sales outlets for consumer fireworks, such as tent sales, are also restricted to Industrial Zones. Specific zoning code language is added as outlined below: Amend 14-4A-7, Other Use Categories, adding a new use category, Consumer Fireworks Sales, as follows: D. Consumer Fireworks Sales 1. Characteristics: Sales of first-class and/or second-class consumer fireworks, as defined by the American Pyrotechnics Association. 2. Examples: seasonal sales outlets 3. Accessory Uses: None. Page 2 of 2 Amend 14-4A-41, Retail Uses, paragraph 4, Exceptions, by adding a new subparagraph j., as follows: i. Sales of first-class and/or second-class consumer fireworks is classified as an "Other Use" as set forth in 14-4A-7. Amend Table 2D-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Industrial and Research Zones, by adding the category, "Consumer Fireworks Sales," as a use category under the "Other Uses" section, and indicating that such use is allowed as a provisional use (PR) in the 1-1 and 1-2 Zones. Amend 14 -4B -4E, (provisions applicable to) Other Uses, by adding a paragraph 7, as follows: Amend 14-4D-2, Temporary Uses Allowed, by adding the following paragraph: • Temporary sales of first-class and/or second-class consumer fireworks, as defined by the American Pyrotechnics Association, according to the restrictions and dates of sale set forth in Title 661 Iowa Administrative Code Chapter 265, Consumer Fireworks Sales Licensing and Safety Standards. Temporary sales of such fireworks are only allowed in Industrial Zones. Attachment: • Memo from the City Manager's Office to the City Council dated August 31, 2017 r CITY OF IOWA CITY '��MEMORANDUM Date: August 31, 2017 To: City Council From: Simon Andrew, Assistant to the City Manager Re: Consumer Fireworks Sales Introduction: During the 2017 State of Iowa legislative session, legislation was enacted that allowed for the sale of consumer fireworks in the State of Iowa. Local communities maintained the ability to prohibit the use of fireworks within their jurisdictions; however, cities do not have the ability completely prohibit the sale of consumer fireworks. During the summer sales period of 2017, Iowa City continued a ban on use while several sales locations were permitted, both in temporary tents and existing brick and mortar establishments. Court decisions have clarified cities' rights in defining allowable zones in which sales may occur; after evaluating these cases and our experience during this year's sales period staff recommends the zoning code amendment identified below in addition to changes to temporary use permit requirements. History/Background: On May 9, 2017 the Governor signed Senate File 489, effective upon enactment, which established a licensing scheme for sellers of consumer fireworks and required the State Fire Marshall to adopt rules regarding fire safety, insurance coverage, and licensing that permits the sale of fireworks at: a) a permanent building between June 1 and July 8 and between December 10 and January 3; and b) at a temporary structure between June 13 and July 8. SF489 provides that a city council may prohibit or limit the use of fireworks and that if it does so a violation of said prohibition is a simple misdemeanor with a fine of not less than $250. The City Council amended City Code to remove portions inconsistent with the new state law, continuing the prohibition on the use of fireworks within City limits in June of 2017. Local enforcement of the prohibition against the use of fireworks was incredibly challenging. The Iowa City Police Department responded to 453 calls for service during the period of June 1 to July 8, compared to only 27 calls during the same dates in 2016. In the majority of these calls officers were not able to identify the individuals using fireworks. When contact was made by officers, the individuals using fireworks were generally unaware that use was prohibited. The Iowa City Fire Department also responded to seven calls related to the use of fireworks. It is the hope that changes to the temporary use permit, fewer locations in which fireworks are sold, and additional public education measures will have some impact on the number of use violations within the City. As public education efforts and signage requirements are enhanced, staff expects to issue fewer warnings and more violations in the future. September 29, 2017 Page 2 Discussion of Solutions: Zoning Code: Staff recommends restricting the sale of fireworks to industrial zones. This would apply to both temporary tents and existing brick and mortar locations. The City of Des Moines faced a legal challenge when enacting a similar zoning code amendment and the court upheld Des Moines' ability to restrict sales to industrial zones. Temporary use permit requirements: Temporary use permits are the mechanism through which temporary sales tents are authorized. These are commonly used for lawn and garden sales in parking lots, Melrose Avenue football game day vendors, and similar temporary sale uses. A condition of the temporary use permit during the summer sales period was that signage must be posted indicating that the use of fireworks within the City is prohibited. Staff intends to enhance this requirement with larger signs placed in consistent locations at the point of entry and point of sale. Staff also intends to require that flyers be distributed with merchandise to further inform the consumer about the prohibition against use. The requirements would only apply to temporary tent sales, which are only allowed by state law during the summer sales period. Permit and inspection fees: the Iowa City Fire Department conducted inspections of temporary sales tents due to the fact that the State Fire Marshall was not able to inspect all locations statewide prior to the beginning of the sales