Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-05-2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Formal Meeting September 5, 2002 Thursday- 7:30 p.m. Emma J. Harvat Hall - Civic Center P/C! 1 Department of Planning & /~ '~ Community Development ~) CITY OF I0 WA CITY Agenda Formal Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, September 5, 2002 - 7:30 p.m. Emma J. Harvat Hall (Civic Center) A. Call to Order B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda C. Announcement of Vacancies on City Boards and Commissions D. Rezoning Items: 1. REZ02-00010 Discussion of an application submitted by Craig Petit for a rezoning from Low Density Multi-Family (RM-12) to Sensitive Areas Overly Low Density Multi-Family (OSA-12) on 1.06 acres to allow a 14-unit multi-family building located on the west side of First Avenue south of Stuart Court. (45-day limitation period: September 5) 2. REZ02-00015 Discussion of an application submitted by James D. Goss for a rezoning of approximately 6.6 acres of property from Low-Density Multifamily Residential, RM- 12, to Interim Development Single Family Residential, ID-RS, located on St. Clement's Alley south of Dodge Street. (45-day limitation period: September 8) E. Subdivision Item: 1. SUB02-00013 Discussion of an application submitted by NICK Partners for the final plat of Village Green, Part XXII, a 9.31 acre, 24-1ot residential subdivision located north of Wellington Road and west of Scott Boulevard. (45-day limitation period: October 12) F. Consideration of the August 15, 2002 Meeting Minutes. G. Other Items: H. Adjournment Up :oming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings: Informal September 16 September 30 October 14 November 4 November 18 December 2 Formal September 19 October 3 October 17 November 7 November 21 December 5 STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: John Yapp Item: REZ02-00010 Lot 3, First and Rochester Date: June 20, 2002 Subdivision Part 1 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Craig Pettit, Ambrose Development 250 12th Avenue Coralville, IA 52241 Phone:337-8888 Applicants Engineer and contact person: Ralph Stoffer, Landmark Engineering 535 Southgate Avenue Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: 354-1984 Property Owner: Chris and Paula Streeper 976 West Side Drive Iowa City, IA 52246 Phone: 351-7532 Requested Action: Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning Purpose: To permit the development of a 14- unit residential building on a lot containing critical (25-39%) slopes Location: Lot 3 First and Rochester Sub. Part 1 Size: 1.06 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped; RM-12 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Undeveloped; RS-5 South: Undeveloped; RM-12 East: Residential; RM-12 West: School; RS-5 Comprehensive Plan: This property is in the Central Planning District; the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map identifies this property as appropriate for medium density residential development. File Date: May 23, 2002 45 Day Limitation Period: Waived to September 5, 2002 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Ambrose Development, has applied for a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning for a proposed 14-unit residential building on Lot 3 of First and Rochester Subdivision Part 1, located on the west side of First Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue. The property is zoned Low Density Multi-Family Residential, RM-12, and the proposed 14-unit building use is in conformance with the density requirements of the existing zoning. As part of the Sensitive Areas Development Plan approval, the applicant has requested an increase of the height requirement of the RM-12 zone The proposed 14-unit building is proposed to contain two or three bedroom apartments; two parking spaces are required for each two or three bedroom apartment. A Sensitive Areas Overlay zone is required due to the proposed disturbance of critical (25-39%) slopes on the property. This property is north of Lot 2 of First and Rochester Subdivision, Part 1. Lot 2 was recently recommended for approval for a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone by the Planning and Zoning Commission. That project was also reviewed due to the presence of critical slopes. The Planning and Zoning Commission first reviewed a proposed development for Lot 3 of First and Rochester Subdivision Part 1 at their June 20, 2002 meeting. Staff and the applicant have been working through subsequent designs for the development of the property. This staff report is in response to the latest design plan submitted by the applicant on August 22. ANALYSIS: A Sensitive Areas rezoning for this property is required due to the presence of critical slopes. Critical slopes, as defined by the ordinance, are slopes between 25% and 39% steep. The