The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-05-2013 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, December 5, 2013 - 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda D. Subdivision Items: Discussion of an application submitted by Build to Suit, Inc. for a preliminary plat of General Quarters Part Two, a 69-lot, 15.54-acre residential subdivision located east of Sycamore Street, south of Sherman Drive. (SUB13-00023) E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: November 7 and November 21, 2013 F. Other G. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Fonnal: December 19 1 January 2 / January 16 Informal: Scheduled as needed. To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: SUB13-00023 General Quarters Part Two GENERAL INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Robert Miklo Date: December 5, 2013 Applicant: Jason Harder Build to Suit, Inc. 625 1t Avenue, Suite 201A Coralville, IA 52241 319-512-2322 jasonh@buildtosuitinc.com Contact Person: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INcORMATION: Josh Entler Hall & Hall Engineers, Inc. 1860 Boyson Road Hiawatha, ]A 52233 319-362-9548 josh@halleng.com Preliminary plat approval Development of a 59-lot residential subdivision East of Sycamore Street and south of Sherman Drive 15.54 acres Low density single family residential (RS-5) North: Residential (RS-5) South: Agricultural (ID-RS) East: Public (P-1) West: Residential (RS-8) Residential 2-8 dwelling units per acre Grant Wood (S2) October 31, 2013 December 15, 2013 This property was rezoned from Interim Development (ID) to Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) in 2004. General Quarters - Part 1, 29-lot subdivision, was approved that same year. The rezoning was subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement that addressed requirements for infrastructure improvements and neighborhood design. Build to Suit, Inc., a different developer, is now proposing to subdivide General Quarters - Part 2 into 59 single- family residential lots. The applicant has not indicated whether they have used the "Good Neighbor Policy" F&1&1WJ&iK Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and Subdivision Regulations: The Comprehensive Plan future land use map indicates that the property is appropriate for single family residential uses. The property is zoned Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5). The RS-5 zone generally allows single family dwellings on lots that are a minimum of 8,000 square feet in area with a lot width of at least 60 feet. The proposed lots range in size from 8,000 to 10,541 square feet. Lots widths range from 67 to 89 feet. The lots adjacent to Sycamore Street provide for the 40 foot setback and 20 foot wide landscape buffer required for lots adjacent to an arterial street. The lots will be similar in size to existing lots within the neighborhood. The preliminary plat appears to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code and Subdivision Regulations. Subdivision and Street Design: Street access to General Quarters — Part 2 will be from Dickenson Street which intersects with Sycamore Street. Farragut Lane will be extended from General Quarters — Part 1 through General Quarters — Part 2 and provide a connection to a future subdivision to the south. Whispering Meadows Drive will connect across the Sycamore Greenway to Whispering Meadows Part 4, which is located east of the greenway (a Conditional Zoning Agreement for Whispering Meadows requires that the connection over the greenway be installed by the developer of Whispering Meadows Part 4). Sherman Drive will be extended along the greenway and the loop to the west before ending in a cul-de-sac just before Sycamore Street. This interconnected street pattern will provide secondary access to the existing General Quarters — Part 1 and Mt. Prospect — Part 7, which are located to the north. The termination of Sherman Drive before it reaches Sycamore Street has been designed to minimize intersections with the arterial street. The cul-de-sac design on Sherman Drive prevent$ backyards from abutting Sycamore Street and provides views through the neighborhood rather than backyard fences lining the street. Sherman Drive will be a "single loaded" street (lots only on one side) adjacent to the Sycamore Greenway. This will open up views and public access from within the subdivision to the greenway. The design fulfills a requirement of the Conditional Zoning Agreement to provide at least 300 feet of linear access to the greenway. In addition to the street network this area is well served by a trail system. There is an existing 8 foot wide sidewalk on Sycamore Street. The Sycamore Greenway trail is located to the east. Approximately 300 feet to the south of General Quarters — Part 2, a trail connects the 8 foot wide sidewalk on Sycamore Street to the Sycamore Greenway trail. The preliminary plat includes an 8 foot wide trail extension along the west side of the Sycamore Greenway. The developer will be responsible for the cost of a standard 5 foot wide sidewalk in this location and the City pay the oversize cost for this trail. There is an existing trail along the east side of the greenway, but the drainage channel minimizes access to General Quarters. Staff anticipates that the trail along the west side of the greenway will be extended along the east side of lot 45 when the area to the south is subdivided. To help assure that the purchaser of lot 45 is aware of the possibility of this trail, it should be shown as "future trail". This subdivision will include a stub street to provide for the future connection of Whispering Meadows Drive east of Sherman Drive. To help assure that future lot owners are aware of this street connection, the preliminary plat notes that a sign will be posted at the east end Whispering Meadows Drive, indicating that it will be extended to the east for future P=Staff ReportMsub13-00023 staff mpon.doc development. The requirement for this sign should be addressed in the Subdivider's Agreement at the time of final plat approval. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: There are hydric soils located in approximately the southwestern third of the subdivision. Appropriate for these soil conditions, the streets have been designed with a drainable base and tile line system. Neighborhood Open Space: This subdivision is located adjacent to the South Sycamore Greenway, which in addition to providing regional drainage, serves as a linear park and trail network. A subdivision of this size requires the dedication of 15,906 square feet of neighborhood open space or fees in lieu of. Given the location of this subdivision adjacent to the Sycamore Greenway, staff recommends that fees be paid in lieu of open space dedication. The fees could then be used to improve the trail connections within the greenway. The fee will be equivalent to the value of 15,906 square feet of property. This requirement will need to be addressed in the legal papers for the final plat. Stormwater Management: This subdivision is located within the Sycamore Greenway Drainage District. The greenway provides for a regional drainage system in this part of the city. In lieu of storm water detention basins, individual subdivisions are required to pay a fee of $2,775.68 per acre toward the cost of the greenway. The subdivision has been designed to direct stormwater to the greenway. Payment of the fee should be addressed in the legal papers for the final plat. Infrastructure Fees: The Conditional Zoning Agreement requires the payment of $2,894.68 per acre for Sycamore Street improvements. Sanitary sewer tap -on fees are $1,796.50 per acre. Water main extension fees are $395 per acre. Payment of these fees should be addressed in the legal papers for the final plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SUB13-00023, a request for preliminary plat approval of a 590-lot, 15.54-acre residential subdivision located east of Sycamore Street be approved subject of review by the City Engineer. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary plat Approved by: t Jeff, Davidson, Director Department of Planning and Community Development PCMStaff Repofts%subU-0023 staff rspoftdoc uz 3AV V(IVA3N cm 17 I. -A m N m Tq ca 0 ro :3 CY z 0 0 -i ui foil; HIP i L ------------- .1 IIIIHAH Flow L----------- i - -------------- ----------- IMI I �T ------------- L --------- L----------- i ------------- - --------------- pf I d Zd ---------- FIT N ---------- Av. 4L- - -------- ----- --- --- -------- ---------- - - - - - - - - - - ------------- ------------- Nov g 9 ------------- ------ ------------- ------------- 17 ---------------- --- ---- ---- ---- ----------- --------- F .......... 6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY NOVEMBER 7,— 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: Anne Freerks STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Bob Miklo, Sarah Holecek, Eric Goers OTHERS PRESENT: Mary Gravitt, Kevin O'Brien, Matthew Barron, Mark Seabold, Michael Mulenbruch, Ruth Baker RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of REZ113-00022, a rezoning of approximately 2.5-acres of land from Communfty Commercial (CC-2) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Community Commercial (OPDICC-2) for property located at 21 West Benton Street and 820 South Riverside Drive and that it be approved subject to the five conditions entered into the record by staff during the presentation this evening which are: 1) The final design of the development and the resulting encroachment into the required stream corridor buffer will not prevent construction of the Iowa River Corridor Trail; and 2) Prior to approval of the final planned development plan, the owner will dedicate to the City of Iowa City, 10 feet of property along the Riverside Drive frontage of property at 820 S. Riverside Drive to use for public right-of-way purposes; and 3) Prior to approval of the final planned development plan, the owner will establish a cross access easement between the property at 21 W. Benton and the property at 804 S. Riverside Drive (McDonald's restaurant property) at a location acceptable to the City and will agree to close the access point to Benton Street from 21 W. Benton St. and combine and share an access with the property at 804 S. Riverside Drive when that property redevelops through use of the cross access easement; and 4) The applicant will present a more detailed pedestrian circulation and landscaping plan for the site and for the areas along the Iowa River to the City for approval through the design review process prior to issuance of a building permit. The submitted plan should show enhanced vegetation appropriate for the location along the Iowa River, street trees, and landscaped pedestrian routes throughout the site; and 5) The final design of the buildings and the site will be reviewed and approved through the design review process to be consistent with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and other zoning requirements. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Vice -Chair Eastharn at 7:00 PM. Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 - Formal Page 2 of 11 PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Mary Gravitt of 2714 Wayne said she would like to know if the words "workforce housing" are now part of the City Code. She said she finds the term very insulting and asked what happened to the term "affordable housing". She said the term "workforce housing" appeared when Marc Moen decided to build skyscrapers. Holecek said they have not codified it in any way. Gravitt asked if the term "affordable housing" is a legal term in the Code. Holecek responded that it's in a number of City documents, including City Steps and the Strategic Plans. Rezoning Item REZ13-00022 Discussion of an application submitted by Iowa River Redevelopment, LLC for a rezoning of approximately 2.5-acres of property from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Community Commercial (OPD/CC-2) zone located at 21 W. Benton Street and 820 S. Riverside Drive. Howard showed a number of slides of the proposed development and of the property and the neighborhood. She said the applicant purchased this property from Staples and a condition of the sale was that they develop a small retail building next to the Staples property. She explained that what a Planned Development allows an applicant