period. Staff intends to incorporate an inspection fee into next year's process. Fees will be payable at the time of obtaining a temporary use permit. The amount of the fee will reflect the costs of inspection and the production of the required signage. Public information: the City communicated the prohibition against use through many different channels during the summer of 2017. Given that there was approximately one month between the signing of SF489 and the beginning of the sales period, communicating to residents that use was prohibited despite numerous sales locations within the City was difficult. Different local ordinances across the state added to the public's confusion. It is staff's hope that an earlier, concerted media campaign will alleviate some of this confusion, though there will undoubtedly be individuals who remain unaware of the prohibition against use. Again, as these education efforts are enhanced, we expect to issue fewer warnings and more violations. Recommendation: Staff recommends the changes to the zoning code and temporary use permit process outlined above. With agreement from Council, staff will begin the process of preparing the Code amendment for Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council consideration. Planning and Zoning Commission October 5, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 3 of 6 accepted or adopted so is that how the language is always written. Howard noted that Ms. Freerks has called earlier in the day asking for clarification to this question. After consideration, staff agrees the language could be more clearly stated as affirmative approval criteria. Howard showed a slide with this alternative sentence construction, which would make it clear that the FBC Committee must determine that all the approval criteria have been met before an adjustment is approved. If the answer is no to any single one of the items, the application cannot be approved. The applicant would then have the option to propose an alternative design solution that would satisfy the criteria. Howard showed the Commission the following alternative wording of the proposed code amendment. a. An alternative design solution has been proposed by the applicant and it equally or better meets the intent of the specific standard being modified; and e. For requests for waivers of an upper floor stepback requirement, an alternative means of visually breaking up the vertical plane of the building has been proposed and meets all the approval criteria stated above. Freerks thanked Howard for the language update and feels it is much more clear Dyer stated that if they are discussing language updates, in item b is states "proposed building design is uniquely designed" and could just state "the building is uniquely designed". Howard agreed. Dyer asked with these adjustments can the building that was presented to the Commission at the last meeting still be built. Howard said that proposal has not gone through design review so she cannot comment on the result. Freerks opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Freerks closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14, Chapter 2, Article G. the Riverfront Crossings form -based code related to upper floor stepback and minimum building height in the South Downtown Subdistrict as listed in the Staff report and amended. Parsons seconded the motion. Freerks feels this will set up the framework to put better buildings into the downtown area. Dyer noted she hopes is will be regarded as applied with the term minor adjustments and not major adjustments. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. CODE AMENDMENT: Discussion of an amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Chapter 4, Use Regulations and Article 14- 2D, Industrial and Research Zones, to restrict sales of consumer fireworks to Industrial Zones. Howard stated that recently State legislation allowed for the sale of first- and second-class consumer fireworks in Iowa during certain time periods during the year. While local jurisdictions Planning and Zoning Commission October 5, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 4 of 6 are still allowed to restrict or prohibit use of fireworks within their communities, they are not allowed to prohibit the sale of such fireworks. Zoning restrictions, however, may be adopted to restrict the location and conditions under which these types of fireworks may be sold. Based on experience from the first sales period last summer, the City Council requested more information regarding how fireworks sales might be better managed and controlled. The City Council directed staff to prepare amendments to the zoning code that would restrict the sale of fireworks to Industrial Zones. Howard referred to the code amendments in the staff report that would restrict sales within existing buildings in Industrial Zones and would also address temporary outdoor tent sales. Temporary use permits are the mechanism through which temporary sales tents are authorized. Hektoen added that in the past legislative session the State enacted a law that was very broadly worded and meant to tie local municipalities' hands in restricting use of plastic bags etc. However because it was so broadly worded, Staff is worried that imposing too many restrictions on a temporary use will run afoul of that other law, even though it is not a fireworks law. The City of Ankeny got sued because they regulated fireworks as a temporary use with many different types of conditions and the court ruled it was preempted by this other law that states Cities cannot adopt ordinances or resolutions setting standards or requirements regarding the sale or marketing of consumer merchandise that are different than the State regulations. So that is why there are no other specific standards for either