Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-03-2008 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, June 30, 2008 - 6:00 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Lobby Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street Thursday, July 3, 2008 - 7:30 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda C. Rezoning Item REZ08-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for a rezoning to amend the conditional zoning agreement to modify the concept site plan for approximately 25.16-acres of property in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 855, 911 & 1001 Highway 1 West. (45-day limitation period: July 3, 2008) D. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: June 19, 2008 E. Other F. Adjournment Informal Formal City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 3, 2008 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo Re: REZ08-00006 Wal-Mart Conditional Zoning Agreement The applicant has submitted a revised concept site plan and building elevations that address several of the code deficiencies that were outlined in the June 19th report to the Commission. There are two items of concern that still need to be addressed or clarified. The applicant has also requested an additional amendment to the Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) to allow the installation of a third free-standing sign on the property. Building design: The building elevations for the Ruppert Road fayade now show the required articulation of the building plane. Two twenty foot wide bays have been added behind the screening wall for the refrigeration equipment. Awnings and changes in building materials have also been added. The design now appears to meet the requirements of section 14- 2C-6 K.2.a. A scalable version of the elevation drawing is needed to confirm that the requirements of section 14-2C-6 K.2.b. have been met. The concept site plan must be revised to correspond with the revised elevations. The applicant has indicated that drawings demonstrating compliance with these requirements will be submitted. Landscaping: Staff had initially requested that the applicant provide tree wells in the pedestrian area between the front of the store and drive. The applicant expressed a concern about trip hazards associated with tree grates. At the June 19th meeting the Commission indicated that there should be more extensive landscaping in front of the building. The applicant indicated a need to have sufficient area to allow pedestrian access to the front of the store. A possible solution that would provide sufficient space for both landscaping and pedestrian access was discussed. This would require the removal of 1 parking space from the south end of each row (approximately 20 spaces total) to allow the 30 foot driveway in front of the store to be shifted 9 feet to the north and adding 9 feet of area between the curb and the front of the building. It was suggested that the 20 parking spaces could be replaced in the vacant area west of the garden center resulting in no overall loss of parking. This would provide an additional 9 feet for landscaping and pedestrian access. A similar design was used for the Wal-Mart in Fort Collins, Colorado to provide a tree lined area in front of the store (see attached site plan from Fort Collins). In lieu of this solution, the applicant has proposed additional planter boxes as shown on the revised site plan. The Commission should decide if this is sufficient to address the concern for additional landscaping. Free standing signs: The existing Conditional Zoning Agreement limits the Westport Plaza development, which in addition to the proposed Wal-Mart, the adjacent car wash and real estate office to no more than two free-standing signs. The applicant is now requesting that the CZA be amended to allow a third free-standing sign on the Ruppert Road side of the property which is otherwise restricted to a monument sign. June 27, 2008 Page 2 Impervious surface: The Commission requested information about the amount of impervious surface that exists on the current property compared to the amount proposed with the new plan. The existing development, consisting of Wal-Mart, Staples, the former Cub Foods store and the parking lots and drive areas, covers approximately 74% of the site leaving approximately 26% of the property unpaved. The revised plan shows that 66% of the property would be covered with building and paving and 33% of the site would be unpaved. Attachments: 1. Elevations 2. Concept site plan 3. Fort Collins site plan C(~ _ N ~g .., .- CJ m ~ o ~ _li: '00 c:::> O~ ~ b ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ . W ~J ~~e ~.~ il~ 1M +i~; hUt; ~~.iU ~~II~g IE~~'~~ ~ 2iil! . l::.. of i i { 1 t~ ~~ ~~ ~. ~~;: lilw!ii ~~!i Ie. ~ " z 5! !i tc > ~ !i III i!: ~ a:: o ~ z 0 ~ ~ <(~ ~~ ... .- o CO ~ O~ _it '0,0 c::::> c::J (J"\) c::::=J b ~ ~ = (i\0 ~ ~ . i ~h ~.~ .r ~.~ 'H '~gi hi! ..-! > ~~~12 ~~~~~! ~ ~~~I! < .i 0 >g~h~ ~ufIl3. ll'elM ~~ma I; i! ,I ~ ~~ d i~~ .~a <C - ~ ... .- z ~ o = > ~ III -' III I- en ~ III ~ 0 o co 3: _ 08 -" '0:,0 C::> C) 0'0 ~ D ~ ~ = ~ ~ l ~l .h W p~ <J~ 1M .~!. ~gh~ o~ ~". H"H ~ ~;~~j zUfll!" i~i~d ll'~~ilA i "~ ~~ g~ ~a~ i~i z ~ o = > III ... III . I- en <I: III 0 /1 il ,\D3 v =" "-.-./ ~; .~: c:::J:. ;;, ~ u ': '=I: ~ ~ ~ :' l- I'" II ~ t ~~ ~ 'IL!i . ==~ ~, ~ c.t~ o .11 s: < ~, :0 o o I I 181 ![ ; ~ : ~ ~ f! ~ . .~, t p ~ ~ ! r ~ ~::I:: 0': Z I ;';j ; ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ c.", '7 g Q~" / s"\ " / ___y.~o:..'?'!!.-""- ~\J~'? ,-<.' , Hlf----/c-.~~..!.~'\ :~~: ~. '.- .,.-,,"u ._____ _ _.:...1__ , '\ : ~ ! ; o I: n' :;: : I j'; ~ I: ,-"L 'jl ' L 0 ~C:)O ./' I -t 1_ ~~. i! 10 I~ l~ I~ u z ~ ~ ~ E,=, ~2 ~~ _ VI / ~ ~ I~ g ~ I; ~ 15 ,: I '; / /' T/, "d I P ~ .-cifl ,J ~~~{ 7 1~1 i ,s,; I / ! / I I I ! iS1 B I~' I I I L_______ __~___ -(I>- -:,.~ 0-.y I>- -:"0/ :~;i:,. '<<\ "~ ,1 " ". I u~, '-./ z ~ ,: ~ ~ s v :~ q~:,:~~: II? " ~i: ".' ""~''= ;1 u ~' <0{ 5' (.Q(' ?; ~! ~ Q OJ -0, (/H tn d ~j I I .1 :; ~ J~ n il 9J II ~ Vi 0 ~7 ~ i q z <( " ~ 1 ,,~ II i ~CL / i , , I i i i , , j ~I , , I "' o z !~ HH~ h i;~ h.i~~~~ :l !, "II, lid ,I,!ll~ l~ ii !~:!~~ i~ i~t ;:~~i;~ ~i ~~ ~Hn~~! il:~i ~;~~r~ ;:~ II, !!im ;1 lij! !lii!!~ m .., ""l,. " 0" "'ll'~ '.:" ! !ii ill !il II Iii il!!!ll iii c 'I;' .