Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-06-2010 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, May 3, 2010 - 6:00 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Lobby Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 7:00 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 I Development Item: REZ10-00006 & SUB10-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by TNT Land Development LLC for a preliminary plat and rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay - Low Density Single Family (OPD-5) for Terra Verde, a 58-lot, 23.22-acre residential subdivision located at 2949 Rochester Avenue. D. Development Items: 1. SUB10-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by the Moss Green Development Corp. for a preliminary plat for Moss Green Urban Village, an 18-lot, approximately 235-acre office park and mixed use development subdivision located west of North Dodge Street/Highway 1 and north of Interstate 80. 2. SUB10-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Steve Kohli Construction, L.C. for a preliminary plat of Brookwood Pointe, an 80-lot, 21.98-acre residential subdivision located west of Sycamore Street, north of Terrapin Drive. E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: April 12 and April 15, 2010 F. Other G. Adjournment Informal Formal STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Christina Kuecker Item: REZ10-00006 and SUB1 0-00002 Date: May 6, 2010 Terra Verde GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: TNT Land Development LLC 2779 Muddy Creek Lane Coralville, IA 52241 Contact Person: Terry Lavery Phone: (319)325-7074 Requested Action: Rezoning from RS-5 to OPD-5 and Preliminary Plat for a 58-lot residential subdivision on 23.22 acres of land Purpose: Development of Terra Verde subdivision Location: 2949 Rochester Avenue Size: approximately 23.22 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: RS-5 Undeveloped Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: South: East: West: undeveloped, ID-RS Single Family Residential, RS-5 Single Family Residential, RS-5 undeveloped, RS-5 Comprehensive Plan: Northeast District Plan: Single-family residential similar to the surrounding housing patterns. Good potential location for open space in southeast corner. Neighborhood Open Space District: NE-2 Pleasant Hill/Lemme File Date: April 2, 2010 (a complete wetland mitigation plan is required in order to be a complete application) 45 Day Limitation Period: NA until a complete application is received SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: Sanitary Sewer can be extended from previous development in the area 2 Public Services: The City will provide Police and Fire protection and refuse and recycling collection services. Several Transit routes serve this area including Rochester with stops on Rochester Avenue and Amhurst Street, Eastside Express with stops on Rochester Avenue, and Eastside Loop with stops on Rochester Avenue and Amhurst Street BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The land under consideration consists of relatively flat land on the northern portion that has been used for agricultural purposes. The southern portion consists of steeper terrain, a wooded area, wetlands, and a USGS blue line stream. The area is currently zoned Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5). The applicant, TNT Land Development LLC, is requesting approval for the rezoning of the 23.22 acres from RS-5 to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Single-Family Residential (OPD-5) in order to disturb the sensitive areas on the site, as described below. The applicant is also requesting approval for a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and the preliminary plat of a 58-lot residential subdivision with two outlots. The applicant has indicated that they have used the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have held a neighborhood meeting. ANAL YSIS: Current and Proposed Zoning The current zoning is RS-5, Low Density Single Family Residential. This allows for single- family development with minimum lot sizes of 8000 square feet. The proposed rezoning to OPD-5, Planned Development Overlay Low Density Single Family Residential, does not change the underlying zoning, but does provide for a Level II Sensitive Areas Review. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan The land is located within the Pheasant Hill quadrant of the Northeast District Plan. The Northeast District Plan identifies this land as appropriate for single-family residential, similar to the housing patterns that surround it, with the possibility of cluster style development for a portion of the property. The Northeast District Plan also makes note of the shortage of neighborhood open space in the Pheasant Hill quadrant and identifies this property as a good potential location for a three to five acre park that would provide recreation opportunities and preservation of natural areas. Compatibility with neighborhood The proposed zoning, Planned Development Overlay Low Density Single-Family Residential (OPD-5), will allow for a residential development with a maximum density of five dwelling units per acre. Most of the surrounding land is zoned RS-5 and contains single family dwellings. Staff believes the proposed subdivision would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Subdivision Design The applicant is also seeking approval for a 58-lot residential subdivision on this property. The proposed subdivision includes two outlots. Outlot A contains most of the environmentally sensitive features including a USGS blue line stream, drainage way, steep and critical slopes, wooded areas, and jurisdictional wetlands. These features are also present on some of the individual lots (11-13, 22-29, and 42-26). The applicant is proposing to use Outlot A as a storm water management basin and proposes to mitigate 3 the wetlands off site. A portion of the wooded area will be retained and replacement trees will be planted to compensate for portions of the wooded areas being removed. The applicant has proposed a subdivision with varied lot sizes. The proposed lot areas range from 8,010 square feet to 21,644 square feet, with most of the lots being in the 8,000-10,000 square feet range. The street pattern is laid out in a manner to provide good connectivity within the subdivision, as well as provide connectivity to future development to the west. Outlot 8 is proposed as neighborhood open space to be dedicated to the City. The subdivision design generally complies with the neighborhood principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the Design Standards and Required Improvements of the Subdivision Code. The applicant has proposed three phased additions. The first phase is the eastern portion of the subdivision, with the subsequent phases moving westward. Environmentally Sensitive Areas The property contains a stream corridor, critical slopes, steep slopes, regulated wetlands, and wooded areas. The applicant is requesting to disturb 48% of the steep slopes, 89% of the critical slopes, 75% of the wetlands, and 95% of the wooded areas. A Level II Sensitive Areas Review is required prior to development due to the extent of disturbance of the environmentally sensitive features. A Level II Sensitive Areas Review is considered a type of planned development and as such must comply with the applicable approval criteria for Planned Development Overlay. Wetlands For a property containing a regulated wetland, a Wetland Mitigation Plan is required to be submitted along with a Sensitive Areas Development Plan. The mitigation plan should delineate the wetlands and the required natural buffer area, and delineate a construction area limit. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) strongly encourages avoiding delineated wetland areas and minimizing the impact of development on the wetlands, and therefore requires thorough investigation and consideration of alternative development design before compensatory mitigation is considered. The SAO requires an undisturbed, 100-foot natural buffer between any development activity and a regulated wetland unless said development activity is exempted. The applicant is proposing to disturb 75% of the wetlands and will essentially eliminate all of the wetlands with the construction of the storm water management basin. The applicant is proposing to mitigate the wetlands off site, but within the Iowa River watershed. The exact location of the wetland mitigation has not been determined. The SAO does not require that the mitigation be provided on site, but it does require submission to and approval by the Army Corps of Engineers for any development activity within a wetland area and any proposed mitigation. It is staffs understanding that the Corps is no longer accepting storm water detention combined with wetlands and that the Corps is also trying to promote larger, regional wetlands with long term professional management rather than small wetlands with short term amateur management. Essential public utilities such as storm and sanitary sewers, water mains, gas, telephone and power lines, and storm water detention facilities are permitted within protected sensitive areas if they are designed and constructed to minimize their impact upon the 4 protected sensitive areas and associated buffers. Given the topography of this property, it would be difficult to provide storm water management on this property without disturbing the wetlands. The applicant has provided the Army Corps of Engineers with the wetland delineation report and has indicated that the Corps has accepted the delineation and is waiting to hear from the EPA, which gets a 21 day period for comment (period to end May 10). After the delineation is accepted the applicant can submit the proposed mitigation to the Corps. Staff is also consulting with a wetland specialist to determine if the proposed off site mitigation is appropriate. She has reviewed the delineation, but cannot make a recommendation about the mitigation, as the plan has not been submitted. The mitigation plan is a requirement before the Sensitive Areas Development Plan can be approved. Section 14-51-6G of the Zoning Code outlines the requirements for Compensatory Mitigation. Any of the wetlands associated with the stream corridor are required to be mitigated at a replacement ratio of 3: 1 (replacement to original), the wooded wetlands at a ratio of 2: 1, and all others at a ratio of 1: 1. These areas need to be addressed in the Mitigation Plan. The Wetland Mitigation Plan must also include, as stated in Section 14-51-6G: · An assessment of the value of the wetland being replaced to determine the appropriate replacement ratio; · A clear statement of the goals of the mitigation plan, including specific statements regarding the expected rate of establishment of a vegetative cover over specified periods of time; · Analysis of the soils, substrate, and hydrology of the proposed site of the constructed or expanded wetland in terms of their suitability to provide a proper growing medium for the proposed vegetation; · A list of the plant species to be used, which should include only native, noninvasive species, and their proposed locations. Transplanting as much of the native vegetation from the original wetland as possible, as well as the upper 6 to 12 inches of the soil is encouraged; and · Provisions for monitoring the condition of the new or enhanced wetland area for a period of 5 years, and identification of the party responsible for replanting in the event of poor initial growth or predation resulting in a failure of over 30% of the planted stock. Information collected during the monitoring process must be submitted to the City annually and include the following: o Data on plant species diversity and the extent of plant cover established in the new or enhanced wetland; o Wildlife presence; o Data on water regimes, water chemistry, soil conditions, and ground and surface water interactions; and o Proposed alterations or corrective measures to address deficiencies identified in the created or enhanced wetland, such as a failure to establish a vegetative cover or the presence of invasive or foreign species. The wetland mitigation plan needs to be submitted before the rezoning can be approved and Staff recommends that our wetland consultant review the plan prior to the P & Z vote. Once the City and the Corps approve the mitigation plan, then the mitigation and development can occur. 