Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Packet 5.19.16 Formal.pdfMINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 5, 2016 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL EMMA HARVAT HALL – CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Seabold, Ken Rew, Paula Swygard, Howard Field CALL TO ORDER: Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There were none COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM: A public hearing for discussion of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for property located north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street to be included in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Miklo began the presentation showing illustrations to put the proposal into context. The property in question is on the west side of Orchard Street, it abuts the current district line for the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings area, and the proposal is to add the Orchard Street properties to the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Miklo explained there is a transition from the more intense commercial uses on Riverside Drive to the residential uses on Orchard Street. Miklo noted some of the new developments in process in the area. First being the 90 unit apartment complex being built on Riverside Drive, second is the plans for a convenience store with gas pumps to be built on the corner of Riverside Drive and Benton Street. The current Comprehensive Plan for this area is the Southwest District Plan, which was adopted in 2002, and it addressed this part of the neighborhood specifically and showed the properties on the west side of Orchard Street as appropriate for mixed-use development similar to what is proposed for Riverfront Crossings. The Southwest District Plan indicates that there are small apartment buildings and one single-family house at the end of Orchard Street which is appropriate for low-density multifamily. There are also some other single-family or duplex properties in this area. Two of the single family homes to be included in this amendment area are owned by the applicant. There are a few buildings that were moved into the area in the 1960’s and they do not have street frontage, the only access to those buildings are from a gravel lane to the rear. Planning and Zoning Commission May 5, 2016 – Formal Meeting Page 2 of 7 Miklo stated the zoning ordinance specifies items to consider when a comprehensive plan amendment is being proposed. One is that since the current plan was adopted that circumstances have changed or new information or factors have come to light that would indicate that an amendment is warranted or in the public interest. Staff believes that is the case here, since this plan was adopted showing this area as mixed-use the Riverfront Crossings Plan has been developed directly to the east and there is extensive redevelopment in that area. Next, the proposed amendment must be compatible with the policies or provisions of the larger Comprehensive Plan including the District Plans. Miklo noted the Southwest District Plan does have some policies that Staff believes apply and are compatible. One policy is to encourage better quality of development and design and that could be achieved with the form-based code that is part of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. However that must also be balanced with other goals of the Southwest District Plan, so that is why it is important to note where the boundary should be drawn. The District Plan recognizes that this neighborhood provides affordable smaller single family housing, both rental and owner-occupied. That form of housing is rare this close to downtown and the University. Because of that concern, the boundary line is drawn as shown so that the potential redevelopment area does not move farther west into the neighborhood. Miklo explained that the applicant has submitted some concepts of how this area might develop if the amendment is approved and the area is rezoned. Staff has addressed some concerns, noting that the scale should be appropriate to the neighborhood, and the applicant has answered those concerns with appropriate third floor setbacks and pedestrian streets. Miklo shared the text Staff drafted based on some of the other subdistricts in the Riverfront Crossings Plan. Staff is recommending approval of CPA16-0002 an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include the area north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street in the Riverfront Crossing Plan and the addition of the attached text describing the desired character of development to be approved, that may need to be edited. Parsons asked about the Metropolitan Planning Organization traffic study and if that has been completed yet. Miklo replied that they did complete a study of the area, both with the existing conditions and what might occur if this develops at a higher density. The preliminary conclusions are that there may need to be some improvements to the intersection of Orchard Street and Benton Street, perhaps adding turn lanes, and that would need to be negotiated in the future with a possible rezoning. Parson shared concern about the history of the area, and the three houses with no street frontage. Miklo confirmed that would not be allowed today in the city. It is something that would need to be resolved and need to find some mechanism for access if that area is not all completely redeveloped. Freerks opened the public hearing. Mark Seabold (Shive Hattery Engineering) is working with M&W Properties who is the applicant of this proposal. Seabold mentioned that while going through this process they worked very closely with City Staff on what is appropriate for this zone and feels this comprehensive plan amendment will create a buffer zone from the commercial properties to the smaller scale residential. Seabold