Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-02-2022 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Wednesday, February 2, 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. SUB21-0012 Location: SW corner of Slothower Rd and Melrose Ave/IWV Rd SW An application for a preliminary plat of IWV Commercial Park, a 62.36-acre, 2-lot commercial subdivision. 5. Consideration of the Good Neighbor Policy 6. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: January 5, 2022 7. Planning & Zoning Information 8. 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: February 16 / March 2 / March 16 Informal: Scheduled as needed. STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Item: SUB21-0012 Date: February 2, 2022 IWV Commercial Park GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant and Property Owner: IWV Holdings, LLC. 319-248-6316 madam@spmblaw.com Contact Person: Jon Marner, MMS Consultants 319-351-8282 j.marner@mmsconsultants.net Requested Action: Approval of preliminary plat Purpose: IWV Commercial Park Subdivision; To create 2 commercial lots Location: Southwest corner of Slothower Road and Melrose Avenue/IWV Road SW Location Map: Size: 62.36 Acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped, CI-1 Intensive Commercial Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: (Farmland) County Residential R and Rural Residential RR-1 South: (Farmland, Rural Residential) County 2 Agricultural A and Rural Residential RR-1 East: (Johnson County Poor Farm) Neighborhood Public P-1 West: (Farmland) County Agricultural A Comprehensive Plan: Intensive Commercial and Public/Private Open Space District Plan: Southwest District Plan - Intensive Commercial and Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer Neighborhood Open Space District: SW5 Public Meeting Notification: Property owners located within 300’ of the project site received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. Subdivision signs were also posted on the site. File Date: December 16, 2021 45 Day Limitation Period: Waived by applicant. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, IWV Holdings LLC., is requesting approval of the preliminary plat of IWV Commercial Park, a 2-lot, 62.36-acre commercial subdivision located at the southwest corner of Slothower Road and Melrose Avenue/IWV Road SW. The subject property was annexed into the City limits earlier this year. The application for annexation also included a comprehensive plan amendment to Intensive Commercial and Public/Private Open Space. A rezoning also accompanied the annexation to Intensive Commercial (CI-1). The subject property was rezoned with the following conditions: a. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Owner shall plat the property herein rezoned to follow the zoning boundaries. i. Said plat shall show a buffer easement area generally 350’ wide consistent with the comprehensive plan map. This easement area shall be governed by an easement agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. This easement area shall be planted according to a landscape plan approved by the City Forester at such times as required by the subdivider’s agreement. Landscaping within the buffer easement area shall meet the S3 standards and include a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees that will be at least 30’ tall upon maturity. ii. Said plat shall include the dedication of right-of-way along the Slothower Road frontage in a size and location approved by the City Engineer to allow Slothower Road to be improved to City urban design standards. b. Pursuant to Iowa City Code Title 15, Owner shall, contemporaneous with the final plat approval, execute a subdivider’s agreement addressing, among other things, the following conditions: i. Owner shall contribute 25% of the cost of upgrading Slothower Road, south of any future access, to collector street standards, adjacent to the subject 3 property. ii. Owner shall install landscaping to the S3 standard along the Slothower Road and IWV Road frontages; iii. Improve Slothower Road to the southern end of any future access off Slothower Road. c. For all lots fronting IWV Road and Slothower Road, loading areas and outdoor storage shall not be located between the front facade of the principal structure and the public right-of-way line. As a requirement to plat the subject properties to follow the approved zoning boundaries was a condition of the rezoning, the applicant has submitted a subsequent preliminary plat. Per staff’s direction, the applicant has chosen not to hold a Good Neighbor Meeting for this application. The applicant did hold a Good Neighbor Meeting for the previous annexation/comprehensive plan amendment/rezoning applications. ANALYSIS: Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan was amended with the previous series of applications to allow Intensive Commercial and Public/Private Open Space uses within the subject property. Similarly, the Southwest District Plan was amended to allow Intensive Commercial Use with a Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer along the south side of the subject properties. The subject preliminary plat application incorporates the 350’-wide vegetative buffer into the plat. Subdivision Design: The proposed subdivision contains two separate lots which are intended for future intensive commercial use. The eastern lot (Lot 1) is 36.12 acres in size, and includes frontage along both Slothower Road and IWV Road SW. The western lot (Lot 2) is 22.04 acres in size, and only has IWV Road SW frontage. Both lots contain sensitive areas and separate detention basins within the southern ¼ of each lot. These features are within the conditioned 350’- wide vegetative buffer easement area. The