Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-2015 Planning and Zoning Commissionr Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Informal Meeting Monday, March 16, 2015 � 5:30 PM Formal Meeting Thursday, March 19, 2015 7:00 FM ` r Emma Harvat Hall - City Ball ( I MOM • IL f• u+u ! n { r RM4 ,� •M 8 - 12 20 P r 2 r 1 I i�• �...� 1 dl AL ...•. �.0 54r PI Department of Neighborhood and Development Services CITY OF Iowa cITl UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Informal Meeting Monday, March 16, 2015, 5:30 PM Formal Meeting Thursday, March 19, 2015 - 7:00 PM Emma Harvat Hall Iowa City City Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda D. Comprehensive Plan Items 1. Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Clinton St, Jefferson St, Bloomington St and Dubuque St (AKA the North Clinton / Dubuque Street District). 2. Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the portions of blocks north of Iowa Ave and east of Gilbert St; and east of Van Buren St and north of Burlington St, which are not in the Central Planning District E. Rezoning / Development Item Discussion of an application submitted by Focus Commercial Real Estate, LLC for a rezoning of 4.26-acres of land located at 1406 and 1506 N Dubuque Road from Low Density Single - Family (RS-5) zone to Mixed Use (MU) zone and for a preliminary plat of Pleiades First Addition, a 2-lot, 7.15 acre subdivision. (REZ15-000021SUB16-00004) F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: February 3, February 5, and February 19, 2015 G. Planning & Zoning Information H. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: April 2 ]April 16 / May 7 Informal: Scheduied as needed. I r � w � Moak � � CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: March 10, 2015 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: John Yapp Re: Discussion of proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments for: 1. The blocks generally bounded by Clinton St, Jefferson St, Bloomington St and Dubuque St (AKA the North Clinton / Dubuque St District) 2. Portions of blocks north of Iowa Ave and east of Gilbert St; and east of Van Buren St and north of Burlington St, which are not in the Central Planning District (AKA portions of the Civic District) Background The Commission is considering an application to amend the Central District Plan to add certain land east of Van Buren St and north of Iowa Ave. The blocks east of Van Buren St include existing CB-2 and CB-5-zoned properties on the western portions of the blocks, and existing CB-5 and P-zoned properties on the north side of Iowa Ave. The properties along the west side of Johnson St are already within the Central Planning District and are within either the College Hill Conservation District or the College Green Historic District. The Commission is also considering an amendment to add the entirety of the North Clinton, / Dubuque St District to the Central Planning District. Infflll Redevelopment Concerns The Commission has raised several concerns regarding the interface between existing commercial zoning along the same block face as existing residential zoning on the blocks east of Van Buren Street and asked City Staff to consider the possibility of adding language to the Comprehensive Plan and/or Central District Plan to indicate a desire for redevelopment that is sensitive to this interface. In general, infill development/redevelopment raises several challenges including physical constraints and compatibility concerns, regulatory issues, and economic issues, as discussed below. Physical constraints: Redevelopment of infill properties on relatively small sites requires successful 'melding into' the fabric of the other structures on the block to be perceived positively. Issues such as setbacks, building height, land use and the appearance of the front of the building and the streetscape are some of the concerns with redevelopment of infill properties. Opposition to infill redevelopment can center on design compatibility, Increased density, and different housing types and land uses from what existed on the property previously. Regulatory Issues: Regulatory requirements can work against consistency with nearby properties in terms of required setbacks, land use and other dimensional standards. For example, the CB-2 and CB-5 zones have a maximum 12-foot front setback in order to March 13, 2015 Page 2 encourage bringing structures close to the sidewalk to promote pedestrian -oriented building design. In contrast, the RNS-20 and RM-12 muiti-family residential zones have a minimum 15- foot front setback for single-family/duplex or 20-foot front setback for multi -family structures to encourage front yard space. Regarding land use, the CB zones require commercial or office uses on the first floor, while multi -family zones do not allow commercial uses. Economic Issues: Land costs are often higher for infill sites, and construction costs can be higher due to difficulty in staging equipment and materials due working on smaller sites. The pre -construction process can be more time consuming if zoning is proposed to be changed, or a planned development is pursued. Pursuit of special exceptions or modifications to code requirements for parking or setback reductions takes time and investment, and the msuits are uncertain. All of these factors can lead to a property owner seeking the highest density possible under the existing zoning classification regardless of how the project fits into the larger block. Benefits of infill development- There are benefits to infill development, including the redevelopment of under-utilized property, establishing new land uses, redeveloping functionally - obsolete structures, and increasing densities within walking distance to downtown. Infill. development reduces demand on development of farmland, reduces the need for additional infrastructure and reduces demand on City services. To be successful, these benefits should ideally be balanced with compatibility with other structures and uses on a block face. Historic Preservation The Commission also raised concerns about the potential impact of redevelopment for the subject areas. It should be noted that the Central District Plan already includes a goal of supporting the goals and objectives of the Historic Preservation Plan which includes identifying and pursuing designation of historic buildings. At the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed the North Clinton/Dubuque Street District and the Civic District and offers these findings: In the North Clinton/Dubuque Street District, HPC found that the Saxnay-Gilmore house at 109 E. Market would qualify individually, on its own merits, for historic landmark status and should be given special attention for preservation. Although some properties owned by the !University of Iowa, such as 230 N. Clinton Street, may have architectural and/or historic significance, other than 109 E. Market Street, HPC did not find any privately owned properties which would appear to be individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, nor