Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-06 OrdinanceItem Number: 9.a. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org November 6, 2018 Motion setting a public hearing for November 20, 2018 on an ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 4.34 acres of property located at 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway SE from Interim Development Multi -Family Residential Zone (ID -RM) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential Zone (RM -12) for approximately 2.55 acres and Medium Density Multi -Family Residential Zone (RM -20) for approximately 1.79 acres. (REZ18-00020) ATTACHMENTS: Description PZ Staff Report To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ18-00020 GENERAL INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Jesi Lile, Associate Planner & Anne Russett, Senior Planner Date: October 18, 2018 Applicant: IC Housing Group, LLC 366 South 10th Avenue, Waite Park, MN, 56387 (320)-202-3100 mscarr@sandcompanies.com Contact: IC Housing Group, LLC 366 South 10th Avenue, Waite Park, MN, 56387 (320)-202-3100 mscarr@sandcompanies.com Requested Action: Rezoning from Interim Development— Multi - Family Residential (ID -RM) to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -20) and Low Density Multi -Family Residential Zone (RM -12) Purpose: To allow the development of a 36 -unit affordable housing community and a multi -family or senior housing community. Location: Location Map: 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway SE I Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Comprehensive Plan: District Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District: Public Meeting Notification: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Total site: 7.90 acres Rezoning to RM -12: 2.55 acres Rezoning to RM -20: 1.79 acres Remainder of site to remain Interim Development -Single Family Residential (ID -RS) zone. Single-family home, Interim Development— Single Family Residential (ID -RS) and Interim Development — Multi -Family Residential (ID -RM) North: Residential (County -R) South: Multi -Family Residential (County -RMF); Residential (County -R); Commercial (County -C) East: Residential (County -R) West: Community Commercial (CC2); Commercial Office (CO1); Mixed Use (MU) Residential, 2-3 dwelling units per acre Northeast District Plan; Open Space Lower West Branch (NE3) Property owners located within 300 feet of the project site received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting September 13, 2018 October 23, 2018 The applicant, IC Housing Group, LLC, has requested a rezoning from Interim Development — Multi -Family Residential (ID -RM) to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential Zone (RM - 20) and Low Density Multi -Family Residential Zone (RM -12). The total project site, located at 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway is south of Herbert Hoover Highway and east of Scott Boulevard, is 7.90 acres. The applicant has requested rezoning approximately 2.35 acres to RM -12, 1.86 acres to RM -20. The remainder of the site will remain Interim Development - Single Family Residential (ID -RS). The City annexed the property in 2017 and it is currently undeveloped. At the time of annexation, the property was rezoned to Interim Single -Family Development (ID -RS) and Interim Multi -Family Development (ID -RM) with no conditions attached. To the west of the annexed property is the Olde Town Village commercial and mixed-use area. The applicant has used the "Good Neighbor Policy", and a Good Neighbor Meeting took place on September 25, 2018 at Helen Lemme Elementary School. One neighboring resident attended the meeting and expressed concerns related to construction site runoff and stormwater management. They also expressed concerns related to the proposed public street. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned Interim Development — Single Family Residential (ID -RS) and Interim Development — Multi -Family Residential (ID -RM). The Interim Development zoning designation applies to undeveloped properties without access to City services. Interim Development Zones provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and other nonurban uses of land may continue until the city is able to provide services and urban development can occur. Based on conversations with Public Works staff, rezoning can occur at this time due to the proximity to current City water and sanitary sewer, which the developer will be able to access. Public Works staff has requested water pressure testing to ensure adequate water pressure is available to the site. Proposed Zoning: The applicant has proposed a three part project with the rezoning for Phases A & B taking place now, and C sometime in the future. For Phase A, the applicant has proposed rezoning approximately 2.55 acres in the northwest of the parcel to Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -12). The RM -12 zone district allows for both single- family and multi -family housing. A maximum of 37 units would be allowed on the 2.55 acres. For this section of the project, the applicant has proposed an affordable, family apartment building on this site. The applicant has secured tax credits from the Iowa Finance Authority for the project. For Phase B, the applicant has also proposed rezoning approximately 1.79 acres in the northeast of the parcel to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -20). The RM -20 zone district allows for both single-family and multi -family housing, and the maximum density allowed in this zoning district is 24 units per acre. The applicant is considering either a multi -family housing community of around 45 units or a senior housing community of around 52 units. A maximum of 45 units would be allowed on this 1.79 acre area, however, if the applicant pursues the senior housing community the applicant can apply for a 25% density bonus for elder apartment housing, which would bring the maximum allowable dwelling units to 56. In the future, the applicant wishes to rezone the southern portion of this property for Phase C, but for now has requested to keep this portion of the site as Interim Development -Single Family (ID -RS). Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan has designated this area for residential development at a density of 2-8 dwelling units per acre. The maximum number of dwelling units allowed by the Comprehensive Plan for the 4.34 acre site being rezoned is 34 dwelling units. The rezoning requested would exceed the dwelling units called for in the comprehensive plan; however, the comprehensive plan also calls for development on smaller lots to conserve land and allow for more affordable housing, as well as providing a mix of housing types to provide options for households of all types and income levels. Additionally, the Northeast District Plan encourages housing diversity and a mixture of single family residential along with townhomes and small apartment buildings. The Northeast District Plan lays out how this should be done by locating townhouses and apartment buildings adjacent to neighborhood commercial areas and at intersections of arterial and collector streets. City staff finds the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive and District Plans due to the location of the project near the Olde Town Village commercial areas and along the Herbert Hoover Highway arterial, therefore a mixture of housing types, including multi -family, is appropriate. Additionally, the development of a variety of housing types as proposed addresses the goal of creating housing for a mix of household types and income levels. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The project site is located on a site annexed in 2017 just south of Herbert Hoover Highway. The areas to the north, east, and south are not within Iowa City boundaries, and are currently undeveloped and agricultural, though they are zoned residential. The area to the west is a neighborhood commercial area with attached and detached multi -family housing to the south of the commercial area. To the southwest of the project site is commercial office. City staff finds that the proposed rezoning is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed rezoning places the RM -12 zone district to the northwestern area of the project site, which will place an apartment building next to the neighborhood commercial area, and south of the Herbert Hoover Highway arterial. The proposed rezoning also places the RM -20 zone south of the Herbert Hoover Highway arterial, and east of the RM -12 zone. This focuses the higher density housing along the arterial and next to neighborhood commercial. The applicant has provided a concept plan and elevation for the design of the two multi- unit buildings. The proposed multi -family communities are subject to the multi -family site development standards outlined in the zoning code. The purpose of these standards is to promote safe, attractive, and pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods. The standards address multiple design elements, such as screening, landscaping, building placement, and building articulation. Staff will review the project against these standards at the site plan review stage. Traffic Implications, Access, and Street Design: The Northeast District Plan discusses the importance of an interconnected transportation system. Therefore, this site will be accessed via Herbert Hoover Highway by a proposed north/south road to be constructed by the developer. The proposed north/south road will eventually end at the southern property line allowing for an extension should the parcel to the south redevelop. The maintenance of the north/south road will be the property owner's responsibility until the completion of Phase B. Once completed, the road will be dedicated to the City, and at that time, the City will take over maintenance. Staff recommends adding a condition requiring the provision of the north/south street, built to City standards, to be platted and dedicated to the City as a public improvement in accordance with a subdivider's agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Staff has also received a concept plan that shows the general layout of the buildings and the north/south road. Staff recommends adding a condition requiring general conformance with the concept plan in terms of the layout of the roadway. Herbert Hoover Highway is the arterial street connecting the property to the rest of Iowa City. Per the Iowa DOT, the current average daily traffic on Herbert Hoover Highway is 4,650 and the theoretical capacity of this arterial is approximately 15,200. Therefore, the roadway can accommodate traffic associated with the proposed rezoning. Herbert Hoover Highway is currently not built to City standards because there is no curb, gutter or storm sewer. The Subdivision Code gives the City the discretion to approve development on roads that do not meet City standards, provided the developer contributes to the cost of improvement. For arterial streets, the fee is 12.5% of the cost for street improvement, based on the City Engineer's estimate. The RM -12 and RM -20 zone districts require a 40 -foot building setback from arterials. Due to the number of dwelling units allowed in the proposed multi -family zone districts, staff recommends adding a condition requiring a detailed landscaping plan at the time of platting to ensure landscaping along Herbert Hoover Highway provides a noise and wind buffer from the arterial. Staff suggests working with the City Arborist to identify appropriate species for buffering and an appropriate tree density. Currently, there is an 8 -foot sidewalk built on the south side of Herbert Hoover Highway. This also acts as a sidepath for bicycles. The subdivision ordinance requires sidewalks on both sides of public and private streets, so additional sidewalks will be required at the time of platting along the proposed north/south street. The proposed development is closest to the Eastside Express bus line, with a bus stop approximately half a mile away. Slightly further are the Eastside Loop and Rochester lines. Neighborhood Parkland or Fees in Lieu of: The Northeast District Plan calls for increasing neighborhood opportunities for accessing open space by incorporating pocket parks as well as smaller public or private open space areas. Per the open space dedication requirement formula, the developers must account for approximately 0.28 acres of public open space or pay a fee in -lieu. Infrastructure Fees: For this 4.34 acre area being rezoned, there is a requirement of $435 per acre for water infrastructure. There is another infrastructure fee of $1,038.26 per acre that covers the cost of taping into the City's sanitary sewer system. SUMMARY: Based on the analysis, staff finds that the proposed rezoning with certain conditions attached fits with both the Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan, especially when considering the affordable and mixed -type of housing proposed. The proposed rezoning would allow for multi -family as well as single family housing at various densities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of REZ18-00020, an application submitted by IC Housing, LLC, for a rezoning from ID -RM to RM -20 for approximately 1.79 acres and RM -12 for approximately 2.55 acres on approximately 4.34 acres of property located south of Herbert Hoover Highway and east of Scott Blvd subject to City Council approval of the following conditions: 1) A north/south street shall be built to City standards and dedicated to the City as a public improvement in accordance with a subdivider's agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. 2) A detailed landscaping plan to be approved by the City Arborist to ensure a landscaped area that buffers noise and wind from the proposed housing communities at the time of platting. 3) No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council approves a final plat that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries and generally conforms with the street layout on the concept plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map with Current Zoning 2. Zoning Exhibit -Proposed Zoning 3. Concept Plan 4. Concept Elevation 5. Summary of Good Neighborhood Meeting & Sign -in Sheet 6. Letter from neighboring property owner Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator 11 — in -Pc In DQ CITY OF IOWA CITY a D � OJ��� RM12 RM12 �0 ;�����► RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 UNBRIDLED AVE :. s.• RS -O R An application submitted by IC Housing Group, LLC OPD8 F for a rezoning of 7.9 acres located at 4643 Herbert Hoover Ah, Highway SE from Interim Development Single -Family , ,." RS5 F Residential (ID -RS) and Interim Development Multi -Family OP Residential (ID -RM) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -12), Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -20), and High Density Single -Family Residential (RS -12)." - �, RS5 D RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 ID -RS @ W� ` i �Z RS5 RS5 RS5 CP RS5 0 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 p p RS5 ; RS5 RS5 RS5 z RS5 GRINDSTONE RS5 L E gCERPv� = ID -RM - v C O A,A RpC CC2 _ - RSRS5 .2i(RS5 RS5 CC2 CC2 CC2 N RS5 RS5 RS5 ' L , ` RS5 v RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 1 CC2 n �y RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5p, RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 MU CO1 CC2 ID -RS RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 CC2 MU RS5 RS5 RS5 RS RS5 a RS5 RS5 CC2 N CC2 RS5 RS5 RS5 P CC2 Y Ftp RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 a iat+ OP08 8 w OPD8' 7� Z ¢ OPD8 OPD8 R An application submitted by IC Housing Group, LLC OPD8 F for a rezoning of 7.9 acres located at 4643 Herbert Hoover Ah, Highway SE from Interim Development Single -Family , ,." RS5 F Residential (ID -RS) and Interim Development Multi -Family OP Residential (ID -RM) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -12), Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -20), and High Density Single -Family Residential (RS -12)." CITY OF IOWA CITY , LU 'UNBRIDLED AVE LL .NX . � �, 01� Z � Y �r °� � Y VE • ,..: RM -20. e .� {. 1? z � Ts; - 2 # O R P O GRINDSTONE D f� R ONESZE t F- r . r • rp I F a. `4r' Y RD .s r V_e5'j?, Uj An application submitted by IC Housing Group, LLC i a for a rezoning of 7.9 acres located at 4643 Herbert Hoover i Highway SE from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Interim Development Multi -Family M Residential (ID -RM) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -12), Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -20), and High Density Single -Family Residential (RS -12). EJ=@ RM-12 1.46 ACRES 10-11-2018 A?CWWU, LLC zo L— — — — — — — — — — — — - I I — -- — -- OPTION 8G Iowa City, IA A-0 MEARDON, SUEPPEL & DOWNER P.L.C. LAWYERS ROBERT N. DOWNER 1 22 SOUTH LINN STREET DOUGLAS D. RUPPERT IOWA Cf1Y, IOWA 52240 -1 802 TIMOTHY J. KRUMM WILLIAM J. SUEPPEL TELEPHONE: (31 9) 3389222 CHARLES A. MEARDON Fax; (3 ) 9) 338-7250 PETER J. GARDNER SEAN W. WANDRO WWW. MFARDONLAW.COW, GRANT D. L EENTC STEPHANIE A. WORRELL October 1, 2018 HAND DELIVERED Anne Russett, AICP Senior Planner City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Ms. Russett: 2�- WILLIAM L. MEARDON (1 9 1 9- i 997) OF COUNSEL: JAMES D. McCARRAGHER RETIRED: WILLIAM F. SUEPPEL THOMAS D. HOBART MARGAREfT. LAINSON Enclosed herewith is a letter from Ted Pacha regarding the proposed development by Sand Development Group LLC at 4632 Herbert Hoover Highway. I believe you have spoken with Ted about these matters. At his request, I am submitting this letter to you in the hopes you will forward it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its October 4, 2018 meeting. Although the letter is self-explanatory, I do want to echo some of the concerns reflected in Ted's letter. The Churchill Meadows Development has been nothing but a headache for Ted. Please review the pictures enclosed with his letter. As you are aware, the runoff from the Churchill Meadows Development has basically destroyed Ted's pond. The developers of Churchill Meadows refuse to address the situation with Ted. The developer claims that the City and the contractors are now responsible for the problems the developer created. Thus far, the City s efforts to assist have been, with all due respect, ineffective. Now, on the heals of Churchill Meadows, another developer wishes to build on property north of Ted's pond which will again drain towards Ted's property. At the risk of stating the obvious, whatever storm water detention requirements the City had for Churchill Meadows are not working, Ted is extremely concerned that the storm water requirements to be imposed on Sand Development Group will be as effective as those for Churchill Meadows. As shown in his letter, Ted asks that all of the storm water management issues be addressed 'immediately to preserve Ted's property. 7AIM V YEARS SERVING THE CORRIDOR Anne Russett, AICP October 1, 2018 Page 2 Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me or Ted. Very truly yours, Charles A. Meardon CA-N4/tw Enc. Cc: Jeff Bruin Ben Clark October 1, 2018 Anne Russett, AICP Senior Planner City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Anne, Oft Thank you for your time on the phone last Tuesday Re: the 4632 Herbert Hoover Highway (Iowa City Housing Group LLC) application for a request for change in zoning coming before the City Planning & Zoning Committee on October 4. As I mentioned on the phone, I am leaving town that morning for a business trip and will be unable to attend the meeting on that date. I went to the Good neighbor Meeting on September 25, but must have just missed you. I did talk with Megan Sand Carr, Sr. Business Development Manager from Sand Development Group LLC. I told her of my considerable concerns with run-off from another development north of my pond and the extreme likelihood that I would have the same problems. I am currently having with the Churchill Meadows Development. The severe sediment runoff from that development has been causing my family angst since May of 2017. The Iowa City Engineering Department and the DNR have allegedly been fining the developer of Churchill Meadows for months to no avail. See pictures attached of the two "rivers" of brown sediment that runs down from this development. This developer states it's not his problem as the contractors and the City are responsible for these issues. I have spoken with the appropriate city employees, Ben Clark, Julie Tallman, etc., but nothing seems to change. I have spent nearly $40,000 to have the pond dredged and removed thousands and thousands of cubic yards of sediment in hopes the runoff problem had been solved at Churchill Meadows Development. Clearly this is not the case as evidenced by the attached photos taken in the last 3-4 weeks! Anne Russett, AICP October 1, 2018 Page 2 What does the Churchill Meadows Development have to do with the Sands Group request? Everything. The City of Iowa City and Planning and Zoning should not approve another development north of my property and pond until resolution is found for the runoff from Churchill Meadows! I do not want to hold up on the Sand's Development request, but clearly it will be a repeat of what I have been dealing with since May of 2017! At the neighborhood meeting with the Sands Group last week, they showed me plans for their development. On Lot C they wanted a cul-de-sac, but were informed by the City it would have to be a street poured directly up to my property line to the South of Lot C! Why? That would be a direct paved path to the north of my property line which would create another river of water, sediment, etc. to my pond! Why does the City of Iowa City insist again to run streets directly to my property (I have two streets to nowhere to the west of my property now). My property is in the county! These streets are useless, not to mention the developers tore out fences, trees, etc. for the streets to nowhere and have replaced or repaired none of these. Anne, you requested that I detail my issues in writing so you could forward to the appropriate people at the City. Sorry this is so lengthy, but this was been very frustrating for me and my family. Thank you, 1 4clyi - Ted Pacha 319-631-3146 Copy to: Ben Clark, City Engineer Jeff Fruin, City Manager 9126/2018 IMG_1924.3pg https:/lmail.google.comlma!Vu101#inboxfFMfcgxvzKbLVkWCH FgVRVCKRFxppTGbd?projector=l &messagePartld=0.1 11 ! 20180926_103138.jpg httpsllmail.google.comlmailtulOtMnboxlFMtgxvzKkvckjrzwstRngtFxWQXVWxG?projector-1 &messagePartld=0.2 119 w �w �Y NAM JFk, W9 i # {11 * q}4 Tamm ♦ 4.1 p ae 11 o r i L f A41 �J .f_.,..x._.a'a rt,.a.L.� ��. a _� _i'�L'J�„�•, .._ li 9/27/2018 [MG 1274.JPG haps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0!#inbox/FWcgxvzKk-vdzVSigsLRvGGr2kFWwbSG?projector=l &messagePartld=0.1 1/1 Summary Report for Good Neighbor Meeting _r r CITY OF IOWA CITY Project Name: NEX/IC Housing Group II, LLC project Location: 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway SE Meeting Date and Time: September 25, 2018 from 5:30 to 7:00 pm Meeting Location: Helen Lemme Elementary School Library Names of Applicant Representatives attending: Megan Carr Nikki Sand Names of City Staff Representatives attending: Anne Russett, Jesi Lile Number of Neighbors Attending: 1 Sign -In Attached? Yes X No General Comments received regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - Why does the road need to run to the southern property line? Overall, no opposition to the proposed development, but concerns on stormwater runoff. Concerns expressed regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - Concerns relating to stormwater runoff (as a neighboring developer is currently impacting the neighbors ponds with stormwater runoff). Will there be any changes made to the proposal based on this input? If so, describe: IC Housing Group, LLC has requested clarification from the City to determine if we can have the road end in a cul-de-sac or if a dead-end road to the southern property line will be required. Staff Representative Comments NEIGHBORHOOD SIGN -IN SHEET IC Housing Group, LLC Tuesday, September 25, 2018 NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS L. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Item Number: 9.b. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org November 6, 2018 Motion setting a public hearing for November 20, 2018 on an ordinance to amend Title 14 Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to transfer of development rights for historic properties. (ZCA18-00003) ATTACHMENTS: Description PZ Staff Deport Ir _Mw_ -4 I[[�1 4 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: October 18, 2018 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Anne Russett, AICP, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to Transfer of Development Rights for Historic Properties (ZCA18-0003) Introduction At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council considered the local landmark designation of the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street. At this meeting the property owner's attorney requested that the Council defer action on the local landmark designation until the City reviews and analyzes the establishment of a city-wide transfer of development rights (TDR) program for historic properties. The Council voted to defer action on the local landmark designation for eight months and directed staff to explore the creation of a city-wide TDR ordinance. Since that meeting, staff prepared two memos to the City Manager regarding a potential ordinance [Attachments 1 and 2] and the City Council discussed the establishment of a city-wide TDR ordinance for historic preservation at two work sessions and directed staff to move forward with its development for Council's consideration. [Attachment 3] At the Planning and Zoning Commission's meeting on October 18, staff will present a draft TDR ordinance [Attachment 4] for the Commission's review and recommendation. This memo provides a background on TDR programs, summarizes the existing TDR provisions in Riverfront Crossings, and outlines the draft ordinance. The draft is based on a September 4 work session discussion with the City Council. Background & Overview of TDR Programs Created to protect natural resources, farmland, and open spaces, as well as preserve historic resources TDR programs create an incentive for property owners to preserve these resources by allowing them to sell or transfer development rights from the property being protected to another site where development can occur at a higher density or intensity than allowed in the underlying zoning designation. Generally, TDR programs have the following components: • Sending Areas: Areas identified for protection. These areas are typically required to be preserved and all or a portion of the development potential of the property could be transferred to another site. • Receiving Areas: Areas where the development rights from the sending sites could be transferred. These are areas where the City wants to encourage growth and development at a higher density or intensity than currently allowed. These areas should have adequate public services and utilities to accommodate additional growth, as well as a healthy market demand for growth. • Transfer Calculations: TDR programs can allow the transfer of all or a portion of the development potential of a sending site. Ordinances must outline how the transfers are calculated. October 12, 2018 Page 2 • Process & Administration: TDR programs need to establish a process for how transfers are reviewed and approved. Additionally, transfers must be tracked over time (i.e. how many transfers do property owners in the sending area have; how many have been transferred and how many remain; where have they been transferred). Summary of Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code TDR Ordinance The City currently has a TDR ordinance in the Riverfront Crossings District for the dedication of open space, preservation of historic properties, and the dedication of public right-of-way. Below is a summary of the existing provisions for historic structures: • Eligible sending sites include properties designated as an Iowa City Landmark, eligible for landmark designation, registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed as a historically significant building per a survey • Prior to requesting a transfer of development rights, the property must be designated as an Iowa City Landmark to ensure its protection long-term • Receiving sites include properties within the Riverfront Crossings District • The formula for calculating the transfer is Lot Area of the Sending Site X Maximum Number of Stories Allowed on the Sending Site = Square Footage Eligible for Transfer • City Council must review and approve all projects receiving transfer of development rights • No transfer can exceed the maximum height allowed through the building height bonus provisions, which varies depending on the subdistrict In 2015, the City Council approved a transfer of development rights from the Tate Arms building at 914 S. Dubuque (sending site) to a new building at the corner of S. Dubuque and Benton Streets (201 E. Benton & 912 S. Dubuque (receiving site)). Out of the 34,800 square feet of development rights available for transfer, the Council approved a transfer of 7,400 square feet to add a 51" story to the building. The property owner has 27,400 square feet of development rights remaining to transfer. This is the only transfer applied for and approved since the adoption of the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code in 2014. Proposed City-wide TDR Ordinance for Historic Preservation Based on the direction provided by the City Council, staff has developed a draft ordinance to apply city-wide. A summary of the key components of the draft ordinance is outlined below. Eligible Sending Sites Staff proposes that eligible sending sites include properties eligible for Iowa City historic landmark designation. More specifically, a sending site must be designated as an Iowa City historic landmark after the adoption of the proposed city-wide ordinance in order to be eligible for the transfer incentive. Furthermore, properties already within existing Iowa City historic districts and conservation districts are not eligible to obtain Iowa City landmark status and benefit from the TDR incentive. Eligible Receiving Sites The eligible receiving sites proposed include the properties zoned Riverfront Crossings and zone districts that allow multi -family dwellings either as a permitted or provisional use'. This includes all multi -family residential zone districts and several commercial zone districts. Properties designated as Iowa City historic landmarks, Iowa City historic districts, and designated in the National Register of Historic Places are not eligible as receiving sites. [Attachment 5] ' Permitted uses are allowed by -right. Provisional uses are permitted if they meet certain use specific criteria and standards. October 12, 2018 Page 3 Transfer of Development Rights Staff proposes to consider transfer requests for either a height bonus or a density bonus, but not both a height and density bonus. Additionally, staff proposes to allow transfer requests to exceed either the height or density permitted on the receiving site, but restrict any height bonus to no more than 40 feet above the maximum height allowed. Staff does not recommend any restrictions on the increase in density transferred. Staff proposes to calculate these transfers as follows: (1) Height Bonus Option: • Difference between the maximum allowable height of the sending site and the existing height of the historic structure. In cases where the transfer is less than 12 feet, staff suggests including a provision that 12 feet may be transferred even if the difference is less than 12 feet. In many instances historic properties are residentially zoned, which typically have a maximum of 35 feet. Since historic buildings typically have higher ceilings a two-story historic building may not result in much of a height transfer. Therefore, staff suggests allowing a transfer of 12 feet, which will allow a minimum of at least one story to be transferred. (1) Density Bonus Option: • Difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the sending site based on the underlying zoning designation at the time of Iowa City historic landmark designation and the existing number of dwelling units on the sending site. Transfer Review Process Staff proposes that any request for a transfer be reviewed by the staff design review committee, which will then submit a recommendation to the City Council for their review and approval. Historic Preservation Commission Review On October 11, staff presented the proposed ordinance to the Historic Preservation Commission. The Commission voted to move the proposed ordinance forward in the process; however, they did outline some concerns and suggestions. Below is a list of their comments and staff's feedback. 1. The Commission expressed concern that the proposed ordinance only applies to future Iowa City landmarks. In 2018, the City Council approved Iowa City landmark designation status for the following properties: • David Boarts (Sylvanus Johnson) House, 412 N. Dubuque Street • George and Hellen Hummer House, 504 E. Bloomington Street • Parrott House, 1029 N. Dodge Street • Albert Henry Byfield House, 715 Park Road • Anton Geiger House, 213 E. Market Street The Commission felt that these recent designations should receive the incentive due to their very recent designation. The Commission also expressed concern that the proposed ordinance could deter downtown property owners from supporting a downtown district. October 12, 2018 Page 4 The Commission suggested considering allowing future Iowa City commercial historic districts, and potentially, future districts, in general, to be eligible for the incentive. Staff agrees with the suggestion to allow the incentive to apply to the properties designated in 2018. In addition, staff agrees with the suggestion to allow the incentive to apply to properties within future Iowa City historic districts to help incentivize the creation of local historic districts. Based on a conversation with the Historic Preservation Planner, at present there are a limited number of areas in the city that would be eligible for a local historic district. Lastly, to ensure consistency between the city-wide ordinance and the existing Riverfront Crossing's ordinance, staff also recommends amending the TDR provisions in Riverfront Crossings to include Iowa City historic districts. 2. The Commission expressed some concern over the receiving sites and the potential impact of additional height and density in existing residential neighborhoods. One Commissioner expressed concern regarding the process and lack of confidence in the design review committee. The proposed ordinance suggests capping height bonus transfers at 40 feet beyond the maximum height of the receiving site. In addition, any request will need to be reviewed by the design review committee and City Council. However, to address the Commission's concerns staff recommends incorporating the following provisions that protect existing single-family neighborhoods: For transfers proposed next to single-family residences, limit the height to two stories above the height of the existing single-family home. 3. Lastly, the Commission requested that staff explore other incentives, such as property tax reductions. Comprehensive Plan Consistency The draft ordinance supports the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goal and Strategy: Goal: Continue to protect our community's historical, environmental, and aesthetic assets. Strategy: Develop strategies to encourage the protection of natural areas and historic features and support the enhancement of areas that can serve as assets and/or amenities for adjacent development. The City's Historic Preservation Plan is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. The draft ordinance supports the following historic preservation goals: Goal 2: Make protection of historic resources a municipal policy and implement this policy through effective and efficient legislation and regulatory measures. Goal 3: Establish economic incentives to encourage the preservation of historic buildings and neighborhoods. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend adoption of the draft ordinance by the Iowa City City Council. October 12, 2018 Page 5 Attachments: 1. July 18, 2018 Memo to eoff Fruin, City Manager 2. August 29, 2018 Me to f Fruin, Cit Manager 3. Staff presentation to t n "Manager 4, 2018 4. Draft Ordinance 5. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites Map Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services r ��,.,_.�, CITY OF IOWA CITY ]MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT 1. Date: July 18, 2018 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Danielle Sitzman, Development Services Coordinator Tracy Hightshoe, Director, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Update on Possible City-wide Transfer of Development Rights Program for Historic Preservation Introduction At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council considered the local landmark designation of the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street. At this meeting the property owner's attorney requested that the Council defer action on the local landmark designation until the City reviews and analyzes the establishment of a city-wide transfer of development rights (TDR) program for historic properties. The Council voted to defer action on the local landmark designation for eight months and directed staff to explore the creation of a city-wide TDR ordinance. This memo provides an overview of TDR, outlines the City's existing TDR policy in the Riverfront Crossings District, and highlights some issues that staff will need to further analyze before moving forward with a city-wide TDR ordinance. Background & Overview of TDR Programs Created to protect natural resources, farmland, and open spaces, as well as preserve historic resources TDR programs create an incentive for property owners to preserve these resources by allowing them to sell or transfer development rights from the property being protected to another site where development can occur at a higher density or intensity than allowed in the underlying zoning designation. Generally, TDR programs have the following components: • Sending Areas: Areas identified for protection. These areas are typically required to be preserved and all or a portion of the development potential of the property could be transferred to another site. • Receiving Areas: Areas where the development rights from the sending sites could be transferred. These are areas where the City wants to encourage growth and development at a higher density or intensity than currently allowed. These areas should have adequate public services and utilities to accommodate additional growth, as well as a healthy market demand for growth. • Transfer Calculations: TDR programs can allow the transfer of all or a portion of the development potential of a sending site. Ordinances must outline how the transfers are calculated and consider the following: 1) is there a market for these transfers; 2) can the infrastructure in the receiving area handle the additional development; 3) does the comprehensive plan support the additional development in the receiving area. • Process & Administration: TDR programs need to establish a process for how transfers are reviewed and approved. Additionally, transfers must be tracked over time (i.e. how many transfers do property owners in the sending area have; how many have been transferred and how many remain; where have they been transferred). October 12, 2018 Page 2 Summary of Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code TDR Ordinance The City currently has a TDR ordinance in the Riverfront Crossings District for the dedication of open space, preservation of historic properties, and the dedication of public right-of-way. Below is a summary of the existing provisions for historic structures: • Eligible sending sites include properties designated as an Iowa City Landmark, eligible for landmark designation, registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed as a historically significant building per a survey • Prior to requesting a transfer of development rights, the property must be designated as an Iowa City Landmark to ensure its protection long-term • Receiving sites include properties within the Riverfront Crossings District • The formula for calculating the transfer is Lot Area of the Sending Site X Maximum Number of Stories Allowed on the Sending Site = Square Footage Eligible for Transfer • City Council must review and approve all projects receiving transfer of development rights even when the resulting height bonus does not exceed two stories • No transfer can exceed the maximum height allowed through the building height bonus provisions, which varies depending on the subdistrict In 2015, the City Council approved a transfer of development rights from the Tate Arms building at 914 S. Dubuque (sending site) to a new building at the corner of S. Dubuque and Benton Streets (201 E. Benton & 912 S. Dubuque (receiving site)). Out of the 34,800 square feet of development rights available for transfer, the Council approved a transfer of 7,400 square feet to add a 51" story to the building. The property owner has 27,400 square feet of development rights remaining to transfer. This is the only transfer applied for and approved since the adoption of the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code in 2014. Potential Receiving Areas for a City-wide Historic Preservation TDR Program At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council seemed interested in identifying potential receiving areas for a city-wide ordinance. The table below outlines some potential options for receiving areas, as well as some pros and cons. Potential Receiving Area Pros Cons Riverfront Crossings - Master Plan & form- - Current allowable based code densities and encourage higher intensities combined densities and with height bonus intensities provisions are - Current receiving area generous for the form -based code TDR program for historic preservation, public right-of-way, and open space transfers Downtown - Core of the city with - Receiving properties access to amenities, in the downtown may services, and be limited due to the transportation options results of the downtown historic building survey that is underway South Johnson Street and - Area already zoned - Smaller geographic South Van Buren Street for higher density area that may not be between Court Street & housing able to accommodate Railroad October 12, 2018 Page 3 Next Steps & Conclusion Between now and September 2018 staff will further analyze the possibility of a city-wide ordinance. Specifically, staff will: - Conduct best practice research - Review other local jurisdictions' TDR programs - Further analyze potential receiving areas - Identify sending areas based on Riverfront Crossings criteria and estimate the amount of potential transfers The proposed timeline for the project is as follows: Date - Transfers could provide an incentive for redevelopment of this area the demand of a city - wide ordinance Land designated for multi -unit - Areas are already - Potential concern development zoned for higher from neighboring not proceed on ordinance drafting density housing property owners October 11, 2018 - More scattered Discussion approach that would Planning & Zoning Commission Review & not concentrate November 1, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission Review & transfers in one area Recommendation Any combination of the above City Council (1 sl reading of ordinance) December 4, 2019 areas ordinance) Next Steps & Conclusion Between now and September 2018 staff will further analyze the possibility of a city-wide ordinance. Specifically, staff will: - Conduct best practice research - Review other local jurisdictions' TDR programs - Further analyze potential receiving areas - Identify sending areas based on Riverfront Crossings criteria and estimate the amount of potential transfers The proposed timeline for the project is as follows: Date Task June — August 2018 Research and analysis September 4, 2018 Presentation to Council on research; recommendation from Council to proceed or not proceed on ordinance drafting September— October 2018 Ordinance drafting, if determined by Council October 11, 2018 Historic Preservation Commission Review & Discussion October 18, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission Review & Discussion November 1, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission Review & Recommendation November 20, 2018 City Council (1 sl reading of ordinance) December 4, 2019 City Council (2nd & possible 3rd reading of ordinance) January 29, 2019 Expiration of 8 -month deferral of the local landmark designation of 410-412 North Clinton Street 1� r 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT 2. Date: August 29, 2018 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Anne Russett, AICP, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Update on Research and Policy Questions regarding Possible City-wide Transfer of Development Rights Program for Historic Preservation Introduction At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council considered the local landmark designation of the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street. At this meeting the property owner's attorney requested that the Council defer action on the local landmark designation until the City reviews and analyzes the establishment of a city-wide transfer of development rights (TDR) program for historic properties. The Council voted to defer action on the local landmark designation until the end of January 2019 and directed staff to explore the creation of a city-wide TDR ordinance. At the August 7 work session, the City Council discussed the July 18 memo to the City Manager, which provided an overview of TDR, summarized the City's existing TDR provisions in Riverfront Crossings, and outlined potential receiving areas. At the work session, the Mayor expressed interest in South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets from Court Street to the railroad tracks being a receiving area if an urban design plan existed for the area. This memo provides an update on staff's research and analysis and outlines specific policy questions for the City Council. In order to meet the January 2019 deadline, staff needs direction from the City Council on the following: the formula for calculating the transfer of development rights, the priority of preserving historic resources compared to bonus provisions currently offered for other public benefits, the process for the review and approval of development transfers, and areas to further pursue as receiving sites. In general, staff recommends a program that is fair, legally -sound, easy to administer, and simple to understand. Additionally, staff wants an effective program that preserves historic resources while not compromising the ability to achieve other important comprehensive plan goals. Overview of Research & Analysis Sending Areas Staff conducted an analysis of possible sending areas in order to estimate the potential for development transfers. Staff estimated the amount of development that could be transferred through a city-wide TDR program by applying the existing Riverfront Crossings transfer formula'. Furthermore, the Riverfront Crossings TDR provisions require that prior to requesting a transfer of development rights, the property must be designated as a local landmark. Therefore, in this analysis staff applied the transfer formula to existing landmarks (see Table 1). 'The formula for calculating the transfer in Riverfront Crossings is Lot Area of the Sending Site X Maximum Number of Stories Allowed on the Sending Site = Square Footage Eligible for Transfer October 5, 2018 Page 2 IdWIV 1. 0U111111dFY Ur IfdllblUt rUtUlltldl UY LUUdl d11U 1MMnr-L1b1UU Ld11U111dfK5 Sending Sites I Development Transfer Potentia12 Local Landmarks Only 4,367,0683 Local Landmarks & National Register of 5,368,9974 Historic Places -Listed Landmarks) The analysis conducted only looks at existing local and national landmarks. There are several other buildings that are eligible for local landmark designation and the Historic Preservation Commission has been proactively identifying sites to locally landmark. The City is also in the midst of a survey of downtown historic properties. Several properties in the downtown are eligible for local landmark designation. As more properties are landmarked the transfer potential will continue to increase. Staff reviewed several other TDR programs. Of the programs reviewed, none applied only to future landmark designations. In other words, existing and future landmarks qualified as sending sites. However, some cities required rehabilitation of the historic structure prior to becoming eligible as a sending site. Receiving Areas The areas identified by staff as potential receiving areas include: • Riverfront Crossings, • Downtown, • South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets between Court Street and the Railroad, and • Land Designated for Multi -Unit Development throughout the city. Using these areas, staff conducted an analysis to determine the amount of existing development potential (see Table 2). For the analysis, staff identified vacant and underutilized sites within the potential receiving areas. The following areas were removed from the analysis: land within the 500 -year and 100 -year floodplains, local historic landmarks, local historic districts, conservation districts, and publicly zoned land. In addition, several historic properties in the downtown were removed from the analysis. For a more detailed outlined of the methodology, please refer to Attachment 1. Table 2. Summary of Development Potential for Receiving Areas Potential Receiving Areas Development Potential Development Potential (square feet) (dwelling units) Riverfront Crossings 2,522,3135 - Downtown 242,4716 - South Johnson Street & South - - Van Buren Street between Court Street and the Railroad? Citywide Land Designated for 5,389,5258 845 Multi -unit Development Total 8,154,3099 84510 2 Staff used the square footage of the RISE, which is 363,268 sq ft (excluding the lower levels), as a gauge. 