brick and mortar sales or temporary sales included in the code amendments. Hektoen added that Des Moines also was sued, but the Court upheld their policy and therefore Iowa City is using a similar approach. Howard added this policy will assist with safety in that the having fireworks sales in only industrial areas will keep them away from supermarkets and residential neighborhoods. Parsons asked what avenues the City will use for public education explaining that use of the fireworks within city limits is not allowed, even though they can purchase them here. Howard said that was a challenge, but the City has a communications office the uses a lot of different methods to get the word out to the public. Signs stated he hopes part of the education this upcoming summer will be an emphasis on citations rather than warnings because the abuse was rampant. Freerks opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Freerks closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Chapter 4, Use Regulations and Article 14-2D, Industrial and Research Zones, to restrict sales of consumer fireworks to Industrial Zones as described in the Staff report. Theobald seconded the motion. Signs is very pleased the City is doing this and reiterated his displeasure with how last summer went, it felt like fireworks were completely unregulated and the City had a difficult time enforcing due to the overwhelming use. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 21, 2017 Hensch moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 21, 2017. Prepared by: Sylvia Bochner, Planning Intern, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 Ordinance No. An ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning, Chapter 4, Use Regulations, and Article 14-2D, Industrial and Research Zones, to restrict sales of consumer fireworks to Industrial Zones. Whereas, recently enacted State legislation (Senate File 489) allows for the sale of first- class and second-class consumer fireworks in to uring certain times of the year; and Whereas, development standards within the indu rial zones mitigate the risks of on-site sale of such explosive devices; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission h s reviewed the proposed zoning amendments and r' ommends approval; and Whereas, restrict g the sale of fireworks to the i dustrial zones is in the best interests of the safety and general elfare of the community. Now, therefore, be it o ained by the City Court 11 of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. The Code of rdinances of the 1ty of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows: A. Amend Section 14-4A-7, they Use Ca gories, adding a new use category, Consumer Fireworks Sales, as follows: E. Consumer Fireworks Sale 1. Characteristics: Sales o as defined by the American 2. Examples: seasonal sal 3. Accessory Uses: None. y B. Amend 14-4A-41, Retail Uses, paragraph 4, j., as follows: / j. Sales of first-class and/r second-class "Other Use" as set forth ifi 14-4A-7. and/or second-class consumer fireworks, ;s Association. 0 c. ° C©i by adding aLi� subpar% fireworks issl ssifta asio N C. Within section 14-2D-2, mend Table 2D-1: Princip Uses Allowed in -Industrial and Research Zones, by acoing the category, "Consum Fireworks Sales," as a use category under the "OtIrr Uses" section, and indicatingat such use is allowed as a provisional use (PR) in a 1-1 and 1-2 Zones. D. Amend 14-413-4E, (pr6visions applicable to) Other Uses, by a ing a paragraph 7, as follows: // 7. Consumer F reworks Sales in the I-1 and I-2 Zones: In the 1�1 and I-2 Zones, Consumer Fir works Sales, as defined in this Title, are permitted, subject to the restrictions a dates of sale set forth in Title 661 Iowa Administrative Code Chapter 265, Consu r Fireworks Sales Licensing and Safety Standards. E. Amend 14-4D-2, Temporary Uses Allowed, by adding the following paragraph: Outdoor display and sale of first-class and/or second-class consumer fireworks, as defined by the American Pyrotechnics Association, according to the restrictions and dates of sale set forth in Title 661 Iowa Administrative Code Ordinance No. Page 2 Chapter 265, Consumer Fireworks Sales Licensing and Safety Standards. Outdoor display and sales of such fireworks are only allowed in Industrial Zones. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole, or any section, provision, or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval N O� D— � Z r GM -0 M �Y CA Code Amendment Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Chapter 4, Use Regulations and Article 14-2D, Industrial and Research Zones, to restrict sales of consumer fireworks to Industrial Zones. 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 6th day of November, 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. KELLIE FRUEHLING, CITY CLERK � r 1 ®ark CITY OF IOWA CIT COUNCIL ACTION REPO 7 October 17, 2017 Resolution setting a public hearing on November 6, 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 #53840 Recommendations: Staff. Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Resolution Executive Summary: A bid letting was previously held for the above-named project on June 2, 2017, but no bids were received. Plans, specifications, and form of contract have been revised to re -bid the project in December 2017, with a specified construction start date in April 2018. The Burlington Clinton Street Intersection Improvements 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 tum 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 and the City's recently adopted Bicycle Master Plan. The plans, specifications, form of contract, and estimate of cost for construction of the Burlington Clinton Street Intersection Improvements Project are on file 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 2018.