5 Stream Corridor Currently the site includes a blue line stream on the USGS maps. The applicant proposes essentially to eliminate the blue line stream. South of the proposed development, the stream was buried in a culvert under Westminster Street. Approximately 150' of the stream is located on the subject property. Essential public utilities such as storm and sanitary sewers, water mains, gas, telephone and power lines, and storm water detention facilities are permitted within protected sensitive areas if they are designed and constructed to minimize their impact upon the protected sensitive areas and associated buffers. If the wetland is allowed to be mitigated off-site, Staff believes that because the portion of the stream south of the property has already been disturbed and the proposed impact is to provide storm water management, the proposed disturbance should be permitted. Steep and Critical Slopes There are both steep and critical slopes located on the subject property. There are no protected (greater than 40%) slopes on the property. The applicant is proposing to disturb 48% of the steep slopes and 89% of the critical slopes. The grading is being proposed to address the on-site storm water management. Wooded Areas There is 7.69-acre wooded area on the subject property. The applicant is proposing to disturb 95% of this wooded area. In the RS-5 zone the Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires that 50% of the wooded area be retained. If it is determined that the required woodland cannot be retained, replacement trees must be planted. The replacement tree requirement is one tree for every 200 square feet of required retention area to be removed. Replacement trees must be approved by the City and should be of the same or equivalent species as the trees being removed. When it is not feasible to replace trees on- site, replacement trees may be planted to supplement reforestation of off-site woodlands as approved by the City. According to the SAO the applicant is required to retain 3.85 acres (167,541 square feet) of wooded area, along with a 50' buffer or provide replacement trees. The proposed disturbance of the wooded area is being caused by the construction and grading of the streets and storm water management facility. The applicant is proposing to retain .35 acres (15,295 sq ft) of wooded area, along with a 50' buffer. Based on the tree replacement calculation of one new tree for every 200 square feet of required retention area to be removed the application is required to replant 762 trees. The applicant proposes to do this by providing two tiers of evergreen trees as a landscape buffer along Rochester Avenue (70 trees) and providing at least three trees on every lot (174 trees). The remaining 518 trees will be planted in Outlots A and B in the areas labeled as tree replacement areas and along the rear property lines of the individual lots. The applicant must submit a tree replacement plan that shows approximately where the replacement trees will be planted. There is also a grove of trees along Rochester Avenue. The City Forester has identified several of the trees that must be protected and saved. The applicant must provide a tree protection plan that shows these trees being protected. The tree protection plan can be combined with the tree replacement plan. 6 Traffic implications, access, and street design: The proposed subdivision can will be accessed from the north off Rochester Avenue by Terrance Court, from the east by an extension of Lower West Branch Road, and from the south by an extension of Westminster Street. Green Mountain Drive has been extended to the west property line to provide connectivity to the property to the west when it develops. Lower West Branch Road is currently not constructed west of Amhurst Street. The developer will be responsible for constructing this portion of the Lower West Branch Road. The Fire Department has also requested that the developer construct a turn around at the end of Lake Forest Avenue, which is being shown on the plat. Some of the proposed lots along Rochester Avenue (1-6, 32-37, and 58) are double fronting lots. The subdivision regulations discourage such lots. If such lots cannot be avoided the following standards apply: 1 Lots with multiple frontages shall be 125% of the required lot area for the zone. Corner lots with only two frontages are exempt from this requirement. In this case, the minimum lot area in the RS-5 zone is 8,000 square feet. Double frontage lots are required to be 10,000 square feet. · Lots 1-6 and 32-27 must and do meet this requirement. 2 Double and triple frontage lots where dwellings will have side or rear-building facades oriented toward an arterial street shall provide a minimum 20-foot wide landscaped buffer area along the arterial street frontage. The buffer area shall be planted with a mixture of coniferous and deciduous vegetation and shall be required along with other public improvements for the property. No solid fences are allowed within this buffer area. This restriction must be noted in the subdivider's agreement and on the plat. · All the lots along Rochester Avenue (1-6,32-27, and 58) must meet this requirement · A landscape buffer is shown along Rochester Avenue on the plat. Two cul-de-sacs are being shown on the plat. Cul-de-sacs are discouraged unless topography or surrounding development prohibits the roads from going through. The development south of the proposed subdivision also features cul-de-sacs and back lot lines currently abut the southern boundary of Terra Verde. In addition, the topography in Outlot A is quite steep and the feasibility of constructing a road through this area is questionable. Both cul-de-sacs are designed as low volume cul-de-sacs, providing access to only 10 lots. Although 11 lots are shown abutting these cul-de-sacs, there is a note on the plat that requires lots 7 and 52 not to access the cul-de-sac, so only 10 are being provided driveway access to the cul-de-sac. A low volume cul-de-sac features a 22' wide pavement width, 50' ROW, and parking on only one side. At Amhurst Street the ROW width for Lower West Branch Road is 68' and the proposed ROW width within Terra Verde is 60'. As the developer will be responsible for constructing Lower West Branch Road from Amhurst Street through the subdivision, staff recommends it be constructed as if there was a 60' ROW for the entire length. This provides for a consistent distance between the road paving and the sidewalk the entire length of the road from Amhurst Street to Terrance Court. In addition, the City is undertaking a sidewalk infill project in the area and constructing the sidewalk along Rochester Ave abutting this property. 7 Neighborhood parkland or fees in lieu of Based on the Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance, a subdivision of this size is required to dedicate 0.5 acres of open space or pay fees in lieu of dedication. The proposal identifies Outlot B containing approximately .5 acres as an area to be dedicated to the City. The Parks and Recreation Commission is reviewing the plat and proposed dedication at their meeting on May 1 2. Storm water management The plan shows a storm water management basin located within proposed Outlot A, which also includes the proposed wetland mitigation area. As noted above the Army Corps of Engineers will need to approve the wetland mitigation. In the absence of Corps approval, the wetland and storm water management will need to be redesigned. As discussed above under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas, a detailed wetland mitigation plan is necessary for the City to make this determination. Infrastructure fees: sanitary sewer and water main Water main extension fee of $395 per acre is required. The applicant will also be required to construct Lower West Branch Road and the adjacent sidewalks from Amhurst Street to the proposed subdivision and to provide an emergency vehicle turn around at the end of Lake Forest Avenue. Summary Given the topography and surrounding development, Staff believes that the general design of the subdivision is appropriate and is compatible with the neighborhood. However, the wetlands and other sensitive areas present a challenge. In the absence of a complete Wetland Mitigation Plan, it is premature to approve the subdivision and rezoning. Based on cursory review and observations, it is likely reasonable for the storm water management to be handled in the location of the wetlands, but without the Mitigation Plan a final determination can not be made. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ10-00006, rezoning of approximately 23.22 acres located at 2949 Rochester Avenue RS-5 to OPD-5 and SUB10-00002, a preliminary plat of Terra Verde Part 1-3, a 58-lot, approximately 23.22-acre residential subdivision with two outlots, located at 2949 Rochester Avenue, be deferred pending a wetland mitigation plan being submitted. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: 1) Wetland Mitigation Plan 2) Tree replacement plan 3) Tree protection plan 4) Other deficiencies and discrepancies identified by the City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Plat Approved by: d/fI..tL-~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ~ tj ~ ~ ~ ~ tj an C D- o (1)- a3 E g Q3E-c: :t: (I) 0 --.JCf) en a: I C - ~-#~r LJ ro-l 60- ::J <x: MO NIV1NnOri N33M~ ~ ..,~ t.__\.~,\ -< ! \ os "'''''"-~'''''l \ /" '.,,' ,./' ~ :.., %\ ,/::<', /', ~ - ,.,,'--~~.,""? ~ '"'>'>"" , ' / "', / o ('''''--, / /~ ,~ u...J / /' '>( " '-\. //A'/f " / .. 'I ,/,/ /' -L '// I . l'"_, / ,.. 1 !'~~',"~ \ I ~ N o o o o I o ~ ~ ~ r:n .......... \C o o o o I o ~ N ~ Q) = = Q) < '-C Q) ...- en Q) ....c= CJ ~ 0\ ~ 0\ N .. Z o I-f ~ U o ~ ~ f-4 I-f en ~W!!I 111111 !55.5'5 ",''' !mlll '--J &l&l&lt~ .~p ~i~ 111I:1I:1IJ11!ill:I~I!n! .a=:.a=: ;~~U"g I"~ ~ z ;] +~ ~:! 0.... . .S! 3 ;1 "'" ~~~ ~ I~~ Q~ .~~ ~ 0 E= <r: n~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ <r: ~ ::E >--< "i a~' g:~8~ M ~~~ >--< ",- ~ ~ .~. 100~ E-< >--< '~g ~h ~S,,~ Ill,! ~:~ [f) ~ 80 q I ~& Q~~>--<i~:~ il~~ z~ ll~g .08 <r: 8. t"'. ~ '" ~!li :U <r: , ......:i i! ' O""~II d,:! i I >-- I,! II!'. " :', ! i g ~ 1'1 ~,~!1I I'!i , i <r: ~!! :il~gi !!t I I 25 Ii! 1;li~1 'I i!: i i ::s IIi ",nIl! Ii ,Ii! ! >--< a! Ii" Ii"" I EJ <<I!