\'~~~~ 5'1 .i:~ ,....:o:~~~ - X ~ iJ ~~~~~~ I~, ~l~~;: ~,H;I!; iii -[ :li'1 ~~..:d~ 8. ~.,1, u~I'<5"'<!: h; .~.~~~ ." ~~ ~lj"O~'I~;:~~ ''''i' i"" ,'1". ,;' !'li'IN! .,. ~~~~~ ~~!~~ :!~;~~ !~! ~;~~ie~g~! J~i~i Ii ,~j;~ ~~Pi ~~n~~ ~~1 tj~~~~~~p ~I~~i! I 1 1 1 1 , , , ~ , , j , , , , , , ~~ i~ ~~ ;~. j ~ J" - , Ii., ~ ~~ :; 1~ Cl ~ C ------ .. c. ~ i ; 8 ql.l; ~i -~!- ~.-!.~! H B " 1: !! ji .i~ !$,. I i;: H H B I! ii I; Ii . , ; } '" i. 11 u ~~ fill ! I 1 J) :13 "J'" f~ :;u ~!f ~~ JS ;! ii i~ IS It ~ I.LII' ~li. Ii l! !: 1! I ., ,~ ~\'! i',.,,'!. ~.'. ' .f:,!".:. :~.,.'~ f: i~!?[ ~o .8 I" ~ _-~ J- _: ~~ j~li~, if PU~ j~ J~ ,P ~~ ~~ ~ ;: -;- ~I; , ;L: : -; . ~ 1 " ~ .- ~ I , , , '-'. .:.....:....:.....:..._'e- 1 Oi ; ! ~;~i~ ~~ . ~-o-.~ \1 u~ 0-- I. ~ ' '() " ~~)(~D! .---rS.c:F\ IJ 0!JP" ~ D~ illf;, !\ ~;~ ) "i: ) ,\ ! \ ijj \ {.___!l:'~l i J~_ -:-{ l q---, : \ , :1) ~i..: ~ HiPE ~ 0 ~ I i i.l ~ '~l\ ~ ~il,;J '~""III \ ~ ~:Hj I Iffi ':;y I ''- _~ l_ u ~ '" to o " z i= z :3 a. m => - '" , I " (f) ~ \ I ~~~ 1 I ,~. ~ '~') %J./' / .I / ol~ \ ". "- Ii ll! ill ~j~mm I~~~~ WW~, r@ s~h~t~~ I II ] Jli d~ ~ ~~ :!i , ,'( Si I ;~ i :! :; ~~ ~ l~ " \ . , " '- ~"_",~"",,,,""'......~_IIiIiI__.r.__...............IIItA......~a.-,.............,---..__~_~-..__->:.r,. - .., _.... ~~_.,. .._...._ w~ !ili!. ~, OaV~OlO) 'SNIllO) Jj ~ df u.. =.~ oo/t/l J.. m::1 lN3Wd0l3A30 liNn 03NNVld lYNB If! 0 =.~ 0/00{<' l~ =.~ _c nl~,l ~-- _c dll :imi S~NISSOlD AVW31 ONV A~lf38lnW ....,IGl""""'J -,.,;.';~",.. i ~=- _~ U.,I.,U.,I., iO tL ~ I ,~,o: J"":: i+111 .il ~ -,-~ -1:1 ~' . II I K ~ -I ' ' I' ~ ': '.j , ii It ~I \ \ \, \ i~,I, i!16 (~j\~ IH~!!~ .~~t 'il ~ !~f ml ,!1~~~ II II II rl! ~, ~ I " ~~ . i:/ i ~!l 1 '~F , e~'! L. ~ ~i;: n~~ !~ !h! uU ~~: I"~ r ai~~' ;lill, ~o t ~i!li i ~Il~! ~ dl~f! .. ..i, ~..l~. i \i)ijJJJ I~ 1,1 , " . j-:d-i I' '1'1 ... . ...1., ~,~ I",' "'iT'll i i. i i e~ ji ~ .. I" ,j ~ I" al i~! ~ !~ ! ~il 81\ i !~ II" ", t !~~ iI, ii I ~. <D" 'a I_ I 9t'II~!i~ 1 !d m ~~ ~i q@l ~ is~ ~ In I: i~l .~ !"' ~~ ~i ~~ !hl! !~! ~m] ~h ! ~ d ~ I ~lj~~ aq. , I ~a.! 1\ lip"'. Hi; i! 1:~.: II ~ i !j .' ~ ~ i . t 'jl b rI2"~ l~rl ~ ~~~ I ~s t 'i II !; ~~13 hUh II i ~~2 ~!l ;~! !~! -~i ~!l III ~n~ Eilrc ('6-tj ! i i ~ I ~ p I ~ il " ~ I . ~ j ;~, · " ;!' Uu idj jji! !I>~ rQ ",m Id, Sl' I ,~ " o~ ~j13 h II h -l ! . ' ~ i~, ! ',P .~I I I W:l W'l' . . "'~ . ~al! I l s .' ! ~ ~!:; Q ~!~; , ! · ", '!"" , 'r"l II ~. ; ~~~: ; ~~i. ~ I. i ~IO i ~'i ~ '! ~ I ~U! I ~;:! ~ :! ~~i ! ~ ! ~i~~ ; ~m ~ i1 f?i . ~ , - e-- ~ '" 1-: .-t ~ ~J: ! =1-=- -~, ~-- -----';- ~ =f' ~.- ~1-=- MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2008 -7:30 PM - FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel, MEMBERS EXCUSED: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Wally Taylor, Dennis Mitchell, Jeremy Carter, Tom Winter, Gary Sanders, Glenn Siders RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommend approval by a vote of 6-0 item SUB08-00007, an application from Southgate Development for a final plat of Kennedy's Waterfront Addition Part Five, a 4-lot, 6.48 acre commercial subdivision located west of S. Gilbert Street, south of Stevens Drive. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING ITEMS: REZ08-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., for a rezoning to amend the conditional zoning agreement to modify the concept site plan for approximately 25.16 acres of property in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 855, 911 & 1001 Highway 1 West. The 45-day limitation period is June 29, 2008. Per the request of Commissioners at the last meeting, Miklo offered clarification as to the role of Commissioners in this matter. The application is not for an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan or the zoning classification; rather it is an amendment to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) that was entered into by the original developer of the property. That CZA dealt mostly with aesthetics and other issues of design on the site. Miklo acknowledged that there is some controversy, as well as some support in the community, concerning the business practices of the applicant that have been put before the Commission by members of the public, however, he advised that those practices are not on the agenda for this matter and that the Planning and Zoning Commission is being asked in the application as to whether or not amendments to the CZA to replace the previously approved site and building plans should be approved. The role of the Commission is one of judging the aesthetics and appearance of the design as it relates to the entranceway to the city. As the applicant's architect said at the last meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 - Formal Page 2 everyone seems to have an opinion about architecture and landscape design, but in this case, the Commissioner's opinions matter as it is part of their role to help decide for the community whether the new plan and building design are satisfactory. If the Commission finds the plans appropriate, they would be recommending to the City Council that the CZA be amended to substitute this new plan for the previous plan. If there are additional conditions or issues the Commission wishes to address in terms of the design of parking lot, landscaping or building, those would need to be identified so that they could be incorporated into anything that goes forward to the Council. Miklo said there are some basic minimum standards in the zoning code that must yet be met. Staff has met with the applicant's representatives to discuss what items fall short of the minimum standards. Those items would need to be met by the time that the site plan and building permits are issued. Miklo said that one area of concern was the northeastern part of the site where Ruppert Road enters the property. Miklo said that there is quite a bit of paving in that area, and the sidewalk is right on the curb, which does not allow for snow storage or adequate pedestrian safety. Staff has also asked for some additional landscaping in that area to break up the roughly 45 feet of paving, which Staff deems to be excessive by the code's standards. Miklo said that additional landscaping at the front of the store has been requested by Staff, and that while since the last discussion some additional planters have been added, Staff is concerned that the may be too small. Another basic