3 Approximately equivalent to 12 RISE buildings. 4 Approximately equivalent to 15 RISE buildings. 5 Approximately equivalent to 7 RISE buildings. 6 Approximately equivalent to 0.67 RISE buildings. None of the properties met staff's criteria for underutilized. 8 Approximately equivalent to 15 RISE buildings. 9 Approximately equivalent to 22 RISE buildings. 10 The residential portion of the RISE includes 332 dwelling units. October 5, 2018 Page 3 Accommodating the potential development transfers depends on a number of factors, including the eligible sending and eligible receiving sites. Another option to consider that could also help preserve historic structures is a parking reduction. Instead of transferring development rights, the receiving site could purchase the right to receive a parking reduction. Staff has not explored this thoroughly. More research is required to better understand the viability of this option. Other Local Jurisdictions' TDR Programs Staff also reviewed other local jurisdictions' TDR programs across the country that focus on preserving historic resources. For a more detailed overview of other programs, please refer to Attachment 2. Transfer Formulas There are different ways to approach calculating the transfer rights from a sending site to a receiving site. Several cities consider the existing development on the sending site. More specifically, these cities calculate the transfer by taking the maximum development potential of the sending site less the existing development on the sending site. To provide an incentive, many cities also allow development to exceed the maximum allowable density/intensity on the receiving site. Table 3 outlines some examples. Table 3. Example Transfer Formulas Local Jurisdiction Transfer Formula Chico, CA (Max density of the sending zone X Acreage of sending site) Less (Existing and proposed Number of dwelling units on the sending site) *Receiving site bonus above that allowed by comprehensive plan Minneapolis, MN (Max allowable floor area of the sending site) Less (Floor area of existing development on sending site) *Receiving site bonus of 30% above max allowable floor area Pittsburgh, PA (Max allowable development) Less (Existing amount of development) *Receiving site density bonus of between 20% and 200% Providence, RI (Max allowable height) Less (Height of historic landmark) *Receiving site bonus height of 1.6 times the max height or 300 ft, whichever is less. Vancouver, WA (Max allowable floor area of the sending site) Less (Existing floor area of the sending site) *Receiving site development must not pose hazard to low-flying aircraft. West Hollywood, CA Residential: (Max allowable dwelling units) Less (Existing number of dwelling units) Commercial: (Max allowable floor area) Less (Existing floor area) *Receiving site FAR bonus allowed through Planning Commission review and approval. West Palm Beach, FL (Lot area X Max allowable floors) Less (Floor area of existing structure) *Receiving site height bonus. Compared with these other local jurisdictions, the City's current transfer formula in Riverfront Crossings is very generous. Unlike the examples above, the formula in Riverfront Crossings does not take into consideration the existing development on the sending site. In establishing the October 5, 2018 Page 4 transfer formula for Riverfront Crossings, staff anticipated a significant amount of redevelopment pressure, and therefore, intentionally recommended a generous transfer formula in order to incentivize the preservation of historic resources. Approval Process for Transfers TDR programs also vary in how the sending and receiving of transfers are reviewed and approved. Many jurisdictions have a process that requires review by either the City Council or a board or commission. Table 4 provides some examples of how other local jurisdictions review and approve transfers. Table 4. Examples of TDR Processes Local Jurisdiction TDR Approval Process Chico, CA Non -administrative: City Council approval required Minneapolis, MN Administrative: Review and approval by Minneapolis, MN Planning Director Pittsburgh, PA Non -administrative: Historic Preservation Pittsburgh, PA Commission approval required Providence, RI Non -administrative: Downtown Design Review Committee approval required Vancouver, WA Non -administrative: City Council approval required West Hollywood, CA Non -administrative: Cultural Heritage Advisory Board reviews and approves rehabilitation plan West Palm Beach, FL Non -administrative: Downtown Advisory Committee review and approval required The City's existing TDR provisions require that the City Council review and approve any transfer of development rights request. Although several of the example jurisdictions above include the equivalent of the Historic Preservation Commission in the review, some also require review and approval by the City Council. Only one jurisdiction, Minneapolis, MN, reviews and approves transfers administratively. Administration & Tracking Staff also looked at how other local jurisdictions administer and track TDR programs. Table 5 outlines some examples from other jurisdictions. Table 5. Examples of TDR Administration &Trackin Local Jurisdiction Tracking Mechanism Chico, CA Documented in adoption of Specific Plan or Planned Unit Development or executed through a Development Agreement. Minneapolis, MN Recorded with the County as a conservation easement or similar restriction. Pittsburgh, PA Legal document signed by sending and receiving site property owners and approved by the City Attorney. Document outlines reduction in development rights on sending site and increase on the receiving site. Providence, RI Owners of sending and receiving sites execute a deed or other agreement to be recorded with the title to both sites. West Hollywood, CA City staff maintains a list of eligible sending sites to assist potential receiving site developers. October 5, 2018 Page 5 West Palm Beach, FL City staff maintains a registry of development rights available and transfers. Execution of City -approved restrictive covenant that outlines transfer. Covenant recorded against the sending and receiving sites and added to City registry. There are a variety of methods that other jurisdictions employ to administer and track TDR programs, some are more complex than others. The Riverfront Crossings TDR provisions do not outline a method for tracking transfers. Currently, planning staff maintains a spreadsheet of approved transfers and the applicable sending and receiving sites. More formal tracking mechanisms should be contemplated in a city-wide TDR program and developed in coordination with the City Attorney's Office. Receiving Areas Table 6 outlines other jurisdictions' receiving areas. Table 6. Receiving Areas Local Jurisdiction Receiving Areas Chico, CA Applicant must demonstrate that the proposed receiving site can accommodate the additional development. Minneapolis, MN Sites within the downtown that are not a designated historic structure or eligible for designation. Pittsburgh, PA Focused in the downtown. Providence, RI None specified, but program is focused in the downtown. Vancouver, WA Sites with the same zoning district as sending site. West Hollywood, CA Medium and high-density commercial zones. Do not allow transfers into residential zones. West Palm Beach, FL Specific sites identified in the downtown. Issues / Constraints Several cities across the country have adopted TDR programs to preserve historic resources and some are more effective than others. There are variety of factors that could impact the success of program, which are outlined below. Market Potential At this time staff does not have a market study that examines the market potential for a city-wide TDR program and completing a market analysis within the timeframe required is not feasible. Therefore, it is unclear whether a demand for such a program exists. Lack of Certainty in the Process Another factor that could impact the effectiveness of a TDR program is how transfers are reviewed and approved. Programs that allow by -right transfers that are reviewed and approved administratively provide more certainty for developers. Programs that require a discretionary, public process provide less certainty and more risk to developers. Other Bonus Mechanisms Some of the more effective TDR programs provide few or no other alternatives to achieving additional development potential. If other mechanisms exist to developers to achieve more development potential it could impact the effectiveness of a TDR program. Some examples that the City currently offers in Riverfront Crossings include bonuses for public art, Class A office space, affordable housing, and energy and environmental stewardship. October 5, 2018 Page 6 Policy Questions for Council The most fundamental question for City Council is whether they wish to continue to pursue a city- wide TDR program to preserve historic resources. If the City Council would like staff to continue to pursue a city-wide program, staff needs direction on the following policy questions: 1. Should eligible sending sites include existing local historic landmarks or only future local historic landmarks? The City has 52 local historic landmarks and the Historic Preservation Commission is working to identify and designate more local landmarks. In addition, the downtown includes a number of properties that are eligible for local landmark designation. Some options include: a) Eligible sending sites include existing and future local historic landmarks • Pros: Fair Consistent with the Riverfront Crossings TDR provisions • Cons: i. Depending on the transfer formula and the identified receiving sites the city may not have enough capacity to receive all of the potential transfers. b) Eligible sending sites only include future local historic landmarks • Pros: i. May be easier to accommodate the transfer potential Cons: i. Inconsistent with the Riverfront Crossings TDR provisions 2. Should a city-wide TDR ordinance apply the existing transfer calculation formula that is outlined in the Riverfront Crossings form based code or a new formula? The transfer formula adopted in Riverfront Crossings was intentionally generous to incentivize preservation in an area anticipated to be redeveloped. The formula does not take into consideration existing development on the sending site; and therefore, results in higher transfer potential. Using the same formula for a city-wide program provides consistency and clarity between the two programs. It would also make administration and tracking of the program easier. However, depending on the receiving sites identified there may be an issue with the capacity available for development on the receiving sites. Some options include: a) Keep the existing Riverfront Crossings transfer formula. • Pros: i. More generous, could provide more of an incentive to developers ii. Consistency in administration, application, and simpler to understand • Cons: i. More generous, may not be able to accommodate the amount of potential transfers b) Establish a new transfer formula that considers the existing development on the sending site. • Pros: i. May be able to accommodate the potential transfers with a less generous formula • Cons: i. More complex and more difficult to administer October 5, 2018 Page 7 ii. May want to revisit the Riverfront Crossings transfer formula to ensure consistency, which would require more time 3. The City already gives bonuses for certain public benefits provided with development projects. Should preservation of historic resources be treated in a similar manner or given a higher priority? Several other programs across the country provide an incentive to transfer development rights by allowing a density or intensity bonus on the receiving site. This comes in many forms: height increases, additional floor area, and additional dwelling units. The City's zoning ordinance currently includes several bonus provisions. In the central business district zones (i.e. CB -2, CB -5, and CB -10) bonuses are reviewed and approved administratively when development projects provide the following types of public benefits: • Masonry finish; • Provision of a theater; • Funds for street furniture, lighting, and landscaping within the public right-of-way; • Open space; • Adaptive reuse of certain historic properties; • Provision of off-street loading areas that meet specific requirements; and • Provision of class A office space." In the planned high density multi -family residential zone (PRM) bonuses are reviewed and approved administratively when development projects provide the following types of public benefits: • Materials, specifically masonry finish; • Open Space; • Rehabilitation of a historically significant building; • Assisted housing; • Streetscape amenities; • Landscaping; and • Installation of window units that have a height that is at least 1.5 times greater than the width. 12 In addition to the bonuses offered for transferring development rights, height bonuses may be requested in Riverfront Crossings for several public benefits. Requests to exceed the base height by two stories are reviewed and approved administratively. Requests to exceed the base height by more than two stories are reviewed and approved by the City Council. Bonuses are reviewed for the following public benefits: • Class A office space; • Public art; • Energy efficiency and environmental steward through Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or a similar program; • Student housing; • Hotel space; • Workforce or affordable housing; and • Elder housing. 13 Some options include: a) Model a city-wide TDR program on the current bonus provisions offered in the central business district zones, planned high density multi -family residential zones, and Riverfront Crossings. 11 For more detail on these bonus provisions please see 14-2C-8. 12 For more detail on these bonus provisions please see 14-213-7. 13 For more detail on these bonus provisions please see 14-2G-7. October 5, 2018 Page 8 Pros: i. Simpler and easier to administer Cons: i. Bonuses for multiple public benefits may dilute the effectiveness of preserving historic structures b) Allow transfers for historic properties to exceed the City's current bonus provisions (e.g. offer more height, more density/intensity). • Pros: i. Offering more of a bonus may be more of an incentive to preserve historic resources over bonuses offered for other public benefits • Cons: Community concerns with additional density/intensity and height An analysis of the potential impact of an additional bonus would take time to evaluate 4. What type of process should be established for the review and approval of sending and receiving transfer of development rights? The City's existing TDR provisions require review and approval by the City Council when a transfer of development rights is proposed. In staff's review of other TDR programs several require a non -administrative review and approval; however, some jurisdictions review and approve development transfers administratively in order to streamline the process and provide some certainty. Some options include: a) Keep the existing Riverfront Crossings review and approval procedure by City Council. • Pros: i. Simpler and consistent with current process Cons: i. Lack of certainty in the approval process b) Establish a new procedure that allows transfers up to a certain height or density/intensity to be reviewed and approved administratively. This could be similar the City's existing central business district bonus provisions or certain Riverfront Crossings' bonus provisions, which are reviewed and approved administratively. Any transfers beyond an identified threshold would be reviewed and approved by the City Council. • Pros: i. Streamlines the review and approval of transfers ii. Allows the City Council to review and approve larger transfers that would potentially have more of an impact • Cons: i. Not consistent with current process 5. What areas should a city-wide TDR ordinance identify as receiving areas? Staff has proposed a few options for potential receiving sites: • Riverfront Crossings, • Downtown, • South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets between Court Street and the railroad tracks, and • Sites throughout the city that allow multi -unit development. Based on the analysis staff conducted there is limited development potential in the downtown due to the number of historic structures. There is also limited potential for October 5, 2018 Page 9 redevelopment along South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets since none of the sites in this area met the threshold needed to be identified as vacant or underutilized. Furthermore, the Mayor expressed interest in this area as a receiving site only if accompanied by an urban design plan. Staff could explore the development of an urban design plan for this area, but completing a plan by the January 2019 is not feasible. The most capacity exists on multi -unit zoned parcels city-wide. Riverfront Crossings also has capacity, if the area is rezoned to the Riverfront Crossings zoning designation. Some options include: a) Riverfront Crossings, and/or • Pros: i. Current receiving area ii. Master Plan and form -based code encourage higher densities/intensities • Cons: i. May not be able to accommodate the amount of transfer potential for a city-wide program b) Downtown, and/or • Pros: i. Core of the community with existing infrastructure ii. Commercial zoning allows for higher densities/intensities • Cons: i. Significant amount of historic buildings; and therefore, not able to accommodate much transfer potential c) South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets between Court Street and the railroad tracks, and/or • Pros: i. Transfers could provide an incentive for redevelopment ii. Zoned for higher density housing • Cons: i. May require the development of an urban design plan, which would take time ii. May not be able to accommodate much transfer potential d) Sites throughout the city that allow multi -unit development, and/or • Pros: i. Provides the most capacity for transfers • Cons: i. Could potentially be more impactful and cause concern from neighbors ii. Areas with sensitive features (e.g. wetlands, slopes, woodlands) require a sensitive areas development plan which often leads to clustering. Transfers to these areas could result in even higher densities. e) Other sites or areas Next Steps & Conclusion In terms of next steps, staff will prepare a presentation for the September 4, 2018 City Council work session. In addition to the tasks outlined in the timeline below, staff will need to conduct some public outreach with property owners and other stakeholders. Date Task June —August 2018 1 Research and analysis October 5, 2018 Page 10 September 4, 2018 Presentation to Council on research; recommendation from Council to proceed or not proceed on ordinance drafting September— October 2018 Ordinance drafting, if determined by Council October 11, 2018 Historic Preservation Commission Review & Discussion October 18, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission Review & Discussion November 1, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission Review & Recommendation November 20, 2018 City Council (1St reading of ordinance) December 4, 2019 City Council (2nd & possible 3rd reading of ordinance January 29, 2019 Expiration of 8 -month deferral of the local landmark designation of 410-412 North Clinton Street Attachments: 1. Methodology for vacant and underutilized sites 2. Overview of other local jurisdictions' TDR programs ATTACHMENT 1. Methodology for Vacant & Underutilized Sites Analysis Potential Receiving Areas: a. Riverfront Crossings' b. Downtown c. South Johnson & South Van Buren Streets between Court Street & the Railroad d. Land zoned for multi -unit development, including commercial zones that allow multi -family (city-wide) 2. Removed the following from the potential receiving areas: a. Land within the 100 & 500 -year floodplain b. Local Historic Landmarks, Local Historic Districts, and Conservation Districts c. Historic properties within the downtown d. Publicly zoned parcels and other parcels that do not allow multi -unit development 3. Vacant & underutilized sites analysis: a. Used Assessor data to identify vacant sites b. Underutilized sites include the following: i. Improvement -to -land value ratio of less than 1.0, which indicates that the buildings on the site are less valuable than the land, and therefore, more likely to be redeveloped c. Staff also referred to the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and the areas identified for potential redevelopment d. Additional sites were included based on staff's knowledge of potential future developments 4. Calculated development potential of vacant & underutilized sites: a. Commercially -zoned properties: Floor area ratio (FAR) i. FAR converted to square footage by multiplying the maximum height by the lot area b. Residentially -zoned properties: Density (dwelling units / acre) i. Density converted to maximum allowable dwelling units c. Applied 80% discount factor assuming that maximum allowable density/intensity will not be achieved 1 Staff assumed rezoning of all properties to Riverfront Crossings Eli ibili Mecbanics 6q $entlin ReceiNn Base Unit Glculation Metbotl Atlministration TrxkinRprowl Steps Notes econdRd in Me office of Me county Appl can[lb!o ssemdimg sM1el Mui be e ther res tlental send ng M d, etlf Tult fart ly 3d fferent kmn wfi M1 M1 p pert, slocated re bb f ear dreg 3 fd by p cel su to ble Nr d .uses development factors Property own b PPI.. f s pe M1 3 n property gM1, approved I:C YC9 nn9 bodY)��M1PJIIb P p. 486666 S 1&28 023 f: 9 properly P detlh dntal may be[rzn3erred Owedpment potental of the3temnus Me d—gna on as d gl ng 3 pdbR b, f useof Property d f ng dtes ry- d-M6N tlantalc Atlanta, GA tlesg td labl—. buld�le or ese_dhdel mponent represents at I— _df Ne p,, mu show Floor area rata total landmark­­gdeveopr ,t approval of tran3ers Appb-by Cty, Klfv[ hp I pmxmTy of one anotM1er ajdnt app can be sibmRted ppoprate for tlev and Nat Me —1-b of oN nanceslrwtleld�Tlll GOORANOECO PT18Z0 CR28GEGUR buldgdr-by lbe Atlente F63onc Pres bbn Omens flRure use of Ne property meths reqs asolR linetl in Ne code open space, and seableo pen space econdl by Bureau of Ranning Bureau of Ranning has asy3em for nM1 M1i onngsveronce, owners p' assignmenS and [ran3er ofdw dgM1[s ran3erw 'cruse adverse evronmental/economidmcial impact, peva perm[ atlmini3ers as rf a wed. — E_51&2862 —DER 5 oma Ily e'giblg in similahy applicant mu3 make ing Ne dlM1y f ppo ces Pp86666-CM1apter 1634 Ne ppl for TOR M1 ner(s) d f ren d—, f., (((#of OUlGross Acre) II wetl nsenting Rolletl dN PUOIOwelopmen[Pgreement Ooesnr appear to be a TOR bank entq same process they use for PUOs of f II g k a-, CA t M1 h--lfll-b TOR conservators program IRlinetl by the Gly M1 d f M1 rete g be E—ftblly the onusis on the applicant N do the legubrk of Dwelling Unit mne)'(sendng rtes erg]) (­­gand pbldde#of OU on sending ate) prod The TOR srecondl—, Ne specffc PUOIOevelopment Agreement specrfc Rd, and Development Agroerment htp— hco dau3 tldocu P governmen ment1te16u ptlaterptlf determining eligibility, Nen hty get,th passjudgment Eligibleff 1)Nehistd propertyis ., anurban M1isNdcdi3dq 2) the hisNdc property is a Property owner mu3 —L to the Planning OireRor indra0ng the b g Kure Istetl n the N IReg erof FSNrc Places Off De gfl f PI gd Ron appmves fore for send ng d g M1 g d M1 fd p gh o P p 1 3 II M1 p 1 II ryM1 Il comldepartment3sus Glias, TX rf etl Ne— End Locatetl n[M Cental Area G4 t.A­cts Floor Ara lad kb 1d g d M1 fFl d gsRes and amt to be Appf an[ f les fore vnth county deetl be 3 etl- M1 k.f t bletl e'opmentlOCR 26tlocu_nt _ H O and 3)the ffsNdcpropertyhasbeen 1(A)aM alb etl by g f senting sRg tansfe sone-reone n3ertetl; county deetl recoNer recoNs form recoNer prance wM1en ret g R e developerroquestsabulld ng 3pdflb IdinglOevelopmentProg,b-ppll neM1ab'ed the last 5 yrs and the perm[ for a project using dw rights, Ne a ,.nofwlin thbal e of Me reh.b exceetls 56% of Me pmpert,'s perehab ,alu econd. tran—,ng form is cM1ecketl and building pernft is issued n oerde,N the d gi bb for TOR, the psu tng use of the'N the reg ulatetl roperty [sending bt ]moa be Ina N "Offfloor be Appu cant sibmts 3[e plan for proposetl sending sde Indkafing amt - that.