Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-2010 Planning and Zoning CommissionIowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Informal Meeting Monday, April 12, 2010 6:00 p.m. Lobby Conference Room — City Hall Formal Meeting Thursday, April 15, 2010 7:00 p.m. Emma Harvat Hall — City Hall staiN115MILM MWO Department of Planning & Community Development CITY OF IOWA CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, April 12, 2010 - 6:00 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Lobby Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street Thursday, April 15, 2010 - 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda C. Development/Rezoning Item REZ1 0-00004/SUB1 0-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by the Moss Green Development Corp. for a preliminary plat and a rezoning from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID-ORP) zone to Planned Development Overlay Office Research Park (OPD-ORP) zone for approximately 60.32 acres, Research Development Park (OPD-RDP) zone for approximately 56.48 acres, and Mixed Use (OPD-MU) zone for approximately 24.49 acres, for Moss Green Urban Village, an 18-lot, approximately 235.00-acre office park and mixed use development subdivision located west of North Dodge Street/Highway 1 and north of Interstate 80. E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: March 29, 2010 (informal) and April 1, 2010 (formal) F. Other G. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Informal -Ma 3 May 17 May 31* June 14 Formal May 6 May 20 June 3 1 June 17 * Meeting cancelled due to holiday City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 9, 2010 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner RE: REZ10-00004/SUB10-00005 - Moss Green Urban Village At your last meeting there were a number of issues that still needed to be worked out with regard to the proposed planned development plan, sensitive areas development plan and the preliminary plat for Moss Green Urban Village. We have received a new plan set that addresses a number of these issues. The City Engineer's office is working with the applicant to address the remaining technical deficiencies on the preliminary plat. Following is an overview of the issues discussed at your last meeting and how these have been addressed. Sensitive Areas Development Plan On the original submittal, the building and parking lot footprints illustrated on lots 1, 12, and 8 of the plan conflicted with the construction limit lines that were drawn. On the most recent submittal the parking areas and building footprints have been pulled back from the construction limit lines and the construction limit lines no longer extend into the stream corridor buffer, so the plan now complies with the stream corridor standards in the sensitive areas ordinance. With regard to potential wetlands on the property, a final delineation report has not yet been completed and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The only potential wetland that has been identified is located on Outlot B. The applicant has adjusted the alignment of Oakdale Boulevard to avoid disturbance of this potential wetland. Given that the only apparent wetland is located on an outlot that is not being re -zoned for development, staff is comfortable recommending approval of the planned development rezoning on the property owned by Moss Green Development Corporation located south of Oakdale Boulevard. However, if there are other wetlands identified on the property in the final delineation report or if the wetland identified in the preliminary report is more extensive that what is noted on the sensitive areas development plan, the applicant will need to adjust the proposed development accordingly and if the changes are significant may need to submit revised plats and planned development plans through the rezoning process. In addition, if and when development is proposed on either Outlot A or B, a rezoning, revised plat, and sensitive areas development plan will be required prior to any development activity. April 9, 2010 Page 2 Planned Development Overlay Rezoning At your last meeting the applicant presented a more detailed master plan for Moss Green Urban Village showing proposed building and parking lot footprints, conceptual building elevations, walking trails and other amenities, and describing the various "green" elements that will be featured in the development. Staff finds that this more detailed master plan should be adopted as part of the planned development so that any development applications that are submitted will be required to substantially comply with what is shown on this plan. The applicant has agreed that since specific building and parking lot designs have not yet been determined for each lot, that it is reasonable for site plans to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Modifications to underlying zoning - In their original application the developer requested modifications to the underlying zoning standards in the MU, RDP, and ORP Zones. These were noted in the previous staff report. Please note that the applicant has requested an additional height allowance in the RDP zone of 75 feet instead of the 60 feet originally requested. Street Design - There are a number of modifications to the collector street standards requested by the applicant for Moss Place, including: • A request for a wider right-of-way for a portion of Moss Place; 90 feet along lots 5-9 and Outlots D and E to provide for wider sidewalks and green space along the street corridor. • A request for a narrower right-of-way for a portion of Moss Place; 60 feet along lots 1-4 and 10-12, which is the area where buildings will be located closer to the street and in closer proximity to provide for a more urban street character and to pull development away from the sensitive areas along the stream corridor; • Geothermal lines, stormwater catchment chambers located within the street right-of-way; • On -street diagonal parking located along lots 1-4 and 10-12 potentially utilizing pervious pavement; and • Street trees located within the street right-of-way. Staff finds that these requests for modifications are reasonable given the desire of the applicant to showcase green street technologies and geothermal energy systems throughout their development. However, due to uncertainties with regard to long term maintenance of these private stormwater systems and other unique amenities, the Public Works Department is recommending that Moss Place be designated a private street. All maintenance, snow removal, street cleaning, etc will be the responsibility of the developer and subsequent owner's association and will need to be addressed in the legal papers during final platting. The City Engineer has also indicated that Moss Place should meet the City's minimum construction standards and should be inspected prior to it being opened for public use. A public and emergency access easement will be required during final platting. April 9, 2010 Page 3 In order to reduce the footprint of