did HPC find sufficient properties of note to constitute a historic or conservation district. It should be noted that HPC's review was limited to properties within the boundaries of the North Clinton/Dubuque Street District. There may be significant historic properties located farther north on Clirton, Dubuque and the side streets that could be considered for landmark status. HPC plans to evaluate those properties this year. In the Civic District areas under discussion (north of Iowa Ave and east of Van Buren St) HPC determined that although properties such as 410 and 422 Iowa Avenue have some architectural significance, HPC did nct find sufficient properties to constitute a historic or conservation district within the Civic District. Noting the proximity of the area to the College Green and Jefferson Street Historic Districts, HPC was sensitive to the need for thoughtful interface between historic properties and potential redevelopment. March 13, 2015 Page 3 Options The Commission is now being asked to consider amending the comprehensive plan to add these properties (see attached exhibits) to the Central District Plan. The effect of adding these properties to the Central Planning District is they will become subject to the goals and policies of the Central District Plan. While this does not have the effect of amending the zoning code, it may be appropriate amend the goals to the Central District Plan to mitigate the concerns discussed above. Staff considered multiple scenarios for such a goal, and recommends that a goal for a zoning code amendment to address setbacks, height, and landscaping for CB -zoned prcperties on the same block face is appropriate. In addition, staff acknowledges that commercial lard uses (as required on the first floor of CS properties) are not always appropriate or desired along a residential block face due to potential incompatibilities. Staff recommends that the Central District Plan be amended to add a "Housing and Quality of Life Goal' to consider amendments to the 06-2 and CB-5 zoning code for circumstances when CB-2 and CB-5 properties are on the same block face as residential properties, to require front setbacks, building height step-downs, landscaping, and other zoning regulations to promote compatibility with residential properties on the same block face. Staff also recommends developing a mechanism to provide an exemption from the requirement for commercial 'and uses on the first floor in the CB-2 and CB-5 zones, and provide for multi -family design standards to apply to CB-2 and CB-5 multi -family properties. Staff considered the option of rezoning those CB-2 and CB-5 properties in this area to the mixed -use zoning designation. Staff, however, does not recommend adding this as a goal to the Central District Plan for the reason that such rezoning amendment was proposed in 2005, was strenuously resisted by the property owners, and therefore the application failed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE BLOCKS GENERALLY BOUNDED BY CLINTON ST, JEFFERSON ST, BLOOMINGTON ST AND DUBUQUE ST (AKA THE NORTH CLINTON DUBUQUE ST DISTRICT) 1. Staff recommends the North Clinton / Dubuque St properties be added to the Central Planning District Land Use Map, as shown on Exhibit A 2. Staff recommends the Central District Plan be amended to add the following goals: A. Housing and Quality of Life Goal #1(h): Review the Multi Family Design standards to ensure they meet the goal of an attractive streetscapes in gateway corridors B. Transportation Goal #3(k): invest in the streetscapes of Dubuque St and Ciinton St to highlight their function as gateways to downtown Iowa City and the University of Iowa east campus C. Transportation Goal #3(h): As Dubuque St, Clinton St and other area streets are redesigned / reconstructed incorporate complete streets principals into their design 3. Staff recommends the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan text and map be amended for consistency with this proposed change to the Central District Plan March 13, 2015 Page 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON PORTIONS OF BLOCKS .NORTH OF IOWA AVE AND EAST OF GILBERT ST; AND EAST OF VAN BURN ST AND NORTH OF BURLINGTON ST, WHICH ARE NOT IN THE CENTRAL PLANNING DISTRICT (AKA PORTIONS OF THE CIVIC DISTRICT) 1. Staff recommends that the Central District Plan be amended as follows: A. Adding the portions of blocks north of Iowa Ave and east of Gilbert St; and east of Flan Buren St and north of Burlington St to the Central Planning District as shown in Exhibit B 2. Add a Housing and Quality of Life Goal to the Central District Plan to consider amendments to the CB-2 and CB-5 Zones related to design and land use compatibility issues on block faces with residential develcoment 3. Staff recommends tije_jC2030 Comprehensive Plan text and map be amended for consi ncy "t this ptpose ge to the Central District Plan Approved by: Doug ElooWroy, ire Department of Neighborhood and Development Services Attachments Central District Plan EXHIBIT A North Clinton / Du Z O Z Z M U ue Street District DAVENPORT Proposed Addition to the Central Planning District I BLOOMINGTON Low -Medium Density MF Stabilization - High Density Multi-Fam ® Open Space Public Institutional ® Riverfront Redevelopment - Private Institutional Single -Family Residential Stabilization Low to Medium Density Multi -Family Single -Family & Duplex Residential ® High Density Multi -Family Redevelopment Mixed Use Urban Mixed Use _ Neighborhood Commercial _ Urban Commercial ® Commercial Redevelopment Office Commercial - Intensive Commercial - General commercial Document Path: S:\PCD\Kirk Lehmann\GIS\MapslPlanning\Central Planning District\CentralPlanningAdditionNDubuque.mxd fZxHIBIT s Civic District Proposed Addition to the Central Planning District WASHINGTON Low -Medium Density MF Stabilization - High Density Multi-Fam - Open Space ® Public Institutional ® Riverfront Redevelopment - Private Institutional Single -Family Residential Stabilization Low to Medium Density Multi -Family Single -Family & Duplex Residential ® High Density Multi -Family Redevelopment t.7 Mixed Use jj Urban Mixed Use _ Neighborhood Commercial - Urban Commercial ® Commercial Redevelopment Office commercial - Intensive Commercial General commercial JEFFERSON Z O G7 Z 2 O n Document Path: S:%PCD1Location Maps120151Civic District\CivicDistrictNewBoundary.mxd 5 Z li I I �_ _ li C®1 ' �12 z I I J i LO is RM44 [Col ------ _L. —.,0 Z - - 7--=; z z , - - �I$2'1 I L QB I m ------ i ; l — --r— T tB21 !RM12 711 F'- 4- PI J .z w E OLLEG ST T— Colo 20 - -_-_- _ P1 _.�— - - - J i - -- , ii E B LINGTON ST — —_ — — Historic and Conservation Districts V%J College Green Historic District 1I CBS j lege Hill Conservation District i i R h� Col-----i Jefferson Street Historic District A_ I i • Zoning designations available online at: Document Path: S:1PCD\Location Maps\CivicDistrictZoning.mxd http://w .icgov.org/site/CMSv2/File/planning/urban/ZoningMap.pdf a $4 feet i ■ M rW= YAlA-AWC feet feet i, a A `1�. 'u15 24 4. fee feett feet 'feet feet 0 feet I , a20`eet 4 .