Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-12-18 OrdinanceItem Number: 10.a. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok 10WA CITY www.icgov.org December 18, 2018 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to Transfer of Development Rights for certain historic properties. (ZCA18- 00003) ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo to City Manager -Updated Receiving Area Maps Late Addition - Planning District Map Memo to City Manager PZ Staff Report HPC Minutes P&Z Minutes - Preliminary Ordinance 1 � 1 mg 4 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: December 4, 2018 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Anne Russett, 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) At the City Council's November 20, 2018 public hearing on the proposed transfer of development rights ordinance for historic properties, the Council requested revised maps showing the proposed eligible receiving sites. Attached are the updated maps that show the eligible receiving sites by planning district. Attachments: 1. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites — Maps by Planning District N AM -ash WE Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites 00.075 0.15 0.3 Miles Downtown Planning District CITY OF IOWA CITY I i I i I Prepared By: Luke Foelsch Date Prepared: Nov. 2018 17 -AL, -71 U) O O z~' z QJ „� < z Z � Z - � � "-W JEFFERSON ST E JEFFERSON ST W IOWAAVE -,. E IOWA AVE F- w 4 W WASHINGTON ST E WASHINGTON ST Aihlip A E COLLEGE ST { c,a• � a z "w • I w c =LINGTON ST E BURLINGTON ST W BUR z LU COURT ST E COURT ST m D �• • ` m z J ~ (7 W HARRISON ST w • • • • • OO 0] D W PRENTISS ST 1 � J H a N WE S 0O.2 0.4 0.8 Miles I i I i I }d� Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites North Planning District Prepared By: Luke Foelsch Date Prepared: Nov. 2018 S�. r �F i ...,v:. INTERSTATE 80 BRISTOL DR 0r HAYWOOD DRr STANNE'S DR C� Cz SER 1 o Jw o GAG C = Jm to �tAFTSPEEDPiAY t m O z w Y !I ��`� irr', ♦��d a VI � L e g e n }I� I. North District Boundary'` o Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites ` 4 N WE Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites 0 0.225 0.45 0.9 Miles North Corridor Planning District N f ♦"a 0,0 V. 10-.. � � '. q',�♦ Legend y 1F North Corridor District Boundary Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites A; Prepared By: Luke Foelsch . Date Prepared: Nov. 2018 .yr... ; N AM 41 Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 Miles Northeast Planning District CITY OF IOWA Prepared By: Luke Foelsch Date Prepared: Nov. 2018 vkw IJ 4� r.40 411 n I r, + w q u ... i� ! I' i� +yin �. °" •.` �r u = y r t" � ,rte f 1 !Northeast District Bo u Proposed Eligible Receiviri `Site N AM 41 Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites 0 0.275 0.55 1.1 Miles Northwest Planning District CITY OF IOWA CITY Prepared By: Luke Foelsch Date Prepared: Nov. 2018 t 444i I Ix v4 j t 1�Y?' , "a 1 I •c e t ` -• • • 1 - e t i t a r 3.. egen,f� z Y a: Northwest District Boundary f A , °,Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites - t y r rVY y Riverfront Crossings BoundarP j Ir _Mw_ -4 I[[�1 4 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: November 20, 2018 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Danielle Sitzman, Development Services Coordinator, 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 work session on September 4, staff received direction on specific policy questions from the City Council on the development of a city-wide transfer of development right ordinance for historic preservation. Since then, staff drafted an ordinance and presented it to both the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the draft transfer of development rights ordinance at its meeting on October 18, staff completed some additional research and analysis. In addition to providing a summary of the draft ordinance, this memo outlines the recent research and analysis, which includes the following: • An analysis of potential sending sites and the estimated density and height transfer potential. • An updated map identifying potential receiving sites and several associated maps to help visualize the maximum height, density, and number of dwelling units allowed by the current zone district. This memo also outlines some remaining staff concerns related to the efficacy of the proposed ordinance. Summary of Draft Ordinance A summary of the key components of the draft ordinance is outlined below: Eligible Sending Sites At the City Council's work session, the Council recommended that eligible sending sites only include future Iowa City historic landmarks. Based on feedback from the Historic Preservation Commission, staff expanded this to include the five properties designated as Iowa City historic landmarks in Summer 2018, as well as contributing properties in future Iowa City historic districts. The HPC expressed concern that applying this only to future local historic landmarks could act as a disincentive to the creation of local historic districts. In addition, the properties designated in Summer 2018 came before the City Council around the same time as the proposed local landmark designation of 410-412 N. Clinton Street, which resulted in the development of the draft ordinance. Therefore, the draft ordinance outlines the following requirements for sending sites: • Sending sites must be zoned single-family residential, multi -family residential, or commercial. November 15, 2018 Page 2 • Sending sites must be designated as either an Iowa City historic landmark or listed as a contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district after January 1, 2018. In addition, the draft ordinance includes language that states all historic buildings on the sending site must be preserved against deterioration and kept free from structural defects. If rehabilitation is necessary due to poor condition, this provision allows the staff design review committee to not recommend the approval of a transfer. In addition, if a transfer is approved, the applicant must agree to ensure the property will be preserved against decay and deterioration. Eligible Receiving Sites For the receiving sites, the City Council recommended that staff explore including properties in Riverfront Crossings and those that allow multi -family development. The draft ordinance identifies the following sites as eligible receiving sites: • Properties zoned Riverfront Crossings. This does not include all properties within the Riverfront Crossings district, only those properties rezoned to an RFC -XX designation; • Properties zoned Multi -family; and • Properties zoned Commercial that allow multi -family dwellings either as a permitted or provisional use.' Properties designated as Iowa City historic landmarks, located within Iowa City historic districts or conservation districts, or designated in the National Register of Historic Places are not eligible as receiving sites. [Attachment 1] Transfer of Development Rights The City Council instructed staff to create a more limited transfer formula than that which currently exists in Riverfront Crossings. Council requested that staff use other city's formulas as a guide. Based on this input, the draft ordinance provides the option to allow a transfer request for either a height bonus or a density bonus, but not both a height and density bonus. The draft also allows transfer requests to exceed either the height or density permitted on the receiving site, with the following limitations: • Height bonuses are restricted to no more than 40 feet above the maximum height allowed per the base zone districts, and • For transfers proposed next to single-family residences, height bonuses are limited to two stories above the height of the existing single-family home. The draft ordinance does not place any restrictions on the increase in density transferred. Any projects that receive either a height bonus or a density bonus must still comply with the other requirements in the zoning code, such as setbacks, parking, landscaping, etc. The draft ordinance outlines the following transfer formulas: 1. Height Bonus Option: • The difference between the maximum allowable height of the sending site based on the underlying zoning designation at the time of Iowa City historic landmark or district designation and the existing height of the historic structure. • In cases where the height difference is more than zero, but less than 10 feet, the allowable height transfer shall be 10 feet. ' Permitted uses are allowed by -right. Provisional uses are permitted if they meet certain use specific criteria and standards. November 15, 2018 Page 3 2. Density Bonus Option: • The 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 or district designation and the existing number of dwelling units on the sending site. Transfer Review Process During the Council work session, the Council expressed an interest in having all transfer requests be reviewed and approved by the City Council. The draft ordinance creates a process where the staff design review committee reviews transfer requests and provides a recommendation to the City Council for review and approval. Additional Research & Analysis Proposed Sending Sites Using the eligibility criteria outlined in the draft ordinance, staff conducted an analysis to estimate the transfer potential of future sending sites. Table 1 outlines the estimated transfer potential of sites that may be eligible as sending sites in the future .2 The analysis includes the following potential sending sites: • The five properties locally landmarked in Summer 2018, The contributing properties in the proposed downtown historic district outlined in the recently completed downtown survey, and • Sites eligible as local historic landmarks identified by the Historic Preservation Commission. Other local historic landmarks and districts may be contemplated in the future, but are not included in this estimate. Table 1. Estimated Transfer Potential of Eligible Sending Sites Potential Sending Sites Dwelling Units Height (Feet) Locally Landmarked in 2018 13 95 Potential Downtown District n/a 5,995 Potential Local Landmarks 138 370 Total 151 6,460 Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites Staff also put together several maps of the proposed eligible receiving sites to help the City Council visualize the heights and densities allowed by the current zone districts. • Attachment 2 outlines the maximum heights already allowed per the base zone district. A majority of the proposed eligible receiving sites have a maximum height of 35 feet. The downtown core, outlined in red, has no maximum height. • Attachment 3 outlines the maximum density (dwelling units / acre) already allowed per the base zone district. Sites zoned Riverfront Crossings and sites within the downtown core have no maximum density requirement. The other multi -family sites range between 16 and 100 dwelling units per acre. 2 Staff utilized Assessor and rental permit data to determine the number of existing dwelling units and the maximum allowable density per the existing zone district to determine the number of dwelling units that could be transferred. Staff estimated the height of buildings using Assessor photos and Google street views to determine the number of stories. Staff converted stories to feet by assuming 1 story = 10 feet. November 15, 2018 Page 4 • Staff took the maximum density and converted that to dwelling units. Attachment 4 outlines the maximum number of dwelling units already allowed on eligible receiving sites. Attachment 5 outlines the proposed eligible receiving sites that are either vacant or underutilized. In conducting this analysis, staff utilized assessor data to identify the vacant sites. Underutilized sites include any site with an improvement -to -land value ratio of less than 1.0, which indicates that the buildings on the sites are less valuable than the land, and therefore, more likely to be redeveloped. The map shows there are several sites, identified in red, that have redevelopment potential. Based on the current zoning, approximately 2,369 dwelling units could theoretically be accommodated by the vacant and underutilized sites. This estimate does not include any potential density bonuses. In addition, it also does not include the dwelling unit capacity of sites that have no maximum density (i.e. Riverfront Crossings & Downtown). Issues and Constraints In a staff memo to the City Manager dated August 19, staff outlined several issues and constraints related to a potential city-wide TDR ordinance. Since that time staff has listened to concerns and input and developed a draft ordinance that may help to preserve some of the city's historic resources. However, these issues remain and are worth re -iterating. • Market Potential: There was no market study completed for this project, so it is unknown whether a demand for a TDR program exists. Furthermore, staff is concerned that the complicated nature of TDR may make it infeasible, and at the very least daunting, for an owner of a single local historic landmark. Lack of Certainty in the Process: The process outlined in the draft ordinance requires review and approval by the City Council. Although this provides oversight and may help to address some concerns regarding potential negative impacts to existing neighborhoods, the proposed process lacks certainty. It lacks certainty not only for the developer looking to utilize credits, but also for the property owner of the proposed local historic landmark. • Other Bonus Mechanisms: Some of the more effective TDR programs throughout the country provide few or no other alternatives to achieving additional development potential. The City's zoning code outlines several bonus provisions for public benefits. With other bonus provisions to choose from, the effectiveness of the proposed TDR ordinance may be reduced. Historic Preservation Commission Review Lastly, staff presented the draft TDR ordinance to the Historic Preservation Commission on October 11. Based on some concerns raised, staff also provided an update to the HPC on November 8. Below is a list of comments received from the Commission on November 8: • Concern regarding the effectiveness of the ordinance due to the number of other bonuses allowed by the City's zoning code. • Concern that the height and density bonuses could negatively impact existing neighborhoods. One Commissioner suggested reducing the height bonus allowed next to existing single-family from two stories, as is suggested in the draft ordinance, to one story. • Concern that limited stakeholder outreach was conducted as part of this proposed amendment, particularly to properties adjacent to potential receiving sites. November 15, 2018 Page 5 Timeline On May 29, the City Council deferred the local landmark designation of the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street for eight months to give staff time to explore the creation of a city-wide TDR ordinance. The 8 -month deferral expires at the end of January 2019. The table below outlines the project schedule. 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 20, 2018 City Council (Public Hearing & 1St reading of ordinance December 4, 2018 City Council (2nd & possible 3rd reading of ordinance December 18, 2018 City Council meeting if needed January 29, 2019 Expiration of 8 -month deferral of the local landmark designation of 410-412 North Clinton Street Attachments: 1. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites Map 2. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites — Maximum Height 3. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites — Maximum Density 4. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites — Maximum Allowable Dwelling Units 5. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites — Vacant & Underutilized Sites M=■ CITY OF IOWA CITY \] 0 x�`stttttyt¢b I` .�A. �I NQ16 i mmuuuu�m F r1l CITY OF IOWA CITY 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 Item Number: 8.a. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org December 18, 2018 ATTACHMENTS: Description Barbara McFarland: Ped Mall Benches Robin Kash: Ped Mall benches Jeanette Love: Benches in Iowa City 2019 Mark Petterson: Benches on the Pedestrian Mall Garry Klein: Ped Mall Progress? Sean McRoberts: Ped Mall Benches Ethan Forsgren: Those awful benches Caroline Dieterle: New benches Kellie Fruehlin From: McFarland, Barbara J <barbara-mcfarland@uiowa.edu> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 8:45 AM To: Council Subject: Ped Mall Benches Greetings City Council Members, I would like to express my opinion about the new benches on the Ped Mall. I feel that the new benches with the incorporated arm rests are perfectly fine. I believe it offers a more inviting sitting area to people. I agree with Senior Civil Engineer Scott Sovers statement: "If there's someone you don't know, someone is going to feel more comfortable so to speak if they can have a divider or something to divide their space," Personal space is a viable issue. do not see any reason to change them out. Thank you, Barb McFarland Kellie Fruehling From: Robin Kash <robinkashl807@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2018 4:56 PM To: Council Subject: Ped Mall benches Good Day, One of the great things about living in Cedar Rapids is that Iowa City is nearby. My wife and delight to come there to dine (love Trumpet Blossom), shop downtown (Prairie Lights is one of our stops without fail), visit the library (such a welcoming place), and walk everywhere. I was glad when the Ped Mall was reopened, but shocked to see benches with armrests midway. For one thing, it removes the middle seat! Then I learned how it affects homeless people who have no place to recline and sleep at night. I don't think benches should take the place of adequate housing for homeless people, but since there seems not enough housing, open benches could serve as an alternative while adequate housing is developed. I hope something will be done to make benches more accessible by all. Thank you, Robin Kash 1806 Grande Avenue SE Cedar Rapids IA 52403 Robin Kash Kellie Fruehling From: Jeanette Love <jlovearchaeology2@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2018 6:18 PM To: Council Cc: opinion@press-citizen.com Subject: Benches in Iowa City 2019 To Whom It May Concern: It has been brought to my attention a concern regarding the proposed change of benches in downtown Iowa City to incorporate separation bars, with the intent to discourage people from sleeping on benches. I encourage the council to reconsider this action, and continue to provide non obstructed benches for persons who wish to rest in them. Regardless if a person is homeless or not, a roomy bench is a good spot to relax for anyone. When I was in the Iowa City shelter, folks could not stay there during the day, they were asked to leave and return in the evening to have a bed. For myself, I face high fatigue during the afternoons. As a U of I student, I slept in libraries, parks, and benches. Finding it necessary to lay down, rest to recharge. When my daughter was young, we both stretched out on benches, a bench without separations is also a great place for children. In my experience, disabled persons use the benches as they are currently. It may appear scary at night when a homeless person is at rest, however, many have health issues where a place to lie down, off the ground is needed. The requirements of the Iowa City homeless shelter may not meet every person's needs, such as time schedule for a bed, anxiety, substance abuse, or lack of transport to the shelter. If there is someone on your board who has faced homelessness, and has health issues, this person may have good ideas on how to approach this. Perhaps an agency placed downtown with rooms and cots. Or just leaving the benches as they are for all persons to relax on. I personally prefer the outdoor sunshine to stretch out on a bench in the spring, summer and fall, for a nice nap. Thank you, Jeanette Love Jlovearchaeoloey2@email.com Lyme Disease Survivor Kellie Fruehling From: Mark Petterson <petterson.mr@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 8:24 AM To: Council Subject: Benches on the Pedestrian Mall Dear City Council Members: Thank you for all your tireless work to make Iowa City one of the best places to live in the Midwest. I have lived here for over a year, and am proud to call Iowa City home. I am writing to express my concern regarding the handrails on the newly -installed Pedestrian Mall benches. While I am thankful for the renovations to the Ped Mall, I am concerned that the design of the new benches is harmful to the welfare of the city's homeless population, and more broadly, does not represent the inviting community that Iowa City strives to embody. Regardless of intent (and I am not interested in placing blame on designers, the city, or anyone else), the current design that incorporates middle -of -the -bench armrests is an unnecessary impediment to our under - housed neighbors who use public benches to lay down and rest, regardless of the weather. While there are still full benches available, even the optics of the new benches are hostile to our homeless and under -housed friends. This isn't the image that we, as a city, should be projecting. Just as we strive to provide shelter and services to the most vulnerable in our society, we should also design our public spaces to be inviting and open. The homeless pose no threat to the city; they are our neighbors and every bit a part of our community as those with stable housing. I respectfully ask that you act to replace the benches in questions with re -designed benches that do not incorporate center armrests. I would be happy to speak to any council person interested in further discussion on this matter. Sincerely, Mark Petterson 932 East College St. Iowa City, IA 52240 913.231.4972 Petterson.mr@gmail.com Kellie Fruehling From: Garry Klein <garryklein@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 1:54 PM To: council@icgov.org; Council Subject: Ped Mall Progress? Council Members, I know that you've likely heard an earful about the benches on the Ped Mall. Beyond the fact that they seems to have a well -intended purpose to give comfort to those with physical limitations and personal space for those who might be company shy, they also have what I perceive and hope are unintended consequences of keeping people from lying on them, of keeping overweight people from having a place to sit, of adding a place for kids to accidentally clang their heads while playing, and of creating a place for bicycles, dogs, or anything else that can be secured to the armrests (and which would deny others the ability to sit). At the very least, it might be good to consider a few benches without those partition bars (or any bars). We are a city that celebrates diversity and this is another opportunity to publicly display that intention. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Garry Klein 628 2nd Ave. Iowa City, IA 52245 Kellie Fruehling From: Sean McRoberts <pastor@stmarks-umc.net> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 3:06 PM To: Council Subject: Ped Mall Benches Dear City Council Members, I am writing to express my concern about the new benches on the pedestrian mall downtown. I appreciate the city's efforts to maintain and update the ped mall, which is a unique feature of our community. Unfortunately, the selection of the new benches, with a center armrest, to replace the beautifully painted benches previously on the mall sends a message that some members of our community are not welcome in this space. In particular, the center armrest prevents people from laying on the bench, either to rest or to sleep for a time. In the past, the ped mall has been a welcome space for our neighbors who may be homeless or who may want or need to rest. I am proud to call this community home, and proud of our ethic of welcome and inclusiveness, so I am confident that the inhospitable design of these new benches was an oversight and unintentional. However, now that the impact of the design has been brought to your attention it is important that you take appropriate action to remedy the situation. I recommend maintaining those benches without a center armrest that remain in the ped mall, rather than replacing them next spring. Further, those that have been removed should be restored, so that we will not lose any space for sitting or sleeping. Thank you for your time and understanding. Peace, Pastor Sean McRoberts St. Mark's United Methodist Church 2675 E Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52245 (319) 337-7201 Virus -free. www.avast.com 6,6t,- Kellie .6t,-Kellie Fruehling From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear City Council Members, Forsgren, Ethan A <ethan-forsgren@uiowa.edu> Thursday, December 13, 2018 3:06 PM Council Those awful benches Have you tried to sit on the benches in the Ped Mall? Late Handouts Distributed (Date) I've been talking with people about this bench fiasco and decided to do a little research myself. Behold, the problem is even worse than I thought: These new benches are hostile toward people who want to sleep on them. That's for sure. On top of that, they are also hostile toward anyone who would want to sit on them. Dividing up the bench with armrests, first of all, eliminates the ability to sit comfortably together in a group of 3 or more. A family with children, for example, can no longer sit together. Nor can a group of friends. Because of the armrests, you also can't you vary the distance between you and another person; you either have to sit super close together or section yourselves on either side of a cold steel bar, each of you in your own pen. If you want to rest your hand on the "armrest", you'll find you can't keep it there long because the metal's so cold to the touch. And if you wanted to turn toward your friend and sit side -ways, you'd can't do so comfortably because the seat is so slanted your hips will kink at an awkward angle. These benches are universally uncomfortable. I'm sure you've already received a wave of letters about these benches because of their hostile architecture. I fear you're about to get a whole second wave of letters when the weather's warm enough that people actually try to use these things. It seems Iowa City is now stuck with benches that are doubly bad because they were so clearly designed to repel people that are homeless, and, in attempt to do so, repel all of us... Serves us right, I guess. Ethan Forsgren Ethan Forsgren MD Candidate, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine MPP Candidate, Harvard Kennedy School of Government (515)451-9158 I x8365 Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you. Kellie Fruehling From: Dieterle, Caroline M <caroline-dieterle@uiowa.edu> Late Handouts Distributed Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 4:28 PM To: Council Subject: New benches 12—)1-7 ZI T (Date) To the City Council: The comfortable old 72" undivided benches have concave seats and could comfortably accommodate a mother sitting in the center with 2 or more children. The new ones won't. Whether homeless, temporarily dysfunctional due to inebriation, or simply TIRED, the old benches were inviting. Most of the new bench seats have a length of 64", divided into two seats by an `arm rest', so that each seating area is 31" wide. An ordinary kitchen chair is approximately 16-17" wide. Thus the new benches — which the City insists will provide more seating — really will seat fewer people than the old undivided benches did. The arm rest wastes 2". Two people will ordinarily not want to sit together in one space on the benches: too tight. So now only 2 can sit where formerly 3-4 could fit. A few new benches (those with black rails) have two 34" seats with a 2" wide armrest — but the seats are strongly convex! Mazahir Saleh is the Ione Councilperson who objected to the new bench design. Even her suggestion to leave half the benches 'as is' was not acceptable to the rest of the Council. Why? She was out -voted 6-1. Rockne Cole and most recently Bruce Teague have campaigned on representing the disadvantaged in our community. Why did they vote for these benches? With a professional landscape architect and a city planner also on the City Council, how could the new benches have been chosen in ignorance of the Defensive Engineering field? The Guardian (UK) published an expose' of Defensive Engineering, the new design field (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/18/defensive-architecture-keeps- poverty-undeen-and-makes-us-more-hostile?) Defensive architecture: keeping poverty unseen and deflecting our guilt www.thequardian.com The spikes installed outside Selfridges in Manchester are the latest front in the spread of 'defensive architecture'. Is such open hostility towards the destitute making all our lives uglier? This engineering is specifically geared toward creating methods to prevent the free use of spaces hitherto considered "public", to satisfy corporate 'hygiene' and businesses' desire to get the poor out -of -sight and out -of -mind of shoppers and business owners. Specifically mentioned are spikes in the pavement, periodic sprinklers — and benches with solid metal dividers. Cited in The Guardian article are experts in urban architecture, environmental psychology, and urban geography; an artist, Fabian Brunsing, created a satirical "pay bench" art installation in protest. Chinese officials took Brunsing seriously, thought the idea was wonderful, and used his design to make and install park "pay benches": spikes on them are retracted for a limited time in response to feeding coins into a built-in meter. Will we be seeing those here next? In contrast to the old benches, the new ones look sterile, cold, and corporately ugly. As soon as the shine of newness wears off they will look shabby and cheap as well. Caroline Dieterle i Anti -homeless spires: 'Sleeping rough opened my eyes to the city's barged cruelty' 1-Yornelessness The spikes installed outside Selfridges in Manchester are the latest front in the spread of `defensive architecture'. Is such open hostility towards the destitute making all our lives uglier? Alex Andreou 1�,c 1 E; ' 'c; � 2('15 12,30 FS' Last �-nodif ed oti I hL;,, 112 Al! >G18 05 EDT F w' 6 Metal studs outside private flats on Southwark Bridge Road, London, Photograph: Guy Corbishley/Demotix/Corbis More than loo homeless people are "living" in the terminals of Heathrow airport this winter, according to official figures — a new and shameful record. Crisis and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have warned that homelessness in London is rising significantly faster than the nationwide average, and faster than official estimates. And yet, we don't see as many people sleeping rough as in previous economic downturns. Have our cities become better at hiding poverty, or have we become more adept at not seeing it? Last year, there was great public outcry against the use of "anti -homeless" spikes outside a London residential complex, not far from where I live. Social media was set momentarily ablaze with indignation, a petition was signed, a sleep -in protest undertaken, Boris Johnson was incensed and within a few days they were removed. This week, however, it emerged that Selfridges had installed metal spikes outside one of its Manchester stores — apparently to "reduce litter and smoking ... following customer complaints". The phenomenon of "defensive" or "disciplinary" architecture, as it is known, remains pervasive. Sign up to the Art Weekly email From ubiquitous protrusions on window ledges to bus -shelter seats that pivot forward, from water sprinklers and loud muzak to hard tubular rests, from metal park benches with solid dividers to forests of pointed cement bollards under bridges, urban spaces are aggressively rejecting soft, human bodies. We see these measures all the time within our urban environments, whether in London or Tokyo, but we fail to process their true intent. I hardly noticed them before I became homeless in 2000. An economic crisis, a death in the family, a sudden breakup and an even more sudden breakdown were all it took to go from a six -figure income to sleeping rough in the space of a year. It was only then that I started scanning my surroundings with the distinct purpose of finding shelter and the city's barbed cruelty became clear. I learned to love London Underground's Circle line back then. To others it was just the rather inefficient yellow line on the tube network. To me — and many homeless people — it was a safe, dry, warm container, continually travelling sometimes above the surface, sometimes below, like a giant needle stitching London's centre into place. Nobody harassed you or moved you on. You were allowed to take your poverty on tour. But engineering work put a stop to that. Next was a bench in a smallish park just off Pentonville Road. An old, wooden bench, made concave and smooth by thousands of buttocks, underneath a sycamore with foliage so thick that only the most persistent rain could penetrate it. Sheltered and warm, perched as it was against a wall behind which a generator of some sort radiated heat, this was prime property. Then, one morning, it was gone. In its place stood a convex metal perch, with three solid armrests. I felt such loss that day. FacebookTwitterPinterest Hostile