— be advance goals, obiect—e pot f the Redevelopment areasand M1dg M1t ¢e area and resdental unit can nfermang. at the rate of2666 square feet Appf irons b ed Cry.Loal Appl ca p etl ser remnng of aaomodatetl M1 d gste sretuned Pp.61666 s 4626 f: Delray BeacM1, CorpreM1en3ve PI M1 ugM1_ (a)Prese on fff ovetlaY inner fa retlevel opment OA,a of ff Fl Da' g eq e —.1 d dl g A f­ Plann ng Ag,ry d s appropr erten f d g drecev ng reque3 d Nevalue of the (ppl d g Co tyF 1.. Op sp e, M1 p Jll b ry tl- N/tl l y b d mtl tlevelopment regulators FL 3Tctures &sten (b)Ob ning & are a the developmen[proposetl farther[3[e mu3compyvnth the Un or FloorArea Unfts I'll off d f d 3tes and cer[f M1 Gry mreretld Ip gM1t Certfcate of Gve'op en[RIgM1t sssuetl. approvetl by G Z n g b ? s d Id CH4ZORE ART46SUOIRE d and for pubic fal -(c) Preservat on of de3gnatetl retlevelopmen[plan farther[area off y y p M1 appfcaton of theCer[f eta a—,ver Commson-G rtrf cafe approvetl by Attorney. Ory Att ey. mayalm neetl to be etl,f processed smcurremtiv):o 84626TROERI To date no TOR appl catonshavebeen sibm tted. as;(d)Myfime w avoluntary ac0on ubuM aide in fulfilling a poli"objeRive of the Gd,,hen3ve Plan" pro W, ehF ate whdh3 tesvalue of ttan3erretl dgM1[s, wM1icM1 can De mldttran3eretl to receiving ble Any land w dgnifrant aroM1aeolog al li3oral or "determined as capable of acceptng dw rightsbasetl onthe GnsM1y (u nits per AsmucM1 as the maxmum posble denary TOR CeI,fi— Resnds both sending d ­ng neously- GesnYappearre beer TOR bank en[M1y- Ce f ppl ns cviewetl by Pop-]5,666- sxtion 4 l of following link Largq FL onmental sgnffance OR ccoNingN aretlevelopmen[plan Comp Ran and the Ocve'opment Code Amount limM1etl by sRes acre)orintensM1y (FAR) n.nary of senting sRe Co providetl in applkato asdetermined by Cty The cer[fate gels recoNetl wRM1 the Gcunry-Planting Gommssan M1ttpslNwrv�Jaryo comldocumen[centerl Permi-2—DRanni nglPlanbinglCO appm— by R anning Cdmmdd.n m nicipal service capa,,q Gormison- CJPdo ptetl_26 _CDC-ptlf Retl p Ag­Gry Planning --llopment Ag" must C.1— M.her an app for TFAR II6 d thry Pop. 4 63 million A-le 4 5. httld llibnary am1e 1com/n gatevray dll IGalifomiallapLmunicipakodechapte,pl g d g Ihaptergenenalprovi hb Floo A Ra 3.1 - - Co IAOyG and Mayor nsfyes pp pp. City Plann ng g d gl 1e15tan3 dffloonar Los Ange'es, yp c Dl ,,tn the Cental B Os[rc[Retlwe'opment yp the Cental Bu3ness Os[rc[Retlwe'opment ped gars Basetl on floor arear 31 fit depend ng on [M1e Biba ea n wdcM1 the sR s II d d Ily d whether an applcatonfo TFAR (Tran3er of Floor Fletl vnth GTy Clerk Co IAOyGcuncl & e gM1 c[r2flernplates$fn�efaulLM1[m$86$vi 04 ProjeciAra Project Ara thesu the subarea n w1icM1 me srte is roared locatetl Ara Rlgddnd all sn—t,a Commis ublL, hea,ng proves[ron3er following public M1eadng- m-1 repattli s process- oireemr�ssues a reporcm amssbn re meridingapprovall approvalw oT condM1ion3 disapproval of req for Trani tl�mlegal ser ca$anc, day A4-5 "Oevelopersa,,uiretlN payer Public Ba'idtt Payment on V—ensin otherth fund pubis open space, affordable housing, cultumllpublic facLI,, hi3odc pmsemphd=rvation and public tansporta0on its' "R,ceving pane's must mea all three of Me Mlb gmt,da 1> Ded Tad nal ed bas f ba f a ry of me H d mu3 be , N gM1b°M1 dRedental or Md ed U R, d nt aV sedgy y gd Iing F e I d Plan, ng dep pp MR,f L dRak by M1 TOR, o, prepaty fee aryl TDR Own fq IAygadng Stemu3 b by t t yl d kl etl M1 Greenpdnt and reg etl Cn erc al on Future Land Use Map, a p g d M1 b d ry M1 Il be M1 f M1 I d,,- by M1 dg sad f L d R kR M1 Fl d g , a gseg corpH dap f d -1-a, app pant etl ff pp oMe planst d Re Pp.4000 A-1,111 : M1 p Jll b ry_ d_ omlgalmadmn Madimn, GN Landmark by Me M d H c 2) WIn M, "Ii gM1,r densry OensM1y 9 h ° f M1 Ing d,.,. F .,n d TDR M1 b TORS I p M1 by , 'ry Y OMa orb Bank Bemed eqable by Me Bank RoaN Nppt f p _ ­,ng own„ mu3 pplyd p M1etl k ppt for /,.­ code of ord es2n°d,ld FTII Presavat on Com _ (Mer port ons of Me W WasM1 ngMn r etl gd b d ry g s[e er_ Mayor and c bath recervng and senting ecoNetl yrand counclr pbl COOR—RD GH54PLDE_NRFIIITRDERI 5 °n R3orcal se'id g apply M Me TDR pregam a,wel) Gatevray, and 3)1, 2000 R of a nbgh-h- sM1 11 be talc —'ng atf Rs pe,aca Th, d ran rvng sRe at pubt m -ng ,nth Me Cou my Cour[ TORG ffi at�meetng_Up°n apprval,plandng 54TROERIPR r, w/in 1500R ofa n,,h b°rh°°d park and wlin 1500 R of an arterial sta3 or state M1i M1we '• aof aparcel —fact°nal acre�,vnll be oundetl downMMe 1,— ll4 acre" R Rk e,.,d. In Me TOR Regi3er_ dept record, Me tan,nt3er_ AdministativeJcve reviery of TDR Po p_ 415,000_ Sl,k,i llydesg,ed M, L M1 I allydesgnated or Igbl R 3mctures Do Y ally I,— an e I,,t M1 M1 [sa (M GFA I,—— by ,d,ng s f Appl cat°n f TDR b etl If abbb— ecoNetl M1 M1 G ry M1e form of ppl by PI n g 0 _ Oe fappeald H R _ Can tan—t. up M four dff g f d g Mlnn_ddl,, MN vnttin ` g ff d s,a,d,t„m sed by sR R sp f tltl nMwne GFA m) (GFN gtl p a=tl g )M1 g ppm e3consen att la, 3o a p bl M1 ry specfyng Dd—appear t,ea TOR bank,ntq Th, ce11—g-­d­ wfh Me G°unry_ M1 gM1 PBZ sM1 B Id g pe g edf g - L k - M1 p IIIb ry_ cotl _ M1 G y, Ha tag,Praservaton Commsoa d d M1 R ,n,g 0 or approves of[M1e tansfer M30h above lsmn m -mum allowable GFA tof floor ar�tansferetl and nvolvetl pane's untl senting stesR c3mcNre M1as been r,hab and appreved by=MI_IIT20Z000 HPC p°I sl descode of_ Nnances_nodetl CH540DOD1_N RFIIITRDERI 5492700E P R tw d 9 etl R gd H uric d d T five sped m Fl ra�allowetl by Mebaa= a of sending s[, record, an easement Mat perp lyp l d tld development M1 _tl P Y puaM1aa=or betl .d gM1 (f etl Cn ney f d g gM1 p ° g M1 M1 getl by Ownersof sending,be and rving v[es mu3 apply for tan-, fd IdgM1 M1 M1 pl gd p_R gd p_I, 1° M1 g f pp I_TDRs Pop 800000 NasM1ville, TN Landrk03r3 (Ila g tetl In 200] wRM1 Me Downtown Cn mmunily Ban Update) d M1dwnMwn as ery ng v[es FI°°rNr� mg Mefl°°rarea of Melandmark bu Id ng by CNoS on paf oras pr, -,eros orgright, an onlybe t °n donateiJ Planning dept retrive, app and appave, it a betl pl gap M1 approval Men remrdetl n Me off ce of Me register of deetls Ib_ trete, ng prepaty only ce Merig M1Lsarendt-I'wli0ng t sgn,d by owner of -—Ing v[b th. Is -ml ttetl to Me DI annInd de t M1ttpsllwm�nasM1vllegovlmclord ,antes perm 2003 200]Ib1200] 1358 M1[m — — — New Qleans, "place; buildingsor3mcNresln ( cennal eusn,s; o13de y (CRO)mne Mat are"" d g etl R d ks prepeh—n GR0.1, GR02or ceD2Rm ,,,b, preperties In CR09mne can receive acv gM1 3 ed from Me CROS p je dcM1 ncorp°rate dff be M1e maimum Floor ar alb ed by M1 g code, v hd't baso Nppl ns are approved ordedetl byM1 PI g G°mmssan followng pbl f Is[ran3a appfcan[s mu3 fie vnM M1Gyb°M an n—menti 3 d a,ofbothm,,ndln ana 9 ' g wbmtan ppl ti p Pp. 3910005ect°n 160 of /orme, d g n effe3. M1 p Jl Z g ICty LA g zetl ft gape R dy M1,tcapp—al,MnvaN TDR y eed by l0%M, FI°°rNr� de ry nd Meal flo°,are f M1 g If pprevetl recommend f MMe Qly Go I- ce of ra3r Sons on Me d g M1 M1 deeds of bath Me senting and re, kng gM1 M1 d g d d ry M1 g pl gl 1f comp,hensys - h, n the ownetl by by gbhn_M1 d ry dart °n to Me ei 3ng bu king to be prea=rvetl Cn and l may appreve, m°drfy, or deny_ s g M1 gM1 p bl M1 g f m g d tt,man,wo,l,an, la- Me GTy, State, or Fedeal Government densry nc,�a=s all°— nMe receiving sRe by baseline sing Plana ng G°mss°n and GTy G°unci m ng hm n, 20,20141 Located Incertaindi 1, Nota M1i3odc sRe Locatetl>=150R f a Application for"major NRR review of M1 (.,Msec— Pop_ 0],000_ Gly G°d, 3ataa'7M1, hty TM1ey desgnate certdn bu kings (H C eg ryl or 2). TOR ally nedpapem ( p MU or OPO,)_ OM1 pl e9 d gs[es F H Rehab m g _ Ib th 1° fl by 2500 `A fee 25%f lag bg F ons under the, Fl o,NaaBdn°, p S owns of appreved R3odc F.A.B. 3 [ t emrdedd sg ed by Me ttan,r„or Van f desgnedto p 1 p,.,- fletl Id gli 3orc reab pl perf nt of d,v tight, does notgoaant-th II 1° M f M1 wll be off Ig bile M1TOR,. Pal° A t., CA g . p, apps -d e R M1 d p k'g FI°°, Arm gb wflM1 vn M1 M1 g R d M1 p a en er no an b d ated pl-d-tve covenant and ”" mn ,nth Me I d a 3 ry M Me c ry pl ed be sf etl d r CM1 p 10.10 f II g l k: pp l M1sfd,fc d _ L and dfFl d ff f d B b al Mdlg M1 dl tat on Plans Mrthoa= FAR—I alba � - -FARI- _Nim 3pulates that, ,g h,prop1y,dIIb Nabbed Me am° o, are�M1tan3,redre ReM1 bPl euetl by HPC Gplf aid I I� ap I nd, pal td,dl ngs ILTOMI add tion 1fl,"4, apr H ata max of ID FAR unless mare ra3dctive FAR ads M, that m,;= e<I� 7R ho ur area must be fully pa,ketl. cord,g to appfcable 3antlartls. Up omtplet°n, PI U, "'d wes mi en demrmman°n of —Ing,Re', hams„ligibil Ty. cdde'lf3empIat,4fn default h -30W d=am l pal°arco_ca TM1ree sending areas (Sending Treasure HIII, Sending OM Town, and Senting H,..,,d 13); Planri,g Oreeo, determines Me number of "E., t— ed an3ared forma Sending s[, pmpertty owners an eq Oevelopmen[Gedt popCM1_15224 f Park ORy, UT d,sgnZ,t prese pe space res sens[ve vrenmainarea ands 3r sofae3M1Htl Nllp pe R Me TOR Re g dy neare elgbleM receve Tansfa OensM1y Allocaton rat°, vary d,pendng on senting a1TOC 1000 sa Rof bonus mmer calfl°°rar�or2000 sq Rof bonus development cr , allowed to a senting ate Sale'tansfe,ofc ftd cond,dbd b,tweenan3,re, and tansferee o, Me, t senting ,eaa=ment or deed re I tled A Deveopment QetC. I—, mus[ be recd Jbd In Me d erfromth Park Glyn gd 3o,_TM1°se c”" mayonly bemldl c.nveyetll _8300 M1 p lip kGcfty. d pakodeonl ne.com Ib° k'2type d antes#name-1S arch.1,aV M1istori cal Development—It' esde,tal floor area legal representatives, M be recorded by unry', pmperty record,—, credit, are anfaretl by Me owner to th �q Tan3er Of Ocvel°pmen[RgM1[s (TOR)_,an—_f D nb sgnificance Al l vacant lots l n Me Park GTy P3odc S— Inventory ab—Ild,ble Planning Di1—.,designee ran3enetllmld_ ,an3eree and Men mu3 be reiswetl In Me tan3,ree', nam,_ Pasadena, CA eWei CaR,kayS—c Gan b,anyw nM, Wei Bell al density can be cone— to ndn- de,alfloorareaand vicevasa Conus,., Formula_ One dwelling unItshall be equivalentto050 square—ofndn- restlential development and 850a1uare fee[ of,onrasdent al d,v,l°prren[sM1all be W M1 p pe written consent of senting and Ownerofsendingaterecord,awritten c v,nant documenting M,ttan3,,, approved by GlyNttomey_O T,an—ran be appm—by Me Z ggd oa,l°ng as Me Pop. "I,ta�ded to prepot, enhancement of the_ Cty'„ymbolic—,n gat,vray antlto facill[ate preservationofhl3 ,d 3ructures antl beovetl open bates” 1]300038_ Plan Gatevray Specffc Plan area cvntti Gatevray Specffc Plan area °sm epu d-d.p td ght,VunR_ Nnydeveopmdh[deLs tansferretl forma donor ate sM1all be detluctetl form Me additional densly oMavnse all Quad o n Me parte' by Mis SeRion_ owners 9 any preperty owner MnMear-rreytan3er_ and thec,,,nts record, of alltansfeany, Meche densry allocat°ns Many of all Me pmpeM1i Pin the -if plan area" g p je3 meets regulat°ns htp M1 .del, ry. tl _ mlalpaeden alcodescode of ord 2nodeld Tl T17ZONINGCODE ART3SPPLSTC H1]3 GASPPL_l 7.38 OOO -M EST L g't"—gnatetl L etl G5 & C6 d an be sd I. 1 1 ran3er a0o_'YM1e amount of development av 1" 3 s Med�fference between thg fd,,d.pn, nt., Me AI be pl dpgam for M1 bt d nance ofMe "" AI be pp ved by h Gry Pop_ 30Q000. Pagam L. only been used abou[3[mes M1 b f great nterest M poteri I tl pe because Me pace of dcomme s(wdcM1 can be d g etl cM1,,ty Me Co -flu gM1 f d g d sed g d h ax amount of Bevel p wti M1 ould be allowetlon that The GrysH R Co ppaves Me dd Gry sol app etur f 40y rs beyond Me Ser AI be leg,document H Rev G Ri pp -, ,hall pl dd d p has notg etl ugh d j rfy Me q f PRt3rurgM1, PN consent of Me property owner)or ly be 3 red to mdng g Floor Arm and g d h mn ng code_Ifsend -d, & f approvesaleg (document sgnetl by M1e getlby pall by t 'fn department bu,1 p g f M1 til dfor add Id Iopm capacry [andf not for paf[perf d rR ce axa g adj Bevel II h be partesconcemetl sfletl wRM1 Me Banda ,b"e ane , t h ff G g fhe basemdng allows Mll fsa Rof hlI ,d,.,, faclRes n twos ficd3rets laba'etl GS and GB_ Red I- gM1 an be t 3 etl from any older mdng p g n 2rc M1 II etlby M1 g d _If not b bed pa, appfcaton for occupancy penrr[ and all all etl ydepartments.nd,n nolo n appbp, d Meretluet on n develop lot H 5[ ­­­gAl, Faclry. for hatless Man 40 years f d p [vi M1 M1 neetl for d ry pp ov I _Co sequently G5 &C6di3riets adjacen[dev thandnc only an b— by 20%more Man densry allowetl by base ning_ gM1 ,,e,ng ng and thencr - M1 recery ng lot P ghd persh—Ifttle mhe TORONinance_ (smaIM—a0on) "Bu, d g 1 etl h N al Oowncry Deg R Co Rtee(DRC) Yee ow f ­,ng& Beery ng 1oL5 Reg f H R I., St fth he DowncRy 0 be 3oretl Off be h gM1 fl d k d h Ib d d a rea ed to erg d p e ble M1d h execute erg be recorded wRM1 Ad be by Me P p.100000 Ch p. 2] A 603 s G ff 11 k- Paviden c, RI wH M1 h ppf d sM1 all and etl eq retl by Me BUlding hegM1t m gM1 etl o g cu ghegM1 f rvng s[e -not ompat vn wtiM c atnga 24M1 petlf dlyd h re ter h le b h l _ f a ro that equals appavetl ryDeg R ew CommR[ee gl hplllb ry od_ I1p d r¢t p ""oo purpose s Me pr n fMe enorofMebuilding'tO d desgn revery mRtee ex eetll6 h maxh gM1tor300 R, w"cM1ever Bless permutes andh g rt ma nment ev a d-1 paposetl TmpavemenLs wRdn thedi3r ncluding TOR Beed ', 1n fn pt'P"n me glt- any cM1angesM plan mu3 be approved thb han—application at tapubfc near ng_ el deslcode of oN nance3lnode'd�T -- IICOOR_GH2]ZO ART60O01_8030EIN Gvic san OMgo TOR Rogram (a on -fit o" awnetl by me Sty) 'Po qualify. mu3 contain d g edh rcalremurces and Tran3er Is appmvetl by Civic san Diego sending site owners most en n to t aPp.141 11 on Hasnottenused san OMgq CA tel.— me block as y bje3 Alu3 be on Me mme block as Me FloorAr� deterMned by amt of development allouetl by Me sendng s[es,rex base FAR may al be P- d C - s OMg on pbft g tlbyM1 Cry of Dego tasketl — hentbd by remrdbd cer[frates of [ran3er GTy an acqure bank and hold Preservert on. Rea ton. and, Ma ntenance Agreement Mat s 2014 httplldd¢ degag I gs[e orbeM1 ofa dy, apprevetl by M1 ng c san —Ing deten"netl on acam bycam bass bamtl on o vnM perm tng econoMctlevelopment n ran3enetl Floorarea prorM tan3erMa comm 1sMem to rehab Me3mclRre codelkluni CodeGhapterl5ICM115A O8O isan03ptl VanlPre flo,,venryi ngMata ran3er of Floor area is neetletl M rehab and d—wa0on of andmark" neetletl reM1ab and premrvaton co3s nelud,,gootlsMaugM1outMecry c utling Me tlownMwn e rvng s[e P—l-t uctiftleLafe, Cs0 Presitlent appaves transfer f GO Men ILL I TOR Rogram m be—In GO Hill Rannetlu3 G3det; Mree types of eligible Pop_141 million TDRpavisions remo- fam ordinance in Golden Hill Planned Di3ri3 in 1909 I, cal properties"a property -problems densry all owetl by code usually wasn't desgnatetl as a bi3 ,,,al sRe by h H IGte Boad,a [ran3er difference between the floor area of Me l and mark and the floor area that would be m M1g h nth de- ry f the b g a ewRnnMe H 3orc Oar q or a 3ructure paper[eslo�tetl wRM1inS mba—s of the Aria FloorAr� pennRtetl under tnedensM1ylm� of Me and ng cod, than3erretl r g hts all owetla ran3ers reg3eral wRn Ranting Debt a pu,,h—of devel opme, M1Ls hadM reg ster all tan3ers vnM Me CRy Planting CNfPanri ng Oep[hasM approve ran3ers h fm wfi h gM1suere than-'. 3 ed'=sof po e,,ng desgnatetlniAdh_llyla"hft, pmt M exceetl Me base densty allowetl by Department erten h ad IiLIeincent eM buy add Ri anal densry-aum Mry could acM1ieve Me ahsgnif ant inamnrey appmvetl by Me HI3oM1e Ste code by 25% densry MeY wantetl ander the Ilmfts ImIdd- by the Board'; pm,,y owner atm must grana a facade easement to the G rod, w ,hundmg bdgth omomsvire--ntM additional development '.nd .,ks landmarks or d k oMerMan landmark building_ Me greater of Me follovnng 10x the floor area of Me landmark or Me diff b M1 g Fl r area of Me structure Application M e3ald- TDR—fits approved by d POD, property mu3 be ti d hated before N g P 261000 16]0040.1.1] f p b g u3ures nati 3odc tl M1 Fl aallowetlb mn ng tl k 3 Floor Me Plann Dept greglstry fTOR ed fVan4e,..e, ed teof TDR f 11 gl k s[Peter�urg FL d d ygovt ownetl Meror mu property -e 3be p p M1e tlownd—center tl d cal FloorAr� a - abM ar�sSx la tl k fterdetlu3ng any lot areao ccugetl by alandmark bu Mng ng (POD)appaves e 3abl sM1mentantl transfer of TOR ed Gry Atto vappaves ownerstl n h PI gDep_A ofran3er owner he ds tl notmvenanLs and ,A uer ed ad eretl uponapprovalhp111b by POD owner ofcreelMw"oZ is ry_ d_ M/ _p burglcode—de of d, nances ddeld premrvetl and ehadlMtetl In ac cordance vnMMesec of the bb d acts "Mr mcM1 sq ft of development—It n of covena 6antl re3dc0ons reaiii wfiM1 Men appavetl by Me gr y G Nttorne_ Muse MemMran3er de-ty"ntens (;owner of ry Rthan appy PHISTPECO CHI 6tADERE S18]0A PPR 16 ]0040PLZODE IB ]�04�1.1] errors sMndarasfn, Presava0on and Reh.biIita0hn tr ath-'p.,$50 mu3begivento Mealys M1i3oric preserva0on gant pager,,{ mnus any funtls went on requi re a0on or reh,b work" ecd nave mea 1 "ng s[emu3 ppava of a ste plan before ":ts are an3enetl _ TRDHx1H1 Designated historic landmarkin :thanA d Own f h h p perty d h ad p f H Any M1 h mme mdn9 a M1 h Sty Co h M1 P p 1]5000 S 20510.050: P Ove y 0 d g [vi 11 not Floorarea elbwebk h nd ng sRe Mnus Gry au 11 makes recoN of cov h d cp perty Ilb etl Covenantmu3 be appavetl by Gry h p JAwrv+ ry N n tlef Vancouver, WA d ny3 he Overtay O3d3 that s 13etl in Me hamrd toMwfly ng Floor Arm the actual floor area of h ting ste_ her of the hstoic property/send g l _ a h, d U rf h oven ant Coundl a IVf leSfl attacM1me'i sN h cM1ap —20.510_ptlf Very IRtIe specR c S tate or National Regi3ers of Hi3odc Races o,desgnatetl o n a cal regi3eris e1gible a caR add—the tan—orsmply Me preservation of Me 3mctuz inMnna0on isgiven_ Owners must pe00on M qualify Mei, land s th,hugM1 " r0R albca0on vadesdepending on sending fo,e.h sRe Pop_24,000 Pmgam th as sending condRional use permit pacers, unless Meste isvnmin Me ning_ nH acre ofmndIng land owners can receive 065 DUs in Me RA _e'l li n Me R -1,10U in he R-1 L, 20Us Ifnotm Me RAdi 1,Me B.aJof supervisors he ai— premnre environmental ,ace and hi3orically sgnrfican[stes Red IAg cultural mne In 5 h pe,mf hgher n h R2 R21 d100U heR31 PI gGom - dTownsdp Board Alen[ on of w"ere TORS are recd Netl does must appreve tan3er conerder ng Me Mtps/Aw ecoda',60com11306]0641hi Warrington, PA w h ould alRomatcally Stecan be d ry d I, office and Land Area add ti base II rings bonumsof l5%in the fsup I _ M1 pp Metran3ers by Me TDRReviery Board_ [,noappear nMe code_ recommendat ons of Me Platin ng ghIght.evelopdevelopetldeveloperde development qualrfy only add— rf R meets four mteda including ndu3ral uses ng tic vie RA or 10% in older districts and addit"nal are advsetl Department or Planting Com sson velopersdevelopment developed,development ency wfh Me Gomprd�ensive bonuses(, r rtes wh hi3od c or natural and the TDR Review Boards righ[,d-1.pment Plan and promotion of public welfare" ce sgnfiicance_ RA s_ mu3 be at lea. five acres M qualify-" dgM1t�,dove'opment�,develops,rigM1t,rigM1Ls Pop_3],000 "Avner of designated o—P, w equ�e I,— by thb Guttural Hertiage Nd—ly Board to ed for �ff I,— N p etl Grys CUINaIH -erg Nd ryBoaN Cl, allows developers to purcM1ase an opt on on TBRs M1 M1 be recorded to Rgh[s can be purchased by anyone d h be earmarketl fora rve full fundsfrom a ele of dev ngM1 If d g neetls reM1ab Ily Iy 25% fTBR propert es cont gGry yp pe etl Ili gh tyc --ll tl p tl h g b f approvesa rW dl Planfneetletl on ',,had prior adopto f g to project (anangetl p ng _Ctt al el p cetl _ g]5% pl etl West H011ywoQ GN desgnatedI d an wh cM1 have lessd M1Y hero Me -,,h ultural OensM1y tlwNlg f tlental culWal t. the max ces, s[he tlR—a, asendng beortpletetl before tan3 r_Gouncl has ¢tablhe y bet use wasconcerne H erg Nd ry Bo d pp ve s n ounf h r M1 b f h sendng Accord ng to allowetl by Memning code" er cann otbe tansfenetl r esdental tunes the al codspenbRtetl Floorarea and Me a3ual Floor aof Me desgnatetl building c ena upon wM1icM1 tan3ea sM1all be condM1ion. d—ld the develo m Ith, h udbnt gto use Me be program rf[heyhad to buy dgM1ts before Van 3erwas approvetl)_ reM1ab plan If Z­ t cl has ria Mat RfollowswM1en approving anter_ Bmart Preservaton, no tansfeahave http tlyet"1858150Fof M1ttpllgcodeuslcodesN.e_ M1ollywodNie _hp p-1— 4 19_58& h-11- &fra—ff Gould notfind a copy of the-cffro a mat appea,,n the Tansler of Beve'opment Rghts Program_ H13nde properties, landmarks (lot nal regi3er3aNs), Gemats. ��.n- tion d TBR registry mai ntai ned by city that records total—thf—a-lableon the Planning dire3ore3 e'gi urban ­­,all asdepi"d in the Cty's code. H13ndc sRes & Iandmarksmu3havecomplHed "mu3—plywRh the TBR map ran—able floor area is determined by a3te, and date & amount of any [ranter that occurs, city-approved re"t"`trvecovenant is ¢toted -of sending sRe, letter (w ¢timate of BRs available Pop.1B8,000 Sec. 94132 renovatio act to code and mu3 sM1ovnng where TBRcan be used multiplying lot area by allowable nu rrber of and recorded in public recoNs (iBR� sending)of availablilry may be issuetl a—al,ftymybe of B—Palm Beach�FL beiswetlna ce11-df t. —h an egM1t-, terF and 20. Floorarea Floors (and detluctng Me floorar�of [he Planning dire3ore3ablisM1es eligibility, Q4C appmves tansfer rein Rivecovenant), whicM1d¢mbes Me byplanningdeptupon req ,all tan 3eaaresibjstto approval of hUpslllibrary.nu-de.comlFlAves[ pal mbeacNcodeScode of oNinance5lno ccupancy_"As an addetl incentive forhi3odclandmarkdesignation, tory maximum;'asdepi3etl in the Cfty moi ng code exiting 3roclRre in Me case ofahi3odc landmark sending s<e) adju3etl BRs of sending and receving 3te� "bank entry"_ TBRs may beacquiretl forma Me Bowntown Ncton CommR[ce (Q4C), after whicM1 a"T ft of deld=PHIGOOR GHB4ZIXABERE AR Ted-111 WRRE BB 11DI FRE PR wRM1 hi3odc landmark 3atus eligible for addRional cM1y- wned TBRsin an aunt sending bbe and heldfor an untletenninetl amt of t me a ntl asiRable receiving ate is found an3erisigvetl (recoNetl in TBR r�i3ry) equivalent to the —s eating development cap.q" City of Iowa City City Council Work Session September 4, 2018 September 4 — Council Work Session Goals • Direction from Council on the following: • Eligible sending sites • Transferformula • Priority of preserving historic resources compared to other public benefits • Review and approval process for transfers • Eligible receiving sites Background • May 29: • Council considered local landmark designation of 410-412 N. Clinton Street • Deferred to January 2019 and directed staffto explore the creation of a city-wide TDR program • August 7: • Council discussed initial memo on TDR at work session • September 4: • Direction from City Council on key policy questions Staff Goals of a Citywide TDR Program Fair Legally -sound Easy to administer Simple for developers and members of the public to understand • Effective program that preserves historic resources • Consistent with comprehensive plan Transfer of Development Rights TDR Example —Tate Arms, 916 S. Dubuque St. Sending Site: Tate Arms, 914 S. Dubuque St. • Incentivize protection of historic jY RFC Transfer Formula resources _p.. _.. • No. of stories allowed on sending • Property owners can sell/ site (4) transfer development rights X from historic resource (sending I Area of sending site (8,700 sq. ft.) site) ._ j • Development rights applied to another site where development Development Rights Available for can occur at a higher densityI Transfer (34,800 sq. ft.) (receiving site) Total Dev. Rights: 34,800 sq. ft. TDR Example—Tate Arms, 916 S. Dubuque St. ending Site: Tate Arms, 914 S. Dubuque St. Receiving Site: 912 S. Dubuque St. _ �.