Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-04-2014 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, September 4, 2014 - 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. Development Item Discussion of an application submitted by Allen Homes for a preliminary plat of Evan Heights, a 10-lot, 3.59-acre residential subdivision located at the NE corner of First Avenue and Hickory Trail. (SUB14-00015) E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: August 21, 2014 F. Planning & Zoning Information G. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: September 18 / October 2 / October 16 Informal Scheduled as needed. CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: August 29, 2014 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Assistant City Attorney Re: Evan Heights Subdivision At your August 21, 2014, meeting you asked for more information regarding the administrative decision to grant an exemption to the sensitive areas ordinance for the Evan Heights subdivision. This is a 10-lot single family subdivision to be built at the northeast comer of Ist Avenue and Hickory Trail, This subdivision will not require the construction of any streets or other "common facilities". It contains a stream corridor and wetland, which are considered protected sensitive areas'. Iowa City Code of Ordinances requires a developer to submit an application for sensitive areas review prior to performing any woodland clearing, grading or any development activity on tracts of land or portions of tracts of land where any regulated sensitive features specified in subsection B of this section exist, unless specifically exempted, (See 14-51-2 (A)), The exemptions are listed under 14-51-2C, which states in relevant part: The following uses, activities, and structures are exempt from the requirements of this article. However, an applicant must first apply for and obtain an exemption, prior to any woodland clearing, grading or development activity on a property. 3. Construction Of Single -Family Or Two -Family Residential Uses: Grading, clearing or development activities on a tract of land for the purpose of construction, landscaping or associated improvements for one single-family use or one two-family use are exempt from the requirements of this article, provided the development activities do not exceed a maximum total of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet in area, and provided there is no encroachment by said activities into a jurisdictional wetland, a designated sensitive areas conservation tract or protected sensitive area. A "tract" is defined as "[a]n abutting group of lots developed for a use or uses which share common facilities, e.g., off street parking, loading and driveways. A "tract" shall be considered a single lot in the application of the requirements of this title." Iowa City Code of Ordinances 14-9A-1. The Evan Heights developer applied for an exemption pursuant to 14-51-2C(3), Staff considered this application, consulted with the City Attorney's Office, and determined that the lots in this subdivision do not constitute a "tracr because there are no shared common facilities. The grading, clearing or development activities will, therefore, be occurring for the purpose of constructing a single family house on each lot. 1 The site also contains steep and critical slopes, but those are not considered "protected sensitive areas." August 29, 2014 Page 2 The applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the construction activities will not encroach on the protected sensitive areas, and therefore, the exemption was approved on the condition that the developer continue to meet the code exemption requirements. Attached hereto for your information is the exemption approval letter provided to the applicant's engineer. In an examination of subdivisions approved since the City adopted the sensitive areas development ordinance, staff found one other similar subdivision that could have qualified for the same exemption. In 2005, the "Lacy's Run" subdivision created three lots- two for single family homes and one outlot that contained steep and critical slopes. All of the infrastructure already existed. The applicant did not apply for an exemption, but instead submitted a sensitive areas site plan, which was approved administratively. Conclusion Evan Heights is a rare subdivision where there are no infrastructure requirements, the development activity on each lot will not disturb more than 20,000 SF ' and there is no encroachment into turisdictiona! weflands or prctected sensitive areas. Additionall-, because a re -zoning S not required, i . Y Council does not have the authority to impose conditions on the developer to address public needs directly caused by the rezoning, The developer applied for an exemption, and because this development meets the "exemption" criteria, the exemption was approved. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY AUGUST 21 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, John Thomas, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Paula Swygard, Phoebe Martin, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Yapp, Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Amelon, Bruce McDonald (855 Cypress Ct.), Jennifer McDonald (855 Cypress Ct.), Jeff Clark (908 N. Gilbert St.) RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of REZ14-00011, an application submitted by XJ-23 LLC for a rezoning of approximately .54-acre of property from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings (RFC-CX) zone at 201 E. Benton Street, 912-914 S. Dubuque Street and designation of 914 S. Dubuque Street as a Historic Landmark. The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of REZ14-00013, an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning of approximately 25.8-acres of property from Central Business Service (CB-2), Central Business Support (CB-5) and Planned High Density Multifamily (PRM) zones to Riverfront Crossings — South Downtown (RFC- SID) zone and Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings (RFC-CX) zone located south of Burlington Street in the South Downtown and a portion of the Central Crossings subdistricts of the Riverfront Crossings District. 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. Development Item �411 -1 E, 11111111 1i Discussion of an application submitted by Allen Homes for a preliminary plat of Evan Heights, a 10-lot, 3.59-acre residential subdivision located at the NE corner of First Avenue and Hickory Trail. Yapp showed the preliminary plat and location maps from an aerial view. He explained that the commission had received a planned development proposal for this a few months ago for 11 Planning and Zoning Commission August 21, 2014 - Formal Page 2 of 8 multi -family units. He stated that after consultation with the Commission and City Council the application was withdrawn and the applicant then submitted the current preliminary plat. Yapp explained that the current proposed plat is largely a single-family subdivision and is 3.59 acres and contains a stream corridor and linear wetlands along the east side of the property. He noted that 10 lots are proposed with eight detached single-family structures and the corner lot for zero - lot line or attached two -unit structure with each structure on its own lot. Yapp stated that this is permitted in the RS-5 zone. No new public streets or utilities are proposed. Yapp stated that stormwater management is accounted for in the regional stormwater facility in Hickory Hill Park. He also stated that the applicant submitted a request to be exempted from the requirements in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The ordinance exempts grading, clearing and development activities for single-family and two-family structures in situations where there are no common facilities or infrastructure proposed and the applicant demonstrates there is no encroachment into a jurisdictional wetland, designated conservation tract or a sensitive area. Yapp said that access management standards state that when land is being subdivided into lots intended for single-family or two-family uses, individual lot access to arterial streets is discouraged. Yapp noted that due to topography it would not be recommended to construct shared driveways, because each dwelling unit would be at a different elevation and require additional grading. Staff does not recommend the requirement for shared driveways. Yapp also stated that the other access management issue is that along arterial streets there should be 150 feet between an intersection and a driveway. This rule would affect the structure on lot 3 in which the applicant would either need to apply for a minor modification or construct a shared driveway off Hickory Trail to serve both lots 2 and 3. Yapp explained that staff finds that this subdivision meets the requirements of the subdivision code and recommends approval. Freerks stated that she had a couple questions. She stated that she has never known anyone to be exempt from the requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, and she stated that she was unsure as to why this was the route. Yapp responded and stated that this one is unusual because it is already zoned RS-5 and there are no public infrastructure improvements proposed. Freerks asked why this subdivision is different from any others and she asked for an explanation as to why this is different. Yapp said that the ordinance states that if there is less than 20,000 square feet of development the subdivision is exempt. Eastham said he believe that the ordnance says 20,000 square feet on a tract of land. Hektoen stated that the application shows that there would be less than 20,000 square feet of disturbed soil and therefor the application can be exempt. Freerks asked about the requirement for a 100 foot buffer from the wetlands. Hektoen stated that the buffer is required if the Sensitive Areas Ordinance applies. She continued that based on the language in the code the application qualifies for an exemption. Eastham then asked to go over the code which discusses the exemption. He stated that there is clearly development activity for more than 20,000 square feet in this subdivision. Hektoen explained that the exemption is for single family lots and when a lot is developed, and there is not disruption to 20,000 square feet of land, and there are no encroachments into the protected sensitive features, then the subdivision is