Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 01.05.2022PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 5, 2022 Formal Meeting – 6:00 PM Emma Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street Agenda: 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda 4.Case No. REZ21-0010 Location: 421 E. Market Street An application for a rezoning of approximately 0.13 acres of land from commercial office CO-1 to mixed use (MU). 5.Consideration of the Good Neighbor Policy 6.Discussion of Commission Roles & Responsibilities 7.Consideration of Meeting Minutes: November 4, 2021 8.Planning & Zoning Information 9.Adjournment If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or anne-russett@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: January 19 / February 2 / February 16 Informal: Scheduled as needed. STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ21-0010 Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner Date: January 5, 2021 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: MMS Consultants 1917 S. Gilbert St. Iowa City, IA 52240 319-351-8282 l.sexton@mmsconsultants.net Contact Person: Sandy Steil MMS Consultants 1917 S. Gilbert St. Iowa City, IA 52240 319-351-8282 s.steil@mmsconsultants.net Owner: SACABA, LLC. mhayek@hmsblaw.com Requested Action: Rezoning Purpose: Rezoning of approximately 0.13 acres of land located at 421 E. Market Street from Commercial Office (CO-1) to Mixed Use (MU) zone. Location: 421 E. Market Street Location Map: Size: 0.13 Acres 2 Existing Land Use and Zoning: Ground floor office (currently vacant), upper flood residential; Commercial Office (CO-1) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: (Mercy Hospital) Commercial Office – CO-1 South: (Multi-Family Residential) Mixed Use - MU East: (Multi-Family Residential) Commercial Office – Co-1 West: (Multi-Family Residential) Mixed Use - MU Comprehensive Plan: Mixed Use District Plan: Central Planning District – Office Commercial Neighborhood Open Space District: C2 Public Meeting Notification: Property owners located within 300’ of the subject property received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. A Rezoning sign was also posted on the site. File Date: December 3, 2021 45 Day Limitation Period: January 17, 2022 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The owner is requesting a rezoning of approximately 0.13 acres of property located at 421 E. Market Street. The owner has requested that the property be rezoned from Commercial Office (CO-1) to Mixed Use (MU). The property currently contains vacant office space on the ground floor, with an apartment on the second floor. The owner has requested the rezoning to allow for more flexibility should the owner wish to rent out both floors as apartments, or as a single-family residence in the future. The subject property is located in the City’s Central Planning District. The owner has used the Good Neighbor Policy and held a Good Neighbor Meeting on December 29, 2021. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The purpose of the Commercial Office zone (CO-1) is to provide specific areas where office functions, compatible businesses, apartments and certain public and semipublic uses 3 may be developed in accordance with the comprehensive plan. The CO-1 zone can serve as a buffer between residential and more intensive commercial or industrial areas. Multi-Family residential dwelling units in the CO-1 zone must be located above the street level floor of a building. The existing zoning would not allow multi-family residential dwelling units on both floors of the building. Proposed Zoning: The request is to rezone the subject property from the existing Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to Mixed Use (MU). The purpose of the Mixed Use zone (MU) is to provide a transition from commercial and employment centers to less intensive residential zones. The MU zone permits a mix of uses, including lower scale retail and office uses, and a variety of residential uses. This mix of uses requires special consideration of building and site design. Table 1 below shows how uses are permitted differently in the MU zone compared with the existing CO-1 zone. Table 1 – CO-1 and MU Zone Use Comparison Use: Commercial Office (CO-1) Mixed Use (MU) Attached Single-Family PR Detached Single-Family P Detached Zero Lot Line PR Duplex PR Animal Related Commercial (General) S Commercial Recreational Uses (Indoors) PR/S Alcohol Sales Oriented Retail PR Sales Oriented Retail PR Basic Utility Uses PR/S Hospitals PR Utility-Scale Ground-Mounted Solar Energy Systems S Communication/Transmission Facility Uses PR/S PR P = Permitted; PR = Provisional; S = Special Exception A rezoning from Commercial Office to a Mixed Use zone would allow several residential uses (either by right or provisionally) and alcohol oriented and sales-oriented retail uses (provisionally) to develop on the subject property. These uses are not currently allowed in the Commercial Office zone. If the existing structure is preserved and redeveloped, the structure could be redeveloped into a single-family residence or two-family use (also known as a duplex). The two-family use would be allowed as a provisional use in the Mixed Use zone, provided that additional criteria pertaining to additional standards in the Central Planning District and single and two-family uses in MU Zone are met. Alcohol oriented and sales-oriented retail uses would be allowed as provisional uses; however, these uses are limited to convenience stores associated with quick vehicle servicing uses. Given the narrow 40’-wide frontage of the subject property on a non-corner lot, future development of a quick vehicle servicing use at this location is highly unlikely. The proposed rezoning would eliminate the property’s ability to accommodate animal related commercial (general), commercial recreational uses (indoors), hospitals, and utility-scale ground- mounted solar energy systems. As the subject property is adjacent to the Mercy Hospital campus, the rezoning would eliminate the Hospital’s ability to expand onto the subject property in the future. However, the adjacent uses on both the east and west sides of the subject property are currently residential. At this time, the City does not have any reason to believe that Mercy intends to expand 4 its facilities south of Market Street where the subject property is located. Rezoning Review Criteria: Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezonings: 1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan; 2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The current Central District Plan future land use map designates the subject property as appropriate for Office Commercial use. The Mixed Use designation does still provide an option for lower scale office uses that would be appropriate within the context of the less intense and more transitional character of the Mixed Use zone. Much of the existing Commercial Office zoned land in this area buffers the main property for Mercy Hospital. It is likely that the rezoning of the land around the periphery was primarily intended to allow for the development of supporting buildings and businesses for the main building on the Mercy Hospital campus. However, over time, many of these parcels, particularly along the north side of Bloomington Street, have maintained their preexisting structures and uses. The most recent building expansion with Mercy Hospital took place in 1990 for the property located at the southwest corner of E. Market Street and N. Johnson Street. While the Central District Plan does encourage the preservation of older homes in the Northside and Goosetown area from apartment conversion, the existing Commercial Office zoning would already allow for more intense uses than what may be allowed in the Mixed Use zone such as hospital facilities and basic utility uses. The Comprehensive Plan’s future land use map shows the property as appropriate for Mixed Use. Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The subject property is bordered by multi-family residential housing to the east, west, and south, with the Mercy Hospital main building to the north across E. Market Street. Mixed Use zoning can be found directly west and south of the property, with Commercial Office zoning located to the east and north. The subject property’s block is largely comprised of duplex and multi-family residential housing that has been retrofitted within 100-year-old homes. The additional residential uses allowed within the Mixed Use zone would not be out of character with the adjacent existing uses. NEXT STEPS: After recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will set a public hearing for the rezoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ21-0010, a rezoning of approximately 0.13 acres from Commercial Office (CO-1) to Mixed Use (MU). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Photograph 3. Rezoning Exhibit 4. Applicant Statement Approved by: _________________________________________________ Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services E MARKET ST N GILBERT STN VAN BUREN STMU CB2 CO1 REZ21-0010421 E. Market Streetµ 0 0.02 0.040.01 Miles Prepared By: Ray HeitnertDate Prepared: December 2021 An application submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of SACABA LLC., for the rezoning of 0.13 acres ofproperty located at 421 E. Market St. from Commercial Office (CO-1) to Mixed Use (MU). E MARKET ST N GILBERT STN VAN BUREN STREZ21-0010421 E. Market Streetµ 0 0.02 0.040.01 Miles Prepared By: Ray HeitnertDate Prepared: December 2021 An application submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of SACABA LLC., for the rezoning of 0.13 acres ofproperty located at 421 E. Market St. from Commercial Office (CO-1) to Mixed Use (MU). This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. December 3, 2021 Project 11411-001 City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 Re: 421 E Market St. Dear Mr. Heitner: MMS Consultants on behalf of Sacaba LLC is requesting a rezoning of the property located at 421 E Market Street. This property is currently zoned CO-1 and we are requesting it be rezoned to MU. The house is currently be used as office space for rent on the first floor and an apartment above. We are requesting the property be rezoned to MU to allow the flexibility to rent out the whole house for residential purposes but also want the flexibility to use it for the office space below. 5 of the 6 houses on the north half of this block are being used as residential rental properties. The house is located on Market Street, which is designated as an Arterial street according to the 2016 publication by the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC). The property immediately to the west of 421 E Market is zoned MU. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Sandy Steil- Project Manager MMS Consultants, Inc. s.steil@mmsconsultants.net 1 Date: January 5, 2022 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Good Neighbor Policy Background The City established the good neighbor program in 1998. The program was developed to encourage more dialogue between developers and adjacent properties owners. The City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission have had several discussions related to the good neighbor program in the past couple of years. In October 2020, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the following changes be made to the good neighbor program [Attachment 1]: 1. Require good neighbor meetings for annexations, project-specific comprehensive plan map amendments and associated rezonings, and project-specific amendments to the zoning map. 2. Increase the notification radius to 500-feet. 3. Expand those notified to individual residences when the mailing addresses are easily attainable from the Assessor’s website. 4. Explore ways to increase electronic notification options. In November 2020, staff took these recommendations to the City Council and they concurred with the Planning and Zoning Commission. This memo outlines the discussions related to the good neighbor program dating back to 2013. It also provides a summary of the proposed good neighbor policy [Attachment 2] that staff will present to Commission for its consideration on January 5, 2022. Summary of Discussions Related to the Good Neighbor Program • May 2013: Staff reviewed the policy. At that time staff recommended, and the City Council agreed that good neighbor meetings should continue to be optional for applicants. • March 2019: The Planning and Zoning Commission had a consultation with the City Council on the proposed rezoning at 2130 Muscatine Avenue. During this consult there was a discussion on implementation of the good neighbor program, the level of detail provided at the rezoning stage (e.g. concept plans), and the criteria used for reviewing rezoning applications. The Mayor requested that the Commission discuss these items and provide thoughts and any recommendations to the City Council. • April 2019: The Commission began a discussion of the items outlined by the Mayor. Staff again reviewed the policy at the request of the Commission and concluded that good neighbor meetings should continue to be voluntary. 2 • June 2020: The Commission requested that staff add a discussion of the good neighbor program to a future agenda. • August 2020: On August 6, 2020 the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the following potential changes to the good neighbor program: 1. Require one good neighbor meeting for most land development projects but allow some exceptions and recommend a second good neighbor meeting if the project extends over multiple years. 2. Identify ways to notify renters, including sending mailings to occupants of units in addition to property owners. 3. Send notification letters regarding the good neighbor meeting to those living within 500-feet of the project site, as opposed to the current 300-foot recommendation. 