Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-2012 Planning and Zoning Commission 1 1 i 1 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION i Monday, June 4, 2012 - 5:15 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Helling Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street Thursday, June 7, 2012 - 7:00 PM j Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street j AGENDA: i A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda D. Comprehensive Plan Item CPA12-00002 -Consider setting a public hearing for June 21 on an amendment to the Southwest District Plan to allow for elder apartment housing in the area between George, West Benton, and Streb Streets, including lots at the corner of Oakcrest and George Streets. E. Major Site Plan Review Review of a major site plan for a proposed multi-family building on property located at 201 N. 1st Avenue (Montclair Apartments) F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: April 30, May 3, and May 17 2012 G. Other H. Adjournment Upcoming Planning&Zoning Commission Meetings Informal June 18 July 2 July 16 July 30 Formal June 21 July 5 July 19 August 2 i City of Iowa City 1 MEMORANDUM i t i Date: June 7, 2012 To Planning and Zoning Commission From: Julie Tallman, Development Regulations Specialist Karen Howard, Associate Planner 4 I RE: Major Site Plan Review- expansion of Montclair Park Apartments at 201 N. 1st Ave 4 Site Plan Review is an administrative review process to ensure that a development proposal meets the provisions of the City Code. The site plan review process and design standards are set forth in Title 18 of the City Code. This review and approval process is typically conducted by City staff. However, there is a provision in the site plan review ordinance that allows surrounding property owners to request review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Pursuant to this provision (18-2-3C), the owners of more than twenty percent (20%) of the property located within two hundred feet (200') of the exterior boundaries of 201 N. 1st Avenue (Montclair Park Apartments) have requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission review the Major Site Plan for a proposed expansion on this property. Their request was in writing and filed with the building official within twenty (20) days of submission of the application for site plan approval (see the attached letter from Thomas Gelman, attorney representing some of the surrounding property owners). 1 The development proposal is to construct a 36-unit apartment building behind the two existing multi-family buildings. The property is zoned RM-20 and contains sufficient land area to allow for this expansion under the existing zoning. ii As stated in 18-2-3C, the Commission's scope of review shall be the same as that of the I Building Official and the Department of Housing and Inspection Services. The review is to determine whether or not the proposed site plan meets the Site Plan Review Design Standards as set forth in 18-3-2 of the City Code. A copy of the Site Plan Design Standards Iis attached for your reference. Each of these standards is summarized below with staff review comments following. A. Drainage: The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for surface and subsurface drainage to limit the rate of increased runoff of surface water to adjacent and downstream property. The proposal includes an on-site stormwater detention structure that will temporarily store the volume of water produced in the 1% annual storm ("100-year storm"). The increased I volume of water that is shed by new impervious surface (roof, paving) will be contained in the detention area and gradually released downstream through a new series of 1 underground pipes that will connect to Iowa City's existing stormwater utility. Stormwater 4 calculations and the design of the stormwater detention structure were prepared by a licensed professional engineer (PE) and reviewed by PEs in our Public Works 4 Department. i B. Utility Connections: The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for connection to water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, electrical and other public a utility lines within the capacity limits of those utility lines. i Page 2 I I The proposal takes into account an existing sanitary sewer and the building is located so I that full access to the sanitary sewer easement is maintained. A new 6" fire sprinkler service and a new 4" domestic water service will branch off of an existing 6" service that runs east-to-west from its connection to the 16" water main on 1st Avenue. These connections have been reviewed and approved by staff in the Water Division of Public Works and Engineering. C. Fire Safety: The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for fire protection and for building placement, and other measures to ensure fire safety. 1 The building will be fully sprinklered as required by International Building Code and 1. International Fire Code. The automatic sprinkler system has been upgraded from the NFPA 13R requirements to the NFPA 13 requirements. With this upgrade to the fire protection system, the Fire Department has approved an increase in the maximum distance from the fire apparatus access road to all points of the building from 150 feet to 205 feet. I D. Erosion and Sedimentation Control: The design of the proposed development shall comply with the standards for erosion and sedimentation control established in the city design standards in order to protect adjoining or surrounding property. I The proposal includes materials and methods to prevent erosion onto adjacent properties, as well as to prevent pollutants from entering Iowa City's stormwater utility. Existing and new stormwater inlets will be protected with silt fence or rolled erosion control products. Neighbors to the west, north, and south are uphill of the development and will not be subject to off-site erosion; tracking to the west (onto 1st Ave.) will be controlled by virtue of the existing concrete surface. IE. Landscape Preservation: So far as practical, the landscape shall be preserved in its I natural state by minimizing tree and soil removal and by topographic modifications which result in maximum harmony with adjacent areas. Structures and other site improvements shall be located in such a manner that the maximum number of trees are preserved on the site The development plan shall identify existing trees to be preserved and trees to be removed and shall specify measures to be utilized to protect trees during construction. i The plan includes new arbor vitae along the west property line to provide additional screening for the single-family homes on Rita Lyn. The arbor vitae will exceed the 1 minimum height at time of planting (three feet) considerably, as the developer has located 10-foot tall arbor vitae that will be planted prior to construction. A stressed pin Y oak at the front of the property will be replaced as will a dead tree near the north garage. M Since the original site was developed in the 1960's, the proposal also includes 37 additional trees to meet the current residential tree requirement, which is based on total building footprint. i F. Vehicle and Pedestrian Circulation: The design of vehicle and pedestrian circulation shall I be provided for safe and convenient flow of vehicles and movement of pedestrians and shall, to the greatest extent reasonably possible, prevent hazards to adjacent streets or property. The city may limit entrances and exits upon adjacent streets in order to prevent I congestion on adjacent or surrounding streets and in order to provide for safe and orderly vehicle movement. I Page 3 1 I i There is no change proposed to the ingress and egress for this site 1st Ave. is an arterial street, and direct driveway access to an arterial street is strictly controlled. The site has 480 feet of frontage. Staff from both Engineering and Planning reviewed the plan and responded that the three access points are acceptable given the site layout; the three access points meet the spacing standards for access management. Given the layout of buildings and garages, they find that the three access points benefit emergency vehicle access and internal circulation. Pedestrian routes into the site have been added to the site, providing accessibility for persons with disabilities from the public sidewalk as well as between buildings. G. Outdoor Dumpster Areas: Outdoor recycling, trash, solid waste, and dumpster areas shall be in compliance with the city's solid waste regulations and in compliance with screening I requirements. The plan includes a detail for a new dumpster enclosure. It was originally proposed to I be a board-on-board enclosure but revised according to the requirement that the dumpster enclosure be constructed with materials that are compatible with the principle structures on the lot. H. Exterior Lighting: Exterior lighting shall relate to the scale and location of the development in order to maintain adequate security while preventing a nuisance or hardship to adjacent properties or streets. 1 The plan provided details on existing and proposed lighting, and was reviewed for compliance with current limits on total initial lumens. The resulting, amended exterior light design is below the maximum initial lumens allowed for the net acreage. In I addition, no exterior lights are proposed along the west building face. 1 I. Screening of Equipment:All ground level mechanical and utility equipment shall be screened from public view. Existing utilities are not visible from 1st Avenue and new utilities will be mounted on the north and south elevations. They will not be visible from public view. 1 J. Screening of Outdoor Storage and Loading Areas: Not applicable. No outdoor storage or commercial loading areas are allowed on this residential property. g None are proposed. K. Parking Areas:Any parking areas or vehicle storage area designed or intended for use by more than four(4) vehicles located adjacent to any street shall be separated and screened from such street by a curbed, planted area. 1 The existing parking area is already separated from 1St Avenue, and a combination of spirea, viburnum, globe blue spruce and dwarf Norway spruce will be planted between 1 the parking spaces and 1St Ave. s L. Sensitive Areas: All sensitive areas development plans must comply with applicable provisions. i f G € Page 4 i i Even though this is a sloping site, because the original development was part of a City- approved plan prior to 1985, the provisions of the sensitive areas ordinance related to sloping sites are not applicable. 4 M. Compliance with City, State, and Federal Regulations: Site plans shall comply with all applicable city, state, and federal regulations. The site plan has been reviewed by staff in Fire, Housing and Inspection Services, Planning, and Public Works/Engineering. Applicable codes that were referenced during their review include the International Fire Code (2009); Iowa City Zoning Ordinance; and Iowa City Public Works Design Standards. i Staff Recommendation: Staff from all relevant departments: Housing and Inspections Services, the Fire Department, the Planning Department, and the Department of Public i Works have reviewed the Major Site Plan for the expansion of the Montclair Park I Apartments and find that it meets the site plan review standards as set forth in Title 18. Therefore, staff recommends that the site plan be approved. i Attachments: • Major Site Plan for Montclair Park • Copy of City Code Chapter 18-3: Site Plan Design Standards I • Copy of letter from Thomas H. Gelman 1 • Copy of letter from Michael J. Pugh I 1 j 1 1 1 i 1 1 x a 4 4 1 i i j 4 t i 1 18-3-1 18-3-2 CHAPTER 3 SITE PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS 1 SECTION: 18-3-1: Compliance Required 18-3-2: Design Standards 18-3-1: COMPLIANCE REQUIRED: All site plans submitted for city approval must comply with the following design standards. These standards are the minimum standards necessary to safeguard the public health, safety, aesthetics and general welfare of the city and are necessary to fulfill the intent of the zoning ordinance, the comprehensive plan, as amended, and other specific community plans. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) 18-3-2: DESIGN STANDARDS: A. Drainage: The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for surface and subsurface drainage to limit the rate of increased runoff of surface water to adjacent and downstream property so that the proposed development will not substantially and materially increase the natural flow onto adjacent downstream property. B. Utility Connections: The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for connection to water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, electrical and other public utility lines within the capacity limits of those utility lines. C. Fire Safety: The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for fire protection and for building placement, acceptable location of flammable materials and other measures to ensure fire safety. gpF z ptp { Iowa City 1 18-3-2 1 18-3-2 i 1 i D. Erosion And Sedimentation Control: The design of the proposed Idevelopment shall comply with the standards for erosion and i sedimentation control established in the city design standards in order to protect adjoining or surrounding property. The development plan shall cc ider the topography and soils of the site to achieve j the lowest pc Itial for erosion. 1 E. Landscape Preservation: So far as practical, the landscape shall be preserved in its natural state by minimizing tree and soil removal and by topographic modifications which result in maximum harmony with adjacent areas. Structures and other site improvements shall be located in such a manner that the maximum number of trees are preserved on the site. The development plan shall identify existing trees to be preserved and trees to be removed and shall specify measures to be utilized to protect trees during construction. To the extent reasonably feasible, all wetlands shall be retained in their natural state or consistent with their f actions and values or be 1 replaced with a wetland of equal or great€. value. 1 F. Vehicle And Pedestrian Circulation: The design of vehicle and pedestrian circulation shall be provided for safe and convenient flow of vehicles and movement of pedestrians and shall, to the greatest extent reasonably possible, prevent hazards to adjacent streets or 3 property. The city may limit entrances and exits upon adjacent streets in order to prevent congestion on adjacent or surrounding i streets and in order to provide for safe and orderly vehicle movement. The city may limit street access according to the provisions of title 14, chapter 5, article C, "Access Management Standards", of this code. C Outdoor Dumpster Areas: Outdoor recycling, trash, solid waste, and dumpster areas shall be in compliance with the city's solid waste regulations and in compliance with screening requirements contained y in title 14, "Zoning Code", of this code. (See subsection 14-4C-2Q, "Outdoor Dumpster Areas", of this code.) 1 H. Exterior Lighting: Exterior lighting shall relate to the scale and location of the development in order to maintain adequate security while preventing a nuisance or hardship to adjacent properties or streets. All exterior lighting must comply with the provisions of title 1 14, chapter 5, article G, "Outdoor Lighting Standards", of this code. I. Screening Of Equipment: All ground level mechanical and utility equipment shall be screened from public view according to the 1 i 1 t Iowa City E 18-3-2 18-3-2 provisions of title 14, "Zoning Code", of this code. (See subsection 14-4C-2N, "Mechanical Structures", of this code.) J. Screening Of Storage And Loading Areas: If allowed, all outdoor storage areas must be located and screened according to the applicable base zone provisions of title 14, "Zoning Code", of this code. All outdoor storage areas and loading/unloading service areas with delivery facilities, including bay doors or docks, which face or are visible from residential district and the Iowa River shall be screened to a height of no less than six feet (6') and must meet all screening standards specified in title 14, "Zoning Code", of this code, for outdoor storage and loading areas. K. Parking Areas: Any parking areas or vehicle storage area designed or intended for use by more than four (4) vehicles located adjacent to any street shall be separated and screened from such street by a curbed, planted area as specified in title 14, "Zoning Code", of this code. L. Sensitive Areas: All sensitive areas development plans must comply with the applicable provisions of title 14, chapter 5, article I, "Sensitive Lands And Features", of this code. M. Compliance With City, State, And Federal Regulations: Site plans shall comply with all applicable city, state, and federal regulations. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) 1 • ,.j $P3 f 1 fi Iowa City ` PHELAN TUCKER MULLEN WALKER TUCKER GELMAN LLP 1 321 East Market AT 1 „ NE Y „ A T 1. A w' i i Post Office Box 2150 i Iowa City,Iowa l• 52244.2150 Phone:(319)354.1104 A �; .,, i May 9,2012 " `0# Fax (319)3546962 r r Email address": Julie .. 3ulie Tallman I attorney's last name Iowa City Housing&Building Inspection Services @ptmlaw.can 410 East Washington Street www.ptmlaw.com Iowa City IA 52240 Re: Property Address: 201 N 15t Avenue Parcel: 1011401001 William V.Phelan Case: S.PI)12-00010 Name: MontClair Park Cooperative - Bruce 1.Walker Description Expansion of existing multi-family development • 'I Richard M.Tucker Date Received: 4/20/2012 i o Thomas H.Gelman . Request for Planning and Zoning Commission Review vary J.Schmit Dear Julie, • John E.Beasley i I have been retained by various property owners on Rita Lyn Court in connection Dean D.Carrington with the above referred to site plan review. The property owners have reviewed Pope S.Yamada with•me various concerns relating to the development of the project, and in order to address those concerns they asked that I set up a meeting with the developer. That process has commenced. However, a meeting will not occur until after the deadline for requesting Planning and Zoning Commission review. As such the y Anna Moyers stone property owners have authorized me to submit the enclosed Petition containing 1 the signatures of owners of more than 20% of the property within a 200 foot 11 William N ° ' Y radius of the development parcel. In addition to the request for Planning and I . Zoning Commission review, .I have included a map highlighting the property l Dan'e'ur_Bo owners within the 200 foot radius that have signed the petition. I Generally, the neighbors were caught off guard by this development. Some may have been specifically told, in connection with their purchases, that the Mont Yi'l"'1 22'locker 0 Clair property was not subject to further development. In any event, the [1922 zc�3.� preserving, as much as possible, the neighbors' concerns generally relate to i) p g, P Charles A deli single family character of the Rita Lyn Court neighborhood, and ii) traffic and 1 [937.20011 safety issues on First Avenue. The First Avenue and Rita Lyn Court property a • is May 9, 2012 • Page 2 1 i owners wish the further development of this property to be completed in a way that helps to minimize the negative implications and impositions on the Rita Lyn 1 Court neighborhood and on the First Avenue properties across the street from 1 Mont Clair. • The concerns of the property owners along First Avenue principally include, but are not necessarily limited to, traffic safety issues that the additional 36 residential t units will impose, particularly at the intersection of the Mont Clair drive and First Avenue. Such owners are also concerned with minimizing and mitigating negative consequences relating to the development's mass and height as well as 1 light spill from the property. "" Similarly, the Rita Lyn neighborhood is particularly concerned with building mass, landscaping, light spill, noise and privacy related matters. In many respects 1 these relate not only to the Rita Lyn Court owners, but also to the future owners 4 of the planned new units. Drainage and maintenance issues are among other ( _ I concerns. Because of the potentially profound implications on the neighborhood and property values, the Rita Lyn and First Avenue neighbors wish to be certain that all requirements imposed by the City of Iowa City's zoning and development regulations are being complied with, hence the request for the Planning and Zoning Commission review. Additionally, the neighbors wish to work cooperatively with the developer in trying to reach solutions to some of the negative ramifications of the project, and believe the Planning and Zoning Commission's broad experience with development projects may provide an I additional source of strategies to mitigate negative consequences of the pending t development activities. • I :t The neighbors will continue to pursue direct conversations with the developer, but also wish to exercise the opportunity to reasonably engage the Planning and Zoning Commission in this process. • Please contact me if you require any clarification of these matters, and to advise when this matter will be placed on the Planning and Zoning Commission's agenda. I . Very truly yours, ia' 1 Thomas F Gelxpan i cc:Michael:1 Pugh Gary Watts 4 1 1 /M. . ':. i ..' i 1 i i We the undersigned request the Planning and Zoning Commission review 1 I ' the site plan for 201 N. First Avenue, Iowa City. I . l' 1 Signature Address Date 1 j/ i • I q-,0/0. I t'''' ,), C .4!/ i, .17,t, ,,:L,Lr AT, it 4 )02... 1 1 . i. .', i A.A..-liri.T.,■,114 t-k _ 4 . jb VI(... y ti e IN 11{-- ;, 1 i % I . 1 1 ,. :::*Waal i ill' • :, 111 : • 4111116. . ( _.... — - i ) ' ,•. ,/....41,,r1. " 1 4".0.01/awriltiMisk q-2_,1?-4 ki (y p-t. (.1.7 Arc, i 1 ........-- / i 1 if i + I 1 . . It .58 at —.y Aso r r 1 (6 Qe),R i - rt lir, 0 ., Ai,v_i 16, xila i , (i:-/ 1// • I/69 .)-16( 4.7110 Ci- L Nri ig,,;?dio. b i i i_t6 t),k-,t ky nr) ( 'i . (fp")i go 1:Ai a ....._ - A f-j- Iii q . - IL/ 4.)ri .( (6 e Zi)/2_ .if I • /' 1:. i \ r • /7 9p pi._ A , i - , au"'I 4"-=:.} P....La.::.•k.. i „--‘, • 4p4;/ /le,.-)e./-1. 14 Pi41, LI?'t j cdi, a t i 1 v C5'241 C7 1V154Z-1421-11-2-- 1 `••s. ' ) ,)_Q ,t , ‘ 1, 1,-,1,..J,v..i.,c )-c,,,,....), .....,_ ,--•--, ) —i,' • i • 'i./..,i / ,, L ,k / I . 1 1 ' 1 . I 1 . ' We the undersigned request the Planning and Zoning Commission review the site plan for 201 N. First Avenue, Iowa City. I. . I 1 4 , Signature Address Date 1 : ) ‘(' :.,--\ 1 ii ,Il 1 ,1 , 11),A pi , i r / '2'''s (ti '--/i±-1 , I :5-11 ,, i Li q V j'2'( '(44 )444 0 LI I --.. I ' .- IC 4.0- 1141/111 ei• 4 - I 7 --• /. -- ' ' • n woits._ I ill 1 .. AL 1 (J . 7 A A 1 ----- 39 brit iva- (T ./ - 1•---1--- / 2_ • ? ; 1 : ALAI - itru--4--Zr C-- _.)6 v ),\ S - 12 --- L -) , 44..' . )111 Cr "/'/ 7// 2- g Z-• ri.:; .?;- (, d c.NIM . , , . I -1•(..t.t.' 4 14-4,:-Lf. l(get-tii_lA.,„ 71 I.1-tk Lyii 1 -.) • i • ii.".:"Cd 441 q I64. Lyn (1- if s i 1 1 t , weie/ 7c.9 6-4,-;.` ,027 ei -/-/eva. , , I i 0...kek .f4,,i,..._,.._ ,,...... 3) •Ldep, 1,-k-v.-N 1-4 Li, Al V) 7 1 (\ II& if • , „..„ ri,),.,t / . ii Limy 0, ,,,, ,,, „...,,,,,, ,......., , 4"i f 1 -1,9 it / l-1 r/' i / i / A: ,1 i/,',- f,t f„,:' i -7- . / /:C../ - 4. . / i,, . ••ti ,il .7 / 1./L-) "- -/--/ 1. ,',-.'7, ..k• 0, .-• Y\ '1 2, 1. * I L. i 17 "rt4-E-0,... Pz.:0,..)%:.7-i.>€7:711 4'2 4 -Y"3-\ i• ,/,--' C. i -q- / i • i 1 2 , I . 1 • • 1 i 1 , We the undersigned request the Planning and Zoning Commission review • the site plan for 201 N. First Avenue, Iowa City. 3 I 1 i 1 1 Signature Address Date 1 I i . 1 I/1 i v.77fAte( ._..,.. '-'' V.4 ''hi'4—•'7 1,-u/M - - :I LI,'\..) 1 it L' • 1 1 . 1 , `,1i.oatLik„P A . e if, ( , in (..itttitda. ka.,9c- /t6 Af , . )...4# ' to II a ) • //4/ _57 4_,„ 14/2-sk,- • / /. 1,at 1 • • j (.-, ' i •--, , I . ,....., i .s.,4,......-...----- r . • 1 ) // /di y 27c /V, ri if 5- i7 vi, )1P/ 24/ ItZ I 1 • i I I • 1 1 i 4 1 1 1 - i . i i ,,. I 1 • 1 , • 1 , i . 1 . i 1 . i , _ 42," Ti.i.T2+. I2+ ,• I 1 ��+� ^ 42 • 221.; 4-2!_421 424 22� i ,s. ' ^ n'. � ' 215 i.• i 1r.•• 22`�' 1 . '`•' ."2229 . . 2.1,:f _t^51 r . f'• r M s.: f .7:: ' M-5'? .. ,„_,1 �_ . o °' t., s. ... . _j 1 __ t f W . 4 f 2 1 f. 3.I r �; r ---:'. 1 E � A t ' 1. 1 X212 time's i •= . 2111 . X92 12 .+ a Y �r�P F.,F s .= i i 3' .! 1 r5 41 F!_ , of >_—. – , ? ry s y. „ -.,,202,5 :. ),-, ...-„. \-71- 1 i illiki4:1:4,-.:::4:t•.•••,..7••,...,..-. • . , i 3 2 4:4:!;2 • „..."--,,, 2:3'-� �l. .� ..., , / y 5 2., i 1.: , i , i 2 2-1•'x'' 2 2...42.3 ,, .� 12I :5 TH x' 2 , • J yOrr.n=• °Pirrcht WI Om.C"""""""*et Johnson County, Iowa ., Pdstlad:Apr 30.2012 - a I F.James Bradley ._ Kevin C.Papp Byron G.Riley ,l; Laura C.Mueller Michael K.Denney : BRADLEY&RILEY PC May 31,2012 Page 2 Commission may be accustomed to reviewing. This property is located in a RM-20 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential Zone and the proposed density of the new building meets the density requirements of that zone. Issues such as preserving the character of the neighborhood, building mass, building height and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan are not appropriate considerations for the Commission with regard to this matter. More appropriately, the Planning and Zoning Commission should review whether or not the Site Plan, and the City Staff's approval of the Site Plan,is in conformance with objective development standards under the City ordinances. For this specific project, the Major Site Plan has been submitted to the Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning and Community Development for their review and comments. The Departments of Planning and Community Development, Public Works and Housing and Inspection Services has reviewed the submitted Site Plan and has determined that the design of the project conforms to the development and design standards set forth in the Iowa City Code of Ordinances. Since the project is also located in the Central Planning District, the City's Design Review Committee has also reviewed and approved the property owner's application for Major Site Plan approval. We are hopeful that when it comes to the technical interpretation of City Code,the Commission will respectfully defer to the City Staff. Finally, based on feedback the property owner received from the City Staff several of the issues that were initially a concern to some of the neighbors have been incorporated into the design of the Site Plan and we believe adequately resolved. These items include adequate landscaping;the location of air conditioners away from the rear of the property; and the lack of balconies,lighting or traffic at the rear of the proposed building which is closest to Rita Lyn Court. For instance, the property owner has already installed forty(40)ten(10) foot arbor vitae evergreen trees along the westerly boundary of the property which are expected to grow to a maximum height of twenty (20) feet. In addition, the new building has been designed to match, as much as reasonably possible,the design and look of the existing buildings on site. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions regarding the above,please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, BRADLEY&RILEY P` ikit4re440' Michael J. Pugh E MJP/dab cc: Montclair Park Cooperative Ms. Julie Tallman Mr.Thomas H. Gelman (01233714.DOC) Nii WWII 14111 EE., g,,..6' { i 6 llifl gad i aza 8 r 33� 1 �9 9 6q 9 — I iis t� m s! I€ Eilgt iiihi#Fiialsiblilsi I ill l y I se # s� j F F a 8' y 9 y „ III Si � 3 TNN1! @@� Ii b j i i =3 ��.F� 1111 1: a°6!!!w•""1 III;� '! ° iii a i'j 1 3 s � �a p �� 1 � t 0 -YY a�9( 11.1 ;! i g�F: �) cVryy RRRRRRpp �----.. !F a iN pb g riA 114411 T I ggR Y F8 'Ohl �� {y ■ F "O 8 B_ G F 5 @ FB RFy�y°P YP s i w ^' 4Q yp na S A y i eR gac___Sg_ A° A"n�E� � tR �l � 6 F 6 t C � � i £� p�Y Y""M�MM� ���Y � � �LL � I�PI�b IPA I�hY I��I��• 1�1� �1�� i� �4�€C 11111�yL � � � " " Y ��a ^i-JC AA RMa i�IC TT aai a@ Itl � a y F F G $ ab ° %$��3:"st=■' ;§ epp F���+: j$ �g �� pQ b q A y � g a F Q F F i8 y st7 �xQ iQ i+ @ g Ill I i I, a IaI AAY y$ A 5g as ghg T'b ( Y p � 7 d 3 9 t w � �� 1 g i e alYY'i � 9e + � Fs�s Qs$S" ! � Fxa t 33�, I s e;y-,��4�7 9 B F G c 4 E 5 5 � 6 " �r @€ '� � 'i� � 4 @ S c� y 9, ���� F-A"p r �}R.(ps 000000000000000 0$I�11IaE affil 1�g;�:"gxel; ;� ;5. � �":a: �c: ��� �as ,Ell Ta��E� a a � y.a6S .9s1ii9 Ir--� MME — ' anirliTv le i—.74-' ' IMIZEMZEM*Iin g0 � 2 tali rilKOZICIRjoil°41Mr,""-..,. firo ; � I. r *� • 1= ZZ lb , . ct.:1. p12.22. _ Ai, - ~ _,1 0 A •I_;_ — --r-d el 7, 0 ,,, „- lur wi 0 0 2 — tgo ih, pc:- , , i 0 1,,o -00 # , 1, ,, , CI!! 8 laic.0 0,,i1,10,1 , I_ i t MI , nil - ' eil NW* - 1,.---- .111 iggi, '4, .ub. - p i rs.---,/ il •} x. �� ea ►pis .1111 ► a��iin■.�■� 0 ©C eIRI�iiA ; ass, - - - �1�1-0 I V\•9�1�t1 1l5:A�----MYY. ®■Tr�'a�,. �11111111105 1 P, ' 1 1.... ultd9i�Nnillui lilike bi�l�.■e•rT■IQAisat®nS.T�A DD � :.►s.� (�yyy 13 3 3 3 `4 i�r_�• •r.��SS�SS�� �ISr 1'p �e .0 / i etA N � , 1 I 1 1 i It N1 I i1 ; i4 : 1) 11 I 1 I 1 \1 I l d l I I;!iiiIiIII - aa I 3 f t i i i s 3 , t t a i s p - i... . . . - — 2 2 In 111111 E E WI glIi51'111 11111 a a i�FF9e z j e e e F w !hit o 11 11 1 F .- ,^gqgi 1,e z 190!fPl� . ;���99 @ � e,� 1 FE I a««««e.v�.o' 8 8 d p _ e v v Q M .elY II �' _ I : .s, lif g . .gg.ga @EA 6 i `g Z F 1:ag. d ■ 4 � 9 « /6i5yia (a t� 2 !I I I I I 1 f`1 vP F F y1 1111111i iii i g �6 .,.Q,.,.,.. .. O ! . ?`� ii I $a««««.....l i� ! VV 1«1 11111 ; B 1 6 1 i z Q 516 , 00000000000 • i 1 1 1 rta IA i .p. Et iiii .---" W IL.I` - C v� _ f s, .1 �- 1 - z ''111../ - 1—' 0 '� I ix� VQ a! , Q .- ZQ .i = sus° _'' ® .. l0 i ii- ' ill' ! rmL, , . kifilikik 4.0. 0!." 1 1 1 IIIIIIMME Illnigi__'' ) ,..,.._ ir : _ 1,.:‘,/a..4zwe ::7= 4 u .•?.....„ , 7 o• 0 10__ti ate -- :_-_ =.. --- .�'$ 0,," , 0 4 :8_1_1-------''':--_._________'------------------------- ---- ----------------------------0-------------------- _---_-_______________.:::-,,-; 2::;,:di I 1 I \ I I I ■ i I E i EE10 !iiiiilli 111111 m§_ .. § , , , Ai-1 1 i gi6,k jfilli iiiiii z aza jr r yr °l UI 1i!hhi Ji111 @t@ @s§iHi 111.1Ja 1 /11. II #NNMf1•+Mte.ol i : Z < !iP o I ep 1 tIII .1 1 -II W d d Q. Zb 1iz 511 in ii lNNNN+NW.�1 II o !3 1111111 J G R F F h V . , ca°°- E. LLS8 's i I � I ,,' : :1 ':'.; r: :----,`"—=---,,, `'.-::::-.7!— s''''Ailtill i eta 1 b.:;;I:iiii: ity• i.e. .• " — .. 1 ZQQ i< �" S 1111 NE .. .. . i I ce —JU 1' ce I— mm 1*4 '17431S-;;(00'44. m`,1/1""1". Z " 0 1 NI11 :11111�a®ea -11.1.t: : , I I 14,EA.... I 1,i::::: :::114", i op{ibl it aM.1,' 7. l 1l_ :;i t---+L i"...;,:>....1k",,,,,,,,, ,, ,„ Nill ii i,it.,\'‘,.\\:,:\:,,,\,..\:‘,::,),, - Ihk--viwn,-)limiTii 1 111111 11 un Om*Ma now.bnown,m-ognave.• 11111��� ,i g, .4- - i J a 3@!611 �'2 a� py z <#z< j 3a al li'l i aiiii M f 4�i4 11 d 1 3 F ,tip- , 1„„ I. i 11,11 i ig 1 1 . It r. Pli I Nil g 8r jell 11 #a*.#4.. .al t : ' ' '@I§I h li`3Frgtl 14 gi �" 9i i!li i = < Ep ii I i ix, s���ai Sggb a c� Z ��i ¢y l'''' ! iill II i""*.°""iil 11 it I•° ¢Q atl Int�g HI isx, gigp i¢I 3g ,Mr....:- 0 F�585 S• ille: if II O iti 91%2 a Qv�ai o a - r�c,,�;—, V 'loll o:� 2 ,4 9 O I p q 1..11=1 ill l�s QQQ QQQ QQ I Qi �• Al: 5�g" C@�sb a d6 1559 1899 189j b ayb ye4 yQyp{�• A$ee6 s%S ,r11 Qj I �' f• Y , g€a 3ggp . e "i'''' ¢¢a ! a ¢4 1Q g 3 g ¢�b M5A6' f Or;� a !Rh¢E ag ag S 6,i :.3.0 :I .., .¢s ig is �y � !;gdQt°tlAd °; ig;1 i'i 1115 gtl1 !1I{'ll ]" !Kati 4�a ii g h 10,Sri,iq.il9,l fill! I. .i.. .h x:r ii _...—.—. —.—.—.—.—. • .—._.—.—.0 I '= tsa ww'- 1711 — W W ' ,' QJ 1= i �- i, "a .sue —I 11111111" il l I : p '' a Il k§ 1-. , < Z0 .,, O , ., 0 _ i:, (,, ., f ,9. to, f . k 3 a }M1 .•--m rill a . s � yL in En w 0 ♦��� , Q r� IlibbiliM.....:-- -5 I 'NtiffiuL w m AtAlEmmommEmmmmoimummummipmammmitmlazA.„,„, ::!),,,,,, : / i II eg t i 311 l'.6-----'--, _. i.,-,=,.....,,,,,,,,,::',,,,,,,,,/,:ii,' i ih it IP- 1 , 1 It 1,111;,'- g-11- II-..--..triirc.,,,,,;:(„iffu,:i, ill 1 111 -- -- -- tl iiQ ------- - - _' - - •mow .. E I ill i 1 iQ ® ®Cad® 0lid I j a1 In iiiiiiili EE.H gg! ,i,ge. 1111 I 411 3 L8 9 99ii9 7 !I d F I""�III 6 i 11 s r —��.� rP • q�4 g�6 �Ef i311 i F W 1 F• i16H5§ h iiii9!li3ia19€1�g3B d8l- + 8 ii a IIII I lMNNM..■e.o ; ; �� 5 6; la.§. y ce! CEM15.3 I 1 6aiq......�..1 1i 11` ,':a 'ig Q o in 710V ,S kii I 7 w .k 1 __°_.�_ ._..._..._..._...— — 1_..._..._--. Et §tl — i "Mill EL Ivri � J, CC l'il ! 1 ill . �• H filti Q z i �, 2 tl- O ] El S ti , t : 1111 ' '''', 1111 ill r . ; kg 8 ,.± 3_.3' ;',:ii;,,' i II ditfa 'Ili;i•. .�v E 4° i .g ....ca. ' ��` !1a —2 i $' ,s j^ � '__="Z g ! i-T."*-3=� Al' rt wig ,gB. Fif! lw ®9h p Vmemitewe3d2A0AMmiY. Ili ' �••I• fjia i 0..M.P. 1 ,\ e - • B r di CAIN ---'11:14 !g ■ e! iBF. ..ae A- :9 itg iy —till— :: .§, ,- • ■ y ad a @ 15P�..—_..g$ '1a.1! iii''' '""iBtg y 1R;i cg Rya PI!'---- eRFa-i I �. I - I �� K[r, it.. I \ \ I I lgaaa W 1 MYNA i+o EEL) g „,. Ail W s 5 a , '# PlP:P wo Z ' t1� a�li9 �a $ i s 1! 1 a 1 i r "� 2 I 9 a. 'Pig rid � a ; e 9 y! pg IRP ,.1-,gd 1 „:, $ [i! en 5 I; g s I hietlgi"' IV`; I Ij f . I 1 qYq { 9. li /Q' 10 P.Yi ( ■ J I� Q F"E e �Ie 1 9 6! r :1 fra g 1 I9 y�tll.a�„E g� o @ 8 �I��p'o °�� E ".��III•�� �' II q 3 ' 1.11Iy1-1,i'l i, 1 �+ g i P i El I;� Jti i :Bh � !� R. � �� �e i e ■9 ge 9 R 1, ig ei Q;9 P !6 0 16 81 i 11l fps�a Iwl° !�i b O (eQ th y :la 10,i 1 tli :14_). ! 'QPQ =g If eyq. '9 ._�..- P Y Ie Qy!g e Q Ii It Q a 2 !!E it E s I iil 9 111 a!hi 5 li?I'd;l:1a1 419,Q; g 5.1 • r. .Y Q.I�oEE16!99B e 1 I 77: e.t P' ..am s-.. ii!a . Il■” s ; ."I. -ri i.Iii _. 