Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-03-2012 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, December 3, 2012 — 5:15 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Helling Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order I:1111:no Iton II Thursday, December 6, 2012 - 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda D. Comprehensive Plan Rezoning REZ12-00026/SUB12-00012/VAC12-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Hy-Vee Stores, Inc. for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-family Residential (RS-8), Neighborhood Public (P-1) and Highway Commercial (CI-1) to Planned Development Overlay/Community Commercial (OPD/CC-2) zone and a preliminary plat of Roberts Dairy Addition for approximately 8.21 acres of property located on North Dodge Street, east of Prairie du Chien Road and an application for a vacation of the public right-of- way for a portion of St. Clements Alley. (45 day limitation: December 23, 2012) E. Comprehensive Plan Item Discussion of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: November 8 and November 15, 2012 G. Other H. Adjournment 14 CITY OF 1OWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: December 6, 2012 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Re: CPA12-00012, REZ12-00026, SUB1200012 and VAC12-00004 Hy-Vee has submitted a revised plan that attempts to address the concerns raised by the Commission, the public and staff regarding the redevelopment of the Roberts Dairy site with a grocery store, convenience store and coffee shop with a drive -through window. Copies of the plan and landscaping concept area attached. Some neighbors and others who attended the meeting raised concerns about noise from loading docks, condensers and the recycling facilities. In staff's view the plan does a good job of addressing the concern about the loading docks by locating them as far from the residential area as possible. The building itself serves as a noise and visual barrier between the loading docks and the residential properties. The plan shows a berm and evergreens to screen the loading from Dodge Street. The plan illustrates that the refrigerator condensers will be located on the roof towards the northern and eastern sides of the building — away from the bulk of the neighborhood. Concerns were raised about the appearance of the parking lot given its large size. The plan includes a landscape plan showing how trees and landscaping will be used to divide the parking lot into smaller areas and to screen it from public streets. Staff finds that the plan generally meets the code, but a few more landscaping islands will need to be added to the center of the lot to meet the code requirement that large parking lots be divided into areas that do not exceed 200 feet. S2 level screening will need to be added to the south side the new St. Clements Street. To address concerns about screening the parking lot and commercial development from the residential properties to the north and along St. Clements Street, the plan shows that existing trees will be saved where possible. Where trees will be removed during the construction of the proposed relocation of St. Clements Street, an arborvitae hedge is proposed. Additional evergreens are proposed on the north side of the building. To provide a buffer between the convenience store, drive -through coffee shop and the residential area west of Prairie Du Chien Road, a detailed plan shows a brick wall wherever the drive -through lane is less than 35 feet from the property line. The buffer area will be landscaped with trees, shrubs and tall ornamental grasses. In staff's opinion this revised plan provides a sufficient buffer and will help make the proposed redevelopment compatible with the neighborhood. Therefore we do not feel that an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is necessary. It should be noted that Board of Adjustment approval is necessary for the proposed drive -through uses (the Board is scheduled to consider this property on December 12). Based on the revised plan staff recommends that conditions recommended in the November 15 staff report be revised to reflect the buffer design proposed by the applicant. Proposed conditions include: November 30, 2012 Page 2 1) A buffer area generally consistent with the attached plan shall be established along the western property line of the parcel rezoned to CC-2. This buffer must be screened to the S3 standard. Wherever the buffer area is less than 35 feet a masonry wall shall be provided consistent with the attached plan. 2) No signs shall be permitted within the 35 foot buffer or on the south and west sides of the convenience store facing the residential development. There will be no more than two (2) free standing signs permitted along the Dodge Street frontage. Other fascia and monument signs are permitted as per the code. 3) Any building or structure including canopies should be of a quality design appropriate for property abutting a residential neighborhood, including features such as stone and masonry materials, standing seam metal roofs, and muted colors. The Design Review Committee shall approve the design of buildings as well as associated structures and facilities. 4) Preservation of existing evergreen screening and mature trees along the northwest side of the property where possible. 