off-street parking areas, staff also recommends that as a part of the planned development any on -street parking be counted toward the minimum parking requirement for uses in the development. The parking requirements will be determined at the time of site plan review based on the specific uses proposed on individual lots in the development. Pedestrian connection - The Commission requested more detail on the design of the pedestrian walkway from Pearsons to Moss Place to ensure that vehicles cannot improperly use this connection. The applicant has provided a proposed cross section showing an 8-foot walkway with concrete bollards positioned in the center at either end to prevent vehicular access. The walkway is shown on the preliminary plat between lots 3 and 4. The applicant has indicated that they feel this is the best location for employees of Pearson to walk to Moss Place. This location may be adjusted at the time of final platting if a better location is identified based on topography and pedestrian ease of use. Residential Uses in the Mixed Use Zone - Some on the Commission expressed a concern about the type of residential uses allowed in the Mixed Use Zone and the timing of construction relative to the development of commercial and office park uses. The Mixed Use Zone allows a mix of commercial and residential uses. Residential uses are allowed both above commercial uses in mixed use buildings and within stand-alone residential apartment buildings. Even single family and duplex units are allowed. To allow and encourage maximum flexibility to respond to the market over time, the ground level floor of all buildings must be built to commercial standards even if used for residential purposes. Given that the developer is intending to foster an urban character with mixed use buildings, staff recommends that residential uses in the Mixed Use Zone be limited to apartments and/or condominiums. Some flexibility to allow live -work units with some living space on the ground level may be reasonable and can be reviewed at the time a detailed site plan is submitted. Staff recommends a prohibition on single family and two family dwellings given that they would be out of character with the master plan that is proposed. If the Commission feels that it is necessary to ensure that the ground level is primarily reserved for commercial uses, staff suggests that residential uses be limited to no more than 10% of the total ground level floor area in the Mixed Use Zone based on the concept plan. The applicant is making a significant investment in road and utility infrastructure for this development and is anticipating that this outlay of funds can be recouped through a tax increment financing (TIF) agreement with the City as new property taxes are generated from development of the property. Staff is still working out the details of the TIF agreement and how tax rebates would be structured to create incentives for the types of commercial and research park uses intended for this development. It is possible structure the agreement to limit tax rebates for residential uses. Staff will discuss this in more detail at your informal meeting. April 9, 2010 Page 4 Preliminary Plat The City Engineer's Office is reviewing revised plats submitted by the applicant and is working with the applicant to resolve and correct technical deficiencies. Preliminary stormwater calculations have yet to be submitted by the applicant. The exact location of sewer extensions to adjacent properties to the north of the development has not been worked out given that some of the property to the north is within the conservation area managed by the Johnson County Heritage Trust. If these issues have not been resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer by your meeting next Thursday, staff recommends deferral of the preliminary plat. Deferral of the plat is not likely to hold up the review process since the planned development rezoning will require a public hearing and three votes of the City Council for approval. The preliminary plat only requires one vote of the City Council and will be considered after the final vote of the planned development rezoning. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a planned development overlay rezoning, REZ10-00004 for: • approximately 60.32 acres of land from Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP), to Overlay Planned Development -Office Research Park, OPD-ORP • approximately 56.48 acres of land from Interim Development- Research Park (ID -RP) to Overlay Planned Development -Research Development Park (OPD- RDP); and • approximately 24.49 acres of land from Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) to Overlay Planned Development -Mixed Use, OPD-MU, subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) or specific restrictions or allowances noted on the Planned Development Plan and plat as set forth below: • Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the final OPD site plans is required. Site plans will be reviewed for compliance with the master plan as submitted to the City on April 1, 2010, which shall be attached to and recorded with the preliminary planned development plan; • Detached Single Family Dwellings, Two Family Dwellings, and two -unit Attached Single Family Dwellings are prohibited; • Modifications to the underlying zoning standards are allowed as noted in the staff report dated April 1, 2010 and as adjusted and noted in this memo; • On property zoned OPD-MU Zone, uses allowed in the Commercial Office Zone are also allowed; • Moss Place will be constructed and platted as a private street with a public and emergency access easement extending over the entire length and width of the right-of-way; • Moss Place must be built to the City's minimum construction standards and inspected by the City prior to being open to the public; and • On -street diagonal parking will be allowed along the frontage of lots 1-4 and lots 10-12 on Moss Place. Said on -street parking spaces will count toward the April 9, 2010 Page 5 number of parking spaces required for development on these lots. Upon resolution of deficiencies and discrepancies, staff recommends approval of SUB10- 00005, a preliminary plat for al Not, approximately 243-acre property located northwest of the interchange of State Highway 1 with Interstate 80. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Revised preliminary plat 2. Revised sensitive areas development plan 3. Revised preliminary planned development plan Approved by: i*��L- ` Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development E g 6 E�i �pEp �t aF ��9eF! gib{ { E t �a!`as�ppsl:1iMd6efgqg�g9N�; 999 P !�e_.89 g�9l4i��3�r�4f.tadli�6i6S 41 n SS66 gg ig �; �g6g c "`fib & it a.