•�i it --= ■ i . Irt� ��'•+.T I• 42 feet { 5feety -4f11 ' 0 feet feet-.j :r4 , Ill �� 18 feel 0feet a- NNW1 k ' C IlP�, 4620 'y{ . ,1 B feetr� `43fifeeF ,15 feet 'leet7 4\ .fit L� 1 w., L" y '• V{s` Setbacks are measured from _ -i • the face of the structure to the property line on the .i ► ��T 18 fronting street. � [. AF.JF a- f y 17 feet feet 18lfeet f�gt' feet Land Use reef feet Residential ,� �r w �' •7 .,6feet Commercial 65fear- lzat- 12Meef �.. 1t Office E BURLINGTON ST Mixed Use N Public Zoning designations available online at: Document Path: S:1PCD1Location Maps\CivicDistrict.mxd http://ww .icgov.org/site/CMSv2/File/planning/urban/ZoningMap.pdf STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: John Yapp and Bailee McClellan, Planning Intern Item: REZ15-00002/SUB15-00004 Pleiades First Addition Date: March 19, 2015 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Focus Commercial Real Estate, LLC 1805 State Street, Suite 101 Bettendorf,IA 52722 Contact: Jason Harder 319-360-2564 jasonh@buildtosuitinc.com Property Owner: Pleiades LLC 6320 Berkshire Pass Leesburg, FL 34748 Requested Action: Rezoning from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) to Mixed Use (MU) for one lot (4.26 acres) and Preliminary Plat approval for the entire property Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District: File Date: To allow a 2-lot subdivision and development of a medical clinic Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street 7.15 acres Vacant, RS-5 North: Residential, OPD-5 South: Developing Residential, RM-12 and Vacant, RS-8 East: Sensitive Areas, RS-5 West: Commercial, CN-1 and Residential, RS-8 North District Plan N1- Dubuque Road January 29, 2015 45 Day Limitation Period: Waived to March 19 l: BACKGROUND INFORMATION The applicant, Focus Commercial Real Estate, LLC, has requested a rezoning from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Mixed Use (MU) zone for 4.26 acres of property and preliminary plat approval of Pleiades First Addition, a 2-lot, 7.15 acre subdivision located at the northeast corner of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street. Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision consists of the southwestern 4.26 acres of the property and Lot 2 consists of the northeastern 2.78 acres. 0.32 acres will be dedicated as a right-of-way along Dubuque Road. The applicant has requested a rezoning for Lot 1 to the MU zone to allow for the development of a medical clinic. The applicant has used the Good Neighbor policy and held a neighborhood meeting on March 10. A summary of the Good Neighbor meeting is attached. ANALYSIS: Current and proposed zoning: The current zoning of this property is for Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5), which allows single family homes with a minimum of 8,000 square feet of lot area and a minimum lot width of 60 feet. Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision will remain zoned RS-5 for single family use. The applicant has requested rezoning to Mixed Use (MU) zone for Lot 1 which provides a transition from commercial areas to less intensive residential zones. Permitted uses in the MU zone include lower scale retail and office use, and a variety of residential uses. Medical offices are permitted uses in the MU zone. Special consideration of building and site design is required for developments in the MU zone Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan- North District Plan land use map indicates that the southern portion of Lot 1 is appropriate for Mixed Use development while the northern portion is appropriate for low density residential uses. The plan indicates that Mixed Use areas are appropriate for commercial uses that emphasize retail, service, and office uses that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff believes that the MU zone is appropriate for Lot 1 due to the low -intensity officelcommercial nature of the proposed medical office building. As noted, the Comprehensive Plan identifies this corner for mixed use development. The North District Plan land use map indicates that residential use is preferred on the north end of the property — Lot 2, which is proposed to remain single family residential, accomplishes this goal. Compatibility with neighborhood: The area between Prairie du Chien Road and Dubuque Road currently contains commercial uses, including the old and new HyVee grocery stores, along the north side of N. Dodge Street and a mix of residences, offices, and a cemetery along the south side of N. Dodge Street. The proposed medical clinic on Lot 1 will be compatible with the commercial uses to the west. North Dodge Street will provide separation between the subject property and the property to the south that is currently being developed with multifamily residences. Lot 2 is adjacent to existing single family homes; low density single family development on this property will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: Lot 1 of the property contains steep slopes and Lot 2 contains steep, critical, and protected slopes as designated in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Both lots together also contain 4.29 acres of woodland. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance indicates that a property zoned MU is required to retain 10 percent of the woodlands and that property zoned RS5 must retain 50 percent of the woodlands. Additionally the retained woodland area must be surrounded by a 50 foot buffer. The applicant has indicated that all of the required woodland retention will occur on the eastern portion of Lot 2, to retain a contiguous approximate 58,000 SF of wooded area. Staff notes that the critical and protected slopes also occur on the eastern portion of Lot 2, and will be undisturbed. As the applicant is meeting the requirements for a Level I Sensitive Areas review (critical and protected slopes are not proposed to be disturbed, and the required woodland retention requirement is being met) therefore a Sensitive Areas rezoning is not required. Conformance to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance will be reviewed administratively. Lighting: Light trespass standards are intended to prevent light from one property extending beyond the property line onto adjacent properties. Lighting fixtures must be downcast and shielded such that the bulb is not directly visible from any adjacent residential zoned property or public right of way. Light fixtures within 300 feet of a residential zone are required to be no more than 25 feet in height. The City will review the lighting plan for Lot 1 during the site plan process. Screening: S2 screening is the generally required buffering treatment that uses distance and low level screening to separate uses from the public right of way, from other zones, to define edges and separate vehicular areas from pedestrians. Staff recommends that for the parking area of Lot 1, S3 screening be implemented. The S3 standard is a buffering treatment that uses dense landscape screening to provide a visual and physical separation between uses and zones. The S3 screen requires enough shrubs and evergreens to form a continuous screen or hedge which matures to at least five feet to six feet in height more than 50 percent solid year round. Berms may be used in conjunction with a hedge to achieve an overa!I height of six feet. Staff recommends S3 screening be implemented along the west and north sides of the parking area for Lot 1. Staff also recommends that the parking area be set back at least 15 feet from the Dubuque Rd right of way — this setback is equivalent to the minimum setback for a structure in a residential zone. These conditions help address one of the concerns expressed at the Good Neighbor meeting regarding screening of the parking area. Parking Area: One comment staff had, and which was brought up at the Good Neighbor meeting, was the proposed size of the parking area. The full size of the parking area would be 223 stalls. 