~ ::'~I! il ~In I ~ 1"1 ,!:~, 11!I!:, ~ 0.... II!: Ulii! ~l :!! !l ; Z <t: ......:i 0.... I:: z ::> o () I::z ulil C(Z~ ~QQ , N1;il'~' "': I' '5" ~ I I ~i :CPjo' !. .~ III ~ , ~ !'! , , ~ " 'Ji~ '~Ii! ~ II ' 'II ~" Ilbt\"'ol I " '" I ~ 'i- I 1.--~-'cT I I _~_ : I ~. I I -II ~I : I Iii I I 'I : I f ~ d'~1 D ~1"1'l.i.~1W ~/[LIIOO"l)/~fI1Iille ~ ~ ~,!j ~ ~$': ~ 0 " ,., :! "' ~ u .11 i :! --HI '-ill '! . 111I! o h .ill -I I il z <r: 0--.:1 0.. II ~~lIIllmn illllll 6 j ~ U ! l.~ ~i~ >-~!z i~~ !~~ lf~D w o 0: w > ~ 0: w I- ~ z :> o ~~ 02 <z< ;::1:;: QQQ )/ U : ,J CC ~--[ '" ~t E-< Z i::r:l ~ ...~~;! i::r:l . > ~-~ i::r:l f~ ~ r J ., ~!~ ~ .~e ~ 0 ~ <r: n~~ O::~::J~ ~ <r:~~8 ~ ~ g: > 8 >-<- ih ~;~ E=: $ t: ~~~ II~: ~~ ~u IIi,;! ,3~~ 2J ~ i5 <r: ~~~. ~~8 ~ ~ ~ ~ !ii~ I~;~ <r: ~ ~~5 ~:e ~ ~ ~ Sg~ h~ 0--.:1 0.. ij I' >-< III h,;g ~ 11n i I ,I; !~ 0:: I'i l,i'il ~ h; II an ~ Win g ~!I i~i;ll' ~ d lmullil Iii II III ~ :::;s Iii "lill t!' """'''''''''''''''''' "I ~ I!!! I~;m i ! !! I egj'ttmoeW€eoflll UI Id" !1~.;i'l! ~ ~ o..!m mm a I III !hmo."".'rllllll LJ 1m (..J In li) ~ !.i:.' ~ ~ ,1'1 ii:!i -j D ~1,"'Bl\ t'/(I.~/!l I. jj , ,I' ""~':;;~~1 l~nH, "~.~ ~ ...5U1l ~ ~in i '.'q~rr "---!lih- , ~. I. I ~~~ ,~ ~m. .n. ~ I,,! . ~.- ! II ~~lJIllnm !!ll!ll 5 j ~ II g 1"1 E-< Z ~ i-~ ~.~ 0... .- o . .a! .....:1 :~ "" -I > ~"~ "" ~"~ Cl r I ..,. ~~~ ~ '~6 c:3 fJ ~ il~.~ W <r: !l1il~. ~ ~ ~ <r:~~8 ~. g: ~ 8 ~ ~~~ E=: I"""""" ~ t: ~~~ ........~~u -~I; f2 "" il~~~ ...... J:: <r: !l1il~. "" f-'~ UJ 80 u~ Cl r ,"" "........ !..~ z ~ <( h~ <r: ("""""" 8~5 E-< ~ m <r: .....:1 0... ~Ig ,I,' >-< I,! !II~~ ~ III ~!~!d <r: i" ;" !.. Z 'I Ii I ........ li i'!~~1 ::::E 'is !illl ~111 il,h; "" ll!l :""1 ~l"-i.l 0...111; j-"'jm !M III ~i~ >-~!z i;z~ ~UJC5 w c a:: ~ ~ a:: w f- ~ z " o () ~z (3ljl <<z"" 1::1:1: QQQ 1 N I Iii I fi? '" 1-., , I .!'; ii!; \'1 D ~l~'~ .-)- P:.~[. ".' i~ ''''H''''"'~~ ,,' .". ..;~",,".'."..~~ . . / ,,~ T-=T , " ~,.- II " ~ - \ ql,l: Ill: \1\, I \ I ~ . I jii II In L ~l Iii II "" ,!llmm!;", ""Jd in :I!; III l~u+t"N€"'.1111111 ! 11/::11 " ' ,,- '0 .h. Iii Imu,.",~.,'1II1111 ) , 1m I ! ;~. .h' i:~~ ~i I , ". ~";@J~,,!i "1" 'l' I ~ " I ~ '.~'~;f-! if ;] ~ ;; ~; ~ 11 U=~A/ ~ ..i! !~ ! ~ ~ !:. .~~h'~' ~:~~ 'l.g , -" ."~ .'~~\!~.~ e~l~ ! l p= !~;~ ~~!~~g~' ~~~~ 1~. ~ ~!~ m ~i;;;d!~. !i~~ i;! ~ ~ i" ".'" ~ ~. ~ '5. ~ l~ ! ~~ m ~I~mh;~ ~Uli !~i B ~ ~~ ~.~ .~h~~h,~ ~ .. ~:i !~ ~!! ,'e~ .... i~,~~l.: ;~~i~lh~ I;~~~l~", 'I~Wi!~~; N~tii~~~ ~hil;~~1 n.. ..~. i City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 3D, 2010 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner RE: SUB10-00005 - Moss Green Urban Village The Moss Green Development Corporation has submitted revised preliminary plat documents to the City for review. The City's Engineering Division had not completed their review at the time this memo was written. However, we anticipate that any outstanding issues will be resolved by your meeting on Thursday. Staff have reviewed the location of proposed sewer extensions to the north property line and have concluded that in order to avoid future disturbance of the Johnson County Heritage Trust property, the sewer connection should be moved further east. The applicant has agreed to do so. Staff will be prepared to discuss these issues and answer any other questions you might have on Thursday. To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: SUB10-00006 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Phone: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: Public Services: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Jake Rosenberg, Planning Intern Date: May 6, 2010 Steve Kohli Construction, L.C. 3129 Dubuque Street NE Iowa City, IA 52240 Steve Kohli 31 9-936-6880 Preliminary Plat 81-lot single family subdivision Russell Drive and Terrapin Drive, west of Sycamore Street 21 .92 acres Undeveloped, zoned RS-5 and RS-8 North: South: East: West: Residential, RS-5 Residential, RS-8 Residential, RS-5 Park and undeveloped, P and OPDH-5 Residential April 13, 2010 May 28, 2010 Sanitary sewer and water are available Police, fire protection, refuse and recycling are provided by the City. Two transit routes, Lakeside and Eastside Loop, serve this area with a stop located approximately two blocks north on Sycamore Street. 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In June 2005 this property was rezoned from Interim Development (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) (the northern 10.92 acres), and Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) (the southern 18.34 acres). At the same time a preliminary plat of Brookwood Pointe, Additions 1-4, was approved to allow the subdivision of the property into a 106 lot residential subdivision. The final plat of Brookwood Pointe, Addition 1, a 26-lot subdivision, was also approved in August of 2005 and is now mostly built. The preliminary plat for Additions 2-4 expired in June 2007. In August 2008 new subdivision regulations were adopted. The new regulations contained revised standards for street design. The applicant has submitted a preliminary plat for Brookwood Pointe, Second-Fifth Addition, which complies with the new standards where possible. There is a conditional zoning agreement for this property requiring: 1. Contribution of $2507.08 per acre toward the improvement of Sycamore Street at the time of final plat approval, 2. The construction of the storm water management facilities on Outlot A with Addition 1 (this has been completed), 3. An easement to facilitate construction of a sanitary sewer line from Southpointe Subdivision to Sand Hill Estates, 4. A landscape buffer for double fronting lots on Sycamore Street. These conditions will apply to the final plats of Brookwood Pointe, Second-Fifth Addition. The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and has not had discussions with neighborhood representatives. ANALYSIS: Street Design - Brookwood Pointe is accessible from Sycamore Street to the east from Terrapin Drive and Russell Drive to the north and south. The preliminary plat shows the proposed north-south connection of Russell Drive and the continuation of Terrapin Drive. As proposed, Terrapin Drive will continue west, intersect Russell Drive, curve north, intersect with Covered Wagon Drive, and terminate in a cul-de-sac. Vesti Lane runs east-west between Terrapin Drive and Russell Drive. Running parallel to Vesti Lane to the north is Ashlynd Court which is connected to Russell Drive and terminates in a cul-de-sac. A sidewalk will connect the end of Ashlynd Court to Sycamore Street. Connecting Vesti Lane and Ashlynd Court is Brookwood Pointe Terrace, a north-south street providing additional connectivity within the neighborhood. In Staff's view, the street design adheres to the Comprehensive Plan and Subdivision Design Standards. The subdivision code, under which the expired version of Brookwood Pointe was approved, required 50 foot right-of-ways for local streets. The City's current subdivision code requires a 60 foot wide right-of-way. The additional space provides sufficient room for sidewalks, utilities and street trees. Because Vesti Lane has already been started with a 50 foot right- of-way it is shown as continuing with 50 feet to be consistent with the portion of the street 3 that has already been constructed. Ashlynd Court, Brookwood Pointe Terrace, and Terrapin Drive are shown with a 60' right-of-way to comply with the subdivision regulations. Lots 80, 81 and 22 are double-fronting lots along Sycamore Street. The subdivision regulations discourage such lots, but recognize that on arterial streets they are sometimes unavoidable. Where such lots are unavoidable, the design standards require that lots with multiple frontages shall be 125% of the required lot area for the zone. In this case lots 80, 81 and 22 exceed this requirement. Double frontage lots where dwellings will have side or rear-building facades oriented toward an arterial street are required to provide a minimum 20-foot wide landscaped buffer area along the arterial street frontage. The buffer area must be planted with a mixture of coniferous and deciduous vegetation. In conjunction with this buffer, the conditional zoning agreement specifies that any fencing be located at least 25 feet west of Sycamore Street. This restriction must be noted in the subdivider's agreement and on the plat. Due to the future improvement of South Sycamore Street, the required landscaping cannot be planted prior to road construction. Instead, the subdivider will be required to contribute a fee towards a landscape buffer which will be installed when the City rebuilds Sycamore Street. The legal papers for the final plat should include this requirement. Phasing - The 2005 preliminary plat for Brookwood Pointe phased development in a pattern that would have resulted in the Terrapin Drive and Covered Wagon Drive connecting to the Sand Hill Estates subdivision to the west as part of phase 2 of Brookwood Pointe. This would have provided sanitary sewer access to the northeast part of Sand Hill Estates, which is currently undeveloped. With this application the phasing plan would include Vesti Lane as the second phase, the connection of Terrapin Drive and Covered Wagon Drive would occur in phase 3. Staff does not object to the revised development phasing provided that there is an agreement for the instillation of a sanitary sewer connecting Brookwood Point to Sand Hill Estates. This will need to be addressed in the legal papers for the final plat. Sensitive Areas -The subject property contains Hydric Soils, which may require basement sump pumps and street construction that allows proper drainage. This will need to be addressed with the construction plans at the time of final plat approval. Existence of Hydric Soils does not necessitate Sensitive Areas Overlay and there are no other sensitive environmental features identified on the property. Storm Water Management - A small part of the eastern portion of Brookwood Pointe utilizes the Sycamore Regional Stormwater System. In lieu of providing storm water management within this part of the subdivision, the developer is required to pay a fee for use of the regional stormwater management system. At the time of final plat approval the legal papers will need to address the payment of this fee. Storm water management facilities were built on Outlot A in Addition 1 of Brookwood Pointe and will accommodate the remainder of the lots within the Second-Fifth Additions. Neighborhood parkland - At the time Brookwood Pointe was approved in 2005, the Parks and Recreation Commission chose to collect fees in lieu of open space because of the subdivision's proximity to Weatherby Park. The plat will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission to confirm that their wish to collect fees in lieu of open space. If that is the case the legal papers for the final plat should address the fee requirement. 4 Infrastructure fees: sanitary sewer and water main - Water main extension fees of $395 per acre; sanitary sewer tap-on fees of $1796 per acre and Sycamore Street improvement fees of $2507.08 per acre need to be included in the legal papers at the final plat approval. A revise preliminary plat was submitted on April 27. The City Engineer has not yet completed review of the plat. Approval should be subject to correction of any deficiencies identified by the City Engineer. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that SUB 10-00006 the preliminary plat of Brookwood Pointe, an 81-lot, 21.98 acre residential subdivision located west of Sycamore Street be approved subject to an agreement for extension of a sanitary sewer to Sand Hill Estates and approval of the City Engineer. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary plat Approved by: ~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ppdadminlstfrepltemplate.doc ~ XlJ Ii ........ { t/"r: Oll NOINn i ! ' IT Ii. i, OVOll Nll31S3M I! I I "... , fL/ "5 - , ,... I '"tJ .L c..~ 2 1: i I! G:Eci: ~ tj ~ ~ ~ ~ tj . I I I I Ii! I / I I '! ..i . ....... / -. ! ! I i I Nl ~FIIU'4'o' ! . i I'! ' i \ L-i[II' --r--r. 1S NI )lSI~' . I · !:.(1 -~.- ~. /' 11'V~ 1- f. '. ! ',-' - l ",I . - -.' . \ \ i......~L \ / i 0 .. ~~~ ..~r ~ +. ." I'~~ ...... ~t ~ I. . "... mfV81'101u _ (/l .... I, ...11 .... ~..... -- I. ... ... !/~- i- I. 'ffi .I .... . . / i ~:, .=.~ Vi \;. I ! ! I .... i '\ i \ ) ! ... r i/' l;{ T<>~r~~ ~~~ ~~. t / ", ~ ... ,..........~ Li ~~'<~~ \., ~~~'\!!! ,L'-' '""- llO ;.~.~,~~ ~j~~~/.:::'" . . _ \ I ..' L<~~ >"'~~>0 .' ~ !. ~n ... '" .... ! .... .... ...)..! . .... , ,', '., ::\<<-- 0 ~- ~ ... .. ~ ~~: <i~~.. ~ ~ ...! ~ ...... . ~ Lli ~~;'~' ~ ><.i,d-' ~I ~ ~ ! I".\' Im?>< """.,. r ~L-- , 1 ~ I~~ ,1I11 I tn1 r" ~u. U ~ !~~~?"~S~ ~~>~<~<">>,~:~ llG 113ssnll ,_ , Ii') !r!i i u ~:illl;I...,.-- i:~<<~ ~~'~ <:<;,,:<.. i hI.! ...." \ !'-. ?'~~~~; 0<~; ~S\<~~: ..i" ' ... IllO ~~ON't!l. ! iT r/'+ - I_"'~"~"-u\ : ~I'.= r2:~,.~' ~~~:~~~:fY: ({ \ ... , ~ {>':.~~<~.'l.,~~~...>~ ~!""'" ! · .! ! I I · ,I i. . ... -:,., J.\."<" 1 / i \ ,iii' I Ii [.:< .t, ,< " I !. I l~l iN I, i!, SIAVO < - ~n_ F '^ · I~ !4) i! I i :1- ,\dOOllVu ::> rt - 'u zl-.. ~!:: ~I"" ~ 1 (/l i '-- ""-e~ c. (l)~ -c: \J .......Q ~ I eX) C C. o . ,./' :\ ~I- ~ I~ /> Sycamore - .......'"tJO c:: 0 0 \Jo-c: ~:s:: (j ~:s:U) i ' L~ UUl I 1N'o')lf] II~ .. I, ...... ~ .. Uu j 1\ ....It 't~"~""^ \. J ...... .... ~ in ~..'. ~~Vj ~ r- ~ r.n 'In 310~1 D l 't J\ := 1S 3TllO~~OAS.. .. ~. i. 'n ~ ~ ,~... ... ... i., ~ ~~ .... ~ I. 1 i- <in.. l5- ..... I. ,.. ~ /._ ~I"-I- ~., . I' .. ... <) -"... - ~..~ ; llO l101AV1 : I I I i I : )/; \c/ \.....;.!,;~~~ "t; .....) ..{ I" ~ ..~ .~ !l. ''''.. ... 8~ ~........r't"6' ..... -~~'.,' .", '" ".~."'~, j ",.. '" '. )',. f._. ", !'(c, \ \. ..... =-/'1' (\e/ I .~. " t ....... ", 1~.... ....... 25, '" '/ ." ,.. nn >-- ...~:! 1'25.. ~'I~ ._,tL , .)1' Ill' ... l in C C. o "'" ~ \5W9!v.<o<,,<f:> ~ \~~" .., \~ \,/>' ~ ....... \0 Q Q Q Q I Q ~ ~ ~ rJ:J Q) ... c: .'I""l o ~ 't:I o o ] o o ~ ~ .. Z o ~ ~ U o ~ ~ f-l ~ 00 ~ 6k6v-BH:-6 ~ k - DIAO! 'all!^IDJO~ pDOJ ~DP!lo4 OL~Z 6ujJaau!5ua f^ (Q NOl1100V VIAOI 'All:) VItIOI) '3"1 'NOllJn~1SNOJ 11HO~ 3A3lS HlJlJ 01 ONOJ3S '31NIOd OOOItl~00~8 I 3DVd - lVld A~VNI"m~d ,/.!'" I, Il~. " /~ t~ \l ~/ f;. .J:.:., . , ~?i f'7~)..10I-J /~ \J'j ,.VI11,.- f:' , J't --1 I '<5 ,/\,-;,1.1111 9 l;4.t~ ~ 'L ~ i II ~ I. ~.....f.' .....J..... g: ~ l~' il ~ :/J---- ~ iL.! T~.----...j~_.. ~ J h/...~" g J '~~--------~,~) j"~- .... f ,- l L_~ -._.;.ilU.....~~f~ I'l' ,=::'.i" ...J....! '~"'-i"- It' ~ _.' " I /'(11I r ,#f!<~~ "\ ~ o ~ ..... Cl Cl <:( ~~ 5ti: 0...0 ::>-f-:.. O:::~ c:::(0 c:=~ ~U) ~~ ~~ .....J..... lLJo 0:::0... 0...8 o S: ::.::: o o 0:: co ~~ i~m Q'8~ ~I~ gQ ;~~g~ ~iU~ h!~~~ ! ~~~gg~ ~~~~~~ jo~ ~n ilh~'1 ~''''I''''' ...... - ., 1- - }1 , i" ~~~ r--/~ 81 ':..~~ i==irL ~~ : ~-I ~ H. : j r8:J,. I tI =- -H'",~ I ~~~! ""'1" I, ,i! n II n Ii H ! i ' l !?llC1rz:c,:,IJ I--~!! h" : I ! ~ . II: I m I ~ ;I!!!! I ~!:i ~'x I n I I I ,ri~"!J n~!, . ,," ~ o ~ 81 i ~- ~ Ii I ~ ~~ ~ w~. U!i! i ; ~ j; h <1 "~E Ii; ~~. . ~d ~~n h ~ ;i~' ~ h ~ . . ij' . . ~ n II~; a~~ I ; !_ ~ , ~ '. . ~~~ ~ ~ .~ ~ i ~ ' "' I~;~ ~ ~ U i " . . I ~s h.s . . J 133~lS 3~OW\fJ^S ",","nh" :~~ ~!~ , ",-" --,," ~ ~S~ ,,. ,".n'-~ "~~ ,~.~~w ...l:;u ~~; ~,~~w Ri>~ g~~ ",0 .,- ",-,,',,' ~ ,,1:;;u ~~; ,. ".~.~:?- :~u ~~; -'Ilia ,vO:-::E~ RVJ~ bg~ N c,_~:~~:.':iw ~~~ 93; " O:';:':.~. ~ ''''r~~.:;;,.IJ ---- -- -- -- ;~-7 I "" "" I _pI! Iii ;"""""""""" lliil; II >"" ". --1 , , 'r. ' // I , 4~(~> /' ;J ,;// ~~' ~ ./ /' I . /-'. " '~ /' /'. I - " / / \r ""..". " .\\\ '.../. ". ~'. / ;tk"\ \ '\ '\\\" .- .- -: ' . /.,." \ . \"". 1 ~~.. / ~'\l.. .' \~\I \\, \-" _ ~ _) - '. I i. I I,I ~ '. t , I' ' I ~I '''-'---1 ~ :\II~..-~-J ,----.."1' I '. . .' \ I '" ~! tl,'"~ Ii ". "JJ ," , i.'1 ~I-~MI-I ~ .,11 !s III ' . \ --'::,.11 Q. 'H'.-:----j ;I'!':ir ~.' -~?J: ~ IIL___-1 -. r'jl I H.'" I ~ ;; , ;I! , ,I "j' , '__---1 - - - - :f11 I. ',r' " '1 . ""I I ~ ,11,.1' , , 5~~18.[, 2t~ 3^n1G 11;1ssml ~ ~ a i:: ..... Cl Cl <::( I-E 5t Cl.o >-.f- o::~ ~~ ......V) ~ ~' ......~ -J..... UJa 0::Q.. Cl.g a S:: ~ a a a::: co 6~6v-8~~-6l ~ - OhIO! 'all!^loJOO pOOJ ,\oP!loy OLC;Z 6upaau!6ua f^ (Q NOI1IOOV VIIIOI 'AlI:l VIIIOI) 'J" 'NOI1Jn~lSNOJ IlHO~ 3A31S HHIJ 01 ONOJ3S '31NIOd OOOIll~00~8 Z 3~Vd - lVld A~VNI"llm N ~ r:.....I..... ..... - -, ,- - ~ i " .....;) ~ / ,j 8 :..~/u;I i----I I' r--vL . _ _0-_ :-- ~~ ~ H. : j iSJ '!; t=1 :-IH~ i-----I - - .. : '''It..~~ t=J . ~~ Pf:6\~ ijl PI1.c..EIZr~~~J I. ~ ~ ~ i ~;lln!n!!~ l ;;~LiHII~!II~ ~L l--~ ~ I!! ~ ! ll. ! ! I ~ ~ ~ l p~ I ~.x I (j I I I i · '1 · ~, . . ~. U .:. ~ I"~ 5 ~;~g~ ~ h~ ! ;a~!~ 1 .~U .l33}llS ~~ow.\fJ^~. ./' ./' ./' ./' ./'./'./' / / 3M'dQ :rr~S5n~ . I I 1 I I I I I i I \ .......1 -- - - - ---.- _._~--' / ~ i . d, ! ~ u: . ~ I~~ !~ i Ji vI " .~~ ~" .. h ~ ;1 ~! !;i ! i! II hI ~ ~. J Jl -, L ~~ ~cL k~ ~~ i~ ~~ E~ :~ i! lj~ gi~ ~~~ m~!l ~~~ ~~~ ~~i ~~~ ~rn~ ~~* !&i"1:t~ ~8~ ji~ ~ii ,,~~ . ~.. ,.1 u 1Jl ~i , I Ie' " -1~ ~ ~ - ~ MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2010 - 6:00 PM -INFORMAL LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Charlie Eastham, Josh Busard, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Payne STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard OTHERS PRESENT: None CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DEVELOPMENT/REZONING ITEM: REZ10-00004/SUB10-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by the Moss Green Development Corporation for a preliminary plat and a rezoning from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID-ORP) zone to a Planned Development Overlay Office Research Park (OPD-ORP) zone for approximately 60.32 acres, Research Development Park (OPD- RDP) zone for approximately 56.48 acres, and Mixed Use (OPD-MU) zone for approximately 24.49 acres, for Moss Green Urban Village, an approximately 235.00-acre office park and mixed use development subdivision located west of North Dodge Street/Highway 1 and north of Interstate 80. Howard said staff is impressed with the most recent development plan, as it has things more fleshed out than it had previously. Howard said that corrections have been made to some errors that were present in the last version, though the delineation of the wetlands is still not completed. Howard said that the only wetland that has been identified is not in the current rezoning proposal, and it appears that the plans have successfully avoided disturbing it. Howard noted that it may ultimately be necessary for the developer to get a permit from the Army Corp of Engineers before breaking ground, depending on how the analysis of the wetland area. Howard said the bottom line is that staff is pretty comfortable recommending the rezoning at this point. She noted that the plan has so much green space set aside that it is unlikely the plans would need to be altered for wetland mitigation. Howard said that the developer had complied with the request to add the floodplain elevations to the sensitive areas map. Eastham asked if the floodplain could simply be put on a separate map and Miklo said it would be most useful to have it on the same map in order to see if there Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 - Informal Page 2 of 4 are conflicts with construction activity. Miklo said that for the most part only Oakdale Boulevard is in the floodplain, which appears to be unavoidable. Howard said the roadway appears to be above the 500-year floodplain. Eastham said he personally would like to see the roadways built at 500-years plus one foot. He said that he was concerned that the intersection of Moss Place and Oakdale Boulevard may have buildings in the 500-year floodplain. Miklo said that if the Commission wished to require all construction to be one foot above the 500 year floodplain that could be accomplished through a CZA. Weitzel asked if anyone knew the flood history of the area. Plahutnik said his experience is that floods come up rapidly and dissipate rapidly in that area. Eastham said that small watersheds can actually be more dangerous because floods come up so rapidly. Miklo said that the Rapid Creek floodplain is fairly large, at 28 square miles. Howard said that a number of modifications to the underlying zoning standards had been requested for the planned development portion of the project. Howard said that these requests had been largely dimensional in nature. Howard said that the developer has requested uses allowed in the Commercial Office zones be allowed in the Mixed Use zone. She said there is a great deal of overlap in the two zones, but there are some differences. Howard said she was not sure the developers were fully aware of some of the size limitations in these zones, and felt that some of these could pose problems for a development of that scale down the road. Because of this, staff intends to discuss the matter with the developer prior to the formal meeting. There was discussion about the concept plan as a general guide for the development, and what exactly was meant by the idea of "compliance" with that concept plan. Howard explained that if details were shifted that did not affect the overall vision of the plan, leeway was generally granted. She said this is particularly important in this case as the developer did not yet know who and what would actually be locating their businesses in the development. Greenwood Hektoen asked if the Commission wished to clarify how much compliance with the concept plan would be required: "general" or "substantiaL" Freerks said that because the development will be a long-term one she favored substantial compliance. Miklo said he was concerned that there was not enough detail on the plan to make substantial compliance realistic. Greenwood Hektoen suggested the Commission could require substantial compliance for specific elements they wished to see. Plahutnik said that if the developer complies with its vision statement then the Commission will get what it wants. Howard noted that the underlying zoning will always apply. There was general discussion about what specific details the Commission would wish to see included in the final development that appear on the concept plan, in comparison to what is required by the underlying codes. No conclusion was reached about "general" versus "substantial" compliance with specific features of the site plan. Freerks asked that the Commission address that issue at the formal meeting. Plahutnik said he understood the City's hesitation to take on the street design proposed for Moss Place given its somewhat experimental nature. However, he pointed out that the idea behind this development was to generate tax dollars and it seemed somewhat unfair to generate tax revenues from these businesses while refusing to plow and maintain the street upon which they are located. He asked if Public Works was open to more talks on this subject. Howard explained that the overall problem is that the maintenance plan for