exempt because there are no shared features between lots. Freerks asked what the difference is between other single family subdivisions, because the commission has never approved this before. Hektoen stated that this was the City Attorney's interpretation of the ordinance as it applies to this particular subdivision. She also stated that Doug Boothroy also allowed the exemption because the public infrastructure is already in place Planning and Zoning Commission August 21, 2014 - Formal Page 3 of 8 and there will not be a disturbance of sensitive features for the development of this subdivision. Freerks then referred back to a staff report from December and read a description of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and then stated that based on the description she does not understand the difference. Hektoen stated that this is a different subdivision and the code states that unless otherwise exempt a subdivision needs to comply with the ordinance. She stated that based on the code the applicant has satisfied the requirements for exemption. Freerks stated that she is concerned that standards would not be applied uniformly between subdivisions. Eastham stated that he is also confused and echoes Freerks' concerns. He asked for clarifications on the wetland delineation. Yapp stated that a wetland has been delineated. Eastham then stated that the ordinance, as he understands it, would then require a 100 foot buffer. Hektoen stated that the buffer does not apply on this property because it is exempt from the ordinance. Yapp stated that this subdivision is different because no new infrastructure is needed. Typically new infrastructure is needed and therefor more than 20,000 square feet is disturbed and would not be qualified for an exemption. Eastham asked if staff has calculated the exact amount which would be disturbed as a result of this development. Yapp replied that staff had not because the applicant satisfied the requirements for exemption. Freerks stated that she fears that a precedent will be set that they will not want to follow. Freerks said if this is a loophole in the sensitive areas ordinance, then we should go back and correct this. Thomas asked if actual speed was known for First Avenue. Yapp stated that posted speed is 25 miles per hour. Yapp stated that he would need to look it up, but thought that downhill it was low to mid 30's and uphill it's in the high 20's. Thomas asked the roadway width. Yapp stated that it is a two-lane 31 -foot wide street. Dyer asked if there is room on Lot 1 100 feet from the stream to build a house. Yapp said there was not. She then asked if Lot 1 would be liable to flood. Yapp stated that it is not in the stream corridor itself and that he did not believe it was liable to flood. Freerks opened public discussion Ron Amelon of MMS Consultants introduced himself on behalf of the developer. He addressed the flooding issue and stated that based on their requirements for structure elevation, the subdivision would not flood. The lowest openings on the structure are set at one foot above flood elevation. He stated that in relation to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, the reason this subdivision is exempt is because no public infrastructure improvements are being installed. He said the exemption says anything less than 20,000 and that is the amount of two lots. Freerks asked if he was breaking down the disturbance down to individual lots. Amelon agreed. Thomas asked what flood level Amelon was referring to. Amelon said they would calculate that. Freerks ask if he could address why they won't have shared driveways. Amelon responded that there would be about 8 feet of elevation difference between the homes as you go down the street so it would be difficult to share driveways. There would need to be retaining walls. Bruce McDonald introduced himself as a resident at 855 Cypress Ct. which is located on the northwest corner of this plat. He stated that he is pretty happy with the proposed subdivision but he would like to see the types of homes that would be constructed. He stated that he would prefer shared driveways. He also stated that in regards to flooding, he did not believe that a house constructed on Lot 1 would flood, but if there is a full basement that could be problematic. Planning and Zoning Commission August 21, 2014 - Formal Page 4 of 8 He stated that during heavy rain events the neighboring creek can flood. He did think that flooding should be taken into consideration. Jennifer McDonald introduced herself as a resident at 855 Cypress Ct. and she stated that she heard at their neighborhood meeting that the single-family homes were not feasible and so she was confused when single -families are now proposed. She stated her concerns about flooding on Lot 1 during heavy rain events. Freerks closed public discussion. Thomas moved to recommend approval of REZ14-00015, an application submitted by Allen Homes for a preliminary plat of Evans Heights, a 10-lot subdivision located east of First Ave and north of Hickory Trail. Martin seconded the motion. Eastham stated that he would like to review the discussion of the wetland buffer. He asked if there were a 100 foot buffer, would that affect the ability to build on