2 = a — ' ° i !l � AIS � hill hi 1 so a /a1 i CI I_I, 11.)P e PP III .,, , , massee ,3 1._ 5 lain mils .Q Q I QI • •I 1 I 1 I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY APRIL 30, 2012—5:15 PM —INFORMAL HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL 1 i MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, John Thomas, Tim Weitzel 4 s 1 MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Freerks a STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood-Hektoen, Ron Knoche OTHERS PRESENT: Glenn Siders i RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: i None. I CALL TO ORDER: 1 The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None 4 Rezoning Item 1 REZ09-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Company for a rezoning from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately 4.29 acres of property located on Walden Road,west of Mormon Trek Boulevard. 1 Howard said the original date of this application is 2009, and the applicant has requested that it be reactivated. She said it was deferred in 2009 due to resolution of drainage issues on the property. She outlined the property on the site plan for the Commission. She said all the water flows down the hill toward a small development, and the storm sewer system through Walden Court is a private storm sewer. She said at the time of the original application the developer and 4 the homeowners association were trying to come to an agreement for the proposed development to tie into that private storm sewer and allow the water to extend out to the public I storm sewer system, which is along Rohret Road. Howard said they were unable to come to an agreement. She said the applicant has devised an alternative way to approach the drainage issue and have consulted with the City Engineer. She reminded the Commission that this is a rezoning request only and is not a plat. She said the High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone allows for attached, townhouse-style units but in order to develop the area, the applicant will have to come back with a platting. She showed the Commission a concept plan. Howard said she has included all the public record from the previous meeting. She said there t I 31 Planning and Zoning Commission April 30,2012-Informal Page 2 of 7 Ii have been some drainage issues in the neighborhood and quite a number of residents have sent letters to the City regarding those issues. She said the staff supports this rezoning because it proposed RS-12 zoning allows the developer to cluster the development with attached units in appropriate locations that would front on the two roadways and it has about the same density as the existing RS-8. 4 Weitzel asked if there was any wetlands jurisdiction on this property. i Howard said there was not Swygard asked if the drainage issue would be of most concern at the time of design. Howard said the concern that if the zoning is increased on the property to make sure that the drainage can work in a satisfactory manner and causes no problems for the neighboring 3 properties. g Eastham asked if the City Engineers had enough information at this time to give an opinion about whether routing storm water run-off from this proposed development to the west would be as effective a way of managing storm water as routing it directly to the south through the private storm water system. Knoche replied that it is as effective and may be even more so from the standpoint that the 1 p overland flow route is now directed in a route that will avoid the neighborhood to the south. He said that the water falling on the south side of the berm will still go down to the neighborhood, but the majority will not i Eastham asked if there was any way to develop this property to alleviate the surface run-off 4 going directly to the yards to the south. Knoche said the plans alleviate that surface run-off in that any water falling to the north side of the berm will go into the detention basin. He said in the original development of this area this storm sewer easement that's in place was supposed to extend all the way to Lot 79, and at some point the decision was made not to do that 4 g Eastham asked about the capacity of that storm sewer pipe. Knoche said it would have the capacity to drain the outlet of the detention basin because of the i criteria the City has for the release rate out of the detention basin. i Eastham asked if the properties to the west of the proposed storm water route will see any change in the amount of surface run-off with the proposed plan. Knoche said that it will not change. He said the plan is to do some excavating over one of the 4 existing pipelines that has been abandoned but that doesn't necessarily allow the developer to grade all the way to that west property line because there are still two active gas lines in that g area. I Thomas said it looked like the low point of the swale will be a lower elevation than the property line and there is positive drainage along that property line toward the swale. 4 i I Y i Planning and Zoning Commission April 30,2012-Informal 4 Page 3 of 7 Knoche explained that it will be graded from the west property line of Walden Court and drain ( back to the swale, but there won't be much excavation from the development to the west back 1 toward the swale due to the placement of the gas lines. 1 1 Thomas asked if there might then be an increase along the left (west) edge. a a Knoche said it won't run that way, but it won't necessarily help the water run to the east either. He said the water will be maintained in the swale to get it to the outlet and back to Rohret Road but because of the constraints on the developer and the gas lines, they may not be able to get more positive drainage back to the east from that west lot line. I Eastham asked about the drainage through the south end of the drainage route and if Knoche can tell now that it will be built in such a way that there won't be an increase water accumulation on the south end. I, Knoche said that in a large event there may be some ponding there but in a normal rain event there won't be any difference from what it is today. Eastham asked if any ponding would creep back across the western part of the property. Knoche assured him that in the design they would make sure that wasn't an issue. 1 Eastham asked about the abandoned gas lines. I Knoche explained that there are three pipelines that run to the gas easement. He said the two on the west are still active and the one that runs on the east side of the easement has been abandoned. I IMiklo said that is one of the things that has changed between 2009 and the present. Thomas asked if there were any other concerns about the up-zoning. Howard said that the main focus was on the storm water issue but that there were some letters in which concern was voiced regarding density and the neighborhood and questions if there I would be any increase in traffic on Walden. Howard explained that one of the conditions staff is requesting for the application is that there be visitor parking for the townhouse units. I IMartin spoke about a letter of concern regarding increased traffic to Weber School. Howard said that staff didn't feel this would a huge increase in traffic with only eighteen proposed housing units. i Eastham asked if there was room for additional visitor parking spaces beyond three in the p private alley. z Howard said she doesn't have the answer for that She said she thought there was some I discussion that it would be nice to have some open space on the property. I Swygard asked how the storm management system is maintained after it's built. I 1 I i Planning and Zoning Commission April 30,2012-Informal Page 4 of 7 Knoche said the developer will put down $5000 in escrow for the maintenance of the storm water retention basins, and after the development is completely done, the applicant will ask for the escrow to be returned, at which point the City does an inspection and will release the escrow if it's determined that the system meets the criteria that it was designed to. He said at that point forward, it would then be under the maintenance of the home owners association. Eastham said he's always had misgivings about these privately managed storm water detention areas that are all through the community. 1 Knoche said that's the way that every detention basin in Iowa City is handled. Thomas asked if they are inspected by the City at any point. Knoche said if there is a complaint about a clog, they will go out and do an inspection, but not on any kind of regular basis. Eastham asked if the water exit from the detention area will be over the surface. Knoche explained that there will be a structure that controls the outlet. Eastham asked how high the berm would be. Knoche responded that he hadn't seen the final layout for this plan. Swygard asked if there were any safety issues for the neighborhood with this plan. Knoche replied that there would be no issues if it were constructed appropriately. Eastham asked if Knoche thought there was anything unusual about this storm water detention plan as opposed to other plans used throughout the city. Knoche said it wasn't unique from any other detention basin. Eastham asked if the preliminary plat would come back to the Commission before it reaches Council. Howard affirmed that it would. REZ12-00007: Discussion of an application an application submitted by The University of Iowa for a rezoning from Public (P) zone to Community Business Service (CB-2) zone for approximately 1.3-acres of property located south of Harrison Street between Clinton Street and Dubuque Street. Miklo said this was unusual because it's rare that they see public designation reverting to a private designation. He said this property is zoned Public (P-1) because it was owned by the Iowa City Community School District and until recently, the former Sabin School building was } the school district's administrative offices . He said the University of Iowa acquired the property from the school district with the intent of trading this property with the MidwestOne Bank y property a block to the north to allow MidwestOne to relocate, making their current property on the west side of Clinton Street available for the new music school. He said the future ownership is not clear, but MidwestOne Bank will move into the former Sabin School at least temporarily Planning and Zoning Commission l April 30,2012-Informal Page 5of7 1 and are seeking a special exception from the Board of Adjustment to allow a drive-through, which would be subject to this rezoning being approved. He said the plan now if that the bank 3 would move their home loan office into the former Sabin School building, configure a drive- through facility on the west side of the building using the alley as access. He said in the longer term it is the intention of the bank to build a new building on the property on the opposite side of i the alley, with the future of the Sabin Building unknown. He said to accomplish this transfer of interest in these two properties is to rezone it to a Central Business Service (CB-2) zone, a zoning that is intended to work in conjunction with the downtown zones and also provide a transition to less intense development. Miklo said this is the only downtown zone that allows drive-throughs by special exceptions. He said both the Downtown Plan and the Near Southside Plan identify this area as being appropriate for government center and mixed uses. He said in the near future there may be a new zoning designation to implement the Riverfront Crossings Plan, but for the interim, the CB-2 zoning meets the Comprehensive Plan for the area and would be compatible with future plans for the area. Weitzel asked how much latitude the Commission has to consider that this might be an historic building and how the zoning would affect it in the long-run. Miklo said at one time the intention was to remove the building, and the university went through a federal review process required whenever there's federal money being used on a building that's eligible for the National Register. He said this went before the Historic Preservation i Commission, and there were proposals that if the building were to be torn down there would be some mitigating efforts like architectural salvage or doing energy efficiency or space needs i studies on similar historic schools in the area to mitigate the loss of the building. He said the university decided not to tear down the building at this time, and the federal requirement was no longer relevant. Miklo said that with the new zoning being developed for this area there will be some incentives for restoring or reusing historic buildings, but if not, The Riverfront Crossings Plan and form based zoning code would contain standards for the development of the area. i 1 Eastham asked if the planning for the Riverfront Crossings area as it stands now includes anything beyond incentives for owners to reuse or maintain the exterior appearance of historic buildings. i Miklo said what staff has discussed is some sort of zoning such as transfer development rights that allows greater development on one property if you commit to saving historic buildings on another property. He said there are also federal tax credits that might be of interest for this property. Eastham asked if the bank could build a taller structure now if they wished to. Miklo explained that the current zoning would only allow a four-story building. He said that the 1 draft staff is working on for Riverfront Crossings anticipates taller buildings in order to develop more intensely. He said staff thought this was an area that could take some height because it's not in a lower density neighborhood and would have a minimal effect on other surrounding development. Weitzel asked about the Airport Clearance Zone. 1 Miklo said the same cap that is put on downtown would apply to this area He said the main point is that this has to be zoned something other than Public (P) because that is required by the Zoning Code. He said staff feels that the CB-2 seems to be most appropriate given the 1 i t r Planning and Zoning Commission I April 30,2012-Informal Page 6 of 7 current circumstances and the anticipated plan for the area i i Other There was some discussion amongst the Commissioners about the university's decision to remove the building at 711 Melrose Avenue and how quickly it happened after the Commission recommended vacation of the right-of-way. 1 t ADJOURNMENT: Swygard moved to adjourn. Eastham seconded. 1 The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote. i I i i 1 I i t 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 i t t P i 1 i t 1 i z i t 4 a A 1 j i i i 1 g i i i 1 1 i 4 I i 1 Z 0 cn 2 rL (D O t9 z 0 0 z C r4 W w _ 0 T_ -J 0ZN a Q Q N 2 Ce � W p XX � XXXX u.re in Z Za I0 w XX � 1XXXX Z ,- XXX --- XXX Q J ZXXXw i XXX d X X X X X X X (h 0 M co X X X X X X X N X X X X i XXX iV co NXXXXXXX XXXX I XXX 5 ` 0 1 yzxxxxxxX 2W CO COMNr . LOLO (M N O r re r4 7 FW- X Cul x c co W N 11.1 (O (0 Cr) N IC) HC) M _ C CD )4.4 W d in HD LO HD (n u) u) W a m E x 0 CD CD 0 CD CD 0 J Q N a) _o O a W J 22az w Zre m ' Z as u n � 4Z2WQ = n nw � 1 vQ n: 00 < W0 � XOOz mo� I- re cpacr, H w V = oNYCwaQW V = CCWZQaN N W d l— C9 W N W a 0 0 ~ W W a H Q >- Q00O2W Q >- Qre 0a = W zow � xv) F- 3 ZowU. Y2vo1- 3 d 4 4 iii... PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY MAY 3, 2012—7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL 1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, John Thomas, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Caroline Dyer 1 STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen, Denny Gannon OTHERS PRESENT: Glenn Siders, Brian Fink, Kevin Den Adel, Jason Mascher, Ernest Kellems, Meigen Fink, Changmin Ding, Charles Thiede, Dan Black 1 RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of REZ09-00003, an application submitted by Southgate Development Company for a rezoning from Medium Density 1 Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately 4.29 acres of property located on Walden Road, west of Mormon Trek Boulevard with the following conditions: 1 1. At the time of development, the storm water management system will be designed and constructed in accordance with the City Engineer's design standards including the required detention and outlet criteria. 2. At the time of development, the storm water management system will be designed in a manner that will not exacerbate storm water drainage issues on adjacent properties. 3. Development will be in general compliance with the submitted concept plan regarding site layout, lot configuration, and building orientation and units will be developed with double garages. 