Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-13 Public hearingNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:30 p.m. on the 13th day of Febru- ary, 1996, in the Civic Center Council Cham- bers, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, iowa; at which hearing the Council will consid- 1~.' enn ordin.ance am.e. nding Title 14, Chapter 6, titled Zoning, Article K, entitled "Envi- ronmental Regulations," Section 1, entitled "Sensitive Areas Ordinance," Subsection I, entitled "Steep Slopes," to allow develop- ment activities under certain conditions on protected slopes that have been previously altered. 2. An ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter by approving a Sensitive Areas Develop- ment Plan for a 0.32 acre property located in the PRM, Planned Multi-Family Residen- tial, Zone at 515 and 521 South Linn Street. Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK Contact Person: Charlie Denney, Planner, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5247 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAP- TER 6, ENTITLED "ZONING," ARTICLE K, ENTITLED "ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS," SECTION 1, ENTITLED "SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE," SUBSECTION I, ENTITLED "STEEP SLOPES," TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS ON PROTECTED SLOPES THAT HAVE BEEN PREVI- OUSLY ALTERED. WHEREAS, the Steep Slopes Section of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is intended to pro- tect the public from injury and property damage due to flooding, erosion and other natural hazards while preserving the scenic character and environmental benefits of steep slopes; and WHEREAS, the Sensitive Areas Ordinance currently prohibits all development activities upon slopes exceeding a grade of 40%, defined as protected slopes; and WHEREAS, development activities within previously altered or man-made protected slopes can be designed to protect the public from injury and property damage while preserv- ing the scenic character and environmental benefits of such slopes; and WHEREAS, development within previously altered protected slopes can take place in a manner that is consistent with the intent of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion has reviewed the amendment to the Sensi- tive Areas Ordinance Steep Slopes Section regarding the limited allowance of development activities on previously altered protected slopes and has recommended approval of the amen- dment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: SECTION I. APPROVAL. Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning Chapter," Article K, entitled "Environ- mental Regulations," Section 1, entitled "Sensi- tive Areas Ordnance," Subsection I, entitled "Steep Slopes," Subsection 2c, entitled "Regu- lations, Protected Slopes," is hereby amended as follows: Ordinance No. Page 2 c. Protected Slopes - Any area designated as a natural protected slope (40%+) shall not be graded and must remain in its existing state, except that natural vegetation may be supplemented by other plant material. Any such property shall be required to submit a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and a Grading Plan, unless said property qualifies for an exemption within this Section. De- velopment activities may be allowed within areas containing altered protected slopes, including, but not Ilml~ed to, slopes previ- ously created by cuffing or filling activities, exceeding 40%, if a geologist or profession- al engineer can demonstrate to the satis- faction of the City that a development activity will not undermine the stability of the slope and the City determines that the development activities are consistent with the intent of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi- sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILiTY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be ad- judged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti- tutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi- nance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of ,19 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 1, 1996 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Charles Denney, Associate Planner Re: Amendment to Steep Slopes Section of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance At your January 25 meeting questions were raised regarding why an amendment to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) was being considered so soon following adoption of the SAO in December, and how the proposed ordinance amendments will apply in cases of cut slopes? The following responses are offered to those questions. When the City Council adopted the SAO, they acknowledged that given the length and nature of the ordinance, amendments to the ordinance might be necessary in the future. Additionally, the Council indicated a desire to implement the $AO in a reasonable and flexible manner. The proposed amendment to the steep slopes section, in staff's opinion, is reasonable and is the type of fine tuning needed when such a major ordinance is adopted. The impact of the ordinance on sites like the Hy-Vee proposed at the First Avenue/Muscatine avenue intersection, that contained previously altered slopes was not anticipated during drafting of the ordinance, and allowing a case by ease review of such sites would appear to be reasonable. The impact of the proposed ordinance amendment on cut slopes is