concern is that while truck traffic will be mostly relegated to the rear of the facility, there will be some mix of car and truck traffic that Staff feels should be corrected. Additionally, elements of building design also fall clearly short of the requirements of the zoning code, Miklo said. The front fa<;ade pretty much meets the standards other than some architectural details that have been discussed between Staff and the applicant. The Ruppert Road side of the building, however, does not meet some of the code's standards which require large buildings to be broken up into components. Miklo said there is a very clear standard that every 100 feet there must be a 3-foot change in plane of the fa<;ade. Miklo said that while there is a change in material, there is not a change in plane in a number of areas. As a result of these findings, Miklo said, at tonight's meeting the Commission will not be asked to vote on the application. The plan is not in a condition to be voted on and was just received by Staff earlier in the week. What Staff suggests is that the Commission provide direction to the applicant in terms of the plan, if there is anything about the site or the design that they feel needs to be addressed above and beyond the standards of the code. Commissioners should consider if they are satisfied with the building appearance, with the amount and type of landscaping. Miklo said that if Commissioners have concerns in these areas, now would be the time to identify them. Miklo stated that he would be happy to try to answer any questions Commissioners might have. Plahutnik noted that the original CZA called for an L-shaped, relatively pedestrian friendly development in the Westport Plaza area, and that what actually resulted was two large free-standing stores. Plahutnik asked at what point the agreement shifted. Miklo stated that he did not know the details of that as he was not involved in this particular project. Miklo said that he did know that one of the changes to allow the Staples to go in was approved in an amendment by the City Council. How the rest of the changes to the plan occurred, Miklo did not know. Eastham stated that the current code has pretty clear provisions for site plan approval and for the site plan to be consistent with the concept plan that had been approved. Eastham asked if that process was the same at the time of the original development. Miklo said that the standards of the code in 1989 were not as clear or detailed as they are today. Miklo said that the CZA in question did have some vagueness in it. Eastham directed a question to Greenwood-Hektoen. Eastham stated that the approval/denial process outlined in Chapter 18 of the code (18-2-3-c) provides that the site plan can be approved by administrative review, or by the Commission in two circumstances, 1) if 20% of surrounding property owners object, or 2) the Department of Housing Inspection Services (HIS) requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviews the site plan. Eastham asked if in Greenwood-Hektoen's opinion the CZA Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 - Formal Page 3 could have a provision in it that requires that the site plan is reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Greenwood-Hektoen replied that she believed that the way it is written in the code is the way it must be done, and that now, this process, was the Commission's best chance at giving their input on the matter. Freerks commented that the Commission would need to be very specific at this point in their direction to the applicant, and could make a vote at the next meeting based on that. From there, Freerks said, the Commission would have no other say in the matter. Greenwood-Hektoen stated that there would have to be substantial deviation from what the Commission had approved in order for them to have further say in the matter. At the point of site-plan review, she said, there is less discretion and less need for a neutral party to make a decision. Miklo added that there may have been some CZAs in the past where it was specified that the Planning and Zoning Commission must sign off on the site plans, but, Miklo added, that is essentially what will happen at the next meeting when enough detail is provided by the applicant. Eastham noted that the Commission was basically still approving a concept plan, and Miklo affirmed that this was the case. The public hearing was opened and the applicant's representatives were invited to speak. Dennis Mitchell, of Meardon, Sueppel and Downer addressed the Commission on behalf of Wal-Mart. Mitchell introduced Jeremy Carter, project engineer for Wal-Mart and Tom Warner, consulting architect on the project. Greenwood-Hektoen asked Mitchell to address the ownership of the land in question. Mitchell said that his understanding that there is a contract in place which allows Wal-Mart to purchase the land from the other property owners. That land agreement is supposed to close before the end of August. Greenwood-Hektoen said that depending on when everything is finalized, she believed the current property owners should still sign the CZA. Mitchell noted that Wal-Mart is not planning on purchasing the car wash or ReMax buildings. Greenwood-Hektoen replied that those buildings would not be subject to this CZA. Jeremy Carter, civil engineer, presented a brief review of the layout of the proposed plan as compared with the current layout. Carter stated that there has been a lot of thought put into the area with planters at the front of the store. The planters were designed with pedestrian traffic in mind, as well as to allow for the large trains of shopping carts to be pushed from the parking lot into the store. A sufficient clear space must be left free to allow for this cart maneuvering. Carter said that while they may be able to improve some of the sizing of the planters, adding a whole lot more may not be possible. Carter noted some changes to the site plan since the previous meeting's discussions. He pointed out that the parking lot had gone from 60-degree parking to 90-degree parking in order to add back in some parking that was lost in revising the plan to better meet Staff recommendations. The islands inside the parking lot were rearranged and reconfigured to create a pod and separated area as called for by the ordinance. One of the things that was changed