4. Access to all of the units shall be from a rear lane that connects to Walden Road. 5. No direct vehicular access shall be allowed from Mormon Trek Boulevard, and at 1 the time of development, a minimum of six visitor parking spaces will be provided wherever they fit on the lot. i The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of REZ12-00007, an application submitted by The University of Iowa for a rezoning from Neighborhood Public (P1) zone to Institutional Public with a Central Business Service Zone Overlay (P2/CB-2) for approximately 1.3-acres of property located south of Harrison Street between Clinton 1 Street and Dubuque Street. 3 (45 day limitation period: May 18, 2012) , CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. 1 Freerks welcomed the newest Commissioner, Phoebe Martin and asked her to introduce I 3 i I. Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2012-Formal Page 2 of 19 herself. Martin said she was born and raised in Iowa City, and she felt that serving on the Commission was an appropriate move to make as a resident of the city. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. 1 REZONING ITEM Al REZ09-00003 Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Company for a rezoning from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately 4.29 acres of property located on Walden Road, west of Mormon Trek Boulevard. Howard said the applicant has requested to reactivate this application that was originally filed in 2009. She said they requested deferral at that time pending resolution of issues involving storm water drainage. She explained that they were trying to reach an agreement with the Walden Court Homeowners Association to allow storm water from the proposed development to connect into and drain through the private storm sewer in Walden Court but were unable to come to agreement. She said the applicant has now devised an alternative system of managing the i. storm water by directing the water from a storm water basin along an overland swale that will extend along the MidAmerican gas pipeline easement south to the public storm sewer system along Rohret Road. The applicant has submitted a new concept plan showing how this stormwater management system would be constructed. Howard showed the Commission a map of the property and said that the developable part of the property is quite sloped from north to south and is about 700 feet in width but quite narrow in depth. She explained that the dog leg on the property is a MidAmerican gas pipeline easement. She said that the City Engineers Office has reviewed the new concept plan for storm water management and has agreed to allow this 1 type of design provided that at the time of development the drainage system is designed to meet all the City's engineering standards. She reminded the Commission that this is a request for rezoning, and it is not a platting at this time. Howard said this property is about 4.2 acres, and the concept plan is for approximately 18 townhouse style units. She explained that to develop under a High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zoning designation, they will I have to come back for a platting process and divide that into individual single family lots. She I explained that the RS-12 zoning will allow the units to be attached but they will have to be divided into separate home lots. She said the density is about 4.2 units per acre and while this proposed residential density is at a level that would be allowed under the current Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zoning designation, the lot configuration and topography make it difficult to develop detached single family homes or duplexes, which are the allowed types in the RS-8 zone. She said the RS-12 zoning will allow more flexibility in clustering the units along these limited street frontages and avoid construction of a cul-de-sac, I which would be costly and land-consuming and would not add to the neighborhood street I connectivity. She said that by clustering the units and limiting the amount of paving, more of the I lot will remain open space and can be used to manage storm water run-off and provide an amenity for the residents. Howard said that for the reasons above and for those included in the staff report, staff is recommending approval of this rezoning with a number of conditions. She said that staff recommends that REZ09-00003, a request to rezone approximately 4.29 acres of property from RS-8 to RS-12, be approved subject to a conditional zoning agreement that specifies the following: I i I or Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2012-Formal Page 3 of 19 1. At the time of development, the storm water management system will be designed and constructed in accordance with the City Engineer's design standards including the required detention and outlet criteria. 2. At the time of development, the storm water management system will be designed in a manner that will not exacerbate storm water drainage issues on adjacent properties. 3. Development will be in general compliance with the submitted concept plan regarding site layout, lot configuration, and building orientation. 4. Access to all of the units shall be from a rear lane that connects to Walden Road. 5. No direct vehicular access shall be allowed from Mormon Trek Boulevard, and at the 1 time of development, a minimum of three visitor parking spaces will be provided along 1 the rear lane near the units that front on Mormon Trek Boulevard. i 1 Howard directed the Commission's attention to the concept plan that is being proposed and told i I them that it's very similar to the one that was presented in 2009 except for the storm water 1 drainage concept. She explained that the proposed drainage system is basically a storm water 1 detention basin that outlets into a drainage swale through the pipeline easement. She indicated that Denny Gannon from the City Engineer's Office was in attendance at the meeting and i invited him to describe in more detail how the drainage system would work and answer any 1 questions the Commission might have I 1 .I. , Denny Gannon of the City Engineer's Office said the applicant is proposing a detention basin or two that would detain water, retain it and then let it out slowly and he indicated on a map where I it would outlet. He said it would flow in a drainage swale to the west and then south and then get i I picked up at that point by the City sewer system along Rohret Road. I I Howard asked Gannon to describe how the overland swale might help some of the drainage I 1 issues that residents in Walden Court are currently experiencing. , iGannon said the water would be intercepted by the detention basins and be detained in a dry ' bottom basin and would flow out much slower than normal. 1 i Howard explained that one of the differences between the current proposal and the original one i is that the applicants have received permission from MidAmerican to use the easternmost , , portion of the gas pipeline easement for the drainage swale. i , Freerks asked Gannon if he thought this would help the problem property owners in the area , talked about in 2009. 3 3 1 1 Gannon said it would help with the stormwater that flows down the hill from north to south by I capturing it in a constructed basin and releasing it more slowly through the swale. He said 1 , because MidAmerican has three underground pipes running through the easement, they won't I allow an underground storm sewer pipe, but they will allow an overland drainage swale. , 1 Eastham asked if the drainage swale would function as effectively as a pipe system in terms of I draining water from the detention basin. 1 , Gannon said the storm sewer system would be the best, but the next best option is a drainage , i swale directed toward the public stormsewer on the north side of Rohret Road. , , I , I Eastham asked why a swale isn't as effective as a pipe. I i , Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2012-Formal Page 4 of 19 1 Gannon explained that if water is in a pipe it's contained, and if it's in a swale, the top is uncontained. 1 Eastham asked if the engineering standards that would have to be followed in constructing the swale would mean that there would be a very small probability that water would overflow the banks of the swale. Gannon said the swale would be designed to contain the water and that he doesn't see a problem with this system. 1 Thomas asked how the water is directed to the detention basin. Gannon explained that the detention basin is the lowest point on the property, and the water is directed by grading to the basin. Thomas asked if ground would be sloped to drain water to the detention basin. Gannon said they would probably build roof drains that could be piped directly to the basin but if not, then the slope of the land would take the water to the basin. Thomas said there was a lot of impervious material in that area and asked if the water running off it would then just go downhill. Gannon said the detention basin would intercept it. 1 Eastham asked if this proposed system is unusual in either design, intent or function. Gannon replied that it was not 1 Eastham asked if this system would have any effect on the properties to the west of the proposed development. Gannon reiterated that if the water is directed to a drainage swale, the water will then proceed into the storm sewer system located along Rohret Road. 1 Eastham asked if this concept will relieve any backyard flooding that's occurring now for the properties to the west. Gannon said he could not answer that because he isn't familiar with the current issues. Howard asked if it will have to be designed in a manner that won't exacerbate drainage problems on other properties, which is a question of many concerned residents. 1 Gannon affirmed this. Freerks said that in a letter opposing this application it states that the holding area behind units four and five has steep slopes and is inches away from their sidewalk. Howard said she sees nothing in the concept indicating that arrangement but that it is only a 1 concept plan. 1 1 Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2012-Formal Page 5 of 19 1 Eastham asked if Walden Road is designed to accommodate traffic from this proposed development. Howard said that in 2009 the transportation staff analyzed the proposal and determined that the proposed development would not unduly impact the traffic situation in the neighborhood. She added that any time you have a curb cut, it will reduce on-street parking but this is designed as a narrow rear access lane so it wouldn't have as much impact as a cul-de-sac, which is what I would have to be built under the current zoning category. I Thomas said the allowed housing types in the RS-8 zone are single-family and duplexes. 5 Howard said that duplexes are permitted only on corner lots in an RS-8 zone and in this unusually shaped lot, there really are no corners. j Thomas asked if townhouses are allowed in an RS-8 zone. 1 Howard said they are not allowed in an RS-8 zone unless it's a Planned Development (OPD). She noted that this proposal for approximately 18 townhouses would be at a density that is compatible with the current RS-8 Zone and a similar development could be approved through a it planned development process. She said the RS-12 zoning designation allows attached single I family dwellings (townhouses) by right as long as they comply with the standards in the zoning / code. Thomas asked Howard to confirm whether the proposed number of units could be permitted under the current RS-8 zoning. I Howard said hypothetically the same number of units could be approved through the planned development process with the existing RS-8 Zoning designation. However, she noted that the applicant has opted to request a rezoning to RS-12 instead of going the planned development A route. I i Thomas asked how they determined the number of parking stalls. Howard said each unit would have parking behind it for the residents, but there was a concern expressed that there would be insufficient visitor parking, particularly for the units that front on Mormon Trek, where no on-street parking is allowed. She said that the discussion in 2009 regarding the number of visitor parking spaces revolved around striking a balance between paving more of the property for parking versus maintaining more open space for the residents 1 and how much visitor parking was truly necessary when there will be multiple parking spaces 1 behind each unit. I Freerks asked if the process is to have a City Engineer verify that this system will not make storm water drainage issues on adjacent properties any worse, as mandated in the conditional 4 zoning agreement or does the applicant have to pay for a private engineer. I Howard explained that at the time of applying for a subdivision plat the applicant must design all infrastructure to meet the City standards and those designs are reviewed by the relevant City departments. The applicant will have to hire their own engineer to design the development, but that the City Engineer's office reviews the plat and the construction drawings to make sure that they meet the City's standards. She said there is both a preliminary and a final platting process and at the final platting phase, an applicant has to provide actual construction drawings, which are reviewed by the Public Works Department. She said there would also be on-site inspections 4 1 r Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2012-Formal Page 6 of 19 during development and construction from both the Building Department and the Public Works Departments. Eastham asked if the preliminary plat application would be reviewed by the Commission. ■ Howard confirmed that a public hearing is required for a preliminary plat. She also explained that the final plat must comply with the preliminary plat, and if it does, it must then be approved by the City Council. s Freerks opened the public hearing. 1 I Glenn Siders of Southgate Development Company said he would be available to answer any questions. 1 Brian Fink of 44 Coll Court said his is a property that adjoins the easement along the west side and the problems he speaks of are the same for the two adjacent properties. He said that the drainage is a long-term problem for those residents on the west side. He said it's persistent between rains. He said the cul-de-sac he lives on all slopes down to the corner at the south end of the gas pipeline easement, and that was the outlet for the drainage for that entire area He explained that the pipeline easement is shared space for water disposal, and the south part is I the lowest, flattest part of the easement. He said at that point, the water from this area has to cross the easement, cross the applicant's property completely and then go to a box out in front of Walden Court. He said there is a tremendous amount of water that comes from the west. He referred to pictures and letters explaining the problem that he had sent to the Commission. He 4 explained that the problem property owners have along the easement is that the groundwater level rises and spreads onto adjacent properties, which makes a good portion of their properties completely unusable. He said that twenty-five years ago when his subdivision was built there was a plan that was approved but at some point there was a design flaw which led to the I problem they have with water drainage. He remarked that he was surprised to see an overland swale system proposed, as in the engineering report from 2009 it states that at the time of development the storm water management system will be required to be in a pipe system. He said he thinks the swale system will introduce potentially large amounts of new water into a flat area with a history of chronic, insufficient drainage. He wanted to know if the swale was going to be graded above the ground or into the ground because there is a creek-like channel that runs across this area and when it's running full bore, how will the swale not create a barrier to all the water that comes in from the west as it was designed to do. He wants to know if they proposing A overland swale because MidAmerican won't allow an underground pipe. He said given the 1 sensitive areas of the southern part of the swale, minimum engineering standards do not apply. He said whatever is designed for the applicant's property has to account for all the water 4 entering from the west. He said there can be no blockage, or back-up or additional restriction or that violates the condition of the zoning proposal. He said moving some or all the run-off water from several acres to a narrow, concentrated pipeline easement of 100 feet wide seems like an obvious design flaw. He said that the result may be a worsening of retained water issues experienced by he and his two neighbors, and anything in the proposal to introduce new run-off from the east must provide consideration for drainage feeding from the twenty properties to the west. He said the developer has the burden of proof that the current proposal won't create additional harm. He asked who will bear the responsibility if in five years the worst happens and 1 the water level rises substantially in their backyards and what will be the recourse for the property owners. He said he has observed excessive water in his backyard for the fourteen 4 years he has lived there, and he thinks it's doubtful that this above ground swale will contain all I the new water. He urged the Commission to hold the developer accountable. 