the same as with any previously altered slope. The amendment requires review of requests for further alteration of these slopes on a case by case basis, and it must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City, including the City Council with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, that any proposed development activities are consistent with the purpose and intent of the steep slopes section and will not undermine the stability of the slope. The proposed amendment does not automatically allow development activities within protected slopes that have been previously altered, but requires a careful review of the specific circumstances of each request. A Sensitive Areas Development Plan is still required for properties containing these slopes, and the plan is reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by the City Council. The City Council may choose not to approve further alteration of a previously altered slope. The cut slope located west of Riverside Drive was raised as an example of the type of slope where there would be concern about the implications of the proposed amendment. If development or grading of such a slope was proposed the ordinance amendment would require that a geologist or professional engineer demonstrate that the activities would not undermine the stability of the slope. In the case of previously cut slopes maintaining slope stability is likely to be very difficult. The proposed amendment also requires a determination of consistency with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. In the Sl~Cific example given, one of the purposes of the steep slopes section is to pre~rve the scenic quality of hillside areas. The slope in question could be considered to be have a high scenic value and therefore alteration of the slope would be inconsistent with this purpose. Staff feels that the proposed amendment to the steep slopes section of the SAO is consistent with the City Councils desire to implement the SAO in a reasonable and flexible manner. The amendment also requires dose scrutiny of any request to allow development activities on previously altered protectyl slopes, by staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. City of iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: January 18, 1996 To' Planning and Zoning Conmfission From: Charles Denhey, Associate Planner Re: Proposed amendment to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance Steep Slopes Section It has come to the attention of staff that an amendment to the Steep Slopes Section of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) may be appropriate to deal with situations where development is proposed on sites containing altered or manmade slopes that are regulated as protected slopes. Currently the SAO prohibits all development activities on slopes exceeding a grade of 40%, regardless of whether they are manmade or altered. Staff feels that in some cimumstances it may not be practical or reasonable to give the full level of protection required by the ordinance to previously altered slopes. The areas where these slopes occur are generally built up areas of the city where the significance of the slope as an environmental feature is questionable and the level of protection required by the ordinance to maintain the stability of these slopes may not be necessary. The intent of the steep slopes section is to promote safety in the design and construction of development, minimize flooding, landslides and mudslides, minimize soil instability, erosion and siltation and to preserve the scenic charter of hillsides. In some situations protection of previously altered slopes does not further these intents and allowing further alteration may actually make the slope more stable. When considering whether to allow development within altered slopes the function of the slope as an environmental feature should be reviewed. Is the slope part of a larger ecosystem and does it make a significant contribution to the ecosystem. In many areas of the city slopes exist in conjunction with other environmental features, such as stream corridors and woodlands, and protecting the relationship between the features is important, regardless of whether the slope is natural or manmade. On some sites, such as the new Hy-Vee site at northeast of the intersection of First Avenue and Muscatine Avenue, an altered slope is fairly isolated, and does not contribute significantly to the city's natural environment or further the purposes of the steep slopes section of the ordinance. The Hy-Vee site plan was submitted prior to adoption of the SAO, so the ordinance does not apply to the site. The slopes were created as the former Towncrest Mobile Home Park developed and are not natural slopes and would not generally be considered an environmentally sensitive area. Protection of the slopes would not enhance the natural environment in the area or detract from the visual character. On this particular site allowing further alteration of the previously altered slope may actually enhance the stability of the slope by allowing the removal of poor fill material and creating a less steep grade. The Hy-Vee site is an example of a site where it appears that allowing development within a protected slope would not be counter to the intent of the ordinance. However, in other situations allowing further alteration of a protected slope may negatively impact the environment surrounding the slope or alteration may