to do is to adjust the plan to further a vision they have by modifying certain underlying zoning requirements. She said in this case they would like to realize the vision of the Riverfront Crossings Plan. She said the proposed building encroaches into the stream corridor buffer. She said the City requires through the Sensitive Areas Ordinance a fifty foot buffer along the Iowa River. Howard said the applicant would like to build closer to the river because they are constrained by the McDonalds and Stapes sites to get the parking they need, and they would like to integrate the building into the riverbank and put in underground parking that is floodable. She showed examples of what that would look like in the ten, one -hundred and five -hundred year flood. She said all the occupied space in the building is above the five -hundred year flood plain. She said the applicant is also proposing public access to the river, construction of the riverfront trail under the Benton Street Bridge, enhanced landscaping along the river, decorative metal screening to hide the parking, and a rooftop terrace. Howard explained that the concept plan proposes parking, retail and restaurant space on the first level, then open space for access to a river terrace, above that would be office space, and then eighteen units of condos on the upper floors. Howard explained that the smaller retail building would use the existing parking lot on the Staples property. She showed a drawing of the proposed plan. Howard said that this proposal goes a long way toward meeting the goals in the Comprehensive Plan for the West Riverfront Sub -District. She said the applicant has agreed to dedicate ten feet along Riverside Drive in order to create a more pedestrian -friendly streetscape in the future. Howard said the applicant has requested an increase in allowable building height from the thirty- five feet that the CC-2 zone allows to up ninety-five feet for the building they are proposing. She said this increased height would be consistent with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, which identifies the opportunity for taller mixed -use buildings along the Iowa to take advantage of river Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 - Formal Page 3 of 11 views and access. Howard reiterated that the applicant is requesting a reduction in the stream corridor buffer. She said because the site is quite constrained by its surroundings, it would be difficult for them to get the parking they need and realize the vision of the Riverfront Crossings Plan without a reduction in that buffer. She said as a part of any significant reduction, the City requires that the vegetative cover in the remaining buffer be enhanced to stabilize the river bank, so staff is recommending that the applicant submit a more detailed landscaping plan with species appropriate to a riverbank location as a condition of approval. Howard noted that because the trail will encroach into the Iowa River Floodway the applicant must obtain a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) permit to show that there's no rise in the flood level for any encroachment into the floodway. She said they are currently in the process of doing that, so there are some uncertainties of exactly how the building and the trail are going to interface. She said the applicant has presented both the preferred scenario, which is to keep the trail above the 10 year flood level and the worst case scenario, where the trail would be constructed below the 10 year flood level. The applicant has indicated their intent to achieve the preferred scenario, but if after modeling this scenario for the DNR permit it is apparent that it will cause increased flooding downstream, they request allowance to move the trail lower. Staff is comfortable with this approach, as long as the resulting encroachment of the development into the river corridor buffer doesn't foreclose the possibility of extending the trail and the creation of an attractive interface between the trail and the building. Howard noted that the plans for the building design and the site are just conceptual in nature, and there a number of changes that will be necessary to meet all the City's site development standards, improve pedestrian connections, landscaping standards, and details of the building designs to realize the vision of the Riverfront Crossings Plan. However, staff is comfortable with recommending approval with a condition that these details be worked out through the design review process. Howard said that staff feels this is ready for approval with the conditions listed in the staff report that she wishes to be entered into the public record. Staff recommends that REV 3-00022, a rezoning of approximately 2.5 acres of land from Community Commercial (CC-2) to Planned Development Overlay — Community Commercial (OPD-CC-2) for property located at 21 W. Benton Street and 820 Riverside Drive, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1 ) The final design of the development and the resulting encroachment into the required stream corridor buffer will not prevent construction of the Iowa River Corridor Trail; and 2) Prior to approval of the final planned development plan, the owner will dedicate to the City of Iowa City, 10 feet of property along the Riverside Drive frontage of property at 820 S. Riverside Drive to use for public right-of-way purposes; and 3) Prior to approval of the final planned development plan, the owner will establish a cross access easement between the property at 21 W. Benton and the property at 804 S. Riverside Drive (McDonald's restaurant property) at a location acceptable to the City and will agree to close the access point to Benton Street from 21 W. Benton St. and combine and share an access with the property at 804 S. Riverside Drive when that property redevelops through use of the cross access easement; and 4) The applicant will present a more detailed pedestrian circulation and landscaping plan for the site and for the areas along the Iowa River to the City for approval through the design review process prior to issuance of a building permit. The submitted plan should show enhanced vegetation appropriate for the location along