5) Construction of a bus pull off within the Dodge Street right-of-way. 6) Landscaping shall be generally consistent with the attached plan. Where the code requires greater landscaping it shall be provided. Staff recommends that REZ12-00026 be approved subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement that provides for an appropriate transition and buffer between the proposed development and the neighborhood to the north and west as detailed above. Staff recommends approval of SUB12-00012 a 2-lot 8.21-acre commercial subdivision subject to correction of items identified by the City Engineer. Staff recommends approval of VAC12-00004, the vacation of a portion of St. Clements Street subject to relocation of utilities or the retention of necessary easements and dedication of an alternative street right-of-way. |§§ § \ »L -- / VIP �� ©;§.| m \ ) / § v .m m - ao = U \\!® ) ,�, ! \� � ( (|fig |/ | II ' \ ;§ � LU (�)\ z !! O !_! w t§ u<<\/-- U 2 /p/ §!, § 2 %<<\\ »-J4° T-•0 w 7 X „ w w § s c� e� m !§!§- — - - \ « : \ \ \ . \ / � \ \ \ \ '44-\� - -= - -- »- PRA m E--DU o| 3 0 F 3 ✓� ^J � Vl V n 'O :!� W � N ❑ Vl �D C c 0 o s a � o � y z 0 ,ie,H Ju n!9!2I U =jo3 Swppng 3 i- ❑ � m 0 L A n F 0 AEM.IotNS!N — -- e N O r � i U b C/� Q O rn � ,y- ���� \\� (f \ > q\ § E j ,<4; 5*2 R :®( S to \ / \� q; \0� ry, ; \ r�a \ \ d\ / \ /\ {\ __ \ 9 - ig )( November 15, 2012 To: Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission From: Nancy Adams -Cogan and Rodney R. Strampe, (20 year residents and owners - 1117 St Clement's Alley) RE: N. Dodge St.(CPA12-00005/REZl2-00026/SUB12-00012/ VAC12-00005) Hy Vee Stores is a good land use choice for the area currently occupied by Roberts Dairy. However, we do have some concerns. The rezoning of Tract #2 from RS8 to CC2 would shrink the area of the neighborhood and remove some of the buffer between that which will be rezoned to CC2 and the rest of the residential area located north of the CC2 zone. Some of Tract #2 is currently green space with established large trees and we believe that it should remain that way, except for a slight correction where St Mathias Alley currently adjoines Prairie du Chien Rd. The two lots that face west onto St Clement's Alley on the east side of St Clements Alley should also remain RS8, thereby adding to the buffer zone and could be better used to create a sound barrier between the neighborhood and the commercial area. We can currently hear the racket produced by Hy-Vee in their recycling program, and do not welcome that source of sound pollution in a closer location. Property values tend to decline when located close to commericial areas. That concerns us too. Traffic on Prairie du Chien Rd has increased considerably in recent years to the point that one must often wait a long time to access Prairie du Chien Rd from St Mathias Alley. Often traffic backs up past Kimball Ave durring peak hours. The new store will create even more traffic. Perhaps a traffic light could be considered at the intersection of Prairie du Chien Rd and St Mathias Alley. Emergency access to St Clements Alley is also a consideration. Nanams-Co an Rodney 1 Straml Nancy g y Pe PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY NOVEMBER 8, 2012 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, John Thomas, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Miller, Mary Gilbert, Edie Thomason, Jim Buddenbaum, Sue Ford, Ed Wasserman RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of REZ12-00025, an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction, Inc. for rezoning from a Low Density Single Family (RS-5) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) zone with the following conditions: a detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted for design review, illustrating a minimum 20 foot landscape buffer between any developed portion of the property and Hickory Hill Park; the landscaping plan should include a variety of deciduous and evergreen shrubs and trees that effectively screen view of the development from the park; in order to ensure safe vehicular access to the development, development of the property should be consistent with the proposed site and concept plan with regard to the location of the building, parking, and driveway access to 1st Avenue. 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. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM REZONING/ ITEM Set a public hearing for November 15 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. Freerks opened public hearing Freerks closed public hearing Eastham moved to set the public hearing for November 15th. Dyerseconded. Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2012 - Formal Page 2 of 12 A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. REZONING ITEM REZ12-00025: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction, Inc for a rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) zone for approximately 1.02-acres of property located on 1st Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue. (45 day limitation: Nov 10, 2012) Howard said at the last meeting both the Commission and the public had some questions about various issues. She said in regard to storm water drainage, when the property is developed it will have to go through a major site plan review and at that time the City will review the proposed development to ensure that it meets all City codes and requirements, including meeting requirements for stormwater management. Howard handed out copies of the site plan standards to the