was a path that Planning did not feel was needed. Carter said that an additional drive was added to address concerns expressed by Planning and Housing and Inspection Services regarding traffic flow. Additional reconfigurations will be done to address Miklo's expressed concerns regarding the mix of truck and car traffic. Carter said that Wal-Mart also is concerned about the mix of car and truck traffic and wishes to avoid it, but that there may be one or two trucks a week that service the Garden Center that would have to use the same drive as car traffic. A couple of landscape islands were added to an area that was previously paved; Carter said they could change somewhat in terms of design. An area in which there is still a lot of work to do is on the Ruppert Road side of the building. Carter said that there were sidewalk and continuous pavement issues in the area and that a couple of planter boxes needed to be added. Carter briefly reviewed the traffic flow areas on the Ruppert Road side of the building for both trucks and cars. Carter offered to answer any questions the Commission may have. Eastham asked what the approximate dimensions of the parking area were. Carter was not sure, but Miklo measured roughly on the application and found it to be approximately 450 x 700 feet. Eastham asked if Wal-Mart had considered adding a landscaped median across the front of the store. He said that basically there is a 700 foot long strip of asphalt, and wondered if Carter had considered Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 - Formal Page 4 breaking it up somewhat by putting a median on the store-side of the drive with interruptions for pedestrian and customer traffic to go through. Carter said that it hadn't been considered because Wal- Mart considers that whole area in front as pedestrian access, and putting a median there with breaks would force people to move in a traffic area to get to the break. Eastham said he believed that it could be designed in such a way that that problem did not occur. Freerks asked if Miklo had some of the images of other Wal-Marts that had been used as examples of good design. She said she seemed to recall areas like that in some of those images. Carter said that there is a line of landscaping across the building by the drive aisle. Miklo stated that one of the issues discussed early on was a request that Staff had for tree islands across the front of the store. Wal-Mart has concerns for tree-grates as trip hazards and does not use them, which is one reason that planters were utilized instead. Eastham pointed to an example on the slides as reflective of the idea he was trying to get across with a landscaped median all across the front of the store. Tom Warner, consulting architect, stated that improvements to the elevations have been made. Warner noted a change in design where a lower band was added on two anchoring corners. Additional planters have also been added along the front, despite real constraints along the front given Wal-Mart's perspective of the whole front as a pedestrian access area. Warner suggested that perhaps some of the examples shown on the presentation were different prototypes of Wal-Marts with slightly different functions than the one being designed for this project. Cart access also constrains the design at the front of the building, keeping the planters to a minimum size. Warner said that discussions had been held with Staff regarding areas still in question, and that he believed the standards would be met. There is still a slight disagreement between Staff and Wal-Mart concerning the definition of a projection. Wal-Mart believes that the screen wall on the Ruppert Road side of the building actually acts as a projection to break up the fa<;:ade on that side of the building. Warner stated that they would be working with Staff to resolve these issues. Freerks recalled that there was something about a 60% fa<;:ade in the Big Box standards that seemed not to be met by this project. Miklo stated that she was correct, and that according to Staff's rough estimate the Ruppert Road fa<;:ade is at 30% and it needs to be 60%. Freerks asked Warner if he was familiar with this standard. Warner stated that he was familiar with the standard and one way to come up to it would be to allow the screening wall to be viewed as a projection. Eastham asked if it was correct that Wal-Mart considers all of the space in front of the store as customer access. Warner confirmed that this was the case. Eastham noted that there are only so many doors into the building and asked how many entrances there were. Warner pointed out four main access points, but said that it is not uncommon for customers to enter and exit the store at varying points during their shopping trip. Warner said that because all of that is considered pedestrian access, they preferred not to block the area with tree grates, which have a tendency to be tripping hazards and to make snow removal difficult. Cart traffic is also a major consideration in designing this area. Eastham asked if the median were along the other side, away from the store, would that then meet Wal-Mart's definition of leaving the pedestrian access clear. Warner said that they are already providing landscaping all along that area. Eastham said that the current design calls for capped aisles and what he is talking about is a continuous median with interruptions going through for pedestrian traffic. Warner said that Wal-Mart has provided planting beds because it does not impede the flow of people through it and that he did not quite understand what Eastham was requesting. Freerks commented that she believed Eastham was asking for a visual break-up with something other than concrete that would not necessarily be a barrier to all pedestrian traffic, as in some of the examples shown. Miklo said that in order to get a reasonable sized planting bed either up against the store or between the curb and the sidewalk City Forestry generally recommends a width of nine feet; a parking space is also nine feet wide. Shifting everything one parking space to the north would free up the necessary space. Miklo said that it was his understanding that Wal- Mart is fairly reluctant to reduce the amount of parking on the site, as roughly 22-24 parking spaces would be lost to landscaping with this plan. Miklo said those spaces could