the Iowa River, street trees, and landscaped pedestrian routes throughout the site; and Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 - Formal Page 4 of 11 5) The final design ot the buildings and the site will be reviewed and approved through the design review process to be consistent with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and other zoning requirements. Theobald asked about the DNR permit. Howard said the applicant has to show that it won't affect the flood capacity of the rest of the river. Swygard asked about the trail and the landscaping on the trail. Howard said the trail extends to the edge of the commercial property and may be designed in a fashion similar to what's already been built, with rails along some portions. She said the trail would be built to the City's specifications, Thomas asked about the parking requirements. Howard said there is adequate parking with sharing parking with Staples and throughout this whole site, even under the CC-2 zoning standards now for the two new commercial buildings, and the residential parking will be in a below grade structure under the new building along the river. Thomas wondered if there may be an opportunity to reduce the total amount of parking from what's shown on the plans to create a better environment for pedestrians, particularly if people will be living in this location. Howard acknowledged that currently the area along Riverside Drive is an auto -oriented area, so businesses are going to insist on having a certain amount of parking. She said while the Riverfront Crossings Code will likely have a lower parking requirement, it does not set a maximum, so allows the market to determine how much parking is needed over time. She said with the parking sharing with Staples, there may be an opportunity to reduce the amount of parking, but the amount of parking will be market -driven, in general. Eastham asked if the number of surface parking spaces for this property is set by the Code requirements. Howard said the parking the applicant is showing on the plan is the parking they would like to have, and it also happens to meet the requirements for the CC-2 zone. Eastham said he agrees with Thomas about the opportunity to require less parking than what is on the current plans. Howard said it is likely that the new code that is adopted for Riverfront Crossings will have a lower parking requirement, such that it could be reduced. Dyer asked if the Mum's driveway will still exist. Howard said it will remain to provide access to this new property, but if the McDonalds redevelops, they would be required to share the driveway and close the Mum's drive. Eastham asked if there are safety concerns about the traffic turning east and west out of both driveways onto Benton Street. Howard said the Traffic Engineers have said it's not ideal, and it should be closed if there's an opportunity to do so in the future. Eastham asked if residents of the condos will have access to the building during a 500-year flood. Howard said with a 500-year flood, the building and the parking lot that are to the west of the building are both above the 500-year flood plain. She said the pedestrian access to the building is on west side, but the parking level would be flooded. Theobald said that Howard had mentioned that the City would reimburse the developers for the trail, but if the DNR says it has to be built lower than the ten year flood would the City be just as committed to constructing the trail. Howard said staff is recommending the condition that if for some reason this development would preclude the construction of a riverfront trail, it should not be approved. She said she doesn't think that's going to be the case. Eastham asked what the width is between the trail and the riverbank and the trail and the building. Howard stated that this would vary based on the water level in the river. Howard said Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 - Formal Page 5 of 11 staff is recommending as a condition of approval that once the modeling is complete, that the applicant provide a more detailed landscaping plan to show how the trail will relate to the riverbank and the building. Eastham asked if the trail placement has to be lower due to a DNR ruling would this plan come back before the Commission or would the design be handled by Staff. Howard said the design would be negotiated between the Public Works Department and the applicant, Howard said the applicant has presented worst and best -case scenarios and would like the Commission to consider both of them. Eastharn asked about a driveway that is a route for the trucks delivering to the dock behind Staples. Howard said the City requires businesses to have a network of driveways and aisles in such large parking lots for better circulation. Eastharn asked if the staff considered as a condition additional landscaping in an area of parking stalls to the west of the proposed building. Howard said the only opportunity for enhanced landscaping, due to width requirements of the two-way aisle between the parking spaces, would be between this parking lot and the McDonalds site and whatever they can achieve with planters along their building, which will require some pedestrian access and ramps. Eastham asked if the City will have the authority to approve whatever paving material is used for the parking lot so that it won't deteriorate over time due to the soil conditions on this site and become unsightly. Howard replied that the City does have standards for construction of parking areas, and the developer will have to make sure the soils are appropriate as a base for a parking lot built to City standards. Dyer said she thought in the Riverfront Crossings Plan the parking was supposed to be in back of buildings rather than in front. Howard replied that there are two frontages at this property, Benton Street and Riverside Drive. She said for the new building along Benton Street the parking would be located to the side and underneath the building with the building located closer to the street. She said there is an agreement between the developer and Staples that any new building can't be placed further forward than the Staples building. She explained that