1 1 1 4 4 r Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2012-Formal Page 7 of 19 I Fink said that since the water from Coll Court has to flow across the pipeline easement to the box in front of Walden Court does the developer plan to incorporate that volume of water into 3 the new drainage swale coming from the north and east. 1i Freerks asked Siders to respond to the question of if the drainage that comes down to the proposed area where there's a new storm drainage system, does the applicant intend to hook I up to that system. Siders pointed out the swale area and the existing storm sewer system and said that they aren't anticipating piping this water. He pointed out an area and said they are not going to run pipe to there. Kevin Den Adel of 54 Coil Court who lives in the house just south of Fink said that Fink already addressed many of the same concerns he has He said he also wanted people to understand that the land slopes from Walden down to Rohret north to south, but also into his backyard, which is the main source of their problem. He said his concern is that if there is more water going through that area, given the existing slope in his backyard, it's probable that conditions 1 will worsen. He said the other issue is the condition that the proposed drainage swale will not exacerbate current conditions. He said he thought the City Engineer had said that he wasn't sure what impact that might have on the current situation, so he doesn't see how that condition will be met. He thinks it might get back to the question of how you measure that He asked what 1 the property owners will be required to do if they think that the situation worsens following construction of the swale. Greenwood Hektoen explained that this is a concept plan at this point, so Gannon doesn't know the calculations at this time She said if they were found to violate the design standards after I construction it would be a violation of the conditional zoning agreement and the City would 1 pursue a remedy to the infraction. 1 i Den Adel asked what would happen if it didn't violate the design standards but the design standards weren't designed to meet the condition of not exacerbating the damage. i Freerks said that's what the proposed CZA includes so the ultimate goal is that no matter what, it makes none of the property owners' problems worse and if that is the case there is action that can be taken. Greenwood Hektoen noted that at the time the land is subdivided there will be additional agreements and obligations imposed upon the applicant. Den Adel asked if there was a statute of limitations. Greenwood Hektoen said that typically a conditional zoning agreement runs with the land so those obligations remain in perpetuity. 1 1 Den Adel said it would make him feel better as a homeowner in that area if the developer would have had conversations with the property owners and listened to their concerns 1 Freerks explained that he is referring to the Good Neighbor Policy, which is voluntary. f Greenwood Hektoen reminded him that at the time the property is platted, he can come back and make sure that his concerns are addressed. i i i rommologr Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2012-Formal Page 8 of 19 Jason Mascher of 45 Coll Court said he was there representing his wife and his neighbors, and they would like their concerns noted and carefully considered. He said they are concerned that the proposal will increase drainage issues that they have. He said he understands from his neighbors that Southgate used this property as a storage ground for dirt before the time that fencing was required to prevent erosion. He said the dirt that has been stockpiled over the years has flooded into the backyards of the Walden Court residents as evidenced by past letters to the City. He said that water flushed that dirt down this ravine and silted this ravine in. He said that many years ago there was a plan in place for the drainage, but the plan has changed partly because of this silted ravine. He invited the Commission to come out to the property to see the elevation and the grade issues. . He said that from his and Den Adel's backyards it is evident that the silting of that ravine has created a low spot in their backyards and almost his entire fence line is unusable space. He said there is a creek-like channel from his yard in an area he pointed out on the map that goes across the ravine. He said another property owner had pointed out that the water from the front of houses that he pointed out on the map and comes around the street and comes down into a basin he pointed out on the map. He said that's the only basin and when it rains, there's a heavy stream that flows into it. He said his concern is with the drainage swale proposal that goes north to south on the east side of the property he pointed to on the map, there will issues where even if the ravine is graded to meet the main swale, during heavy rains this rain will back up into the ravine flat and into his yard and those of his neighbor Den Adel. He asked that the Commission consider this storm water system very carefully. He asked if the three additional parking spots were per unit or for the whole proposed complex. Freerks answered that it was for the entire complex. 1 Mascher said that he is concerned because typically these types of proposed homes support three or four students. He said with the proposed development, more parking spaces will be lost along Walden Road, which is fairly busy with spare parking spots from the townhomes located on the north side of the street. He asked if the public can participate in the design review '` process. 1. Freerks said that there isn't a design review process for this per se but she said that appropriate 1 City staff look at the plan and make sure that it's workable in their areas of expertise. She said after that it comes to the Commission, and the public is welcomed to have comment at that time. She said even though the applicant chose not to use the Good Neighbor policy previously, it's i never too late. Mascher said his concern with the drainage swale is that it's going to create problems with the existing drainage channels that feed into the stormwater inlet in front of Walden Court. He said that with no certainty about this system, there will be problems down the road and then what i kind of recourse will the homeowners have. He said that if the Commission came out to the property, they could be witness to how the area started out if indeed in a number of years the problem worsens. He said that because Eastham had an interest in this property when this application originally came before the Commission, he had recused himself. He asked if he still had an interest and what it was. Eastham explained that his interest last time was that he is on the board of a non-profit that was in negotiations with the applicant about purchasing this property. He said those negotiations are not in effect now. Mascher asked if Eastham was still on the board. I i 1 Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2012-Formal Page 9 of 19 Eastham affirmed that he was 1 Mascher asked if there are other drainage swales in Iowa City. i Greenwood Hektoen asked Gannon to address that question as well as if the proposed system would have to be designed to accommodate the existing situation as well as the new i development. Gannon replied that his understanding is that the swale will be a path for the outlet of the storm water detention basin constructed on the applicant's property. He said it will be cut into the ground so that the water coming from the detention basin, which the subject property drains to, a will be contained in the drainage swale channel and directed to the City storm sewer. Greenwood Hektoen asked if his calculations factor in any existing water. Gannon said he would assume so. He said he knows there are other drainage swales in town. 1 He said there is an existing natural drainage-way at the Eastside Recycling Center that is probably larger than the proposed swale. Howard asked if there is anything in the record about the previous design for the other subdivisions in the neighborhood so it would be clear if something designed is not functioning i properly. I x Gannon said he would have to look at the records. i 1 Mascher remarked that it is only a presumption that the three additional parking spaces won't worsen the traffic, and that is not much comfort to the people living in the neighborhood as once it's done, it can't be taken back, and there will be no recourse. He said he and his wife would like this property developed, but with careful consideration of all the parties affected. He said j they see no need to up zone the property as its current zoning of RS-8 will keep with the theme i of its surroundings, single family residences and duplexes. He said he thinks that OPD is a feasible option, and that should also be considered. Freerks explained that OPD could create something exactly like what is being proposed. Mascher said if you reduce the number of units and the people living there driving, OPD would address some of the factors. Freerks said that in an OPD you could have as many units as are being proposed. Howard explained that the existing zoning is RS-8 and that allows approximately eight units per acre. She said the current proposal shows about four units per acre, so under the current RS-8 zoning a planned development could be designed with the same density as in the proposal. She 5 said with a planned development all of the units could be on one lot, and it wouldn't have to be subdivided into individual home lots. She said with an RS-12 zoning designation each unit while it would be attached to the adjacent unit, would be considered a single family home with its own lot and could be sold just the same as would a detached single family home. She said if the Commission feels that the parking issue should be addressed, this is the time to do it during the rezoning. She said the requirement for a single family home is one parking space per home, but that doesn't mean that's all there would be. Howard said that typically many single family homes as well as townhouses like the ones proposed will have a two-car garage behind with the 1 potential space for an additional two cars parked behind the garage on the driveway. However, i I i 1 Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2012-Formal Page 10 of 19 she said there's no guarantee that would be the case unless the Commission makes it a condition to have a certain number above and beyond the one parking space that is required. 1 Freerks said that in regard to a previous remark from Mascher about four students potentially living in these proposed units, technically there should be no more than three unrelated people there. She reminded him that it's important for the neighbors to report any suspected over- occupancy to the City so that it can be investigated. - Miklo clarified that another difference between the RS 12 zone and a planned development is that the latter would require that a specific building design for each building would have to be submitted and reviewed. Ernest Kellems of 2432 Walden Court Condominiums said they have been trying for two years s to resolve the drainage situation but Southgate never got back to them. He pointed out two small detention basins on the map and said they lie about four to six feet into the ground and contain a standpipe. He asked where they are draining to because he doesn't know of any storm sewer unless it is possibly a large cement beehive that he indicated on the map. He said along the north side of his property there is a sidewalk with a berm built along it, which he indicated in a photo. He said there is a twenty-five to forty percent grade there on the hill from 1 the north to the south. He said at one time the berm was as high as three or four feet, but in some places now it's only one or one and one-half feet high. He said when Southgate mowed the last time, the equipment destroyed one of the standpipes. He said on his side of the sidewalk, his homeowners association has put in a French Drain behind four of the buildings, which cost them several thousand dollars to do. He said it solved some of the problems. Kellems wants to know who is going to take care of the proposed detention basins. 1 Greenwood Hektoen said that typically when properties are subdivided those obligations are on the owner or sub-divider until they're installed and then they are passed on to a homeowners association. Kellems asked if this would be a homeowners association or would it be individual lots. Greenwood Hektoen said that at this stage it is a concept plan, but if there are common areas, which the concept plan shows, there would have to be some sort of association. i 4 Kellems pointed to several areas on the concept plan that he said looked like detention basins and asked for some clarifications on which ones were actually detention basins. s Howard indicated which lines on the concept plan were the detention basin and which were 1 lines that indicated sensitive slopes. She asked Siders to confirm that the proposed basin would I be a dry bottom basin that would not retain water like a pond. Siders nodded. Kellems asked if there will be a berm along the sidewalk so there won't be water coming across, because several people in his association have had to tear out sheetrock and put in new floors. He said as far as the swale is concerned, his area on the west end of the condominium complex is much higher than the yards across the swale to the west so he doesn't have a problem with the water going around the end, in fact, he thinks it's a very good solution as long as they can get the water appropriately directed. I5 Siders addressed the question of the small pits that Kellems raised. He pointed to two properties on the map and said that years ago dirt from one was borrowed to develop the other. He said the two pits that are currently there were created because a number of years ago when 1 i i I Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2012-Formal Page 11 of 19 Walden Court was developed, drainage issues were identified, i.e., watershed sheeting off the hill. He said the remedy was to dig these pockets with and add ADS pipe to catch the water. He said he thinks the pipe goes underground and hooks into the private storm sewer system in Walden Court. This private storm sewer stops short of the property line. He said that system was created through an agreement between Southgate and the developer of Walden Court. Siders confirmed that there would be a homeowners association for the proposed development, which would be responsible for the maintenance of all the common areas. He pointed out an area on the map that is generally the location of the proposed detention basin. He said they haven't gotten into design of the basin but he thinks that along the bottom of the basin something higher will have to be built to capture and stop the water to create the hole, which in 1 his opinion would be a berm. Siders said he didn't know what the beehive structure is but he i knows that it is not part of a storm sewer system. Eastham asked which property the sidewalk is on I Siders said it is on both properties. He said it was supposed to all be on the Walden Court property, but when it was constructed, it crossed onto the Southgate property. 