�8 Cry{ bet }}gf ��S i � ;�4n �� P �K� g�ie�§ 3B€� l�PE`pap��ddeF�si4jPi N _C o.E Q) Q L 5 f — C: �U �Q � In o O" Q c c CL 4a w m3HM MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 29, 2010 — 6:00 PM — INFORMAL LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Charlie Eastham, Josh Busard MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Payne, Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard OTHERS PRESENT: None CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DEVELOPMENT/REZONING ITEM: REZ10-00004/SUB10-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by the Moss Green Development Corporation for a preliminary plat and a rezoning from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID-ORP) zone to a Planned Development Overlay Office Research Park (OPD-ORP) zone for approximately 60.32 acres, Research Development Park (OPD-RDP) zone for approximately 56.48 acres, and Mixed Use (OPD-MU) zone for approximately 24.49 acres, for Moss Green Urban Village, an approximately 235.00-acre office park and mixed use development subdivision located west of North Dodge Street/Highway 1 and north of Interstate 80. Howard explained that this property had recently been through the Commission for annexation and then for the Urban Renewal plan. She said that the idea is to have research development -park and office research park for the majority of the property. Both zones allow the same uses, but the office research park has a larger lot size, larger setbacks, and no height limit for its buildings. Another area would be developed as mixed use, a zone which is not used much in Iowa City. This zoning does allow residential on the first floor, which means an apartment building could be located next to an office building. However, this particular plan calls for first floor commercial and office. Howard said the applicant's vision for the mixed use area includes buildings that are closer to the street with parking behind. She said this is anticipated to happen only after major employment comes to the development. Freerks said she kept coming back to a possible need for a restriction on building residential until a certain percentage of the commercial/office was completed and occupied. Miklo said staff had discussed this and the Commission could certainly further explore that option. He explained that in this case the conditional zoning agreement would not allow for the property to be developed as single-family or duplexes if the market for the commercial businesses turns out not to be there. Howard said the TIF agreement requires the applicant to put out a tremendous amount of resources for the infrastructure costs and that there is a restriction on getting TIF funds for residential. Howard said that in order to actually recoup their investment they will need to secure commercial tenants. Freerks said that commercial was all that was discussed when it was annexed and rezoned and to see the mixed use added could be concerning. She said her idea is to require a build -out of a certain percentage of commercial/office prior to building the residential units. Howard reiterated that the developer would get no TIF money if they were to build residential there. Freerks said she was concerned that the property could change hands, or townhomes could be built first that might affect the way the rest of the property develops. Howard said that the fact that the road will cost $10 million would likely offer an even larger guarantee that the developer will go the commercial route first. Miklo says the Planned Development Zone, which allows for some commercial uses in residential zones, requires that there is a certain amount of residential before the commercial is Planning and Zoning Commission March 29, 2010 - Informal Page 2 of 4 developed; whereas, this would be the reverse. Miklo said that staff had concluded that this was not much of a concern so long as single-family and duplexes were prohibited. Freerks said a regular apartment complex could be built there. Miklo replied that the mixed -use zone requires that the ground floor is designed and constructed to commercial code. Koppes said she would hate to see residential built out right away because then commercial tenants may feel it is more of a residential zone and not want to locate there. Freerks said that if the development becomes what the developer seems to want, then it will be fabulous. However, she has concerns. Miklo said this was an issue that the Commission could come back to on Thursday night. Eastham said it would be helpful to see similar mixed use concepts in other communities. Miklo said a good example of the type of building they would expect to see would be 5th Street in Coralville, just north of New Pioneer Co-op. Koppes and Busard indicated that there could be demand for the types of businesses and residences offered by the mixed -use zone. Freerks said that what had been talked about for this project all along was commercial and office; no mention was made of the need for residential. She said that this did not mean she did not want residential in the development; rather, she said she just did not want it factored before and above the commercial and office that was the original focus of the development. Plahutnik said that there had always been the mention of some residential housing during past presentations. Busard asked if Freerks' concern was that residential would become the focus and commercial development would be more of an after -thought. Freerks said it was more that if things stall on the commercial side, the residential might take the focus. Plahutnik pointed out that this might not be the project that winds up there at all. He reminded Commissioners that it is the land that is zoned, and that any project that fits the zone could wind up there. Howard said that mixed -use zoning has certain development standards and design standards so that the first floor is geared to commercial development. Freerks said that she was thinking of maybe only requiring 30% of the commercial to be built -out prior to allowing the mixed use to be built. Miklo said that if a percentage was enacted it should probably be something small like 10% or based on a square footage, because the development is quite a large one. Freerks said that it might be enough just to have any number at all. Howard cautioned against percentages for huge developments with outlots. Miklo said that this conversation might be better to have on Thursday. Howard said that with a planned development there is the underlying zoning to consider. She said this would be the first commercial planned development in Iowa City. She said that a residential subdivision can plan out and know what it will look like; whereas, with the commercial zone, it is all based on the tenants who wind up locating there. She said the developers are requesting variations from the underlying zoning in terms of building height requirements, setbacks, and parking requirements. The applicant wants a wider right of way, with the buildings closer to the street, and close to one another. The applicant has indicated they will have a minimum setback of 50 feet from Interstate 80. Eastham asked how far was the Mixed Use zone from the interstate. Miklo said quite far, more than 300 feet. Freerks asked about signage, noting that there is a push to have the park seen from the