this west riverfront area doesn't lend itself well to a form -based code because it's not a typical urban area, so the Code will have a lot of flexibility to mitigate for existing conditions. The goal would be to improve this corridor incrementally over time by increasing the mix of uses and improving conditions for walking and biking. Theobald asked if a reduction in the river buffer zone would preclude public access to the trail. Howard explained that if the applicant can't fit the trail into that space, staff is suggesting that this plan not be approved. Eastharn asked who will have responsibility for maintaining the trail on both this property and its extension. Howard said it would be the City's responsibility. Holecek added that the City will secure public access through a public access easement over the trail. Thomas asked if the retaining wall would also be maintained by the City. Howard said it would. Eastham opened public discussion and invited the applicant to speak. Kevin O'Brian of 351 Hutchinson Avenue said if there couldn't be a trail they would not be interested in developing this site, as it would be to the residents' and merchants' advantage to be able to walk and bike downtown. He said they hope that once the river is improved perhaps even for whitewater kayaking this site will be a trailhead and become a gathering point. He said he owns the McDonalds franchises in town, and he hopes that the corporation will let him use Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 - Formal Page 6 of 11 materials for a remodeling of the adjacent McDonalds that will match those used in the proposed building. O'Brien said that this project will create connectivity from Benton Street to Riverside Drive. Thomas asked if the applicant would be able to modify the landscape on the McDonaids site. O'Brien said they would probably wait until they remodeled the McDonalds site and tie in that landscaping with what they are proposing for the Mums site. O'Brien explained that they brought a concept plan to the Board of Adjustment that would have revamped the McDonald's site to look similar to the Mormon Trek site, but the property owners weren't willing to allow the drives to be combined because of what might happen if McDonald$ wasn't there in the future, He said he hopes that completion of the proposed project will show the McDonalds landowners that this is a long-term project, but he can't guarantee that. Martin asked what the engineers' findings were of how flooding and moving water will affect erosion underneath the proposed site as time goes on considering the density of this project. Matthew Barron of 1924 Muscatine Avenue, engineer for the applicant, said he has thoroughly reviewed the geo-technical report and said the riverbank conditions have existed for a significant amount of time and the soils are ones that remain after extensive river erosion and the existence of the proposed buildings will not affect that condition. Theobald asked how removing organic soils and replacing them with non -organic materials for back -fill will affect run-off into the river. Barron explained that their standard building practice is to strip away the top layer of decomposable organic material within the footprint of the building and replace it with soil material that's structurally sounder. He said the soil that would be taken out would be under the building footprint for the foundation and that the organic soils surrounding the building would remain as is. Theobald said she assumes that when the DNR looks at flooding, they look at that. Howard said that's one reason staff has suggested they work with the applicant to get an enhanced landscaping plan for the portion of the site where they aren't encroaching into the buffer. Thomas asked about wall height above the river and what the wall would be made of. Mark Seabold, an architect for Shive-Hattery, said that will fluctuate with the height of the river and the trail system and follow the profile of the trail system. Mike Muhlenbruch, civil engineer for Shive-Hattery, said the retaining wall constructed to support the trail will likely be three to four feet above the water surface and will most likely be cast in place concrete. Thomas asked if the trail had to come down closer to the river how high above the river would the trail be. Muhlenbruch said it would be a couple feet above normal river elevation. Eastham asked if the river elevation that occurred this spring and early summer have put this trail under water. Muhlenbruch said with the preferred trail level, which is at an elevation of 742 feet with the wall, the water would not have topped the wall. Martin asked if the removal of some of the larger trees for this project will affect the eagle population in the area. She asked if they would have a problem with eagles nesting on the rooftop garden. The applicants said they would work with it. Eastharn asked if there are regulatory considerations where eagles and ospreys may be nesting Planning and Zoning Commission November 7. 2013 - Formal Page 7 of 11 now that would affect development plans. Martin said they are migratory, so they will be here later, and she doesn't know how or if the building and the landscaping will affect that population. Seabold said their landscape architect had visited the site and seen no birds, but they probably would relocate nearby in wooded areas. O'Brien said they think this project will be the gateway for Riverfront Crossings as well as help with the redevelopment of Riverside Drive. He said the applicants would like to expedite the planning process and work with the City in getting the DNR permit and in getting the trail at the desired height. He said they don't want to wait to start work on the rest of the site until they know if they can get the higher trail. Howard stated that they would need to discuss that, but that the understanding was that the modeling would have to be completed prior to commencing construction. Eastham asked what parts of the trail on the west side of the river will be flood -prone between the proposed building and Burlington Street. Muhlenbruch said the point under the Benton Street Bridge will be the lowest point. Eastham asked if there