'While the design and mix of exam rooms in the proposed medical clinic is not yet finalized, 223 stalls is in excess of what the City would require for parking. Staff has discussed 'landbanking' rows of parking along the north and north-east sides of the parking area (shown. as 'Phase 2 Parking' on the concept plan) and not paving this parking initially. Staff recommends a condition of zoning that the 'Phase 2 Parking' be permitted to be paved only if approved by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services based on evidence of need. Traffic implications: Access to the proposed medical clinic on Lot 1 is off of Dubuque Road, opposite the access drive to the Hy Vee site. Expected traffic generation from a medical clinic of this size is in the range of 1,300 vehicles per day, using the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation Manual. Staff notes that for a clinic use, the majority of this traffic is spread throughout office hours (typically during the day and early evening). N Dodge St and the short segment of Dubuque Rd that is affected are easily able to accommodate this traffic. N Dodge St already has left- and right -turn lanes at Dubuque Rd, and Dubuque Rd has a left turn lane onto N Dodge St. Traffic generation on Dubuque Road from a single family dwelling on Lot 2 will be minimal. Neighborhood Open Space: The Neighborhood Open Space Requirements reaulre 2,621 square feet of dedicated open space or fees in lieu of for the 2.78 acres of Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision. Given that the small size of this dedication is insufficient for use as public open space, staff recommends fees in lieu of open space dedication be paid equal to 2,621 square feet of property. The Parks and Recreation Director has concurred. This requirement will need to be addressed in the legal papers for the final plat. Stormwater: Stormwater management is provided in the regional Hickory Hill stormwater facility. No on -site stormwater management is required, provided the applicant can show stormwater runoff can be handled by the existing stormwater pipes under N Dodge St. This will be confirmed as part of the site plan review process for Lot 1 Infrastructure fees: A water main extension fee of $415 per acre is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ15-00002, a rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to Mixed Use (MU) for 4.26 acres of property located at the northeast comer of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street subject to a Conditional Rezoning Agreement requiring: 1. Staff approval of a landscaping plan in conjunction with the site plan for Lot 1 showing a minimum S3 screening along the west and north sides of the parking area, and a minimum 15 foot setback of the parking area from the Dubuque Rd right of way. 2. Parking along the north and east property lines of Lot 1, identified as 'Phase 2 Parking' on the Site Concept Plan, remain unpaved unless approved by the Director of the Department of Neighborhood Services based on evidence of need. 3. General conformance with the site concept plan dated March 5, 2015. Staff recommends approval of SUB15-00004, a preliminary plat of Pleiades First Addition, a 2-lot, 7.15 acre subdivision located at the northeast corner of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Maps 2. Rezoning Exhibit 3. Concept Site Plan 4. Aerial Photograph 5. Excerpt from North District Plan land use 6. Summary of Good Neirbcr 7. Preliminary Plat ,( Approved by: Neighborhood and Development Services S:1P=Staff Reports120151REZ15-CCC�2 SUB15-00004 Dubuque ROad1REZ15-00101 SUB15-00002 Dubuque Road staff report 2.dotx ` C C O N d y� N N C O G a N d a rn c 'c O N a x E v 0 0 0 0 m 7 0 ry N 4 e6 Q u 0 J s1. U a_ N c m a d E u 0 m v c c 0 v a m ro a m u c 0 c rn N 0 V Q C C n w��wm H oow� �z 5� �i F O m0 m O N z NSsZ s �28 X w wr280 W V ZNO r❑wz O Z HaH4am Z o owhi Z z zyo0 00 o ", N 5 P,:Cz � O 0, 8v ¢ ¢ z 30 y$}a' � � c I o = m e Jzz CJ Wa7E r wy3z 7 ..CD s" E 0 }yo �o rcjig ^� O1a E a Z Z Z rZ 'Gaze UU) z o ON aiLLw 0w I a W a 00 0 ��0� d y GV ��s°rSZuao-�'�g `ryp �3V§e cnif «iio0� �d 2'h��mES'Et8 Ap P�0 A S� J U m� a� a� z� a: of N Ir o€: i €€0 0- w u a E, i �\ 3,SO,l LION �2 y C rc�mm vJ u.iZ Z �£ by boo^, '� 52V` �� Lu0 0 h .. 4y �S % ag U Z p, V a¢Uo zo g5z ma E 'O WZ ~® fn Z 55c) NO VJ ti `LU QQ vW®� o; Z�®� L) OL LU� Z a �0 o � 0IMMEM m. a G North District Plan Map February 2001 77 tN, 71 MGM UT-MU77 ITI M v'i 4 M m %0010 04 DAM" I m 94 1 wmllm!, �rllt J) wm'm' n 0 The FM I Ham-. m in rim, MOM rp �Z',21 galp!!Ls -4- 1 Summary Report for Good Neighbor Meeting Project Name: tt0 t ! P gf6Qjk_15 _Project Meeting date and Time: a� • �i { J Meeting Location:. 5/4fih Names of Applicant Representatives attending: Names of City Staff Representatives attending: —,J Cam% Number of Neighbors Attending: ? Sign -in Attached? Yes expressed regarding project (attach .1 I r a7 CITY OF IOWA CITY m If necessarv) - Will there be any changes made to the proposa based on this input? If so, describe: y J Staff Representative Comments UP01 M 1917 5Gilbert Street lowa City, lowa 52240 M �n/�] pp/��` Consultants, 319,351.8282 Experts In Planningand Development Since 1975 mmsconsultants.net mms@mmsconsu(tantsnet March 10, 2015 4 I Good Neighbor Meeting Sign in Sheet i Shimek Elementary Media Center -1400 Grissell Place, Iowa City 1406 & 1506 N Dubuque Rd j E Name Address E-mail 1. PCtyic! (J1IR (C{ iSi7 N, Dublagxe c( daui .lun(aP��' si �L y i 2. /c / 3. V' r j \ r't , Ci i 1 e.. \. t-0 `-/ l6 / 2- DLt b a- oI C d \ i!z ;' i ; C -?4e-1rO. ' r 4.711AA { IEAGL£ (�^(Q(VA1404uG deb, Yl� t. o�rtei —� u 0 1 Yts .mc:154 6.- 6. Lq!`i �J�Ci 1�10 Cp1K� h p %oly %6Qt�'Ma;`.co�r QJ pODC,f sr un I 8. I Cp s Q j 9. ro c J 10 .i 11. ` i 12. . j 13. c 14.', � , 15. l - { 16. 17. 