applicant does not have an end user for the properties at this time, therefore, the plat does not contain an internal street network. Should the developer choose to install public streets within the subject properties in the future, the properties would need to go through another preliminary and final platting process. The developer can install private streets on both lots to facilitate future development. Staff will require the developer to provide a 24’-wide cross access easement parallel to IWV Road SW to provide an area of future connectivity between both platted lots and Slothower Road. While there is an existing common access easement off IWV Road SW that both lots will likely use for access off IWV Road SW, staff believes that there will be a need for future connectivity between Lot 2 and Slothower Road. At final platting the legal documents will note that an easement agreement will be required the details of which will be identified during the site plan review process. Per the conditional zoning agreement, prior to the issuance of any building permits, the developer must dedicate approximately 13’ of right-of-way along the west side of Slothower Road to allow for future construction of Slothower Road to city collector street standards. The preliminary plat notes the dedication of this additional right-of-way. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The subject properties contain several sensitive areas that were illustrated during the previous rezoning application. Since the proposed sensitive areas development plan meets the base requirements of the sensitive area’s ordinance a Level II review (i.e. review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council) is not required. 4 The southern ¼ of the subject properties contains a blue line stream and a 50’ stream corridor buffer. The area also contains .37 acres of wooded wetlands and .95 acres of emergent wetlands. The southern wetland is bordered by a 100’ wetland buffer. Due to the location of sensitive areas within the southern portion of these properties, future development in this southern ¼ will not be allowed, thereby creating a natural buffer from development to the south. As a condition of the rezoning, the applicant has created a vegetative buffer easement area that is 350’ wide along the southern boundary of the subject properties. The purpose is to provide a buffer from the future intensive commercial land uses through additional landscaping. The buffer area will prohibit installation of structures, parking lots, drives aisles, or loading areas. Construction and maintenance that is necessary for storm water management will be allowed. Neighborhood Open Space: Since the proposed subdivision is not envisioned to contain residential uses within a commercial subdivision, per section 15-3-5-B of the City Code, there is no neighborhood open space requirement for this subdivision. Storm Water Management: Storm water management is provided via two separate basins that are located in the southern ¼ of the subject properties. Public Works has reviewed the applicant’s preliminary storm water management plan. Sanitary Sewer Service: Sanitary sewer service will be extended to the west along IWV Road SW from the current endpoint east of the Slothower Road and Melrose Avenue/IWV Road SW intersection. Infrastructure Fees: As conditions of the rezoning, the applicant will be required to improve Slothower Road from the intersection with Melrose Avenue/IWV Road SW to any future access point into the subdivision off Slothower Road. The applicant will also be required to provide 25% of the cost for improvement to the remainder of the Slothower Road frontage south of the future access point. The City is currently improving IWV Road SW to city arterial street standards. NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the preliminary plat will be considered for approval by the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Although none of the rezoning conditions are completely satisfied through the preliminary platting process, the preliminary plat does show the 350’ vegetative buffer and the additional public right- of-way along Slothower Rd. Staff recommends approval of SUB21-0012, an application submitted by IWV Holdings, LLC. for a preliminary plat of the IWV Commercial Park subdivision, a 2-lot, 62.36-acre commercial subdivision located at the southwest corner of Slothower Road and Melrose Avenue/IWV Road SW. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Location Map 2.Preliminary Plat 3.Grading Plan Approved by: ________________________________________________________ Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services CAMPCARDINALRDMELROSE AVE MELROSE AVE CAMPCARDINALBLVDCAMPCAR DINALBLVD DUCKCREEKDR 2 1 8 N B T O M E L R O S E AVE 218 SB TO M E L R O S E A V E F O X A NADRPRAIRIEGRASSLN G O L D E N R O D DRWILDPRAIRIEDRSLOTHOWERRD FLA G STAFF DRTEMPE PLWILDCATLNDURANGOPLHONEYSUCKLEDRG A L WA Y DR B U TTE R N U TLN KENNEDYPKWYS A N T A FE D R HIGH WAY 218 S LOTHO W ERRDSW PHEASANTVALLEYSTDONEGALPLGATHERINGPLACELNHIGH WAY 218 SLOTHOWER RDIWV RD SW MELROSEAVETO218NBHURT RDSWMELROSEAVETO218SBSUB21-0012IWV CommercialParkSubdivisionµ0 0.250.50.125 Miles PreparedBy: Ray HeitnerDate Prepared: January 2022 An application submitted by IWV Holdings, LLC. for a preliminary plat of 62.36 acres locatedatthesouthwestcornerofSlothower Road and Melrose Avenue/IWV IWV ROAD SW / F46SLOTHOWERROAD HURT ROAD SWALBERT ANDFAY' S FIRSTADDITIONKAUBLE' SSUBDIVISIONNW 14 - NE 14SECTION 13- T79N- R7WSW 14 - NE14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE IWV ROAD SW / F46SLOTHOWERROAD HURT ROADSWALBERT ANDFAY' S FIRSTADDITIONKAUBLE' SSUBDIVISIONNW1 4 - IWV ROAD SW / F46SLOTHOWERROAD HURT