4. Ensure neighborhood association representatives are notified of the meeting. At that meeting, the Commission requested an update and report from staff regarding the Commission’s recommendations at a future meeting. The Commission wanted to ensure that staff supported the direction before making a recommendation to the City Council. • October 2020: Based on the August 2020 recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission staff reviewed the good neighbor program again. In summary, staff supported making some changes to the good neighbor program to help ensure that more members of the public are notified of potential development projects. However, if some good neighbor meetings are to be required, staff recommended a clear policy that is limited to those projects that impact or change land use policy and/or the allowed land uses and associated development standards on a property. Summary of the Proposed Good Neighbor Policy Based on the direction provided by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, staff has proposed a policy as opposed to an amendment to the zoning code. Unlike a zoning code amendment, a policy does not legally require good neighbor meetings. However, based on the compliance with the current voluntary program staff proposed a policy to formalize current expectations. The policy formalizes the policies and procedures for neighbor notification of pending land development applications. It applies to both Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Adjustment applications. Most of the procedures outlined in the policy are already being implemented by applicants in coordination with staff. The two items that are new include: • Requiring good neighbor meetings for certain land development applicantions. Currently the meetings are voluntary; however, applicants often willingly comply. • Expanding the notification radius to 500’. The current recommended radius is 300’; however, in practice staff analyzes the impacts of land development applications on a case-by-case basis and often recommends that this be increased well beyond 500’ to include nearby neighbors. Neighborhood associations are also notified by the Neighborhood Outreach Planner. The policy will set the radius at 500’. Per the policy, applicants must conduct a good neighbor meeting for the following application types: • Annexations; • Project-specific comprehensive plan map amendments and associated rezonings; and 3 • Project-specific amendments to the zoning map; however, staff has proposed an exception for historic landmark rezoning cases. Good neighbor meetings are not required, but rather strongly encouraged, for other cases types (e.g. subdivision, vacation). The policy outlines the procedures that the applicant must follow, which include: • Selecting a date and time for the good neighbor meeting no less than seven days prior to the scheduled board/commission meeting. This meeting must be coordinated with staff. • Identifying proximate locations for in-person good neighborhood meetings. Staff can assist with venue locations. • Submitting a good neighbor meeting notice to be approved by staff prior to distribution. • Sending a good neighbor meeting notice to all property owners and occupants (when available on the City Assessor’s website), within 500-feet of the subject property no less than seven days prior to a good neighbor meeting. Staff may also provide contact information for individuals and neighborhood groups located within or outside of the 500- foot radius to the applicant for distribution. • Summarizing the input provided at the meeting for inclusion in the board/commission agenda packet or distributing it at the meeting. Finally, the policy notes that failure to comply with the policy could delay the public meeting date at which the application is considered. Next Steps Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff will take the policy to the City Council for consideration and adoption. Attachments: 1. October 1, 2020 Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission 2. Good Neighbor Policy Planning and Zoning Commission October 1, 2020 Page 7 of 13 Hensch opened the public comment. Having none, Hensch closed the public comment. Craig moved to amend Title 14 Zoning to allow parking reductions of up to 50% of the required number of spaces through a minor modification process in the Mixed Use (MU), Commercial Office (CO-1), Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1), Community Commercial (CC-2), Central Business Service (CB-2), and Central Business Support (CB-5) zoning districts. Townsend seconded the motion. Hensch stated he thinks this is a great idea as he thinks they really need to decrease the amount of concrete and the creation of stormwater runoff and find ways to green the City and this is a way to do it. Martin stated she is always in favor of less parking, because she likes encouraging less driving but also wants to be on record that she hopes the City is also looking at bettering the bike lanes, and some sort of patrol to make sure that cars are respectful of those bike lanes. She really hopes that this spurs a further conversation about making sure that the City does have the connectivity that they've been talking about for years, whether it's pedestrian or bicycle, a further conversation does need to happen. Overall yes, she wants less parking and less concrete but to not forget the big picture. Townsend respectfully disagreed with Martin, for example on Muscatine there is not a lot of places to park, there is a CVS and a Walgreens but as far as on-street parking, there is none for any small business, and biking is not always an option for more mature individuals. She agrees there is a need for both, yes they need safety for bicycles and safety for walking, but also places for those who do still drive to be able to park and not have to walk a mile to get to those businesses. Signs stated he has been on record before expressing his concerns about the continued parking reduction efforts throughout the community. He is not a bike rider but looking at some projects where things have been put in with parking reductions such as what happened on South Gilbert around Big Grove Brewery has caused issues. Also on Summit Street, he has seen issues around Deluxe Bakery when it's busy, therefore a 50% reduction concerns him. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. DISCUSSION ON THE GOOD NEIGHBOR PROGRAM: Russett discussed the staff memo regarding the Good Neighbor Program. She explained it a voluntary approach to ensure that there's dialogue between the development community and neighboring residents. She reiterated it's a voluntary program that the City encourages developers to do. Russett stated it is the applicants meeting, but they coordinate with City staff. The Good Neighbor Program was created in 1998 and in 2013 the program was reviewed by staff and they recommended that it maintain its voluntary status and the Council agreed. Last Attachment 1 Planning and Zoning Commission October 1, 2020 Page 8 of 13 year, staff reviewed the Good Neighbor Program and came up with the same conclusions that it should be voluntary, and that staff should continue to work with applicants on encouraging these meetings. When the Commission discussed this at their meeting in August there were four recommendations that came out of that meeting. The first is that that the Good Neighbor meetings should be required for most land development projects but there may be some exceptions, and that in some cases, a second Good Neighbor meeting should be required such as if it spans multiple years; second that staff should look at ways to notify renters in addition to property owners; third they should increase the notification radius from 300 feet to 500 feet; and fourth that they should ensure that there's coordination with neighborhood associations. First Russett wants to discuss voluntary versus mandatory. Staff's thoughts on a mandatory meeting is that if they go the route of having a mandatory program then they need a clear policy that's easily understood, that it's limited to projects that have the most impacts, which are changes to land use policy, so Comprehensive Plan amendments, or rezonings that are project specific, staff would not recommend mandatory meetings for more technical reviews, such as subdivisions, or vacations or the applications reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Russett showed a slide to outline what they would specifically require. They would want to see mandatory meetings for annexations and maybe a second meeting for annexations if there were two rezonings that were associated with that. Their thought on that is typically when land comes into the City it's rezoned to an interim development so there might not be any development project in mind at the time, there might not be a concept, that might come later and at that time there should be another rezoning Good Neighbor meeting held. In addition, they could be required for a project specific Comprehensive Plan amendments and associated rezonings, but again not for subdivisions, vacations or Board of Adjustment applications. In terms of notifying renters and the notification radius, staff supports the Commission's recommendation to increase it to 500 feet and they also want to work to notify renters. They are however concerned with the amount of staff time that it could potentially take to notify renters so they want to limit it to notifying those where the data is easily available to staff through the assessor's site. Lastly, if they increase the notification radius for Good Neighbor meetings, this is also going to impact the letters that staff sends out in advance of Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. Those radiuses need to be the same so if they increase the radius to 500 feet for Good Neighbor meetings, they need to increase the radius to 500 feet for the mailings that staff sends out. Staff looked at a couple examples to figure out how that increase would affect the number of letters and mailing cost. With a downtown example, because of the density of downtown, the increase in letters seems like a lot, from 300 feet just being property owners, it's 93 and at 500 feet and including owners and residents, it's 508. The increase in the number of letters and the increase in the cost and postage is a lot and that would take quite a bit of staff time. They don't have administrative staff support for planners available for that so planners and interns would have to do that, but it's probably manageable. In terms of additional notifications, staff will continue to work with their neighborhood outreach coordinator to notify the neighborhood associations and they will continue to post signs. Russett added they also have a new customer self-service portal that was launched a couple months ago, it's publicly available, and it is a website to search for projects that are going on in the City. They’ll continue to use that as a tool and also look at ways to improve electronic notifications. In summary, Russett noted staff supports some changes to the Good Neighbor Program to help ensure that more people are aware of proposed development projects in their neighborhood, but Planning and Zoning Commission October 1, 2020 Page 9 of 13 they do have some concerns on how the changes could impact staff times. Based on experience, they have been able to work with applicants and applicants have been willing to hold good neighbor meetings when they're proposing a project that is a larger scale and has a greater impact. Staff also feels that they need input from the development community on this if they're going to make it mandatory. It would also require a Code change. Additionally, staff hasn’t really heard one way or the other from members of the development community on this proposal. Russett reviewed the pros and cons, the pros are that more people would be notified, it would clarify the expectations of the Planning Commission, and they have a clear policy. Some of the cons are that it is an additional requirement for the development community that they've typically been willing to do when it's voluntary, it could increase the time for review of these applications, it's going to increase staff’s time on administrative tasks, and there is going to be some financial budget impacts to the City in terms of postage. Townend asked how the Good Neighbor Meetings would affect areas outside of the City and into Johnson County if the radius was enlarged to 500 feet, would the County people be informed as well. Russett confirmed they would. Hensch stated he really likes the recommendations staff developed and concurs that since they're asking for the increase in communication with neighbors, they should also make sure they're communicating as well with the development community, to let them express their thoughts on this also. He just wanted to add for the long term members of the Commission this is just a recurring problem, they’ve heard so many times people saying “they weren't made aware of these developments, or applications as they're coming through” and he just feels like they really need to find a solution to it or address that issue. He does like the way staff have to address this. Hektoen noted it's worth pointing out to that the State Code allows if 20% of the property owners within 200 feet of the property to object to a rezoning and that objection could trigger a supermajority approval at the Council level, and this will in no way impact that requirement. This won't give anybody any greater rights to require a supermajority vote. Signs asked if staff is recommending making the meetings mandatory in limited circumstances. Russett said if they're going to the mandatory route, they need a clear policy. What concerns her is requiring two meetings in certain instances based on the time period of the project, that would require monitoring the project and how long it's been going on and if they need to have another Good Neighbor meeting, she doesn’t want staff to be spending time doing that. If they’re going to require it, it should be when these major changes are proposed related to land use. Hensch agrees and wrote a note down on the annexations because typically the land use doesn't change on those so he is not sure that's particularly important but the second land use change is the important one. Notifying people that land is getting annexed into the City is important, but he is not sure that Good Neighbor meeting is quite as necessary in that scenario. Additionally, Hensch is very sympathetic to the demand on staff time and if the time comes, they certainly can make a request that the City has additional staff. Signs would certainly support tacking on just a recommendation that the drain on, or the change on staff’s time be monitored and that the Commission acknowledges there may need to be staffing adjustments to accommodate these changes. Planning and Zoning Commission October 1, 2020 Page 10 of 13 Hensch noted one thing he thinks they've learned, or heard loud and clear in the recent community protests, is people want to have a voice, and people want to be heard so it's our responsibility as community representatives to amplify that. Hekteon stated another option might be to increase the application fee, maybe to absorb some of that actual cost that the City is going to incur. Hensch would certainly endorse whatever recommendation staff gives to assist with the additional staff time and costs because the answer isn't just to keep giving more tasks to staff and they want to be very sensitive to that. Townsend stated however, in the long run with the Good Neighbor meetings they get to find out what the neighbors are thinking and if there are concerns before something that comes up at a Commission meeting. The Commission only gets one side of the story unless they hear from those neighbors that are going to be affected by it, yes it's more work but in the long run it'll save all a lot of time and a lot of headaches. Hensch agrees and thinks it is actually to the developer's advantage to have good communication with the neighbors but not everybody sees it that way. Townsend had a question about in the memo where staff talk about next steps, to make this mandatory it would require an amendment to the City's Zoning Code but the rest of this, like expanding from 300 to 500 feet is purely administrative correct, so what does the City Council have to approve to begin making changes. Russett confirmed to make it mandatory they would need a Code change. Regarding radius the standard now is 300 feet but there are several examples of Good Neighbor meetings where they worked with the applicant, and they've expanded that radius. So even though they don't technically require 500 feet, staff is always asking them to do more. Townsend asked though if they’re going to codify 500 feet she wondered if the Council had to do that before staff could start requiring it, but it appears it is an internal thing and staff is already suggesting it to applicants. Russett said they have a published pamphlet that sets forth the Good Neighbor policy so it is articulated in a public manner and provided to the developers. In terms just amending the policy itself that could be done and Council does need to adopt the policy, but it's not an ordinance, it would just be approval of a resolution. Townsend asked what action is needed tonight to endorse what the staff has recommended. Russett said staff is going to have to take this to Council for their feedback. The last time they discussed the Good Neighbor policy the discussion ended up at Council, she is not sure if it will get on a work session as they have a very packed agenda lately, but she can keep them posted on that. Townsend had one more question regarding sending out the notices to the renters, if they don't have to have the names of the renters can they just send it to the addresses. Russett agreed they could. Signs feels like they need to make a recommendation or endorse a proposal or something to Council so that it gets action and they resolve this issue, because it does seem to be kicking the Planning and Zoning Commission October 1, 2020 Page 11 of 13 can down the road here for a couple years. He thinks it's incumbent on the Commission to make a recommendation to Council. Hensch stated because Council's agenda has been really packed lately perhaps the Commission should put it on the agenda for another meeting and discuss it again briefly and make a recommendation to take to an informal Council meeting to get direction from them when their agendas are a bit less packed. Hensch opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments Hensch closed the public hearing. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 20, 2020: Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of August 20, 2020. Signs seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Hensch first wanted to acknowledge how very surprised and saddened he was to hear of the quite unexpected death of Carolyn Dyer a long-term Commission member. She was always looking out for the little person and the Commission could really appreciate her input in her presence. Russett gave an update on the Forest View project, in terms of the proposed development, there's nothing new to report. The rezoning was approved last year but they still need approval on their preliminary and final plat as the City has requested some additional information from the applicant but hasn’t received it. Russett did want to let the Commission know that the City has provided some funds to the Forest View Tenants Association to help them weatherize their mobile homes for the winter. Additionally, toward the end of this month the property owner is going to start removing some of the abandoned mobile homes from the property so there may be a little activity in that area, but it's not going to be related to the project. Next Russett discussed the South District Form-Based Code, it is an ongoing project. They got a revised draft of the Code from the consultant in July and they’ve been working on reviewing it and have provided some comments back to the consultant last week. As soon as all their comments are addressed and they have a workable code they can release that to the public. Lastly, Russett stated the conditional use permit for the kennel in the unincorporated area that the Commission recommended against at the last meeting, the City Council actually ended up recommending approval of that with one additional condition related to incorporating sound deadening material between the outdoor exercise areas and the adjacent residential properties. Therefore that'll have to come back to the City and they'll review at the staff level. Good Neighbor Policy - Draft December 22, 2021 Section 1 - Introduction: This Good Neighbor Policy sets forth the policies and procedures regarding the notification of neighboring residents of pending land development applications. It applies to applications considered by the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) and the Board of Adjustment (BOA). Section 2 - Good Neighbor Meetings Required: Applicants shall conduct a Good Neighbor meeting for annexations, project-specific comprehensive plan map amendments and associated rezonings, and project-specific amendments to the zoning map, except for historic landmark rezoning cases. The results of a Good Neighbor meeting shall be valid for no more than twenty-four (24) months, after which another Good Neighbor meeting will be required. Good Neighbor meetings are not required for other planning cases, but they are strongly encouraged. Section 3 - Good Neighbor Meetings Procedure: To meet this requirement, the applicant must complete the following steps: a.Select a date and time for the Good Neighbor meeting no less than seven (7) days prior to the scheduled board/commission meeting. Because staff may attend the Good Neighbor meeting as a resource person, the meeting date must be approved by staff prior to finalizing arrangements. b.If the meeting is to be held in person, select meeting facilities located as close as possible to the subject property and neighbors. Staff can make venue suggestions in most cases and will determine whether a location proposed by the applicant meets this step. c.Submit a Good Neighbor meeting notice to be approved by staff prior to distribution. d.Send a Good Neighbor meeting notice to all property owners, and to all non-duplicative individual occupants (when available on the City Assessor’s website), within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property no less than seven (7) days prior to a Good Neighbor meeting. Staff may also provide contact information for individuals and neighborhood groups located within or outside of the five hundred (500) foot radius to the applicant for distribution. e.Submit a summary of the input provided at the meeting for review and approval by City staff prior to the City’s publication of the board/commission agenda packet. If approved by the City, this summary deadline may be extended so long as it is available for distribution at the board/commission meeting. Section 4 - Failure to Comply: Failure to comply with this policy shall delay the public meeting at which an application may be considered. Approved by Resolution ________ on __________. Attachment 2 MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2021 – 7:00 PM FORMAL MEETING THE CENTER – ASSEMBLY ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark Nolte, Maria Padron, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Ford, Ray Heitner, Sarah Hektoen, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Angie Jordan, Karen Kubby, Marlen Mendoza, V. Fixmer-Oraiz, Kate Moreland, Eleanor Levin, Kim Casko, Nick Bettis, Ed Cole, Marissa Rosenquist, Andrew Alden, Laura Goddard, Arturs Kalnins RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval to City Council of the petition submitted to establish a Self Supported Municipal Improvement District (SSMID) for property located within the Pepperwood Plaza area, zoned Community Commercial (CC-2) and Intensive Commercial (Cl-1), generally south of Highway 6 West, north of Cross Park Avenue, along both sides of Keokuk Street and west of Broadway St, excepting Casey's, which is also included. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ21-0009, a proposal to rezone approximately 5.81 acres of property located east of S. Riverside Drive and north of McCollister Boulevard from high density single-family residential with a planned development overlay (OPD/RS-12) to high density single family with a planned development overlay (OPD/RS-12), subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the property described herein, compliance with the planned development overlay plan attached hereto, which shall include the construction of a storm shelter and sidewalk along the existing east-west private street to Riverside Drive; and 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, approval of a final plat of the subject property, at which time, the applicant shall submit for review by the City Engineer: a. Construction drawings b. A site grading and drainage plan 3. As part of the final platting process the lot line between the property described herein and the property to the north shall be dissolved. This condition will ensure that the required 30' setback along the northern property boundary of the subject property is nullified when the properties are combined. The final plat will need to include the adjoining properties to the west and north, all of which are under the same ownership as the subject property. 4. Submission of an open space plan for the vacant area located south of the park entrance and west of least lot 2 to be approved by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. The plans shall detail future amenities, such as playground equipment and/or recreational fields. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the property described herein, compliance with the approved open space plan is required and includes construction of the approved open space improvements. Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 2 of 28 By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval REZ21-0008, a proposal to rezone approximately 48.75 acres of land located south of N. Scott Blvd. and west of N. 1st Ave. from Interim Development – Single Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the acceptance of public improvements corresponding to the subdivision: a. Construction of trail connections, as shown on the OPD Plan dated 10/28/2021. b. Construction of an 8’-wide sidewalk extending from the subject property’s eastern property line to 1st Avenue. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. Submission of a landscape plan detailing any proposed landscaping on Lot 1. The landscape plan shall be approved by the City Forrester before a building permit is issued. b. City Council approval of a final plat subdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries established by the zoning ordinance. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. SOUTH DISTRICT SELF SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT: Discussion of the merit and feasibility of a petition submitted to establish a Self Supported Municipal Improvement District (SSMID) for property located within the Pepperwood Plaza area, zoned Community Commercial (CC-2) and Intensive Commercial (Cl-1), generally south of Highway 6 West, north of Cross Park Avenue, along both sides of Keokuk Street and west of Broadway St, excepting Casey's, which is also included. Wendy Ford, the Economic Development Coordinator stated the City Council has forwarded for review a petition to establish a SSMID (a Self Supported Municipal Improvement District) in the South Business District generally centered around the Pepperwood Plaza area. The petition requests the creation of the South District Self Supported Municipal Improvement District (SSMID) as defined by Iowa Code Chapter 386. The Code requires the Planning and Zoning Commission to review the petition for its merit and feasibility and staff has put together some points to help. Ford explained submission of the petition is the first step in the process to establish a SSMID and the petition had to reach a couple of different thresholds of signatures. One is that it had to have 25% of the property owners within the area sign the petition, and they had to represent at least 25% of the assessed value of the proposed district. Upon staff review, they discovered that 25% of the property owners had signed a petition and they represented 27.2% of the assessed value in the area. SSMID is a self imposed additional taxing district that will levy a tax on properties within the specified area. The area in the petition is the Pepperwood Plaza area which is currently zoned CC-2 with a few properties at CI-1. This SSMID will be Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 3 of 28 established for the purpose of paying for the administration and operational expenses of the proposed district as defined by law. State Code allows for the SSMID to levy taxes for three purposes within a SSMID district and this SSMID proposes the levy of operational taxes for the following purposes, (1) to have a pool of funds for marketing, business retention and attraction; (2) make physical or other improvements designed to enhance the image and appearance of the proposed district which could include things like lighting, seasonal and decorative enhancements, signage, landscaping, etc. and; (3) to hire an executive director and if needed, and with enough funds, other hire other support staff who would manage the work the board of the SSMID had established. In the SSMID petition, the rate of taxation, the additional taxes assessed on each property, is stated as not to exceed $5 per $1,000 of assessed value for a period of five years and that would begin in July 2022. At this rate with the properties in the specified area that would raise approximately $104,000 a year. Following the receipt of the Planning and Zoning Commission's report of the merits of this value and feasibility, City Council would then set a public hearing and do a mailing to all the residents or addresses within the property area. The public hearing would be held, and the final step would be to adopt an ordinance establishing the taxing district for the SSMID. The ordinance implementing this SSMID would contain certain operational mechanics in an agreement that would stipulate how the South District Board would work with the City in carrying out the work of the SSMID. Ford explained the SSMID Board then would be made up of representatives of the SSMID area. In this case, there would be two property owners or representatives from a single property within the district that had an assessed value equal to 1% or more of the total assessed value in the area. Similarly, there would be two properties from the area that have assessed value is worth less than 1% of the total assessed value in that area, there would be two owners of property with area that lease more than 3000 square feet for their business and two from business owners within the area that lease less than 3000 square feet for their business. Lastly, there will be one from the Pepperwood Plaza Parking Association (other entity there) and there may be up to four other stakeholders in the proposed district who would also be voting members of the district. Ford added there will very likely be ex-officio nonvoting board members from groups such as the Black Voices Project, Johnson County Interfaith Coalition, LULAC, the Iowa City Area Business Partnership, ICAD, and the City of Iowa City. There will also be a SSMID advisory board, a subset of the board of the SSMID, that will be responsible for advising City Council on the SSMID activities and making an annual request for budget to City Council. The advisory board in this case would consist of the executive committee of the SSMID board which is exactly the way the Iowa City Downtown District SSMID functions. Ford next discussed the other considerations for the Commission to evaluate merit and feasibility. There are several questions, the first of which is whether the property in the proposed district meets all of the criteria established in the law, specifically that it'd be comprised of contiguous properties zoned for commercial or industrial uses and be located wholly within the boundaries of the City, that it'd be given a descriptive name containing the word Self Supported Municipal Improvement District and that it'd be comprised of property related in some manner. Ford states staff finds that the proposed district is comprised of contiguous property zoned for commercial use, and it is within the boundaries of the City. The petition states that the proposed district is entitled the South District Self Supported Municipal Improvement District and finally, the property within the proposed district is physically located in Iowa City, is contiguous and serves as a commercial hub for the community. Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 4 of 28 A second consideration would be whether the petition submitted is sufficiently clear and contains the requisite number of signatures from property owners representing the necessary assessed value. Staff had reviewed the petition and verifies the signatures of the 25% of all the owners representing 27.2% of the property in that area. Another consideration is whether the petition sufficiently describes the boundaries of the district and provides a consolidated description of the property contained therein. Ford stated it does and the legal description is contained within the petition. Another consideration is whether a maximum rate of tax that may be imposed within the district and the purposes for which it may be levied are set forth. Ford stated it is stated in the petition that $5 per $1000 of value will be that tax rate. Another consideration is whether the purpose of the district is adequately described, as well as any improvements that might happen within the district. As stated earlier, Ford explained the purpose of the district is to provide new, additional or enhanced services within the district. In particular, revenues collected for the proposed district operating fund may be used for the following: (1) activities in support of marketing, business retention, and attraction; (2) physical or other improvements designed to enhance the image and appearance of the proposed district, and (3) to hire an executive director and if needed other support staff to carry out the work of the board. Another consideration is whether the proposed district or improvements would conflict in any way with existing laws, plans or City policies including comp plans, zoning ordinances, local or regional development plans, etc. The operational functions and marketing that can occur under the proposed district don't appear to conflict with any of the plans, laws or policies already in effect. The proposed district does overlap with the existing Highway 6 commercial urban renewal area, which sunsets in 2025, but the SSMID petition does not conflict with the goals or the purposes of the Highway 6 commercial urban renewal area. This SSMID district also falls into the newly established highway commercial urban revitalization area, which allows for a three-year 100% property tax exemption on eligible improvements to building value. Ford stated however, that also doesn't conflict with the goals of this SSMID. Finally, as it was noted in the petition for the SSMID, notwithstanding the fact that a part of the proposed SSMID district is located within the Highway 6 commercial district should there be a TIF project evolve prior to 2025, it’s fairly doubtful, but should there be one the TIF financing to the developer would not include the $5 per $1000 SSMID levee rather that would flow to the South District SSMID. Another consideration is whether the taxes proposed, if any, will be sufficient to pay the anticipated costs and other expenses. Ford stated staff looked at the property valuations as they are now applied at the current consolidated tax rate at 90%, a valuation that is tax, and came up with $104,000 per year to do that's likely due to increase every other year as revaluations occur. Another consideration is whether the formation of the district is consistent with or in furtherance of other identifiable City policies or goals. The Comprehensive Plan notes the importance of thriving retail centers for sustaining residential neighborhoods and employment centers. Neighborhood commercial centers can provide a focal point and gathering place and be within Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 5 of 28 convenient walking distance for residents of the area. The South District Plan stated goal is to encourage and support residents, neighborhood associations and business and property owners to advocate for continued improvement of Southside neighborhoods in keeping with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and it's evident that neighborhood is carrying that goal out by coming to City Council with a petition to establish this SSMID. The petition also states that one of the purposes of the SSMID is to provide physical enhancements or beautification and to improve the image and appearance of the proposed district which all align directly with the Comprehensive Plan and District Plans as well. Finally, the review on the merits and feasibility of the proposed district should and could consider the above points and should focus on ensuring that the petition meets the requirements of Iowa Code Chapter 386 and that the operational activities of the proposed district are appropriate and in relation to existing laws and plans and policies and that the means to implement the proposal appear reasonably calculated to accomplish the proposed district. Ford noted in this context, staff recommends the proposed district petition be recommended for approval and forwarded along with the evaluative review for its merit and feasibility to City Council for their consideration. {Padron arrived at the meeting during Ford’s presentation.} Hensch thanked Ford and noted the report was well stated. He asked for her assurance that the petition meets the eight requirements as stated in Iowa Code 386. Ford confirmed it does and noted it was also reviewed by the City attorney's office. Martin noted that while 25% is what is needed, did they just stop at 27% or was there more, is there 100% support in that neighborhood. Ford stated that might be a question for the advocates who took the petition out, but she did note with the downtown district petition, the downtown district reached in the 30% and 40% level, so that was nowhere near 100%. Martin also asked if the City received any negative letters regarding this petition. Ford confirmed all of the letters are positive. Martin asked other than downtown, asked if Iowa City has any other SSMID districts. Ford replied not in Iowa City but there are several across the state. Townsend asked what percentage of that $104,000 is going to be geared towards the executive director they’re hiring and their staff. Ford stated they have budgeted $65,000 a year for a full- time executive director so that would be a little more than 65%. The executive director is the only staff that in the budget for the first year. Townsend asked if the tax would be assessed to all commercial properties in the area even though only 27% signed the petition. Ford confirmed that was correct. Hensch opened the public hearing. Angie Jordan (1125 Apple Court, president and co-founder of the South District Neighborhood Association) lives off of Broadway Street in the South District. She is also a trial chair of the Project Better Together 2030 Steering Committee, but most importantly, she is a South District resident. Jordan submitted her positive comments in the agenda packet but thinks it's really important for everyone to know that this project was spearheaded by the people of the South District. This was in the context of neighborhood revitalization, which over the past three years, Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 6 of 28 their neighborhood association has spearheaded efforts that go above and beyond a lot of what is expected of a neighborhood association in general. They’ve done events, markets, and initiatives that’s bringing together extremely dense human service providers on that side of town, that’s also capturing voices of people who speak lots of different languages or different socio- economic levels and also along different political spectrums, as well. Part of their initiative to revitalize neighborhood three years ago was to reach out to businesses. As a lay person she had no idea at the beginning what all that jargon was with the SSMID so they had to educate themselves as leadership, but also sell, educate, and continually bring this up to what it is to the residents of the neighborhood, which currently wasn't being done by anyone. Jordan reiterated this is a very grassroots level way to support ideas. Jordan also wanted to touch on what is the South District Neighborhood Association. Its origins are in collaboration, it was founded because Pepperwood Association, Grant Wood Association, Wetherby and South Point decided they’ve got the same challenges and issues so why don’t they bring things together and share some assets and do this sustainably. The other thing was reaching out to the commercial property owners, again three years ago before this SSMID, before ARPA funding ever was anything, way before the pandemic. Jordan noted it was so hard to engage the business and commercial, a lot of them aren't from the neighborhood, a lot of them don't live in the neighborhood, some don't even live in the state, so engaging them, they got really excited when they just found somebody answered the phone or maybe reply to an email. Since the SSMID and conversations around it, they've already had success in figuring out who are the folks that are commercial property owners. Jordan noted they didn't always agree on everything and that's good and okay, but some of the same stuff kept coming up for the commercial property owners and the negative things they noted were all things that they believe this SSMID could be taking care of such as safety, crime, esthetics, lack of resources, all those things that people are concerned about. The commercial property owners felt the South District had been neglected and here's a chance to create a vehicle through SSMID to empower those commercial property owners, that's informed by the folks in the neighborhood. Jordan also wanted to address the budget and the executive director salary. She believes the board, once it's formed, has to then say $65,000 goes to the executive director, but that's not set in stone, it was proposed, but if the board decides they don't want to pay the executive director that's on them to decide. Also regarding the 25% she wished more people would give input, they're coming out of the woodwork, but there's no way to capture their voices, collect them and do things. She wishes they hit a higher threshold but they made it, and they have to start somewhere. Karen Kubby (Iowa City Downtown District) represents the board that that works on the SSMID issues in downtown. She is on the board of directors and the chair of the legislative committee, and she was on the committee that did the original successful SSMID downtown and the renewal. Kubby noted there are five things that are really important to come together to make a successful improvement district and some of them are part of the merit and feasibility pieces of the petition and that the language meets the letter of the law. But it's also important that there's extra things in that petition like saying that the City should not reduce current investment in the services provided to that area so that the SSMID money doesn't have to be used to replace tax dollars, that it's additional resources. Kubby noted the TIF piece is critical, because as projects are supported by the taxpayers through the TIF, the SSMID still needs to service those increased Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 7 of 28 businesses and capacity that's in there, so they really do need that TIF money. The signature piece is one of the really savvy things that Iowa Legislature actually has done in that they have to have a lot of small businesses or property owners buying into this and large ones, it just can’t be one or the other, they have to have both. The 25% is what the law says they have to have, and it can be very hard on a first try to do that. The timeframe of this of five years, is long enough to be accountable for what the goals in the petition state. A couple of other things that are important is that these signatures are from property owners who are going to pass on the cost to the businesses, Kubby noted she pays about $600 a year extra in taxes and that's maybe two little ads in the DI, but instead her little $600 leverages a million dollars of marketing and cleanliness and safety and programming that she could not leverage on her own as an individual business. Kubby also stated the diversity of the board is really important in terms of who's going to be accountable for living out these goals and having larger properties, smaller properties, bigger businesses, smaller businesses, and all the stakeholders of community organizations and nonprofits make things work. The fifth thing they need is champions, like Angie Jordan, MidwestOne Bank, Southgate Development and all the businesses that have signed those petitions, that’s the energy that will create momentum. Kubby noted the other piece of it is she knows they had a lot of people in the downtown who didn't want to sign the petition because they didn't want money going for staff. Before they had the Downtown District they had the Downtown Association where a few of them gave $250 a year and were doing all the work and didn't have enough money to do anything. With the SSMID, even though only maybe 30% of the people signed it, everyone paid in and everyone benefited from it. So her hope is what happened in the Downtown District, but in a different flavor because the south side is a different neighborhood than downtown, is that when it's up for renewal it goes to 40% because people who were not supportive initially have then felt the value. Kubby hopes that the Commission provides strong support to City Council and that they pass it and get to work. Hensch asked if there were there any lessons learned now from the Downtown SSMID. Kubby replied one of them was having all those ex-officio nonvoting members around the table, that was critical for collaboration. Another thing is that even though the tree hugger program was not the most important thing, it was low hanging fruit, highly visible, super fun and it helped create momentum. So planning for that low hanging fruit is really important as it helps get the bigger, harder things done. Marlen Mendoza (League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC, Council 308)) noted the previous speakers did such a great job there's not much to say, but the south side of Iowa City, as many know, is one of the most highly dense and diverse places of all the City. They understand that the main location, the main hub is the Downtown District but they are very excited for this proposal because they want to bring people out to explore different sides of the City, to come down to the south side and look at who lives there, look at the amazing diverse amount of entrepreneurs, and small businesses they are hoping to help revitalize through this initiative. Just to show an example of how much power and how much might they have, while they were negotiating this for almost two years now, they decided they weren't going to wait until they got the SSMID to actually start doing something in the south side and evidence of that is this past summer with the diversity market that they launched. In doing so, one of the main Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 8 of 28 people to work alongside with them was Nancy Bird from the Downtown District and they decided to bring together small entrepreneurs to come out and show the city that there is energy here and that people want to find a more sustainable way to make income. People want to be able to pride themselves in saying that they are a business owner and that they have value and they want to show their skill or trade. The diversity market was very successful with the support of the City and other organizations. It was a very beautiful thing to see just how much momentum they had with very little to nothing. If they can take that and extrapolate it to when they could have an executive board for the SSMID, when they actually have money and resources to take those diversity market entrepreneurs, that will be amazing. To even help with signage the Pepperwood Plaza would be a great first start, right now one can easily drive by and miss the place, there's no signage, nothing that says hey, stop by here, check out this location. So she is very hopeful for the future and this is the right moment when everyone needs this as people might not have hope in the midst of a pandemic, in the midst of everything, this is people coming together and saying they're going to come out of here stronger. Mendoza hopes they all