interstate. Howard said there are sign standards for properties located on Interstate 80. Miklo said that typically with a planned development, details are hammered out before they come to the Commission. Miklo said staff is recommending that the applicant be allowed the flexibility required to do this project. He noted that because the applicant had not yet worked out the specifics for each lot staff recommended that each property come back before the Commission for site plan review. Howard discussed the traffic numbers provided by the applicant. She noted that these traffic flows do not exceed standards. She said the developer would like wider sidewalks which would be maintained by the property owners. They also requested permission to do storm water storage under the streets. She said that Public Works is still reviewing the street plans. Eastham asked if there would be review of building designs when approving the OPD. Howard said typically the design would be approved at the preliminary stages and then if the final plat matches that, it is approved administratively. She said this is a little different. She said that because there is so little up- front that is known about the building design; staff has asked that a fuller, public review process be done at the time of final site plan approval. Planning and Zoning Commission March 29, 2010 - Informal Page 3of4 Howard said staff is working closely with the applicant, but that there has been a quick turn -around time on several documents, so not all of them have been fully reviewed by all of the necessary staff. Koppes advised that the trail to Pearson's be built so that it is not drivable. Miklo explained that the entire floodway is considered under Iowa City's sensitive areas ordinance. Road construction in a floodway has to be approved by the Army Corp of Engineers. Miklo said that there is also a potential wetland on the site, but that they have not had confirmation from the Corp. Miklo said there is no way to develop the land without crossing the floodway. There is significant amount of woodland on the property, and the applicant has developed a construction area that avoids most of the woodlands and the slopes. He said that in some cases they are being set aside as outlots and conservation areas. Busard asked what the plan was for when the road was underwater. Miklo said the road would have to be elevated at least one foot above the floodplain. He said that Public Works is reviewing the grading plan. He noted that roads that flooded in Iowa City's most recent flood event were ones that were built prior to the requirement that all roads had to be at least one foot above the 100-year floodplain. Miklo said that because this is a rezoning the Commission could place additional conditions on the road elevation requirements; however, he suggested working with Public Works to see the pros and cons of doing so. Busard said the Commission needs to make sure that any requirements put on this rezoning would be fair to any development in the flood zone, not just this specific plan. Miklo said that staff has asked the applicant to identify the floodplain on their plans. Howard noted that the area is a difficult one in terms of topography and that there is no easy route through the property for Oakdale Boulevard because of the sensitive areas issues. Eastham asked what the watershed for Rapid Creek is. Miklo said it is a very large watershed covering several square miles. Eastham said he is interested in the developer's ideas about flooding and mitigation. Miklo said that in general staff feels the developer has done a good job of trying to preserve the sensitive areas; however there are details missing from their reports that need to be resolved prior to the Commission voting on the matter. He said that planned developments and sensitive areas go hand in hand, and some of the rationale for requested zoning modifications is because large areas of this space are being set aside as permanent green space and the developer is trying to concentrate the development in smaller areas. Plahutnik said it sounds as though the developer wants to use the forested areas and green space as a feature of the property. Howard said they are marketing the development as a "green" development. Howard briefly discussed the plat, noting that staff had not had time to fully review it yet. Miklo said that one of the reasons staff had wanted to put the application before the Commission is that it is rather complex, and they wanted to allow Commissioners plenty of time to consider it. Miklo said that another issue is that the developer requires a permit from the Department of Transportation to access Highway 1, and that there will be improvements to Highway 1 that result from that permitting process. He said that is still being negotiated. Howard shared a number of photographs of the property with the Commission. Eastham noted that this plan has the north side of Oakdale Boulevard continuing to be zoned interim, though the annexation was done in order to put the whole area under city control. Miklo said that developer wished to leave the options open for that area as no specific plans have been drawn up for it yet. Koppes said there was a hotel there on the concept plan. Miklo and Howard said that is being revised, and that area is actually not part of this rezoning. Eastham said that for him the elevation of Oakdale is a very serious matter. Eastham asked if the Commission had the authority to require elevations above and beyond the zoning requirements. Miklo explained that if there is a public interest the Commission can make requirements above and beyond the Planning and Zoning Commission March 29, 2010 - Informal Page 4 of 4 zoning code in a conditional zoning agreement Freerks noted that there is no limitation period on this project because the application is incomplete. She said she is not interested in holding things up, but she is glad to have some additional time with the project because it is so complicated and involved. Miklo said that it is important the Commissioners make clear to the applicant what they feel they need to see in the next couple of weeks; staff will assist in relaying that message. ANNEXATION/REZONING ITEM: ANN10-00002 & REZ10-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Dealer Properties IC, LLC for annexation and rezoning from County Agricultural (A) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 5 acres of property located on the north side of Mormon Trek Boulevard, northeast of its intersection with Dane Road. Miklo said the applicant has requested that this application be deferred indefinitely. Koppes asked if a reason had been given, and Miklo said he did not yet know the reason. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m s/pcd/minutes/p&z/2010/PZ Inf 3-29-10.doc MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2010 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Wally Pelds, Jared Vincent, Casey Kohrt RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DEVELOPMENT/REZONING ITEM: REZ10-00004/SUB10-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by the Moss Green Development Corp. for a preliminary plat and a rezoning from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID-ORP) zone to a Planned Development Overlay Office Research Park (OPD-ORP) zone for approximately 60.32 acres, Research Development Park (OPD-RDP) zone for approximately 56.48 acres, and Mixed Use (OPD-MU) zone for approximately 24.49 acres, for Moss Green Urban Village, an approximately 235.00-acre office park and mixed use development subdivision located west of North Dodge Street/Highway 1 and north of Interstate 80. Howard pointed out the location of the proposed development on an overhead map. She noted that the northern portion of the property had just recently been annexed. She said the property Planning and Zoning Commission April 1, 2010 - Formal Page 2 of 10 is the site of the Moss family farm, and that the family has created a development group. The family has been joined in this application by the Neal Llewellyn Trust, administered by Hills Bank, as the trust owns property between the two parcels owned by the Moss family. Howard said the applicant is proposing platting the land for development and rezoning under the Planned Development process, creating a master plan and whole vision for the area. Some of the zoning would include Mixed Use, Research Development Park zoning, and Office Research Development zoning. The plan before the Commission is a concept plan for the development. Howard said that it is her understanding that an even more updated version has been developed since the Commission's packets were prepared. Howard said that the plan calls for Oakdale Boulevard to be built from Highway 1 to this development. The developer will also build a local commercial street and connector street and subdivide lots for development off of the street. The plan for the Mixed Use area is to have commercial and office on the first floor with potential for apartments above. The idea for that area would be to have a pedestrian -friendly, urban feel, with the buildings located closer to the street. There would be a transition to the Research Development Park lots, but the buildings would still remain fairly close to the street. Howard said the design tries to cluster the development away from the sensitive features on the property. Howard noted that the applicant has asked for a Planned Development because the applicant would like some flexibility in the underlying zoning standards. The modification of setbacks and the relaxing of height restrictions for the Research Park zone and the Mixed Use zone would more readily allow the applicant to do the necessary clustering and steer clear of the environmentally sensitive features located on the site. The developer also intends to request setbacks that are not as large as is typically required for ORP zoning. The applicant would like to see additional uses allowed in the Mixed Use zone, adjustments to the setback requirements, and adjustments to height requirements. Howard asked Miklo to address the sensitive areas contained on the site. Miklo said the property contains a number of sensitive features including woodlands, potential wetlands, regulated slopes and the stream corridor. Miklo said the stream corridor involved in this development is definitely the widest to be reviewed since the sensitive areas ordinance has been in place. The ordinance defines the stream corridor as including the floodway of a stream, and in this location the floodway is quite wide. Miklo said that the plat and the sensitive areas plan have worked to avoid the sensitive areas except in locations where it is necessary to provide for the construction of Oakdale Boulevard and Moss Place. In those cases, crossing the floodway/stream corridor is not avoidable. The roadway necessitates the disturbance of woodlands and the stream corridor in those areas. Miklo said there are also woodlands and slopes on the private property that are proposed to be developed. He said that for the most part those would be set aside in a conservation area and a no -construction line would be established around them. Miklo said there are a few areas where there would be grading and tree removal from those lots but it would be fairly minor in relation to the amount of woodlands and slopes on the property. Miklo said the proposed zoning would allow up to 80% of the woodlands to be removed; however, this proposal calls for the preservation of 80% of the trees, and is well within the requirements of the ordinance. Miklo said that questions remain as to whether or not there is a jurisdictional wetland on the property; if there is, then the Army Corp of Engineers, as well as the City, would regulate it and there would be a required buffer. Staff is still awaiting the determination of the Corp on that matter. Planning and Zoning Commission April 1, 2010 - Formal Page 3 of 10 Miklo said there are a couple of outlots for future development that are not currently under the applicant's control. Any development other than the construction of Oakdale Boulevard in that area will require a sensitive areas rezoning or site plan, so further review would be necessary before any additional disturbance of sensitive areas could occur. Miklo said there is another large outlot being set aside for conservation, and another set aside for future development, which will, again, require further review. The applicant is proposing modifications to some of the zoning requirements in terms of setbacks and heights to allow the development to be concentrated away from those sensitive areas. Miklo said there had been a question about the floodplain and the floodway for the area beyond the Moss property on the further extension of Oakdale Boulevard. Miklo showed an exhibit demonstrating the floodplain. Miklo said the question had been if Oakdale Boulevard would encounter the floodplain as it was extended to the west. Miklo said that there are several places to the west where Oakdale will have to cross the floodplain. He said there really is not a good place to locate the roadway in order to avoid the floodway unless the road was relocated considerably further to the north. Miklo said that City Engineering has determined that the roadway will be elevated above both the 100 and 500 year floodplains. Howard addressed the street and traffic circulation as laid out in the site plan. Howard said that the applicant has proposed some modifications to the street right-of-way standards, though they are still working out the details. Howard said the developer would like to provide a wider collector street that allows on -street parking. She said the details are being worked through with the Public Works Department and are expected to be resolved prior to the next Commission meeting. Howard shared a few photographs of the property. Howard offered to answer questions from the Commission. Eastham asked if the City Engineer had confirmed that Moss Place would be elevated above the 500-year floodplain; Miklo said that