is a way for trail users to get around the trail on this property if it is lower and floods. Muhlenbruch said at the southern end of the property there will be a walk that comes up from the trail. Howard said there are still adjustments to be made to some of the pedestrian connections to ensure that there is a clear route through the property to Riverside Drive and to Benton Street, which would become the alternate routes for the trial if it were to flood. Eastham asked where the air conditioning units will be placed. Seabold said it's an approximately 10,000 square foot roof, and there will be mechanical equipment on it that they will screen from view. Thomas asked how the corridor wall running along the west side of the building will be constructed. Seabold replied that it would be a glass wall looking to the west with a vegetative screen on the outside. He said they are still working on the design of the west facade. Theobald asked how much green space there will be on the roof. Seabold said it would be beyond the ten percent required. Dyer asked if there are plans to seek LEEDs certification for this proposed building. Seabold said not necessarily, but they are looking at all the sustainable strategies they can use. Howard informed the Commission that she received a phone call and an email before the meeting from Tom Bender, a business owner located to the south of the proposed site, and he expressed his support of the development and particularly the extension of the trail that can be extended south to provide benefit the larger area. (Due to a computer glitch Howard was not able to print the email and distribute it to the Commission prior to the meeting, so she wanted to verbally inform the Commission. This correspondence will be distributed to the City Council with the other meeting materials). Eastham asked for public comment. Ruth Baker of 515 Benton Street said this project is something that should be approved. She said O'Brien does a good job of taking care of his properties. She asked for clarification about a sidewalk going out to Riverside Drive. Howard showed Baker how a sidewalk could be integrated into the parking lot. Baker asked if there is a vision for the smaller building on the south side of the site. Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 - Formal Page 8 of 11 Eastham pointed out a concept plan for that building and said the use has not been determined yet. Howard said the idea is that the building should meet the goals of the Riverfront Crossings Plan. Baker said she liked the idea of taking up some of the Staples large concrete parking expanse She said this project would be encouraging for other businesses in the area and hopefully a starting point to improve the appearance along Riverside Drive. Eastham closed public discussion. Thomas moved to recommend approval of REZ13-00022, a rezoning of approximately 2.5- acres of land from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Community Commercial (OPD/CC-2) for property located at 21 West Benton Street and 820 South Riverside Drive and that it be approved subject to the five conditions entered into the record by staff during the presentation this evening. Martin seconded. Theobald said she thinks this is a beautiful building and has obviously had a lot of thought put into it. She said her one concern is the way it addresses the river, and she thinks the eagles are a huge part of that area. She noted that she had recently seen an osprey swooping over the river in that area, and she hopes in the process of more detailed landscape plans that is taken into consideration. She said she thinks the wildlife and the river are a big part of the attractiveness of the area and could be an asset for the building. She said she's really excited about the project. Martin said she completely agrees with that. She asked if there are laws stopping property owners from actively trying to shoo eagles away. Holecek said she didn't know. Eastham asked if staff might give some thought to the Riverfront Crossings Plan's provisions for paying attention to wildlife habitat along the river corridor. Miklo said they discussed at staff level that this was one of the few places where it perhaps made sense to reduce the fifty foot buffer because it's right at the Benton Street Bridge, and it has access to the Ned Ashton Park. Martin said she agrees with where this is at at this stage of the design, but she wants to bring the wildlife habitat issue up so the Commission is thinking about it as there is more development. Eastham asked if during the development of the Riverfront Crossings Plan there was discussion if a fifty foot buffer was enough along both sides of the river for wildlife to use as habitat, Miklo said farther to the south on the east side much of the land will be under public control so there will be a much wider natural area. He said that by reducing the buffer at this site, they are not committed to reducing it anywhere else. It will be on a case by case basis. Thomas said this is a difficult site. He said he thinks the project complies with the Riverfront Crossings Plan in terms of building height and density, but the real challenge is with the context. He said the project succeeds as it relates to the riverfront, and he appreciates the idea of using the trail as a means of connection, but he feels that on the west side of the project there is no connectivity to Riverside Drive. He said as the process continues, he would like to see that addressed so that the area won't simply be an automotive experience, but also a pleasant Planning and Zoning Commission November 7. 