support this need. V. Fixmer-Oraiz, (CEO and founder of Astig Planning) and they an office in this area and there's a lot of opportunity can be seen walking through the neighborhood and walking through the Pepperwood Plaza. It's great to have the banks as anchors but there are a lot of very strong nonprofits also in Pepperwood Plaza. Fixmer-Oraiz noted this is also an opportunity as there's a lot of diversity in the area and there's a lot of energy and excitement. What they're talking about in general is social and racial equity and when they look at the hubs that are in this town, they can create an economic hub and opportunity in an area that has a lot going for it already. There is so much support and energy. Fixmer-Oraiz acknowledged to be quite honest when she heard that there was a SSMID that was being put forth by the neighborhood association it took her aback, she has been through a master's program in urban regional planning and never heard of a SSMID being put forth by a neighborhood association, it’s usually a business district, it's usually an arts council, and quite frankly, it's usually white led. Here is an opportunity to support something that is truly unique in the state of Iowa and probably in the Midwest. As a business with an office in this area she is excited about the economic opportunity and as a business owner that focuses on planning and social and racial equity, she hopes the Commission sees the worth and the merit for this and urges them strongly to vote in favor of this SSMID petition. Hensch asked as a professional planner, if the SSMID is approved by Council, what do they see as their first or next steps in the SSMID, what are some of the first things they should do. Fixmer-Oraiz replied they're going to self-organize, get those internal processes figured out before starting to work on projects, but she has no doubt that they probably already have 12 projects ready to go, maybe 20. So it's probably just going to be a matter of them having a couple of meetings and organizing themselves from within. Kate Moreland (Iowa City Area Development Group) is here also in support of the SSMID, noting this is really a critical economic development tool for this area and as Ford stated it is used throughout the state in different communities. Moreland noted in the time they're living in it's really important to consider this a tool that can really help with inclusive economic recovery. It's Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 9 of 28 really important that they help build wealth in the minority communities, so she just wants to commend the leadership that really has been using their own time volunteering, pounding the pavement for two years and working with business owners. Moreland has spoken with the business owners personally that are very supportive of this effort, and they think it's going to be transformational. She urges the Commission to support this effort. Eleanor Levin stated she wears a lot of hats around Iowa City but currently is here as a resident of the South District. The five-year time horizon is actually kind of personally meaningful to her as she became a resident of the South District four and a half years ago and in that time, she has seen more businesses close than open. She has seen three liquor stores but no place to buy socks and there are very few walkable opportunities for retail in her neighborhood. That being said, there are some commercial interests, property owners who run businesses and property owners who lease to business owners, who really see the value in this area. She relishes the sights around the residential streets of her neighborhood, the parks, people on bikes, gardeners, basketball games, etc. The businesses on the other hand, the outward facing piece of the neighborhood, are unremarkable, underutilized and disconnected. The South District Iowa City SSMID proposal will bring the commercial properties to life and every property owner who signs on is looking forward to improve signage and lighting, coordinated marketing, walkable events, and improved utilization of the neglected properties with a powerful potential clientele living all around them. At present, Levin has nowhere in walking distance to pick up craft supplies for a project or grab a tool or a piece of hardware to make an essential home repair. The businesses currently in the area work incredibly hard and this SSMID is supporting them and helping the area to thrive long into the future. Please put support behind the South Districts Self Supported Municipal Improvement District and let's see what happens when a small portion of the property owners’ resources are pooled and put into use by folks who love this place and want to see it bloom. Kim Casko (President and CEO Iowa City Area Business Partnership) is here tonight on behalf of the Business Partnership to voice their support for the creation of a SSMID in the South District of Iowa City. SSMIDs are a fantastic economic development tool and really a great model for providing localized business support. As a county-wide chamber they often struggle with providing tailored business support services and that's where a SSMID is really a great tool for doing that. Casko stated they have a great partnership with the Iowa City Downtown District in doing exactly that, they provide tailored support to the businesses within that district and play the role of connecting those businesses across the county into the work they do at the state and federal levels around advocacy. She noted it's a really great relationship and a great partnership and they look forward to building that same partnership with the SSMID in the South District. Having that SSMID in the South District will be beneficial not only to the businesses in that district, but the residents in that neighborhood, as well as to all of the Iowa City area and surrounding communities. Casko encourages the Commission to support this project. Hensch closed the public hearing. Nolte moved to recommend approval to City Council of the petition submitted to establish a Self Supported Municipal Improvement District (SSMID) for property located within the Pepperwood Plaza area, zoned Community Commercial (CC-2) and Intensive Commercial Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 10 of 28 (Cl-1), generally south of Highway 6 West, north of Cross Park Avenue, along both sides of Keokuk Street and west of Broadway St, excepting Casey's, which is also included. Signs seconded the motion. Hensch stated as a resident of the South District since 1993 everything that was said tonight was true, there's certainly enough density of population that retail should be more successful than it is. He agreed it's always very concerning when the liquor stores and tobacco outlets seem to proliferate and thrive and regular old retail seems to not, so clearly something is out of kilter and maybe this is an opportunity to try to get the scales rebalanced for retail and businesses in general in the South District. He really thinks the District is positioned in exactly the right place to be wildly successful in the future but it's going to take a few key moves right now for that to happen. He enthusiastically support this. Nolte just echoes that and so excited for this. He acknowledged the leadership of Angie Jordan and Marlen Mendoza and the support of all the other organizations and knows the Downtown District will help them with all the SSMID technicality stuff. Craig thinks it's great and that amount of energy that is coming out of this area of the community and what they’ve put into it to get to where it is today. In five years it's going to be great. She is concerned that it's not a very big budget, yes to go from nothing to $100,000 is way better than nothing but she is concerned about how far they can make that money stretch. To that point Signs wanted to make a comment about the executive director piece, because a lot of times when organizations and nonprofits form there's always this questioning of the value and the need for an executive director. Having been involved in many nonprofit organizations and groups truly one of the key determiners of whether the project is going to succeed or not is whether they have a strong leader at the helm. They can have all the volunteers in the world that are supportive, but there's only so much they can do as it's not their full-time job. As a South District resident he has been very involved, off and on, with the neighborhood association but has been woefully uninvolved in this project. However, he knows it's in good hands because of the people who worked together to put this together and some of the things that the neighborhood association has already done with no budget and no executive director are pretty amazing. Signs also wanted to thank the Downtown District specifically for their support as a South District resident. A lot of times they feel like a lot of resources are going to the Downtown District and not other parts of the community so it's really wonderful to see the amount of support and guidance that that the Downtown District is providing. Signs also wanted to call out Angie Jordan, she has worked tirelessly in the neighborhood to promote the neighborhood and to better the neighborhood. She has worked with a group of people and business owners and that's the key, that synergy between the residents and the business owners and the community. That's what's going to make this succeed and he is wholeheartedly supportive of passing this forward to the Council for their approval. Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 11 of 28 Padron also wanted to say that she supports the project. She was feeling very surprised by a low percentage in the support numbers but does think it's because it takes a long time to contact people and get responses. She is very excited to see so many different groups that support this, like nonprofits and private sector and residents, so that's the most exciting part. She does understand that the budget is low, it's basically one executive director and if they hire a part time person, the budget will be gone. But sometimes these organizations find ways to get grants and funding from other places so the budget could potentially be much more than that. Signs agreed and thinks that's one of the key pieces of having that executive director is they have the time and the ability and the resources and the connections to grow that budget. One of the things Townsend would have like hear is why businesses left that community, is there going to be any research on why they left and can that be fixed for those new ones coming in. It just seems that should be a concern. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. CASE NO. REZ21-0009: Location: East of S. Riverside Dr and north of McCollister Blvd An application for a rezoning of approximately 5.81 acres of land from high density single-family residential with a planned development overlay (OPD/RS-12) to OPD/RS-12. A rezoning is necessary to expand the existing manufactured housing park due to the expiration of the previously approved OPD plan. Heitner began the staff report with an aerial view of the subject property, it is about 5.81 acres and zoned a base zone of RS-12 with a planned development overlay. Regarding the background on this application, this property was rezoned to OPD/RS-12 in 2015 as the rezoning was necessary to expand the existing manufactured housing park. An OPD rezoning is required for development of manufactured housing parks so that's the rationale for the planned development overlay. The manufactured home park, situated to the west, was developed in 1974 with the build out of 55 units. The subject application wishes to add on an additional 35 manufactured homes in the undeveloped parcel area to the east. Heitner noted it’s staff’s understanding that the applicant intends to combine the existing manufactured housing park to the north and west along with the subject property. Some amenities that would be shared by the community include a storm shelter and future playground and recreational areas. Staff is proposing a condition that the applicant construct the storm shelter, as well as the adjacent sidewalk along the south side of the entrance street prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant did hold a virtual Good Neighbor meeting on October 11 but there were no members of the public in attendance at that meeting. Heitner explained with planned development rezonings there's more criteria for those rezonings to be reviewed against, in addition to the standard rezoning review criteria of consistency with Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 12 of 28 Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the existing neighborhood. The additional criteria for OPDs is related to density and design being compatible with the adjacent development, assurance that the development will not overburden existing streets and utilities, assurances that development will not adversely affect views, property values, or privacy, and the interaction of land use and building types will be in the public interest. With respect to density and design being compatible to adjacent development, Heitner stated the proposed density with 35 units would come up to about six dwelling units per acre, which is allowed within the RS-12 base zone, which allows up to 13 dwelling units per acre. The proposed homes would be about 14 feet by 70 feet, which is a fairly standard size for a manufactured home of this type and so there does appear to be adequate open space within each lease lot. Within the context of the greater community, there is vacant land in the northwest area of the park and staff is proposing a condition that the applicant submit an open space plan for that open land, particularly for the area south of the entrance road, and that open space plan should show any future recreational amenities. Lastly, transportation planning staff did review the impact to the local transportation road network and did not express any concerns with the build out of this development to that network. Heitner noted the manufacture homes have a width of 14 feet and there is a requirement within RS-12 zones that the minimum building width is 20 feet. However, through the planned development process there's a mechanism to request a waiver from that standard or modification of that standard. In judging that waiver request, there's criteria from section 14-3A-7 of the City Code which allows for exceptions to the OPD approval criteria. One is that the modification will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan; two that the modification will generally enhance the proposed planned development and will not have an adverse impact on physical, visual or spatial characteristics; three that the modification will not result in configuration of lots or street system that is impractical or detracts from the appearance of the proposed development; and lastly, the modification will not result in danger to public health, safety or welfare by preventing access to emergency vehicles, inhibiting the provision of public services, depriving adjoining properties of adequate light and air or violating the purposes and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. Heitner noted the requested building width of 14 feet is in line with the existing manufactured housing stock that is in the neighborhoods to the west and the north. Development of this vacant portion of the parcel would allow for development of underutilized land within the subject parcel and the configuration of lots in the layout of the internal street network will be similar to the neighborhood to the west. As mentioned earlier, staff is recommending a condition for an open space plan just south of the entrance road. The second criteria point that development will not overburden existing streets