architecture on the former Coutts Bank, Fleet Street, London. Photograph: Linda Nylind for the Guardian "When you're designed against, you know it," says Ocean Howell, who teaches architectural history at the University of Oregon, speaking about anti -skateboarding designs. "Other people might not see it, but you will. The message is clear: you are not a member of the public, at least not of the public that is welcome here." The same is true of all defensive architecture. The psychological effect is devastating. There is a wider problem, too. These measures do not and cannot distinguish the "vagrant" posterior from others considered more deserving. When we make it impossible for the dispossessed to rest their weary bodies at a bus shelter, we also make it impossible for the elderly, for the infirm, for the pregnant woman who has had a dizzy spell. By making the city less accepting of the human frame, we make it less welcoming to all humans. By making our environment more hostile, we become more hostile within Lit. Defensive architecture is revealing on a number of levels, because it is not the product of accident or thoughtlessness, but a thought process. It is a sort of unkindness that is considered, designed, approved, funded and made real with the explicit motive to exclude and harass. It reveals how corporate hygiene has overridden human considerations, especially in retail districts. It is a symptom of the clash of private and public, of necessity and property. Pavement sprinklers have been installed by buildings as diverse as the famous Strand book store in New York, a fashion chain in Hamburg and government offices in Guangzhou. They spray the homeless intermittently, soaking them and their possessions. The assertion is clear: the public thoroughfare in front of a building, belongs to the building's occupant, even when it is not being used. Setha Low, a professor in environmental psychology, and urban geographer Neil Smith, in their book The Politics of Public Space, describe the phenomenon as a creeping encroachment that has "culminated in the multiple closures, erasures, inundations and transfigurations of public space at the behest of state and corporate strategies". They contend that the very economic and political revolutions that freed people from autocratic monarchies also enshrined principles of private property at the expense of a long tradition of common land. Sculptor Fabian Brunsigg brought a satirical eye to the issue by creating the "pay bench", an art installation of a park bench that retracts its metal spikes for a limited time when the prospective sitter feeds it a coin. Chinese officials, completely missing the joke, thought that this was a great idea and installed similar benches in Yantai Park of the Shangdong province. .' Ati. 111' Av i. FacebookTwitterPinterest Concrete spikes under a road bridge in Guangzhou city, Guangdong, China, Photograph: Imaginechina/REX The architecture of our cities is a powerful guide to behaviour, both directly and in its symbolism. One of the very first acts of the newly elected Syriza government in Greece was to remove the metal barriers between the Hellenic parliament and Syntagma Square. The effect on the centre of Athens of the removal of this barricade — which represented the strife of the last few years — was almost magical, as if an entire city breathed a sigh of relief. The symbolism of a government saying that they were a part of the people, rather than apart from the people, was understood by all. Artist Nils Norman has been documenting the phenomenon of defensive architecture since the late gos with thousands of photographs. This "vernacular of terror", as he calls it, has its roots in leftover space or "gap sites": plots that are too small to develop but large enough to encourage loitering. He sees the loss of public space as directly related to a loss of public life. "City space is quietly altered to maximimise its control and circulation," he says. "Benches become bum -free, which in turn become `perches', which are in turn removed. As city spaces become cleaner and more symbolically `safe', defensive design becomes more abundant and paranoid." Recently, as I walked into my local bakery, a homeless man (whom I had seen a few times before) asked whether I could get him something to eat. When I asked Ruth — one of the young women who work behind the counter — to put a couple of pasties in a separate bag and explained why, her censure was severe: "He probably makes more money than you from begging, you know," she said, bluntly. He probably didn't. Half his face was covered with sores. A blackened, gangrenous - looking toe protruded from a hole in his ancient shoe. His left hand looked mangled and was covered in dry blood from some recent accident or fight. I pointed this out. Ruth was unmoved by my protestations. "I don't care," she said. "They foul in the green opposite. They're a menace. Animals." Spikes keep the homeless away, pushing them further out of sight It's precisely this viewpoint that defensive architecture upholds. That the destitute are a different species altogether; inferior and responsible for their demise. Like pigeons to be shooed away; urban foxes disturbing our slumber with their screams. "Shame on you," jumped in Libby, the older lady who works at the bakery. "That is someone's son you're talking about." We curse the destitute for urinating in public spaces with no thought about how far the nearest free public toilet might be. We blame them for their poor hygiene without questioning the lack of public facilities for washing. It costs £5 to take a shower at King's Cross station. Wilful misconceptions about homelessness abound. For instance, that shelters are plentiful and sleeping rough is a lifestyle choice. Free shelters, unless one belongs to a particularly vulnerable group, are actually extremely rare. Getting a bed often depends on a referral from a local agency, which, in turn, depends on being able to prove a local connection. For the majority of homeless people, who have usually graduated from a life as itinerant sofa -surfers, it is impossible to prove. This tripartite pressure of an increasingly hostile built environment, huge reduction in state budgets, and a hardening attitude to poverty can be disastrous for people sleeping rough, both physically and psychologically. Fundamental misunderstanding of destitution is designed to exonerate the rest from responsibility and insulate them from perceiving risk. All of us are encouraged to spend future earnings through credit. For the spell to be effective, it is essential to be in a sort of denial about the possibility that such future earnings could dry up. Most of us are a couple of pay packets from being insolvent. We despise homeless people for bringing us face to face with that fact. Poverty exists as a parallel, but separate, reality. City planners work very hard to keep it outside our field of vision. It is too miserable, too dispiriting, too painful to look at someone defecating in a park or sleeping in a doorway and think of him as "someone's son". It is easier to see him and ask only the unfathomably self-centred question: "How does his homelessness affect me?" So we cooperate with urban design and work very hard at not seeing, because we do not want to see. We tacitly agree to this apartheid. FacebookTwitterPinterest Spikes installed outside Selfridges in Manchester. Photograph: Christopher Thomond for the Guardian. A homeless man, Pawel Koseda, was found dead last year; bled out, im aled on the six- inch spikes of the metal fence that surrounds St Mary Abbots in Kensington, the Camerons' chosen place of worship. He had high levels of alcohol in his blood and was wearing hospital pyjamas under his clothes. Koseda used to be a university lecturer in Poland. Ed Boord, who found the body, said that several people walked by and didn't even notice. "It upset me that someone like that spends their life not being noticed," he said, "and even in their last moments people still walk past." Crisis and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's research says that UK homeless numbers have increased by a third in the last five years. Benefit sanctions are cited as the main reason. In this context of depressed wages and soaring living costs, reduced services and lack of housing, we are facing a humanitarian disaster. The Red Cross is involved in food aid in the UK for the first time since the second world war. Can our response as a civilised society really be limited to moving people on from our doorsteps? This, more than anything else, will determine our future as a species. Our ability to share will be key to our survival. The rough sleeper's bad fortune is intricately connected to someone else's good fortune. The person sleeping outside the expensive Bond Street boutique is part of the same nexus as the person inside spending £foo on a pair of socks. Resources are scarce. Infinite wealth creation is a fairytale. Real wealth — land, food, water, fuel — has physical limitations. If some take more than they need, others go without. We obsessively focus on the external: carbon emissions, recycling, charity work, social security, saving the snow leopard — all of them excellent goals — while doggedly refusing to look inwards and make the adjustments that might allow us to coexist more equitably. A ray of hope from Vancouver — benches that unfold into shelters and read "This is a bench" during the day, but light up to reveal "This is a bedroom" at night. Perhaps a small step on what David Harvey, author of Social Justice and the City, calls the "path from an urbanism based on exploitation to an urbanism appropriate for the human species". Defensive architecture acts as the airplane curtain that separates economy from business and business from first class, protecting those further forward from the envious eyes of those behind. It keeps poverty unseen and sanitises our shopping centres, concealing any guilt for over -consuming. It speaks volumes about our collective attitude to poverty in general and homelessness in particular. It is the aggregated, concrete, spiked expression of a lack of generosity of spirit. Ironically, it doesn't even achieve its basic goal of making us feel safer. There is no way of locking others out that doesn't also lock us in. The narrower the arrow -slit, the larger outside dangers appear. Making our urban environment hostile breeds hardness and isolation. It makes life a little uglier for all of us Item Number: 8.b. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok 10WA CITY www.icgov.org December 18, 2018 ATTACHMENTS: Description Carol deProsse: Recycling bins [Staff response included] Kellie Fruehling From: Jennifer Jordan Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 11:22 AM To: 'Carol deProsse' Cc: Council; Geoff Fruin; Ron Knoche Subject: RE: Recycling bins Hi Carol, Thanks for your email. The Council did not mandate the larger recycling bins. However, like many other cities across the county, we are updating our program and providing 65 -gallon carts for several reasons: to increase recycling participation and volume, decrease the amount of recycling that is getting landfilled and reduce staff lifting. While waste reduction is always our first goal, we also aim to provide convenient recycling programs and have had an overwhelmingly positive response to the new carts. The footprints of the carts are very similar to the 18 -gallon bins but I understand the carts do take up space. The trucks we are using can accommodate both the 18 -gallon bins and the 65 -gallon carts so if the cart is a major hardship for a household, we can take the customer off the delivery list or pick up the cart if it's already gone out. However, we are not purchasing additional 18 -gallon bins as we phase those out so we'll replace those as needed in the future with the 65 -gallon carts. If you'd like me to take your name off the delivery list, I'm happy to do so. Please email or give me a call with your address if that is the case. Please note that the organics carts (yellow lids) are not required—we're providing those only for the customers who are signing up to use for yard waste and food waste. Thanks, Jen Jennifer Jordan Resource Management Superintendent City of Iowa City 319-887-6160 iennifer-iordan(aDiowa-citv.orQ Never miss an update or schedule change! Sign up for service notices at www.icciov.orq/subscribe. From: Carol deProsse [mai Ito: lonetreefox@mac.comj Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 5:21 PM To: Council <Council@iowa-city.org>; Jennifer Jordan <Jennifer-Jordan@iowa-city.org>; Geoff Fruin <Geoff-Fruin@iowa- city.org> Subject: Recycling bins Did the Council adopt an ordinace mandating the use of the new blue -topped recyling carts. What the hell are those with smaller yards going to do with one big boy for garbage, an almost big boy for recycling, and yet a second almost big boy for composting. If it's not a law I don't want any of these, but since I have the garbage one and use it that's fine. But where am I to stash the blue one? You think my neighborhood will be enhanced when all the driveways have plastic carts lined up on them? Item Number: 8.c. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok 10WA CITY www.icgov.org December 18, 2018 ATTACHMENTS: Description Lori Kendrick: Deer Management [Staff response included] Sara Jacobmeyer Pinkham: Bow hunting for deer management Julie Mock: Deer Management Lynn Gallagher: bow hunting Margot Bilanin: Oppose bow hunting Kellie Fruehling From: Lori Kendrick <kendricklori@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 6:03 AM To: Geoff Fruin Cc: Council; Bill Campbell Subject: Re: Deer Management Mr. Fruin, Thank for your quick response. I'll forward this information on to Iowa City Deer Friends. Sincerely, Lori Kendrick On Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 8:59 PM Geoff Fruin <Geoff-Fruingiowa-city.org wrote: Ms. Kendrick, Thank you for your email. Iowa City's request will be in front of the DNR's Natural Resource Commission this Thursday, December 13th. You can access the agenda and meeting information at httos://www.iowadnr.gov/About-DNR/Boards- Commissions/Natural-Resource-Cor-i_,ii_iS'; ",-) n (scroll down to see a PDF agenda). It is my understanding that the meetings are fully open to the public. I misspoke at the last City Council meeting about the Deer Commission. The group is not continuing to meet at the current time. The City is awaiting the NRC's decision. If our request is granted will conduct a follow-up deer count and discuss options for continuing any activities after we have that information. In the meantime, it is best that you share your thoughts, ideas and comments with Captain Bill Campbell of the Iowa City Police Department. My apologies for the confusion caused by my statement. Best, Geoff Fruin From: Lori Kendrick <kendricklori@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 5:28 PM To: Council <Council@iowa-city.ore> Subject: Deer Management Dear Council members, I'm writing in regards to your recommendation to Iowa City Deer Friends at the December 4th City Council Formal Meeting. Geoff Fruin stated that the Deer Commission will be looking at short term needs, as well as long term needs, and it would be appropriate to work with that group. Can you please provide how best to contact the Deer Commission? It was also mentioned that there would be an upcoming meeting with the DNR and NRC. Will that meeting be open to community members? If not, would a representative from our group be allowed to attend? It is our hope that we can work with all who are involved with the future of the Iowa City deer herd to consider adding a sterilization project to the current sharpshooter program. Sincerely, Lori Kendrick Iowa City Deer Friends 319-504-1851 Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Kellie Fruehling From: Sent: To: Subject: Sara Jacobmeyer Pinkham <sarajacobmeyer@gmai .com> Friday, December 14, 2018 12:46 PM Late Handouts Distributed Council Bow hunting for deer management Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, f2 -l/-7 �C g (Date) I oppose bow hunting as a deer management method in Iowa City. Thank you for all your work so far as you continue to address this issue. Sincerely, Sara Jacobmeyer Pinkham 1125 Pickard St Iowa City Kellie Fruehling 8� From: Sent: To: Subject: Mock, Julie M (UI Health Care) <julie-mock@uiowa.edu> Friday, December 14, 2018 1:03 PM Late Handouts Distributed Council Deer Management Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members, I oppose bow hunting as a deer management method. Sincerely, Julie Mock 3923 Stewart Road NE, Iowa City, IA 52240 (Date) Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you. M Kellie Fruehling ENNNNN� From: Lynn Gallagher <lynngall726@gmail.com> Late Handouts Distributed Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 7:34 PM To: Council Subject: re: bow hunting A-7 (Date) Dear Mayor and Council Members, I do not understand why the NRC forced you to have a public forum about deer management and then ignored the wishes of the community. It appears that they had an agenda from the start. Please stand firm against bow hunting. I appreciate the fact that you understand that is is inhumane. We need to have respect for wild animals and if an intervention is necessary, it should be with the most humane method possible. Sincerely, Lynn Gallagher 4674 Sutliff Rd NE Solon, la 52333 a Kellie Fruehling From: Margot Bilanin <mbilanin@mchsi.com> Late Handouts Distributed Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 7:47 AM To: Council Subject: Oppose bow hunting f �/ 7 (Date) Dear City Council, Please hear my voice. I oppose the inhumane practice of bow hunting and the ineffective long term practice of sharp shooting to reduce deer herds in city limits. Thank you. Margot Bilanin 3923 Stewart Rd NE Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Sent from my Whone Item Number: 8-d- M .d. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org December 18, 2018 Submission of FY20 TCDD Budget to City Council. ATTACHMENTS: Description Meeting Agenaa and Budget Meeting Minutes Ito IOWA CITY DOWNTOWN DISTRICT DOWNTOWN IOWACITY.COr Open Public Meeting Review To Review Fiscal Year 2020 Iowa City Downtown District Preliminary Budget 1:30 pm December 11, 2018 City of Iowa City City Hall Helling Conference Room (off Lobby) 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 AGENDA: Call to Order New Business • Review of the Preliminary Draft FY20 ICDD Budget provided by ICDD Advisory Committee • Recommendation to Approve/ Deny /Amend to the ICDD Board of Directors Adjourn Iowa City Downtown District FY19 BUDGET comparison to proposed preliminary FY20 Budget December 2018 1 INCOME 2 SSMID Property Tax Assessment 3 University of Iowa Contribution 4 Program & Initiatives Income 5 Events & Sponsor Income 9 TOTAL INCOME 10 11 EXPENSES 12 District -Wide Marketing 13 Event Expense 14 Programs & Initiatives 15 Membership & Community Engagement 16 Office Administration 17 Personnel 18 Contingency 19 TOTAL EXPENSES 20 NET GAIN / LOSS FY 19 Budget FY 20 Proposed Budget Percent Change $421,139 $421,139 0.0% $195,500 $199,250 1.9% $99,700 $99,700 0.0% $334,000 $334,000 0.0% $1,050,339 $1,054,089 0.4% $150,000 $150,000 0.0% $264,000 $273,000 3.4% $194,500 $194,500 0.0% $11,500 $11,500 0.0% $54,200 $42,200 -22.1% $359,850 $365,850 1.7% $16,289 $17,039 4.6% $1,050,339 $1,054,089 0.4% $0 $0 0.00% IOWA CITY DOWNTOWN DISTRICT Advisory Committee Meeting Meeting Minutes from Public Review of FY20 Budget December 11, 2018 ICDD Public Advisory Committee Representative Present: Michelle Galvin ICDD Staff Present: Nancy Bird Iowa City Staff, ICDD Ex -Officio Board Member Present: Wendy Ford Members of the Public in Attendance: 0 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 1:30pm, December 11, 2018 at City Hall Lobby Conference Room. Discussion The Preliminary Draft FY20 Budget was briefly discussed and approved by the Advisory Committee representative and will advance to the ICDD Board of Directors in 2019. No members of the public attended to comment on the budget review. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 1:50pm. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org December 18, 2018 ATTACHMENTS: Description Paul Roesler: Interns Ruthina Malone: Interns Item Number: 8.e. Kellie Fruehling From: Geoff Fruin Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 7:37 AM To: Simon Andrew; Ashley Monroe Cc: Kellie Fruehling; Eleanor M. Dilkes Subject: FW: Interns FYI. Geoff Fruin City Manager From: Paul Roesler [mailto:proesler@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 7:15 AM To: Rockne Cole <Rockne-Cole@iowa-city.org>; Susan Mims <Susan-Mims@iowa-city.org>; Pauline Taylor <Pauline - Taylor@ iowa-city.org>; John Thomas <John-Thomas@iowa-city.org>; Jim Throgmorton <Jim-Throgmorton@iowa- city.org>; Mazahir Salih <Mazahir-Salih@iowa-city.org>; Bruce Teague <Bruce-Teague@iowa-city.org>; Geoff Fruin <Geoff-Fruin@iowa-city.org> Subject: Interns Good Morning Council Members and Geoff, This morning I read in the Press -Citizen that you are looking at the possibility of adding paid interns to help those council members do their council work should they choose to have an intern. This comes on the heels of the approval of a raise for council members that will now pay you between $11,000 and $14,000. 1 would ask that you stop and really think about what you are asking for and how that comes across to those of us that also currently serve the public in elected positions as well as the public in general. As more money goes into your own pay as well as the possibility of paying someone to help you do your job one has to think if the funds you have are endless and if that is the case why can't we have more money to complete needed projects in Iowa City, for example putting in sidewalks around Hoover Elementary so kids have a safe way to walk to school or an Eastside Sports Complex that would bring people to town where they will spend money to support our local businesses, the list goes on and on. As you all know I am a member of the Iowa City Community School District School Board, an elected position that is strictly done on a voluntary basis, without pay. Of course, I knew that was the case when I decided to run. When I was thinking about running for the position I met with current and former School Board members and one question I always asked is how much time do you spend on School District things to do your job successfully as a board member. The answers I got back were all over the place. After getting that feedback I discussed that with my family and my workplace to make sure that all sides were aware of the time commitment. I then had to make the decision if I was willing to put in the time and work to serve if I was elected. After being elected and serving on the board for over two years now I know that in our role at times the workload is very demanding, yet I have found the time to do it and still be successful in my career, my family life, my coaching career and still finding time for me. I do not know the amount of work that you all do to serve in your current roles and I do not know the amount of time that your full-time job if you have one, demands of your time. If the workload of a council member is that great that you can't do both then I tend to question if the decision to run was the right decision for you to make. I appreciate the comments in the article from Susan Mims and would love to hear the other side of the argument from and councilor that would be in favor of this idea. If this is truly needed, please help me understand the why. Thank you for your time. Paul Roesler proesler@email.com Kellie Fruehling From: Ruthina Malone <rawest45@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 12:45 PM To: Council Subject: Interns Dear Council, I am hopeful that after careful consideration, you will hold off from implementing paid interns for council members. While I can appreciate the amount of time you all are devoting to serving our community and can support the recent pay increase that was voted on to help compensate you for this time, I'm more hesitant to add resources to fund paid interns as well. I can see the value some students, who are pursuing public office, can gain from this experience, but I don't think this is an action you should move forward with as noted by comments that Council member Susan Mims in the Press Citizen article. I believe that when a person decides to run for public office, they should recognize that a delicate balancing act must take place to meet the demands of the office they will serve, family and work life. Because of this, I resigned from other committees within my professional organization, waited until my child was a senior in high school and often times find myself declining to get involved in time consuming commitments in order to serve effective as a school board member. I respect that this balancing act can be difficult but have faith that as elected members of the community, you can meet these demands without the assistance of a paid intern. And im hopeful that the pay increase will been seen as an acknowledgement of your dedication to your roles. If this position was for the sole benefit of interested students, I think an unpaid internship that allows them to work on projects/committees spearheaded by council members or city officials could give them that experience. Thank you for your time and continued service. Ruthina Malone 2628 Catskill Court Iowa City, IA Item Number: 81. r �, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT December 18, 2018 Installation of "Do Not Enter" sign at 1301 South Gilbert Street. Prepared By: Sarah Walz, Acting Transportation Engineering Planner Reviewed By: Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood & Development Services Director Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Executive Summary: As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of City Code, this is to advise the City Council of the following action: Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A (1); Install (1) "Do Not Enter" sign on the west side of South Gilbert Street, adjacent to the exit -only driveway located at 1301 S. Gilbert Street. Background /Analysis: This action is being taken to alert vehicles to the exit -only driveway. This south driveway is designed for right -out traffic only. 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. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 5 of 16 Boyd asked about the Commission about the motion in the staff report. He said he was inclined to support the motion as written. He felt given the constraints of the property and given there was already a garage there a new larger garage smaller in scale than the house could be approved. He asked if there was additional discussion. DeGraw said she was inclined to vote yes. She thought it looked a little contemporary but, it was within the guidelines, so she would vote yes. Builta said he was inclined to vote yes and added that this is an exception because there are constraints on what can be done. Boyd noted there were property limitations. This is a corner property. The garage is going to face a street. It does not have alley access. Bristow noted that the guidelines do include the possibility for exceptions. There is the possibility for an exception for unique site conditions and that is the specific exception that staff was considering for this particular project. Boyd asked if the Commission was ready for a vote. MOTION: Karr moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the project at 802 South Summit Street as presented in the application through an exception to the guidelines allowing an attached garage due to the unique conditions present at the site and existing setback. DeGraw seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-2. Nays: Kuenzli and Pitzen. (Aaran. Burford. and Clore absent). REVIEW OF TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ZONING AMENDMENT Anne Russett with Neighborhood and Development Services presented a proposed ordinance for a city-wide Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. She said she would provide a background on how we got here and explain what Transfer of Development Rights are. She said she would explain the existing Transfer of Development Rights policy in our Riverfront Crossings District and then go over what we are proposing in the ordinance. She said since this ordinance was related to historic properties, they wanted to bring it to the Commission for input. Russett said this began on May 291h when the City Council discussed considering a local landmark designation at 410-412 North Clinton Street.That motion was deferred to January 2019 based on a recommendation from the property owner's attorney to put the vote on hold for that local landmark designation until the City had an opportunity to explore a city-wide Transfer of Development Rights program. Since then, Council has discussed a city-wide transfer program. Staff presented to them at a work session on September 41h and received some direction from the Council on how they would like to move forward. Russett explained Transfer of Development Rights. She said they are an incentive to protect historic resources which allows property owners to sell or transfer development rights from historic HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 6 of 16 resources, which are called the sending sites, to receiving sites, which are areas where the City wants to encourage higher density development. The development rights would be applied to another site. Russett said there are some key components to a Transfer of Development Rights program. There are the sending sites, which in this case would be historic resources. The receiving sites are areas where there could be additional development or additional density. There is the transfer calculation, that's used to figure how much density, or how much height, could be transferred from one site to another. There is also a review process and an administration procedure. Russett explained that the City does have an existing TDR program that applies to the Riverfront Crossings District. In Riverfront Crossings the City requires Iowa City landmark designation prior to requesting a Transfer of Development Rights. The receiving sites in this area are any site in Riverfront Crossings. The formula that's used to calculate the transfer potential is the lot area of the sending site x the maximum number of stories allowed on the sending site, the result is the square footage that a property owner could transfer to another site. Russett said for the Riverfront Crossings District, any request for a transfer must be reviewed and approved by City Council. She explained that while receiving sites can go above the base height in that zone, there is a max depending on which area of the district they are located in. Russett said one project has used this incentive since it was adopted into the Riverfront Crossings Ordinance, the Tate Arms Building at 914 South Dubuque. On this site the maximum number of stories is four and the area of the site is 8700 square feet, so the total development rights available for this site that could be transferred, were 34,800 square feet. The developer transferred at least 7400 square feet to the property to the north. The property to the north received an additional story, a height bonus, through this transfer. Tate Arms still has 27,400 square feet of transfer potential that could go to another site in Riverfront Crossings. Boyd asked if the owner of the Tate Arms Building had these rights, but didn't really want to develop something somewhere else, could sell those rights to another developer or must the owner of the landmark property use them. Russett said they could be sold on the private market. Shope asked if there was any restriction or requirement that those funds be used in any way to improve the historic property. If they transferred the development rights for money, would there be any requirement that the money be invested in the historic property from which the rights were sold. Russett said no. Shope asked if the Tate Arms allowance of four stories was based on current zoning for that property. Russett said it was based on the current zoning designation. Karr asked if the zoning was changed, would there then be additional rights that would be sold. Russett said staff is proposing no. Russett discussed direction received from Council regarding the proposed ordinance. She said Council asked that sending sites only include future local historic landmarks, so existing historic HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 7 of 16 landmarks would not be eligible for transfer rights. They requested that staff develop a new transfer formula and not use the one that's currently used in Riverfront Crossings. City Council wants to continue to review and approve any transfer requests. For receiving sites, they wanted it to include areas in Riverfront Crossings and sites throughout the City that allow multiunit development. As a summary of the proposed ordinance, Anne said staff is proposing that properties eligible for Iowa City landmark designation would be eligible, but it only applies to future landmarks. Properties that are already landmarked, if they