2013 - Formal Page 9 of 11 pedestrian experience for people in Ine neighborhood. He said tie really would like to see the site plan taken further before signing off on it. He said he would like to see this as an opportunity for the applicant to redesign the whole corner of Benton Street and Riverside Drive. Theobald asked if the trail on Highway 1 will connect to this one. Miklo said currently it is not planned, but in the long-terim they hope to. Swygard said she views this project as very positive for this neglected and under -developed part of town. She said one of the goals with the Riverfront Crossings Plan was to create more of a view of the river, and the proposed building actually will block it from the west. She said the second building blocks any sort of visual corridor, but she likes the way it was designed to blend in with Staples and start to create a visual cohesion for the area. She likes the breeze -way in the center of the main building that will provide for river viewing. She would like to see more windows on the north wall of the second building to open up the building as viewed from the north, She would like rails on the trail to ensure public safety. Eastham said he sees the difficulties in trying to make pedestrian attractiveness fit with this part of Riverside Drive. He said this may be helped by the fact that three -fifths of this building will be residential, unlike any other building currently in this area on the west side of the river. He said the design of the building is very attractive. He said orienting the balconies to face the northeast is a brilliant idea. He said at least they are trying to make some sort of pedestrian utilization of this area. He said they do need to pay attention to the wildlife habitat as they go forward with development of the area. He said this project is a good idea. Swygard said she has a big concern about the two drives, especially the one closest to the bridge, as traffic makes a left-hand turn out of it extremely difficult. Dyer said she's been hoping for years that someone would build a building that's not just a rectangle, but this one is a pretty nice rectangle, She's pleased that it's not privatizing the river She said interest in maintaining the trail is really important. Eastham commended the staff for working so hard to get the proposal to this point A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. Consideration of Meetina Minutes: October 17, 2013 Swygard moved to approve the minutes. Theobald seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. OTHER Holecek introduced Eric Goers from the City Attorney's Office who will be staffing the Commission's meetings during Sara Greenwood Hektoen's absence. ADJOURNMENT: Swylgard moved to adjourn. Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 - Formal Page 10 of 11 Dyerseconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote. z 0 Fn U) 0 z E 0 N 06 CD z E z 0 LU z z LU C4 x x LLJ I 0 Xxxx LU - 0 X X LLJ 6) x xx oxx—xxxxl LU 0 C)axxxxxx! LU "XXXXXXXI ;5 ;-�Xxxx,xx �Xxxxxxxl C4�xxxxxx! LLJ 0 x x x x X XO LU 1 -XXXXXXXI !�!Xxxxxxxjl �Xxxxx xx JXXXXX!Xx NIXXXXXIXX C.) %,�Xxxx a I i xx (D o m r-- o w o m LO U) Lip) 1�5 0 LO LO �-X00000000 LLI w :3 w < z M 4 Z CO -j -J < Z X Z LU 0 M X m 0 0 <:c 0 0 -') w2�c6m dw c6-r �- u 4 �e ZFW w w dx 0: P: im a L>U 1 �4- w LU 0 0 z 0 < w Ix U. 2 0 0 LL 9 6 zxxxxx X 0) Lo �Xxxxxxx OXXI Lu 0 x x xx AXXXXXXX xxxxxxx c V Lu I-OXXXXXX Ix x x x ui - X X C4 0 x x x x x I 7 0-XXXXXI W 0 w 0 LU I 0 x w I 0 xxx LU I 0 x x xmx x L, I 0 VI) X X :X x �j 0 x i�y 0 r, 00 �Ixxxx 1 LU 0 LLJ LU W CL �5 L'o L'o L'o '1�5 �-X0000000 LU w w z Ix Z Z Z UJ x 0 0 0 IL o 2 (n wcexw-4<w N 2WWWAX LU OM z W LL a I- -a c (D �.2 Lx) E a) 0 0 CL<<Z 11 11 11 11 x o LIU 0 w �e PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY NOVEMBER 21, — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Eric Goers OTHERS PRESENT: Cindy Parsons, Patricia Koza RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of SUBI 3-00022, a request for preliminary plat approval of a 3-lot, 0.76-acre residential subdivision located at 220 Lexington Avenue subject to review by the City Engineer. 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. Subdivision Item SUB13-00022 Discussion of an application submitted by Parsons Properties for a preliminary plat of Lexington Green, a 3-lot, approximately 0.75-acre residential subdivision located at 220 Lexington Avenue. Miklo showed a location map of the subject property. He said the property is zoned RS-5 Low Density Single Family, which allows single family homes to be constructed on lots of at least 8000 square feet and a width of at least 60 feet. He showed images of the subject property and the neighborhood. He showed a plan of the subdivision and said that all three lots meet the size requirements. He said the Comprehensive Plan shows the subject property as well as the surrounding area as being appropriate for low density single family residential. Miklo said the plat is laid out in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance. He said unless a preliminary plat doesn't conform to the City's requirements or there is a health or safety issue, the City is obligated to approve a conforming proposal. Mklo said there are steep slopes near the back of the proposed lot #1 but there is no grading proposed within the steep slopes of this subdivision. He said there are some large trees on the proposed subdivision site but there are not enough to constitute a grove, which is regulated by Planning and Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 - Formal Page 2 of 5 the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. He said the applicants have indicated that they will work with the City Forester to save as many trees as possible. He said there's a good chance that the trees on the northern portion of the property will be saved, and it may be possible to save some of the others. Freerks asked how far shy it is of a grove. Miklo replied that a grove requires at least ten trees at least twelve inches in diameter, and there are seven trees on this property that meet that size requirement. Miklo said the proposed design will require three curb cuts onto Lexington, which should not be an issue because of the low volume of traffic. Miklo said the amount of neighborhood open space required is so minimal (700 square feet) that staff is recommending that fees be paid in lieu of and those fees could be used in the nearest park, which is City Park. Miklo said this area has been studied by the Historic Preservation Commission and deemed eligible for the National Register of Historic Properties. He said the Historic Preservation Commission had a neighborhood meeting three years ago to discuss a historic district in this area, but due to some property owner opposition no