Sensitive Area Ordinance states that grading and excavation shall be minimized on steep and critical slopes, and that cut slopes shall be constructed to eliminate sharp angles of intersection with the existing terrain. Existing vegetation shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. Slopes on the Property Most of this property contains steep and critical slopes, and in staff's opinion it is not possible to develop this property without disturbing these slopes. Approximately 25% of the lot consists of steep slopes (18% to 24%), and approximately 34% of the lot consists of critical slopes (25% to 39%); in total, approximately 59% of the lot consists of steep or critical slopes. One of the issues that staff has struggled with is placing a priority on which slopes are more 'worthy' of being protected, or which slopes carry more weight under the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. It is the critical slopes (25% to 39%) that trigger the need for a rezoning of the property, and it is the critical slopes that are more prone to erosion, all other things being equal, than slopes less than 25% steep. Therefore, preservation of critical slopes should take precedence over less steep terrain. Staff also feels preserving a continuous area of environmentally sensitive landscape should take precedence over solely calculating the total area of environmentally sensitive 3 landscape without taking into account the location or continuity of the land. For example, greater weight should be given to one continuous 'chunk' of environmentally sensitive land, than to little 'pieces' of environmentally sensitive land separated by paving and building areas, even if the one large 'chunk' of land may be slightly less in size than the sum total of the 'pieces.' Two of the purposes of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance are to "foster urban design that preserves open space and minimizes the disturbance of environmentally sensitive features and natural resources," and to "provide for ecologically sound transitions between protected environmentally sensitive areas and urban development." In staff's opinion, it is more ecologically sound to encourage some continuity in the sensitive feature than to just look at the quantity of land being preserved. Revised Design Plan With the viewpoint of preserving as much continuity of the slopes as possible, and with giving more weight to the critical slopes vs. the steep slopes, staff has been working with the applicant to move the proposed development as much as possible to the north side of the property. The majority of the critical slopes, and in fact the majority of the large trees, are on the south half of the property. Under this design plan (see attached), approximately 74% of the steep slopes would be disturbed and 45% of the critical slopes would be disturbed. In total, approximately 57% of the steep and critical slopes would be disturbed. Approximately 59% of the property is covered with steep and critical slopes. To compare, the original design plan (attached) submitted by the applicant resulted in over 75% of the sloped areas being disturbed, including 74% of the critical slope. Some of the subsequent design plans resulted in sloped area at the corners of the property being preserved, but no large continuous area. Staff also reviewed this property in the context of the development recently approved on Lot 2. The Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Lot 2, immediately to the south of Lot 3, resulted in it's development being pushed as much to the south as possible, preserving much of the northern 1/3 of the property. If the development plan for Lot 3 can result in much of the southern 1/3 of Lot 3 being preserved, there can be some continuity in preserved critical slope and vegetation between the two lots. Besides the ecological benefits of this approach, it also results in a sloped, wooded transition between the two multi-family buildings, which improves the streetscape and lessens the visual impact on these medium density structures. Variations to code requirements In order to move the proposed development to the north as far as possible, the applicant is requesting a variation to the 35-foot height limit in the RM-12 zone. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance allows "flexibility in the application of development codes, standards and guidelines to allow innovative designs that promote the purpose of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance." The proposed building is 56'2" on the east side, and 46'2" on the west side. The extra height is due to the under-building parking proposed in order to limit areas of paving outside the building, and a fourth story. A taller building with a smaller footprint is one 4 way to minimize disturbance to the sensitive slopes. The building is proposed to be set back between 44 and 60 feet from the First Avenue right-of-way. The applicant has also proposed evergreen and deciduous plantings along the First Avenue frontage to help screen the bottom floors from view, and to help ameliorate the visual impact of the additional height. The attached site plan and building elevations show how the applicant has proposed to screen the bottom floors of the building from view. It may be some time before the proposed landscaping reaches a height sufficient to screen the building. One other factor in how the height of the building will affect the surrounding properties is the topography of the surrounding land. The building is near the Iow point on First Avenue; the landscape generally rises in all directions from this segment of First Avenue (the Iow point is Ralston Creek, about 400 feet to the north of the proposed building). The first floor elevation of the building is proposed at 727 feet; the south east and southwest corners of the lot are at 740 to 745 feet, and the Regina property to the west is approximately 755 feet in elevation. In other words, because the building is near the Iow point of the surrounding landscape, the impact of it's extra height should be lessened. The largest visual impact of the building will be from the properties immediately to the east. Because the building is in the Central Planning District, adherence to the in-fill multi-family design guidelines is also required. Because of the applicant's attempts to design a development that pushes everything to the north side of the property as much as possible, including the use of under-building parking, strict adherence to some of the multi-family in-fill design standards is not possible, such as the standard that garage doors should not face the street, and if they do face the street they should not occupy more than 50% of the linear face of the building. Subsection 14-5H-5N(5) allows exceptions to the mandatory standards provided the alternative design solutions "provide some environmental benefit." While the building design has not yet been reviewed by staff for adherence to the in-fill multi-family design guidelines, staff feels it is reasonable to allow variations if they are needed to enact the Sensitive Areas Development Plan approved through the legislative process. The attached elevations show the applicants attempts to screen the garage doors from view from First Avenue. Grading and Erosion Control Plan Staff received the grading and erosion control plan for the property on August 30, but has not had time to review it. The grading and erosion control plan will need to be approved by staff prior to the Commission approving the Sensitive Areas Development Plan. We hope to have the grading and erosion control plan reviewed by the Commissions September 5 meeting. Additional information requested by staff In order to have a better understanding of how the height and placement of the proposed building appears to the neighborhood, staff has asked the applicant to provide a cross- sectional view of the building from two points on First Avenue. Staff has not yet received these diagrams at the time of the writing of this staff report. Staff will be prepared to give a recommendation on the application after review of these documents. 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ02-00010 a request for a rezoning from Low Density Multi- Family Residential, RM-12, to Sensitive Areas Overlay, OSA/RM-12, for 1.06 acres of property located at Lot 3 of First and Rochester Subdivision Part 1, be deferred, pending the approval of the grading and erosion control plan, and review of additional visual information to be provided by the applicant. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. August 21, 2002 Sensitive Areas Site plan 3. Building elevations 4. May 23, 2002 Sensitive Areas Site Plan Approved by: .,,,"¢-'~---f_,,-~,,/~ ,,~,,~., Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development U:$jyapp/rezonings/rez02-00010 Lot 3 First Avenue.doc '_LIN ~0 O,lOB N I I I N City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: Planning &n Zoning Commission FROM: Shelley McCafferty DATE: August 29, 2002 RE: REZ02-00015, 1026 St. Clements' Alley At the August 18 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Commission requested that staff address a number of questions regarding the rezoning at 1026 St. Clements' Alley. In terms of sewer in this location, Rick Fosse informed me that it is not entirely clear whether sanitary sewer service can be provided to this property by gravity flow from North Summit Street. He stated that Public Works does not have enough information to determine if it is physically possible. Also, the land through which this sewer would need to be constructed is privately owned with a mix of buildings (most served by septic systems) and contains both wooded and steep terrain. The only way