are already in an historic district, or if they are already in a conservation district, would not be eligible for a transfer. City Council felt that it was important to only apply this to future landmarks since these other properties are already protected, and this incentive would only apply to future designations. Russet said that receiving sites could be areas that are zoned either Riverfront Crossings, multifamily residential, or commercial zones that allow multifamily. She displayed a map of the eligible receiving sites. Russett said staff is proposing that there are two options for what could be transferred. An owner could either transfer height or transfer density, not both. The transfer could exceed the maximum height on the receiving site, as well as the maximum density on the receiving site. For the height bonus, it could not exceed 40 feet above the maximum height that is allowed in that zone. There would not be restrictions on increases in density. Boyd asked how many stories 40 feet would be. Russett said four, maybe a little less. Russett said the calculation for the bonus potential for height would be the difference between the maximum allowable height on the sending site and the existing height of the historic structure, so the maximum allowable height minus the existing height would equal the amount that could transfer. Russet said the minimum transfer would be 12 feet. She explained that a 30 -foot existing historic structure with a maximum in the zoned district of 35 feet, would only have five feet to transfer. She said that since that is not much to transfer, the minimum would be 12 feet, or a story, that could transfer. Russett presented an example of density transfer the maximum allowable dwelling units of the sending site minus the existing number of dwelling units that are currently there provide the number of dwelling units that could potentially be transferred. This would be determined at the time the landmark designation occurs based on the base zone for the district at that time. Russett provided a density example using 412 North Clinton. The maximum allowable number of dwelling units on the site is 24. There are currently 18, so the potential transfer is six dwelling units. Russett explained how review of transfers would work. Staff is proposing that transfers would be reviewed by the staff design review committee based on the guidelines in the zoning code for any design review project. The design review committee would make a recommendation to City Council, who would be the ultimate decision maker on the transfer. A proposal that was very out of scale or that didn't fit within the existing context of the neighborhood, might not move successfully through the approval process. Russett discussed how TDRs are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 8 of 16 plan has policies that talk about protecting historical resources. With the historic preservation plan there are goals related to providing economic incentives to property owners to encourage them to preserve historic buildings. TDRs are a potential incentive for property owners to landmark their buildings. Boyd noted this is for future sites and confirmed that this is local landmarks only, not National Register listed sites, but local landmarks. Boyd stated that most of the properties where development rights being discussed here are either in commercial districts or high-density residential areas. He asked if a potential local landmark is zoned at the lowest density possible it wouldn't have much to transfer, correct? Russett said that if it's a large site, such as a farmstead that might be historic on a large parcel but with only one remaining building, the site could potentially be subdivided and there could be more dwelling units built. This could result in more potential to transfer. Kuenzli noticed among the receiving sites proposed were the South Johnson/South Van Buren Streets between Court and the railroad tracks. She said the stated goal of this is to preserve an historic structure somewhere, but to be able to increase either height or density within the receiving area. Johnson and Van Buren currently are mostly two or three-story structures. Kuenzli asked if this were to pass, could a developer could come in and build eight stories or 12 stories on those streets. Russett said theoretically yes, but with the process in place it would go through design review and City Council, who would look at consistency and compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Russett added that in the proposed ordinance there would not be limitations on density, but there would be limitations on height, 40 feet above the maximum in the zoned district. 12 stories in that area would not be allowed based on the proposed TDR amendment. The maximum height in that area is 35 feet, so with TDRs a new development could still be much larger than what's there but there would be a process in place for review and approval to make sure the development was not out of scale for the area. Boyd clarified the receiving sites would be Riverfront Crossings and where there are existing multifamily units. Kuenzli said she was in favor of saving historic properties, but not if the cost is going to be the destruction of other neighborhoods. Builta pointed out if a house is preserved and they sell a floor or two somewhere, that's not going to destroy a neighborhood. Kuenzli said she is concerned that it is not going to be a floor or two judging from the discussion so far. Shope noted there are homes in residential areas that have large lots and questioned if this was based on lot size, not the existing structure size. Russett said the height was based on what's allowed in the zone compared to what the existing structure is. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 9 of 16 Shope provided an example. A house is one story tall and it's on a lot that is a little over half an acre. If you figured her allowance based on that half acre for four stories, the existing house hasn't used much of that. Russett clarified that if it's in a residential district the maximum height is probably 35 feet where the most she could transfer would probably be two stories. Shope asked again about the half -acre lot size. Russett said the transfer would just be two stories. For the height, it doesn't matter what the lot size is. Shope asked if it was based on the size of the current structure. Russett said the height of the current structure Karr said he understood it was limited and was concerned that existing homes that are already landmarked wouldn't be eligible, especially for the six or seven that were recently landmarked. Karr said he loved the fact that this is incentivizing preservation of individual landmarks, but he would be upset if he was one of the recent landmarks left out of this incentive. Karr wondered what happens when we look at the Downtown District. He said he felt this would have ramifications there. He noted if there were some building owners downtown who probably weren't excited about getting in the district, this would be a fantastic way to entice them. Boyd said those may not be individual landmarks. That may be a district. Karr and Boyd asked if it had to be individual properties. Russett said it must be local historic landmarks. Karr said he was asking about an entire district, such as the proposed Railroad Depot District on Clinton Street. Boyd said he thought the railroad qualified because it is currently in Riverfront Crossings. Russett clarified it is only for individual landmarks in Riverfront Crossings, as well. They need the landmark designation. Boyd asked if people could be incentivized individually to be a landmark if a Downtown District didn't happen. Karr thought that would give a landowner downtown a reason to fight the district and go on an individual landmark basis, because it'd be worth more money to them. Russett believed that may be true. Bristow asked if the downtown becomes a district, would it then be removed from the receiving sites. Russett said yes, Historic districts, conservation districts, and landmarks are not eligible as receiving sites. Bristow followed up on Karr's comments about the recent landmarks. She said that because this deferral and TDR development process came up when the five that achieved landmark status happened, she wondered if there would be any condition that included just those five because they were done at the same time when this process started. Russett said if the Commission wanted to recommend that, if they wanted to recommend changes to the proposed receiving areas, she could pass that along to the Council and the Planning Commission. Boyd said he was glad they were talking about this. He said he thought it was helpful because the Commission gets a lot of questions about the economic incentives that can be provided for landmarks. He said TDRs are being discussed because one particular property owner asked for it. Boyd asked if there were other incentives that could be considered. He said that there is an example in North Carolina where new local landmarks receive automatic property tax deduction. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 10 of 16 Boyd said there may be other incentives that help achieve some of the goals in the comprehensive plan. He said he felt we were doing this because one property owner asked and the focus had been narrowed very rapidly based on a very rapid timeline and a deadline that was set by the property owner and the City Council. Boyd said he wondered if the City could consider other potential incentives, regardless of what happens with the TDRs. He wondered if the Commission was supposed to bring those ideas or if Planning and Zoning Commission came with them. Russett said if the Commission had ideas for Planning and Zoning to investigate, staff could definitely do that. She wasn't sure if the property tax idea was something we could do here, but she knew other communities do it, so staff could look into that. Bristow clarified that the property owner for 410-412 didn't necessarily come up with the Transfer of Development Rights out of the blue. The Tate Arms project had been successful and the idea of protecting historic properties this way had been considered by the planning staff in the past. Staff had always thought about the possibility of adopting something like this to protect historic properties, partly because through research, we have learned that this is something that other communities, and there are some examples in the packet, have taken on to promote the preservation of their historic properties. The first few communities that came up with the process found there were some lessons to be quickly learned, and they had to tweak the way the process happened. She said there was a document put out by the National Park Service that she may have given the Commission earlier in the year. She said it goes talks about those lessons learned and how a community can make sure TDRs work as they are supposed to. Russett asked if they could have wording for the downtown stating that if there is a proposed district, those properties cannot individually landmark for the TDR bonus instead, to avoid a non - incentive for a potential historic district. Bristow wanted clarification on whether this incentive could be possible for a future Downtown District. Russett said that once an area has been selected for a district, if the group of property owners say no to the district, then they cannot individually landmark to get the TDR. An owner can agree to the district, but you cannot strategize to reject the district in order to go for the individual landmark and the incentive of the TDR. Russett said the reason they were not allowing future districts to be eligible is that there are certain properties in an historic district that might not be contributing or might not be as historically significant and wouldn't meet local landmark requirements, so it isn't fair to provide the incentive for the entire district. She said another option is that future districts could potentially be eligible to utilize the incentive. Boyd noted that all our current historic districts are largely non-commercial districts. He said he wondered if there could be a consideration about how we think about commercial districts, which was something that needed to be considered anyway. Expectations for a residential district are different than expectations for a commercial district. The buildings are used differently now than they were historically. In the residential districts those structures are largely being used as they were when they were built, for the most part. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 11 of 16 Boyd said if there is an effort to limit the scale of this proposal, commercial is one thing to think about. He said he thought high-density residential by itself, was the highest zoning piece. He thought that's largely where these properties probably are anyway, just given where our historic properties are. Boyd thought one item of consensus would be including anything that's been landmarked in 2018. Kuenzli asked about the receiving areas that allow multiunit development. Kuenzli thought that was a little vague. Boyd questioned if that was the red area on the map. Russett said yes it includes all multifamily residential zones and commercial zones that allow multifamily. Boyd said since those are the receiving sites, could those also be the categories that we use for landmarks or districts. Russett said that was a possibility and she liked the suggestion of commercial districts because residential districts, even though you could maybe get more units, have lower height limit. Commercial districts generally allow a lot more development potential, so it could be more of an incentive in a commercial district and a landmark designation could restrict the ability to develop that property to its maximum allowable density or height under the zone. She said to her, the commercial districts make sense because the base zoning designation probably allows a lot more height than is currently there. Boyd said he thought one other item for consensus was the idea of individual properties and potentially future commercial districts. Russett said we could bring this back to the Commission at the next meeting if they want to think about it more, but she needed to move it forward to Planning and Zoning next week. She asked for the Commission's feelings on if this was something they wanted the City Council to consider or if there was no interest in providing this type of incentive for historic properties. Boyd said he thought we should find incentives for landmark and district designations. He thought the City should consider it, and the Commission was one step in that consideration. He said Planning and Zoning will consider it, and ultimately City Council will consider it. He believed the Commission's job was to look at the impact on historic preservation. He said TDRs are a potential tool that helps incentivize historic preservation. He noted there were some things that needed to be worked out as a City, but he didn't believe the Commission was the one to work out all of those details. Russett restated what she'd heard from the Commission. She heard this should apply to landmarks that were designated in 2018, and maybe consider future commercial historic districts being eligible. She heard some concern about the receiving sites. She said if they wanted those changed, even if it was not a consensus, she would pass that information along. Boyd agreed there was some concern about the receiving sites, particularly those in residential areas. He didn't think there was a lot of concern when there was already a lot of density and a lot of other taller buildings. He said the Commission was open and interested in exploring what other incentives might be available outside of this particular program. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 12 of 16 DeGraw said there was a concern with the calculation with regard to lot size that used with Tate Arms, because at times that would create an overly generous handing out of TDR that couldn't be honored. Shope was concerned that this is currently restricted to future landmarks. He said he understood the rationale, which is that those existing landmarks are already protected, but historic landmarks also have higher costs of maintenance. He had a bit of an issue with precluding the benefits of this from those who already own those historic landmarks. Boyd wondered if there was a way for us to think about other incentives for existing landmarks. Shope noted this is the incentive that's before us right now. He asked for a clarification on the following: On page 3 of the October 11th memo it says 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 an historically significant building per a survey. He said he thought what was presented as eligible is an Iowa City landmark, and that's not the way he read this sentence. Russett said that portion of the October 11 memo was a summary of the current ordinance in Riverfront Crossings. She clarified that if the property is in Riverfront Crossings and is registered on the National Register, it is eligible, but is still required to get local landmark designation before receiving the incentive. Russett said she would pass these suggestions forward and incorporate some of them into the draft ordinance if there was consensus. Russett said if the Commission wants to, it could move this forward to Planning and Zoning with amendments. The Commission could move that it be deferred until the next meeting and we it could be brought back. Boyd asked if the Commission could move that they are generally in favor of this, but have a few concerns that have been identified. Russett said that was an option. Boyd asked if the Commission could still revisit the amendment at some point. Russett said it could be revisited at the next meeting on November 8th, which would be before the amendment goes to City Council for public hearing. Boyd said he'd like to move that the Commission is generally in favor of the TDR amendment to the zoning code and has made some suggestions. The Commission's role is to decide if this is a tool that historic preservation should use. Russett suggested moving the amendment forward and then, for a property owner that wasn't thinking about development but still wondered what was going on with the TDR, add the offer of a simple tax reduction. That would be appealing and save that person the burden of having to research how to capture this potential. Russet said she thought some property owners would do that. MOTION: Boyd moved that the Commission is generally in favor of incentives, including this amendment. The Commission has shared some specific concerns but are broadly in HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 13 of 16 favor of moving forward. Karr seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Agran, Burford, and Clore absent). REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF Certificate of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff Review. 1037 East Washington Street. This project will repair about five of their original windows and replace storms, which we don't need to review, but they put it on the application anyway. 722 East College Street. This project will replace the concrete steps that were an original part of the building. They have completely deteriorated. 900 North Johnson. This project is repairing siding that was deteriorated and repairing the rear deck. 430 Ronalds Street. Bristow said the owners of this property are repairing windows Minor Review — Staff Review. Bristow said the University Partnership property at the last minute had to replace the roof because it had failed suddenly. She said it was being replaced, but it would not be metal. It will be shingles. Boyd wondered if it was just staff review if they go from metal to shingles. Bristow said yes, that was something that changed at the beginning of the year. 927 South 7t" Avenue. Bristow said this property was part of a series of bungalows that could have been their own historic district at the end of 7t" Avenue, but they are a part of the Dearborn Street Conservation District. The siding on just the front and rear dormers was failing and so they are replacing the siding and trim. 412 S Summit Street. Bristow said this roof has been deteriorating for a long time and they are replacing it. The internal gutters will remain. 900 N Johnson. Bristow said they will be putting in a radon mitigation system in the area where all other utilities are located. Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 9 of 15 Parsons stated he made the recommendation because while he believes the application probably does conform with the County, it does not comply with the current Fringe Area Agreement. Signs noted this may become a bigger issue as he is aware of two other large open green spaces nearby are destined for development so there is the potential of a rather large rural residential area here. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Baker absent). ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEM (ZCA18-00003): Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to transfer of development rights for historic properties. Russett began by providing the Commission with background as to why staff is working on this ordinance, she will then talk about the existing transfer rights provisions which exist in Riverfront Crossings, and finally will get into the specifics of the amendment proposed tonight. 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. Council deferred action on the local landmark designation until January 2019 while staff reviews and analyzes the establishment of a city-wide transfer of development rights (TDR) program for historic properties. On August 7, 2018, Council discussed a city-wide TDR program at a work session and then on September 4, 2018, provided direction to staff on some key policy issues. Staff has been given a timeline by Council, in June and August staff conducted a lot of research analysis of TDR around the country, on September 4 they presented that research to Council and they directed staff to move forward with drafting an ordinance. Last week staff presented the draft to the Historic Preservation Commission and tonight are before the Planning & Zoning Commission for review and discussion of this ordinance. Staff would like to present a draft to City Council next month, the deadline for adoption of this ordinance, should the Council decide to adopt the ordinance, is January 29, 2019, because that is when the expiration of the deferral for the local landmark designation on the North Clinton Street property happens. Russett provided some background as to why the City is perusing this ordinance. National Register Districts are an honorary designation, it does not provide any protection for listed resources, it does not limit a property owner from making modifications on a building or demolishing a building, but it does offer incentives. On the flip side Iowa City's local historic districts and local landmarks provide protection to historic resources and any changes to the exterior of those buildings need to either be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Planner or the Historic Preservation Commission. The idea behind the transfer of development rights ordinance is to provide an incentive to property owners to landmark their historic buildings. Transfer of development rights is meant to protect historic resources by giving property owners of those historic resources the ability to sell or transfer development rights to another property. The areas that may receive the transfer of development rights are in areas where the City wants to see more development. Russett acknowledged the goal is to preserve historic landmark designations and buildings, right now it is uncertain the effectiveness of an ordinance like this, there has been no market analysis to determine a market for these transfer rights, and if people will actually utilize it. Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 10 of 15 Russett noted key components of TDR programs are: • 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. • 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). 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 One example of a transfer of development rights was for the 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. Signs asked about the calculations of transfer rights being based on the square footage of the entire lot and why aren't they based on the allowable square footage of a building that could go on that lot. Russett stated when the formula was developed for Riverfront Crossings they intentionally made it very generous because they anticipated development and redevelopment in Riverfront Crossings and wanted it to be a higher amount that could be transferred. Russett noted the direction staff received on the city-wide ordinance is to have the sending sites Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 11 of 15 to only apply to future local landmarks, not to existing, staff is to develop a new transfer formula, however the current formula used in Riverfront Crossings would remain intact for that area only, Council will continue to have oversight on the program and will review and approve any transfer right requests, and in terms of the receiving sites Council directed staff to look at Riverfront Crossings and sites that allow multi -unit development throughout the community. Russett next gave an overview of the proposal for the City-wide ordinance. For the sending sites staff is recommending looking at future properties that are listed as Iowa City landmarks as well as contributing properties listed in future Iowa City local districts. Staff presented this proposal to the Historical Preservation Commission on October 11 and they expressed concern that the proposed ordinance only applies to future Iowa City landmarks and if it is not provided to future districts it could be a disincentive for the creation of districts and people will just want to create landmarks. The Historic Preservation Commission also noted Council recently adopted several Iowa City landmark designations and requested those properties also be eligible for the incentive. Properties within existing historic districts would not be eligible and property within existing and future conservation districts would also not be eligible as sending sites. Russett noted in addition to this proposed ordinance, staff is recommending an amendment to the existing Riverfront Crossings transfer of development rights provisions to allow the transfer and incentive to also apply to districts and not just landmarks. In terms of receiving sites, staff is recommending any site zoned Riverfront Crossings, multi- family residential or any commercial zone that would allow multi -family be eligible as a receiving site. Russett showed a map indicating the potential receiving sites. Staff is recommending the transfer of development rights be one of two options, 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. If the receiving site is next to an existing single family home the height is limited to twenty feet above the height of that existing home. Staff is not recommending any restrictions on the density bonus. Hensch asked if for density someone could use every square inch of the parcel. Russett noted with density there would still be parking requirements, open space requirements, and all other regulations in the zoning ordinance. Russett noted the formula to be used to determine the potential transfer a sending site would have, staff is proposing the difference between the maximum allowable height of the sending site and the existing height of the historic structure. However they are noting that no transfer would be less than 12 feet, or one story. For example if there is an existing historic structure that is 30 feet and the maximum height on the sending site is 35 feet, the difference is only 5 feet but the transfer would be 12 feet as it is the allowable minimum. For the density bonus option staff is proposing the transfer be the difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the sending site and the existing number of dwelling units on the sending site. The maximum density should also be based on the on the underlying zoning designation at the time of Iowa City historic landmark designation. In terms of the transfer process, any requests for a transfer of density or height from a sending site to a receiving site will be reviewed by the staff design review committee, which will then Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 12 of 15 submit a recommendation to the City Council for their review and approval. Russett noted the proposed ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as there are goals in the Comprehensive Plan to protect our community's historical, environmental, and aesthetic assets, there is also a Historical Preservation Plan component of the Comprehensive Plan which again has goals for the preservation of historic resources and also a specific goal to establish economic incentives to encourage the preservation of historic buildings and neighborhoods. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend adoption of the draft ordinance by the Iowa City City Council. Hensch thanked Russett for the thorough presentation and how helpful it was to explain the proposal. He noted he is not a big fan of the density bonus and feels there could be issues with that but likes that City Council has to approve all transfer requests. Martin acknowledged the process this has gone through and asked if the Historic Preservation Commission did approve the ordinance. Russett said the Historic Preservation Commission did have some concerns but recommended moving it forward, she will go back to the Historic Preservation Commission in November with an update and let them know the progress. Signs asked about the historic district piece, noting a few meetings ago when the Commission voted on a large group of properties on South Clinton Street (the Railroad District) that was to be made into a historic district, would those properties then qualify to have transfer rights. Russett noted they would if it was a contributing resource to the historic district. Hensch asked for clarification on how the transfer rights work within a district. Russett used the Railroad District as an example, any property within that district that is identified as a contributing resource, that site and that building, would be eligible for a transfer and the formula would be based on that specific property, not the district as a whole. Hensch asked who can take advantage of the transfer rights, only the owners of the property, or could they give that right to some developer in their name. Russett said the transfer rights could be sold to a developer. Dyer asked about demolition by neglect or any provisions that say the owner must upkeep the landmark property. Russett said they followed the language that was in the Riverfront Crossings Code that says the property is subject to the demolition by neglect ordinance and property needs to be maintained. If the property is deteriorating the owner would not need to make improvements to be eligible for the transfer rights. Townsend asked how they would keep track of these transfers. Russett said the City will maintain a database of eligible properties and transfer potential, where they are transferred to and what the receiving site is. Staff is also proposing as part of the application to apply for a transfer details on the application. They are also requesting that if there is a private sale on the open market that the City at least be notified the sale has happened. Martin asked what would happen if a private sale happens and the developer does not use the transfer rights for a while and in that time the City decides this ordinance is not appropriate and removes it from Code, what happens to the developer that is now the owner of a transfer they cannot use. Dulek acknowledged that is an issue that is potentially out there. She added with Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 13 of 15 regards to maintaining this database there will have to be the ability to keep track of the change of title for these rights. Hensch asked if this ordinance is in response to market demand. Russett said it was a request of the property owner's at 410 North Clinton when that property was going through the historic designation process, they requested for their local landmark designation be put on hold until this ordinance could be discussed and implemented. Hensch opened the public hearing Matthew Kulzak (222 N. Clinton St.) is an econ student at The University of Iowa and is taking a class on planning livable cities and that is why he attended today's meeting. In class they are discussing the development rights and transferring those and he feels from an economic perspective it is great because one issue that occurs with historic buildings is there is potential development in that area but it is unusable because it is historical and something that is valued by a city to maintain historic character. One issue that could arise is the building being neglected and the rights still sold, and that seems like a valid concern and not in the spirit of the program to benefit for the historic building but not maintain it. Andrew Hoffmann (718 Oakcrest Street) is a College of Law student at The University of Iowa in a property law class and commented on the density issue noting it was pretty limited in the way the presentation was shown because the density can only be transferred by the extent that the landmark has the capability to do that. Hoffmann feels it would be a pretty small transfer and not a big issue. Additionally the distance of transfer, the transfer could be sold and used anywhere in the City and there are no restrictions given in the presentation. Hensch closed the public hearing. Signs moved to recommend approval of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to transfer of development rights for historic properties. Parsons seconded the motion. Signs noted he likes this amendment in that it does address some of the concerns he expressed when the Commission was acting upon the historic properties at past meetings. There is potential for economic loss to a landowner when the City designates a landmark against the property owners will, and now there is a potential benefit and may mitigate any owner loss on the property. Townsend would like to see some requirement that the property had to be kept in good condition to be eligible to transfer development rights. Martin asked if a property sells their rights, then has the property demolished due to disrepair, what can be rebuilt in that location. Dyer recalls that when the Tate Arms transfer of development rights happened the property owner was required to upgrade and maintain the Take Arms building as well as be able to construct the new building. Russett agreed and noted there was a provision in the Riverfront Crossings Ordinance related to demolition by neglect. That provision will also be in this ordinance. Russett also noted there is a City ordinance that requires all buildings in the city to Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 14 of 15 be maintained. Signs is concerned about an indefinite time frame, but likes to idea of bringing the building up to standards at the time of development transfer. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Baker absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 20, 2018 Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 20, 2018. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett noted two things. First she introduced the new associate planner Ray Heitner. Second, staff received a letter from property owners in the Cardinal Pointe Subdivision that she emailed out to the Commission members, the letter expresses some concerns to a property that is for sale off Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Russett noted staff has not received an application for a rezoning on the property yet. Signs noted there has been a substantial change of membership on the Commission and in staff and he wonders if a work session is needed to talk through expectations going forward. Hensch noted it seems like staff reports are different now and perhaps stormwater can always be referenced even if just to say no report for that application. Signs agreed, that is an issue brought forth in many applications. Adjournment: Signs moved to adjourn. Parsons seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. 10.0" Deferred to 1/8/19 Prepared by: Anne Russett,Senior 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 Transfer of Development Rights for Certain Historic Properties (ZCA18-00003) Whereas, the City of Iowa City aims to preserve historic resources through the creation of Iowa City historic landmarks and districts; and Whereas, the City is interested in ways to incentivize the designation of Iowa City historic landmarks and districts; and Whereas, one way to incentivize the preservation of historic resources is through the transfer of development rights; and Whereas,the City currently provides this incentive within the Riverfront Crossings districts; and Whereas, allowing the transfer of development rights city-wide for the preservation of historic resources may provide an incentive to property owners of historic buildings throughout the community; and Whereas, the proposed amendment allows for the transfer of development rights in the form of a height or density bonus from Iowa City historic landmarks and contributing structures within Iowa City historic districts to eligible receiving sites; and Whereas, the proposed amendment is consistent with 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; and Whereas, the proposed amendment is consistent with the following Historic Preservation Plan 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; and Whereas, the Historic Preservation Commission held a meeting on October 11, 2018 and voted to move the aforementioned zoning code amendment forward; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a meeting on October 18, 2018 and recommended approval of the aforementioned zoning code amendment; and Whereas, it is in the City's best interest to adopt this ordinance. 1 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 adding the following sections and underlined text, as follows: Amend 14-2A-7, Special Provisions, by adding a new subsection E. Transfer of Development Rights: 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 be designated one of the base zones established in 14-2A "Single-Family Residential", 14-2B "Multi-Family Residential", or 14-2C "Commercial", of this title. b. The sending site 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 14-3B-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 14-3B-7, "Prevention Of Demolition By Neglect", of this title. 3. Receiving Sites Requirements: a. A site is eligible to be a receiving site if it is: (1) Designated one of the Riverfront Crossings zoning designations per 14-2G of this title; or (2) Designated one of the base zones that allows multi-family dwellings either as a permitted or provisional use according to Table 2B-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Multi-Family Residential Zones" and Table 2C-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones", of this title. b. A site is ineligible to be a receiving site if it is: (1) Designated as an Iowa City historic landmark, (2) Located within an Iowa City historic district, (3) Located within an Iowa City conservation district, or (4) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 4. Transfer of Development Rights: a. Owners of eligible sending sites may request a transfer of development rights using one of the following formulas: (1) The difference between the maximum height of the sending site allowed at the time of the Historic District Overlay (OHD) zoning designation and the existing height of the historic structure. When the height difference is more than zero, but less than 10 feet, the allowable height transfer shall be 10 feet. Sending sites zoned either CB-5 or CB-10 may only request a height transfer. For the purposes of calculating the transfer of development rights, the maximum height of a sending site located in the CB-10 zone district shall be 100 feet. For the purposes of this ordinance, 10 feet shall equal 1 story in height; or (2) The difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the sending site at the time of the Historic District Overlay (OHD)zoning designation and the existing number of dwelling units on the sending site b. Transfers of development rights may result in the receiving site being developed at a height or density in excess of that otherwise allowed by the base zone with the following limitations: (1) Where a receiving site is designated one of the eligible base zones established in 14- 26 "Multi-Family Residential" or 14-2C"Commercial", no transfer of height shall result in development in excess of 40 feet above the maximum height allowed by the receiving site base zone. (2) Where a receiving site is zoned a Riverfront Crossings base zone, no transfer of height shall result in development in excess of the height bonus maximums set forth in 14- 2G-7G-1 d of this title. (3) Where a receiving site is adjacent to an existing single-family home, no transfer of height shall result in development in excess of two stories above the height of the existing single-family home. 5. 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 14-8B-3, of this title. b. In addition to the requirements outlined in 14-8B-3 of this title, applicants requesting a transfer of development rights must provide the following information: (1) The proposed sending site and the amount of transfer potential, (2) The proposed receiving site, (3) The amount of height bonus or density bonus requested, (4) A concept plan and elevations of the proposed project to utilize the transfer on the receiving site, and (5) Evidence demonstrating ownership of both the sending and receiving sites; and (6) Evidence demonstrating eligibility of both the sending and receiving sites for transfer of development rights; and (7) Any other information required per the application form. 6. 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 14-2B-8, Special Provisions, by adding the following subsection D. Transfer of Development Rights: D. 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: 3 d. The sending site must be designated one of the base zones established in 14-2A "Single-Family Residential", 14-2B "Multi-Family Residential", or 14-2C "Commercial", of this title. e. The sending site 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 14-3B-1, "Historic District Overlay Zone", of this title, after January 1, 2018. f. 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. 3. Receiving Sites Requirements: a. A site is eligible to be a receiving site if it is: (3) Designated one of the Riverfront Crossings zoning designations per 14-2G of this title; or (4) Designated one of the base zones that allows multi-family dwellings either as a permitted or provisional use according to Table 2B-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Multi-Family Residential Zones" and Table 2C-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones", of this title. c. A site is ineligible to be a receiving site if it is: (5) Designated as an Iowa City historic landmark, (6) Located within an Iowa City historic district, (7) Located within an Iowa City conservation district, or (8) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 4. Transfer of Development Rights: c. Owners of eligible sending sites may request a transfer of development rights using one of the following formulas: (1) The difference between the maximum height of the sending site allowed at the time of the Historic District Overlay(OHD) zoning designation and the existing height of the historic structure. When the height difference is more than zero, but less than 10 feet, the allowable height transfer shall be 10 feet. Sending sites zoned either CB-5 or CB-10 may only request a height transfer. For the purposes of calculating the transfer of development rights, the maximum height of a sending site located in the CB-10 zone district shall be 100 feet. For the purposes of this ordinance, 10 feet shall equal 1 story in height; or (2) The difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the sending site at the time of the Historic District Overlay (OHD) zoning designation and the existing number of dwelling units on the sending site d. Transfers of development rights may result in the receiving site being developed at a height or density in excess of that otherwise allowed by the base zone with the following limitations: (1) Where a receiving site is designated one of the eligible base zones established in 14- 2B "Multi-Family Residential" or 14-2C "Commercial", no transfer of height shall result in development in excess of 40 feet above the maximum height allowed by the receiving site base zone. (2) Where a receiving site is zoned a Riverfront Crossings base zone, no transfer of height shall result in development in excess of the height bonus maximums set forth in 14- 2G-7G-ld of this title. 4 (3) Where a receiving site is adjacent to an existing single-family home, no transfer of height shall result in development in excess of two stories above the height of the existing single-family home. 5. Transfer of Development Rights Review Process: c. Requests for transfer of development rights shall be subject to the Level II design review process according to 14-8B-3, of this title. d. In addition to the requirements outlined in 14-8B-3 of this title, applicants requesting a transfer of development rights must provide the following information: (1) The proposed sending site and the amount of transfer potential, (2) The proposed receiving site, (3) The amount of height bonus or density bonus requested, (4) A concept plan and elevations of the proposed project to utilize the transfer on the receiving site, and (5) Evidence demonstrating ownership of both the sending and receiving sites; and (6) Evidence demonstrating eligibility of both the sending and receiving sites for transfer of development rights; and (7) Any other information required per the application form. 6. 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 14-2C-11, Special Provisions, by adding the following subsection D. Transfer of Development Rights: D. 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: g. The sending site must be designated one of the base zones established in 14-2A "Single-Family Residential", 14-2B "Multi-Family Residential", or 14-2C "Commercial", of this title. h. The sending site 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 14-3B-1, "Historic District Overlay Zone", of this title, after January 1, 2018. i. 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. 3. Receiving Sites Requirements: a. A site is eligible to be a receiving site if it is: (5) Designated one of the Riverfront Crossings zoning designations per 14-2G of this title; or 5 (6) Designated one of the base zones that allows multi-family dwellings either as a permitted or provisional use according to Table 2B-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Multi-Family Residential Zones"and Table 2C-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones", of this title. d. A site is ineligible to be a receiving site if it is: (9) Designated as an Iowa City historic landmark, (10) Located within an Iowa City historic district, (11) Located within an Iowa City conservation district, or (12) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 4. Transfer of Development Rights: e. Owners of eligible sending sites may request a transfer of development rights using one of the following formulas: (1) The difference between the maximum height of the sending site allowed at the time of the Historic District Overlay(OHD)zoning designation and the existing height of the historic structure. When the height difference is more than zero, but less than 10 feet, the allowable height transfer shall be 10 feet. Sending sites zoned either CB-5 or CB-10 may only request a height transfer. For the purposes of calculating the transfer of development rights, the maximum height of a sending site located in the CB-10 zone district shall be 100 feet. For the purposes of this ordinance, 10 feet shall equal 1 story in height; or (2) The difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the sending site at the time of the Historic District Overlay (OHD)zoning designation and the existing number of dwelling units on the sending site f. Transfers of development rights may result in the receiving site being developed at a height or density in excess of that otherwise allowed by the base zone with the following limitations: (1) Where a receiving site is designated one of the eligible base zones established in 14- 2B "Multi-Family Residential"or 14-2C "Commercial", no transfer of height shall result in development in excess of 40 feet above the maximum height allowed by the receiving site base zone. (2) Where a receiving site is zoned a Riverfront Crossings base zone, no transfer of height shall result in development in excess of the height bonus maximums set forth in 14- 2G-7G-1d of this title. (3) Where a receiving site is adjacent to an existing single-family home, no transfer of height shall result in development in excess of two stories above the height of the existing single-family home. 5. Transfer of Development Rights Review Process: e. Requests for transfer of development rights shall be subject to the Level II design review process according to 14-8B-3, of this title. f. In addition to the requirements outlined in 14-86-3 of this title, applicants requesting a transfer of development rights must provide the following information: (1) The proposed sending site and the amount of transfer potential, (2) The proposed receiving site, (3) The amount of height bonus or density bonus requested, (4) A concept plan and elevations of the proposed project to utilize the transfer on the receiving site, and (5) Evidence demonstrating ownership of both the sending and receiving sites; and (6) Evidence demonstrating eligibility of both the sending and receiving sites for transfer of development rights; and 6 (7) Any other information required per the application form. 6. 