undermine the stability of the slope. Additionally, when considering whether to allow development activities within an altered slope safety factors must be addressed. Can the proposed development activity be designed in a way that will maintain the stability of the slope and prevent creation of a hazard for neighboring properties? Because an altered slope is the result of previous grading, the stability of the slope is often not reliant on the natural grade of surrounding areas. This is especially true for fill slopes. An amendment to the ordinance addressing altered slopes should contain a provision that the applicant demonstrate that the proposed development activity can be accomplished without undermining the stability of the slope or creating a hazard. The ordinance currently contains such a provision when considering whether to allow a reduction in the required buffer around protected slopes. In some situations allowing development activities within previously altered slopes that are defined as protected slopes by the SAO appears to be reasonable, and not in conflict with the intents and purposes of the ordinance. An ordinance amendment to allow such development should require review of the particular circumstances of a proposed development and address the envkonmental, aesthetic and safety issues of each proposal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that subsection 2c. of the Steep Slopes subsection of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance be amended as shown in bold on the attached copy of the subsection. ATTACHMENTS 1. Steep Slopes Section of the SAO ppdadmin~lopc.mmo Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development Steep Slopes: 1. Purpose: The purpose of regulating development on and near steep slopes is to: a. Promote safety in the design and construction of developments. b. Minimize flooding, landslides and mudslides. c. Minimize soil instability, erosion and downstream siltation. d. Preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly wooded hill- sides. Regulations: a. Steep Slopes - Any property containing steep slopes (18-24%) shall be required to submit a Sensitive Areas Site Plan, unless said property quali- fies for an exemption under subsection 14-6K-1D. The Sensitive Areas Site Plan must conform with the design guidelines specified in subsection 14-6K-114. b. Critical Slopes - Any property containing critical slopes (25-39%) shall be required to submit a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and a Grading Plan, unless said property qualifies for an exemption under subsection 14- 6K-1D. The Sensitive Areas Development Plan must conform with the design guidelines specified in subsection 14-6K-114, and the Grading Plan must conform with the requirements of the Grading Ordinance. c. Protected Slopes - Any area designated as a natural protected slope (40%+) shall not be graded and must remain in its existing state, except that natural vegetation may be supplemented by other plant material. Any such property shall be required to submit a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and a Grading Plan, unless said property qualifies for an exemption within this Section. Development activities may be allowed within areas containing altered protected slopes, slopes created by cutting or fil- ling activities, exceeding 40%, If a geologist or professional engineer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that a development actlvity will not undermine the stability of the slope and the Ctty determines that the development activities are consistent with the Intent of the steep slopes subsection. Buffer requirements: A buffer will be required around all protected slopes. Two feet of buffer will be provided for each foot of vertical rise of the protected slope, up to a maximum buffer of 50 feet. The buffer area is to be measured from the top, toe and sides of the protected slope. No development activity, including removal of trees and other vegetation, shall be allowed within the buffer. If a geologist or professional engineer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that a development activity can be designed to eliminate hazards, the setback and buffer requirements may be reduced. Design Standards: The following guidelines shall be addressed when either a Sensitive Areas Site Plan or a Sensitive Areas Development Plan for property con- taining steep slopes is submitted: a. Except for commercially or industrially-zoned properties, every lot or parcel shall have a construction area equal to at least 40% of the minimum lot 2 SUFFER REQUIREMENTS FOR PROTECTED SLOPES NOTE: BUFFER MAY BE REDUCED UPON REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL STUDY. Except for commemially or industrially-zoned properties, every lot or pamel shall have a construction area equal to at least 40% of the minimum lot size required by the zone in which it is located. [For example, the construction area would be 3,200 square feet for a lot in the RS-5 zone, where a minimum 8,000 square foot lot is required.] b. Except for driveways and utilities installation, no grading or excavation shall be allowed outside the construction area. c. Cut slopes shall be constructed to eliminate sharp angles of intersection with the existing terrain and shall be rounded and contoured as necessary to blend with existing topography to the maximum extent possible. The City will not accept the dedication and maintenance of cut and fill slopes, except those within the required street right-of-way. d. Street rights-of-way and public utility corridors shall be located so as to minimize cutting and filling. e. To maintain the stability of ungraded areas, existing vegetation shall be re- tained to the maximum extent possible. 