the streets and the division of what would be private and what would be public became so complex that the applicant's engineer suggested the street be private. Howard said that the developer had originally requested wider streets throughout but that staff had suggested narrowing the streets through the Mixed Use zone to lend the urban feel which Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 - Informal Page 3 of 4 the developer was seeking. The developer will be working with Pearson on the pedestrian easement to put bollards on the path to deter illegal driving on it. Howard said that staff suggests the developer is granted credit for their on-street parking spaces since they are attempting to reduce their footprint. Staff suggests that if the Commission is concerned about the residential/commercial ratio in the Mixed Use zone, then they may want to adopt staff's recommendations for 90% commercial and no more than 10% residential on the ground floor, and a prohibition on detached single family units. Howard said that percentages can be very tricky given that the actual developer for the area is still an unknown. Howard said that the Commission can also simply prohibit residential on the first floor. Miklo noted that the developer does anticipate the market for live/work units. Howard said the preliminary plat is still being reviewed by the City Engineer. She said that if the plat is not ready by the formal meeting, staff recommends deferring the plat and making a recommendation to the City Council on the planned development overlay zoning with the plat following at the next meeting if the issues have been resolved. Plahutnik asked if it was possible for the developer not to stub sanitary sewer up to the Johnson County Heritage Trust property since the Trust's aim is to preserve that property. Miklo said the concern with that may be that there may be a property beyond the conservation area that would need sewer service. Miklo said that the difficulty is that the City is somewhat flying blind because there is no plan for farther north at this point. Plahutnik asked if the subject should be brought up at the formal meeting. Greenwood Hektoen said she would look into whether the requirement can be waived or not. Freerks asked staff to look into other alternatives as well. Howard noted that the northern portion of the property is not being rezoned at this time so there will be an opportunity to look at this question more closely in the future. Howard asked if there were any questions on the recommendations. Eastham asked where the concept plan was referred to in the recommendations, and Howard said it was the first bullet point. Discussion resumed as to whether the word "general" should be inserted. Howard noted that the plan will go back before a public process prior to development. Freerks asked for alternative wording regarding the residential percentages in the Mixed Use zone. Eastham asked for wording to be proposed for the 500-year floodplain to be used rather than the 100- year floodplain. Howard said she would like to discuss some of these issues with the applicant. Freerks requested that Howard relay the outcome of those discussions to the Commission prior to the meeting if possible. Howard said that the developer would like to see the process move forward for marketing reasons. She said that the modifications she had suggested for the Mixed Use zone are above and beyond what the developer may have considered and would benefit the developer to adopt. Greenwood Hektoen reminded the Commission that they would again have the opportunity to vet the plan. Howard said that one way of looking at this is that while the developer would be getting "extras" through the planned development process, they are also giving many "extras" in terms of amenities and green space, and therefore the Commission must decide if it is worth it to place additional restrictions that would place additional limits to the underlying zoning. Howard noted that the developer is reserving 80% of the green space and is only required to reserve 20%. Howard said there would need to be a public reason to impose another standard. Freerks said that because this will be a long-term development, it is important that the overall vision is retained. Howard pointed out that the underlying zoning requirements will still be in place. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:53 p.m. z Q U) U) :Ec :EO:: 00 UU "w zO:: -wo zu~ Ozo Nc:(N CC ZZ C:(W "I- Z~ Z Z c:( ...J a. C) Z ~ W W ::E ...J <1: ::E 0::: o u. ~ X X X X X X W ~ - 0 CIO W ~ - X X X X X X - 0 M oqo X X X X X X X - N ~ ~ X X X X X X x ~ en ::EW ...... ...... ('t) N 0 0 ('t) o:::~ ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... - - - - - - - Wo. LO LO LO LO LO LO LO ....>< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W J: > .... 01( :J W W ...J ::::) 0::: ~ ...J ...J J: 01( Z ...J ~ W en J: Z J: ::E 0 () <1: :J () ':i: ~ .., W C ~ u) u) ::E z ,.j ~ .... W 0::: J: 0::: W W ::::) ~ W <1: .... W a. Z J: ::E en ~ W a. ~ <1: jjj 01( ::::) 0::: 0 ...J Z m W u. ~ a. a. 3: C) Z ~ W W ::E ...J <1: ::E 0::: o u. Z N W ~ X X X X - X X ~ 0 en W W ~ X X X X - X - M 0 0 ~ X X X X X X W - - N 0 en ::EW ...... ...... ('t) N 0 0 ('t) o:::~ ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... - - - - - - - Wo. LO LO LO LO LO LO LO ....>< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W J: > - .... W ...J <1: ...J W ::::) 0::: m ...J ...J J: 01( Z ~ ...J ~ W en J: Z J: ::E 0 () <1: :J () ':i: ~ .., W C ::E u) u) ::E z ..i 01( ~ W .... W 0::: J: 0::: W ::::) ~ W 01( .... W a. Z J: ::E en en W a. ~ <1: jjj <1: ::::) <1: 0::: 0 ...J Z m W u. ~ a. a. 3: E :::::l '- o :::::l ,,0 Q) 0 ~ Z '- c..> -- Q) X g'.o UJ:.;:::;E ~Q)Q) CQ)""" c-Q)E"::: Q) C en ro en~:9o- Q).o.....zo O:<tll IIZ II II ~:2: I: XOOZ: :>: UJ ~ MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2010 -7:00 PM - FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMAJ. HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Koppes STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Wally Pelds RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 6-0 (Koppes absent) to recommend approval of the Planned Development Overlay rezoning, REZ10-00004 for: · Approximately 60.32 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (ID- RP), to Overlay Planned Development-Office Research Park, OPD-ORP; · Approximately 56.48 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (ID- RP) to Overlay Planned Development-Research Development Park (OPD-RDP); and . Approximately 24.49 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (ID- RP) to Overlay Planned Development-Mixed Use, OPD-MU; This approval is subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) for specific restrictions or allowances noted in the Planned Development Rezoning ordinance and plan and preliminary plat as set forth below: · Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the final OPD site plans is required. Site plans will be reviewed for general compliance with the master plan as submitted to the City on April 1, 2010, which shall be attached to and recorded with the preliminary planned development plan; . Detached Single Family Dwellings, Two Family Dwellings, and two-unit Attached Single Family Dwellings are prohibited; · Modifications to the underlying zoning standards are allowed as noted in the staff report dated April 1, 2010, and as adjusted and noted in the April 14, 2010, memo; · On property zoned OPD-MU Zone, uses allowed in the Commercial Office Zone are also allowed; · Moss Place will be constructed and platted as a private street with a public and emergency access easement extending over the entire length and width of the right-of-way; · Moss Place must be built to the City's minimum construction standards and Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 - Formal Page 2 of 12 inspected by the City prior to being open to the public; and . On-street diagonal parking will be allowed along the frontage of lots 1-4 and lots 10-12 on Moss Place. Said on-street parking spaces will count toward the number of parking spaces required for development on these lots; . There will be no size limitation for personal service-oriented uses; . The maximum size for sales-oriented retail uses will be increased to allow uses of up to 10,000 square feet; . There will be no size limitations for eating establishments; · The building articulation standard in the CB-5/CB-10 zones 14-2C-8M will be substituted for the building scale standard in the Mixed Use Zone, 14-2C-9G; . For buildings located in the Mixed Use Zone, residential uses are not allowed within the first 30 feet of building depth, as measured from the front building wall facing Moss Place; residential entrances, stairwells, lobbies, elevators and other building features that provide access and safety for residents are not included in this restriction; In addition, up to 25% of the length of the ground-level frontage of a building that faces Moss Place may include live-work units that include both commercial and residential functions; live-work units that do not include any residential functions on the ground-level floor do not count toward the limit. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called border at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DEVELOPMENT/REZONING ITEM: REZ10-00004/SUB10-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by the Moss Green Development Corp. for a preliminary plat and a rezoning from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID-ORP) zone to a Planned Development Overlay Office Research Park (OPD-ORP) zone for approximately 60.32 acres, Research Development Park (OPD-RDP) zone for approximately 56.48 acres, and Mixed Use (OPD-MU) zone for approximately 24.49 acres, for Moss Green Urban Village, an 18 lot, approximately 235.00-acre office park and mixed use development subdivision located west of North Dodge Street/Highway 1 and north of Interstate 80. Howard explained that the subject property is currently zoned ID-ORP. The applicant is planning to build an extension of Oakdale Boulevard across the property in order to facilitate development of the property. Howard said that the area south of the roadway is intended to be a planned development. which means the developer is asking for some adjustments to the underlying zoning, and has a conceptual master plan that they would like to use to guide their development. Howard noted that the applicant had submitted a more detailed master plan at the last meeting. She said that staff has reviewed the documents and believes it to be a much more developed concept than that which was previously submitted. Howard said that if the general plan is followed, the resulting development will be a very nice one. Howard pointed out the Mixed Use Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 - Formal Page 3 of 12 area of the development that is intended for Lots 1 and 12 of the subdivision. She also noted the sites intended for Research Development Park and Office Research Park. Howard stated that the developers have highlighted a number of green features that they would like to incorporate into the development. She said that the developers would be best able to answer any questions the Commission might have about that green concept. Howard referred Commissioners to the memo that had just been sent to them regarding the planned development. Howard said that the