Commission. She said the storm water drainage will be reviewed by numerous departments of the City including the Building Department and the Public Works Department. Howard said with regard to traffic safety, staff still believes that this proposed rezoning will not significantly impact traffic speed and congestion. She said staff forwarded the concerns expressed by the public at the last P&Z meeting to the Police Department. Those that spoke at the last meeting were invited to a meeting with the City transportation staff. As a result of these complaints, the police department indicated they would direct officers to utilize the speed trailers and provide extra patrol for speed control in this area to help address speeding issues along this section of 15' Avenue. Howard indicated that there were also concerns expressed at the last meeting about tree preservation, landscaping and the building setbacks. She said the proposed building footprint is about 10,500 square feet. She said the building coverage as proposed would be about 24 percent of the lot. She said the maximum building coverage allowed in the RM-12 zone is 50 percent. She said the proposed underground parking will help minimize the area of the lot covered by pavement and building. She said they are also including some extra parking for residents and guests since there is no street parking along 1"Avenue. Howard said her rough estimate of what would be covered by proposed driveway and parking comes to 3800 square feet, which makes the building and parking coverage on the lot about 32 percent. She said the zoning code also requires street trees to be planted at the time of development at one per 30 feet of linear frontage for small trees or one tree for every 40 linear feet if they plant large trees. She said there is also a residential tree requirement for multifamily development of one tree for every 550 square feet of lot coverage, so approximately 20 trees would be required for this site based on the size of the footprint shown on the concept plan. She said the zoning code encourages the preservation of existing trees by giving extra credit for saving existing healthy trees. She noted, however, that the trees that are on the property currently would not rise to the level of meeting the sensitive areas ordinance for preservation. Freerks asked if credit is given whether or not the City Forester finds them to be of a certain quality. Howard answered that the residential tree requirement is intended to ensure that a certain minimum number of quality trees are planted or preserved on multi -family residential properties to enhance the quality of life of the residents. For that reason, trees proposed for preservation are inspected to ensure they are trees that are of a quality that will both survive during construction and thrive for many years. If existing trees appear to be healthy and of good quality, the City will allow the trees to count for one or more of the trees required. Thomas asked if the property to the south complied with all standards in respect to the Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2012 - Formal Page 3 of 12 treatment along the north property line. Howard said that the development was approved according to City standards and according to the standards in the sensitive areas ordinance. She noted that the property was difficult to develop because of the amount of sloping wooded land on the south side of the property. As a consequence, a sensitive areas rezoning was required and certain modifications to the underlying zoning requirements were granted by the Commission and the City Council in order to better preserve the wooded slopes on the site. She said it went through a number of design iterations in the process of trying to preserve the most sensitive steep and critical slopes on the south side of the property. She said the building was allowed to exceed the height limit and was shifted to the north, and any trees that were there were in that location were taken down in order to build the building. Freerks asked if there were trees on the south that were preserved. Howard said there were Thomas asked if the shift of the proposed building complied with these standards. Howard replied that it complied with the sensitive areas ordinance because the concern was preserving the wooded slope to the south. She said with that shift to the north part of the property, it sits very close to the property line. Howard noted that the width of the current property proposed for rezoning appears sufficient to achieve an approximate 20 foot setback on both the north and south sides of the building. Freerks opened public hearing. Jeff Miller said he had consulted with MMS Engineers in regards to the plat and the elevations and the trees. He said they should be able to keep the trees toward the front of the property but it was likely that at least two trees would have to be taken down. He said he didn't consider any of the trees on the site of quality, but they were going to try and keep any healthy trees they could that won't be damaged by the development. He said they want to stay as far from the retaining wall on the adjoining property to the south as they can. He said he had talked to his engineer with regard to the drainage and it's difficult to know what you'll find until you start to dig. He said whatever it is they find, they will have to deal with it and find a system that will let it drain well and function