2014 R(~hester Ave. Iowa City, ;~ 52245 I February 1996 Thomas Scott, Chairman Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission 410 East Washington Street iowa City IA 52240 Re: Cc~e Amendment Item - Sensitive Areas Ordinance, Steep Slopes Section Please distribute to Planning and Zoning Commission members and relevant City staff (Charlie Penney, Helc~y Rcxikwell, Bob Miklo, Sarah Holecek, etc.). Dear Mr Scott: Over the last couple of weeks, I have spent a lot of time thinking about why I oppc~e this amendment to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO). ! believe that the SAO is a fir-~t step in trying to put the lid back on the Pandora's Box of environmental prc~lems which our society flung wide (%oen with its excessive emphasis on gung-ho develc~ment. The amendment weakens the provisions in the ordinance that protect steep, artificially altered, slc~es; slc~0es which often are aesthetically unapDealing to humans (especially the older rubble fills that frequently are downright ugly). I nonetheless continue to c~opose this relaxation of the protective measures for the following reasons: The S.~.O. '$ standards would become less objective. While serving on the committee Nhich developed the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, ! tried aiways to push for the most objective standards possible: FEHA approved floodway calculations, Army Corps of Engineers wetland determinations, NRCS (formerly SCS) slope erosion classes, etc. The ordinance then consistently applied these standards to all tracts proposed for development in order to prevent any particuiar property owner from being abie to make a case for another property owner getting more favorable treatment from the City. Thus property owner "A" can't say 'if can do it why can't I? ]f tile amendment is approved, it puts considerable subjectivity back into the SAO and requires the Planning and Zoning Commission to balance the rather nebulous "vaIue" of each altered slope against the immediate economic gain of each property Owner. This is a step backwards to the conditions that prevailed before the SAO when almost everything was negotiable and all parties (developers, City staff, P&Z Commission, interested citizens) spent excessive time debating the fate of practically every tree, puddle, or fcx)t of steep slope. For~=sted slopes are valuable as habitat regardless of origin. Staff has implied that altered slopes have little value as habitat for our native wildlife. This is simply incorrect. Whether "natural," cut, or rubble-fill, the thing that is most important for wildlife is the nature, structure, and density of the vegetation which has colonized on the slope. In determining the character- of a s]ope's vegetation, the length of time since the last disturbance, the slc~e aspect, and the proximity of seed sources are all frequently more important than the nature of the substrate. Pioneering tree species often don't "care" whether they are rooted in virgin soil or the fill debris from a destroyed city street. Considering our native birds as one component urban wildlife, altered slopes often provide better habitat than either manicured suburban yards or landscaped downtown Properties. Most rubble-filled slopes are "poorly-maintained" and overgrown with living and dead trees, vines, shrubs, and herbs which provide a multitude of places for fcx~d, nesting, and shelter for our more appealing, ndtive, urban birds like cardinals, wcx~Jpeckers, chickadees, etc., etc. The proposed Linn Street redevelopment (REZ96-0002), for example, would destroy Mr Scott, Chairman, Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 ! February 1996 ,axisting "backyard habitat" valuable to native birds by converting it into a commercial use more suitable for pigeons, starlings, and English sparrows (our common "downtown" birds). Artificially cut slopes ar~ not easily ~ecognized. Having had considerable training in the study of the geology of surficial materials, I can personally testify that it often is not easy to tell slopes altered by human cutting from those that are naturally eroded. To confuse matters, sharp breaks in slope frequently ape caused by natural erosion and top soils may be as poorly developed on natural as on altered slopes. For example, I would venture to guess that few citizens in our community realize that Happy Hollow Park is an historic Pit where loess (eolian silt) was excavated %o produce a poor grade of brick. To relax the steep slope provisions for cut slopes intrcxJuces far too much subjectivity into the rezoning process. 