developer is requesting a much higher density than is typical for the Mixed Use zone, which typically has a low-density, low-scale character. Howard said that the Mixed Use zone is the closest zone that the City has for what the developer envisions for the area. Their vision includes a mix of uses to provide services and commercial businesses for the larger office park that is planned for the area, as well as to provide some residential housing for people working on site. Howard said that because the developer is asking for adjustments to the height and scale requirements, staff feels that the other characteristics of the Mixed Use zone should also be adjusted. Howard explained that in the underlying zoning for the Mixed Use zone there are size limitations; those limitations are proportional to a smaller scale development. In order to make those limitations more in tune with the proposed development, they may need to be adjusted for a larger scale development. Howard said her memo contained suggestions for other possible modifications to the Mixed Use zone. She noted that the developer had asked for a waiver of the size limitations for personal- service oriented retail uses, such as banks, dry cleaners, salons, etc. Howard said the developer has asked for an increase in the maximum size for sales-oriented retail uses, to allow for uses of up to 10,000 square feet. They have also asked that there be no size limitation on eating establishments in the Mixed Use zone; the current limit is for a maximum occupancy of 100. Howard noted that the developer's vision does not include drive-through restaurants, which is part of the idea behind the occupancy limitations in the Mixed Use zone. The developers have asked that the building articulation standards for the downtown CB-5 and CB- 10 zones be substituted for the building scale standard that is in the Mixed Use zone. This would allow for better proportionality; the buildings would be articulated to a 50-foot module rather than a 3D-foot module. Staff finds the requests to be reasonable, as it is their analysis that the Mixed Use zone is intended to ensure that smaller uses can be comfortably located in the same area. However, staff recommends that single family and duplex uses are not allowed in this development, and that higher density uses are the residential focus. Howard said that the scale of residential uses to commercial uses in the Mixed Use area has been an ongoing topic of discussion in Planning and Zoning meetings. Staff recommends that there be a prohibition on detached single-family dwellings, two-unit detached single family dwellings, and duplexes. She noted that some Commissioners have expressed concern about the amount of residential that will be allowed, not wanting the area to become predominately residential. Howard said that she believes the applicant agrees with that sentiment, and that the intention of the Mixed Use area is to encourage a vibrant commercial area to serve the larger development. The developer is open to having a restriction on the amount of first floor residential development permitted; including the options outlined in Howard's memo. She said that the downtown zones have a storefront module with a requirement that the first 30 feet from the front building wall back has to be commercial space. This creates storefronts along the street, and then anything behind that could be more residential. Howard said the developer anticipates a possible demand for live-work units, and would like the flexibility to allow those to be on the fronts of the buildings. Howard said typically live-work units have commercial on the first floor and residential above. However, there are examples of successful incorporation of residential aspects on the first floor. Howard said that staff found the developer's' request to be Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 - Formal Page 4 of 12 reasonable. Howard noted that there had been a great deal of discussion about the roadway at the last Commission meeting. She said that there were questions of how the developer could incorporate some new techniques into their street right-of-way for storm-water management, geo-thermal systems, and on-street parking. Howard said that Public Works felt that because there would be so many elements incorporated into the street right-of-way, it might be best for the street to be a private one. Howard said this would allow the developer to include all of these unique elements in their street right-of-way, and there would be a public access easement over the street right-of-way and sidewalks. The developer would remain responsible for the maintenance of the streets, snow-plowing, etc. The developer has requested a 50-foot right-of- way through the Mixed Use area and the first RDP lots, in order to build closer to the street and create an urban streetscape. The right-of-way would then widen out in the ORP lots to a gO-foot right-of-way, allowing larger area for the street trees and the sidewalks. Howard said the collector-width street standard would remain the same at 31-feet. Howard said that the developer has suggested an 8-foot wide walk with cement bollards to prevent people from driving on the pedestrian easement to and through the Pearson property. Howard noted that the developer had drawn the SOD-year and 1 DO-year floodplains on the sensitive areas plan, per the Commission's request. Howard said that it the plans for the development have all of the buildings located outside of both floodplains. Howard said that it appears that the roadway is also at or above the SOD-year floodplain in all areas except where it intersects with Highway 1, which is itself below the floodplain. Howard summarized by saying that staff feels the zoning portion of the planned development is ready for the Commission's recommendation, though the modifications and special conditions should be spelled out in the ordinance. Howard said that the preliminary plat is being reviewed by City engineers and while there are some technical deficiencies, there is nothing that is a red flag. Until those issues are worked out, staff recommends deferral on the preliminary plat. Howard offered to answer Commission questions. Payne asked about the size limitations. Payne noted that size limitations of up to 5,000 feet are authorized by special exception only. She asked if the special exception requirement can simply be ignored by the Commission, and the exception granted directly. Howard said that through the planned development process the Commission is allowed to adjust and modify the underlying zoning standards, and so the special exception requirement could also be modified or eliminated. Howard said that the developer wants the uses allowed in the Mixed Use zone, but of the scale that fits their master plan. Howard said the planned development would become the zoning for the property, and would be incorporated by ordinance. Plahutnik asked staff for the typical size of a big box store. Miklo said that big box stores are typically over 50,000 square feet in size, and not really comparable to the scale of development being proposed here. Miklo said thaUor reference the Ace Hardware Store on Dodge Street is approximately 20,000 square feet. Plahutnik said he had asked a question at the informal meeting about stubbing the sewer and water to the land to the north. He said there had been questions regarding whether or not it was feasible not to do that, or whether that is in fact mandatory. Howard said she believed that still needed to be addressed through the platting process. Miklo said that the most recent plans do not stub the sewer and water directly into the conservation area. He said the engineers are still exploring whether there needs to be a stub to serve properties beyond that. Howard pointed out Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 - Formal Page 5 of 12 on the map two areas where the most recent plans have stubbing. Freerks said she thought it would be good for Plahutnik to explain publicly at this meeting what his concerns were so that it can have an impact on what the Commission sees later with the final plat. There were no further questions for staff and Freerks opened the public hearing. Wally Pelds, Pelds Engineering/ECO-4, spoke on behalf of Steve Moss, David Moss, Moss Family Farms, and the Moss Green Development Corporation. Pelds said staff had done an excellent job of presenting the project. Pelds said that the requests for modifications had been made because of specific ideas the developer would like to bring to the area. Pelds said that the request for modification to the maximum restaurant size was made because a couple of the restaurants they are talking to have more than 250 seats, and the zoning limits occupancy to 125. Pelds said that they had been in discussions with nationwide brands of restaurants and that 125 was a much more intimate restaurant than those being proposed. Pelds said there is also a pharmacy hoping to locate in the development which needs at least 10,000 square feet. He said this pharmacy is modeled after downtown city pharmacies such as can be found in Seattle, Dallas and Chicago. Pelds said Howard was correct in her assessment that the developers do not want the Mixed Use residential portion of the development to become an apartment building. He said the first 3D-feet would have to be retail regardless, and condos looking out the back over the parking lot and green spaces could be a good fit for the development. He said they have come up with a very unique plan with great ideas, and they are excited to present them to the Commission. Pelds said that concerning the sewer issue, the plans call for going around the conservation area. Pelds said that in regard to the plat, the developers have changed to the option of having a private street, and because of this, had only today received the engineers' comments. He said they are still working through some of the items flagged by the engineers, but hopes to have them all resolved by the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Pelds offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. Eastham asked if the applicant agrees that the concept plan presented earlier will be incorporated into the development standards for the area and will be adhered to going forward. Pelds said that was absolutely the case. Plahutnik said that Pelds had probably already realized that zoning is a very clumsy tool. He noted that the Commission zones for the property, not just the project proposed. Plahutnik said that he personally loves the project. However, the developers could win the lottery tomorrow and decide they would rather go to the Bahamas and sell the land. Plahutnik said that this is why it is the property that must be considered above and beyond the proposed project. He said that if Pelds had ideas or creative solutions to the issues brought up concerning the residential zoning, he would like him to let the Commission know. Pelds said they had given the matter a lot of consideration, because they do not want apartment buildings there; that would run counter to their vision. Pelds said that if the conceptual plan is adopted as the guide for the development, then the vision of the first level of the building as all retail will be realized. Pelds said they like the idea of an element or two of residential in the buildings, but they do not want apartment buildings. Pelds said that