he had. Eastham asked if the floodplain was the one set by FEMA in 2007, and Miklo said he would check into that. Freerks asked if the outlots were included in the calculation that 80% of the woodlands would be left undisturbed, and Miklo said he believed that was the case. Payne asked about the building on Outlot F shown in the concept plan. Howard advised her to address that to the applicant. Miklo said that that portion of the property is not actually up for rezoning. He said that what the Commission would be voting on would be the concept plan, and then a detailed plan would come back at a later date. Freerks opened the public hearing. Wally Pelds, 2323 Dixon Street, Des Moines, represented the Moss Green Development Corporation. Pelds said that everything that has been designed for the project is above the 500- year floodplain, and that is based on the 2007 study referred to by Eastham. Pelds said that the street location was adjusted to give the wetlands a 150-foot buffer, in order to avoid having to mitigate it at all. Pelds said that the applicant is working with the Army Corp of Engineers to delineate the wetland. He said that the Corp has asked that they submit all four creek crossings Planning and Zoning Commission April 1, 2010 - Formal Page 4 of 10 at this time, which was somewhat unexpected. However, the Corp is looking at the project as awhole and not in phases, so information concerning phase 2 creek -crossings is being submitted. Pelds said that they have been working closely with their consultant and with the Corp on low -impact bridge design and the permitting process. Pelds gave a PowerPoint presentation on the project to provide an overview of their vision. Pelds said that he wanted it to be clear that a large portion of the trees are being preserved, and that is why the sensitive areas overlay is being requested. The overlay would allow for the necessary adjustments to build taller, narrower, and with a smaller footprint. Pelds said the design is intended to really incorporate the ponds both for floodway mitigation and for visual effect. He said that they intend to do a native shoreline treatment that is fairly shallow and has a safety shelf built into it to avoid sinking if a child should accidentally wander into it. The ponds will be planted with native grasses to attract bird and wildlife, and will be surrounded by walking trails and pedestrian bridges. Pelds said they wished to use native prairie plantings in the green spaces between buildings, and to use bio-swales between the parking stalls, planting with native species that handle the salts and brines. Pelds said there would be an asphalt trail, and that they hope to reuse the wood chips used on site to line the edge of the trails. He said the goal is to be as "green" and to conserve as much as they can. Pelds said that the setting will be beautiful and park -like. He said they are proposing a few overlooks made out of stone. He said that the public open spaces between the buildings are intended to give the project a sense of place. Pelds said they have some unique ideas about off-street parking that they are working through with staff for the Urban Village section of the development. Public Works has some concerns about the underground detention under the parking stalls. Potentially, Pelds said, their plans include varying the right-of-way, narrowing it down so that the City is only responsible for the street, and then creating easements for the utilities, parking, and everything else. Pelds said the intention was not to burden the City, and that the business associations could be charged with maintaining and plowing the parking spaces and sidewalks. Pelds described the pond overlooks planned in the development as approximately 20-foot half - circles built out of stone. He said the concept had been successful in other projects. He said that they also wished to incorporate public art into the overall design, as well as a natural wetland feature in front of one of the lots. Pelds said details are still being worked on for that. Pelds said the applicant is specifically asking for reduced setbacks in order to avoid disturbing the trees, and to stay within the farmed areas. He said that for most of the project they are trying to stay within 20 feet of their right-of-way in order to disturb as little land as possible. Pelds said that generally when visiting a city, all that can be seen between buildings is a sea of concrete; here they are trying to maintain the beautiful green spaces that are already present. That is what sets this property and development apart, Pelds said. Pelds said that he knew this situation was somewhat different for the Commission, as they are requesting changes, and have not yet nailed down the details; Pelds said this is because they do not know yet exactly who their tenants will be. He said they were trying to demonstrate the overall character of the development, the architectural standards, and to gain input from the Commission. Pelds said that they feel the vision has been clearly developed and that they have had positive feedback from some of their prospective businesses. Planning and Zoning Commission April 1, 2010 - Formal Page 5 of 10 Pelds said that the biggest lot for the development is expected to create 800-3,000 jobs for the city. He said that prospective businesses do, however, want to see that the proper zoning and regulatory requirements are in place. Pelds said there has been a lot of discussion about what to put into the Mixed -Use area, and many ideas have come forward. He said that he heard concerns at the informal meeting that a simple apartment building would not be desirable. Pelds said that the ground floor of any building will be commercial/office. He said the residential units would be intended to feed the retail businesses on the ground floor. Pelds said that they are looking for uniformity in design, so they hope to limit the project to one or two developers. Pelds said he was excited to answer any questions the Commission might have. Eastham asked if the design standards were intended to apply to parking structures, and Pelds said they were. Pelds said that all of the parking structures are behind the buildings, and they are trying to restrict parking at the front of the buildings. Pelds said they would prefer to do all parking garages, but that the feedback they are getting from prospects indicates that they are very expensive and not for everyone. Busard asked how Pelds would ensure that the development that occurs is actually green, and whether the covenants would require any third -party review. Pelds said that LEED will be a guideline for the development, but will not be mandated, though there will be specific energy - efficiency requirements. Pelds said that was the recommendation of the Iowa Energy Efficiency Office. He said there are certain facilities that are almost impossible to get LEED-certified, and offered the example of a server -farm. Pelds said that they plan on having a green -review committee and an architectural