and utilities, as already mentioned transportation planning staff looked at this and estimated 250 vehicle trips per day generated from the development and the surrounding road network has sufficient capacity to absorb that estimated trip amount. Staff is recommending a condition that with the final plat of the subject property the applicants submit a site grading plan for the city engineer to review. It's with that review that City staff will finalize its review of stormwater plans. Criteria three is that development will not adversely affect views, property values and privacy. Heitner explained this is mostly with respect to making sure that any structures are within the confines of what's allowed within the base zone. These homes will be well within the allowable Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 13 of 28 bulk dimensions for structures, there's an allowable height of 35 feet within that base zone and these will be well below that. Finally, fourth that the land use and building types will be in the public interest. Heitner stated there are several setback reductions that the applicant is requesting but noted this is something that they would probably see in just about any manufactured housing park application due to the nature of the lease lots not typically aligning with the lot size requirements that is in a base zone (in this case RS-12). With the setback reductions the first is that there's a requirement for a 30- foot setback from the edge of the property. Lots 1 through 3 and 4 through 13 are requesting this reduction, 1 through 3 down to 0 feet and 4 through 13 to 10 feet. Second, reduction of the rear yard setback for all least lots except 1 through 3 from 20 feet to 10 feet; and third reduction of the side yard setback from 5 feet to 0 feet for lease lots 1 through 3. Regarding criteria evaluated for setback reduction requests, one is that the setbacks proposed will provide adequate light, air and privacy between dwellings and between dwellings and the public right-of-way; two, sufficient setbacks provide the opportunity for adequate private open space for each dwelling unit; three, setbacks proposed will provide sufficient area for utilities and street trees; four, if front setbacks are reduced measures should be taken to preserve privacy within residential dwellings and to provide a transition between the public right-of-way and private property; and five, residential buildings that are located in close proximity to each other must be designed to preserve privacy. Heitner explained with the first request of a 30-foot setback from the edge of the property this would be applicable to the north side of the subject property for lots 1 through 3 and the east side of the property for lots 4 through 13. For lots 4 through 13, the property to the immediate east is a City owned park that will remain as open space due to its location within the floodplain. Lots 1 through 3 will still maintain a 15-foot separation distance which is also required by Code to the structures to the north. Staff is recommending a condition to combine the existing neighborhood to the north with the subject property at final platting as this would effectively remove this requirement for a 30-foot setback from the edge of the property. Second is the reduction requests of the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet. This applies to every property except for lots 1 through 3, though they will all have a 10-foot setback, which generally matches what is seen in the existing neighborhoods to the west and north. Heitner showed an imagine noting the homes are offset across the street, meaning that they don't perfectly align with one another and the homes on each side of the street will maintain that required minimum separation distance of 20 feet. The resulting building coverage will only be between 18% and 22% for each of these lease slots and that that can go up to 50% of the base zone. Heitner stated that should provide adequate open space within each lease lot. The side yard reduction requests from 5 feet 0 feet for lease lots 1 through 3 is because the southeast corner of each of the proposed buildings, their grade does touch the side yard line so that's why that request would be down to 0 feet. But again, the positioning of the homes here helps to offset views in each home where they're diagonally arranged so one wouldn’t be necessarily looking into their neighbor's home. There is a good amount of open space, both north and south of these structures and approximately 21% of each lease lot will be covered by the proposed homes. In addition to the setback reduction requests, there's also a waiver reduction request for Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 14 of 28 minimum lot size for a few of these lots. The base zone requires a minimum lot size of 5000 square feet. Lots 1 and 2 and 32 through 36 are requesting that gets reduced down to 4500 square feet. As mentioned before, the smaller lots won't result in any increased density at six dwelling units per acre. The existing neighborhood to the west is at about six and a half dwelling units per acre and to the north it’s at seven and a half dwelling units per acre. So just because they are smaller lots that doesn't mean its greater density. The driveways within each of these lots will be offset from the lots across the street and there will also be recessed parking pads behind each front facade as well. Regarding the standard rezoning review criteria with respect to consistency with Comprehensive Plan Heitner noted the South Central District does note that residential uses should be phased out of this area. However, that plan was written close to 20 years ago and there have been some changes in the surrounding areas since that Plan, mostly the improvement of McCollister Boulevard with access eastward to Sycamore Street as well as construction of a levee to the east. The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan also indicates a need for affordable housing, especially in areas with good access to parks and other amenities, which staff thinks this application achieves. Because the property is expanding on an existing use, provides a relatively affordable housing alternative and has good access to street network, trails and open space, it's staff’s opinion that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is not necessary to prove this OPD plan. With respect to compatibility with the existing neighborhood character, there is already manufactured housing parks to the north and west. The proposed development will be built within a similar style and layout. Heitner next discussed that the entirety of the subject property is located within the 100-year floodplain. There was a levee constructed along the Iowa River in 2008 to meet US Army Corps of Engineer and FEMA design standards but has not been certified or accredited. However, FEMA accreditation would change the flood zone designation from A to X, which means the area is still technically within the 100-year floodplain, but mandatory flood insurance would be lifted at that stage. USACE certification would make the levee eligible for federal funding if the levee system was damaged by a flood event. The subject property would be required to conform to those standards and the city engineer and building inspection staff would require review of that site grading plan to show that the proposed ground elevations are acceptable in relation to that floodplain. Heitner noted staff has not received any public comments on this rezoning, as previously mentioned there was a good neighbor meeting on October 11 but there were no neighbors in attendance at that meeting. The role of the Commission tonight is to see if the proposed rezoning meets the aforementioned planned development approval criteria along with the rezoning review criteria. With respect to next steps, upon recommendation from this Commission, a public hearing would be scheduled for City Council consideration. Staff anticipates the timeline of Council setting that public hearing is at its November 16 meeting for a public hearing on November 30. Staff recommends approval of REZ21-0009, a proposal to rezone approximately 5.81 acres of property located east of S. Riverside Drive and north of McCollister Boulevard from high density single-family residential with a planned development overlay (OPD/RS-12) to high density single Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 15 of 28 family with a planned development overlay (OPD/RS-12), subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the property described herein, compliance with the planned development overlay plan attached hereto, which shall include the construction of a storm shelter and sidewalk along the existing east-west private street to Riverside Drive; and 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, approval of a final plat of the subject property, at which time, the applicant shall submit for review by the City Engineer: a. Construction drawings b. A site grading and drainage plan 3. As part of the final platting process the lot line between the property described herein and the property to the north shall be dissolved. This condition will ensure that the required 30' setback along the northern property boundary of the subject property is nullified when the properties are combined. The final plat will need to include the adjoining properties to the west and north, all of which are under the same ownership as the subject property. 4. Submission of an open space plan for the vacant area located south of the park entrance and west of least lot 2 to be approved by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. The plans shall detail future amenities, such as playground equipment and/or recreational fields. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the property described herein, compliance with the approved open space plan is required and includes construction of the approved open space improvements. Hensch has three questions and they're all interconnected. He recalls when they rezoned this last time, in 2015 there were some conditions at that time as well, so the four conditions added to the recommendations to the rezoning how do those vary from the conditions that were approved by P&Z in 2015. Heitner stated the condition related to dissolving the north property line for the 30-foot setback was in the 2015 OPD, there was also a condition related to construction of the storm shelter as well as that sidewalk on the east/west private street so those are carryovers. New for this application would be requiring a final plat as staff saw that as necessary for getting a more formal opportunity for reviewing these construction drawings and creating a drainage plan as well as submission of that open space plan for the vacant area, that's a condition that they've added for this subject rezoning. Hensch noted regarding the floodplain he has noticed through the years they have been filling in and raising the elevation of that subject parcel. Is the intention with the grading plan to raise it above the 100-year floodplain and/or the 500 or both and if it's raised up does it technically come out of the floodplain. Heitner is not sure if it's out of the floodplain necessarily, his understanding is that the applicant intends to incorporate fill to raise above the flood hazard elevation level which would be required by flood management standards. It has to be raised one foot above the 500-year floodplain. Martin asked if the City put out that good neighbor meeting letter. Heitner said typically it is the applicant who will reach out to the community with that good neighbor letter. Martin noted if the notification goes out 300 feet, the City of Iowa City seems to own the land that would be in that range so does someone from the City go to those meetings. Heitner replied there are staff at the good neighbor meetings always just to see how those meetings are conducted, but not Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 16 of 28 necessarily ever to wear the hat of a neighbor. There was representation from the manufactured housing park community in attendance at that meeting, just no members of the general public. Townsend noted it’s being built in the flood zone, but the mandatory flood insurance requirement would be lifted, so what happens if there is a flood, would their regular insurance cover that or would they just be out of luck. Russett replied that since the levy has not been certified or accredited, the mandate is that area is still required to have flood insurance. Craig asked why the levee isn’t certified, and what does it take to get it certified, shouldn’t that be one of the requirements of application. Russett said the City built the levee to FEMA and Army Corps of Engineers standards, but it was never certified or accredited because it takes money to go through that process. She is not sure how much money but could talk to public works about that and find out. Craig noted the general concern she has is meeting the criteria of adequate private open space. When looking at the map, it seems like things are really crammed in and they’re asking for exceptions. She gets that with the type of housing and neighborhood that it is they’re not going to have the standard setbacks but to go down to zero seems too much and in her mind that is not adequate private open space, particularly along the border with the City property. If a housing development came in here and wanted to even change the back setback from 20 feet to 10 feet along a City park people would be up in arms over that but just because the City owns it they can go to zero. Is there a definition of adequate, private open space? Hekteon clarified when the City acquired that land back in 1998 they retained an easement over that area to satisfy any future open space requirement. Mr. Cole is the easement holder that conveyed it to the City and said in the event that the mobile home expands they get to use this land in their calculation for that open space requirement. Russett wanted to just further clarify that for the public open space, the neighborhood open space requirement, not the private on site or open space requirement that they typically require, for a development in an RS-12 zone, would be 500 square feet on site. Because these lease lots don't meet that standard, staff has proposed that condition for the community open space area. Sings is understanding that the places where the setback is going to zero is on lots one, two, and three, and where the homes are built at an angle from corner to corner of those lots, but it still seems, quite frankly, there's more open space on those three lots than there is on any of the rest of them. Heitner stated it is zero on the back on everything that backed up to the City, lots 1 through 3 on the north side and lots 4 through 13 on the east side, the rear yard setback would be 10 feet from the rear property line. Craig stated it feels that in a neighborhood, and with all of the conversations about walking and biking and things that they don't want a vehicle access onto McCollister, but to have a pedestrian bicycle access onto McCollister feels like something that that whole little neighborhood would benefit from. Heitner noted the OPD plan does show a connection in the southwest corner. Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 17 of 28 Hensch opened the public hearing. Nick Bettis (Axiom Consultants) is here on behalf of the applicant and able to answer any questions they might have with the drawings. They feel that it's going to be a good addition and a good continuation of the park in this part of town. Hensch noted it looks like it's been elevated with a lot of grading and fill, is there still more work to do to bring that up elevation out of the floodplain. Bettis confirmed yes, there has been fill dirt added to the site over the years and it’s continuing to be brought in as is become available. It is planned to be elevated to that 500 year, plus one, elevation for the low openings as required. Hensch asked if that is for the entire parcel, including the roadways. Bettis stated they are connecting on that northwest corner in the existing part of the park where it does not meet those requirements so they will be connecting under the existing street at the northwest corner and then coming up from that to the elevations. And then the entire subject parcel will be elevated above the 500-year floodplain. Nolte has a question is in regard to the flood insurance to even when that time comes that they’re not mandated by FEMA to carry that level of coverage, does the owner generally still provide some level of security on that. Ed Cole (620 Foster Road) is the owner and applicant, and as far as the dirt goes on one end they're out of the 500 year but on the other they’re not but by the time they leveled it out and cut the streets in all the mobile home lots will be out of the floodplain, the yards might have a waterway through it, but they’re going to make sure they're taken care of. As far as the insurance, each homeowner has their own insurance, and if they have financing against it they're required to have flood insurance on their homes until it is out of the floodplain. Cole noted when he bought the park he was told he would get a loan certificate for the levee, which meant they're in the clear but when he checked into with the engineer there was never a definite yes, it was just part of his selling tactic. However, Cole stated they have a great community down there, he grew up in that park and it's a close-knit community. It really doesn't get any better as far as security, he was reluctant to put the sidewalk in off McCollister because they have one way in and one way out of both the parks and know who's coming and who's going. Martin asked what 2008 looked like over there. Cole replied he didn’t own the park in 2008, he bought it in 2013. Craig asked regarding the insurance question, does the park carry the flood insurance as well as the individual unit people on their units would have to carry flood insurance. Cole confirmed that is correct. In both floods they were basically manmade, because of lack of using the reservoir for what it was for. But they've not even been close since 2008 as far as water coming out and they Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 18 of 28 are really tracking it. He has been in the excavating business his whole life so they went out did the proper thing and added fill to make sure they wouldn’t get hit with anything. Marissa Rosenquist is with Cole’s Community and wanted to express the interest from all of their tenants. Everybody that she has talked to wants a spot in the new section, so regardless of the floodplain status, they're very excited. She is really hoping that this gets passed through and everybody can be happy. Martin asked if they have current residents that are interested in the newer homes, do they also have people ready for those older units, would they do rehab on those. Rosenquist noted they are really lucky, like her dad mentioned they are a tight-knit community and a lot of times what happens is when something comes up for sale, it'll get sold within the same day, and it's usually to a family member of a current tenant. Their waiting list is already halfway full. Nolte asked what's the supply chain for getting homes right now. Rosenquist noted it is a little bit backed up and they're still really in the very beginning phases working on the right financing, and that kind of stuff to even start. Probably what they'll have to end up doing is bring in 10 at a time, do it in phases, that'll probably be the most efficient way to do it. Padron asked what are the price ranges for these units and when would they be ready? Rosenquist would estimate the time of arrival for the first batch could be the spring if this goes through, but realistically, a year and a half from now it could be completed. They'd like to start the infrastructure as soon as possible and have people get them their financing and stuff. Currently lot rents at $380, they raise rents on average about $10 a year. This year they were hit with some pretty hard property taxes because of out of state buyers coming in and purchasing mobile home parks for well above asking and as everyone knows, so they're trying to stay local and stay family owned and operated. Regarding the price of the units that is hard to say but would probably be an average of about $50,000 for a good quality-built place. Hensch closed the public hearing. Nolte moved to recommend approval of REZ21-0009, a proposal to rezone approximately 5.81 acres of property located east of S. Riverside Drive and north of McCollister Boulevard from high density single-family residential with a planned development overlay (OPD/RS-12) to high density single family with a planned development overlay (OPD/RS- 12), subject to the following conditions: 5. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the property described herein, compliance with the planned development overlay plan attached hereto, which shall include the construction of a storm shelter and sidewalk along the existing east-west private street to Riverside Drive; and 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, approval of a final plat of the subject property, at which time, the applicant shall submit for review by the City Engineer: a. Construction drawings b. A site grading and drainage plan Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 19 of 28 7. As part of the final platting process the lot line between the property described herein and the property to the north shall be dissolved. This condition will ensure that the required 30' setback along the northern property boundary of the subject property is nullified when the properties are combined. The final plat will need to include the adjoining properties to the west and north, all of which are under the same ownership as the subject property. 8. Submission of an open space plan for the vacant area located south of the park entrance and west of least lot 2 to be approved by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. The plans shall detail future amenities, such as playground equipment and/or recreational fields. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the property described herein, compliance with the approved open space plan is required and includes construction of the approved open space improvements. Townsend seconded the motion. Craig is very appreciative of the sidewalk to McCollister, this is a good thing but is still concerned if this is adequate private open space, the map makes it look like they're so jammed in there, there are so many extreme requests for accommodations, but it is a housing need, and it's a nice part of town. Nolte trusts that the park owner knows what is attractive to their users and if those setbacks were too narrow they would know that so he leans to trust their judgment of what will work there. Signs noted it is hard to see on the images and has been looking trying to decipher what exactly is the home, what exactly is the driveway, what exactly trees are there, it appears to him that if the home is 980 square feet, and there's 500 square feet of open space minimum in those lots it's pretty typical for manufactured home community and honestly that is part of the affordability factor and part of what makes it affordable. Martin feels that affordability brings them back to the floodplain, which is super real and they have to really think about it. Flood insurance is expensive, even when it's inexpensive, it's expensive, but if it was taken out of the flood zone, and there is no flood insurance, and it floods, what happens to those people. Maybe the rules have changed, but she thought after 2008 the City was not allowing homes to be built so close to the river, thus the stopping of the continuation of Idlewild and buying out Normandy. Regarding the levee, with as many levees as were built between now and 2008 how is it not automatic they have to get accredited. That's shocking. Hensch voted for this in 2015 so doesn’t want to be contradictory and now vote against it but being out of the 500-year floodplain mitigates all reasonable risk. A lot of people are going to be hurt if there is another flood, especially one outside of a 500-year floodplain, there's going to be people throughout the entire community affected. Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 20 of 28 Martin agreed but at the same time it’s out of the floodplain because of a levee. Hensch replied it’s out of the floodplain because they are raising the elevation. Reasonable steps have been taken and if there is a flood of that caliber, there will need to be assistance for everybody. Craig stated the point is they're supposed to be mitigating that as a country and not allowing development in floodplains and not putting people in the situation where that could happen. She just wants some assurance that, yes, anything can happen, but it's very, very minimal that it will happen here. Hekteon stated this will have to comply with the City's flood mitigation ordinances, which is the elevation, those were the Code changes that were made after the 2008 flood. She noted looking at photos from 2008 some of this area was under water in 2008, but that was before the added fill and the existing manufactured housing park was not. Padron noted that elevating the terrain has other consequences, they cannot just move land and expect it all to be okay, the water is going to go somewhere else so if they raise the land here some other place is going to get flooded and they have to be careful about that. Hekteon agreed and noted there is a requirement about projects not having significant impact on adjacent land. Signs stated if the units will be built on pillars and the pillars are also on a concrete pad so the there'll be several feet above the ground. The risk is probably pretty minimal. Nolte agreed and stated they have 100% certainty that they need more affordable housing. Pardon stated though if these houses have to have insurance, then how much is more the mortgage, how much is the impact and then are they still going to be affordable. Flood insurance is not cheap. Signs stated compared to any other any other structure in Iowa City there are going to be affordable. Hensch noted there are many areas of Iowa City in floodplains, it's not just contained along the Iowa river, there are all the creeks in town as well so a substantial portion of this City is in a floodplain of some sort of the other. This is not a localized thing. Padron wondered if units one, two, and three, where there is no setback, maybe they could be smaller units and then they have more of a setback. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. CASE NO. REZ21-0008: Location: South of Scott Blvd and West of 1st Ave, Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park An application for a rezoning of approximately 48.75 acres of land from Interim Development Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family with a Planned Development Overlay Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 21 of 28 (OPD/RS-5). Heitner began the staff report with an ariel view of the subject property with the zoning applied. It is currently ID-RS Interim Development Single Family residential zone. Regarding background on this case, there was a series of previous applications for rezoning on this property in spring 2021. The last proposal had 41 detached single-family homes as well as a senior living facility with 135 bedrooms but that was ultimately denied by the City Council. The current application is still seeking the OPD/RS-5 zoning, but it does not contain that single family home component that was in the previous application. This current application only contains the senior living facility with a count of 134 bedrooms. The current application also includes a proposed dedication of 30.98 acres of land that was previously considered for development dedicated as neighborhood open space. Heitner showed site plans of where the senior living facility would be as well as the dedicated open space. He also noted the private open space located within the courtyard areas of senior living facility. With respect to zoning, the current zoning is Interim Development Single Family residential which is intended to be a holding zone for property until their preferred use can be developed or infrastructure can reach the property. The proposed zoning would be OPD/RS-5 with planned development overlay. Typically, in the RS-5 zone it is housing for individual households. It's the lowest intensity residential zone but the planned development process does allow for some mixture of uses that one wouldn't typically see in a RS-5 zone such as this senior living facility. Heitner stated there are some additional approval criteria within the OPD section of the City Code as well as compliance with the City's multifamily site development standards. Staff is proposing a condition that the applicant submit a final plat conforming the proposed lots to the proposed zoning designation. The approval criteria for OPD are the density and design of the planned development will be compatible and are complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout. With respect to density the OPD/ RS-5 zoning allows for five dwelling units per acre. There is no density calculation for this application because this is a group living use and those bedrooms are not factored into density calculations. With respect to mass and scale, there is about 69,000 plus square feet in the building footprint, the height that's being requested is 42 feet and there's about 27,000 square feet of onsite open space. Regarding traffic circulation, the previous application had Hickory Trail extending to the west from First Avenue and then north to Scott Boulevard. Because there's no proposed housing going in on that outlot A portion of this planned development of the proposed application it culminates in a cul-de-sac. So stemming off that cul- de-sac there'd be two access points along the north side of Hickory Trail for facilitating access within the senior living facility. There will be construction of sidewalks along both sides of the street extension with a five-foot-wide sidewalk on the north side and then an eight-foot-wide sidewalk along the south side. Staff is also recommending a condition to construct that eight-foot sidewalk east as an offsite improvement all the way to First Avenue so that there isn't a gap in that sidewalk system. With respect to development not overburdening existing streets and utilities, city water and sewer is available to the subject property. Staff did ask the applicant to submit an updated traffic study based on the fact that previous iterations of this application had two points of access from the Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 22 of 28 development, one to First Avenue and one to Scott Boulevard. Staff’s concern this time was primarily how would that anticipate a traffic funnel out to just one access point on First Avenue with the cul-de-sac being proposed. Heitner stated the returns from that traffic study yielded that the First Avenue/Hickory Trial intersection would be a level of service D which transportation planning staff found acceptable. A level of service D is in the middle leaning toward being more congested, but again, it is a level that staff felt comfortable with going forward so no off-site traffic related improvements are recommended at this time. With respect to views, property values and privacy, there's 185-foot buffer distance between the senior living facility and the property line for the Hickory Point