properly even in a wet year. He said he would follow the engineer's suggestions. Eastham asked staff if there is room between the proposed building and the building to the south to replace any trees. Howard said the applicant is allowed to design their site with landscaping in a way that fits their building and their site. She said they are required to provide a certain number of trees on the site, but there is not a requirement to screen one residential building from another. Mary Gilbert of 918 Bluffwood Drive said she believed that the development would not meet the planning principle for preservation of natural features as mentioned in the City Code and the comprehensive plan. She asked the Commission to reject the application for rezoning because the development would not be consistent with the environmentally sensitive nature of the property under review and the difficulties inherent in developing a multifamily structure of this size; would have deleterious effects on Hickory Hill Park; and disturb the surrounding neighborhood by increased traffic due to insufficient on -site parking. Gilbert read from the City website about the neighborhood planning principles of providing green, open space areas as buffers between urban development and sensitive features and incorporating and maintaining a green, open space buffer between Hickory Hill Park and urban development to preserve the natural integrity of the park, and treating environmentally sensitive Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2012 - Formal Page 4 of 12 areas as amenities." She said it also suggested on the website that ..."further concentrations of apartments are to be avoided and that apartments and townhouses be compatible with neighborhood architecture in terms of design and scale." Gilbert questioned whether approval of the rezoning would stray from the ideals expressed in the plan. Gilbert said the northern boundary abuts the southern boundary of Hickory Hill Park, therefore any development of the lot in question will have some effect on the park. She said the ways a multifamily building will affect the park are unknown. She said because of the special character of the site under review it's never been developed and is possibly part of a prairie remnant that lies a few hundred feet to the north. She asked what degree a critical slope has to be. Howard said that slopes exceeding 18 percent are considered to be critical. Gilbert said if some of the slope is 18 percent or greater the property will be have to be reviewed for sensitive land and features according to the City Code. She said to squeeze a building of this size and conform to the setback, earth will have to be moved, and there are a number of restrictions about this in the Code. She mentioned some other restrictions from the Code. Gilbert said another serious concern is parking in the neighborhood. She said because the developer must provide additional parking spaces for guests, it will mean moving more earth and using additional concrete, which means more run-off. She said if no additional parking is provided, guests will have to either park in the Hickory Hill parking lot or along Stuart Court and Bluffwood Circle, both of which have no outlet, which means more traffic as every car entering would have to drive to the end of the street to turn around. Jeff Miller said their hope is that they will have 42 parking spots as the concept plan develops, and he thinks that is ample for the 16, 2-bedroom units proposed. Edie Thomason of Stuart Court said one of her concerns is that the proposed building will have 16 two -bedrooms and that makes potentially 48 people with maximum occupancy of three people. She said that would make a lot of additional population in that one acre of property. She said there could be children in that building, and with the slope there is no place for them to play except the sidewalk and the street. She said she is concerned that the storm water will drain into the park, as after a rain it stays wet for several days, and with additional drainage from the subject site there will be erosion and mud and will render the park less usable. She said there is already a zoning ordinance in place for low density and she thinks that should remain. She said she thinks that 16 units are too much for one acre. Jim Buddenbaum of 557 North 1 st Avenue said he bought his property because from his view on an upper story, he couldn't see anything manmade. He said he thinks staff is seriously underestimating the impact of the water that runs through the subject property. He said rain from the Regina parking lot comes through his property and perpetually keeps the property wet. He wanted to know how many parking spots would be inside. He said his real concern is the site plan and a building that will virtually sit in his living room. He would like to see the building moved as far away as possible from the retaining wall on his property. He said he knows most of his comments are personal and emotional, but he feels strongly that this is a project that should not happen here. He is very much opposed to it. Freerks asked Howard to talk about the path this item will take and at what point the City checks in again on it. Howard said the only action before the Commission right now is a request to rezone the property from RS-5 to RM-12. She said when the applicant is actually ready to build a building, he will need to bring in detailed construction