review committee made up of third -parties, and including at least one City staff member and one local architect. Pelds said long-range planning will be key. Freerks said that she had had concerns about the Mixed -Use aspect of the project because the annexation and development concept had been pitched as commercial/office. She said she had considered requiring a build-up of a certain percentage of the commercial/office before the Mixed -Use can be realized. She said that it seemed the Mixed -Use was intended to support the rest of the development, so it made sense to have the jobs in place prior to bringing the workers there to live. Pelds said that was their concept. Freerks asked if he would be opposed to a 10% build-up requirement prior to the Mixed -Use being implemented. She advised that he need not answer this evening, but should consider it. She said that once the area was zoned Mixed - Use, it was out of the Commission's hands and could be sold and developed by someone else with an entirely different vision. Pelds said that he believes this is where the planned overlay provides an opportunity to dial things in very clearly. He said that the overlay would mandate the first floor be commercial or office and would allow only 5-10% residential on the first level. Pelds said that their vision does not include a field of apartment buildings, and that would destroy their vision for the property. Busard said that he would like to see a requirement that the businesses on the first floor actually be in operation so that someone does not come in and leave the first floor vacant just to capitalize on the apartments. Pelds said they have seen that before, and that is not their vision. He said they desire service -type businesses, pharmacies, salons, book stores, coffee shops, Planning and Zoning Commission April 1, 2010 - Formal Page 6 of 10 etc. Pelds said that having the guidelines and the planned development overlay will help that vision to come into fruition. Plahutnik asked if the on -street parking areas were only in the Mixed -Use areas. Pelds said that was correct, as the intention was to have a green, urban feel in that area. He said that what they would really like is some direction, as they would certainly like to have the best product possible, and the vast experience of the Commission could help further articulate and tweak that vision. Freerks asked about signage requirements. Pelds said they have not gotten that far, and that they were inclined to have every site plan come back to the Commission for review as an additional check and balance. Plahutnik joked that Pelds needed to speak more like a developer, leaving things vaguer, with more wiggle room. Plahutnik asked if traffic circles or roundabouts had been considered. Pelds said that they would consider it, but that he is not sure this would be the right location for one. Eastham said he was pleased with the proposed parking facilities. He asked Miklo if the parking lot standards would automatically be invoked. Miklo said there are standards for larger parking lots, and that he suspects that some of the lots would be large enough for those standards to apply. Eastham said he would like the Commission to consider requiring those standards for all parking lots in the development. He said it seemed as though the development was headed in that direction anyway so it did not seem like it would be too much of a burden. Pelds said that was the direction they are headed, but that they were trying to give the Commission a realistic picture of what the development would look like. Pelds said the idea was to lessen the footprint, but that it might require some creative parking modifications. Plahutnik said that he would like to see a transportation hub built into the design to accommodate bus traffic. Pelds said that getting bus service is a main priority. He said Pearson's currently gets bus service, and as they were planning on making a pedestrian connection to Pearson's anyway, it might be possible to tag on to their route. Eastham asked about the geothermal system. Pelds said that this was a backbone of their project. He said as an amenity of the business association, members would own, maintain, and use the geo-thermal heating system for their electricity needs. Pelds said the energy savings alone are attracting a lot of prospective tenants. There were no further questions. Freerks asked anyone else wishing to speak to the issue to come forward. Jarrod Vincent, no address given, said that what may be different about this project from others seen in the past is that the developers are going to be investing somewhere between $30-40 million. The market for their investment will drive the activity levels that take place there. He said that essentially what will happen is the investors will purchase the land, and they will set out a business plan that says at the point when there are enough leases in place they will begin construction within three weeks. Vincent said that the apartment use will be a reflection of the working demographic of the area. Vincent said the jobs being discussed right now involve hundreds at the $60,000/year and above level. The apartments would be reflective of that. Planning and Zoning Commission April 1, 2010 - Formal Page 7 of 10 Casey Kohrt, no address given, spoke on behalf of the Johnson County Heritage Trust. He said that they own a 30-acre nature preserve directly north of the proposed development. Kohrt said the preserve is a woodland that they are actively managing and restoring to ecological balance. It is contiguous with one of the largest areas of timber in the county. The Johnson County Heritage Trust is actively working with the owners to manage the whole area. He said they would like to make sure there is a long-term management plan for stewardship and contingencies for the outlots of this development, particularly those contiguous to their property. Koppes asked Pelds if he had considered anything that Kohrt had just mentioned. Pelds said he did get a phone call from Glenn Meisner, whom he believed to be on the Board for the trust. Pelds said he did not believe that the developer would be opposed to it; however, they would be putting trails and amenities through some of their conservation areas. He said they would certainly be willing to put covenants in place to protect the woodlands so long as the trails were permitted. Plahutnik said that his understanding is that the Johnson County Heritage Trust is only concerned about the management of the outlots, so that they are not left to go to seed. Pelds said that will absolutely be taken care of, and that they will certainly be good neighbors. Miklo said that the sensitive areas ordinance for the conservation areas does require that there be a management plan or long-term maintenance plan. Freerks asked if that plan would cover all of Kohrt's concerns, and Miklo said it should. There were no further comments from the public, and the public hearing was closed. Koppes offered a motion to defer REZ10-00004/SUB10-00005 until