Lot 1. Yapp stated that if it were required the buffer would make it difficult to develop Lot 1. Eastham said that wetland buffers have been reduced in the past. Yapp stated that reduction in the buffer is not permitted where a wetland is located within a stream corridor. Eastham then asked staff to review why a buffer is required in most cases. Yapp stated that in most cases a buffer is required to prevent paving and structures close to the wetland and also to allow for wetland and prairie vegetation which would typically be planted in the buffer, which helps protect the wetland. Eastham said the buffer would also apply to the eastside where a lot of the vegetation has already been removed. Yapp said the area to the east was developed prior to the adoption of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Freerks stated that she has concerns about this and that she would prefer to defer this and come up with other solutions regarding the buffer. She said that applying the buffer would eliminate Lot 1, still allowing significant development. She also is concerned about the number of driveways onto First Avenue. Martin said she preferred the previous proposal that clustered development away from the wetlands. She does not like this proposal, but the masses have spoken and they prefer this amount of paving so she would vote for this. Theobald said her first home was situated similar to this (Lot 1), and the first time it rained the area flooded. She would support deferral. Thomas stated that he would like to see staff come back with more information in regards to how this subdivision complies. He would not support changing the rules if this is found to be exempt. Hektoen said she would provide more information, but it is unlikely that the City Attorney's opinion will change. Eastham said he would like to see this deferred. He did not recall any case when the 20,000 was considered on a per lot basis. He wanted to understand how the exemption clause interpretation was arrived at. He asked if Thomas would withdraw his motion. Thomas withdrew his motion to approve. Martin seconded. Eastham moved that REZ14-00015 be deferred to the September 4, 2014 meeting. Theobald seconded the motion. Freerks said she was concerned about flooding on Lot land would encourage that it be Planning and Zoning Commission August 21, 2014 - Formal Page 5 of 8 removed from the subdivision. Eastham said he would not rule out approving a plan that includes Lot 1. Dyer said she was concerned about Lot 1 in relation to the buffer and stream. She would prefer that it be eliminated and the area be added to the back of lots 2 and 3. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Rezoning Item REZ14-00011 Discussion of an application submitted by XJ-23 LLC for a rezoning of approximately .54- acre of property from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings (RFC-CX) zone at 201 E. Benton Street, 912-914 S. Dubuque Street and designation of 914 S. Dubuque Street as a Historic Landmark. Miklo stated that as noted there are three individual lots involved in this application. There is currently an office building which is in the process of being dismantled on the corner lot, the center lot is vacant, and the southern lot includes the Tate Arms building at 914 South Dubuque Street. Miklo showed the office building and the Tate Arms from an aerial view. Miklo then showed the commission photos of the Tate Arms. Miklo explained that there are two parts to this application. The first part is to rezone the area to Riverfront Crossing — Central Crossings, which allows mixed -use development. He stated that the second aspect is to designate the Tate Arms as a Historic Landmark. If approved that would require Historic Preservation Commission approval for any changes to the exterior. It also provides some zoning incentives, which would allow transfer of development rights to the remainder of the property and consideration of reduction in parking requirements. The property is in the 500 year floodplain so any development would have to comply with the floodplain regulations. Miklo stated that the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the application last week. The Commission deemed the property to be worthy of Historic Landmark status. The designation is not so much a result of the architecture but instead of the history of the building. Miklo stated that the building functioned as a rooming house for African American students from the 1930's to the 1960's. He said a detailed report on the significance of the building was included in the meeting packet. Miklo stated that staff recommends approval for the both the zone change to the Riverfront Crossings zone and the designation as a Historic Landmark. Martin asked if landmark status would require upkeep to the interior of the house. Miklo stated that the historic preservation regulations only apply to the exterior of the property. Freerks opened public discussion. Jeff Clark stated that he is representing the owner XJ-23. He stated that he has been working with staff. He also stated that the intention is to turn the Tate Arms into a duplex and construct multifamily dwelling units on the vacant lot. He stated that the multifamily building will be 