drawings and a site plan that meets all the Building Code and site plan requirements. She said the site plan review process is a way for the City to check to make sure that the proposed development meets all the zoning Planning and Zoning Commission November S, 2012 - Formal Page 5 of 12 requirements, including the sensitive areas ordinance. She said if the applicant's engineer finds that there are a significant number of critical slopes on the property and they are disturbing more than 35 percent of them, then the item would have to again come before the Commission for review. Otherwise, the site plan would be reviewed administratively by City staff. Sue Ford of 616 North 1st Avenue directly across from the subject property said she doesn't like the idea of draining all that water into Hickory Hill Park. She agreed with Thomason that after a not particularly heavy rain, some of the trails become very muddy and there's already a lot of erosion along many of the trails and many of the bridges are washed out in their footings. Howard said the water will have to drain to the City storm sewer. Ford said she has questions about what kind of housing this will be and the neighbors and the Commission should be concerned because no one really knows what is proposed. She wanted to know what kind of information the Commission uses to grant a rezoning and what triggers the change of zoning. Freerks said one thing the Commission does is look at whether the rezoning will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Greenwood Hektoen said the Commission's purview is to consider applications for rezoning according to the Comprehensive Plan, which sets forth the goals and vision for how a neighborhood develops. Freerks said the Commission does not ask who is going to live where and is not allowed to discuss that. She clarified that the zoning really has to do with the number of units that can be built. She said that certain conditions can make it impossible to build the number of units proposed, so there can be many variables. Howard said the RM-12 zone is the low density multifamily zone, which would grant the right to build whatever is allowed under that zoning designation. She noted that all the properties across the street are also zoned RM-12 and contain duplexes because the zone also allows single family, duplex, townhouse and multifamily. Ed Wasserman of 555 N. 1 t Avenue showed photos of the property from his home. He said all the trees on the north side of the lot provide a lot of cover and block the view to the north. He explained that only two of all the trees are on his property. He said the way the proposed building is sited, the developer could take every tree except those two. He said removing the trees means removing a lot of earth by the retaining wall, and that will exacerbate the existing drainage problem. He complained that the way the plan is now, a very large building could be put nine feet from that property line. He said the top floor of the proposed building will be about level with the first floor of his building. He also mentioned that dirt will have to be removed almost up to the track at Regina in order to get this proposed building set in the hillside, which will let the storm water run directly into the proposed building. Gilbert asked if anyone has recently found any of the pins of the park. Freerks explained that would happen when it is developed, and is a legality that has to be dealt with. Gilbert asked who is responsible for paying for a surveyor to tell the neighbors what the elevations are. Howard said when the applicant submits a plan for their building they will have to submit a site plan and their engineer will have the topographic lines marked on it and will indicate any areas that have sensitive slopes. Gilbert asked if the Commission is legally able to rezone without taking into account the slopes. Freerks said they are. Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2012 - Formal Page 6 of 12 Howard explained that the applicant will have to meet all the City ordinances including the zoning ordinance and the site plan review ordinance. Freerks said that the rezoning itself doesn't mean that everything gets a green light because there are a number of requirements that have to be dealt with before a site plan is approved. Gilbert said what if the developer pays out all this money and then the property is found to be unbuildable. Howard said that is the risk the developer has chosen to take. Gilbert asked if the requirements that were put forth on the City's website will come into play. Howard said the zoning requirements and building code requirements come into play when the applicant brings in building and site plans and has to show how they've met all the City requirements. Freerks explained that if it's, for instance, a 20% slope, that doesn't mean it can't be built upon, but rather that certain requirements must be met. Howard provided an example by explaining why the building on the adjoining lot was zoned OPD/RM-12. She explained that the amount of the slopes that were proposed for disturbance exceeded a certain threshold, so it had to go through the planned development rezoning process. Similarly, she said if it is found that the subject property exceeds a threshold of 35 percent of critical slopes being disturbed, they will have to go through another rezoning process before the Commission. She said if they are not disturbing more