steps were taken for historic district status, so at this time no Historic Preservation requirements apply to the subject property. Martin asked what the fees are for the green space. Miklo replied that they would be the equivalent of the value of 770 square feet, based on an appraisal or the price of the property. Eastham asked if the sidewalk will be maintained as the subject property is developed. Miklo said it would have to be maintained or replaced to City standards if it is damaged during construction. Eastham said since storm water detention is not required on the subject property can the City make sure that any increased storm run-off be directed toward the street. Miklo said that can be done by the way the gutters are routed, but for developments of this size, run- off is usually insignificant. Freerks opened public discussion. Cindy Parsons, one of the applicants, said she's here to answer questions or address concerns Martin asked if there will be requirements for what type of housing needs to be on those lots. Parsons said there is nothing definite decided, but most likely the three houses will be built to be compatible with the neighborhood. Patricia Koza of 209 Lexington Street said during demolition of the house formerly on this lot, the sidewalk was unusable and people had to walk in the street. She asked if during demolition and construction an alternative sidewalk has to be provided. Miklo said he did not believe so, but if there is concern staff can work with the applicant to see that the sidewalk closure is minimized during construction. Koza said that trees were removed on the subject property so that they no longer constitute a grove. Freerks asked Parsons if there were trees removed in the grove area. Parsons replied that she didn't think there was a grove area as defined in the Code. Freerks closed public discussion. Planning and Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 - Formal Page 3 of 5 Eastham moved to recommend approval of SUBI 3-00022, a request for preliminary plat approval of a Vot, 0.75-acre residential subdivision located at 220 Lexington Avenue subject to review by the City Engineer. Thomas seconded. Eastham said that the Commission's review of applications for subdivisions is limited to ensure that the proposed use and lot areas meet the zoning requirements, and all that appears to be in order in this case. He said there appear to be no requirements that are imposed by the storm water management or other City codes. Thomas said he's concerned about the definition of a grove and the possibility that trees were removed during the demolition of the house. He said he doesn't like to hear that actions have been taken to try and skirt the City's regulations. Miklo said he's looking at a plat that shows the subject property before the house was removed, and it doesn't look like there were enough trees greater than twelve inches in diameter to constitute a grove. He added that if there had been a grove, the Ordinance encourages the retention of as many trees as possible, but doesn't require it. Eastham asked if there are trees that meet the definition of a grove on a property, do the Ordinances prohibit the issuance of a demolition permit and allow the property owner to remove enough trees so there's no longer a grove as defined by the Ordinance. Miklo said if someone owns a single family lot, which the subject property is, and it has a grove of trees, there is nothing that prevents the owner from taking that grove down. He said, though, that if you have a development site and propose a subdivision, then you are not allowed to remove the trees without going through the review process. He said based on the information, he doesn't think that is the case here because the trees didn't constitute a grove. Miklo said if it's done with the intention of developing the site and it's a vacant site, then the Ordinance does apply. Eastharn said the way the ordinances exist now, an owner could sell property to a buyer who as a condition of the purchase requires the owner to remove a grove of trees. He said he wasn't talking about this particular instance. Freerks said she does think that is something for the Commission to discuss. She told the applicant that she thinks it's in their best interest to keep the trees that are such an asset to the neighborhood and will make the lots more desirable. She said if the neighborhood and the community are interested, they should pursue historic preservation and contact the City because this is something that will probably continue to occur in this and other neighborhoods where there are large lots scattered in desirable areas. She said she thinks it's up to the neighborhood to say that they want to have something done about that. She said this application complies with all the zoning standards, and she will be voting in favor. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Consideration of Meetina Minutes: November 7. 2013 Eastham moved to defer the minutes. Theobald seconded. Planning and Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 - Formal Page 4 of 5 A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. OTHER ADJOURNMENT: Dyer moved to adjourn. Swygard seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote. z 0 0 0 L) L) Z 0 IN uj W z cq C� CD C4 06 z w cD z LU 0 ILL z CL Z!Xxxxxxxl tz x x LU x x x x 0 00 LU I x x w I 0 X Ix i 10 x X—Xxxx 0 1 u-) LU xxxxxxi "lxx�xxxxxll co 11 ;-Oxxxx—xxl LU 0 "XXXXXXXII cm LU — 0 X X X co lxlxlxl 1 �Rxxxxxxal Lu "'Xxxxxxxil W) gxxxxxxxll CIO "Xxxxx,lxx 4 �Txxxxx.lxx r4xx;xxx 1 xx (o o m r- in w Lon 25-zz-,-, W M In LO LO U� 0 --- LO 4) �5 �-X00000000 LU w ZIX :3 z LU IM 4 i m < z 0 0 Z < w 0 -4 a�o M :c 0 M Ix 0 LU -3 z LLJ UJI W Lu Is �2 LU �- U) Lu w rm 0 LU z >- 0 < Lu w LL 0 -) z P LU LU ILL K C" � X X x x x X ai U) �Xxxxxxx ox�x L—Uxxxx 0 �:!txxxxxxx m "txxxxxxx C4 V LU x x x x x x C- X X x x 0 X X z4xxxxxxx LU I 0 x x x x x Lli a) LLJ I 0 x LLI I 0 x x x LU a M �Xxxxxx LU 2xxxx—x- LU 0 LU 0 W �lxxxx 10 L.Lj LU LU UJ CL Lo Lo U) Lr) �-X0000000 LU LU LU.j z X Z IM Z Z Lu 0 O< 0 IL 0 M X 0 Z- X U) < LU ui X P: a IN Lu U) ILLj LU 0 z P- 0 < LU X U. U) a) U) =-D U) L) E a,) x Lu (D al U) .00 -0 < < Z It 11 it xow 0 w �e