4) Rubble fills may corr~in hazard~ materials bet%er lef% undisturbed. Although ! would prefer %o see all hazardous materials found, excavated, and disposed of in proper facilities, some gaterials like asbestos, are less hazardous if they remain undisturbed. Debris from razing old buildings is frequently found in our older rubble fills. Asbestos, both in bound and loose states, was used in many buildings in the first half of this century and could be a component of these fills. A particularly common use of asbestos was in siding shingles where it is bound in a Portland cement matrix. Fragments of these shingles are environmentally benign as long as they remain buried in rubble fills. When disturbed and pulverized by excavation, they can yield dangerous particles to the air. Regardless of the best intentions of heavy equipment operators, ! suspect that most would not be alert enough to detect this cryptic material during the coupe of excavation. Of course, other toxic materials like hydr(~arbons in old drums, lead in old batteries, mercury compounds, pesticides, etc., may also be unearthed, but, these materials would better be found and properly disposed of than remaining where they are. Furthermore, we only see the most recent generation of fill materials that veneers the slope. Hultiple generations of fills of unknown content may underlie any of these slopes. In order to de%ermine necessary protective measures for the safety of the environment and the public, ! urge you to require that environmental audits be conducted prior to any earth-moving activity in rubble-filled slopes. In conclusion, I request that the Commission reject this amendment to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and give the ordinance a chance to work as it was originally adopted less than two months ago. ]f the Commission feels the ordinance must be amended at this time, please at least change the wording of the last se,tence in section I2c) to that Mr Starr suggested at your meeting of 25 Jan., 1996: from the proposed language "...development activities are consistent with the intent of the 8teen slopes ~utio~r" to "...development activities are consistent with tile intent of the Sensitive ~reas Ol~inance." I thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Richard S Rhodes Steep Slopes: 1. Purpose: The purpose of regulating development on and near steep slopes is to: a. Promote safety in the design and construction of developments. b. Minimize flooding, landslides and mudslides. Minimize soil instability, erosion and downstream siltation. d. Preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly wooded hill- sides. Regulations: a. Steep Slopes - Any property containing steep slopes (18-24%) shall be required to submit a Sensitive Areas Site Plan, unless said property quali- fies for an exemption under subsection 14-6K-1D. The Sensitive Areas Site Plan must conform with the design guidelines specified in subsection 14-6K-114. b. Critical Slopes - Any property containing critical slopes (25-39%) shall be required to submit a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and a Grading Plan, unless said property qualifies for an exemption under subsection 14- 6K-1D. The Sensitive Areas Development Plan must conform with the design guidelines specified in subsection 14-6K-114, and the Grading Plan must conform with the requirements of the Grading Ordinance. c. Protected Slopes - Any area designated as a natural protected slope (40%+) shall not be graded and must remain in its existing state, except that natural vegetation may be supplemented by other plant material. Any such property shall be required to submit a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and a Grading Plan, unless said property qualifies for an exemption within this Section. Development activities may be allowed within areas containing altered protected slopes, including, but not limited to, slopes previously created by cutting or filling activities, exceeding 40%, if a geologist or professional engineer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that a development activity will not undermine the stability of the slope and the City determines that the development activities are consistent with the Intent of the sensitive areas ordinan- ce. Buffer requirements: A buffer will be required around all protected slopes. Two feet of buffer will be provided for each foot of vertical rise of the protected slope, up to a maximum buffer of 50 feet. The buffer area is to be measured from the top, toe and sides of the protected slope. No development activity, including removal of trees and other vegetation, shall be allowed within the buffer. If a geologist or professional engineer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that a development activity can be designed to eliminate hazards, the setback and buffer requirements may be reduced. Design Standards: The following guidelines shall be addressed when either a Sensitive Areas Site Plan or a Sensitive Areas Development Plan for property con- taining steep slopes is submitted: 2 BUFFER REGUIREMENT~ FOR PROTECTED SLOPES REQUIRED I~UFFER 2' FOR EVERY 1' OF VERTICAL RiSE UP TO REQUIRED SUFFER 2' FOR EVERY 1' OF VERTICAL RISE UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 50' PROTECTED SLOPE (4096 OR GRr..ATER) A MAXIMUM OF 50' NOTE: BUFFER MAY BE REDUCED UPON REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL STUDY. size required by the zone in which it is located. [For example, the con- struction area would be 3,200 square feet for a lot in the RS-5 zone, where a minimum 8,000 square foot lot is required.] Except for driveways and utilities installation, no grading or excavation shall be allowed outside the construction area. Cut slopes shall be constructed to eliminate sharp angles of intersection with the existing terrain and shall be rounded and contoured as necessary to blend with existing topography to the maximum extent possible. The City will not accept the dedication and maintenance of cut and fill slopes, except those within the required street right-of-way. Street rights-of-way and public utility corridors shall be located so as to minimize cutting and filling. To maintain the stability of ungraded areas, existing vegetation shall be re- tained to the maximum extent possible. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:30 p.m. on the 13th day of Febru- ary, 1996, in the Civic Center Council Cham- bers, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; at which hearing the Council will consid- er: 1. An ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article K, entitled "Envi- ronmental Regulations," Section 1, entitled "Sensitive Areas Ordinance," Subsection I, entitled "Steep Slopes," to allow develop- ment activities under certain conditions on protected slopes that have been previously Altered. n ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter by approving a Sensitive Areas Develop- ment Plan for a 0.32 acre proper~y located in the PRM, Planned Multi-Family Residen- tial, Zone at 515 and 521 South Linn Street. Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK Contact Person: Charles Denhey, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356.5247 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CHAPTER BY APPROVING A SENSITIVE AR- EAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CHANGING THE USE REGULATIONS FROM PRM, PLANNED HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO PRM-SA, PLANNED HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-SENSI- TIVE AREAS OVERLAY, FOR A 0.32 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 517 S. LINN STREET WHEREAS, The applicant has requested a zone change from PRM, Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential, to PRM-SA, Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential - Sensi- tive Areas Overlay, over property located at 517 S. Linn Street, and has also requested approval of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan on the same property; and WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed development activities within an altered pro- tected slope; and WHEREAS, the applicant's engineer has dem- onstrated that the proposed development activities can be constructed without undermin- ing the stability of the altered protected slope; and WHEREAS, the City and Planning and Zorling Commission have determined that the proposed development activities within the altered pro- tected slope are consistent with the intent of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance; and WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Com- mission has reviewed the application for the Sensitive Areas rezoning and the Sensitive Areas Development Plan, and recommended approval of both. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL. 1. The property described below is hereby reclassified from its present classification of PRM, Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential Zone, to PRM-SA, Planned High Ordinance No. Page 2 Density Multi-Family Residential - Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone: The north forty (40) feet of Lot Three (3), In Block Nine (9), in that part of Iowa City, Iowa known as the County Seat of Johnson County, according to the recorded plat thereof. And also: The south 54 feet of Lot 2 in Block 9 in that part of Iowa City, Iowa known as the County Seat of Johnson County, Iowa according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 1, Page 253, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa. 2. The Sensitive Areas Development Plan for the property described above, also known as 517 S. Linn Street, dated January 11, 1996, with revisione to January 30, 1996, is hereby approved. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi- sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 111. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti- tutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi- nance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this __ day of ,19 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK / or STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Charles Denney Item: REZ96-0002; 515 & 521 S. Linn Street Date: January 18, 1996 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Kevin Kidwell 2162 Sugar Bottom Rd Solon, IA 52333 644-3279 Requested action: Approval of a Sensitive Areas Develop- ment Plan. Purpose: To allow development on a site contain- ing critical and protected slopes. Location: 515 & 521 S. Linn Street. Size: 14,136 square feet Existing land use and zoning: Single-family residential, PRM Surrounding land use and zoning: North - Multi-family, PRM East - Multi-family, PRM South ~ Single-family, PRM West - Multi-family, CB-2, PRM Comprehensive Plan: Mixed Use. File date: December 28, 1995 45-day limitation period: February 12, 1996 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Kevin Kidwell, is requesting approval of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan for the subject property. Because the site contains both critical slopes (slopes of 25% but less than 40%) and protected slopes (slopes of 40% or greater) as defined by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, it is subject to the provisions of the Steep Slopes Section of the ordinance which requires approval of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan for either of these categories of slope. Approval of a sensitive areas Development Plan is a rezoning of the property and requires approval of both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. 