than that threshold of critical slope they can go through an administrative review process where the City staff would look at it to make sure that the building is sited so the drainage is properly designed to accommodate the slopes of the property. Gilbert said the fact that the subject property abuts onto the park, which is City property, it seems that there are two different factions with different agendas. Freerks said at some point development does happen adjacent to public lands, and it's not uncommon during a rezoning for people to come forward to express that they thought, or their realtor had told them, that a subject property would stay a green space. She said that unless the City purchases a property, the owners have certain rights to develop a property. Freerks closed public hearing. Weitzel moved to approve REZ12-00025, an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction, Inc. for rezoning from a Low Density Single Family (RS-5) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) zone with the following conditions: a detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted for design review, illustrating a minimum 20 foot landscape buffer between any developed portion of the property and Hickory Hill Park; the landscaping plan should include a variety of deciduous and evergreen shrubs and trees that effectively screen view of the development from the park; in order to ensure safe vehicular access to the development, development of the property should be consistent with the proposed site and concept plan with regard to the location of the building, parking, and driveway access to 1st Avenue. Thomas seconded the motion. Freerks invited discussion. Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2012 - Formal Page 7 of 12 Eastham said in the staff recommendations from the previous packet, staff recommends a conditional zoning agreement requiring detailed landscaping plans. He asked if they could consider amending the motion that was before the Commission to add a condition about a setback on the south side of the property. Weitzel and Freeks said if Eastham wanted to specify an additional condition, it should be added to the motion. Freerks asked if they are saying that they want the access to be butted against the north portion of the property as a sketch shows. Howard stated that she believes there is enough lot area to also have a 20 foot setback on both the north and south side of the building, but without exact building plans it could not be determined for certain at this point. Eastham asked what the motion is in terms of the building's location on the south side. Howard replied that their recommendation is that generally the building and the driveway be sited so the driveway is at the north end of the property so it has the best sight distance for drivers entering and exiting the property. Eastham reiterated his question. Howard said that judging from the concept plan, there could be approximately 20 feet from the proposed building to the south boundary of the site. Eastham asked if they know how far the proposed building will have to be set back from the south property line in order to preserve the existing large trees. Howard said she couldn't answer that question because typically you would have to set the building far enough back to save their root systems. She noted, however, that when a detailed site plan is submitted, the applicant will have to identify which trees will come down and which will be preserved. At this time, however, it is not known. Weitzel said he thought they were getting into areas that should be reserved for site plan review and due to lack of details about the building design the Commission could not determine those at this time. He asked if they shouldn't be focusing on the rezoning instead. Eastham agreed, and said at this time he was trying to determine if there were additional conditions they should add to the motion. Thomas said he would like to see the detailed landscaping plan include a review by Friends of Hickory Hill Park Board, Greenwood Hektoen said she thought it would be difficult to establish what criteria they would be able to review it on and what sort of powers they would have. She said it would be unusual to have a third party approve, let alone review, the plans. Thomas said the Board has some expertise in the selection of plant material that would go into that screening. Greenwood Hektoen said she would caution against it because this is private property and is not part of the park. Eastham asked if it is possible for the public and the Hickory Hill Park Board to give input regarding the final site plan. Greenwood Hektoen said she would recommend against doing that. Howard said the question is whether this rezoning would pose a problem or externality such that it would warrant imposing an additional requirement on this applicant. Greenwood Hektoen added that the conditions that would be included in a Conditional Zoning Agreement need to be tied to a public need being generated by this rezoning, and the rezoning applies to the density, Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2012 - Formal Page 8 of 12 not the building Howard said right now the property has the rights to be developed for single family development or Regina could use it to put their driveway next to the park where they have an easement and there would be no scrutiny of those actions. She said in the staff memo she had said that