noted they did hold a neighborhood meeting last February and had four Planning and Zoning Commission May 5, 2016 – Formal Meeting Page 3 of 7 people show up. The comments in general were very positive about the project, the biggest concern was the traffic study. Seabold believes this project will give Riverfront Crossings another type of housing, a smaller townhome style of housing. The concept also has a lot of pedestrian traffic built into it, and Seabold recognizes there is more work that needs to go into the concept. Ken Rew (302 West Benton Street) stated he has lived in this location for almost 40 years. His concern is while they say they are creating a buffer zone from the commercial to the residential on Orchard Street, where is his buffer from this development of multi-family high-density units. This development will be directly in his backyard. It feels like this project is just to tear down the older homes so big massive new structures can be built and more money can be made on the new units. Rew noted he was not aware of the good neighbor meeting that was held in February. He questions how it will really be a buffer, when these new townhomes will not be seen by Riverside Drive, nor by Benton Street, so what is it buffering. Paula Swygard (426 Douglass Street) lives in the neighborhood, but is not directly affected by this amendment, but it does affect the area she lives in. She did attend the neighborhood meeting, and one of her biggest concerns is the traffic. She is aware they have done a traffic study of that little area, but to get the whole picture they need to understand how the traffic flows through the whole neighborhood. Swygard shared a map of the area that highlighted the traffic “cut throughs” of the area. There won’t just be the congestion on Benton Street and Orchard Street with an increase in density, but people will continue through on Orchard Street to the highway, and also cut through Hudson Street or Miller Avenue to get to the highway. There was a traffic study done on those two streets several years ago which showed they already had high traffic at that time. In addition Swygard noted that along Orchard Street, to the south of this proposed area, is included in Riverfront Crossings, so there is potential for dense development there (up to four stories) which will also add to the increased traffic of the area. Swygard questioned when Miklo said that Orchard Court would probably be a pedestrian walkway, so how would anyone who lived in that separate apartment building to the back have access. Miklo noted that the concept plan shows a driveway that goes up to parking lot of that apartment building. Swygard asked how many units would be in the new development, Miklo was not sure and the applicant would have to address that. Swygard noted the design is a very upscale design and is concerned if the design is fitting for this neighborhood and the transition to the older homes in the area. Additionally this new building would overlook a Kum & Go and those lights and that could affect any buyers or potential residents of the building. Also Swygard wanted to mention that since Kum & Go will only be one story, this building is not needed to create a buffer, maybe for the 90 unit building to the north. Finally Swygard noted she was pleased with the mention of affordable housing for this area as that is so necessary in Iowa City, but when people see this type of development encroaching into neighborhoods they feel very threatened. In her neighborhood, which is adjacent to this neighborhood, feel threatened by the power of the developers over the smaller areas. Howard Field (614 & 630 Orchard Court) noted that there are four four-unit apartments plus the single family homes on Orchard Court. Field noted his concern is the development of 90 units on the east side of Orchard Street and the ingress and egress of vehicles from that complex. Miklo replied there will be an entrance on Orchard Street as well as one on Riverside Drive. Field asked about the traffic flow to the new concept being proposed and Miklo said that would Planning and Zoning Commission May 5, 2016 – Formal Meeting Page 4 of 7 be off Orchard Street, and also directly to Benton Street. Freerks noted that this concept is just preliminary at this time, when a change is proposed for a comprehensive plan, the Commission likes to see why and what the change could allow for in the future. Field stated the issue will be the number of cars and traffic with all these new units on Orchard Street. Field asked about the area his four unit apartment building is in. Miklo said it is currently zoned low-density single-family with a planned development overlay which allowed the clustering of units into buildings of four. If this comprehensive plan amendment is approved and then there is a later zoning change, it is possible those buildings could be removed and redeveloped at a higher density. Field also noted he was not informed of the meeting that was held in February. Seabold stated they used the City Assessor’s listing of all the addresses in a 300 foot radius to send letters out for the good neighbor meeting. With regards to the proposed concept and the number of units in the concept they are thinking 60 units between the two buildings. 