1 W11111 if, MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Dyer, STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Robert Miklo, Tim Hennes, Karen Howard OTHERS PRESENT: John Hieronymus, Josh Busard, Randy Miller, Duane Musser CALL TO ORDER Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 to recommend approval of REZ14-00008, a rezoning of 1.36 acre parcel from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) to Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) and SUB14-00008, a preliminary plat of Silver Slope, a 21-lot, approximately 17-acre residential subdivision located at the northwest corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard. The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 to recommend approval of REZ15-00003, an application to rezone 12,000 S.F. (0.275 acres) of land located at 800 S. Dubuque Street from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1). The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 to recommend approval of REZ15-00001, a request to rezone approximately 3.97 acres of property located at 1201 S. Gilbert Street from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Riverfront Crossing -South Gilbert (RFC -SG), be approved subject to a c Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring that prior to issuance of a building permit for any redevelopment on the site, the applicant: • Dedicate land necessary for the required pedestrian street rights -of -way, Ralston Creek pedestrian street, and Gilbert Street right-of-way improvements as described in this staff report; and • Grant a public cross access easement in a location parallel to and west of Gilbert Street as determined by the City that will provide safe traffic circulation and access to rear parking areas for the subject property as well as for adjacent properties located along Gilbert Street from Kirkwood Avenue to Highway 6. At the time of development this public cross access easement must be constructed as a private rear alley that provides access to parking areas located behind buildings as illustrated in the Riverfront Crossings Plan. The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 to recommend approval of SUB15-00003 preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 6, a 4.59-acre, B- lot residential subdivision located west of Mackinaw Drive and south of Manitou Drive. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 2 of 15 None. REZONING / DEVELOPMENT ITEM fREZ14-00008/SUB14-00008 Discussion of an application submitted by Hieronymus Family Partnership for a rezoning of 1.36 acres from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) zone to High Density Single Family (RS-12) zone and for a preliminary plat of Silver Slope, a 24-lot, 17.85 acre residential subdivision located north of Muscatine Avenue and west of Scott Boulevard. Miklo stated the applicant has submitted a revised preliminary plat that is similar to the version recommended for approval.by the Commission in June 2014. The new plat differs in that Lot 23 is no longer included, and lots 21 and 22 have been combined into one lot that is now labeled as Lot 1 of Part 1 of Silver Slope. Part 1 also includes Outlot A which contains the grove a trees that the applicant wishes to protect. Like the previous version, there 19 are single-family lots located in Part 2 along Silver Lane. Because no new development will occur in Part 1, storm water management facilities will not be required for that part. With the new design the grove of trees on Outlot A will be permanently protected and there is a rational for not extending Silver Lane to the south. Staff recommends that REZ14-00008, a rezoning of 1.36 acre parcel from single-family residential (RS-5) to multi -family (RM-12) and SUB14-00008, a preliminary plat of Silver Slope, a 21-lot, approximately 17-acre residential subdivision located at the northwest corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard be approved. Eastham questioned that Outlot A would not be dedicated to the City and Miklo confirmed it would be private ownership, Parks and Recreation looked at it decided it was not an area they wished to take on for maintenance. Eastham asked if the outlot could be potentially developed at some point in the future and Miklo said not without the City's approval of a subdivision because it's labeled as permanent open space. Martin asked if lot 21 was the one in question to be changed to RM-12 and Miklo confirmed that the area to be rezoned is in contained in lot 21. Martin stated the assumption is an apartment building or something will be built on that lot. Miklo stated that when this area was rezoned, there was a concept plan where this was to be townhouse style apartment buildings, approximately 22 of them. Hektoen stated that the majority of the area is already zoned RM-12, this rezoning is just "cleaning up" the boundary lines to conform to the new preliminary plat. Freerks opened public hearing. John Hieronymus (3322 Muscatine Avenue) representing the Hieronymus Family Partnership that is applying for the rezoning and the plat approval. He was happy that they were able to work with City Staff to achieve a solution that works for all. Freerks shared that she was happy that an agreement could be reached by all as well. Freerks closed the public hearing. Thomas moved to approve REZ14-00008, a rezoning of 1.36 acre parcel from single- family residential (RS-5) to multi -family (RM-12) and SUB14-00008s a preliminary plat of Silver Slope, a 21-lot, approximately 17-acre residential subdivision located at the northwest corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 3 of 15 Martin seconded the motion. Freerks stated that the Commission has seen this area in flux for some time and now thinks this will be a nice addition to the area and was happy to see the outlot was kept intact, that green space is important. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 REZONING ITEM REZ15-00003 Discussion of an application submitted by Johnson County Board of Supervisors for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone for approximately .275 acres of property located at 800 S. Dubuque Street. Miklo introduced Tim Hennes, the Senior Building Inspector. Hennes presented the staff report, stating the applicant, Johnson County, requests that the subject property located at 800 S. Dubuque Street be rezoned from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1) in order to bring the property in compliance with Section 14-2F of the Zoning Ordinance, which states the property owned by the County should be P-1 neighborhood public zone. Hennes showed a map of the location of the property. Johnson County owns the adjacent lots south and west of 800 S. Dubuque St. which are already zoned Neighborhood Public (P-1). The property is in the Central Crossings sub -district of the Riverfront Crossing Plan and according to the plan the designated use for this property is public use. Hennes stated that conversation with the County Staff indicates they intend to extend the ambulance facility, consolidate the Johnson County Medical Examiners facility, and provide storage for the auditor's office voting equipment. Staff encourages the County to make a good faith effort to comply with the Central Crossings Development Standards which include building placement and form. Specifically, a ten feet (10') setback should be maintained between the new building and the south property line at 808 S. Dubuque St - this setback is a Riverfront Crossings setback standard to ensure adequate separation between structures if/when the property to the south redevelops. Also, an effort should be made to conform to the general design requirements identified in the form based code which include building entries, windows, building materials, awnings & canopies and outdoor mechanical equipment. Staff will share the Form -Based Development Standards with the County's architect for this project. Staff recommends that REZ15-00003, an application to rezone 12,000 S.F. (0.275 acres) of land located at 800 S. Dubuque Street from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1) be approved. The zoning ordinance requires the property be owned by the public and be zoned public. Freerks opened public hearing. Josh Busard, Johnson County Planning and Zoning Assistant Planner, requests that this parcel be rezoned, it is owned by Johnson County and is going to be used for the ambulance building civic use. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 4 of 15 Freerks asked Busard about the request in the staff report for the County make a the good faith effort to comply with development standards with regards to building placement and design requirements, and asked for if the County had planned to discuss that with the architect. Busard confirmed that the County will speak to the architect about that. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to approve REZ15-00003, acres) of land located at 800 S. Dubuque Neighborhood Public (P-1). Theobald seconded the motion. an application to rezone 12,000 S.F. (0.275 Street from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Eastham asked Miklo if the County could, even under the CI-1 zoning, build residential above the uses indicated in the report. Miklo stated that residential was not allowed above commercial in the CI-1 zone. Additionally Miklo stated that because the County owns the property, it is required to be a public zone. Theobald stated that this was a great opportunity to redevelop that area. Freerks agreed, it is clear that public land should be labeled as public and this will bring the land into compliance. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. REZONING ITEM REZ15-00001 Discussion of an application submitted by Rogue Investments for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Riverfront Crossings - South Gilbert (RFC -SG) zone for approximately 3.97 acres of property located at 1201 S. Gilbert Street. Howard presented the staff report, first by stating that the application was submitted with the incorrect applicant's name, the correct applicant's name is 1201 Gilbert LLC and that has been correct in the City's records. Howard showed a map of the area, the site is currently the Nagle Lumber site, and is zoned CI-1 intensive commercial, which allows quasi -industrial type uses or mixed commercial uses, but does not allow any residential uses. The subject property is located at 1201 S. Gilbert Street in the South Gilbert Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings. It is one of three large commercial properties that front on S. Gilbert Street between Kirkwood Avenue and Highway 6. Nagle Lumber Company currently operates at this site. To the north is Aero Rental and to the south is Pleasant Valley Garden Center. There is also a small property that fronts on Gilbert Street adjacent to the northeast corner of the Nagle Lumber site, which contains a small commercial building that is currently operated as a pet grooming business. The Nagle Lumber property backs up to Ralston Creek and the decommissioned North Wastewater Treatment Plant, which will be demolished this year as a part of the City's flood mitigation efforts. Over the next several years this site will be transformed into a new riverfront park. Due to the importance of these three properties in relation to the new park and Ralston Creek, the Riverfront Crossings Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 5 of 15 Plan and the form -based zoning code have specific goals and requirements that apply when these properties are redeveloped. The proposed zoning, the Riverfront Crossings form - based zoning for the South Gilbert Subdistrict (RFC -SG), would be a significant upzoning, since the CI-1 Zone does not allow any residential uses and has a height limit of 35 feet. The RFC -SG zone allows for a broad mix of commercial and residential uses, similar to uses allowed in the Central Business Zones and has a maximum height limit of 6 stories, with an upper story setback of 10 feet required along all primary frontages above the 4th story. In this particular location, the form -based code has specific frontage requirements due to its important location next to the future riverfront park. The code designates Gilbert Street as a primary street with a required retail storefront frontage, which means that the site will be required to have a mixed -use building that fronts on Gilbert Street with the ground level floor designed for commercial uses. Two new pedestrian streets will be required along the north and south sides of the property extending west from Gilbert to Ralston Creek. The property also has a Ralston Creek Frontage required along the west side of the property, which must be configured as a minimum 30-foot wide pedestrian street that includes a public trail and buildings that have entries that open toward the creek. Buildings must be located close to and oriented toward all these primary streets with entries opening onto an improved streetscape designed to provide a comfortable and attractive environment for pedestrians. Parking must be located behind or within buildings that front on these four primary streets. Vehicular circulation and access to park areas or structures will have to be provided from a north -south alley that is located such that it can provide cross- access and traffic circulation for all properties along Gilbert Street between Kirkwood Avenue and Highway 6 as they redevelop in the future. Given that the right-of-way for Gilbert Street is currently not wide enough to provide the pedestrian environment necessary to support such an increase in commercial and residential density, staff recommends that with any rezoning along this frontage that land be dedicated to the City to increase the right-of-way according to the street cross-section illustrated in the Riverfront Crossings Plan. In addition, the pedestrian streets, including the Ralston Creek pedestrian street will be required in order to comply with the zoning code, so the portion of these pedestrian streets that fall on the subject property will also need to be dedicated to the City. With regard to the Ralston Creek frontage, the 30-foot right-of-way should be measured from the top of bank to ensure that there is enough space for the public trail with a buffer from the creek edge and to ensure privacy for the future residents along this new frontage. Since the timing of proposed redevelopment of the property is