preserving the trees on the site is a good idea and the applicant should take that into account, but the question is whether the lack of trees and landscaping that was preserved on the adjacent property is something that this property owner should have to remedy when they build. Eastham said he generally agrees with Howard's viewpoints. He added that he thinks Thomas has an interesting suggestion, but he has a problem with asking a third party to review the landscaping on any property without a formalized way of doing that. Thomas said he would not add that as an amendment to the motion. He said he assumed the Parks Department will be part of the review process. Howard said site plans are reviewed by City staff, but are public documents that can be viewed by anyone. She noted that the City is always open to good advice, but allowing a third party review powers is problematic. Eastham said his concern about this rezoning request has to do with the reasonable considerations asked by the people living just to the south that existing trees be preserved if possible to preserve the views they now have. He said one of the factors that may make that more difficult is that the plan to also have a buffer between the parking lot of the proposed building and the park. He said he would like to see more consideration given to preserving the views of the building to the south of the subject property rather than providing a buffer to the park. Eastham said he doesn't think that a 20 foot buffer there is going to accomplish much, and he doesn't think the size of the proposed surface parking area is really necessary for the intended use right now. He said he is only making suggestions, not asking that they be included as an amendment to the motion. Thomas asked what the required setback is against Hickory Hill Park. Howard replied that the minimum setback for a parking area is 10 feet and screening must be provided for the parking area. He said he is sympathetic to Eastham's comments. He said he thinks that the park itself is a buffer, which isn't saying that this isn't a balancing act. He said the question is the use of those setbacks. He said the distance from the northern property line of the subject property to the southern trail in the park is about 175 feet so it's some distance away. Dyer said there are lots of other buildings visible from inside the park. Weitzel said it is difficult for him to articulate specific standards for the park if it's not part of a design plan that's already in place and part of the Comprehensive Plan because otherwise you start asking if this is a natural park or not. He said Central Park was supposed to be completely natural, and lots of rock was moved to make it. He said it would be hard to articulate the definition of natural in a Conditional Zoning Agreement. Freerks said she thinks there is value to small pockets of trees like those along the southern boundary of the subject property and these are a benefit to both the tenants of the proposed building and the adjacent building, so she finds some value in trying to maintain that buffer. She said it takes a long time to grow trees like these and from the beginning of this project she would like to see as many of those trees maintained as possible, and she thinks the applicant agrees with that. She said she's not sure they can tie that to the rezoning but what the Commission can do is outline ideas and concepts, as they have been talking about here, with the hopes that City staff and the developer will take them into consideration. She said regardless of what the City Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2012 - Formal Page 9 of 12 Forester says about the trees, she thinks they are worth keeping. Weitzel said many of the questions that have come up regard the City standards and if they will be met. He said they will be met because it is City staff's job to make sure that everything from the Building Code to the Site Plan Standards are all met. He said that what the Commission does is determine if a property owner's constitutional right is being upheld and if they are allowing someone to do what they want to do within the standards. He said what the Commission has looked at is the Comprehensive Plan and that's all they can look at. Thomas said he is concerned with the standards as they exist now in that the property to the south is placed in such a way that it's dependent on what happens on the adjacent property to create screening. Weitzel said they had that choice when they built that property. Thomas said that the City standards allowed it and if the City standards allowed that, there is a flaw. Weitzel countered that the Commission had to meet other standards like the wooded slopes to the south of that property. Thomas said the project itself could have been adjusted. He said he's just really concerned that the project was developed in such a manner that it's dependent on screening on the adjacent property in order to maintain its integrity. Swygard said she understands what Thomas is saying but she doesn't think the rezoning of the subject property needs to be responsible for the trees. Thomas said what he is concerned about is that perhaps there is a problem with the City's zoning looking ahead so that they don't find themselves in this position again. Weitzel mentioned that on this application the developer has said that he is committed to trying to do what he can to save the trees. Freerks