Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Packet 7.7.16.pdfMINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 2016 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA HARVAT HALL – CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo, Marti Wolf OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Seabold, Ken Rew, Judith Crossett, Peter Hendley, Duane Musser RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-1 (Signs voting no) the Commission recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment for property located north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street to be included in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of VAC16-00001 a vacation of the Cottonwood Avenue public right-of-way east of Yewell Street, a 7,441 square foot area located immediately south of 1420 Yewell Street subject to an access easement being created for the shared driveway, and creation of any necessary utility easements. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends that the County consider rezoning approximately 5.51-acres of property at 4394 Sand Road SE from County Residential (R) to County Agri-Business (C-AG) Zone with a conditional use permit to allow the retail sales associated with greenhouses and nursery. 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 stated that since this item was last discussed Staff has met with the applicant who has Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2016 – Formal Meeting Page 2 of 8 submitted a revised concept plan in an attempt to address some of the concerns that were raised by the public and the Commission. In Staff’s evaluation the applicant has made a good attempt to address the transition by moving the driveway for the northwestern building from Benton Street to Orchard Court. This will move traffic away from existing single-family homes and will provide more open space and landscaped area. Additionally the applicant does have a purchase agreement to buy the house 330 Orchard Court so there will not be an isolated house in the area. Miklo showed an image of a concept for the property. He said this could be be included in the Comprehensive Plan if approved, however the development would still be subject to a rezoning, and need to come back before the Commission with opportunity for public discussion. Staff is recommending approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment as discussed in the staff report. Freerks opened the public hearing. Mark Seabold (architect for M & W Properties) thanked the Commission and the public for their comments at the last meeting, noting it really helped modify the design and concept for this property. Seabold acknowledged that this is a Comprehensive Plan amendment, this project would need to come back before the Commission for rezoning in the future before development occurs, but having the amendment would give some nice opportunities that currently don’t exist. Seabold showed pictures of the area and the properties that would be included in the amendment. He stated that all the properties on the west side of Orchard Street south of the cul-de-sac are currently are owned or have a purchase agreement in place with M & W Properties. The other properties in this area are predominately rentals, and not permanent residences. So M & W Properties is looking at ways to not only get more rentals but more permanent residents into this area. Seabold showed the previous concept plan, noting that some of the comments at the last meeting showed concern about the parking lot on the north side and the paved area to reach that parking lot. Therefore they have relocated the driveway to the north, which allows for more green space and the removal of the gravel driveway that used to go back to the houses. Also with the redesign of the concept they have tucked some of the parking underneath the building allowing again for more green space and opportunities for the residents of the development to perhaps have garden space. There will be a private plaza space between the two buildings that could be utilized for private events. Seabold explained that the landscape buffer that will be going around these buildings, as well as lighting, will comply with the zoning codes. Seabold also discussed the Orchard Street side of the building that will face the new Kum & Go, each unit will have a privacy wall with a private front yard area to shield from the convenience store. Martin asked about the units, and if they were multi-level. Seabold confirmed they would be two- story townhomes, each with its own private entryway. The units on the top are accessed from the interior of the building and the parking structure below. Seabold compared what is currently in the area versus what they are proposing. Currently there are two-story houses there with pitched roofs. They are proposing three-story buildings. So it will be a bit taller, but not significantly. The third story will be stepped back. He pointed out an area of large mature trees that will be maintained. Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2016 – Formal Meeting Page 3 of 8 Signs asked if they are anticipating these to be owner-occupied units. Seabold confirmed that is their intent for the townhomes, the back building may be some rental. Ken Rew (302 West Benton Street) questions why this neighborhood needs to be so changed to make it more owner-occupied, it has been fine for 40 years and has been largely the same as it is now. Rew acknowledged the new concept has some improvements but just does see the need for this development. Freerks closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to approve 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. Martin seconded the motion. Freerks noted her appreciation that the comments and concerns from the Commission and public were taken by the applicant and incorporated into an improved concept. She feels this could be good for the neighborhood and appreciates the set back of the third story. This concept will be a nice transition from the projects along Riverside Drive to the neighborhood to the west. Parsons