uncertain at this time, staff recommends that the dedication occur prior to issuance of a building permit for any redevelopment on this property. It should be noted that these new street frontages will provide a means for the developer to realize the full development potential of this large site, since according to the Riverfront Crossings form based code all new buildings must have frontage along a street. The new pedestrian streets and a wider area for pedestrian movement and streetscaping along Gilbert Street will provide an attractive environment for future residents with access and views into the new riverfront park. The applicant has provided a statement and concept plan showing how they envision developing the site once Nagle Lumber has ceased operation. Since redevelopment is not likely to occur for several years, detailed plans for redevelopment have not yet been drafted. However, the applicant has indicated their intention to develop the site in a manner similar to Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 6 of 15 what is shown in the master plan with residential units fronting on to the pedestrian streets and along the Creek and a mixed -use building along Gilbert Street. They anticipate that the buildings will be between 3 and 6 stories in height. Ralston Creek is a regulated stream corridor according to the City's sensitive areas ordinance and as such a 30-foot buffer between development and the edge of the creek is required. As noted above, the applicant has agreed to dedicate to the City 30 feet of land along the west side of the property as measured from the top of the bank of Ralston Creek. Such dedication will ensure compliance with the sensitive areas ordinance and the Riverfront Crossings form -based code. A sensitive areas site plan delineating the stream corridor, the top of the bank, and the 30 foot buffer to be dedicated to the City of lows City for a pedestrian street will be required as a part of site plan review prior to redevelopment of the site. With dedication of the aforementioned land for additional public rights -of way, pedestrian and vehicular traffic can be accommodated upon redevelopment. In addition to the required dedication of land for public rights -of -way, staff recommends that prior to issuance of a building permit, a public cross access easement be required in a location parallel to and west of Gilbert Street in a manner that will provide safe and adequate traffic circulation and access to parking according to the Riverfront Crossings Plan for the subject property as well as all adjacent properties located along Gilbert Street from Kirkwood Avenue to Highway 6. At the time of development this public cross -access easement must be constructed as a rear alley that provides access to parking areas located behind buildings as illustrated in the Riverfront Crossings Plan. The City has recently received a grant of technical assistance from the U.S. EPA to help us develop a concept plan for restoration of Ralston Creek that is within the new riverfront park and also to identify green infrastructure opportunities for surrounding private development sites. The green infrastructure expert hired by the EPA highlighted these opportunities and strategies at a public meeting on January 28. Staff recommends that at such time as the Nagle property is redeveloped that green infrastructure options for stormwater management be encouraged with the public pedestrian street providing a possible means of filtering and conveying stormwater to the creek. However, the details and feasibility of the stormwater system will need to be worked out at the time of development based on a more in depth study of the conditions of the site and to ensure thatthe system works properly over time. Freerks asked if the stormwater basin area would count as green space. Howard replied that she would expect the City to count that area as green space once developed. Howard concluded that the plan itself and the form -based code, once rezoned, will pretty much determine, because there are required primary street frontages on all four sides of this block, the form and therefore Staff does not feel they need a detailed concept plan at this time, the code will dictate that. Staff recommends approval of REZ15-00001, a request to rezone approximately 3.97 acres of property located at 1201 S. Gilbert Street from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Riverfront Crossing -South Gilbert (RFC -SG), be approved subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring that prior to issuance of a building permit for any redevelopment on the site, the applicant: • Dedicate land necessary for the required pedestrian street rights -of -way, Ralston Creek pedestrian street, and Gilbert Street right-of-way improvements as described in this staff Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 7 of 15 report; and • Grant a public cross access easement in a location parallel to and west of Gilbert Street as determined by the City that will provide safe traffic circulation and access to rear parking areas for the subject property as well as for adjacent properties located along Gilbert Street from Kirkwood Avenue to Highway 6. At the time of development this public cross access easement must be constructed as a private rear alley that provides access to parking areas located behind buildings as illustrated in the Riverfront Crossings Plan. Freerks commented that this application was unique in some ways with regard to other items the Commission might see in the River Front Crossings because of the way the property is surrounded and with the pedestrian street right-of-way and more detailed plans are not required at this time. Howard confirmed that because this area is all designated with primary frontages so the Staff is certain that the backs of the buildings won't back up to the creek, only fronts will face the creek and the parking will be in the center of the block. Martin asked if the Commission would see plans for this area again. Howard replied it would not be likely the Commission would see this application again unless there would be a subdivision on the property. Thomas asked for clarification on how much is "pretty much" for staff's certainty that the area will be developed properly. Howard replied that because of the form -based code already in place, there are specific requirements for frontage requirements and so whether they choose a residential building type or a mixed -use building type there are only certain types of frontages that are allowed and certain window coverages that are required, front entry requirements, building articulation requirements, the location of the parking is determined by the way this block is set up. The fact that they are dedicating all the necessary rights -of -way in order to realize the vision of the plan is very significant. Martin asked if the Commission should be concerned at this time about the Crandic Bridge. Howard stated it is not really part of this application it is just something the City wants to be sure there are access points