be made up in the vacant space located west of the garden center. Eastham commented that there are 836 parking spaces in the current plan, which Miklo and Freerks noted exceeded the minimum code requirement of roughly 560 spaces for Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 - Formal Page 5 a facility of this size. Eastham said that his primary concern is that this is a 700 foot long, 450 foot wide parking area, roughly 7 acres of parking, and is actually much wider than the current parking area. Eastham said that he is trying to envision how green space, trees and vegetation can be incorporated into the parking area so that it looks like an attractive part of the entrance to the city, rather than a 7-acre parking lot. Eastham said he is convinced that that can be done, although he does not yet see it in this concept plan. Carter replied that each of the islands in the parking lot are planted islands, which are of a width of nine or ten feet and definitely meet the minimum standard. Freerks asked what the islands would be landscaped with. Carter said that the landscape architect favors vegetation, mulch and shrubs over rocks and bushes. Carter acknowledged that the city ordinance required that a parking space be within 60 feet of a large tree or 40 feet of a small tree, and that has been incorporated into the plan. Eastham replied that there are trees and islands of this nature in the current parking area, and still the appearance is of a large, asphalt parking lot. Eastham said that it is this look he is hoping to get away from. Carter said that there is a lot more green space on the current plan, although he does not know that from the highway each individual tree would be discernible. Freerks said that she believed the idea being discussed was of getting a little bit more green space together to get a major impact and a better appearance for an entrance; smaller islands might not provide the same effect as a larger swath of green. Freerks and Eastham discussed that their specific direction to the applicant was to increase the green space, perhaps by removing the 24 parking spaces and landscaping as suggested by Miklo. Koppes stated that she personally felt that if the applicant was meeting the zoning code standards, then she did not want to treat them any differently than the next Big Box that came down the road by giving them additional requirements. Freerks replied that the Planning and Zoning Commission had latitude in this case because of the CZA. Eastham said he did not want to treat Wal-Mart differently either, but that Menard's was able to both meet the standards and provide an attractive entrance. Koppes asked Miklo if Menard's met the standards or exceeded them, and Miklo replied that they certainly met the standards. Miklo stated after brief discussion that it appeared that a majority of the Commission wished to pursue more specific direction regarding the landscaping. Plahutnik made the point that it was Wal-Mart that reopened negotiations by coming to the Commission and asking them to change the CZA; Wal-Mart is asking the Commission to change things in one way, and therefore the Commission is asking Wal-Mart to in turn change things another way. Weitzel asked Miklo if the current standards for the parking lot were close to being a LEED standard; Miklo did not know. Dennis Mitchell said that he believed the landscaping standards came about to make sure there is enough break up of these parking lots, and enough green showing to give a nice aesthetic view. Miklo said that once Staff received the landscaping plans he believed that the parking lot itself was very likely to meet the code's standards. Busard said that LEED addresses issues more of storm-water runoff, impervious surface and heat island effect, whereas what is being discussed is aesthetic in nature. Busard asked if there was any way to wrap the aesthetic concerns in with the impervious surface area issues. Carter said that he did not believe the impervious surface area was being increased as the amount of retail space is going down by roughly 9,000 square feet and the parking lot is being reduced by about 300 spaces. Busard asked if the green space was designed in a manageable way so that it actually affected storm-water runoff. Carter maintained that they are not doing anything to increase the impervious surface area. Busard asked if the applicant was doing anything to improve the situation, and if that was something the Commission could consider. Freerks replied that the Commission could talk about many things because they were in the middle of renegotiating this. Carter said that by the fact that there was less concrete, water would hit the islands and some of it would be absorbed, and the result would be less runoff, although he acknowledged that he was not sure what the percentages of green space now versus green space in the plan was exactly. Freerks asked for calculations by which the impervious surface was being reduced to discuss at the next meeting. Busard asked if impervious concretes had been investigated. Carter replied that Wal-Mart had done some experiments with impervious concretes and found that they did not work. Busard asked if green Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 - Formal Page 6 roofs had been considered. Carter said that Ryan Horn would be the best person to speak about that, but that he believed Wal-Mart currently has a test of this in Chicago. Freerks asked if there were four people who wished to discuss the plantings at the front of the building. Busard, Eastham, Weitzel, Freerks and Plahutnik indicated that they would. Freerks said that it would be put on the list of things to discuss. Freerks asked if Carter was getting a sense for what the Commission was envisioning. Carter said he was a little bit. Freerks said they were looking for something that gave a broader sense of green space at the front of the store rather than little pieces sprinkled here and there. Eastham said he has looked down at the site and tried to envision a very discernible green barrier that takes your eye off of all of that asphalt parking area and puts it on that green space in front of the store and the storefront itself Plahutnilk noted that that would be a plus from Wal-Mart's perspective as well, and that the Commission and the applicant are not at cross purposes. Carter