the April 15th meeting. Eastham seconded. Freerks invited discussion. Eastham said that he would like to thank staff for the amount of work and time that they had put into the project already. He said one of his concerns had been that the roads be designed above the 500-year floodplain, and he was pleased to see that addressed. He asked Miklo if that meant the surface of the road will be one -foot above the floodplain. Miklo said that the City Engineer indicated the plans called for the road to be at least one foot above the 100-year floodplain, but the 500-year floodplain still needed to be more closely reviewed. Eastham asked how the Commission could ask the City Council to be sure that the roadway is built to a certain level. Miklo said the current code requires the road to be built above the 100-year floodplain; for the 500-year floodplain the plat will have the specifications written into it for the Commission to review prior to approval, or a requirement could possibly be written into a conditional zoning agreement (the engineers would need to give staff feedback about the advisability of doing so). Plahutnik said that most of the time when matters are deferred by the Commission there is some element of discomfort with the issue that the Commission is hoping will resolve itself. Plahutnik said that this is one of the few times that he is actually looking forward to more discussion. He said the development is fairly exciting, and described himself as kind of an anti - development guy. However, he said that this development seems to be one in which the city actually gets quite a bit back in relation to what it puts into the development. Plahutnik said that there are clearly a lot of unresolved issues but that he thinks this is a great plan that is designed to utilize the brainpower so prevalent in Iowa City. He said he also likes the geo-thermal Planning and Zoning Commission April 1, 2010 - Formal Page 8 of 10 heating plan. Koppes said she actually likes this plan, though she has some concerns about the prospect of the Mixed Use area being built first. She said she would like to see a requirement for first floor commercial. Howard said something like that can be written right into the planned development plan. Koppes said her other concern would be to watch the walkway to Pearson's to make sure it is not a drivable walkway. She also noted that the Pearson's bus stop is on the opposite side of the property. She said she likes the plan, but she does worry that the actual development could look nothing like the package being presented. Freerks said she had a similar concern, though she is also terribly excited about the possibilities of the plan. She said that at the informal meeting she had felt strongly that a 10% build-up requirement was necessary. She said that if the conditional zoning agreement was tight enough, maybe it would not be necessary. She said that she hoped tenants and developers jumped into the project right away and that the tax base for the community was increased as projected. She said that this was a unique opportunity to use a really wonderful piece of land developed in the right way. Koppes said she had taken a walk on the property recently and that had helped her to get her bearings for the property. Busard said he likes what the applicant is doing, especially the way they are addressing the sensitive features on the property. Busard said some of his concerns were the floodplain disturbance, the wetlands, and the ability to have a site plan review for every building that included a review of construction techniques. Busard said he agreed that a conditional zoning agreement addressing the occupancy of commercial/office space prior to the building of any apartments was a good idea. Plahutnik said that at the informal meeting Miklo had pointed out that tax -increment funding is going to lead this development and will greatly favor building commercial/office before residential. Plahutnik said that at some point he would like to get a breakdown of how much of a financial incentive the developer has to follow this plan. Howard said there are still details being worked out in the development agreement, but that they would look into Plahutnik's request. Howard said the idea is to give tax -increment financing to only the commercial portion of the development. Greenwood Hektoen said that was not yet finalized. Miklo said that he believed it was going before the City Council on April 27'h, so there should be a draft by the next meeting. Eastham said it would help him to know how the developer came up with the amount of Mixed Use space that they did for this plan. Eastham said he really likes that the development is so appropriately geared toward the site. He said he likes the idea of having parking behind the buildings, and having buildings close to the street. He said the entire mix of uses is appealing. He said that the plan is in the right direction at this point. Payne said she too is excited about the plan and that it is indeed a very appealing plan. She thanked the applicant for all of the thought that had been put into the project. Freerks advised Pelds to discuss with Kohrt and the Johnson County Heritage Trust the development's plans for woodland management on the front side to avoid any possible Planning and Zoning Commission April 1, 2010 - Formal Page 9 of 10 problems down the road. A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 6-0 (Weitzel absent). ANNEXATION/REZONING ITEM: ANN10-00002 & REZ10-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Dealer Properties IC, LLC for annexation and rezoning from County Agricultural (A) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 5 acres of property located on the north side of Mormon Trek Boulevard, northeast of its intersection with Dane Road. Freerks noted that the applicant had requested an indefinite deferral Freerks opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak to the issue and the public hearing was closed. Payne motioned to defer ANN10-00002 & REZ10-00003 indefinitely. Eastham seconded. The motion carried 6-0 (Weitzel absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: March 18, 2010: Eastham motioned to approve the minutes. Payne seconded. The minutes were approved 6-0 (Weitzel absent). OTHER: Payne announced that she would not be present at the next informal meeting. Koppes stated that she would not be present at the next formal meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Koppes motioned to adjourn. Payne seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Weitzel absent) at 8:27 p.m. Z 0 �G � OC 00 UU W Z ce Z W o OUo N Z N pp Q W C9 H Z Q z Z a J IL 0 z H W W J 0 LL X X X X X X W O 00 W M O X X X X X X N X X X X X X X N X X X X X X X t� N w M N O O CO EW' C U') 0000000 U-) LO LC) LO U) U-) W W � � m J J J Q LU U) z o W-Y� oaY aHwaz=� v���J W w 2 Q cncnwa> :)4w0 -Q— Z mwtLYaa� -1 0 z W W Q 0 z W W M X X X X O X O N �w�-MNOOM F..X0000000 W w J W y. J Q w CO J Q QQ cn=ZN Ovawc�YE= CQYL—C6 W wQF-- Wazm 2mcnwo-�Q— Q�QmOQJw zmWwlaa� w Y