Condominiums property to the east. There is also considerable landscaping within that 185-foot buffer area with a combination of shade and evergreen trees to soften that transition. Staff is proposing a condition requiring approval of a landscape plan by the city forester prior to issuance of a building permit. Heitner showed a general look at that landscaping pointing out a healthy concentration of shade and evergreen trees along the east side. With respect to land use and building types being in public interest, Heitner reiterated that the current application is seeking 42-foot max height on senior living facility building. The base zone has a maximum height of 35 feet, but staff did find that that requested height waiver basically details that there will be at least 35% of the subject area free of structures, parking and loading areas. Staff is recommending that no building permit is issued for any of the subject property until the City Council approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to confirm these zoning boundaries established by the zoning ordinance. Regarding neighborhood open space, the OPD plan being proposed does show a dedication of 38.98 acres of outlot A to the City as public open space which would eventually be incorporated into the existing footprint of Hickory Hill Park. The plan does show a trail connection to the south off of the extended Hickory Trail Street, which will connect into the parks trail network at the southeast corner of the subject property. Parks and Recreation staff has commented that they support the proposed dedication. With respect to compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan, both promote the use of cul-de-sacs and single loaded streets where appropriate and the use of ravine and wetland areas as a buffer to the park boundary. So even though the Comprehensive Plan does contemplate single family housing along the left side of the subject property staff feels that there are goals being accomplished by the subject OPD plan, mainly in the preservation of natural features through the 38.98 acres of open space dedication, as well as the ability to enhance the interconnectedness of the sidewalk system and trail network and providing more housing diversity within the Northeast District with the senior living facility. Heitner did address some sensitive areas noting the impacts to which are far less than they were when previous iterations of this were being considered. With respect to wetlands and stream corridors, there are two wetlands and two stream corridors within that outlot A lot. Both the wetlands and stream corridors will be unimpacted and the wetlands will have a 100-foot buffer and the streams will have a 30-foot stream corridor in addition to a 50-foot-wide stream corridor buffer on each side of the stream corridor. There are some critical slopes being impacted as a result of development on the senior living facility lot. However, only 20% of those critical slopes will be impacted which is within the allowable threshold of up to 35%. Heitner noted there'll be far less impact to woodlands with preservation of about 81% of the woodlands. The OPD/RS-5 Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 23 of 28 designation would allow impact to their disturbance up to 50%. Staff has received some correspondence regarding this rezoning. They've received emails from two residents supporting the rezoning and the inclusion of outlot A as park land. Regarding next steps, upon recommendation from this Commission, a public hearing would be scheduled for consideration with Council with the anticipated timeline of Council setting that public hearing on November 16 for a November 30 public hearing. Staff recommends approval of REZ21-0008, a proposal to rezone approximately 48.75 acres of land located south of N. Scott Blvd. and west of N. 1st Ave. from Interim Development – Single Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the acceptance of public improvements corresponding to the subdivision: a. Construction of trail connections, as shown on the OPD Plan dated 10/28/2021. b. Construction of an 8’-wide sidewalk extending from the subject property’s eastern property line to 1st Avenue. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. Submission of a landscape plan detailing any proposed landscaping on Lot 1. The landscape plan shall be approved by the City Forrester before a building permit is issued. b. City Council approval of a final plat subdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries established by the zoning ordinance. Padron asked when the developer presented these in September, the use was a different use and now they are keeping the same building but they changed the use. Heitner confirmed the zoning designation being applied for is the same, it’s OPD/RS-5 the big difference was that previous application included development of single-family residential housing within that area that's now described as outlot A within this application. This application just contains the senior living facility component. The building use is the same, it’s still a senior living facility. Hensch noted one of his concerns was the wetlands and the jurisdictional stream because of the invasive species, and with being the responsibility in previous iterations of the homeowner’s association which is pretty much the same as saying that's not going to be dealt with for the invasive species. He feels much better knowing the City will manage those. Townsend asked why all of a sudden did they decide to donate that almost 40 acres to the City. Signs said because Council wouldn't let them build all that out. Townsend asked but why wouldn't they keep that for themselves and try to do something later, just questioning how their mind changed. Nolte stated he thinks the math just get really impossible. Hensch opened the public hearing. Nick Bettis (Axiom Consultants) is here on behalf of the applicant for the senior living facility and the property as a whole and can answer any questions regarding the engineering portions of the application. Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 24 of 28 Andrew Alden (AG Architecture) can talk about the building and also wanted to share a video that they showed at the Good Neighbor meeting a few weeks ago. In the video the first two images are the renderings that they've seen before but then they have a fly-over of the property with the building on site. Alden wanted to point out three things, the topography is accurate, the hills and valleys are accurate, the building size and mass is accurate, but the trees and the underbrush they didn't do species specific, so it's just to get the point across. Hensch asked about the change in building height. Alden noted the two extra feet was requested because of recent changes in best practice for dealing with older adults and mechanical systems due to the pandemic. They need bigger ducts to have higher air flows and filtration systems, and as a result they need more space between floors in order to fit it. Martin asked how many people were at the good neighbor meeting. Alden replied 16. Signs asked why they went from 135 bedrooms to 134. Alden replied that might be a typographical error, it's 120 units plus one guest suite but in the AL apartments are some two bedrooms and honestly he couldn't remember if it was 13 two bedrooms or 14 two bedrooms. Laura Goddard (1807 Winston Drive) is speaking tonight as a member of and treasurer for the Friends of Hickory Hill Park Board. This has been a long journey together, so she first wanted to say thank you to the City staff and to all of the Commissioners. She reiterated this has been a long process, but the Friends of Hickory Hill Park support this latest proposal and commend Nelson Construction and Development for taking community and ecological input into consideration for this latest design. They are glad that this proposal will both provide needed assisted living facilities and maintain the integrity of an important and beloved natural space. She was glad to see the clarity about the outlot A, that nearly 40 acres, because they do want to make clear that their support is contingent upon that land being deeded to the City and being incorporated into the park. Goddard also wanted to say while this was a long process, it has not been a waste of time because this has been a good example of community involvement and voices being heard. Regarding the invasive species Commissioner Hensch mentioned, the Friends of Hickory Hill Park is committed to continuing their involvement with the space as they have for many years and being active managers. They do regularly deal with invasive species in partner with the Parks and Recreation Department to manage those species. Goddard hopes the Commission will support this proposal. Arturs Kalnins (44 Evergreen Place) has spoken to the Commission on this topic several time and wanted to follow up as his perspective is not much different than the Friends of the Hickory Hill Park. This new proposal is great, if they remember the one big debate was in the springtime was about the view shed and it makes him very happy that the wonderful view will continue and be intact. A huge part of the splendor of that park is having those views in what's otherwise becoming a pretty densely populated residential area. Kalnins also wanted to state in addition of that land added to the park there is also a nice potential access to the park from Scott Boulevard, which is nice. So again, having that 38 acre lot which may become a prairie, or whatever the plans the City would have for it, maybe walking trails, is a great access. Finally, Kalnins stated he is 100% in favor and he is not an expert on issues of zoning, but he’s just curious why they're still Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 25 of 28 calling for a zoning that's going to include unit housing development when none is going to be in the current plan. Maybe it’s just some technicality and that's just the way it works with zoning, but overall he is hugely in support of this current plan. Hensch closed the public hearing. Craig moved to recommend approval of REZ21-0008, a proposal to rezone approximately 48.75 acres of land located south of N. Scott Blvd. and west of N. 1st Ave. from Interim Development – Single Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the acceptance of public improvements corresponding to the subdivision: c. Construction of trail connections, as shown on the OPD Plan dated 10/28/2021. d. Construction of an 8’-wide sidewalk extending from the subject property’s eastern property line to 1st Avenue. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit: e. Submission of a landscape plan detailing any proposed landscaping on Lot 1. The landscape plan shall be approved by the City Forrester before a building permit is issued. f. City Council approval of a final plat subdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries established by the zoning ordinance. Martin seconded the motion. Hensch had a couple notes, the real positives from this is the senior living facility is in the application, which he thinks is a strong need in the community, and now the City will have the opportunity to manage the wetlands and take some control of the invasive species which is such a serious problem. He doesn’t think anybody can deny that it's very positive to increase a City Park by 21%, he hopes the City can afford to manage it and spend money in there and remember that means property taxes, that money just doesn't magically appear. Hensch acknowledged that's not part of their consideration but as a citizen of Iowa City it is his concern. He thinks that the negatives are, when he first saw this, and the cul-de-sac, he never wants to vote for a cul-de-sac because he really believes in complete streets and the City’s philosophy on that. But because it is essentially an access drive for the senior living facility, he backed off. He is still concerned about lack of housing diversity, certainly the senior facility is housing diversity, but he’s talking about multifamily, that's a loss for the community. They always have to keep in mind that by increasing all housing types, there's just a chain reaction, if you build a new house, somebody moves out of a house, they move into the new house and it causes theoretically, increasing the total supply, which over time in a normal healthy market would reduce prices but Iowa City has always been very odd, because it's such a high demand place. But if people question why he’s always supported these applications, it’s because he’s a 100% supporter of affordable housing and they have to make hard choices to add to the housing diversity and the only way for that to happen is to build places for people to live period, even if you don't really like it in your neighborhood. In the south side with a lot of housing around him, he didn’t care for but Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 26 of 28 sucked it up because it's his responsibility as a citizen to participate for the welfare of the entire city. So he will support this application. Craig has supported the senior housing portion of this from day one and hope that's where her kids put her when the day comes so she is a neighbor to Hickory Hill Park. She loves the park and is very pleased to see it grow. Signs want to point out that the developer has given up 80% of their land to get this to go through, they have spent tens of thousands of dollars satisfying the community, satisfying this Commission, satisfying City Council, including spending thousands of dollars on a fly-over video just so they could see how much the roof did or did not stick above the treeline. His point is there's a reason builders are not building in Iowa City, and they're building in all the communities around us, and those things just mentioned are part of it. As a Commission, as a Council, as a community have to understand that there are ramifications. If Iowa City doesn’t grow everyone’s taxes will grow to maintain the services needed. Padron wishes developers would start considering more sustainability when they design the buildings because in the renders all the facades have the same amount of windows, there is not a study of the sun, there is not a study of the façade, there's not an energy study, and this is why they end up asking for more height when it shouldn't be necessary. There are other ways where they can reduce the ducts and make the building more sustainable. There are mental illnesses that people have that make them sensitive to light, people that will be living there could potentially have dementia, or Alzheimer's or illnesses like that, so there's an opportunity to make some of the windows smaller and have a different impact. The facades have different energy consumption, there is a difference in how they affect the building energy. Also, the renderings and the flyovers are very easy to make right now with the technology that they have so it's not so impressive as it is something useful as she was worried impacted woodland in that area. She will be supporting this project but do hope to see more projects in the future that are sustainable. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 21, 2021: Nolte moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 21, 2021. Townsend seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: None. Planning and Zoning Commission November 4, 2021 Page 27 of 28 ADJOURNMENT: Townsend moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2021-2022 7/1 7/15 8/5 8/19 9/2 9/16 10/7 10/21 11/4 CRAIG, SUSAN X X O/E X X X X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X O/E X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E O/E O/E X O/E X O/E X NOLTE, MARK X X X O/E X O/E O/E X X PADRON, MARIA X X X X X X X O/E X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member