1 Eastham asked if the ADS pipes that connect to the Walden Court storm sewer system will be 1 removed with construction. Siders said if they want them removed, they will do so, otherwise they will plug them. i Meigan Fink of 44 Coll Court said that for the past thirteen out of the fourteen years she has I lived at this address, at least one-third of her yard has been unusable. She said her children I can't play in that part of the backyard due to the heavy amount of water. She said from spring though November the usability of her yard and her two neighbor's yards is severely compromised. She mentioned that a neighbor to the south can't even use his yard. She said her biggest concern is how drainage will work for both the existing water and the extra water coming from the proposed development. She wanted to know who will be accountable when and if problems arise. Fink pointed to the sidewalk north of Walden and asked if that sidewalk will continue on. She said she thought it would be very sad if the developer came in and cut down all the woods in the easement because it's a beautiful area. She said she hoped the decision Ithat the Commission makes won't make the problems worse than they already are. Changmin Ding of 2611 Walden Road said his main concern is about the traffic and the parking because currently his neighbors are all single families with many children riding bicycles and playing in the area He wanted to know if the new buildings would be rentals or single family dwellings. He said there are already cars that park along Walden Road. Charles Thiede of 1232 Jensen Street said that on Walden Road there are three school buses every day as well as the City bus, and it's a pretty tight corner onto Jensen Street. He said he is concerned about the traffic that many units would generate. Siders pointed to the concept plan and explained that they will all be townhouse units, they will have a double stall garage behind each unit as well as space for two cars in the driveway ' behind each garage. He said all the end units would most likely be three bedrooms and all the interior units would be two bedrooms. He said visitor parking will be something to be worked out 4 with staff. Brian Fink reiterated that all of their water comes from the west and has to cross the entire easement. He pointed to his storm sewer on the map and explained how the storm water runs i i i i Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2012-Formal Page 12 of 19 across the area He said however the swale is designed, it must accommodate the water from I the west and if it's an above ground grade, it will cut this water off and there will be no place for their water to go. He asked if the water will be directed to a point he indicated on the map and how will it then be directed into the new storm box. He reiterated that as a condition of approval the storm water situation must be improved or must not be worsened. Mascher asked if the developers have talked about the issues the residents have had or are currently having and if they plan on doing anything in terms of not preventing their water from reaching the storm drain. 1 Siders said many of these same issues were raised when the application was first made in 2009. He said Southgate has made their engineering firm aware of the concerns of the neighbors to the west as well as the problems at Walden Court. He said they haven't gotten into the design stage yet, but he does know that they will not be putting up a berm to block their water in an area he indicated on the map. He pointed to an area on the map and said they will put a ditch along there, and he's guessing that they will be below the overland channels that are there now He said the location of MidAmerican's gas pipes had limited other options they had investigated. He said they don't anticipate clear cutting any trees. He said they will do what they have to do to accommodate the drainage and outlet situation on Southgate's property, which will % in turn make a significant improvement on the Walden Court property and may minimally improve the situation for the properties to the west as well. He said he thinks they will be I lowering a high water table on a property he pointed to on the map by putting in a swale. Eastham asked about the trees along Mormon Trek and on the south end of the Southgate property. Greenwood Hektoen explained that the trees adjacent to the sidewalk that runs east to west are on the Walden Court property. 1 1 Kellems indicated on the map where the sidewalk ends. Eastham asked the staff what happens if there are long-term problems. j Howard explained that when a subdivision is platted, the subdivider makes an agreement with the City about infrastructure and the development itself and sets up the homeowners association, if necessary. She said through that agreement, the responsibility falls to whomever it was assigned in that agreement. Freerks closed public hearing. Freerks said she thought perhaps they should take some more time, but put it before the Commission to see what they wanted to do. j Freerks asked for a motion. Weitzel moved to approve REZ09-00003, an application submitted by Southgate Development Company for a rezoning from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately 4.29 acres of property located on Walden Road, west of Mormon Trek Boulevard. Eastham seconded. 1 1 i 1 4 Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2012-Formal Page 13 of 19 Freerks invited discussion. Weitzel said the chance to correct existing problems begins with development, so it's worth pursuing the solution by moving forward. Eastham said he walked this parcel two or three years ago, and he is familiar with the issue of insufficient drainage for the properties to the west. He said this proposal is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan for this sub-area. He said infill development always creates the possibility of increased traffic, but at the same time, all the streets are designed to accommodate that additional traffic. He said there are going to be four parking spaces per unit, and that's standard for most townhome developments throughout the community. He said additional parking spaces are a good idea, as well as a balance between them and open spaces. Eastham said the Walden Woods property owners will be better off with the construction of a detention basin, and he said he is confident that the City Engineers will fulfill the condition that the storm water management system would be designed in a manner that would not exacerbate storm water drainage issues on adjacent properties, which would include those properties to the west. He said that the City Engineers have a lot of experience designing these drainage systems, and they have been very successful. He said he thinks the drainage for the Walden Court properties will be improved, and he said he is confident that the City Engineers will assure there is no deterioration of water drainage draining from properties to the west. j Thomas said the emphasis in the application seems to be focused on the water that is currently draining from the main body of the property to the south. He said he hasn't heard how the issues flooding along the north/south corridor will be improved with the detention basin and wants to know where the failure in the existing system is that is causing it Freerks said that was also a question she had and was interested in checking with the records to see how the existing systems function. She said she wanted to know if there are swales in other areas and how they work. She said she's not necessarily opposed to rezoning but she does have some concerns about both the water situation and the parking. Freerks said perhaps they should attach some parking requirements to each of the development areas to the west and east. She said she would like more information on the silting issues and how they would come into play. She said her hope is that whatever happens to the property, it will not only keep things the same, but improve them. She said something has happened here that isn't working and how do they make someone fix a problem that really isn't their problem. She said she still has questions. She said she would like to see something happen here, but she just isn't confident about the drainage issues. 1 Thomas agreed. He said perhaps the degradation of the ravine over time is a critical reason why there is flooding on the rear of the lots. He said he hasn't heard anything from either the City or the applicant about how the creation of the swale is going to address the flooding that is occurring now. He said he thinks the detention basin should address the problems with the properties to the south but he is concerned about the properties to the west. Thomas said that he's concerned about the length of the driveway and visitors not finding parking when they drive its length. He remarked that there isn't much street frontage so street parking is at a minimum. Freerks reminded the Commission that at this point they are talking about rezoning. Howard said if they want to require more than one parking space per unit, this would be the time to do so. Thomas asked what staff recommends. ■ Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2012-Formal Page 14 of 19 1 Howard noted that the applicant has said there will be townhouses with two-car garages but g there's no guarantee that will be the case, and this would be the time to set conditions. Miklo said that from this concept plan, parking for the individual units should be no problem. He pointed to an area on the map and said perhaps making it a bit wider than twenty feet would create more alcoves for parking along the side. Freerks said she is considering increasing the required visitor parking to six to eight as opposed to three and perhaps having something at or near each building site area. Thomas said essentially there is a cul-de-sac road going in and out. He said that in other developments in the neighborhood, the cul-de-sacs terminated in either a planting circle or there's an open view. He said in the concept plan, the drive terminates at a unit. Howard said these would have to be designed so the front door faced the street, and a requirement of the zoning would be that the garages would be in the rear. This would be designed as an rear alley, not a street or cul-de-sac. Weitzel moved to amend his original motion to propose six guest spaces wherever they Ifit on the lot. 1 Eastham seconded. Eastham asked Miklo if now would be the appropriate time to require four parking spaces per unit. Miklo said it is addressed in that the recommendation is that the applicant follows the concept plan, although that plan doesn't show garages. A vote was taken and the amendment was added 6-0. Eastham again asked Miklo if they want to be sure to end up with four parking spaces per unit, the Commission would have to specify that now. Miklo said that was correct, because unlike storm water management, parking is not addressed in the platting process. Greenwood Hektoen said the Commission could move to amend the requirement of general compliance with the concept plan to read general compliance with the concept plan with regard i to the parking shown. ISiders asked to speak. Greenwood Hektoen said he could if it was okay with the Commission since the public hearing was closed. i 1 Siders said he was fine with a zoning condition that requires double car garages, since that is what they intend to build. i Eastham moved to amend the third condition to read "Development will be in general compliance with the submitted concept plan regarding site layout, lot configuration, and building orientation and units will be developed with double garages. i I d Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2012-Formal Page 15 of 19 i Weitzel seconded. A vote was taken and the amendment was added 6-0. Howard recommended that the Commission might want to take a straw poll because if it's a 1 three-three tie, the rezoning request would fail. Swygard said her biggest concern is the properties to the west and the drainage there, and she understands that the only guarantee is that it will not make things worse. She said one of her biggest questions is about maintenance and the responsibilities of the homeowners association. She said she is still is a bit undecided. Freerks said she is willing to move forward with the application. She said she thinks it's in the best interest of Southgate to have all the things taken care of, because they don't want things ' held up at the point of platting either. She said it is a requirement that these issues are not made worse, and her hope is that they are made better, and she is willing to go forward because of the amendments the Commission has added. I i Weitzel said he is in favor of going forward. Eastham said he is in favor too. Thomas said he is not comfortable with the fact that there's a problem on the west side. He said no one has explained to him why the flooding is occurring. Weitzel asked if it was part of the subject property that was causing the flooding. He said he didn't think it was and he doesn't see how water on the one property could cause flooding on the other. Thomas said that's what he doesn't know. He said that water is draining down that panhandle to the catch basin at the bottom of the image on the screen. He said from what he's been hearing that there may have been soil deposition and debris and lack of maintenance that's preventing that water from draining to the catch basin, and so it's backing up. Weitzel said what he was hearing was comments that water was coming from the west and pooling up at the back of the lots, and that's a problem that's existed since the houses were built. Thomas reiterated that something is preventing that water from draining and clearly that development was not developed with that being the expectation. I Freerks commented that nothing is going to improve if nothing happens. Thomas said he had an issue with the language stating it won't exacerbate the problem and he 1 understands that in respect to the properties to the south because the water is draining overland to the lower elevations. He said that the issue on the west side, though, is a separate problem ' that he doesn't understand the reason for. He said it's difficult for him to say that they won't exacerbate the storm water issues but we have a problem that's not being solved by the detention basin. Eastham said he shared many of Thomas's concerns but the City Engineers are going to look carefully at whether or not flooding in the back yards of properties to the west is being caused 1 1 Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2012-Formal Page 16 of 19 by water coming from the parcel in question. He said what he heard was some property owners on the west saying that water in their back yards was coming primarily from just to the north and areas to the west of their properties. He said he does agree with Thomas that they don't have a clear engineering study of why residents' back yards on the west side are wet all the time. He said he doesn't understand what authority the Commission would have to address that if it was not being caused by the subject property under consideration for rezoning. Weitzel said he doesn't want to be in the position to tell someone that every time they develop a property they have to do a region-wide analysis of storm water drainage and solve everyone else's problems. Thomas said he understands, but flooding is occurring on this property. Weitzel stated that it isn't the subject property. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-1 with Thomas voting no Freerks explained that the Commission will see this again at the platting stage. The rezoning request will now be forwarded to City Council and everyone will have another opportunity to give feedback at that time as well. Greenwood Hektoen said this rezoning item would likely be heard at the June 5th City Council meeting. REZ12-00007: Discussion of an application an application submitted by The University of Iowa for a rezoning from Public (P) zone to Community Business Service (CB-2) zone for approximately 1.3-acres of property located south of Harrison Street between Clinton Street and Dubuque Street. (45 day limitation period: May 18, 2012) Miklo said the Commission heard a full staff report at the informal meeting, so his report tonight will be a short one He said this property is zoned Public (P) and is being leased and possibly transferred in the future to a private entity, it must be rezoned to one of the zoning districts. He said the applicant has proposed Central Business Service Zone (CB-2), which is compatible with the existing Comprehensive Plan for the area He said staff anticipates with the Riverfront Crossings there will be some new zoning designations in the area that would have characteristics similar to the CB-2 zone. Freerks asked why MldWestOne Bank is applying for the special exceptions while the property is owned by the University of Iowa. She asked if it's common for whoever is leasing the property to apply. Miklo said that it was. Freerks opened the public hearing. Dan Black of MidWestOne Bank said that he is here to answer any questions. He said they will try to get the CB-2 zoning and operate temporarily for two or three years in the Sabin Building and then build on Harrison and Clinton. clarified that since the property is still owned by the University the CB-2 designation is an Miklo c P P overlay zone but if it's transferred to private ownership in the future it would become a CB-2 zone without the P designation. Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2012-Formal Page 17 of 19 Freerks closed public hearing. : Freerks asked for a motion. Eastham moved to approve REZ12-00007, an application submitted by The University of Iowa for a rezoning from Neighborhood Public (P1) zone to Institutional Public with a Central Business Service Overlay (P2/CB-2) zone for approximately 1.3-acres of property located south of Harrison Street between Clinton Street and Dubuque Street. (45 day limitation period: May 18, 2012) Swygard seconded. Freerks invited discussion. Freerks said she thought this was a fine solution to a problem that started with flooding. She said she does encourage potential re-use of the building in long-term. i Weitzel said in the interest of flood recovery, he is going to support the motion, but he hopes that there is a creative solution to preserve Sabin and redevelop it and use the rest of the lot as well. IA vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: April 5, 2012: Eastham moved to approve the minutes. Weitzel seconded. The motion carried 6-0. 1 OTHER: Freerks thanked out-going Commission member Beth Koppes for her service and time and presented her with a certificate of appreciation. Weitzel explained to the Commission what had transpired at the City Council meeting that week regarding zoning items. Freerks went over the list of Commission representatives to attend the Council meetings and explained to Martin how that system worked. Miklo spoke about an upcoming training opportunity being held at the public library on May 22 j and said he would email the Commission with details. I ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. i V Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2012-Formal Page 18 of 19 Weitzel seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote. I i i . i I 1 I A 1 i 1 1 i 1 i I i 1 1 1. 1 I i i Z 0 N co 2O 0 z V W re W ID W ZWC 2 J -.— ZN Q 0oXx 1 XXXX Q 06 oxXwx XXx ZW 4 O Z � LL MXXD1XXXX ZQ u w Z MxxxL 1 XXX 4 J '- XXXD 1 XXX O. oxxxx XXX M 1 el co � XXX XXXX XXX N M eXXXX XXX XXXX : XXX U ° ° XXXX { XXX � � COCOMNf� MInM N O O O rn to r W 0. In In In In to In l() to U ph V rn X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X p w e N) W � a� Dui � LUCOCOMNI'sUDU, M C +' N C � N • Wn. � u) u) u) U, UDUDUD w N � �, E 2cv� E F. X00000000 .J 4 , W Z W � 2QZ � QZ m = 0_ Q H II d Q II II � 4Z = WQ = II I W � a II a OO < LU 0 O2 XOOZ xOOz 4 CiQYNa � NJ V < g z4QIw Y Y W ? QQW = OC W N W �HWaHC9 � H W � F- Wa � � � l- w 2 W N W a 0 — WNW O W ZGWIuiY2U) 1.-- � ZGWU. Y � V) I--- � PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY MAY 17, 2012 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Caroline Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, John Thomas, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Sarah Holecek, Andrew Bassman OTHERS PRESENT: Marc Moen, Pam Michaud RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 6 -1 (Thomas opposed) to recommend approval of VAC12- 00003, a request to vacate air rights starting at approximately 16 feet, 8 inches above grade for a 4' x 44' section of public right -of -way in City Plaza that extends along the west property line of the subject property at 114 S. Dubuque Street and a 4' x 56' section of public right - of -way in Blackhawk Park that extends along the north property line of the subject property. The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend that a letter be forwarded to the Johnson County Board of Adjustment recommending approval of CU12- 00001, a request for a conditional use permit to establish a temporary, portable concrete batch plan on a 12.74 acre lot located at 5085 Herbert Hoover Highway NE. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING ITEM VAC12- 00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Marc Moen for a vacation of the public right -of -way located adjacent to 114 S Dubuque Street. Howard said this is a vacation of air rights that starts at approximately 16 feet, 8inches above grade for a 4 foot by 44 foot section of public right -of -way in City Plaza along Dubuque Street that extends along the west property line of the subject property at 114 South Dubuque Street and a 4 foot by 56 foot section of public right -of -way in Blackhawk Park that extends along the north property line of the subject property. She displayed a vacation exhibit. She said this request is being made so the building can cantilever over the public right -of -way. Howard explained that the vehicular circulation standards are really not applicable, as the only vehicular traffic would be emergency vehicle allowances in the City Plaza. She said that staff Planning and Zoning Commission May 17,2012-Formal Page 2 of 11 feels that pedestrians will not be impeded by this vacation since the air rights start around seventeen feet above the ground, and the cantilevered building wall will serve as a canopy to provide pedestrians shade and protection from weather as well as providing some better opportunities for signage at the store front level. She said that because the City has not had a lot of these requests for buildings to cantilever over public right-of-way, careful consideration should be given to this application in regard to the potential impact on the resource as to whether it will result in some public benefit. She said staff has noted a number of public benefits that they feel are created by allowing this vacation. She said one is that it creates the opportunity for a better retail storefront, in particular because of all the mechanical systems that have to go into the first level of the building and the space constraints of this specific building. She said on a larger site, a cantilevered building would be able to fit into the private property line by recessing the storefront, but in this case, given the small size of the property, doing that would push the retail storefront back which would further limit the retail area that is already constrained due to the requirements for two elevators, two stair towers, elevator lobby, mechanical room, fire control room, etc. She said the other benefits to the proposed projection into the ROW are that it allows additional Class A office space on the second, third and fourth floors of the building. Providing opportunities for new employers in the downtown area is an important economic development goal of the City. The proposed vacation and resulting cantilevered building will also provide enough additional living space in the residential units to allow the balconies to be recessed within the building wall, which staff feels creates a more aesthetically pleasing and functional building design and more useable outdoor space for the tenants without sacrificing the quality of the interior living space. Howard said that it is a City goal to attract a more permanent resident population in the downtown area, and creating residential units that are attractive to long-term residents is important. She said for the reasons above staff finds that the proposed vacation meets the criteria for right- of-way of vacations as outlined in the City Code and therefore, staff recommends approval of VAC12-00003, a request to vacate air rights starting at approximately 16 feet, 8 inches above grade for a 4 foot by 44 foot section of public right-of-way in City Plaza that extends along the west property line of the subject property and a 4 foot by 56 foot section of public right-of-way in Blackhawk Park. Howard showed some photos of the property that the applicant had sent in. Eastham asked if the City ever wanted to change Dubuque Street back into an active street, would this building affect the ability to do that. Howard said that nothing about the cantilever would prevent that, since it was for air rights, not fee title to the land. Eastham asked how allowing this building to protrude would affect the ability to develop the adjoining space to the north. Howard said that City Council has already determined that that site will not be sold for development and will remain a public park. 1 Eastham asked what the fire department said in terms of being able to access this building or nearby buildings and if this building would affect their ability to get their equipment in 1 Howard explained that this application was reviewed by all relevant City departments, including Fire and Public Works because one consideration is whether emergency vehicles can access a I site. The Fire Department indicated no objections to the vacation request. She said the fire lane in the pedestrian mall is in the center of the mall so they are not impeded. She remarked that access could also be gained by using the alley. 1 t Planning and Zoning Commission May 17,2012-Formal # Page 3 of 11 Thomas asked if there had been any vacations of this sort in the downtown area Howard said they have requests for temporary use of right-of-way for things like stoops and canopies but to her knowledge this is the first request for a building projection over the public right-of-way. Freerks opened the public hearing. Marc Moen of 221 East College Street#1301 said as they worked through the process of designing this building they originally had a sheer wall that came down to the pedestrian mall but they were starting to shrink the office space by the nature of the mechanical systems they had to fit into that space. He said the architects presented this cantilever design as a much more pedestrian friendly design than walking by fourteen floors of sheer glass. He said by using this concept they could keep the retail space at 2,000 square feet comprising the mezzanine and the main floor. Moen said the goal of this project besides retail and office space was to do residential units that would be more entry level in the mid to low$200,000 range but would still be true one-bedroom units. He said they were having a great deal of difficulty getting three units per floor without the cantilever, and that other designs for balconies were not so appealing as this one with 100 square foot balconies recessed into the living area and accessible from both living room and bedroom, making these units much more salable as condos rather than leasable as apartments. He said they have had huge buyer interest since showing the revised plan. He said at the pedestrian level it becomes a much more pedestrian-friendly human scale with the cantilever. He said there's a big demand for Class A office space downtown, and there's been a lot of interest in being able to buy these office spaces as opposed to leasing them. Freerks said she's excited about the project, and she's familiar with the space. She said she has a concern about the line of sight, because as you stand in front of the building to the south you look all the way to Iowa Avenue. She thinks it's important to be able to have that view continue even up to the third floor so there is a clean line of sight as there is on this historic and very public thoroughfare, because once it's there and it bumps out, it really does change the way things look. She said she's not opposed to the project, but is concerned about this one aspect of it Moen replied that they bought the building to the south to make sure it doesn't come down and are doing restoration work on it. He said he went to the site to measure and see if the subject project would conflict with that building and to some degree it does block the upper stories. He said there many areas around town with these kinds of"bump-outs" that have never been addressed and he named some of them—the public library, Plaza Towers, Neuman-Monson Architectural Offices. Moen said they explored various alternatives with the architects but because of where the mechanical equipment has to sit on the second and third floors of the proposed building, there's no way to gain that back if the cantilever isn't started on the second floor. He said they have consolidated all their properties so it's all downtown and he is not personally troubled by this situation, and he has a lot of interest in making sure that what's done downtown is exciting. He said their architects also have a vested interest in downtown as that is where there office is. Moen said he personally loves the juxtaposition of modern buildings and historic buildings. Freerks again said that altering the line of sight at that level will be permanent and she wonders if there is a better way to go about the building. 1 1 Planning and Zoning Commission May 17,2012-Formal Page 4 of 11 Moen said his architects told him this is the best design they could formulate as pertains to getting it to feel comfortable and attracting people to the retail space. Martin asked how many stories the proposed building has Moen replied that it has fourteen stories with two-story units on the top level. Martin asked what the square footage was for the residential units. 1 Moen said they ranged from about 750 feet to 1150 feet, and office space is about 2300 feet per level. Freerks asked if trees on the pedestrian mall to the west will stay there. Moen said he didn't believe the cantilevering would affect any of the trees on the pedestrian mall, and their intent is to redo the (Blackhawk) park in front of the building. Eastham asked if it's possible to consider different dimensions for the amount of cantilever on Ieither side of the building; for example, providing a greater building projection over Blackhawk Park and less over City Plaza. Moen said they looked at both two and three foot cantilevers, which didn't achieve anything, and up to an eight foot cantilever. He said he understands Freerk's concerns. He said he instructed j his architects to reduce the size of the cantilever to the least amount of cantilever that would allow them to do what they need to do upstairs, and that's what they did. He said the goal is to take a site that is 40'x80' and take it from a building assessed at one-half million dollars to a building that will be assessed at ten million dollars. I Freerks said the Commission will have discussion now because it's important for the applicant to be able to respond to the Commission. Wietzel said he's not concerned in the least with the line of sight. Martin said from the pictures she's seen that amount of space looks appropriate and architecturally pleasing. She said she doesn't think it would have a big impact on line of sight in any direction. She said she thought that a smaller cantilever might make the building look strange. Thomas said he has concerns about the precedent-setting aspect of this project in that there is a sort of sacredness about the public right-of-way of the pedestrian mall, and this will break the integrity of the space. He said he has no issue with the cantilever to the north, as it's perpendicular to Dubuque Street and will not be distracting or part of any longer building wall. He said he wouldn't mind having the cantilever along that side widened in order to meet the applicant's floor area needs. He said the one on the west side, though, does concern him. He remarked that perhaps the balcony depth is not adequate at only four feet. He said that perhaps there would be a benefit to widening the cantilever on the north side of the building to meet the need without the cantilever on the west side. He said that his sense is that the views to the west 4 would not be that interesting. i Moen commented that in fact the views to the west are spectacular. Dyer said the intensity of the sun on the west might be a problem. 