ROADSWALBERT ANDFAY' S FIRSTADDITIONKAUBLE' SSUBDIVISIONNW1 4 - IWV ROAD SW / F46SLOTHOWERROAD HURT ROADSWALBERT ANDFAY' S FIRSTADDITIONKAUBLE' SSUBDIVISIONNW1 4 - IWV ROAD SW / F46SLOTHOWERROAD HURT ROADSWALBERT ANDFAY' S FIRSTADDITIONKAUBLE' SSUBDIVISIONNW1 4 - 1 Date: February 2, 2022 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Revised Good Neighbor Policy Introduction At the Commission’s January 5, 2022 meeting, the Commission deferred the discussion of the good neighbor policy to the next formal meeting in order for staff to revise the policy in coordination with the City Attorney’s Office. At your meeting on February 2, 2022 staff will present the revised policy [Attachment 1]. This memo is an updated version of the memo submitted to the Commission on January 5. Specifically, staff revised the section outlining the details of the policy to reflect the changes that planning staff worked on with the City Attorney’s Office. 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 2]: 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. 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 2 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. 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 outlines the purpose and formalizes the process for neighbor notification of pending land development applications subject to the Planning and Zoning Commission’s review. 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: Specifying the types of land development applications where good neighbor meetings are expected, which include annexations, project-specific comprehensive plan map amendments and associated rezonings, and project-specific amendments to the zoning map. 3 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’. Additionally, the policy notes that applicants should coordinate with staff on meeting locations, the neighborhood notice, the distribution list, and the post-meeting report. The policy also includes a section on process, which covers the following: Selecting a date and time for the good neighbor meeting no less than seven days prior to the scheduled Commission meeting. Meetings can be held in person or online. For in-person meetings, select meeting facilities located near the subject property. Sending a Good Neighbor meeting notice to all owners and occupants of all properties listed on the Assessor’s website within 500 feet of the subject property no less than seven days prior to a Good Neighbor meeting. Submission of a written summary of the meeting, including input received, for distribution to the Commission. 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. Revised Good Neighbor Policy 2. October 1, 2020 Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Good Neighbor Policy – Revised Draft January 27, 2022 Section 1 - Purpose: It is in the public interest to encourage and promote dialogue between developers and neighboring residents. Such communication is intended to foster goodwill and may help identify and resolve issues and concerns prior to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. To that end, the City Council hereby adopts this Good Neighbor Policy, which outlines the City’s expectations regarding the notification of neighboring residents on pending land development applications by the applicant(s). Section 2 - Meetings: a. A Good Neighbor meeting is a meeting between property owners, developers, engineers and neighbors intended to introduce and explain a proposed project and facilitate dialogue before the project is reviewed by the applicable governing bodies. City staff endeavor to attend such meetings as well to provide input on the approval process. b. Good Neighbor meetings should be utilized when an applicant(s) desires approval for annexations, project-specific comprehensive plan map amendments and associated rezonings; and project-specific amendments to the zoning map. c. Urban Planning staff is available and should be utilized to assist applicants in the process described below, including suggesting locations, reviewing a draft notice, reviewing the distribution list, and reviewing the post-meeting report. Section 3 - Process: a. Date and Time. Select a date and time for the Good Neighbor meeting no less than seven 7) days prior to the scheduled public meeting in which the application will be first considered. Consider holding an additional Good Neighbor meeting if the application has not been approved by the City Council within twenty-four (24) months of the original Good Neighbor meeting. b. Location. Meetings can be held in person or online. For in-person meetings, select meeting facilities located near the subject property. c. Notice. Send a Good Neighbor meeting notice to all owners and occupants of all properties listed on the 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. d. Report. Submit a written summary of the meeting, including input received, for distribution to the Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council, as may be applicable. Approved by Resolution ________ on __________. 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 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. MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 2022 – 6:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin (via phone), Mark Signs, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Nolte, Maria Padron STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sara Hektoen, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Pam Michaud RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ21-0010, a proposal to rezone approximately 0.13 acres of land located at 421 East Market Street from Commercial Use CO-1 to Mixed Use. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. REZ21-0010: Location: 421 East Market Street An application for a rezoning of approximately 0.13 acres of land from Commercial Office (CO-1) to Mixed Use (MU). Heitner began the staff report with an aerial view of 421 East Market Street and also a view of the zoning. The current zoning is CO-1 Commercial Office. To the west and south is Mixed Use so there is Mixed Use zoning adjacent to the subject property. Heitner noted there is an existing two-story structure on the subject property. The request is to rezone to Mixed Use to provide a little bit more flexibility from the applicant’s perspective to either continue to rent the ground floor of the existing building as a commercial use or possibly convert structure to single family use or have two different apartments, one on each floor. It's staff’s understanding right now that the office space on the ground floor has been vacant for some time. Heitner gave an overview of the zoning, CO-1 (Commercial Office) generally supports office related uses and is intended to serve as a buffer between residential zones and intensive commercial or industrial areas. One distinction within the CO-1 zone is that multifamily residential dwelling units have to be located above street level so the existing zoning would not allow Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2022 Page 2 of 9 multifamily residential dwelling units on both floors of the building. The proposed zoning for Mixed Use is intended to provide a transition between commercial and employment centers to less intensive residential zones. Mixed Use zone allows a variety of uses and for a mix of residential and commercial uses. Heitner noted a table was included in the staff report that shows the uses that are allowed in the CO-1 and Mixed Use zones. In the Mixed Use zones there's more variety of residential zones that are either permitted by right or provisionally such as in this instance where in all likelihood the existing structure will be preserved. In this situation it may be either a detached single-family use permitted by right or duplex use permitted as a provisional use and would have to abide by some additional criteria from that's required for duplexes within the Central Planning District. The rezoning would remove a few commercial uses that are currently applicable to the CO-1 zone such as animal related commercial, indoor commercial recreational use or hospital facilities. However, Heitner noted it would probably be difficult to facilitate a lot of those uses on the existing framework of the lot as it stands with a 40- foot width so more than likely what they would ultimately see with the existing structure and the existing lot layout would be something either residential or office commercial in nature. For the rezoning review criteria, staff uses two different criteria points in review of its rezonings. The first is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and second, compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. With respect to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan the subject property is designated for office commercial use in the Central District Plan. As Heitner mentioned before rezoning to Mixed Use zone would allow for some flexibility to permit a mix of office and residential use and/or single family residential or apartments on either floor. There is a point within the Central District Plan that encourages reinvestment of the area's older housing stock, so staff feels by permitting a Mixed Use zone in this location it does present more options for residential use viability going forward. Heitner showed the Central District Plan Map noting again the area the subject property is located is designated as Office Commercial in the Central District Plan but right adjacent it indicates preferred Mixed Use for the Central District Plan. With respect to compatibility with the existing neighborhood, Heitner reiterated there is Mixed Use zoning directly west and south of the subject property and there are examples of the housing types that are adjacent to the subject property that are in line with the existing structure. Heitner showed some photos of the area to give the Commission a feel for the aesthetic character of the surrounding area and noted there's a few structures that are similar in scale and use to the existing structure on the subject property. In terms of next steps, upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing would be scheduled for consideration by City Council. Staff is recommending approval of REZ21-0010, a proposal to rezone approximately 0.13 acres of land located at 421 East Market Street from Commercial Use CO-1 to Mixed Use. Craig noted this area is really the buffer between the commercial just to the west noting on the next block west there are two five story buildings. She asked what's the building height allowed in Mixed Use. Heitner replied it is 35 feet. Craig noted that's three stories roughly and noted if somebody owned this property and the bigger square next to it, they could redevelop it, but only to a maximum height of three stories. Heitner confirmed that is correct. Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2022 Page 3 of 9 Hensch opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Hensch closed the public hearing. Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ21-0010, a proposal to rezone approximately 0.13 acres of land located at 421 East Market Street from Commercial Use CO-1 to Mixed Use. Townsend seconded the motion. Craig noted this does allow the property to stay a viable rental option. Hensch is hopeful that they rehabilitate the structure because there's some nice houses in that area. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF THE GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY: Russett stated the Commission had several discussions related to the City's current Good Neighbor program in 2019 and 2020 and in 2020, the Commission recommended that the City require Good Neighbor meetings for certain types of land development applications and City Council concurred with that recommendation. Therefore, in response to the direction provided by the Commission and City Council, staff has drafted a Good Neighbor Policy which was included in the agenda packet. Russett noted although the City has had a Good Neighbor Program for many years, no formal policy has ever been adopted outlining the expectations. Therefore, staff has proposed a formal policy that would be adopted by City Council. Staff has proposed a policy as opposed to an amendment to the Zoning Code and unlike an amendment to the Code, a policy does not legally require Good Neighbor Meetings so it would not be mandatory. However, the approach has been to formalize current expectations through the adoption of a policy. Russett noted although most applicants are very willing to hold a Good Neighbor Meeting as part of the process in an unlikely event that an applicant refuses to hold a meeting, and the City would not be able to penalize them based on what they're proposing as a policy. Russett noted at this point staff is still working out some issues with the City Attorney's office and is working with them to revise the draft policy in the form that it is tonight. Staff is recommending that the Commission defer this item to January 19 so they can work through those issues with the City Attorney's office, however, would like the Commission’s input on the approach of proposing a policy, which would not legally require Good Neighbor Meetings, but instead formalizes expectations through a resolution. However, if the Commission would like staff to pursue a Code Amendment, which would legally require the meetings, that can be discussed as well. Hensch noted he has two thoughts. One, he agrees with the policy because it gives more flexibility and things can be changed more quickly if they need be. He understands since it's just Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2022 Page 4 of 9 a policy, no one can be forced to do it, but if this is approved can the Commission be notified of the people who refuse to do it, because he certainly would want that piece of information as he’s considering the application. Hensch added he is very thankful that this has been followed up on because if there's one consistent thing they've heard through the years is that “nobody told me about this” so at least this way they are being responsive. Townsend asked how often applicants decline to have a Good Neighbor meeting when requested. Russett replied in her tenure, which has been less than four years, every time she has asked an applicant to hold a meeting, they've held the meeting. Townsend asked if the applicant does decline holding the Meeting, can the Commission be notified so they can ask the question when they're here. Hekteon would probably say the Commission can't really use that in in the consideration of the application. Hensch is not saying they'd use it in the consideration, but it certainly informs their opinion on the willingness of an applicant to be concerned or interested in the concerns of their neighbors. Craig agrees with everything Hensch has said and wonders what authority power or whatever does the Commission have then if it's not part of the Code. Can the policy state they have to have a Good Neighbor Policy. Hekteon said the natural consequence of failing to have a Good Neighbor Meeting is that the application is delayed, it takes longer as more people come to the P&Z meetings or to Council meetings to raise objections, it just delays it as a natural consequence. She thinks, especially in the context of rezoning where there are public hearings, the property owners have more rights and for the City to deny an application because they failed to hold a Good Neighbor Meeting could potentially subject the City to claims that the decision is arbitrary and capricious to whether they held a Good Neighbor Meeting which doesn't have anything to do necessarily with whether the application complies with the Comprehensive Plan, which is what the State has told cities that needs to be the basis for consideration. Hekteon feels there's the public pressure piece of the Commission asking if the applicant held a Good Neighbor Meeting, it’s certainly a public relations problem for them and could delay their application when they got to the Council level. Hekteon thinks there are ways to gain compliance without being so draconian as to say they are going to deny it because the applicant breached an ordinance or failed to satisfy this ordinance requirement. It makes sense to her that it'd be a policy as well but it’s not clear in the current draft. Signs noted in section four it states failure to comply with this policy shall delay the public meeting in which an application may be considered, how does that work. Hekteon noted that is part of the policy they are still working on revising. Craig noted in section 3A it states staff may attend Good Neighbor meetings as a resource person. When would staff attend or not attend, she thought they went to all Good Neighbor Meetings. Russett confirmed staff has always attended the Good Neighbor Meetings, she doesn’t recall a situation in which they hadn't but if they were really short staffed, and no one's available, it could be possible no one could attend. Craig feels that could be reworded a little bit to be a bit stronger than just staff may attend. Hensch asked if it has to be an in-person Good