34 in one building and 26 in the other. With regards to the scale of the building, in comparison to the four story building going up on Riverside Drive, the scale of this building would be two story with a step-back third story which makes the building not much taller than some of the other rooftops along Benton Street. Perhaps buffer is not the right word, but it is to help the transition from the commercial properties to the neighborhood. Rew reiterated whether you call it a buffer or transition it is an infringement on the neighborhood. Rew asked if the City would just take the houses so this new development could be built. Hektoen said that is not what happens, it would all be a private transaction that the City would not be involved in. Rew also noted concern about traffic in the area, and the increased concern with these developments. Freerks closed the public hearing. Dyer moved to defer CPA16-0002 an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include the area north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street in the Riverfront Crossing Plan to the next formal meeting on May 19. Theobald seconded the motion. Freerks noted it is not uncommon for the Commission to take two or more meetings when deciding on a comprehensive plan amendment. Hensch said the reasons for the deferral and the issues that need to be addressed should be noted. Freerks noted the rationale that this is a buffer or transition, the new concept building appears to be very nice but the scale of that concept questions the buffer or transition. In addition to scale there needs to be discussion on setback, green space, landscaping, and the true transition or buffer and if a building of this size addresses those concerns. Theobald shared those concerns stating that in the proposed text for the amendment it discusses “cottage clusters, townhomes, live-work townhomes…” and that does not translate into a building of this scale. She also noted that perhaps there needs to be a buffer between the Kum & Go and this project as well. It doesn’t seem to be enough of a transition to the single family neighborhood. Planning and Zoning Commission May 5, 2016 – Formal Meeting Page 5 of 7 Martin asked if in the Riverfront Crossings it mandates any development to have affordable housing. Miklo noted that not currently, but there is a proposal that Staff will be presenting in the future to discuss inclusionary zoning in Riverfront Crossings. Freerks stated another concern is the large parking lot and how it will be viewed from neighboring areas. There will need to be good solutions to lighting and screening. Hensch stated since this is a comprehensive plan amendment and not a rezoning and since this is a conceptual plan and not an actual plan, it appears all the language to cover the concerns mentioned is in the proposed text. Freerks stated that she feels the proposed language needs to be more specific and she is not comfortable approving it as is. Miklo said something to consider is when looking at the Riverfront Crossings Plan it has illustrations and perhaps the illustrations in this amendment could be updated to reflect the concerns and show more detail. Signs asked if a sign was posted for this amendment. Miklo said that signs are not posted for comprehensive plan amendments, but they did notify all property owners within 300 feet. Signs commented that he expected a larger neighborhood turnout given some of the other developments that have previously been approved in that area, and the traffic issue keeps coming up. Signs also noted he is troubled with the buffer/transition concept, he feels what is already there is a perfect buffer/transition. It is a street full of two-story multi-family units, and then everything to the west is one story houses. The Comprehensive Plan speaks to possible mixed-use in this area, but the concept proposed is not mixed-use. Additionally to the south of Benton Street there have been new homes built and others remodeled so one would not anticipate any change in that area in the future as well. This proposal appears to be taking an area that now houses 10 units and constructing 60 units, but is unclear of the logic for that. Martin stated that even if the amendment is adopted, nothing has to happen to the area. Freerks confirmed that however it becomes a green light for redevelopment. Dyer noted that although they are not approving the concept, the shown concept does not have much green space for the tenants and in Riverfront Crossings the townhomes should face a pedestrian walkway with green space in the middle. There is also no other public parks nearby. Signs stated he did like the idea of putting the parking in the buildings, and agrees with the concern of lack of green space. Parsons agreed and would be interested to see if some of the parking for the western building could be underground and that area turned into green space. Dyer also shared concern about this concept and keeping affordable housing in this area. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: APRIL 21, 2016 Hensch moved to approve the meeting minutes of April 21, 2016. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission May 5, 2016 – Formal Meeting Page 6 of 7 PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Miklo shared a memo that went to City Council explaining the topsoil policy. Staff does have a draft proposal for consideration for inclusionary zoning for the Riverfront Crossings area and would like to schedule an informal meeting to present the proposal and start the discussion. They would like to have the meeting on May 16 at 5:00 pm or 5:30 pm. It was decided to meet at 5:00 pm on Monday, May 16. ADJOURNMENT: Martin moved to adjourn. Parsons seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2015 - 2016 FORMAL MEETING 6/4 7/2 7/16 8/6 8/20 9/3 9/17 10/1 10/15 11/5 11/19 12/3 1/7 1/21 2/19 3/3 3/17 4/7 4/21 5/5 DYER, CAROLYN X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN X X O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X O/E O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X X X PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X X THEOBALD, JODIE X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 5/18 DYER, CAROLYN 05/16 X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/16 X FREERKS, ANN 05/18 X HENSCH, MIKE 05/19 X MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/17 X PARSONS, MAX 05/19 X THEOBALD, JODIE 05/18 X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member