the Moss family has been very explicit that they want this development to be a showcase for Iowa City. He said that they are being inundated with requests from across the nation to be a part of this project. He said that it has been awhile since Iowa City had development of this scale for commercial and office space, and people are very excited. Pelds said that if a Microsoft or Google locates on the site, then there will Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 - Formal Page 6 of 12 immediately be five ancillary businesses that want to locate in the office park as well. Pelds said that great thought has gone into the development, and that the Moss family has given very explicit direction on the project. He said they would like to continue the legacy begun by their dairy farms with a showcase development the likes of which has not been seen in the area. Payne noted that mention had been made of permeable pavement. She said that the area does not have a lot of experience with permeable pavement and she asked how well it holds up during harsh winters. Pelds said that their model includes using permeable or porous asphalt. He said that permeable concrete started out great as a model, but that it is now being shown to fail in five to seven years. He said this is one of the reasons for going private with the cross- street; the obligation to replace and repair the street would fall on the association rather than the City. Pelds said the development is using a two-foot strip of porous asphalt. He said that he had seen demonstrations of porous asphalt reacting like a sponge to water that would normally run into the gutters. He said that they hope to showcase those strips in the parking stalls with the in-street storm-water retention and treatment systems. He said their planning includes concerns for water quality as well as quantity. He said the systems will filter the water before returning it to Rapid Creek. Pelds said Public Works had been hesitant to allow the ideas on public streets as they had not done anything like it before. Payne asked if this was something quite new, and Pelds said that it is. Payne said she had heard that permeable pavement needed to be swept frequently or it clogs. Pelds said this was correct. He said a modified collar is put on a street sweeper to suck the mud and sand from the pavement. Pelds said that these strips will be the last thing to be poured, once the drainage system has been put in place and stabilized. Pelds said the entire substructure is filled with rock and the underground storm-water chambers will be placed under the parking stalls. He said that there is a very successful example of this in a Kohl's parking lot in West Des Moines near Jordan Creek Mall. He said it is a cost-savings mechanism because it does not require above ground storm-water retention and also keeps mosquitoes away. Pelds noted that wetlands do not become as much of a mosquito magnet as a stagnant retention pond does. There were no further questions for Pelds. There were no further public comments on this matter and the public hearing was closed. Freerks noted that in making a motion, one should consider that there are technical difficulties with the plat, so it should be deferred. Payne motioned to defer the preliminary plat. Weitzel seconded. Eastham asked if just the plat was being deferred or if the entire rezoning was being deferred as well. Payne said it was just the plat. There was no further discussion on the motion and a vote was taken. The motion carried 6-0 (Koppes absent), deferring SUB10-00005 until the next meeting. Freerks asked for a motion for the rest of the application. Payne said she had a question about that. She said that the fourth bullet in the staff recommendations says that a master plan was submitted to the City on April 1 0, 2010. She asked if she needed to state each of the items in the recommendation when making the motion. Miklo said she could refer to the written recommendation to get it into the record. Greenwood Hektoen said there are a lot of different Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 - Formal Page 7 of 12 recommendations so the motion should probably refer to the date of the memo being cited. Freerks said she did not think it would hurt to go through the recommendations as the matter was fairly complex. Howard said there are things in the April 14th memo that staff thinks should be added to the staff recommendations. Howard noted that the Commission had discussed adding the word "general" to the description of the compliance with the master plan that would be required. Freerks said the discussion was whether the compliance needed to be substantial or general. Payne motioned to approve the planned development overlay rezoning, REZ1 0-00004 for: . Approximately 60.32 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (10- RP), to Overlay Planned Development-Office Research Park, OPD-ORP . Approximately 56.48 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (10- RP) to Overlay Planned Development-Research Development Park (OPD-RDP); and . Approximately 24.49 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (10- RP) to Overlay Planned Development-Mixed Use, OPD-MU. This approval is subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) for specific restrictions or allowances noted on the Planned Development Plan and preliminary plat as set forth below: . Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the final OPD site plans is required. Site plans will be reviewed for general compliance with the master plan as submitted to the City on April 1, 2010, which shall be attached to and recorded with the preliminary planned development plan; . Detached Single Family Dwellings, Two Family Dwellings, and two-unit Attached Single Family Dwellings are prohibited; . Modifications to the underlying zoning standards are allowed as noted in the staff report dated April 1, 2010, and as adjusted and noted in the April 14, 2010, memo; . On property zoned OPD-MU Zone, uses allowed in the Commercial Office Zone are also allowed; . Moss Place will be constructed and platted as a private street with a public and emergency access easement extending over the entire length and width of the right-of-way; . Moss Place must be built to the City's minimum construction standards and inspected by the City prior to being open to the public; and . On-street diagonal parking will be allowed along the frontage of lots 1-4 and lots 10-12 on Moss Place. Said on-street parking spaces will count toward the number of parking spaces required for development on these lots; . There will be no size limitation for personal service-oriented uses; . The maximum size for sales-oriented retail uses will be increased to allow uses of up to 10,000 square feet; . There will be no size limitations for eating establishments; . The building articulation standard in the CB-5/CB-10 zones 14-2C-8M will be substituted for the building scale standard in the Mixed Use Zone, 14-2C-9G; . For buildings located in the Mixed Use Zone, residential uses are not allowed within the first 30 feet of building depth, as measured from the front building wall facing Moss Place; residential entrances, stairwells, lobbies, elevators and other building features that provide access and safety for residents are not included in this restriction; In addition, up to 25% of the length of the ground-level frontage of a building that faces Moss Place may include live-work units that include both Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 - Formal Page 8 of 12 commercial and residential functions; live-work units that do not include any residential functions on the ground-level floor do not count toward the limit. Plahutnik seconded. Freerks invited discussion. Eastham asked that it be noted that the modifications outlined in the notion for the Mixed Use Zone were those found in the staff memo dated April 14, 2010. Eastham said that Payne's wording did not clearly state that the modifications in the April 14th memo apply to the Mixed Use Zone only. He said that while that is understood by all present, it should be stated for the record. Plahutnik said that the Johnson County Heritage Trust has a property to the north of the subject property that they are very interested in conserving for future generations. Because Iowa City requires that sewer lines be stubbed to the property lines to facilitate future development, he had hoped that either the developer or the Commission could make arrangements to avoid stubbing on the Trust's property. The idea would be to not make their property more attractive for development. since their goal is conservation. Plahutnik said it seems as though both the developer and the Commission are looking at things with that kind of idea in mind, so he saw no need for specific action on that front at the present time. Greenwood Hektoen asked for clarification on whether there had been a second on the motion. Freerks informed her that Plahutnik had seconded. Eastham said he would like to add an amendment to the motion placing additional restrictions on the CZA so that all arterial, residential and collector streets and inhabited building levels are built to the 500-year plus one-foot FEMA floodplain level for this development. Weitzel seconded. Eastham said he was not sure exactly what wording would be required to do that. Payne asked if that was not already a requirement of the code. Howard said code requires building above the 1 DO-year flood level. Howard said that the Commission should be cautious not to restrict the intersection of Highway 1 and Oakdale Boulevard. Freerks asked Eastham to repeat the types of places he was interested in seeing this restriction applied to. Eastham said his interest is in making sure that any elevation for road surface or building entrance level that is required to be above a floodplain elevation is above the 500-year plus one foot mark. Busard asked if Eastham was asking that even roads had to be at 500-year plus one-foot levels. Eastham said he was; particularly the arterial and collector streets. Payne asked if he meant this should be the case even in those places where the roads and buildings are not in the floodplain. Eastham said that he meant only where the road/property passes through the floodplain. Busard said that would be adding a lot of engineering to this, especially if the applicant had not already been planning to do this. Busard said he almost wished the public hearing could be opened again to hear what the applicant had to say about that prior to making his decision. Busard said that it makes sense that the buildings should be above the 500 year floodplain, but that in looking at the plat, it does not appear that any buildings are in the 500-year floodplain. He said that roads were a little different. Eastham said that in the past the applicant had indicated that they intended to build Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 - Formal Page 9 of 12 the roadways to the 500-foot elevation. Miklo said that even though the public hearing has been closed, the Commission can still ask a question of the applicant. Freerks said that is rather rare, but said that as no one else was present and waiting to speak she would allow it. She asked Greenwood Hektoen if she could invite Pelds back to the microphone. Greenwood Hektoen said that if discussion among the Commission indicates an interest in finding that