{ tlY y 7,400 sq. ft. r b� Total De, Rights: 34,800 sq. ft. Dev. Rights Transferred: 7,400 sq. ft. Dev. Rights Remaining: 27,400 sq. ft. Summary of Existing Local Historic Landmarks Research & Analysis Sending Sites • Only analyzed existing local and national landmarks • Several other buildings eligible for local landmark designation • HPC proactively identifying sites to locally landmark • Used the RFC Transfer Formula: No. of stories X Area of sending site Development Transfer Potential Research & Analysis Receiving Sites • Identified vacant and underutilized sites • Removed sites within floodplains, sites with historic buildings, publicly zoned land RKeM.eSlee AYatyM ".w4IWt Geral"D Research & Analysis Other Local Jurisdictions' Program • Transfer Formulas: • Consider existing development on sending site • Typical formula = Max allowable density/intensity on sending site Less Existing density/intensity on sending site • Incorporate a receiving site bonus above that allows development beyond plan/zoning • In comparison, the RFC transfer does not consider existing development Research & Analysis Summary of Sending & Receiving Sites Analysis • Significant amount of transfer potential —will increase as more properties are locally landmarked • Depending on receiving sites identified it may be difficult to accommodate transfer potential Research & Analysis Other Local Jurisdictions' Program Approval Process for Transfers: • Many cities require some type of a non -administrative review • Some cities approve transfers administratively Research & Analysis Other Local Jurisdictions' Program • Administration & Tracking: • Variety of methods: • Documented through a PUD or Specific/MasterPlan • Executed through a development agreement • Recorded with the County as a conservation easement • Legal documents signed by property owners & City Attorney Tracking • City staff maintained registriesand databases of possible receiving sites, eligible sires, capacity of these sites Issues/Constraints • Market Potential: • No market study • Lack of Certainty in the Process: • Non -administrative review of transfer (e.g. P&Z, City Council, etc.) provides less certainty • Administrative review of transfer (i.e. staff -level) provides more certainty • Other Bonus Mechanisms: • City currently offers bonuses for other public benefits • Uncertain how a city-wide TDR policy would compare to other bonuses Research & Analysis Other Local urisdictions' Program —Approval Process • Receiving Areas: • Several programs focus receiving sites in the core of the community/downtown • Explicitly state that historic resources are not eligible as receiving sites • Place burden on the applicant to demonstrate the appropriateness of a potential receiving site • Commercial zones only — no transfers allows to residential zones Policy Questions for City Council Option a. Eligible sending sites include existing 1. Should eligible & future local historic landmarks. sending sites include existing local historic landmarks or only future local historic TDR p—mi— landmarks? Option b. Eligible sending sites only include future local historic landmarks. Policy Questions for City Council Option a. Keep the existing RFC transfer formula. 2. Should a city-wide TDR ordinance apply the existing transfer calculation formula that is outlined in RFC or a new formula? Option b. Establish a new transfer formula that considers existing development. Policy Questions for City Council Policy Questions for City Council Option a. Keep the existing Riverfront Crossings 4. What type of review and approval procedure bythe City Council. process should be established for the review and approval of sending and Option b. Establish a new procedure that allows receiving transfer of transfer up to a certain level to be approved rights? administratively. Any transfers beyond an identified historic resources be threshold would be reviewed by city council. Policy Questions for City Council Policy Questions for City Council 5. What areas should a Option a. Riverfront Crossings and/or city-wide TDR ordinance identify as receiving sites? Option b. Downtown and/or Option a. Model a city-wide TDR program on 3. The City already the current bonus provisions. gives bonuses for certain public benefits provided with development projects. Should Option la. Allow transfer for historic properties preservation of to exceed the City's current bonus provisions (e.g. offer more height, more density/intensity? historic resources be treated in a similar manner or given higher priority? Policy Questions for City Council 5. What areas should a Option a. Riverfront Crossings and/or city-wide TDR ordinance identify as receiving sites? Option b. Downtown and/or June -August 2818 Research antl a n.lys,s September4, 2018 Presentation to Council on msearch, mcommentlation from Council to pmreetl or not pmreetl on ooJm.nr. tlraging September-October2818 Omm.nce tlmfling; ifd.t.-,n.d by Council October 11, 2018 Historic Pmser bon Commission Review & Oisrussion October 18, 2018 Planning& Zoning Commission Review&Discussion Novemb.r20,2018 City Counril(1" modmgof.ohn.nr.) December4, 2018 City Council(2-&possible 3- reatling of.ohn.nr.) January 29,2019 Exp,ration of&month tleferral ofthe local la ntlmark d --nation f410 412 North Clinton Street 10/12/2018 M=. . GTliIFTifi1.'Ti 5. Eligible...long sites? c_ South Johnson /Van Bumn ame antl/or tl_ Multi -unit sites throughout the city antl/or e_Othersites 7 a_ Existing&futum Local Lammancs 1. Eligible sentling sites? Fair& Consistent / May not have ad,quat, receiving site capacity b_ Only future Local Lantlmarks • Maybeeasiertoarrom motlate transfers/Inconsistent with current pmcess a. RFCiransfer formula • More generous&consistency in atlminisiration; easierto untlemtantl 2. Transferformula? May not have atlequ.toreceiving site ca parity b. New transfer formula • May be easier to accomm otlate transfers / More cum plex & d,M,, It to ad ,n,,t,r 3. Bonuses& Plenty of preserving a_ Current bonus pmvisions historic resources compamtl to other om Simpler&easier/May tliluteetfedioom- of preserving historic resources public ben b. Exceetl current bonus provisions More of an incentive / Com munity concems & unknown im pacts a. Existing RFCpmress(ie. app—i by City Council) 4. Review 8 approval pmcess for Simpler & consistent / Lack of certainty m app—, is tomsfem? b. New pmcess • Streamline the review& allow Council review for larger tmnsfers • Not consistent with current RFC pmcess a_ RFC M=. . GTliIFTifi1.'Ti 5. Eligible...long sites? c_ South Johnson /Van Bumn ame antl/or tl_ Multi -unit sites throughout the city antl/or e_Othersites 7 IB]:7_121 Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Citywide Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance Amend 14-2A-7, Special Provisions, by adding the following subsection: E. Transfer of Development Rights 1. Purpose: The transfer of development rights and corresponding height and density bonuses provide an incentive for the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic properties. 2. Sending Sites Requirements: a. The sending site must have a base zoning designation of "Single -Family Residential' per 14-2A, "Multi -Family Residential' per 14-213, or "Commercial' per 14-2C, of this title. b. Sending sites must be designated as either an Iowa City historic landmark or listed as a contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district in accordance with 14-313-1, "Historic District Overlay Zone", of this title, after January 1, 2018. c. All historic buildings and structures on the sending site must be preserved against decay, deterioration, and kept free from structural defects by the owner or such person, persons, or entities who may have custody or control thereof, according to the provisions of section 14-313-7, "Prevention Of Demolition By Neglect", of this title. 4. Eligible Receiving Sites: 1. A site is eligible to be a receiving site if it is: a. Located within a Riverfront Crossing zone district and the sending site is located outside of the Riverfront Crossings district as identified in 14-2G-2 "Regulating Plan" of this title; or b. Located within a zone district that allows multi -family dwellings either as a permitted or provisional use according to Table 213-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Multi -Family Residential Zones" and Table 2C-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones", of this title. 2. Properties designated as Iowa City historic landmarks, located within Iowa City historic districts, and listed in the National Register of Historic Places are not eligible as receiving sites. 5. Transfer of Development Rights: a. Transfer requests shall either be for a height bonus or a density bonus using the following formulas: (1) Difference between the maximum allowable height of the sending site and the existing height of the historic structure. In no case shall the transfer be less than 12 IB]:7_121 Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 feet even if the difference between the maximum allowable height and the existing height is less than 12 feet; or (2) Difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the sending site based on the underlying zoning designation at the time of the Historic District Overlay (OHD) zoning designation and the existing number of dwelling units on the sending site. b. Transfers requests may exceed either the height or density on the receiving site with the following limitations: (1) No height bonus transfer request to a receiving site located outside of the Riverfront Crossings district shall exceed 40 feet above the maximum height allowed on the receiving site. (2) No height bonus transfer request to a receiving site located in the Riverfront Crossings district shall exceed the height bonus maximums outlined in 14 -2G -7G -1d of this title. (3) No height bonus transfer request to a receiving site located adjacent to an existing single-family home shall exceed two stories above the height of the existing single- family home. 6. Transfer of Development Rights Review Process: a. Requests for transfer of development rights shall be subject to the Level II design review process according to 14-813-3, of this title. b. In addition to the requirements outlined in 14-813-3 of this title, applicants requesting a transfer of development rights must provide the following information: a. The proposed sending site and the amount of transfer potential, b. The proposed receiving site, c. The amount of height bonus or density bonus requested, d. A concept plan and elevations of the proposed project to utilize the transfer on the receiving site, and e. Any other information required per the application form. 7. Transfer of Development Rights Tracking: a. The Neighborhood and Development Services Department staff shall maintain a list of transfers requested and approved. This list shall include the transfer potential of the sending site, the amount transferred and to which receiving site, and the transfer amount that remains on the sending site. b. If a private entity conveys transfer rights to another private entity, the City shall be notified of the sale. Amend 14-213-8, Special Provisions, by adding the following subsection: D. Transfer of Development Rights 1. Transfer of development rights shall be subject to the provisions outlined in 14 -2A -7E. IB]:7_121 Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Amend 14-2C-11, Special Provisions, by adding the following subsection: C. Transfer of Development Rights 1. Transfer of development rights shall be subject to the provisions outlined in 14 -2A -7E. Amend 14 -3C -2A, Applicability, adding a new paragraph 12, as follows: 12. Transfer of development rights: Transfer of development rights requested according to 14- 2G -7G "Building Height Bonus Provisions", of this title or according to 14-2A-7, 14-213-8, 14- 2C11 "Special Provisions", of this title. Amend 14 -3C -3A, Levels of Design Review, paragraph 2, as follows: 2. Level II Review: a. A level II review will be conducted for the following designated areas, properties, and structures: (1) Urban renewal project, Iowa R-14, except for minor exterior alterations, such as signage, window placement, and color, that do not substantially change the building concept of the council approved plan. Such minor alterations will be subject to level I review. (2) Certain public-private partnership agreements; level of review is pursuant to the specific development agreement. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) (3) Structures designed with certain building height bonuses allowed pursuant to subsection 14 -2G -7G of this title. (Ord. 14-4586, 6-3-2014) (4) Transfer of development rights requested according to 14 -2G -7G "Building Height Bonus Provisions", of this title or according to 14-2A-7, 14-213-8, 14-2C-11 "Special Provisions", of this title. b. Applications for level II review will be reviewed by the staff design review committee with their recommendation forwarded to the city council for approval, modification, or disapproval according to the procedures for design review contained in chapter 8, article B, "Administrative Approval Procedures", of this title. IB]:7_121 Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Amend 14 -3C -3B, Approval Criteria, by adding paragraph 10, as follows: 10. Transfer of development rights: Design review subject to the design guidelines listed in subsection C of this section. Amend 14 -2G -7G-3, Historic Preservation Height Transfers, by amending the subsection as follows: 3. Historic Preservation Height Transfers: The following transfer of development rights and corresponding height bonus provides an incentive for the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic properties: a. Eligibility. The historic preservation height transfer is an option for sites that meet the following criterion: (1) The site from which the height transfer is requested (sending site) is designated as an Iowa City landmark, listed as a contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district; eligible for landmark designation, registered on the national register of historic places, or listed as a historically signfcant building as determined by the survey and evaluation of the historic and architectural resources for the vicinity. b. Requirements: (1) If the sending site has not already been designated as an Iowa City landmark or Iowa City historic district, the applicant must apply for and obtain approval of this designation as a condition of the transfer of development rights, and (2) All historic buildings and structures on the sending site must be preserved against decay, deterioration, and kept free from structural defects by the owner or such person, persons, or entities who may have custody or control thereof, according to the provisions of section 14-3B-7, 'Prevention Of Demolition By Neglect" of this title. c. Transfer Of Development Rights: (1) The floor area that results from multiplying the number of stories allowed at the sending site as specified in the applicable subdistrict standards by the acreage of the sending site maybe transferred to one or more eligible site(s) within the riverfront crossings district. For example, if the land being preserved as a historic landmark is located in the central crossings subdistrict and is twenty thousand (20,000) square feet in size, then eighty thousand (80,000) square feet of floor area (20,000 x 4) maybe transferred to one or more eligible sites and the resulting building or buildings on the 4 IB]:7_121 Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 receiving sites may exceed the height limit of the respective subdistrict, within the limits established in this section. (2) The resulting building or buildings on the receiving site(s) may not exceed the maximums stated within subsection G1d of this section. Item Number: 12.a. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok 10WA CITY www.icgov.org November 6, 2018 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 5.82 acres of property located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1805 Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue, from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1). (REZ18-00018) ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report Letter to P&Z from Neighboring Property Owner P&Z Meeting Minutes - Preliminary Ordinance Conditional Zoning Agreement To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ18-00018 GENERAL INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Date: September 20, 2018 Applicant: Johnson County, Iowa 913 S. Dubuque Street Iowa City, IA 52240 319/ 356-6000 mhensch@co.johnson.ia.us Property Owner: Kennedys LLC 1043 Briar Drive Iowa City, IA 52240 Contact: Matt Miller 913 S. Dubuque Street Iowa City, IA 52240 319/ 688-5832 mmiller@co.johnson.ia.us Requested Action: Rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1) Purpose: To reflect the anticipated public ownership of the property and comply with Section 14-21F of the zoning ordinance and to allow the development of Johnson County's Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center Location: Northwest corner of Southgate Avenue and the CRANDIC Railroad; 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1804 Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue Location Map: CC -2, Non-residential South: CI -1, Vacant East: CI -1, Vacant & non-residential West: CC -2, Non-residential j 40, Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Comprehensive Plan: District Plan: Public Meeting Notification: File Date: 5.82 acres Mostly vacant except for one non-residential building; CI -1 North: CC -2, Non-residential South: CI -1, Vacant East: CI -1, Vacant & non-residential West: CC -2, Non-residential Commercial Commercial (South District) Rezoning sign placed on property; property owners within 300' received notice of public meeting August 27, 2018 45 Day Limitation Period: October 11, 2018 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Johnson County, Iowa, requests that the subject property be rezoned from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1). The zoning code requires that property held by public entities be designated a public zoning designation. The property is currently privately held; however, Johnson County has a purchase agreement for the property and plans to develop a Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center. The Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center will treat patients experiencing behavioral health crises and connect them with necessary services. The center will provide crisis observation and stabilization, substance abuse treatment and act as a low -barrier winter shelter. For a more detailed description of the center, please refer to Attachment 3 (Access Center Information). The applicant has indicated they plan to conduct a good neighbor meeting. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The project site currently zoned Intensive Commercial (CI -1). The purpose of the CI -1 zone is to provide areas for commercial uses that typically are characterized by outdoor display and storage, repair and sales of large equipment or vehicles, or commercial operations conducted in buildings not completely enclosed. Some examples of uses allowed in the zone include animal related commercial uses, quick vehicle service uses, vehicle repair uses, and industrial service uses. Proposed Zoning: The applicant has proposed rezoning the project site to Neighborhood Public (P-1). The P-1 zone allows for uses such as schools, parks, police and fire stations, and other civic buildings owned and controlled by the County, the City, or the Iowa City Community School District. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan and the South District Plan identify this area as commercial. The Comprehensive Plan and the South District Plan also include a public and semi-public land use designation. This designation is intended to identify existing public facilitates and not future ones. Public uses are needed throughout the community, and therefore, are generally considered consistent with all land use designations. In this case, the plan for the area is commercial. The proposed use, not considering ownership, combines office and institutional uses and aligns with the commercial land use designation, which contemplates a large variety of commercial uses. Flood Hazard Areas: The project site is located in the floodplain. The majority of the site is located within both the 500 and 100 -year floodplains. Figure 1 shows the flood hazard areas on the project site. IR Figure 1 FEMA Flood Hazard Areas Project site 100 -year floodplain 500 -year floodplain x M& The City's floodplain management ordinance does not allow facilities to locate within flood hazard areas if they are the base of operations for emergency responders, are particularly difficult to evacuate during a flood event, or provide services essential to the life, health, and safety of the community. Per the floodplain management ordinance, these facilities are Class 1 Critical Facilities. Based on the description of the Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center, staff has determined it to be a Class 1 Critical Facility since the facility could be difficult to evacuate and would be unable to provide stabilization and treatment services during a flood event. In order to comply with the City's floodplain management ordinance, development of the proposed Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center requires raising the grade around the facility to the 500 -year flood level elevation. Furthermore, at least one access to and from the site needs to be passable during a 500 -year flood level event. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the development of the center must comply with the requirements for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the City's floodplain management standards. Transportation: The site can be accessed via Southgate Avenue. In addition, the applicant is exploring providing a connection to the site via Waterfront Drive that crosses the CRANDIC railroad. The applicant is currently working with the railroad, who has agreed via email to work with the County on providing this access. The City's Bicycle Master Plan identifies a proposed bike lane/wide shoulder along Southgate Avenue between S. Gilbert Street and Keokuk Street. The City anticipates installing this facility in 2021. In terms of existing facilities, there is a sidepath along S. Gilbert Street and Highway 6. The Iowa River Trail is also near the project site. r x M& The City's floodplain management ordinance does not allow facilities to locate within flood hazard areas if they are the base of operations for emergency responders, are particularly difficult to evacuate during a flood event, or provide services essential to the life, health, and safety of the community. Per the floodplain management ordinance, these facilities are Class 1 Critical Facilities. Based on the description of the Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center, staff has determined it to be a Class 1 Critical Facility since the facility could be difficult to evacuate and would be unable to provide stabilization and treatment services during a flood event. In order to comply with the City's floodplain management ordinance, development of the proposed Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center requires raising the grade around the facility to the 500 -year flood level elevation. Furthermore, at least one access to and from the site needs to be passable during a 500 -year flood level event. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the development of the center must comply with the requirements for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the City's floodplain management standards. Transportation: The site can be accessed via Southgate Avenue. In addition, the applicant is exploring providing a connection to the site via Waterfront Drive that crosses the CRANDIC railroad. The applicant is currently working with the railroad, who has agreed via email to work with the County on providing this access. The City's Bicycle Master Plan identifies a proposed bike lane/wide shoulder along Southgate Avenue between S. Gilbert Street and Keokuk Street. The City anticipates installing this facility in 2021. In terms of existing facilities, there is a sidepath along S. Gilbert Street and Highway 6. The Iowa River Trail is also near the project site. 5 In terms of transit, the site is served by the Broadway bus route. There are two bus stops in the vicinity: one at the corner of S. Gilbert Street and Southgate Avenue and one at the corner of Southgate Avenue and Waterfront Drive. Archeological Resources: The sensitive areas section of the zoning code considers the preservation of archaeological sites, as well as natural features. The City's sensitive areas inventory from 1994 identifies possible archeological resources in this area. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval the County hire an archaeologist approved by the state to complete a study or excavation plan approved by the State. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ18-00018, an application submitted by Johnson County, Iowa for a rezoning of CI -1 to P-1 on 5.82 acres of land located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1804 Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue subject to City Council approval of the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the City's floodplain management standards, and 2. Prior to any site disturbance on the property receive approval from the State Archeologist to proceed. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Description of Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center c.t+Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services CITY OF IOWA CITY RS5 I' RS5 CC2 CC2 CC2 �I� r. RS5 -,G RS5 P1 ccz ccz C11 CC2 , C11 CC2 Hp CC2 CC2 CI1 aL i I ,, CC2 CC2 C11 CC2 C11 I r" C11 CC2 CC2 CC2 CC2 C11 CC2 DA 1 CC2 } S CC2 C11 w C11 CC2 I' CC2 CC2 CC2 u� CI1 -_--- _ --- - _ CI1 w � -- CI9CC2 � CC2 CI1 $` ► CI1rn C11 C11 CI1 �a CI1 CC2 CC2 � CI1 C11 CI1 C11 OLYMP�IC�C MM f CC2 i C11 " C11 C11 C11 CC2 CC2 C11 C11 CI1 CI1 CI1 CC2 t CC2 - C11 CI1 C11 C11 C11 C11 SOUTHGATE AVE C11, s _ CI1 B rg CI1 CI1 CI1 CI1 CI1 21 1 CI1 CI1 CI1 CI1 C11 CI1 CI1 1 r An application submitted by Johnson County Iowa fora c11 rezoning of 5.82 acres located at 1914 S. Gilbert St., 1805 Waterfront Dr., and 260, 306, and 346 Southgate Ave. from 01 OPD/RS12 Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Neighborhood Public (P1). IV Access Center Information for Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission At a Glance The Access Center will initially provide the following services: • Crisis Observation (<23 hours) • Crisis Stabilization (>23 hours, up to 5 days) • Substance Abuse Treatment / Detoxification • Sobering Unit • Low -Barrier Winter Shelter The Access Center will treat patients experiencing a behavioral health crisis and connect them to ongoing services: • Community mental health services • Substance abuse services • General medical services • Housing support • Vocational support The Access Center will avoid overly medicalizing or criminalizing behavioral health issues by supporting: • Appropriate use of hospital-based resources • Diversion of unnecessary emergency room visits • Efficient utilization of law enforcement Overview The Access Center is a proposed new behavioral health service entity located in Johnson County. This effort emerged from a collaborative of various Johnson County visionaries - i.e., area city council members, Board of Supervisors, law enforcement, social services, health care providers and local non -profits. This is a unique, first of its kind collaborative among multiple Johnson County entities practicing under one roof. The Access Center is part of a national movement to provide more effective access to care for behavioral health crisis. The mission of the Access Center is to provide rapid assessment, triage, and stabilization to individuals experiencing a behavioral health crisis, followed up with linkage to appropriate community services that can assist with ongoing issues. Johnson County Access Center Project Updated September 12, 2018 Page 1 of 4 Johnson County In addition, the Access Center will provide a third option for law enforcement as an alternative to emergency rooms or jail. Area law enforcement has undergone and continues extensive crisis intervention training to improve response to behavioral health crises, but their options remain limited. The Access Center will provide a safe, effective alternative to emergency room care or incarceration for adults suffering from a behavioral health crisis. This will avoid criminalizing medical conditions and decrease overly medicalizing life crises. When fully operational, the facility will contain sobering, detoxification, crisis observation, and crisis stabilization units, as well as a low -barrier winter shelter, mobile crisis outreach, and medical first aid with telemedicine connection to the UIHC Emergency Department. It will be open 24/7, accepting voluntary, walk-in patients. The Access Center is open to persons who are: • 18 years of age or older • Experiencing psychiatric/psychological stress • Feeling unsafe or suicidal, but able to maintain safe behaviors while onsite • Willing to work with Access Center staff on intake and discharge planning • Able to provide their own basic hygiene • Medically stable, with the exception of minor first aid needs Services Crisis Observation (<24 hours) This level of care provides up to 23 hours and 59 minutes of care in a secure and protected environment. The program is medically staffed, psychiatrically supervised and includes continuous nursing services. The primary objective of this level of care is for prompt evaluation and/or stabilization of individuals presenting with acute symptoms or distress. Before or at admission, a comprehensive assessment is conducted and a treatment plan developed. The treatment plan should place emphasis on crisis intervention services necessary to stabilize and restore the individual to a level of functioning that does not require hospitalization. This level of care may also be used for a comprehensive assessment and to obtain clarification regarding previously incomplete diagnostic information that may lead to a determination that the individual requires a more intensive level of care. Duration of services at this level of care may not exceed 23 hours and 59 minutes, by which time stabilization and/or a determination of the appropriate level of care will be made, and facilitation of appropriate treatment and support linkages will be coordinated by the treatment team. Crisis Stabilization (>24 hours, up to 5 days) Individuals are admitted to the Crisis Stabilization unit from the Crisis Observation unit when it's determined their treatment needs will last beyond 24 hours. Treatment is aimed at restoring ability to maintain safety so individuals can return to the community with an increased level of function and productivity. Johnson County Access Center Project Updated September 12, 2018 Page 2 of 4 Johnson County Detox Provides a safe and medically -supervised place for individuals to withdraw from drugs or alcohol and stabilize before engaging in a treatment program. The length of stay required to detoxify depends upon the individual's history of use and other medical issues. Sobering The Sobering Unit is a jail diversion program designed to offer a treatment alternative in lieu of arrest to public intoxicants by providing a medically safe environment utilizing motivational techniques to engage the individual and offer direct access to treatment. Essentially used for law enforcement drop offs as an alternative to emergency rooms or jail for non-violent patients who need a safe place to sober up. Low -Barrier Winter Emergency Shelter (operated by Shelter House) For those experiencing homelessness in Iowa, the change in weather can be life-threatening. As temperatures drop, people left with nowhere but the street to turn are at risk of developing hypothermia and frostbite—both can be permanently damaging to one's health and can ultimately result in the loss of life. Since 2014, Shelter House has opened a low -barrier Winter Emergency from December through March. This new permanent facility is intended for individuals for whom homelessness has become a chronic condition. Barriers to entry such as sobriety, participation in programs, and other requirements are removed. With this expanded winter shelter capacity, individuals who would have otherwise been incarcerated or sleeping in encampments, parking ramps and hallways of apartment buildings are instead ensured a safe, warm place to sleep. Medical First Aid Minor medical services will be available, similar to game day first aid available at Kinnick Stadium. First aid services will be provided to patients in addition to resolving their behavioral health crisis, as these situations may be accompanied by cuts, scrapes, bruising, etc. The primary objective is to reduce the number of patients presenting to emergency rooms for non -emergent conditions. Telemedicine connection to the UIHC Emergency Department will be available for purposes of consultation and triage when needed. Johnson County Access Center Project Updated September 12, 2018 Page 3 of 4 Johnson Gourrty Diagram Access Center: Kev Comments IIIIIH MI Law Longer SA m Enforcement Evaluation Capacity Sobering Unit Detox Treatment Drop Psych PA, BSN/ LISW -10 beds - 5 beds ER / Psych Hospital ER / Hospital 23 hr. Crisis Observation Community Medical Case — 5 beds Agencies Walk-in First Aid Management Crisis Stabilization Shelter House Mobile Crisis Security 5 beds liiii Other Housing Community Food Agencies Natural Supports Winter months Low Barrier Shelter (" 40-60"bed" capacity) Johnson County Access Center Project Updated September 12, 2018 Page 4 of 4 September 18, 2018 City of Iowa City (Sept. 20, 2018 P&Z Meeting date) Planning and Zoning Commission 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA. 52240 Re: Rezoning Property for Johnson County Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center 1914 S. Gilbert; 1805 Waterfront Dr.; 260,306,346 Southgate Ave REZ18-00018 We have received notice of request for rezoning. As a neighboring property owner at 265 Stevens Drive we have a direct interest with the request. Our property took on approximately 6 feet of water during the 2008 flood, understanding that our property is within the 50 and 100 year flood plain. Our primary concern other than the increased foot/police/medical traffic is the stormwater runoff due to such a large and I am assuming paved site. Stevens Drive immediately takes on excess Iowa River water in addition to stormwater system backup which creeps North to South from Stevens Drive. Any additional runoff from adjacent properties (especially from south of our property) would cause extensive unnecessary flood risk to our property. We would like both the Planning and Zoning as well as Building Departments to be critically aware of how this project would impact adjacent parcels. We have spent considerable resources in improving our site in the last year believing the City would improve flood control resources in our area. New large scale development with what I am guessing would involve large hard surface/runoff issues are a concern of ours. Thank you for your consideration. Carousel Pre -owned of Iowa City Kyle J. Koch, Controller MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20,2018-7:OOPM—FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Dyer STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Ann Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Scott Ritter, Matt Miller, Kyle Hancock RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 5-0 (Hensch recused, Dyer absent) the Commission recommends approval of REZ18-00018, an application submitted by Johnson County, Iowa for a rezoning of CI -1 to P-1 on 5.82 acres of land located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1804 Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue subject to City Council approval of the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the City's floodplain management standards, and 2. Prior to any site disturbance on the property receive approval from the State Archeologist to proceed. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. REZONING ITEM (REZ18-00018): Discussion of an application submitted by Johnson County, Iowa for the rezoning of approximately 5.82 acres of property located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1804 Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1). Hensch recused himself from this item per his conflict of employment with Johnson County. Russett stated this rezoning application is for a change from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1), it is submitted by Johnson County, Iowa, for a proposed Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center or Access Center. The Access Center will provide services to Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 2 of 6 individuals experiencing behavioral health crises and connect them with necessary service such as mental health services or housing support and the center will provide crisis observation and stabilization, substance abuse treatment and act as a low -barrier winter shelter. The property is generally located at the northwest corner of Southgate Avenue and the Crandic Rail Line, the property is currently privately held however Johnson County has a purchase agreement for the property. Russett showed a map of the current zoning in the area, the project site is zoned Intensive Commercial, the areas to the east and west are also zoned Intensive Commercial, there are some areas to the north and the west that are zoned Community Commercial. The proposed zoning is to Neighborhood Public, which is a zone district that applied to properties owned by either County, the City or the Iowa City Community School District. The Comprehensive Plan, future plan use map, identifies this area a commercial and the South District Plan also identifies this area as an area for commercial development. Russett showed some photos of the project site. She noted the site is located within flood hazard areas, in both the 500 and 100 year floodplains. The City does have a floodplain management ordinance which does not allow facilities to locate within flood hazard areas if they are the base of operations for emergency services, are particularly difficult to evacuate during a flood event, or provide services essential to the life, health, and safety of the community. Per the floodplain management ordinance, these facilities are Class 1 Critical Facilities. Based on the description of the Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center, staff has determined it to be a Class 1 Critical Facility since the facility could be difficult to evacuate and would be unable to provide stabilization and treatment services during a flood event. In order to comply with the City's floodplain management ordinance, development of the proposed Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center requires raising the grade around the facility to the 500 -year flood level elevation. Furthermore, at least one access to and from the site needs to be passable during a 500 -year flood level event. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the development of the center must comply with the requirements for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the City's floodplain management standards. The site is accessed via Southgate Avenue and the applicant is exploring providing a connection to the site via Waterfront Drive that crosses the Crandic railroad and that access might be able to be used during a flood event. Russett noted there are also possible archeological resources in this area and therefore Staff recommends a condition of approval that the site must be approved by a State Archeologist prior to any site disturbance. In terms of stormwater management, the site was platted in 2007 and required at that time to install stormwater management facilities, and these stormwater management facilities will be further analyzed by the public works staff at the time of site plan review to ensure they have an adequate capacity for the proposed access center. Russett stated Staff has received one letter from the public regarding this possible rezoning, which was passed out to the Commission, and the concerns in the letter were focused on stormwater management. Staff recommends that REZ18-00018, an application submitted by Johnson County, Iowa for a rezoning of CI -1 to P-1 on 5.82 acres of land located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1804 Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue subject to City Council approval of the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the City's floodplair management standards, and Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 3 of 6 2. Prior to any site disturbance on the property receive approval from the State Archeologist to proceed. Signs asked if the access on Waterfront Drive would solve the problem of ingress and egress during a flood event. Russett noted part of Waterfront Drive is above the floodplain and based on the elevations it would probably be the best location for that access. Baker asked why staff chose to use the 500 year floodplain as the condition placed on approval rather than the 100 year event. Russett replied that the 500 year is what is required for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the Zoning Code. Baker asked what the difference between the 500 and 100 year events. Russett explained the difference as the percentage of which the event could occur. A 500 year flood event would happen with a 0.2% chance in a year and a 100 year event is a 1 % change within a year. Baker asked what the difference would be on the development if the City required it to be at the 100 year event standard. Russett said the elevation grade the property would need to be raised would be lower than the 500 year elevation. The impact of a 500 year event is greater and therefore the elevations need to be higher. Baker asked if the difference in elevations from the 100 to 500 year events have impact on the neighboring properties. Russett stated regardless they need to provide stormwater management. Townsend asked if the whole area would be raised to the 500 year level. Russett said just the building on the property and an access driveway. Townsend noted that at any given time there may be anywhere from 16 to 60 beds in the facility, and is concerned how to get that many people evacuated if there is a flood. Russett said that is why the facility needs to be elevated to the floodplain, in 2008 the access across the railroad tracks and even the corner of Southgate Avenue on the southeast side were not under water. Parsons noted there is generally enough warning during a 500 year flood event to have time to evacuate. Parsons opened the public hearing. Scott Ritter (Hart -Frederick Consultants) answered Baker question of the difference in elevations from a 500 and 100 year events is 2.7 feet and the natural ground there is at the 500 elevation so they will raise the area a little to get above that, and they would add an access off of Waterfront Drive to be used for emergencies. Ritter also noted regarding the letter from the neighbor, that property is above the subject property, the subject property is downstream. The difference between the subject property and Highway 6 is one foot difference in elevation. Baker asked if any other sites or locations were considered. Ritter is not privy to those discussions, that discussion would have been with the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. Matt Miller (Project Manager, Johnson County) stated there were several other properties researched for this access center. He noted he was hired by the County on May 15 and at that point they already had this location picked out, but he does understand there were other locations previously looked at but for one reason or another just didn't pan out. Parsons asked about the Good Neighbor Meeting and if one has been held. Miller said one has not been held yet, but they are planning to conduct one. Kyle Hancock (Hansch, LLC, 1840 S. Gilbert Street) is concerned and wants to address the plan for runoff and stormwater management. The property that he owns is downstream and at lower Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 4 of 6 elevations than the subject property and feels raising the subject property up will put his property and others at more of a risk. Hancock also raised concern about the construction process and plans, and if the building will be in the southeast corner of the property, he questions what is the proposed use of the rest of the property. Ritter responded that the rest of the site will remain as is except for the area where the building and parking lot will be. There is currently a detention pond already there with outflow going east. Parsons closed the public hearing. Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ18-00018, an application submitted by Johnson County, Iowa for a rezoning of CI -1 to P-1 on 5.82 acres of land located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1804 Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue subject to City Council approval of the following conditions: 3. Compliance with the requirements for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the City's floodplain management standards, and 4. Prior to any site disturbance on the property receive approval from the State Archeologist to proceed. Martin seconded the motion. Signs noted typically the Commission sees more of a site plan with such applications so they can see where the building will be located and where the detention basins will be, etc. Townsend is concerned with flooding in that area and the possibility of children being there during a flood. She noted that property will only have the building and parking lot and then a lot of open space that will be zoned P-1 and something could be put on that area like a school. Parsons asked if that were to happen, would Staff need to approve that site plan. Russett confirmed they would, and for a school to be there the property would need to be owned by the School District, as long as the County owns the property there could be a public use there but not likely a school. Hektoen noted that any structure that is put on this property would have to be elevated to the 500 year floodplain plus one foot. Martin stated she likes the proposal and feels good about the two caveats for the recommendation because this access center is something the area really needs. The plans for elevations make sense. Parsons agrees with Martin and feels this will serve the community and conforms with the area. Baker shared Signs concern that they did not receive site plans or elevations for this proposal. He added it helps with decision making and likes to have those items presented. Russett stated there are not different standards for rezoning public versus non-public zones, having a site plan and elevations is not something that is required of anyone for rezonings however is something that is encourage as it does help the Commission in the decision making process. Baker said if this were a private project he would likely want to defer and request more information, however he does agree with Martin that this access center is much needed in the community. Baker asked a general procedural question, at the last three meetings the Commission has been Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 5 of 6 asked to alter a regulation or zone based upon a specific problem of a specific project, here is a problem so change the rules for us situations. Baker wonders if that is a recurring process the Commission deal with often. Hektoen said they are not asking the Commission to change the rules for them, they are asking for a rezoning and a rezoning is to satisfy the needs of whoever is doing the development. Russett noted rezoning applications can be initiate by the City, the property owner, the developer, the purchaser, in effort to create a new project. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0 (Hensch recused, Dyer absent). Hensch rejoined the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 6, 2018 Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 6, 2018. Parsons seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett introduced the new associate planner, Jessie Lile. Baker will miss the October 18 meeting. Townsend will be absent October 4 and November 1 meetings. Adjournment: Martin moved to adjourn. Parsons seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2018 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member 2/15 3/1 (W.S) 3/12 3/15 (W.S.) 4/2 4/5 (W.S) 4/16 4/19 5/3 5/17 6/7 6/21 7/5 8/16 9/6 9/20 BAKER, LARRY -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X O/E X X DYER, CAROLYN X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E X O O/E O FREERKS, ANN X X X X X X X X O/E X X X -- -- HENSCH, MIKE X X O/E O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X PARSONS, MAX O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X THEOBALD JODIE O/E X X X X X X X X X X O/E -- -- TOWNSEND, BILLIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X x KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member Deferred to 11/20/18 15) Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner. 