to fully answer the question is to survey one or more potential routes and perform a preliminary design. Extension of the sewer from North Dodge Street would likely require a grinder pump or lift station and further study would also be required for this option. Regardless whether sewer is extended from North Summit or North Dodge to the property, the Johnson County Public Health Department requires one acre per dwelling unit for septic systems. The 1026 St. Clements' Alley property is only 4.76 acres and it is likely that no more than one acre of this property would be appropriate for a septic system due to the terrain and the Ralston Creek watershed. Therefore, additional multifamily or single-family residential could not be developed on this property without extension of the City sewer system. The City would not issue a building permit until the sewer issue is resolved. The Fire Department has also expressed concern regarding the difficulty of accessing this site with their equipment due to the narrow, unimproved condition of St. Clements' Alley. Access roads for fire equipment are to be designed to support the loads of fire apparatus and surfaced to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Of the 4.76 acres, approximately one acre (21%) is developable. The remainder of the property is a steep, wooded ravine that would likely be protected by the Sensitve Areas Ordinance or is inaccessible. After subtracting area for the increased St. Clements' right-of- way, yard setbacks and a sensitive areas buffer for protected slopes, it is likely that only about .65 acres is actually buildable. Staff feels that rezoning this property to ID-RS is appropriate and that it would be irresponsible to continue RM-12 zoning in this area without improvements to the infrastructure. FILED TO: HONOI:~BLE MAYOR AND CITY OOUNOIL ~OWA C~, ~OWA 0i¥',UL~r~x" ~'-" IOW,"~', ',..~ I ~, IOWA We, the undersigned, ~eing ~e o~er~ of ~en~ ~roe~t or more of the ~re~ of ~e pro~e~ inolu~ed in the pro~o~ed zoning ok~nge, or the ownem of ~en~ peroent or more of the pro~e~ wkiok i~ Io~ted within ~o kundred feet of ~e e~e~or kou~d~ea of ~e pro~e~ for wkiok the zoning okange ia ~ropo~ed, do kere~y prote~t ~e rezoning ~t the follo~ng ~ro~e~: ~ia ~eti~on I~ ~igned ~nd ~o~owle~ed ~y e~ of u~ ~th ~e i~te~on ~ ~uok rezoning ~k~l not k~ome e~e~ve excapt k~ ~e f~vomkle vote ~ ~ le~ ~re~fou~k~ of ail ~e mem~er~ of ~e ooun~l, ail in ~ord~ca ~th ~I ~.5 of ~e ~de of la~. ' ~er~ ~ ~Prope~ Ad~s ' - STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ~--~day of//;~/.~ ~,,:._~ ~ ,20 0 ~ before me, the underS~ned, a_Notary Public in and for. said Coun~..a, nd Sta~, p~ersonally appeared ~ I'~.. £c_~. ~_.~r...~' ~ and [.~--o~.~..a_ I-'~_._~__~' ~ to me known to be the Identical persons named in and who executed~l~e within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. I comml~lon Number 22181 gl I;.", MyCumrnLsslonEx..t)lres I K-~_L C Y T'~-~-~-~_.v Notary Public In and for the State of Iowa Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this j~+l'~day of ~ ~.u~_~J~ , 20 O'S-before m~, ~e undersign~ a Nota~ Public in and for said Coun~ and St~, personally appeared ~ ~o~ ~~ ~ and to me known to be ~e iden~al persons named in and who executed ~e within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their volunta~ a~ and deed. ~~~~'--~ Nota~ Public in and for the State of Iowa STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo Item: SUB02-00013, Village Green, Part XXll Date: September 5, 2002 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: NICK Partners 44 Sturgis Drive Iowa City, IA 52246 Contact Person: Dick Hupfeld 887-7225 Requested action: Final plat. Purpose: Development of 23 single-family lots and 1 lot for 13 condominium dwelling units. Location: West of Scott Boulevard north of Wellington Drive Size: 9.31 acres Existing land use and zoning: Undeveloped, RS-5 (OPDH-5 pending) Surrounding land use and zoning: North: Single-family, RS-5 East: Manufacture housing, County RMH South: Condominium OPDH-8 West: Single-family, RS-5 Comprehensive Plan: Residential 2-8 dwelling units per acre. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the June 20 meeting the.Commission recommended that the City Council approve the preliminary plat and OPDH rezoning for Village Green, Part XXlI. It is anticipated that the Council will complete approval of the rezoning and preliminary plat at its September 24th meeting. ANALYSIS: The final plat as submitted is in conformance with the approved preliminary plat and OPDH Plan. Construction plans and legal papers must be approved by staff, prior to Council consideration of the final plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that SUB02-00013, the final plat of Village Green, Part XXII, a 9.31- acre, 24-1ot residential subdivision located west of Scott Boulevard and north of Wellington Drive, be approved subject to staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to City Council consideration. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Final plat/ v------~ ~ -- Approved by: Karin Franklin, Director Dept. of Planning and Community Development Sill/VI? IVNOdcY03 ,&ti.9 V~OI _~0 .,(11~ ~° ~ Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 1,2002 Page 6 Benton Street. Otto said she had always wondered why Willow Green along Teg Drive had absolutely no sidewalk next to the park. She had visited each park and had a list of parks within the City that had no sidewalk along them, so it was possible to do. Hansen asked Otto by her living in the area and watching the traffic flow, what percentage of persons who crossed Benton Street to get to the north side sidewalk would use a south side sidewalk to go down the hill. Otto said at this point there was nothing to go down the hill to on Riverside Drive. Persons who were crossing the street were doing so to cross the street to go to the hospital or the children to go to the school. There was a crossing guard to help the children cross the street. She said if Miller or Hudson Streets had sidewalks on them, persons could walk to Wal-Mart or to the pizza place, but those streets didn't have sidewalks either. Shannon said at one time he had inquired why the push button lights had been removed by the City. He would request that Staff reinvestigate that issue. Otto said at the school between Benton Street and Mormon Trek, there was a yellow flashing light which designated a school area and seemed to slow the traffic flow down. Ruth Baker, 515 West Benton Street, said she wished to thank Staff for all their hard work. From the planning principles list it was evident that Staff were listening and were trying to come up with a good plan for everyone. Baker said she wanted to talk to the issue of Benton Street traffic issue. She felt this was an opportunity to do more encouraging of people to use Hwy 1. Baker said she hoped that anything that could be done with the Plan to continue that venture would be investigated. She felt there should be a stoplight somewhere on Benton Street. Drivers used the street .because there was not a light between Sunset Blvd and Riverside Drive and they tended to speed because it was a long straight stretch. Baker said at the corner of Benton Street and Miller Street would be the perfect spot for the placement of a stoplight, not only for the traffic problems but also for the park and for children to safely cross the street. Baker said she was also of the opinion that there should not be a sidewalk on the south side of Benton Street. That would be an incentive for children to run across the street. Baker said she lived on the south side of Benton Street. She crossed over to the north side to ascend the hill, then crossed back over to the south side of Benton Street when she needed to. Baker said she was encouraged by Planning Staff's commitment to more pedestrian friendly areas. Robynn Shrader, 1104 Weeber Circle, said she encouraged the Commission to adopt the Plan as a whole and added her sincere thanks to Staff for what she felt was a great process. Staff had worked very hard to engage persons in the process who wanted to participate. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Hansen made a motion to continue the public hearinq for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Southwest District Plan for the area located generally south of Melrose Avenue, West of the Iowa River, North of Highway 1 West and East of the Iowa City Landfill to 8/15/02. Anciaux seconded the motion. Anciaux asked how wide was the right of way along Benton Street and the width of the street on the hill. Howard said the pavement area at the intersection of Benton Street and Riverside Drive was quite wide, approximately 45 feet. It narrowed to 25 feet on the hill and widened out to 33 feet west of Sunset Drive. Staff would check the width of the right-of-way. Hansen said persons had talked about safety and safety issues associated with Benton Street; the speed of motorists and bicyclists traveling on Benton Street; and the speed of traffic on Rohret Road. Hansen said part of that was the behavior of the persons who were engaging in those activities. He said the Iowa City police were always looking for places to place the radar wagon. He had seen it on Benton Street but not on Rohret Road. Hansen encouraged the residents to call the police and request them to place the wagon on Rohret Road. Freerks asked Staff if they were planning on having additional public meetings or meeting with persons who had issues with the development of the proposed Carson lake area. Howard said Staff would be willing to meet further with them. Carson had visited with Staff several times and Staff had modified the concept plan in response to Carson's concerns.