2 The property is located in the PRM, Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential, zone. The applicant is proposing to build a 4-story, 16-unit multi-family building with parking located in a garage on the first level of the building. The applicant is using the bonus provisions allowed in the PRM zone. Proving a masonry finish on the building allows five bonus points, and with these points the front yard is being reduced from 20 feet to 15 feet, building coverage is being increased from 40% to 44% and the building height is being increased from 35 feet to 36.5 feet. ANALYSIS: Staff has proposed an amendment to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance that would allow some development activities within protected slopes if the slope has been previously altered. This amendment to the ordinance will also be discussed at the January 18 meeting. Approval of the recommended amendment is required to allow development of the site as proposed by the applicant. Currently, the ordinance prohibits development activities within areas containing protected slopes, therefore the plan as submitted does not comply with the ordinance and cannot be approved in absence of the ordinance amendment. The western portion of the subject property contains a slope with a grade in excess of 40%, that is classified as a protected slope by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Field inspection of the site revealed that the slope appears to have been previously altered to allow development of properties located on Dubuque Street at the top of the slope. Rubble is present in the hillside and there is a sharp angle of intersection at the toe of the slope, indicating that the slope was filled at some time in the past. The remainder of the site is generally level. Based on the proposed ordinance amendment development activity could be considered within the protected slope. The protected slope also requires a buffer of 50 feet because it has a vertical rise of more than 25 feet (two feet of buffer is required for every foot of vertical rise, up to a maximum of 50 feet). Under the proposed ordinance amendment development activity could be allowed within the protected slope and the buffer could be reduced if a geologist or profession engineer can demonstrate that the development activity and buffer reduction will not undermine the stability of the slope and can be designed to eliminate hazard, and the City determines that the development activity is consistent with the intent of the steep slopes subsection of the ordinance. The purpose and intent of the steep slopes section of the ordinance is to promote safety in the design and construction of development, minimize flooding, landslides and mudslides, minimize soil instability, erosion and siltation and to preserve the scenic character of hillsides. In this case, the area of the slope has been isolated by surrounding development and does not provide significant wildlife habitat nor is it particularly scenic. The slope is unlike steep slopes in other parts of the city that are important components of lager ecosystems and are often found in conjunction with other environmental features such as streams, wetlands or woodlands. In staff's opinion further alteration of the slope would not have a negative e~fect on the scenic or natural qualities of the area; however, concerns regarding slope stability and safety must be addressed. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed grading of the protected slope will not undermine the stability of slope or have a negative impact on neighboring properties. The current ordinance requires that a geologist or professional engineer demonstrate that a 3 development activity can be designed to eliminate hazards in order to allow a reduction of the required buffer around a protected slope. The proposed ordinance amendment has the same requirement to allow development activities in protected slopes. Information pertaining to how the slope will be altered has been submitted and is being reviewed by staff. Until this review is completed, a recommendation regarding the Sensitive Areas Development Plan cannot be made. If the proposed ordinance amendments are approved and the applicant can demonstrate that grading of the protected slope will not undermine the stability of the slope staff feels that approval of the Sensitive Area Development Plan is appropriate. If either of these two conditions are not satisfied, staff would not support approval of the application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ96-0002, a request for approval of a Sensitive Area Development Plan for property located at 515 and 521 S. Linn Street be deferred until the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed building can be designed to maintain the stability of the protected slope and without creating a hazard to neighboring properties. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map. 2. Sensitive Areas Development Plan. Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development ~mzOOO2.cd L©CAT0 ON MA? 5~7 So L~NN STo BURLINGTON III COLLEGE rn__ __0 CO --Z Z-- -- T _11111 ~ BES'T DOCUMENT AVAILABLE --~Dl.'.Nil?ijl ,.,.. ..'.... · ' .,.-!it..',~..' ', .,' '" · ... C:.i.': .,.., . ... ,'" · . : '.,,.J~..j~' · I' ~.~ · ,,, · ~..1~ .I .. . .~..~.. . , !,'i ,, , / , / ! .; * I ! I ,' ! W 3N~3 M.~ 3dC,,~d 0 W [3 3NI3 Al~13d~d IS3/A ~3/A01 ~IVIS