Neighbor Meeting or could it be virtual, he would like to make sure there is a virtual option there. Russet confirmed it could be virtual. Hensch doesn’t feel this policy makes in onerous on the applicant and meeting with neighbors should Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2022 Page 5 of 9 ever be an issue. Craig isn’t necessarily in favor of virtual meetings, Hensch agrees in-person meetings are much more collaborative and effective but there may be times where virtual gets a better attendance. Signs agrees in this day and age that's got to be an option, otherwise they may not be able to have a meeting. Hekteon replied it's not required by law to be an open meeting nor meet the public open meeting requirements. Martin agrees about having the option for virtual meetings, especially because this pandemic is not going away and would want everyone to feel included. Overall she likes what she is hearing. Russett noted they can clarify in the policy that the meeting can be held in-person or virtually. Hensch opened the public Hearing. Pam Michaud noted she lives two blocks from here on College Green Park and has seen a lot of things that were not subject to Good Neighbor Policy meetings that really steamrolled over the Comprehensive Plan. She had written a letter to the Commission that they all have that goes into detail, but to briefly summarize in Iowa City a few years ago, three Civil War cottages were taken down for a huge development on South Dubuque Street. Those three cottages were indicated in the Comprehensive Plan to be preserved and yet the developer did not have the review that one would expect, and it was steamrolled through and they were demolished. Those cottages were part of Iowa City history, were indicated in the Comprehensive Plan and there wasn't the review and the respect given to the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the idea that they always have Good Neighbor Meetings is fallacious. Sometimes she has been to Planning and Zoning meetings where people have gone before the Commission before they purchase a property for demolition or other development, they see if it is going to be approved and have no ownership rights at that point. So to say that they can't step on owners toes does not apply in all situations and she feels that needs to be addressed in review process but that’s not in the proposal right now. The other thing she is concerned about is if this is just within the City limits or is it also applicable for annexing adjacent properties to Iowa City. Russett confirmed it does apply to annexations. Michaud noted in that case, annexations are, by definition, a large property with many housing units, or at least many, many acres so she thinks that the radius should be expanded to possibly two miles, notifying owners that their bus routes and taxation could be affected by this development, new schools could be built, etc. She feels it doesn't work to notify rooming houses that there's going to be something done, the notifications should also go to the landlords who own that property as it’s just possible that they want to retain the historic neighborhood and not have a huge building built there which has happened within 500 feet of her house. Neighbors opinions were not respected, there was a zoning change and a TIF to allow the Chauncey adjacent to a historic preservation district. That zoning went from CB-5 to CB-10, which included 15 stories which was a huge breach over Gilbert Street. Craig moved to defer this item until the next regularly scheduled formal meeting. Signs seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2022 Page 6 of 9 Signs asked if one of the changes in the policy is to notify property owners, not just the tenants, if it was a rental property. Russett confirmed that was correct. A vote was taken and the motion to defer was approved 5-0. DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES: Hensch noted this item is in reference to Commissioner Padron who sent correspondence to the City Council noting she opposed the rezoning for case number REZ21-0009 which was passed by the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission on November 4, seven to zero. This was the application to rezone approximately 5.81 acres of land from high density single family residential, with a plan development overlay. Hensch noted it is fine for a commissioner to change their mind it just doesn’t have any weight because the vote had already been made. However, in the letter Padron requested Council meet with the Commission regarding this application and Hensch thought it was inappropriate for a singular Commission member to make a request of the Council speaking on behalf of the Commission. They're certainly more than welcome to speak as an individual citizen, that happens to be a commission member. Signs agrees they need some clarification that, first of all, once the Commission has a vote, that's the vote of record, and also, that they speak as a Commission, or they speak as an individual, but not mixing the two. Townsend agrees but notes Padron is a very new member and this is a hard Commission to learn how it works. However this is pretty standard operating procedure for any Board of Commission in the City. Hensch noted he is not upset at Commissioner Padron at all, he is sure there were good intentions, Hensch just thought they need to speak to this since the letter did in fact go to Council so it's public record that they needed to publicly discuss and it'll be in the minutes now. Martin noted since Padron was unable to attend tonight when the letter was sent did anybody reach out to her. Russett replied she let her know that this item would be on the agenda tonight and was in response to those