30 to 40 feet away from Tate Arms and between four and five stories. He also stated that the multi- Planning and Zoning Commission August 21, 2014 - Formal Page 6 of 8 family structure will be designed to go well with the Tate Arms. Martin asked staff if there would be further review by the commission. Miklo stated that there would not be. Freerks closed public discussion. Eastham moved to recommend approval REZ14-00011 a request by XJ-23 LLC for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Riverfront Crossings (RFC-CX) zone at 201 E. Benton Street, 912-914 S. Dubuque Street and designation of 914 S. Dubuque Street as a Historic Landmark. Martin seconded the motion. Eastham stated that he thought that the Tate Arms is an important part or Iowa City History and Freerks agreed. Dyer stated that she is excited to see Riverfront Crossings development beginning south of Benton Street. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Rezoning Item REZ14-00013 Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning of approximately 25.8-acres of property from Central Business Service (CB-2), Central Business Support (CB-5) and Planned High Density Multifamily (PRM) zones to Riverfront Crossings — South Downtown (RFC -SD) zone and Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings (RFC-CX) zone located south of Burlington Street in the South Downtown and a portion of the Central Crossings subdistricts of the Riverfront Crossings District. Howard stated that this was a little bit different situation than other rezonings. This time the City, under the direction of the City Council, is initiating this rezoning to help facilitate redevelopment according to the Riverfront Crossings Plan. She stated that in this particular area there is a lot of redevelopment pressure and there is no need for additional infrastructure to be built. Howard showed the property from an aerial view. She also noted that the RM-44 property is the one piece in the South Downtown plan that is in need of additional right-of-way. She noted that the Riverfront Crossings Plan is to reestablish the street grid by reconnecting Capitol Street. She stated that there are a number of publicly owned properties, which would not, be included in this rezoning. Freerks asked when Capitol Street was removed. Howard thought it was in the 1970's during Urban Renewal activities. Freerks opened public discussion. Seeing none Freerks closed public discussion. Eastham moved to recommend approval REZ14-00013 a proposal to rezone approximately 25.8 acres from Central Business Service (CB-2), Central Business Support (CB-5) and Planned High Density Multifamily (PRM) zones to Riverfront Crossings — South Downtown (RFC -SD) zone and Riverfront Crossings — Central Planning and Zoning Commission August 21, 2014 - Formal Page 7 of 8 Crossings (RFC-CX) zone located south of Burlington Street in the South Downtown and a portion of the Central Crossings subdistricts of the Riverfront Crossings District as illustrated in the attached location map included in this packet. Swygard seconded the motion. Eastham asked Howard if there were any results from the Riverfront Crossings meeting that the City hosted on July 22 nd . Howard stated that the meeting attendance was pretty low and that she took that to mean that property owners were satisfied with the rezoning. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: August 7, 2014 Dyer moved to approve the minutes. Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. :1 WA 011011101 RY—Al 011 IIIPF(41 011101 Eel 1011 :14IN T, F—AIIIIIII Il[Q 01 Miklo stated that the design of arterial streets informal meeting could be scheduled for September 18 at 6:00 pm. Howard stated that the planning for the Riverfront Park is starting and they are anticipating a meeting in late October or early November. She stated that the commission would be on the mailing list. rellffi=l;� Freerks asked about mailbox placement on South Dodge Street. She said they are being placed very close to the sidewalk. She asked staff to look into whether the City could influence there location. She would like to see if there is a better solution. ADJOURNMENT: Thomas moved to adjourn. Swygard seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2013-2014 FORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 12/5 12/19 1/2 1/16 2/6 2/20 3/20 4/3 4/17 5/1 6/5 6/19 7/17 8/7 8/21 DYER,CAROLYN 05/16 X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FREERKS,ANN 05/13 X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/17 O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SWYGARD, PAULA 05/15 X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X THEOBALD JODIE 05/18 X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X THOMAS, JOHN 05/15 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 9/19* 1/2 1/13 2/3 2/20 DYER,CAROLYN 05/16 X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/16 X X X X X FREERKS,ANN 05/13 X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/17 X X O/E X X SWYGARD, PAULA_�_ 0515 X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE 05/18 X X X X X THOMAS, JOHN 05/15 X X X X X KEY: X = Present 0 = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused = Not a Member =Work Session