out then it is okay. Freerks said that it is nothing the Commission would be comfortable answering on their own at this point. She said she too had concerns about the degree of engineering involved in something like that. Pelds said he would have a little bit of concern with Eastham's amendment because Engineering had asked them to go to one-foot above the 1 OO-year floodplain, which, he said, is just above the 500-year floodplain. Pelds said that FEMA had just updated the highway corridor in 2007 based on the rain gauge data they had. Pelds said that it was his recollection that Highway 1 did not go under water during the 2008 floods. Pelds said that changing the requirement to the 500-year plus one foot level would substantially change his construction drawings that they have been working on for two months now. He said they have been working closely with the engineers and they have been sensitive to this flood issue. Pelds said that his computer simulations indicate that all 26 miles of the stream corridor would have to be paved before the flood level would rise to the 500 year mark, or there would have to be an inundation of 27 inches of rain within a 24-hour period; which would be rain at the level of a tropical monsoon and would break every record for rainfall ever held in the state of Iowa. Pelds said he would be strongly opposed to this amendment. Miklo said the conversation needed to be limited to question and answer since the public hearing had been closed. Freerks agreed. Pelds noted that the amendment had not been brought up during the public hearing and he felt he needed to fully address the issue to the Commission to register his opposition to it. Freerks asked Pelds if he had any problems applying the amendment only to building entrances rather than roadways, and he said he did not. Busard said it looked as though all of the building entrances were already out of the 500- year floodplain. Busard said that it was his opinion that if the City Engineers agreed with the plans for the roadways it was not really the Commission's place to disagree with that expertise. Eastham said that it was his understanding that the CZA establishes what the floodplain elevation will be when the final plat is actually approved. Miklo said the floodplain elevation is established by FEMA. Eastham said the existing requirement will use the 1 OO-year elevation unless the CZA requires more. Miklo reiterated that the plans do not show any buildings within the 500-year floodplain. Freerks noted that the plan could change. Miklo said that if it did change, then it would have to come back before the Commission anyway. Payne pointed out that every building in the development will come before the Commission regardless. Miklo said that was correct and if at any time a building shifted so that it was located in the floodplain the Commission could disallow it. Busard asked what changes Freerks and Miklo were referring to as the plat was not being adopted. Freerks said the Commission could either proactively set the limits, as suggested by Eastham, or wait until it became an issue on a case by case basis. Howard noted that the floodplain ordinance has very technical definitions of the floor and how it has to be one-foot above; she suggested that the Commission might want to mimic the language found in the ordinance. Eastham asked if the floodplain ordinance only applied to buildings. Miklo said that it applies to both buildings and streets, but that right now it requires streets and buildings to be built to one- foot above the 1 OO-year flood level, not the 500-year flood level. Miklo said it sounds as though Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 - Formal Page 10 of 12 the applicant is amenable to a requirement for buildings to be one-foot above the 500 year floodplain. Eastham said that his point is primarily that they are approving zoning for the property; not necessarily a specific site plan. Plahutnik noted that the floodplain in question was strictly for Rapid Creek, so that even with very heavy rains, if the roads flooded the water would very quickly continue to flow on down the river and be gone. He said the back-up would not be severe like that around the Iowa River and its surrounding creeks. Plahutnik asked about the elevations in order to determine the likelihood of prolonged flooding for the area. Pelds said that the 500-year flood elevation is 664 at the far western end and graduates up to about 672 feet. Eastham asked what the difference between the 100-year elevation and the 500-year elevation was. Pelds said that it varies; in some places in the drainage shed it is 2 inches and in some places it is 8 inches. Pelds said there is a great drop after Prairie du Chein. Plahutnik said that this shows that any flooding would be transient flooding from the watershed. He said this might bring some perspective because flooding typically brings to mind events like that which occurred on the Coralville Strip in which water stood for a month. Busard said that the outlots have a 5- acre wetland that will also help manage and detain storm-water, in addition to all of the other measures taken on the property to avoid flooding. Greenwood Hektoen said she was concerned that the Commission is taking additional evidence outside of the public hearing. She said that if this is something they need to explore further then a public hearing might need to be opened. Howard said that this issue could also be explored at the platting stage. Greenwood Hektoen said she did not want the Commissioners considering additional evidence that was not presented during the public hearing. Miklo pointed out that unless the Commission included a provision in the CZA to do so, then the issue could not be addressed at the platting stage. Miklo said that staff had had a similar discussion with their engineers. Miklo said that the issue with creek floods is that they tend to come and go quickly, unlike a river flood which may affect a large area for a great amount of time. Miklo said that when staff discussed the issue with the City Engineers, they found them to be comfortable with the streets at about a 500-year floodplain level. Eastham pointed out that the engineers had been comfortable with the streets at about a 500-year flood level, but the applicant is saying that they want to engineer the streets so that they'll be at the 1 OO-year flood level. Miklo pointed out that they would actually be one foot above the 1 OO-year flood level. Howard said that this was a minimum. Miklo said that in some places they will be out of the floodplain altogether. Howard said it was found that there was not much difference for the most part in the 1 OO-year floodplain and the 500-year floodplain for the area. Freerks said it comes down to whether or not the Commission wants to put something in place now or wait and do so when it comes to plat, or whether they do not wish to include it at all. Eastham repeated the amendment per Busard's request. Busard asked if this effectively meant that all arterial streets, including Oakdale Boulevard would have to be one-foot above the 500 year floodplain. Eastham said that he understood staff's point that in many instances the actual difference between these two flood levels is quite small. Weitzel said he had seconded the motion because he wanted to hear the discussion on whether this was worth pursuing, and as yet he is not convinced that it is. Busard said that he was not going to vote for it. Eastham said he certainly understood the difference in intensity and duration between flooding in major arterial systems and minor creek systems. He said he is also cognizant that the flooded streets in Iowa City had been designed for a 1 OO-year occurrence. Eastham said he is not certain about the best way to go about evaluating that hazard. He said his general purpose is to try to address potential problems for this particular project as well as more broadly for small watershed areas. Freerks said she is not interested in looking at the roadway elevations at this time; though she would consider looking at building elevations to the 500-year standard. Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 - Formal Page 11 of 12 Freerks said she was not in favor of the amendment. A vote was taken and the amendment failed 1-5 (Eastham voting in favor; Koppes absent). Freerks invited discussion on the original motion. Busard asked if the Commission had ever decided on implementing a ratio of commercial to residential build-out. Freerks said the compromise was what staff had proposed. She said the Mixed Use is a bit of an experiment and she is fine with seeing it stretched a little bit. She said she thinks the development will be great for the community and she would like to see it happen sooner rather than later. She said she would like to put in a plug for local businesses as Pelds had mentioned the interest of national chains. Eastham said he too thinks the development is wonderful; a great concept with the potential for substantial economic impact. He commended the development team and owners for working so diligently and being so innovative. Weitzel said it is remarkable to see a developer trying to do new and innovative things and finding solutions to long-range problems, all the while shouldering the bulk of the financial burden to do it. Busard said it is a grand plan and he hopes that it works out well so that this type of development does not just go by the wayside. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Koppes absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: March 29, 2010 (informal) and April 1, 2010: Plahutnik motioned to approve the minutes. Payne seconded. The minutes were approved 6-0 (Koppes absent). OTHER: Payne said she had learned some things at a recent conference that she would like to share with Commissioners at an informal meeting sometime in the near future. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel motioned to adjourn. Payne seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Koppes absent) at 8:11 p.m. z o en ~ :eO :eo::: 00 uu C)w zO::: -wo zu~ Ozo N<(N 00 ZZ <(w C)1- z~ Z Z <( .J a. It) w or- X X X - X X X ~ 0 or- X X X X X X w ~ - 0 co W or- - X X X X X X - 0 M ~ X X X X X X X N or- N X X X X X X x - or- en ::IEW ..- ..- C") N 0 0 C") D::~ ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- - - - - - it> - WD.. LO LO LO LO LO LO I-X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W J: >- I- <C ::i W W ..J :J D:: ~ ..J ci! J: <C z ..J W 3: en J: z J: ::IE 0 (.) <C ::i ~ ~ i= .., W C ~ ui ui ::IE z ...i ~ W- I- W D:: J: D:: W :J J::! W <C I- W D.. Z J: ~ en en W D.. ~ <C W :J <C D:: 0 ..J Z m W LL ~ D.. D.. 3: C) z i= W W ::IE ..J <C ::IE D:: o LL N W or- X X X X - X X ~ 0 (7) w W N X X X X - X - - 0 0 M or- X X X X X X w - - N 0 en ::IEW ..- ..- C") N 0 0 C") D::~ ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- - - - - - - - WD.. LO LO LO LO LO LO LO I-X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W J: >- I- <C ::i W W ..J :J D:: m ..J ..J J: <C z ~ ..J ~ W en J: z J: ::IE 0 (.) <C ::i (.) ~ i= .., W C ~ ui ui ::IE z ...i ~ W- I- W D:: J: D:: W :J J::! W <C I- W D.. Z J: ::IE en en W D.. ~ <C W <C :J <C D:: 0 ..J Z m W LL ~ D.. D.. 3: C) z i= W W ::IE ..J <C ::IE D:: o LL Z E ::l .... o ::l -00 cu 0 ~z .... u - cu >< 0>.0 llJEE ':;::>cucu ccu""" 'E-cuE"::: cuc(/) ro (/)~:Slo- cu.o.......zo ct c:x:: II II Z II II ~:2: II XOOZ :>: llJ ~