1 Planning and Zoning Commission May 17,2012-Formal Page 5 of 11 Moen said they will use light-diffusing shades and the residents will be able to choose the porosity. Eastham asked if the applicant had evaluated making the cantilever longer on the north side and less on the west side. Moen stated that they had, and the building looked terrible. He said by adjusting cantilevers the entire structural system would have to be redesigned. He said it's very complicated. He said in all the design discussions, the architects have worked with their mechanical engineers to evaluate all the options, and the design they have now is the best one Eastham asked for Moen's comments on the change of sight view from the Sheraton Hotel entrance to the north. Moen said he thinks it's insignificant. He said there are also many, many trees in the pedestrian mall, so there's really not a clear sight line there now. Howard stated that there have been recent inquiries about the possibility for permanent building projections into the public ROW as the city has become more urban. However, the City has not developed specific standards for weighing the costs and benefits of these proposals, so have been looking at other cities and codes to see how they have dealt with it. She said they talked to the City of Des Moines to see how they do the vacation of the air rights as well as how it's structured to pay for those rights. She said staff has also looked at other larger urban areas to see how these types of requests are reviewed and what standards are applied; for example, the distinction between a request for a projection of a building over the right-of-way versus a small projection like a balcony. She said the staff reviewed the subject vacation request carefully, keeping in mind public goals and needs for the public right-of-way and making sure there was a real public benefit to what occurred as a result of the vacation. She said that the International Building Code does allow for building projections above fifteen feet above the ground. , Eastham asked if the international standard is set at that number because humans don't look higher than that. Howard stated that the reasons for the International Building Code to set this standard is probably for more practical reasons, such as for clearance for vehicular traffic. However, Howard said there is a lot of research on what the view shed is for a typical pedestrian. She said most people don't see the upper levels of buildings when they are walking. She said thirty feet is typically what you see peripherally when walking and experiencing buildings. She stated that the design review standards for the pedestrian mall are all geared toward ensuring a quality pedestrian environment. Dyer asked how wide the balconies are on Plaza Towers. IMoen said he believed they are about eight feet in depth. He said on the proposed building they I will be smaller in depth than Plaza Towers, but much larger than most you see in New York City or in other urban areas. He stated that he thought they would be very usable for the residents. IDyer asked if with the new building there will be a change from being a blank wall along Blackhawk Park to being a retail entrance for the new building. Moen said there will be retail entrances on both the park and pedestrian mall sides. 1, Planning and Zoning Commission May 17,2012-Formal Page 6 of 11 i i Dyer asked if there is a basement and if there is any storage other than the small closet in the apartments. Moen said there is no basement and very little storage. Pam Michaud of 109 S. Johnson Street said she's very tuned in to high-rise buildings recently as there will be a four story building next to her residence soon. She asked if the Central Business (CB-10) zone has a ten story height limit. Howard said it has a FAR limit of ten but you can have a taller building than 10 stories and still have an FAR less than 10. She said in the CB-10 Zone, there is technically no height limit, however, there is a height limit imposed by the FAA as determined by the airport overlay. She said FAR generally doesn't always speak to the height of the building. For example, Plaza Towers is 14 stories tall, but has an FAR much less than 10. Michaud said when speaking of the pedestrian-level experience and how shops are going to be vibrant, perhaps forgotten is the shadow that's going to be cast by the proposed building. She I said although City Council didn't regard that as important, from Fall Equinox through Winter Solstice through Spring Equinox that shadow is going to be up to six hundred feet long and would stretch to Schaeffer Hall and to Ecumenical Towers in the winter, and fall on Prairie Lights at noon. She said she didn't see how that would make for a vibrant shopping area if it was in solid shade. She said Mr. Moen has every right to build a building there, but she thinks it is going to affect the sense of vibrancy. She said although no one else is present tonight, there is a concern out in the community that it's a very large statement in that location. She said it would be great if it wasn't adjacent to a park. Michaud said it was a very attractive building and she liked the size of the units and office space and retail space should be a nice addition to downtown. She said it's just the height of it next to a public park that concerns her. Freerks closed public hearing. Freerks asked for a motion. Weitzel moved to approve VAC12-00003, a request to vacate air rights starting at approximately 16 feet, 8 inches above grade for a 4' x 44' section of public right-of-way in City Plaza that extends along the west property line of the subject property at 114 S. Dubuque Street and a 4' x 56' section of public right-of-way in Blackhawk Park that extends along the north property line of the subject property. Dyer seconded. Freerks invited discussion. Eastham said he has spent some time in the City Plaza area trying to determine what effect this building, with or without its four foot cantilever, would have on the various views. He said he concluded that for him personally he was not able to convince himself that extending the building four feet past the property line about sixteen feet above the ground level would have much of an adverse impact on the view down Dubuque Street toward Iowa Avenue. He said he also feels that these are very personal standards, and he has no real way of trying to I incorporate them into his decision. He said he's satisfied with fire and safety and that there would be no eventual adverse impact on reclaiming this street if that ever were to happen. He 1 g Planning and Zoning Commission May 17,2012-Formal Page 7 of 11 said the City-owned property to the north would not be developed, so for all these reasons, he is supporting the application. Swygard said she will support the request because the public benefits, and the goals of the City as far as economic development and attracting permanent residents downtown will benefit from allowing the cantilever to go forward. She said she wouldn't be able to support the vacating of air space in every situation, but in this case she can Weitzel stated that vacations, particularly of this scale and nature should be considered particular to the site and purpose and public gain. He said this is a very constrained space, and the amount of changeover in potential tax base is phenomenal. He said there are not a lot of very tall buildings in downtown Iowa City, and that it will not become Manhattan any time soon. He said there is at least seventy percent of the street view that is not impeded, and there are six other historic buildings that are still visible from Washington Street with no impedance. He said that this building will not make the Blackstone Building ineligible for the National Register. He said it does impede part of the view shed, but he thinks that the public benefit outweighs that small part. He said that the University has an awning that is eight feet wide hanging off the Jefferson Building, which blocks a huge amount of space. Freerks countered by saying that an awning can more easily be removed versus a projection of a building wall, and that's a big difference. Thomas said he is concerned about the precedence setting aspects of this. He stated that in his opinion the opportunity for reclaiming floor space was preferably to the north rather than to the west, because that's the wall where any additional need could have been changed. He said in his view the need was created by the building design. He said the applicant knew this was a small site and that if they went taller they would need more mechanical systems, and the expectation would be that you're going to have to solve those issues. He said to then find at some point in the design process that it wasn't going to work is in a way changing the rules of the game. He says he supports the project, but he can't support the vacation because it is precedent setting. He said the attorney's commented that it is not a legal issue but a political one, and he doesn't think any more issues are needed that are going to be resolved in a political forum. He said this line is established and people conform to what they have for the history of this town and he would prefer to preserve that line. Dyer said she shares Thomas's concern about being asked to vacate this space after the whole project is approved as opposed to the applicant saying in the beginning it would be easier to do this cantilever to design the building and the Commission could approve or not at that point. She said she's not ready to vote against it but she finds it frustrating to be at this point where all the Commission's suggestions are met with the response that they won't work. She said if this had proceeded in the other order with the developer requesting the vacation before the building was fully designed, they wouldn't be the situation they are in Martin said she is in support of the cantilever, and she's not sure it's precedent setting, since other ones would undergo the same scrutiny as this one has. Freerks said she supports the project completely because she thinks this kind of development is crucial in creating and maintaining a vibrant downtown, bringing a constant mix of people into the community and creating a mix of old architecture and new. She said she feels like she is being asked if they can redesign something at the last minute when she's not knowledgeable enough to design. But she wishes the sightline could preserved. She said she is torn. She said she could say no in protest or she could show that she respects and appreciates the potential 1 Planning and Zoning Commission May 17,2012-Formal Page 8 of 11 here as well as the tax base. She said she'd like to think that this won't be the norm. She said she will support it but she wishes the Commission wasn't in the situation they are in right now but knows that there are many factors that have created this situation. Eastham said he agrees that this is very late in the design of this building to be looking at vacating air rights and he's not sure if the developer is responsible for the sequence of events or if that is the nature of the process that's in place He said if the latter is true, it would be a good idea to change the process so an air rights vacation would come into play much earlier in the approval process. He said that there aren't any design criteria to guide the Commission in talking about using air rights. He said that new standards would be helpful in the future for the development south of downtown and for future buildings downtown. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-1 with Thomas voting no Conditional Use Item CU12-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Croell Redi-Mix Inc. to establish a portable concrete batch plant to support the paving operations on Interstate 80 on Lot 3 Sharpless Subdivision located at 5085 Herbert Hoover Highway NE. Bassman said this site is to the west of the Sharpless Auction Building and is bound by Interstate 80 to the south and Herbert Hoover Highway northeast to the north and agricultural land to the east. He said the site and most of the land in Fringe Area B lies outside of Iowa City's projected growth area He said since the property is located within the city's extra- territorial review area, the County Zoning Ordinance requires the City's review and comment on the application. He said the Fringe Area Agreement states that agricultural uses at this site are preferred, but since the use is temporary and construction could be completed as early as November according to County staff, therefore the City was not too concerned about this temporary use. He stated that the County has reviewed the water and sewer, soil and erosion and dust control measures taken by the applicant. He said the applicant has indicated that all areas disturbed during use would be restored. He said the permit for the storm water prevention pollution plan is limited to three years, and the batch plant must be removed within 180 days of completion of the construction project along Interstate 80. He stated that staff recommends that a letter be forwarded to the Johnson County Board of Adjustment recommending approval of CU12-00001, a request for a conditional use permit to establish a temporary portable concrete batch plant. Freerks opened public hearing. (No public comment on this item) Freerks closed public hearing. Weitzel moved to approve CU12-00001, recommending that a letter be forwarded from the Iowa City Council to the Johnson County Board of Adjustment recommending approval of CU12-00001, a request for a conditional use permit to establish a temporary, portable concrete batch plan on a 12.74 acre lot located at 5085 Herbert Hoover Highway NE. Eastham seconded. Freerks invited discussion. ,9 Planning and Zoning Commission May 17,2012-Formal Page 9 of 11 Freerks said this doesn't conflict with the Fringe Area Agreement and she thinks it's always best to have something like this as close to the location as possible. She said it sounds like an ideal site She also noted that the land will have to be re-seeded once the operation ceases, and the use will be required to be removed within 180 days of completion of the road project. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: April 30 and May 3, 2012: The Commission agreed to defer approval of the minutes until the next meeting so they would have more time to review them, since the discussion was so extensive during the last meeting. Howard noted that it should not be a problem to defer since after the long discussion at the last Commission meeting the applicant agreed that now that he has approval from the Commission, he will have his engineer go out to the property to meet with the neighbors about their concerns. Therefore, the applicant requested to delay sending this item for Council consideration until they had time to meet with the neighbors. Therefore, Howard said it would not be a problem to vote on the minutes at the next meeting of the Commission. Eastham moved to defer consideration of meeting minutes for April 30 and May 3 to the next meeting of the Commission. Swygard seconded. The motion carried 7-0. OTHER: } Thomas said there has been a lot of concern about shadows with the Marc Moen project at 114 S. Dubuque Street and that it will project shadows onto Blackhawk Park, the primary sunny spot in the downtown area. He said Chauncey Swan Park could also be affected. He would like to raise the issue of a sunshine ordinance and said it's something they should be thinking about as the downtown is developed. Howard said that City Council did require Moen to do a shadow study, which was presented to the Council. She said they also did one when Plaza Towers was constructed. Howard said that she agreed that a shadow study is something that is helpful when larger buildings are proposed. She said City Council has required it when there's been a development agreement for the larger buildings, but there is no general requirement in all cases. She said with the Riverfront Crossings Plan staff has asked the consultants to indicate where it's appropriate to have taller buildings. She said HDR(the consultant) looked at many of the downtown buildings, and the plan that will be adopted or considered will have a downtown component that will show the more historic buildings and where it's more appropriate for taller towers. Thomas said he is referring mainly to shadows cast in public parks and open public spaces. Eastham asked if shadow studies were expensive. Howard said that she believed that it would be fairly simple for an architect that is familiar with the project to do that kind of study. Freerks asked if this will be proposed and put into the Code soon. Planning and Zoning Commission May 17,2012-Formal Page 10 of 11 Howard said this would be a worthwhile topic for discussion at the time a new zoning ordinance for the downtown area is considered. Thomas said that in San Francisco a study is done for any building over 40 feet tall and the Planning Department does the shadow analysis. Howard said that given that staff resources are more limited in Iowa City, if a requirement is established, it should probably be done by the project architect or engineer. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel moved to adjourn. Eastham seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote. II 1 I i 1 1 z O - o 20 0 z VW z—01:4 W � XxxxxxXX W Z W N W 2 T- OZN Q ° wxx I xxx > J O Q N c3 2 re of z w 0 � W 0 e <x x I XXX u_ Z Za .0 W 2XX01XXXX Z MxXX -- 1 XXX J XXXw I XXX O. � XXXX xXX �M O M to T- xxxX I XXX NXXXX I XXX N Cl ° XXXX I XXX %- XXXX I XXX 7 = O O co CO 7 7 rxxxx i XXX 2W (OtOMNr- in u) c� - a � � U) WaLO LO LO LOLO 1LO � � rn � rn - x00000000 x x Cl) W w c 2 � CocoMNl- I[) tnco c N O C N 4) WaLo to to intoLOLOLO W m c � E � � � � I � X0000CD 000 J Q a) -a o co N -0 o W W J 222QZ 22 I3 QZ } Q Z = m Z a < II II d Q II II J 2 W Q 2 n n w 2 n " Ili 2 z ~ On- XOOZ XOOZ a Q -, H vaoo � � cc mao� � WC4 F- waH � 2N WIZIH W ELI= 02N Il � Wf/� Wa � O ~ 2W V) WIL � F- W Q >- QOCOQ52 Q � Q � OQ = W ZGWU. Y2NF- �S z0 W u- Y2NI- � I a 4