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5251 (REZ18- 00018) Ordinance No. An ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 5.82 acres of property located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1805 Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue, from Intensive Commercial (Cl- 1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1). (REZ18-00018) Whereas, the applicant, Johnson County, Iowa, has requested a rezoning of property located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1805 Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue from Intensive Commercial (CI-1)to Neighborhood Public (P-1); and Whereas, the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as commercial; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan and South District Plan also include public and semi-public land use designations for existing public uses and facilities; and Whereas public uses are needed throughout the community and are generally considered consistent with all land use designations; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets conditions addressing the need for compliance with the requirements for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the City's floodplain management standards, and prior to any site disturbance on the property builders receive approval from the State Archeologist; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2017) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and Whereas, the owner and applicant have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area of the city. • Now, therefore, be it ordained 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 zoned Neighborhood Public (P- 1): Lot 1 and Outlot 1A, Kennedy's Waterfront Addition - Part One, as is recorded in Plat Book 22, Page 56, in the office of the Johnson County, Iowa Recorder, and Lot 2, Lot 3, Lot 4 and Outlot B, Kennedy's Waterfront Addition - Part Four, as is recorded in Plat Book 51, Page 237, in the office of the Johnson County, Iowa Recorder, in all containing 5.821 acres. 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. Section V. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section VI. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section VII. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of , 20 . Mayor Attest: City Clerk roved ra ity Attorney's Office Prepared by:Anne Russett,Senior Planner,410 E.Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240(319)356-5240(REZ18-00018) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made among the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), Kennedys, LLC, Patrick M. Kennedy, Joseph M. Kennedy, Kitty E. Lake, Mary Kathryn Albaugh, Jane M. Kennedy, Stephanie E. Ramer-Heubner, and Natalie J. Miller (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Owner"), and Johnson County, Iowa (hereinafter"Applicant"). Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 5.82 acres of property located at 1914 S Gilbert Street, 1805 Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue; and Whereas, the Applicant has requested the rezoning of said property from Intensive Commercial (CI-1)to Neighborhood Public (P-1); and Whereas, the Applicant desires to construct a Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center or Access Center, or similar public facility, that will treat patients experiencing behavioral health crises and connect them with necessary services; and Whereas, the above described project is considered a Class I Critical Facility, as defined by the Iowa City Zoning Code; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding floodplain management standards and State Archeological approval, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2017) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and Whereas, the conditions outlined in this agreement address several public needs, including addressing concerns related to locating in the floodplain and establishing safe, effective, and accessible healthcare and behavioral management facilities for the community; and investigating the possible presence of archeological resources; and Whereas,the Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Kennedys, LLC, Patrick M. Kennedy, Joseph M. Kennedy, Kitty E. Lake, Mary Kathryn Albaugh, Jane M. Kennedy, Stephanie E. Ramer-Heubner, and Natalie J. Miller, are the collective legal title holder of the property legally described as: Lot 1 and Outlot 1A, Kennedy's Waterfront Addition- Part One, as is recorded in Plat Book 22, Page 56, in the office of the Johnson County, Iowa Recorder, and Lot 2, Lot 3, Lot 4 ppdadndagUaa_rez18-00018-final-revised 10.042018.docz 1 and Outlot B, Kennedy's Waterfront Addition - Part Four, as is recorded in Plat Book 51, Page 237, in the office of the Johnson County, Iowa Recorder, in all containing 5.821 acres 2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the South District Plan. 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, to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change. 3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree(s) • that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions: a. In the event that the property is developed in a manner materially consistent with the above-described project, it shall comply with the City's floodplain management standards for Class 1 Critical Facilities, and b. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, receive approval from the State Archeologist to proceed. 4. The Owner and Applicant, and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2017), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. • 5. The Owner and Applicant and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. 7. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this day of , 20_. ppdadrWagV¢a rez18-00018-finaIrevised 10.04.2018.docx 2 City of Iowa City Johnson County, Iowa By: By: Mike Carberry, Chairperson Jim Throgmorton, Mayor Attest: Attest: County Auditor or Designee Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk Kennedys, L.L.C. A roved by: A..-Th By: 1 .v Z /n -/1-/ $ (Name, Title) City Attorney's Office Patrick M. Kennedy Joseph M. Kennedy Kitty E. Lake Mary Kathryn Albaugh Jane M. Kennedy Stephanie E. Ramer-Heubner Natalie J. Miller REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ppdadMagVcza_ez18-00018-final-realised 10.04.2018.docx 3 City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa )ss: Johnson County This instrument was acknowledged before me on ,2018 by Jim Throgmorton and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) Johnson County Acknowledgement: State of Iowa )ss: Johnson County • This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20_ by Mike Carberry, Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors of Johnson County, Iowa. Notary Public in and for said County and State (Stamp or Seal) Kennedys, LLC Acknowledgment: State of County of This record was acknowledged before me on , 2018 by (Name(s) of individual(s)) as (type of authority) of Kennedys, L.L.C. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) My commission expires: ppdadMagVcza_rez18-00018-fnal-revised 1O.04.2018.docx 4 Patrick NI. Kennedy Acknowledgement: State of County of This record was acknowledged before me on , 2018 by Patrick M. Kennedy. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) My commission expires: Joseph M. Kennedy Acknowledgement: State of County of This record was acknowledged before me on , 2018 by Joseph M. Kennedy. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) My commission expires: ppdadnJegVcza_rez18-00018-fnat-revised 10.04.2018.docx 5 Kitty E. Lake Acknowledgement: State of County of This record was acknowledged before me on , 2018 by Kitty E. Lake. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) My commission expires: Mary Kathryn Albaugh Acknowledgement: State of County of This record was acknowledged before me on , 2018 by Mary Kathryn Albaugh. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) My commission expires: ppdadMagV¢a_m818-00018-final-revised 10.04.2018.docx 6 Jane M. Kennedy Acknowledgement: State of County of This record was acknowledged before me on , 2018 by Jane M. Kennedy. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) My commission expires: Stephanie E. Ramer-Heubner Acknowledgement: State of County of This record was acknowledged before me on , 2018 by Stephanie E. Ramer-Heubner. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) My commission expires: ppdadMagUaa_rez18-00018-fina4revised 10.042018.dou 7 Natalie J. Miller Acknowledgement: State of County of This record was acknowledged before me on , 2018 by Natalie J. Miller. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) My commission expires: ppdadMagV¢a oz18-00018-finakevised 10.04.2018.docx 8 Item Number: 12.b. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok 10WA CITY www.icgov.org November 6, 2018 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to Public Art Fees in Riverfront Crossings (ZCA18-00002) (Second Consideration) ATTACHMENTS: Description staff Deport P&Z Minutes Ordinance 1� r 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: September 6, 2018 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Anne Russett, AICP, Senior Planner, Neighborhood and Development Services Department Re: Amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to Public Art In - Lieu Fees in Riverfront Crossings (ZCA18-00002) Introduction The proposed amendment to the zoning code (Title 14 of the Iowa City Code), changes the requirement that public art funds received for height bonuses be spent in the same Riverfront Crossing subdistrict as the subject property that contributed the funds. The amendment allows the funds to be spent anywhere within the Riverfront Crossings district. Background The Riverfront Crossing's form -based code outlines several bonus height provisions, including one for public art. This bonus provision grants developments one additional story if a public art contribution is made equal to one percent of the value of the project. The first project to use this provision since the adoption of the Riverfront Crossings form -based code was the project at 707 S. Dubuque Street. This project contributed one percent of the project costs to public art to receive a height bonus. The total amount contributed to the City's public art fund equals approximately $73,000. Upon receipt of the contribution, the City recognized the limited potential uses for the funds since the zoning code requires the funds to be spent within the same subdistrict as the subject building, which in this case is the Central Crossings subdistrict. The City and the Public Arts Committee wish to relocate the sculpture (see Figure 1) currently located along N. Dubuque Street to the Riverfront Crossings Park. The sculpture, Four Module Piece Form 11 by Kenneth Snelson, is considered one of the more valuable pieces within the City's collection. Its current location along N. Dubuque Street is not ideal. Moving it to Riverfront Crossings Park will give it more prominence and also provide an opportunity to make some needed repairs. Over the past year, the Public Arts Committee has been working toward moving this sculpture to Riverfront Crossings Park [Attachments 1 & 2]. The public art bonus provision could provide the committee with the funds needed to make this goal a reality. August 31, 2018 Page 2 Figure 1. A photograph of Four Module Piece Form 11 (1968) from its current location along North Dubuque Street. Proposed Amendment Staff proposes an amendment to the Riverfront Crossings form -based code to allow public art funds received for height bonuses to be spent anywhere in the district, including the park, as opposed to only within the same subdistrict as the project that requests the bonus. Staff proposes this amendment for the following reasons: • The Riverfront Crossings Master Plan identifies areas within the district appropriate for public art [Attachment 3]. The largest area identified is the Riverfront Crossings Park, which is identified as "public parks and open space" on the regulating plan — not a subdistrict [Attachment 4]. Since the Riverfront Crossings Park is not identified as a subdistrict it cannot benefit from the public art bonus provisions, even though the master plan identifies it as a key location for the placement of public art. • The amendment keeps the funds within a defined area, but provides more flexibility in the use of the funds for the benefit of the entire district. The Public Art Committee will be reviewing the proposed amendment at its meeting on Thursday, September 6, 2018. Staff will have an update on the outcome of that meeting at the Commission's September 6, 2018 meeting. Comprehensive Plan Consistency The proposed amendment supports the comprehensive plan and the following Arts and Culture Goal and Strategy: • Develop partnerships that build community support for and access to Arts and Culture. o Collaborate with the school district, businesses, and other organizations to expand the reach of Arts and Culture resources in our community. The proposed amendment also supports the vision of the Downtown & Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, which includes a framework element focused on public art. This element identifies several areas appropriate for public art, the largest of which is the Riverfront Crossings Park. August 31, 2018 Page 3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend adoption of the following proposed amendment to 14 -2G -7G-6 of the Iowa City Code by the Iowa City City Council, contingent on the approval of the proposed amendment by the Public Art Committee: Height Bonus For Public Art: One additional floor of building height may be granted for a contribution to the city's public art program equal to one percent (1%) of threshold value of the project. Threshold value is the sum of all construction costs shown on all building permits associated with the project, including site preparation. For alterations to existing development, the threshold value is the sum of all construction costs as defined above plus the value of existing improvements to the property, as listed in the city assessor's records. Funds contributed shall be used by the city for public art within the riverfront crossings district hen the as approved by the public art committee. Attachments: 1. Original Location of Four Module Piece Form// 2. Proposed New Location of Four Module Piece Form// 3. Public Art Framework Element of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan 4. Riverfront Crossings Regulating Plan Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 YN �tl1�4*Wir 0,F,r�� �.., `�`w.�"�,�`.��,����M°�'"A _ a«... ���"-ay«6° yi"i yam, "��' �+'' �•.._, � r mic I "m AOP"� Ex IR- 4",4"wwAvzW, Zoo, qr IR- 4",4"wwAvzW, Zoo, lot+e '. a R�V,���,�^^�`' �r 4 n� ~ ~ �,N1*I P'" b"t �� u^ 4 IPb'4s..� was. 110, 4 �•t Proposed Snelson Sculpture Location 24:2 36 W-4410 4,51 ATTACHMENT 939 77 943 4 Z 320 ,F�KIR rr Z27 ;it to 10; Ir 1014 uj --J '�IMFP7 �11 Z�,& N 121j,4 .1224 F. 15T ST - 2274, 32 227,.-2 7 J1126, 1201 IM7 2%Ll '�IMFP7 �11 Z�,& N 121j,4 .1224 public art Artists have pioneered the redevelopment of neighborhoods across the country. Whether activating an area by occupying marginal buildings or vacant storefronts, enhancing the perception ofan area by publicly displaying art and holding gallery nights/ walks, or building a "creative class'that helps stimulate the local economy, art is a key element in any progressive community, and will be a key element in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings District. Many opportunities exist for incorporating art into the District, including: Art Inc uhator Proararn Develop an incubator program to place artists (both studio and gallery space) into vacant buildings on a temporary basis in orderto fill empty storefronts and provide low-cost opportunities for starting artists. Public Art Place art in public spaces, such as the new regional park, the pedestrian mall, Clinton Plaza, Station Plaza, Riverside Drive entrance monuments, riverview greens, and along the Clinton Street Promenade. Community Arts Center Explore the possibility ofdeveloping a Community Arts Center in the administration building atthe former wastewater treatment plant or other suitable location within the Riverfront Crossings District or Downtown. Functional Art Establish a policy to integrate art/design into functional infrastructure, such as street furniture, streetlights, bridges, power substation fencing, etc. G _ - Create an Arts District within the Gilbert Street District. This districtwould be low -scale and organic in nature, and be incorporated into the existing building stock, keeping artist live/work/sell space functional and affordable. As the district matures, the Maiden Lane Mews could be developed, and lined with live -work studios and galleries. Rrghe Publ,Art Loca Cron Diagram 48 and riverfront crossings play ATTACHMENT public art - Public Art Locations Existing Waterways Study Area Boundaries lei 0' 400' 800' 1600' ATTACH ENT 4 ilvekrf' onkr-os&r �� r J � r rl s i r `� i f• ---r F 4 T-�F:.f t ttLTjl�i I f j i TTi !-1 �J� r �t'TI r L ��'���!'j 11--1 r� Legend South Downtown Subdistrict University Subdistrict Central Crossings Subdistrict Gilbert Subdistrict Park Subdistrict South Gilbert Subdistrict West Riverfront Subdistrict Orchard Subdistrict - �-- _ -7 '• Public Parks and Open Space / t_ Green Space Primary Street �..� Required Retail Storefront Required Ralston Creek Frontage JI Riverfront Crossings Boundary 71 �—, `-J-----R- f University of Iowa Campus A—i ! LL �wr Pedestrian Street - f6- __1 }� M MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6,2018-7:00 PM—FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Dyer, Max Parsons STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 4-1 (Baker dissenting) the Commission recommend adoption of the following proposed amendment to 14 -2G -7G-6 of the Iowa City Code by the Iowa City City Council. The proposed text would be: Height Bonus For Public Art: One additional floor of building height may be granted for a contribution to the city's public art program equal to one percent (1 %) of threshold value of the project. Threshold value is the sum of all construction costs shown on all building permits associated with the project, including site preparation. For alterations to existing development, the threshold value is the sum of all construction costs as defined above plus the value of existing improvements to the property, as listed in the city assessor's records. Funds contributed shall be used by the city for public art within the riverfront crossings 1^/1"�h9 as approved by the public art committee. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEM (ZCA18-00002): Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to Public Art In - Lieu Fees in Riverfront Crossings. Russett noted this is a proposed amendment to the zoning code related to Public Art Fees in the Riverfront Crossing District. When the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan was adopted it included a public art framework element and identifies several locations throughout the Riverfront Crossings District as possible Public Art locations. After the Master Plan was adopted the City developed a form -based code to implement the Plan and included in the Code Planning and Zoning Commission September 6, 2018 Page 2 of 7 a bonus height provision for projects that provide various public benefits, one of which is Public Art. Development projects that provide one percent of their project cost to the City's Public Art Fund receive an additional story in height on their development projects. The Code requires the funds to be spent within the same subdistrict as the subject building. Russett stated that to date the City has had one project that has utilized this Public Art bonus provision (at 707 S. Dubuque Street). That project contributed one percent of the project costs to public art to receive a height bonus of one story. The total amount contributed to the City's Public Art Fund was approximately $73,000. Currently the Public Arts Committee is working to relocate the Snelson sculpture which is located on N. Dubuque Street to the Riverfront Crossings Park and the Public Arts Fund would help with this relocation. Russett pointed out on the map the proposed new location of the Snelson sculpture. The proposed amendment is to amend the form -based code to allow public art funds received for height bonuses to be spent anywhere in the district, including the park, as opposed to only within the same subdistrict as the project that requests the bonus. The Riverfront Crossings Master Plan identifies areas within the district appropriate for public art. The largest area identified is the Riverfront Crossings Park, which is identified as "public parks and open space" on the regulating plan — not a subdistrict and therefore excluded from public art bonus provisions. The amendment would keep the funds within a defined area, but provides more flexibility in the use of the funds for the benefit of the entire district. Russett stated the Public Art Committee discussed this amendment at their meeting this afternoon and unanimously recommended approval of the amendment. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend adoption of the following proposed amendment to 14 -2G -7G-6 of the Iowa City Code by the Iowa City City Council. The proposed text would be: Height Bonus For Public Art: One additional floor of building height may be granted for a contribution to the city's public art program equal to one percent (1%) of threshold value of the project. Threshold value is the sum of all construction costs shown on all building permits associated with the project, including site preparation. For alterations to existing development, the threshold value is the sum of all construction costs as defined above plus the value of existing improvements to the property, as listed in the city assessor's records. Funds contributed shall be used by the city for public art within the riverfront crossings district s.