agreed and likes that the parking was moved underground so there will be more green space and less parking lot lighting. Martin likes this and the opportunity for future projects it will allow. Theobald feels the concept shows some very positive changes, but does fear that the units won’t be owner-occupied but purchased and then rented. Signs said he is struggling with this application. He appreciates the changes the applicant incorporated since hearing from the public and Commission, but is not convinced this project belongs at this location. It is a great urban look which is what the Riverfront Crossing District is about, but rather than building this project in Riverfront Crossings, we are moving Riverfront Crossings District to this project. He is concerned about scale with the houses that sit nearby. The proposed buildings still appear to be quite large. Hensch said he likes the idea of expanding the Riverfront Crossings District to include this area and hopes this will bring more stability to the area with owner-occupied homes. Hektoen noted that in light of the recommendation that the Commission made at the last meeting with regards to affordable housing in the Riverfront Crossings Zone that would then apply to this area if the amendment is approved by City Council. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 (Signs voting no). VACATION ITEM (VAC16-00001): Discussion of an application submitted by Judith Crossett for a vacation of the Cottonwood Avenue public right-of-way east of Yewell Street, a 7,441 square foot area located immediately south of 1420 Yewell Street. Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2016 – Formal Meeting Page 4 of 8 Wolf began the staff report stating the Judith and Laura Crossett applied for a building permit at 1420 Yewell Street with plans for an addition. Through that process they realized that the property was abutting this portion of Cottonwood Avenue right-of-way. Therefore they are applying for a vacation to lift the right-of-way designation. This right-of-way has functioned as a shared driveway, maintained by both owners, and is the only off-street parking that is provided for both those properties. This portion of the Cottonwood Avenue public right-of-way appears to have been designated as such to allow for future extension through to Franklin Street. However, directly to the east, the Highlander Development Addition subdivision plat, submitted in 1953, does not include a right-of-way to allow for the extension of Cottonwood Avenue. The right-of-way has never been developed and does not currently allow vehicular traffic, as it currently dead-ends at the rear parcel line for 1421 Franklin Street and is not used for general traffic or pedestrian circulation. There is a Mid-American pole that runs east-west on the property, and they will let the City know what utility easement they will need. The area of the lot is 60 feet and the addition at most would need 20 feet, so there will be area for the utility easement. Wolf explained that both abutting property owners have been willing to discuss a purchase offer as long as the utility easement doesn’t span the rest of the area. There would also need to be a shared access easement so the abutting property owner still has the gravel parking area. Staff recommends approval of VAC16-00001, a vacation of the Cottonwood Avenue public right-of- way, 7,741 square feet east of Yewell Street, subject to an access easement being created for the shared driveway, and creation of any necessary utility easements. Miklo added that it will be likely that the right-of-way would be split in half with the southern property owner buying the southern half and the applicant buying the northern half. Freerks opened the public hearing. Judith Crossett (1504 Grand Avenue) stated she currently lives in University Heights and it is her daughter’s property at 1420 Yewell, but this is a joint project so she speaks for both of them. What they want to do is add a bedroom and bathroom to the south end of the house where she will move into. It will not be a grandiose addition and they definitely don’t want anyone to lose their driveway access, and they will conform to paving the end of the driveway that is required. Peter Hendley (1502 Yewell Street) lives to the south and is concerned about maintaining the off-street parking. Freerks closed the public hearing. Parsons moved to approve VAC16-00001 a vacation of the Cottonwood Avenue public right-of-way east of Yewell Street, a 7,441 square foot area located immediately south of 1420 Yewell Street subject to an access easement being created for the shared driveway, and creation of any necessary utility easements. Martin seconded the motion. Freerks feels this will not cause any issues and the right-of-way will still function for the needs of the abutting property owners. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2016 – Formal Meeting Page 5 of 8 COUNTY REZONING ITEM (CZ16-00001): Discussion of an application submitted by Pleasant Valley LP for a rezoning from County Residential (R) to County Commercial (C) for approximately 5.51-acres of property located in Johnson County at 4394 Sand Road SE in Fringe Area B. Miklo noted that this property is in Johnson County but is within the two mile fringe of Iowa City and the State Code gives the City the ability control subdivisions within that two miles. The City has an agreement with the County with regards to zoning in the fringe area where the City makes a recommendation to the County and the County will not act on the rezoning until they have heard from the City. The Fringe Area Agreement states clearly that the City and the County should be in agreement on rezonings in the fringe area. Although this property is not in the growth area it is very close to the boundary of the growth area on the north and east. While it is not anticipated that this will be annexed into the City anytime soon, it is very close to what may end up being in the City someday and may have some bearing on future neighborhoods in this area. Miklo stated that the proposal is to rezone the property