said that they would definitely take a look at the issue. Plahutnik said that while others have been focusing on landscaping, he feels he needs to at least say that the Comprehensive Plan calls for a pedestrian-friendly community with pedestrian-friendly developments, and calls for things to be integrated into the community, and that a Big Box at the back of a giant parking lot does none of those things. Putting brickwork on the front of it is nice window dressing, Plahutnik said, but does not address any of those issues. Plahutnik said that in comparison to the demands made on other merchants, what is being discussed is pretty lenient. The idea, Plahutnik said, is one of designing your store so that it is part of the community rather than putting something out on a plane and effectively blocking anything beyond that from ever being integrated into the Iowa City community. Plahutnik said he looks at the development as an actual barrier rather than anything that ever could allow any kind of integration. Plahutnik said he was not on the Commission in 1989, but that there seemed to be a lot of zoning going on at the time and very little planning. Plahutnik said that they are the Planning and Zoning Commission, and for him, this is going to be their only shot at any sort of planning on what is a redevelopment of this plot. Once the building goes up, it will be there for 30-40 years, until long after he is dead. In terms of giving the applicant direction, Plahutnik said, take a walk around Iowa City and get some direction. Carter said that he does not in any way mean to come off as combative, but that as an engineer he loves clear direction. He simply wants to make sure that he is able come back with what they are looking for. Freerks said that in some ways it seems almost as if the code was not even consulted. She said that she was disappointed at being this far into the process and not being even close to meeting the minimum standards in some areas. Freerks said she recalled from a previous meeting a comment calling the development a model for what would be coming all across the state of Iowa, and that, to her, that statement does not take into account what this community is asking for through its Comprehensive Plan and its zoning standards. Seeing the possibilities in the example buildings that Wal-Mart has already built according to the standards of other cities, she feels that there is still a ways to go to get to that point. Weitzel noted that just in looking at the illustration you see cars and paint, very little vegetation. That is what the current parking lot looks like and the Commission is trying to go to the next generation parking lot with a tree canopy, a more park-like, inviting feel. Carter pointed out that one of Wal-Mart's big things was not going to a green site but trying to redevelop existing sites as they are trying to do here. Weitzel said that he did not think that anyone was saying that this site could not be redeveloped, but that they are trying to ensure the redevelopment is done is such a way that it is good for the next fifty years. Eastham said that in the spirit of giving specific direction, the places he's looked at in the community that are more appealing large parking areas are Pepperwood Plaza on Highway 6, the new Menard's store, and what used to be the Parkview Church parking lot. Weitzel wanted to reiterate what Staff had said about the Ruppert Road elevation being a public fa9ade and the importance of that articulation that is stated in the code. He also has some concerns about trucks Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 - Formal Page 7 mixing with vehicular traffic, and that he believes there are ways to accommodate that in this plan. Carter said that there are plans to look at those issues. Freerks agreed that there was a lot of work to be done there and that it was important since that is clearly a major entrance. Freerks asked if Carter had been able to look at the list of outstanding issues that Miklo had presented to the Commission. Carter said that he had. Freerks asked if he agreed with the items where the minimum standards had not been met. Carter said that there are a couple of issues which Staff and Wal-Mart see differently. Freerks asked for specifics. Carter said that the first issue was whether or not the screen for the compressor area on the Ruppert Road side constituted an articulation in the building. Miklo said that Staff has determined that the screening wall for the compressor units is not part of the building, has no roof on it, and is basically a wall to hide things. The Code says that every 100 feet you must have at least a 3 foot variation in the building wall, which is not met by that screening wall. Even if the Commission wanted to approve the wall in lieu of an actual projection, it would have to go to the Board of Adjustment. Carter stated that ultimately this issue would be worked through and they would meet the requirements of code. The second issue that must be worked through is that the city ordinance requires that all end-caps be landscaped. Wal-Mart, very sensitive to lawsuits, has taken the interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to mean that there must be a free path along the entire row. As a result, Planning and Wal-Mart are going back and forth a little bit on whether or not there should be an end cap in the area. Eastham asked if the view from Highway 1 on the west side of the building was not sufficient to require fa9ade improvements. Miklo said that because of the way the building is skewed from the highway and set back further he did not believe the fa9ade would be an issue. Wally Taylor, attorney for Iowa City Stop Wal-Mart, said that he spoke a few weeks ago and that he believed the minutes reflected very specifically what he had said at that time. Earlier in the evening, Mr. Plahutnik made exactly the same point, said Taylor, and that is that this area was planned to be a pedestrian-friendly area of small retail businesses. That has not changed. As Taylor stated a few weeks ago, there were a couple of minor changes in the CZA, but the overall intent of the area was not affected. As was mentioned tonight, Taylor said, a Big Box store with a huge parking lot is not a pedestrian friendly grouping of small businesses. Taylor said that the Wal-Mart folks were