�hd%04r_h; 141"tQ'Q t"Q Q1 dnim1ni Ini 1i1GJjRg jS jGGJ as approved by the public art committee. Baker stated he has some misgivings about this proposed amendment. He asked if no public arts funds could be spend in the park or just the funds generated by the height bonus. Russett confirmed the funds generated by the height bonus provisions in the subdistricts cannot be spent in the park. Baker asked if there were any other funds available to use for artwork in the park. Russett stated she understands the City allocates a flat amount every year in the budget for public art but is unsure of the exact amount but it would not be enough to move the Snelson sculpture. Baker asked how much it will cost to move the sculpture and Russett replied there is an estimate from a consulting firm for relocation at around $90,000. Baker asked the value of the art piece and again Russett was unsure of the exact amount but knows it is one of the more valuable pieces in the City's collection. Baker said in his research he does not find any high figures for any of Snelson's art. Baker also inquired about the repair needed for the sculpture Planning and Zoning Commission September 6, 2018 Page 3 of 7 and who has been responsible for the maintenance of the art. Russett stated it is the City's responsibility for the maintenance of the art pieces and the repair is due to the exposure to the elements. Baker asked why the amendment now. Russett explained that often regulations are adopted when creating new Code and Districts and it isn't until those regulations are used that it is understood it will not work very well and changes are needed. In this case, money was generated from a project and the regulation says the money must be spent within a very defined area and at this time there are no locations within that defined area to provide public art. Baker questioned the idea that there is no location for any art within that subdistrict, yes the Snelson sculpture may not fit but other art could be installed. Russett said the public art would need to be located on public lands and there is no public lands currently in this subdistrict. Baker asked if the Public Art Committee initiated this proposed amendment or City Staff. Russett stated the Committee has been working on identifying funds to move the Snelson sculpture and that is when it became apparent to City Staff on the Public Art Committee that there were Public Arts Funds that had to be spend in the specific defined area. The Committee wanted to relocated the Snelson sculpture to the Riverfront Crossings Park and but could not use the funds available to do so due to the current Code language. Russett added the Public Art Committee has stated they do not like the current location the Snelson sculpture is located, it is not in a prominent location and in the new location it would be more visible. Martin acknowledged the area where the sculpture is currently located is very overgrown Hektoen reminded the Commission this particular sculpture and location is one specific situation, the ordinance and proposed amendment is to acknowledge the City has this park district and the Code was inadvertently drafted with the bonus height provision excluding the park from being the beneficiary of those funds. Baker asked if there was a location along N. Dubuque Street that the Snelson sculpture could be given more prominence. He feels the N. Dubuque Street entrance to the City is to be a highly prominent location and the artwork should be there. Russett reiterated that the Public Art Committee feels this particular piece should be moved to the Riverfront Crossings Park. Baker asked if there was any other discussion about having other art along N. Dubuque Street. Russett can look into that question. Baker asked when the original resolution was made, was it intended that the funds created by the bonus provision were to be used for new art pieces to increase the art stock of Iowa City. Russett said the ordinance does not state the art has to be new. Baker noted the City used to have a fund based on a certain percentage of bonds sold to generate money for art purchases, has that fund disappeared. Russett noted her understanding is the only money available for public art is money generated from this height bonus provision and the annual allocation from the City Council. Hensch opened the public hearing. Thomas Agran (512 N. Van Buren Street) is an artist and also works for the Iowa City Downtown District as the Public Art Director for that district. Agran noted he was intimately involved in a lot of the conversations with the Public Art Advisory Committee and can speak to how the Committee came to this proposed amendment. He stated the Snelson sculpture is the most Planning and Zoning Commission September 6, 2018 Page 4 of 7 valuable piece of public art in the City's collection, that may not be evident based on the current location, especially now that Dubuque Street has been raised, and that is part of the reason the conversation to have the sculpture moved began. When the sculpture was bought in 1975 it was a joint effort with Project Art, the City and private donations and in today's dollars would have cost $500,000. The sculpture is literally sitting in mud right now and appears to be neglected and there has not been any funds established to maintain the art pieces. Baker agreed the sculpture does appear to currently be neglected and asked if the Public Arts Committee has approached the City to try to get funds for the repair. Agran is unsure, he does not sit on the Public Arts Committee. Agran notes there are spots designated in Riverfront Crossings for public art, one of which is in the park, however the City allocated no funding for that location. Because there is no funding allocated for the park the Public Arts Committee saw an opportunity to move a piece of art from a location where it is being neglected and put it in a more visible location and celebrates the piece. More so Agran wanted to use his time in front of the Commission to talk about public art funding. From 1999-2001 the budget for the City's Public Art Fund was $100,000 per year, in today's dollars adjusted for inflation that would be $147,000 per year. The population in 1999 was approximately 61,000 which averages out $1.97 spend on art per person in the City. Today we have a population of almost $75,000 and a budget of $25,000 (which is actually a recent increase, it has been lower) and that averages to $0.33 per person. He feels as the city flourishes this is time to invest more in art and the community and public art returns tangible and intangible values into quality of life which increases the tax base ultimately. Agran stated when looking at the Zoning Code he sees bonuses as significant trade-offs and in every district there is an agreed upon level of appropriate building size to encourage healthy communities, healthy and productive development, reduces speculation of property values, and through bonuses we trade away elements of those standards for something else. It is essentially a bride whereby community assets (whether they be public art or historic properties) are held hostage and now beg for those things not from the City but from developers, things we value as a community. The wealth is given to the developers in the currency of square footage. The Code is to be the rules and incentives are setup to break those rules. For some pittance we will forgo the rules. Agran noted in this situation for $72,000 a developer could buy their way out of the rule of five stories and get six stories increasing the square footage of a property by 20% - 20% rentable every year for the life of that building. All of that said, Agran requested the Commission approve the proposed amendment for flexibility of public art into Riverfront Crossings District and also encourages the City to spread the wealth throughout the City to create a more robust art program that can reach more people. Agran stated as the Code is currently written it is basically a regressive art program, where the areas of highest investment and highest wealth reap the benefits of the investment. Seattle is a city that a while back divorced it's one percent for the arts program from the geographic requirement and as a result they can direct the funding to areas of the city that are often overlooked and under resourced rather than as in this instance the most resourced part of the city. All areas of the city are appropriate for public art. Agran noted that lots of programs use a one percent of the capital improvements fund for public art and if the City looked at fiscal year 19 capital improvement budget of $28.5 million in projects, even at half a percent the Public Arts Fund would receive over $142,000. Agran noted the Commission does not write the City budgets or fund the Public Arts but wanted to say those types of changes can be started here in Planning and Zoning and they will use this moment as a catalyst to a broader conversation of how public art contributes value to the community, if Planning and Zoning provides the outlines of how best a city should develop to be healthy, a place people want to be, then he encourages the Commission to draft one percent rules that Planning and Zoning Commission September 6, 2018 Page 5 of 7 benefit all districts in the City. Agran understands that untying funding from its original geography may be a complex thing to implement, but rather than shrug at the established law, he hopes the bureaucratic challenge galvanizes this Commission and City Staff and Council as a way to approach public art in a way equability. If one looks at what is proposed for the Pentacrest Apartments, would send a million dollars into the Public Art Fund but only in this district and if this proposal is not approved, only in this subdistrict. A million dollars could be set up as an endowment to the Public Arts Fund. There are 171 potential development sites at the time the Riverfront Crossings Code was written so there is going to be a lot that happens in this area and could amount to an unbelievable windfall for public art funding. Baker clarified he is not hostile to this amendment, in fact he also questions why not spend this money anywhere, not just in the Riverfront Crossings Park. He feels we should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul for art. He also feels there should be more art throughout the City, not just one area. He agrees the City is underfunding art in this community. He does not understand why we are taking money to move old art when it could be used to purchase new art. Agran said the sentiment from the Public Art Committee is to not spend more money on new art when we cannot maintain the current art we have. Martin asked why the Public Art Committee specifically chose this language for this district and not all of Iowa City. Russett is not aware if the Public Art Committee was involved in the writing of the language in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Hensch closed the public hearing. Martin moved to approve adoption of the proposed amendment to 14 -2G -7G-6 as written in the September 6, 2018 staff report. Signs seconded the motion. Hensch remembers the Snelson sculpture being downtown at one time. He feels it was simply an oversight during the draft of the original ordinance that parks and recreation areas were not included in the subdistricts and therefore the money cannot be spent for them. He feels it is reasonable to clean up that language for the one percent raised for art with the bonus height because there is a serious need for art in the community, there does need to be greater public funding of art, but this is a method to at least get some money. However, he does agree with the idea of keeping it within the district because they are trying to focus improvements in certain areas, his fear would be if it were allowed to be spent outside the district there may be some preferred areas that would get all the art. He agreed there is definitely a problem in this community that some areas do not get the attention that others do. Martin agreed with Hensch and supports the amendment as written in the Staff Report. Signs is intrigued by the notion that the City is potentially generating a huge amount of money to be spent in this one relatively small district but does see the risk of the other extreme and all public art is put someplace else. He feels it is a bigger discussion than this Commission and encourages those discussions to happen. He also agrees that the height bonuses appear to be a bribe for money, the City spends a lot of time making plans and codes and then come up with ways to get around them. Hensch agrees and said they need to vote on the question at hand, all government progress is incremental and this is a step in the right direction. Signs also stated he likes the Snelson sculpture and does feel it is not in a great location Planning and Zoning Commission September 6, 2018 Page 6 of 7 currently and supports moving it. Hensch noted the location is not the question at hand. Townsend asked if moving this sculpture to the Riverfront Crossings Park would leave enough space for other functions of the park. Russett showed some diagrams of the park and how everything is able to fit. Townsend's other concern is kids climbing on the sculpture since it will be in a park space. Hensch doesn't feel it will be harmed and perhaps it was designed as interactive art. Hektoen noted those are concerns that will be addressed by the Public Art Committee and the Parks and Recreation Division. Baker noted he will be voting no against this amendment, he does not want the vote to be unanimous as he wants the Council to understand there is an underlying larger issue about funding art. He also prefers that art piece stay somewhere more visible then this park and this is a problem created by limited resources. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-1 (Baker dissenting). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 16, 2018 Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of August 16, 2018. Townsend seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett gave one update regarding the discussion at the last meeting regarding the impact of zoning regulations on the development community, financial impacts in particular, and she informed the Commission this topic is something of interest to the City Council, the City Council approved an affordable housing action plan and one of the items staff is tasked to look into is regulatory barriers. Russett said the Neighborhood Services department is working with the City Manager's office and she will bring any updates back to the Commission. Baker invited the Commission to Prairie Lights next Tuesday to listen to a writer of a biography of Leonardo DiVinci. Baker also mentioned the movie reviews inside the planning magazine the Commission receives, recently they reviewed a movie called The Little Pink House, which is a movie regarding the controversy around imminent domain and he rented the movie and it was a good dramatization of all the issues within planning and zoning of cities. Adjournment: Signs moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. Prepared by: Jesi Lile,Associate Planner,410 E.Washington Street,Iowa City, IA 52240;319-356-5240 ORDINANCE NO. • Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to Public Art Fees in Riverfront Crossings (ZCA18-00002) • Whereas, the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan identifies incorporating art throughout the district as a key project goal; and Whereas, the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan identifies areas within the district appropriate for public art, the largest being Riverfront Crossings Park; and Whereas, the Riverfront Crossing Form Based Development Standards implement the vision of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan; and Whereas, the Riverfront Crossing Form Based Development Standards outline several bonus height provisions, including one for public art; and Whereas, the Riverfront Crossing Form Based Development Standards require that public funds received for height bonuses be spent in the same Riverfront Crossing subdistrict as the subject property that contributed the funds; and Whereas, the Riverfront Crossing Park is not classified as a subdistrict, but as "public parks and open space", and therefore, cannot benefit from the public art bonus provision; and Whereas, the proposed amendment allows for public art funds received for height bonuses to be spent anywhere in the district including the Riverfront Crossings Park, as opposed to only within the same subdistrict as the project that requests the bonus; and Whereas, the proposed amendment provides flexibility to support the goal of incorporating art throughout the district; and Whereas, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and supports the following arts and culture goals: • Recognize the economic development potential of Arts and Culture for Iowa City • Work to increase funding for Arts and Culture programs • Develop partnerships that build community support for and access to Arts and Culture; and Whereas, the proposed amendment supports the vision of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, which recognizes the need for incorporating art throughout the district; and Whereas, the Public Arts Committee held a meeting on September 6, 2018 and recommended approval of the aforementioned zoning code amendment; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a meeting on September 6, 2018 and recommended approval of the aforementioned zoning code amendment; and Whereas, it is in the City's best interest to adopt this ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: Section 1.Title 14 of the Iowa City Code is hereby amended by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Amend 14-2G-7G-6 Height Bonus for Public Art, as follows: Height Bonus For Public Art: One additional floor of building height may be granted for a contribution to the city's public art program equal to one percent(1%) of threshold value of the project. Threshold value is the sum of all construction costs shown on all building permits associated with the project, including site preparation. For alterations to existing development, the threshold value is the sum of all construction costs as defined above plus the value of existing improvements to the property, as listed in the city assessor's records. Funds contributed shall be used by the city for public art within the Riverfront Crossings District as approved by the public art committee. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof no adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval, and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of , 2018. Mayor Apppby oved y/ Attest: l�� u bw�e�/ /� cc. City Clerk Ci y Attorney's Office to/f/h r. Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Cole Minis Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton First Consideration 10/16/2018 Vote for passage: AYES: Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 11/06/2018 Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published Item Number: 13. r �, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT November 6, 2018 Ordinance Amending Title 1 "Administration", Chapter 5 "City Council", Section 3 "Compensation" of the City Code to increase the salary and health insurance benefit of the Mayor and Members of the City Council effective January 1, 2020. (First Consideration) Prepared By: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney Reviewed By: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director Fiscal Impact: The City's budget for FY 2020 will reflect the increase. Recommendations: Staff: Commission: N/A Attachments: Ordinance City Manager Memorandum(previously distributed 9/13/18 1 P and 9/27/18 1 P Mayor memorandum (previously distributed 9/27/18 1 P) Executive Summary: At Council's direction at the work session of October 2, 2018, this ordinance will increase the annual salary of council members and the Mayor to $11,960 and $14,950, respectively, and make health insurance benefits available to council members at the rate offered to half-time city employees. In accordance with Iowa law, the changes will be effective January 1, 2020, the beginning of the term for council members elected at the November of 2019 regular city election. Background /Analysis: ATTACHMENTS: Description Ordinance 13 Prepared by: Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney,410 E.Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240;319-356-5030 ORDINANCE NO. Ordinance Amending Title 1 "Administration", Chapter 5 "City Council", Section 3 "Compensation" of the City Code to increase the salary and health insurance benefit of the Mayor and Members of the City Council effective January 1 , 2020 Whereas, the City Council has done a review of Council and Mayor salaries and access to health care benefits for the 10 largest cities in Iowa, Coralville and North Liberty; and, Whereas, to be comparable to other cities, Iowa City's salary rates for council members and. mayor should be increased and the City should share in the cost of making health care benefits available to a council member who choose to enroll as the City does for other permanent half- time employees; Whereas, an increase in salary and access to health insurance will make it more feasible for members of the community to consider serving; and, Whereas, in accordance with Iowa Code Section 372.13(8) a change in council compensation becomes effective at the beginning of the term of the council members elected at the election next following the change in compensation; and, WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. Title 1, entitled "Administration," Chapter 5, entitled "City Council," Section 3, entitled "Compensation," is amended by adding the underlined text and deleting strike-through text as follows: 1-5-3: COMPENSATION A. City Council Members: Effective Members of the city council (with the exception of mayorl shall be compensated at the rate of seven thousand seventy-two dollars ($7,072.00) annually effective January 1, 2010. Beginning January 1, 2020, members of the city council shall be compensated at the rate of eleven thousand nine hundred sixty dollars ($11,960) annually. B. Mayor: Compensation for the mayor will be the same rate as a city council member plus one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) annually. Beginning January 1, 2020, the mayor shall be compensated at the rate of fourteen thousand nine hundred fifty dollars ($14,950) annually. C Adjustment: Staff will adjust city council compensation based on an annual adjustment for inflation. The annual adjustment for inflation will be equivalent to the cumulative annual percent change in the consumer price index(CPI) - all urban consumers (CPI-U), Midwest region, all items, using the third quarter ending September 30 of the prior year and September 30 of the current year. The calculated amount will be included in the annual budget for review by the city council in each regular election year in accordance with state code. Ordinance No. Page 2 D. Health Insurance: Beginning January 1, 2004, health insurance shall be available to a council member on such terms and conditions as health insurance is available to city employees, except that a city council member's participation in the city's group health insurance plan shall be at the council member's own expense and at no cost to the city. Beginning January 1, 2020 health insurance shall be available to a council member on such terms and conditions as health insurance is available to half-time permanent city employees. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of , 2018. Mayor Attest: City Clerk :: oved City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton First Consideration 11/06/2018 Voteforpassage: AYES: Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole, Mims. NAYS: Salih. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published Item Number: 14. r �, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT November 6, 2018 Ordinance amending Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," Chapter 3, entitled "Commercial Use of Sidewalks," to provide for sidewalk retailing every day from March through October. (First Consideration) Prepared By: Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed By: Simon Andrew, Assistant to the City Manager Fiscal Impact: None Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: City Council Economic Development Committee recommended approval 3-0. Attachments: Ordinance Executive Summary: An ordinance allowing sidewalk retailing downtown has existed for more than twenty years. The ordinance permits businesses to display merchandise on City sidewalks abutting the business storefront for a set period of time with approval from the City Manager or designee. The Iowa City Downtown District has requested a change that would extend the allowable time from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Thursdays through Sundays to every day of the week. Background /Analysis: The ordinance was originally designed to accommodate Sidewalk Sales that occurred Thursdays through Sundays a couple of times a year. The creation of the Self Supporting Municipal Improvement District (SSMID) in 2012 and operated by the Iowa City Downtown District (ICDD), organized efforts to improve the downtown shopping experience. In 2015, ICDD commissioned a study by Kiku Obata & Company, a design consultancy specializing in brand strategy, identity, and environmental design, to provide an assessment of current conditions and recommendations for best practices for storefronts and signs. The study recommended best practices for merchandising on sidewalks that very closely corresponds to the existing sidewalk retail ordinance, but encourages retail to activate the sidewalk right of way for merchandising and drawing attention to the store fronts every day, as opposed to just Thursday through Sunday. Increased sidewalk retailing will bring attention to the storefronts, support businesses by enhancing their sidewalk presence and provide a welcoming experience that invites pedestrians to the storefronts. It is for this reason staff recommends adopting the ordinance change. The City Council Economic Development Committee recommended approval 3-0 on October 29, 2018. ATTACHMENTS: Description ordinance j4 Prepared by: Susan Dulek,Asst.City Attorney,410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240(319)356-5030 Ordinance No. Ordinance amending Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Pro erty " Chapter 3, entitled "Commercial Use of Sidewalks," to provide for sidewalk retailing every day from March through October. Whereas, Section 10-3-6 currently provides that an annual sidewalk retailing permit may be issued for use on Thursdays through Sundays from March 1 to October 31; Whereas, the Downtown District requests that the permit be available all days of the week during this time period; and Whereas, to support the retail businesses in the downtown area, it is in the City's interest to adopt this ordinance. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. 1. Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," Chapter 3, entitled "Commercial Use of Sidewalks," Section 6, entitled "Sidewalk Retailing Permit," is amended by deleting the strike-through text as follows: A. Use is limited to nine o'clock (9:00) A.M. to nine o'clock (9:00) P.M. on Th •r s ; Saadaysem March 1 to October 31 Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section IV. 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 V. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of , 2018. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approved by cy 10 -3 r-rcy City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton First Consideration 11/06/2018 Vote for passage: AYES: Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, 'Cole, Mims, Salih, NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published