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.