using the word "pedestrian" tonight, but the fact of the matter was they were talking about a big parking lot where people park their cars and walk into the store, do their shopping, come back out and drive away. Taylor said that it was ridiculous to suggest that because of the fake fa9ade attempting to look like three or four separate businesses people would go into the store, come out one entrance and go into the next entrance and so on, despite the fact that they could easily walk the length of the store inside the building. People who enter large stores like this enter the store and stay until they leave, Taylor said. The important point to him is that this plan does not coincide with what the agreement for this property is, and has been, and still is. All of the attempts that Wal-Mart can make to pretty it up and plant trees here and there and change the fa9ade does not make a difference ultimately because it is just not in compliance with the CZA. The Commission is being asked to change this zoning agreement, Taylor said, and to approve cosmetic changes. However, said Taylor, the Commission is not being asked to do what would need to be done to satisfy Wal-Mart which is to changing the concept of the whole area. Taylor said Wal-Mart was really playing a magician's game of redirecting the Commission's attention from what was really being done, and he asked that the Commission not be fooled by it. Taylor requested that the Commission not change the overall concept of the CZA, and said that by not doing that, the Commission could not approve what Wal-Mart is doing in the area. Gary Sanders asked if all of the Commissioners had the original CZA, and if they had all of the background on who bought the land and when. Sanders thanked the Commission for their dedication, and commented that it has been a terrible time for the people of Iowa City. He stated that he was a little curious as to why a meeting was even being held tonight when the plan revisions were just received that Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 - Formal Page 8 day. He asked if that was standard procedure. Freerks replied that it had been a "special" week all around, and said that usually things arrive in a timelier manner. Freerks said that the usual Monday meeting was cancelled and that was why the Commission was receiving things later than usual, but that the idea was that this discussion would continue beyond tonight's meeting. A special meeting is being planned for Thursday, June 26th, Freerks said, and at that time they would hope to see something that reflects what the Commission has outlined for the applicant this evening. Mitchell said that Wal-Mart would go back and address Staff's concerns, and that he hoped that next week when they brought back illustrations they would better reflect the landscaping that is going to be done. Hopefully, Mitchell said, that will alleviate the Commission's concerns. He said he believed that everyone does understand what it is the Commission is asking. Freerks thanked Mitchell and added that she believed if he consulted the list that there is more than landscaping that needs to be addressed, including some building design issues. Mitchell said that he understood that the building design issues were primarily on the Ruppert Road side. Freerks replied that he should take a look at the front of the building as well in terms of the things outlined in the list and at the meeting. Freerks said it comes down to concept in terms of having something that really fits Iowa City and not something that could be put down any place. Eastham moved to defer REZ08-00006 to a special meeting on June 26, 2008. Weitzel seconded the motion. Freerks invited Commission discussion on the matter. Weitzel said that he was aware that there is some history on this site but that he did not think it was within his understanding of the Commission's latitude to outright deny a redevelopment here. Freerks replied that the Commission does not have to vote to approve something that does not meet the standards either. Weitzel agreed, but said he did not believe they could outright deny because of things that are not part of the application, such as the fact that the building was supposed to be an L-shaped development. Greenwood-Hektoen said that if it does not meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, the Commission does not have to approve it. Weitzel said he believed it did meet most of those standards, but that it was the standards of the existing CZA that opponents such as Stop Wal-Mart were discussing and that it was those he did not believe were in the Commission's scope. Freerks said that the Commission can talk about aesthetics, and open space and green space and can deny it based on any of those things. Weitzel said that he's not saying that the Commission cannot deny the application, but that the reason they deny the application cannot be because it is not an L-shaped, series of smaller stores. Weitzel said that the comments being directed at the Commission for denial are on the basis that the plan does not meet the criteria for a strip mall type design laid out in the current CZA. Eastham wanted to make sure that he expressed what he was hoping to see at the next meeting: dimensions that are at least close to the final dimensions on the green areas and the parking space, and the square footage difference in the impervious surface dimensions and the green space dimensions. Plahutnik said that he was one of the lazy members of the Commission and that he relies on Staff to do the calculating and measuring, but that he makes his decision on every plan put before him based on his interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan. Weitzel stated that he believed the plan had met those criteria and that he did not believe the Commission had the latitude to just arbitrarily say they don't like it. Freerks said they do have the power to deny based on aesthetics. Weitzel agreed that that was not an arbitrary reason. Weitzel said that in this particular case the Commission does not have the power to deny if the plan meets the criteria specified in the Comprehensive Plan, and he believes it does. Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 - Formal Page 9 The Commission voted 6-0 to defer the item to the next meeting. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: 5UB08-00007: Discussion of an application from Southgate Development for a final plat of Kennedy's Waterfront Addition Part Five, a 4-lot, 6.48 acre commercial subdivision located west of S. Gilbert Street, south of Stevens Drive. Miklo stated that the property is on the west side of Southgate Avenue and south of Stevens Drive. Stevens Drive would be extended into a cul-de-sac where there would be four lots, with access to the cul- de-sac on lots 1 and 4, and with lots 2 and 3 sharing a single access onto Gilbert Street. Miklo said that this was consistent with the preliminary plat the Commission had approved a few weeks prior. At this point, Miklo said, Staff is recommending approval subject to approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration of the plat. Weitzel said that he knew he had asked the question before but that he just wanted to reiterate the question of whether the access point of lots 2 and 3 onto Gilbert Street was not seen as a potential for traffic problems to Staff. Miklo said that it is not ideal, but it is acceptable. This being a final plat, Miklo pointed out, that decision was pretty much made when the preliminary plat was approved. Freerks opened the public hearing. Koppes asked if there was going to be a plan put in place to deal with water concerns, given the fact that the property was currently almost entirely underwater. Glenn Siders, developer for the project, said that there would be a plan in place. He said that as a developer he is mandated to build all structures one foot above the 1 OO-year floodplain. The bus barn directly south of this property that was just finished being built stands a little above the 100-year flood line and they took on no water. Siders said that he had his engineers down there and they would ensure the structure was above that level. Koppes asked about access concerns. If there are floods, there will be no way to get to the property even if the building itself is above the flood-line. Siders stated that that was the City's problem. The flooding areas and streets that are underwater were mostly put in years and years ago, Siders said. The newer streets have not experienced the same flooding issues. Miklo said that code now requires any new streets to be one foot above flood-elevation. The public hearing was closed. Eastham moved to approve SUB08-00007, an application from Southgate Development for a final plat of Kennedy's Waterfront Addition Part Five, a 4-lot, 6.48 acre commercial subdivision located west of S. Gilbert Street, south of Stevens Drive. Plahutnik seconded. The motion carried 6-0. Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 - Formal Page 10 ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR: Eastham nominated Koppes to be Vice-Chair. The motion carried 5-0 (Koppes abstaining). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JUNE 2, AND JUNE 5, 2008: Eastham moved to approve the minutes from June 2nd and June 5th. Weitzel seconded. The motion carried 6-0. OTHER: Freerks welcomed the newest member of the Commission, Josh Busard, and invited him to say a few words about himself. Busard said that he graduated from the University of Iowa and then left the area for awhile. He has been back about a year and a half and is a land-use planner for Johnson County. He said that he is married and his wife works at the University. Freerks asked if there were advertisements out for the Commission seat left open by Bob Brooks' departure. Miklo said that he believed sometime in July the Council would appoint a new Commissioner. Freerks offered her condolences to Eastham's losses in the flood, noting that his home is underwater. Eastham thanked her for her condolences. Miklo commented that Dean Shannon, former Commission member who lived on Normandy, also was flooded. Greenwood-Hektoen reminded Commissioners that in order to approve Wal-Mart's rezoning, there would have to be an affirmative vote of four Commissioners. She said it was just something to keep in mind when considering meeting attendance. Miklo said that all Commissioners had confirmed that they could be present at the June 26th meeting. Freerks asked if there would be a Monday planning meeting. Miklo said he did not believe so as they did not expect to get the plans until Tuesday. Freerks expressed some reservations about getting the revisions so soon before the meeting with no time to discuss them. Miklo advised that Commissioners could contact him with concerns, but that if based on getting things so late they did not feel they could digest it, they could ask the applicant to defer. He cautioned that the 45-day limitation period is up on that weekend, and Wal-Mart would have the option of deferring it or risking a vote. Hopefully, Miklo said, the plan will be clear and all of the concerns addressed. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by unanimous vote at 9:07 p.m. C .2 III .!!l E E o (J'E CJO C (,,) .- CI) Sa: NCI)~ ....(,,)0 ....CN CJI'll C"e .- C C CI) C:;: ,g<c 0. >- :t:: (J I'll ~ .S2 ~ : xxxxx : IX I at) W I W I CDOlxxxOI I ;x ~x :xxxx: 'x I C> z i= W W :i ...J <C :i a: o LL ....x I xx xl:!:! I in I 01 IX I ~ x ! XXXXXa: s x : XXX xxx : o I W I ~ X I xxxxxo I ""WI WI ;: 0 I xxxxxo I ~ X I xxxxl:!:!x I .... I 0 I III E<1>o,,-"-C')Noco..-C') '-oc-~~~~"-O.,-T""" ~ ';:::;' -... -... ........ -... -.. ........ -.. -... -... <1> ~x IJ') IJ') IJ') IJ') IJ') IJ') IJ') IJ') IJ') I-wooooooooo .a:: C 1Il"e~IIlIllCO - .a:: ~,e~ ~CI)'$ c,e CI) o I'll ... ~. C ... N Ollllll'" =I'll.-:l: Q) ""::lI'llf!o,g=ECI) EmmWLLX':o.(I)(I)3: ~ai-;o<iu.i3:c:i...=...: ~ W I I I I >< >< >< >< I >< (5 I I I (l) I I N W I I I .... - I >< >< >< >< I >< - 0 I I I II) I I '<t I I .... >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - I I '<t I I .... W I W W I N -- X X X 0 0 x N 0 I I ~ I W W W I X I X X X 0 0 0 I III 0 C') N 0 co ..- C') E ~ ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ~ ..- ..- Qq~ - - - - - - - - IJ') IJ') IJ') IJ') IJ') IJ') IJ') IJ') IJ') I-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E .a:: C ~ III III 'c 0 ,eQ) "el'll ~ii ... C ~,e ::l C 0 I'll... ....t:l <1> e III III = I'll ~~ ::l I'll f! 0 ,g= Em mW LLX': 0.(1) I1l . -;0 <iu.i 3:c:i ...=...= zm C> z i= W W :i ...J <C :i a: o LL Z "'C <1> VI :::::J (,,) X w "E"E=E <1> <1> <1> VI VI VI <1>.c.c 0:<(<( .. II II II >- W <1> - ~><oo