letters but staff did pass those along to City Council as they normally would. Signs noted Commissioner Padron often waits till the very end of a good discussion to speak and maybe feels like she hasn't had her voice heard. He was hoping she'd be here because he wanted to personally encourage her to participate more fully in the discussion as they debate these issues. It seems like many times, it's when they’re calling for a vote that Padron wants to continue a discussion, so he thinks they want to encourage full participation throughout the entire discussion so that everyone's opinions are heard, and everyone has a chance to express their concerns. Townsend is concerned that they're having this discussion and Padron is not here. Hensch noted it was already on the agenda and he wanted to have it since it is part of public record, and it'll be in the minutes, and they can certainly put it on the next agenda as well. Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2022 Page 7 of 9 Martin agrees with Townsend that Padron is not here and she is not comfortable having discussion around it since she's not there. Hensch is more comfortable with conversation, because he doesn’t think it's critical of somebody as a person taking an action. It would just simply as a role, an action that's outside the expectations of the Commission and so the Commission needs to have that discussion. Martin stated the discussion is on the protocol of it all. Hensch confirmed it. Craig feels like the protocol would not call for putting it back on the agenda, they’ve had the conversation, everyone can read the minutes, the Chair can talk to Padron in person, or staff can, but putting it back on the agenda is like wanting to shake a finger at someone in public. Hensch will reach out and contact Padron and discuss any concerns she might have. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: NOVEMBER 4, 2021: Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of November 4, 2021. Townsend seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett noted the IWV/Slothower Comprehensive Plan Amendment and annexation were approved by City Council so the annexation is going to the State Review Board later this month. The Cole’s rezoning, the manufactured housing park, was also approved by City Council last month. Russett also announced this is Heitner’s last meeting, he has taken a job with the city of Joliet. She wanted to take this opportunity to thank him for his past three and a half years. Hensch also noted they have now moved the planning and zoning formal meetings to 6pm on Wednesdays but is there any interest in moving to 5:30pm. They have had some marathon meetings of late and haven’t concluded until almost 11pm. City Council has moved their work sessions up to 4pm for the same reason. Signs noted it probably would be challenging for him fairly frequently to be here by 5:30pm, 6pm is no problem and is very happy they moved to 6pm. Townsend and Craig would be happier with an earlier time but Martin also noted 5:30pm could be challenging but could make it work. Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2022 Page 8 of 9 Hench noted they are missing a couple of commission members and would certainly want them to weigh in so he will bring it up next time also. Signs asked if they can have a conversation about the Riverfront Crossings Code with the requirement of street side windows that show nothing. The new Kum & Go building on South Gilbert has walls full of windows that look at a white wall which is the same as the one on the Benton Street and on the corner in Towncrest. He doesn’t see that it's enhancing anything, quite frankly, from a visual standpoint and honestly, that Kum & Go on South Gilbert has several 100 square feet of empty space in what's a very, very expensive piece of real estate. Are they putting an extra burden on builders and developers and property owners with that requirement. Craig agrees and also feels they need to see something inside other than a blank wall. Hensch stated he would hate to see just a solid brick wall because they don’t want street level solid brick walls. Signs said they could look at architectural alternatives. Even in those cases, a frosted glass would be a middle ground where they wouldn't have to waste the space inside but it would still give a visual interest on the outside. Martin thought that part of the purpose for those street level windows was for safety, however having those lit up windows that go nowhere, nobody can see anything, so how that is helpful. She noted the situation may be if it's a woman walking alone at night, or you know, something more nefarious than that. Hekteon noted the Commission can propose amendments to the zoning code so if there is a majority of the Commission that wants to discuss it further, it's something that they could put on the agenda or could suggest staff consider this issue. Hensch isn’t interested in putting on an agenda at this time and asking staff to do another thing. Maybe they could discuss it in the future when there's additional staff, and then they could discuss the ramifications of this. Signs agreed but would like to have the discussion in the future sometime. ADJOURNMENT: Townsend moved to adjourn. Craig seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. 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 1/5 CRAIG, SUSAN X X O/E X X X X X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X O/E X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E O/E O/E X O/E X O/E X X NOLTE, MARK X X X O/E X O/E O/E X X O PADRON, MARIA X X X X X X X O/E X O/E SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X X TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused Not a Member