said she thinks the idea with the previous building to the south was try to maintain and keep as many of the trees on the critical slopes to the south as possible, so the building was shifted to the north. She said there was a great value placed on that by the community. She said over the years, hundreds of buildings in town have been placed very close to other buildings. Weitzel said he sees some evergreens in a photo that he thinks will meet most of the S-3 standards for screening. Eastham said in regard to the observations made about surface water running over the subject site in his view they have established that there is no probability of surface water from this site causing property damage to the south, since that property is uphill from the applicant's property. He said it's been very clearly shown by staff that it won't happened because of the topography. He said that surface water from the subject property will have to be routed into the City storm water drainage system, which will empty into Ralston Creek. He said that he thinks any problems in developing this site caused by surface water on the site is a difficulty the developer will have to address. Eastham also remarked on the traffic on 1st Avenue saying that in his view the traffic coming from the proposed development will not materially affect existing traffic or congestion or speeds on 1"Avenue. He did say, however, that he believes those concerns are Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2012 - Formal Page 10 of 12 legitimate. He stated that he would be happy if the Commission would note to the City Council that the issues of congestion and traffic speed along Vt Avenue have been raised in conjunction with this application and ask the Council to consider dealing with those as separate issues. Martin said any type of housing on the subject property will still have the same issues to deal with. She said the builder is going to have to build what works. She said she doesn't know if there is any difference in the RS-5 and the RM-12 zoning for this property because the developer can only do what the land allows. She said she's not opposed to development, but she would like to see it imitating what it's near and acting as another buffer between the park, although she'd like fewer stories on the building. She said she doesn't think, though, that the zoning really dictates that because you could build a gigantic single family dwelling or multiple houses. Freerks said potentially there could be four or five single family homes on the property if you could fit them in. She said although they don't always get the maximum, it could be built on quite aggressively even without this rezoning. Martin said clearly Regina doesn't want the land, so the original motion makes sense. Freerks said she thinks this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as there is multi -family zoning along 1st Avenue in this area. She stated that traffic and congestion are an issue but this potential 16-plex will not have much of a negative impact in terms of the number of cars. She said she thinks it would be much worse if Regina had a driveway there. She said she will vote in favor of this rezoning, but she would like to see the developer work to try to maintain as many as possible of the trees to the south and to make it a building that will be an asset and can blend into the community. She said good things could happen on the subject property, and she reminded those in attendance that the people who live there will be their neighbors, and hopefully they will be as welcomed as people welcomed them. Dyer said the traffic coming from this development will not likely be the traffic that is speeding because they'll have to slow down to enter the property. Freerks said these things are always difficult and it's always a difficult decision about the few green spaces remaining in neighborhoods because they are so precious. She said, however, the property owner has a right to develop it. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: October 18, 2012 Dyer moved to approve the minutes of October 18, 2012. Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. OTHER: Howard informed the Commission about what may be on the agenda for its next meeting, since there would not be an informal meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2012 - Formal Page 11 of 12 ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Weitzel seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote. z O U) U Q ouo U uj Zw ZU Z Z OQ N oa Z ow Z ~ za z J a O z F w w � 5 O J N a g LL' O LL I 1 i oLLI :xxxo � xxxx oxxxlxx0x v �oxxx � xxxx oxxlx xxxo CD Z-xxix I xxxo 0 oxx 1 xoxoj i ,xxx 1 xixxx Nxxx 1 xixxo O-XXXlxxxx w l xxx 1 xxx x O X x 1 iX X x X X XLO - X 1 X X X 'v N LLI x x x I i x x x OIx x X X 1 X X1X MI i t � �XxXIX 1 xXjX N 1 N Nxxxx 1 xXiix Q xxxx 1 xxx g w m m ro W du�in in mm Ln Ln F-Xx 01000000 w U ap] aI�F- U¢Yvia��vi� x�woZaw warwaF(7�ON EwcnLu a>awoa 'Oxw zowLL�c*rniP O z H w w m a g O U. Z oIxx:xxx- 0x0 xx 0 I i M �xx;xlxxx co0 Mui X x x 0X 0 zOxx 1 xxloLU o ®xxxo xxixx i xx0 1 xxxx N -xxxEw xxx iy 10 h NxXx'x +xxx N ,xxxix xxx N! LL I\ wa1nCDCDCD lnlnln F X O 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 wl w Z i w J J 2 Z w a g 0am=a0 U Q Y cn Z N w =�waa w��-wa.P I Mwv)waw a>-az0a =W Z❑wLL`.e 2W F-� E E 0 `0 N p N O Z Z U p U p L U LU c (D c (D m E m Q o w Q o s Z n Z d Q 11 d Q 11 11 11 11 w 11 w xOoz xOooz Y Y LT