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. 7 Amend Table 2B-2: Dimensional Requirements for Multi-Family Residential Zones, by amending the table, as follows: Table 2B-2: Dimensional Requirements for Multi-Family Residential Zones • Maximum Lot Minimum Lot Requirements Minimum Setbacks Building Bulk Coverage • Total I Maximum Minimum "' Area Minimum Minimum Total Front Number Of Open (Sq. Area/Unit Width Frontage Front Side Rear Height Building Building Setback Bedrooms Space12 Zone/Use Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) Width Coverage Coverage Per Unit13 (Sq. Ft.) RM- Detached 5,000' 5,0007 557 407 155 5+22 See 358 203 50% 50% n/a I 500 12 single-family note and 10 i detached r zero lot line Duplex 6,000 3,000 55 40 155 5+22 See 358 1- 203 50% 50% 4 300/unit note 10 Attached 3,000 3,000 20/28° 20 155 0/104 20 358 n/aI 50% 50r______% 4 150 single- family Multi-family 8,175 See table 60 40 20 10 20 35°, I 203 ► 50% 50% 3 10/bed • - 2B-3 of this 14 room, but section i no less than 400 Group 8,175 See chapter 60 40 20 10 20 35° 203 50% i 50% See chapter 10/bed- living 4.article 4. article room, but B of this B of this no less title title than 400 • Non- 5,000 5,000 60 40 F20 10 I 20 35° 203 i 50% 50% n/a n/a residential' i I • RM- Detached 5,000' 5,000' 557 40' 155 5+22 See 73-5r- 203 ( 50% 50% n/a 500 20 single-family note and i 10 detached zero lot line i 8 1 Duplex 3,600 1,800 45 35 155 5+22 See 35° 203 50% 50% 4 300/unit I nom _ f 10 I � I Attached 1,800 1,800 20/28° 20 155 0/10' 20 356 n/a 50% 50% 4 j 150 ; single- family Multi-family 5,000 See table I 60 40 21 10 20 358. 203 50% 50% 3 10/bed- 2B-3 of this I I M I room, but section i no less i than 400 Group 5,000 See chapter 60 40 20 10 -1-.1.7. 20 358 203 50% 50% See chapter 10/bed- living 4,article I 4. article room, but B of this I B of this no less title I I I I title than 400 1i r r______ Non- 5,000 n/a 60 40 20110 20 35° 203 I 50% 50% n/a n/a residential' RNS- Detached 5,000' 5,000' 407 257 155 5r +22 See 358 O 45% 5050% n/a 500 20 single-family I note I and j 10 detached zero lot line Duplex 5,000 2,500 40 I 25 155 5+22 See 35° 203 45% 50% 4 300/unit note 10 I I Attached 2,500 2,500 20/28° 20 155 0/10" 20 358 n/a 45% 50% 4 I 150 single- family I I I I 1 Multi-family 5,000 See table 40 25 20 10 20 358, 203 ( 45% 50% 3 10/bed- 2B-3 of this 14 room, but section and no less note 9 I I I than 400 i Group 5,000 See chapter 40 25 20 10 20 358 203 I 45% 50% r Seaach pter 10/bed- living 4.article I f 4. article room, but Be of this I I I B of this no less title title than 400 _ Non- 5,000 n/a 40 ( 25 ri-0 I 10 20 35° 203 45% i 50% �n/a n/a residential' I 9 RM- Multi-family 5,000 See table None 35 20 10 20 358 1 208 50% 50% 3 r10/bed- 44 2B-3 of this L om, but sectionno less I than 400 Group 5,000 See chapter None 35 20 10 120 358 263 50% I 50% See chapter 110/bed- living 4, article I 4, article room, but B of this ! B of this no less I title I I I title than 400 Non- 5,000 n/a None 35 20 10 20 358 203 ; 50% 50% n/a n/a residential' PRM Multi-family 5,000 See table None ( 35 20 10 1011 358• 1208 50% 50% 3 1-10/bed- 2B-3 of this L I room, but section no less II I i than 400 Group 5,000 See chapter None 35 1-2. 1-1-0.---- 1011 358 [ 203 50% I 50% See chapter 110/bed- living 4, article 1 4,article room, but B of this B of this no less title I I title Ithan 400 Non- 5,000 n/a None I1 35 20 10 1011 358 208 50% 50% 1 n/—I Itn/a residential' I I I n/a = not applicable Notes: 1. Non-residential uses must comply with the standards listed in this table unless specified otherwise in chapter 4. article B, "Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, And Provisional Uses", of this title. 2. Minimum side setback is 5 feet for the first 2 stories plus 2 feet for each additional story. Detached zero lot line dwellings must comply with the applicable side setback standards in chapter 4, article B of this title. 3. A building must be in compliance with the specified minimum building width for at least 75 percent of the building's length. 4. See applicable side setbacks for attached single-family as provided in chapter 4. article B, "Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, And Provisional Uses", of this title. 5. The principal dwelling must be set back at least 15 feet, except on lots located around the bulb of a cul-de-sac; on such lots the principal dwelling must be set back at least 25 feet. On all lots, garages, both attached and detached, must be set back as specified in chapter 4, article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this title. 6. Minimum lot width is 20 feet for attached units on interior lots and 28 feet for end lots in a row of attached units. When only 2 units are attached, lots must be 28 feet wide. 7. If the single family density bonus options have been applied, the minimum lot area, lot area per unit, lot width and lot frontage requirements may be reduced accordingly. (See subsection 14-2B-4A, "Minimum Lot Requirements", of this section.) 8. Additional height restrictions may apply on properties adjacent to single family zones or single family uses. (See subsection 14-2B-4C, "Building Bulk I0 Standards", of this section.) 9. See the special provisions of this article regarding minimum lot area per unit requirements in the RNS-20 Zone. 10. The principal building rear setback is 20 feet. except in the Central Planning District and Downtown Planning District, where the rear setback is dependent on the depth of the lot. For lots equal to or less than 100 feet in depth: minimum rear setback = 20 feet. For lots greater than 100 feet in depth: minimum rear setback = lot depth less 80 feet. For purposes of this provision, garages located in the rear yard and attached to the principal dwelling with a (non-habitable) breezeway (8 feet or narrower in width)will be considered detached accessory buildings and, therefore, are subject to the setback requirements for detached accessory buildings, rather than principal building setback requirements. Similarly, subject breezeways shall be treated as detached accessory structures/buildings. 11. May be reduced to 5 feet if rear lot line abuts an alley. 12. Open space must comply with standards set forth in subsection 14-2B-4E of this section. 13. Any bedroom within a multi-family, attached single family, or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of the title 17, chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code. 14. Maximum height requirements may be exceeded for projects with an approved transfer of development rights for increased height according to 14-2A- 7, 14-2B-8, or 14-2C-11 "Special Provisions", of this title. 11 Amend Table 2B-3: Maximum Density Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings in Multi- Family Zone, by amending the table, as follows: Table 2B-3: Maximum Density Standards For Multi-Family Dwellings In Multi-Family Zone Zone i RM-12 [FRNS 0nd rRM-44 PRM Minimum lot area per unit(in square feet): f Efficiency or 1-bedroom unit 2,7252 11,8002 5002 4352 ' f2-bedroom unit 2,7252 1,8002 FT0002 8752 r— r3-bedroom unit 2,7252 P002 1,5002 1,3152 Maximum number of bedrooms per multi-family dwelling unit 3 F 3 Minimum bedroom size'(square feet) 100 100 ( 100 100 Note: 1. New bedrooms must be a minimum of 100 square feet in size. However,for purposes of the provisions within this table, any existing habitable room that is larger than 70 square feet in size with a horizontal dimension of at least 7 feet, that meets the egress requirements as specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living space, such as a living room, dining area, kitchen, or bathroom will be considered a bedroom. Bedrooms that exceed 225 square feet in size or have any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of title 17, chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code. 2. Minimum lot area per unit requirements may be reduced for projects with an approved transfer of development rights for increased density according to 14-2A-7, 14-2B-8, or 14-2C-11 "Special Provisions", of this title. 12 Amend Table 2C-2(a): Dimensional Requirements for All Commercial Zones, Except the MU Zone, by amending the table, as follows: Table 2C-2(a): Dimensional Requirements For All Commercial Zones, Except The MU Zone9 r — — Maximum Minimum Lot Requirements Minimum Setbacks Setbacks Building Bulk Area/ r • Total Dwellin Area g Unit Minimum Maximum Minimum (Sq. (Sq. Width Frontage Front Side Rear Front Height Height Zone Ft.) Ft.) I (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) FAR CO-1 None See None None 10 01 0' T None 258,1/ None 1 or table 33 2C- 2(c)of this section I � CN-1 None See None None 5 01 01 See 22 or 352, 18 1 table subsection 14- 14 2C- 2C-7E of this 2(c)of article this section { CH-1 None n/a 100 r None 10 01 0' None None None 1 CI-1 None I n/a [ None rn e 10 1 0' I 0' None 35 None r 1 CC-2 None See None None 10 01 0 None 35 None 2 table 2C- 2(c)of this section CB-2 None See None None 0 01 ' 01 12 45,19 None 2' table 2C- 2(c)of this section CB-5 None See None None 0 or 0' 0' 12 75,12 25 35 table 104 2C- 2(c)of this section 1 13 CB-10 None See [ None None 0 or 01 01 12 None 25 106 table 10° 2C- 2(c)of i this section n/a = Not applicable Notes: 1. A side setback or rear setback is not required where the side lot line or rear lot line abuts a nonresidential zone. However, where a side lot line or rear lot line abuts a residential zone, a setback at least equal to the required setback in the abutting residential zone must be provided along the residential zone boundary. 2. Maximum height is 22 feet for one-story buildings, with the following exception: One-story buildings may exceed 22 feet in height if there are clerestory windows facing the street that give the appearance of second floor space. The maximum height for all other buildings is 35 feet. 3. Maximum FAR is 3, except for lots that abut or are across the street from a single-family residential zone, in which case the maximum FAR is 1. Hospitals are exempt from the FAR limit in the CO-1 Zone. 4. A front setback is not required, except for buildings that front on Burlington Street. Buildings must be set back at least 10 feet from the Burlington Street right-of-way. Building columns supporting upper stories may be located within this 10 foot setback, provided an adequate pedestrian passageway is maintained. 5. Maximum FAR is 3, except for lots with an approved FAR bonus. For lots with approved FAR bonuses, the FAR may be increased up to a maximum of 5. 6. Maximum FAR is 10, except for lots with an approved FAR bonus. For lots with approved FAR bonuses, the FAR may be increased up to a maximum of 15. 7. Maximum FAR is 2, except for lots with an approved FAR bonus. For lots with approved FAR bonuses, the FAR may be increased up to a maximum of 3. 8. Additional height is allowed under certain circumstances. See subsection C1d(2) of this section. 9. Open space must comply with standards set forth in subsection 14-2C-4E of this section. 10. Maximum height requirements may be exceeded for projects with an approved transfer of development rights for increased height according to 14-2A-7, 14-2B-8, or 14-2C-11 "Special Provisions", of this title. 14 Amend Table 2C-2(b): Dimensional Requirements for the Mixed Use Zone (MU), by amending the table, as follows: Table 2C-2(b): Dimensional Requirements For The Mixed Use Zone(MU)7 Minimum Lot Requirements Minimum Setbacks Building Bulk • Total Re Total Area Minimum Side ar Building Front Zone (Sq. Area/Unit Width Frontage Front (Ft.) (Ft.) Height Coverag Setback Use Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) a Coverage MU Detached 3,00 3,000 30 20 5/156 5+22 20 35 50% 50% single- 0 family and detached zero lot line Two-family 3,60 1,800 45 20 5/156 5+22 20 355 50% 50% (duplex) 0 •Attached 1,80 1,800 20/28 20 5/156 0/103 20 35 50% 50% single- 0 4 family Multi- 5,00 See 45 20 5/156 5+22 5+2 355,4 50% 50% family 0 table 2C- 2 2(c)of this section Group 5,00 See cha 45 20 5/156 5+22 5+2 355 50% 50% living 0 pter 4, 2 article B of this title Nonreside Non n/a None 20 5/156 5+22 5+2 355 50% n/a ntiall e 2 n/a = Not applicable Notes: 1. Nonresidential uses must comply with the standards listed in this table unless specified otherwise in chapter 4, article B, "Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, And Provisional Uses", of this title. 2. Minimum side setback is 5 feet for the first 2 stories, plus 2 feet for each additional story. For detached zero lot line dwellings, see applicable setback regulations in chapter 4, article B of this title. 3. See applicable setback requirements in chapter 4, article B, "Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, And Provisional Uses", of this title. 4. Minimum lot width is 20 feet for attached units on interior lots and 28 feet for end lots in a row of attached units. When only 2 units are attached, lots must be 28 feet wide. 5. Maximum height is 35 feet. However, if any portion of a two-family use, multi-family use, group living use, or a nonresidential use is located within 15 feet of a property that contains an existing single-family use or within 15 feet of a single-family zone boundary, then the portion of the building located within 15 feet of said property or boundary may not exceed 21/2 stories in height. 6. Minimum principal building setback is 5 feet. Maximum principal building setback is 15 feet. See 15 subsection 14-2C-9D, "Maximum Setback", of this article. 7. Open space must comply with standards set forth in subsection 14-2C-4E of this section. 8. Maximum height requirements may be exceeded for projects with an approved transfer of development rights for increased height according to 14-2A-7, 14-2B-8, or 14-2C-11 "Special Provisions", of this title. Amend Table 2C-2(C): Maximum Density Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings in Commercial Zones, by amending the table, as follows: Table 2C-2(c): Maximum Density Standards For Multi-Family Dwellings In Commercial Zones Zone CO-1, CC-2, I CN-1 And CB-5 And CB- MU CB-2 10 Minimum lot area per unit(in square feet): r— Efficiency or 1-bedroom 2,7252 4352 There is no minimum lot area per unit unit standard. However,the number of 3-bedroom units per lot 2- ieBroom unit P252 18752 may not exceed 30%of the total number of units on the lot 3-be r— droom unit 2,7252 [1,3152 Maximum number of 3 3 3 bedrooms per multi-family dwelling unit • r-- Minimum —Minimum bedroom 1100 100 100 size' (square feet) Note: 1. New bedrooms must be a minimum of 100 square feet in size. However, for purposes of the provisions within this table, any existing habitable room that is larger than 70 square feet in size with a horizontal dimension of at least 7 feet, that meets the egress requirements as specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living space, such as a living room, dining area, kitchen, or bathroom will be considered a bedroom. Bedrooms that exceed 225 square feet in size or have any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of title 17, chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code. 2. Minimum lot area per unit requirements may be reduced for projects with an approved transfer of development rights for increased density according to 14-2A-7, 14-2B-8. or 14-2C-11 "Special Provisions", of this title. Amend 14-3C-2A, Designated Areas, Buildings, and Structures, by 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, 14-2B-8, or 14- 2C-11 "Special Provisions", of this title. 16 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, 14-2B-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. 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 significant 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 listed as a contributing structure in an 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 may be 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) may be transferred to one or more eligible sites and the resulting building or buildings on the 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. 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 Appr ed by Attest: City Clerk City Attorney's Office /(//51( r 18