from County Residential (R) to County Commercial (C) to allow a greenhouse, nursery, florist business to relocate to this area. After reviewing the County Code and proposal Staff does not have a concern with the particular use that is being proposed, however the zoning they are asking for does allow for a wide variety uses and some can be fairly intense. There is a concern because property owners and businesses can change over time. Additionally the Fringe Area Agreement states that all rezonings must conform to the Johnson County Land Use Plan, which currently shows this area as residential or agricultural. Staff recommends that the requested rezoning from Residential to Commercial be approved only if it is found to be consistent with the County Land Use Plan and conditions are placed on the rezoning to assure that potential commercial uses do not have negative effects on the residential and agricultural uses. As an alternative to Commercial zoning staff would recommend that the County consider rezoning the property to Agri-Business (C-AG) Zone with a conditional use permit to allow the retail sales associated with greenhouses and nursery. Freerks asked if Staff has discussed this application with the County Staff. Miklo replied that yes they have spoken to County Staff who said they would look into placing conditions on the Commercial zoning. Hektoen pointed out that the position the City has right now is that this application to rezone the area to Commercial does not comply with the County Land Use Plan Freerks opened the public discussion. Duane Musser (MMS Consultants) spoke representing the applicants. He noted the applicant has been working with the County for several years to relocate the garden center, retail center, to this site and it was designed with that in mind. The golf course next to this area opened in 1989 which has a retail business and restaurant established. Due to the creation of the Riverfront Crossings District and revitalization of that area the existing business on Gilbert Street must move. They have met with the County zoning officials many times and they have directed them to the straight Commercial zoning designation because of the retail use. A greenhouse is allowable in the current zoning of the land, but having the retail component is why the commercial zoning is needed. Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2016 – Formal Meeting Page 6 of 8 Musser said the concern about a County Agri-Business commercial zoning designation is there permitted uses for that is farm grounds, farm excavation, fertilizer plants, grain elevators, livestock marketing, and well-drawing businesses and therefore Musser does not feel those businesses would be a good fit with this area with the residential components of the area whereas a retail garden center is a good fit. Dyer asked about parking for the retail business and Musser said they are working on the site plan. The tree line to the south will be maintained. Parsons asked why a two story building is being proposed and not just a one story. Musser said they are working through the site plans but their current location has storage and office space upstairs and they like that set-up and thought to build similarly. The current design is barn shaped so it will blend into the agricultural feel of the area. Hensch asked if the Commission were to recommend the County Agri-Business zone would that affect the site plans being developed. Musser said he would have to go back and look at the requirements to see if he would need to adjust setbacks or building or parking needs based on that zone. He noted that the County suggested Commercial Zone because of the retail sales and the County Agri-Business Zone is too agricultural intensive. Freerks noted that the concern is not the retail aspect of this particular application, it is the potential future uses of a property that is zoned Commercial. Freerks closed the public discussion. Theobald moved to recommend that the County consider rezoning approximately 5.51-acres of property at 4394 Sand Road SE from County Residential (R) to County Agri-Business (C- AG) Zone with a conditional use permit to allow the retail sales associated with greenhouses and nursery. Parsons seconded the motion. Hensch is concerned that if the County will be reviewing and updating their Land Use Plan he would hope that wouldn’t delay this project as he feels is should be allowed to move forward. He is just confused on what is the appropriate zone to move forward. Parsons noted he would feel better about this application if the City Staff and the County Staff were on the same page. Freerks is concerned about the potential future uses of the area if zoned straight Commercial. Some of the uses allowed in that zone would not be appropriate here. Signs agreed, this seems to be more of a residential flavor of an area, so to add commercial space to that area seems extreme. A garden area is a great use, but the other possibilities are concerning. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2016 – Formal Meeting Page 7 of 8 CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MAY 16 & MAY 19, 2016 Parsons moved to approve the meeting minutes of May 16 & May 19, 2016. Hensch seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Miklo reported that Dan Perolick, the person that coined the term “missing middle”, was here last week. It was well attended and received and he may do some future consulting for the City. He suggested that the Commission watch a video of his presentation at a future meeting. 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 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 5/19 6/2 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 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X -- -- -- FREERKS, ANN O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X O/E 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 O/E O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X X X X SIGNS, MARK -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X THEOBALD, JODIE X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member