over Ralston Creek and the pedestrian streets are supposed to provide access for the public housing and pedestrian access to the park. Eastham asked if this parcel were to develop on its own where would the vehicle access to the required parking be in the mid -part of the parcel. He stated it couldn't come from the properties to the north or the south. Howard replied that yes it could, and the reason is there could be a temporary situation during phases of the property development. Theobald asked about the requirements for retail store front along Gilbert Street and perhaps parking on the corners, would there be enough parking for people to come to the retail spots. Howard stated there are parking requirements in the Riverfront Crossings plan, it is lower than in other parts of the City. If a developer wants to construct a commercial building they need to have the parking available to make the retail attractive. The rear parking could also serve any of the mixed -uses in the development. Swygard asked about the corner that will stay intensive commercial, it is currently a use that wouldn't comply with the rest of this project. Howard was unsure if that business wouldn't comply with the new zoning, but the current business would be grandfathered in. Thomas asked where uses like Nagle Lumber would go, not particularly that business, but the Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 8 of 15 CI-1 businesses that may be displaced with rezonings in the Riverfront Crossings area. Howard replied they businesses could go anywhere they fit the zoning codes. She said that there are other areas of the city that are zoned CI-1. Eastham asked if the City would be required to pay for the improvements for the pedestrian streets, the expansion of Gilbert Street, and the pedestrian streets along Ralston Creek. Howard answered that the frontage requirements and the space between the building and the curb line is the responsibility of the developer, which would include sidewalks along Gilbert Street. The City will be responsible for all other costs. Freerks opened public hearing. Randy Miller (Midwest America Commercial Realty) representing 1201 Gilbert LLC. Miller stated that once the rezoning occurs they will start the process to work with City Staff to design a concept following the master plan of the area. With the deconstruction of the wasterwater facility and initial discussions on the public input of the new park and mitigation of Ralston Creek, the park will start to take shape in the next two to three years. This is a similar time for the 1201 at the Crossings project, it will take this time to work with Staff, engineers and architects to incorporate the vehicular and pedestrian right -a -ways, plan street and walkway and trails, explore options for the Crandic railroad spur and crossing as an access to the park, decide on the best options for parking, free-standing structures or underground secure parking. Design amenities for the residential portion focusing on a range of price points, a mixture of studio, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units with oversized decks and large windows to view the park with. Design the mixed -use building in the front with commercial on the main level and residential above along Gilbert Street. They will work with the neighboring property owners on the overall plan as well as relocating a current business. They look forward to working on a design that compliments the overall South Gilbert Street and Riverfront Park area. Martin asked why since this area was clearly ready for development, did the applicant not come with a plan to present. Miller replied that if it were ready to develop immediately they would develop a plan, but developing plans takes a lot of time and money and a lot of changes could happen over the next two to three years when this property is finally ready to be developed. Essentially they are waiting for the park to develop and will follow that. Freerks mentioned that the report stated they are interested in 3-6 stories at heights for buildings, Miller confirmed that heights would likely be less than the maximum allowed in that area due to building costs. Freerks closed public hearing. Howard added that the City does have a committee that has been formed to look at adopting inclusionary housing in the Riverfront Crossings District, it could be at the time this develops a requirement for affordable housing. Swygard asked if that would be a retroactive, if the rezoning is approved now and then later they would be expected to comply with the affordable housing. Freeks said that would be decided when building permits are issued. Howard said the zoning applies and if the affordable housing becomes part of the zoning, the development would need to include it. Theobald moved to approve REZ15-00001, a request to rezone approximately 3.97 acres of property located at 1201 S. Gilbert Street from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Riverfront Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 - Formal Meeting Page 9 of 15 Crossing -South Gilbert (RFC -SG), be approved subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring that prior to issuance of a building permit for any redevelopment on the site, the applicant: • Dedicate land necessary for the required pedestrian street rights -of -way, Ralston Creek pedestrian street, and Gilbert Street right-of-way improvements as described in this staff report; and • Grant a public cross access easement in a location parallel to and west of Gilbert Street as determined by the City that will provide safe traffic circulation and access to rear parking areas for the subject property as well as for adjacent properties located along Gilbert Street from Kirkwood Avenue to Highway 6. At the time of development this public cross access easement must be constructed as a private rear alley that provides access to parking areas located behind buildings as illustrated in the Riverfront Crossings Plan. Swygard seconded the motion. Eastham stated he was encouraged by the property owners' willingness to considering redevelopment to this area for both commercial and residential uses, which are not there now, as well as taking advantage of the park project. This is an encouraging development. Martin agreed that this application speaks to the work that was done on the Riverfront Crossings Plan and the precautions that were put into that plan to make sure that area is pedestrian friendly and that park is recognized by inhabitants and people coming to visit Freerks agreed, and restated there seems to be less concern about not having a specific concept plan on this application because of the zoning requirements set forth in the Riverfront Crossings Plan and that Staff will continue to work closely on this project. The developer seems to be embracing all the goals of the Plan and that this will be an exciting development for the area. Thomas stated it is an interesting portion of the Riverfront Plan with the pedestrian streets, the creek access and creek trails, it is a prime development site. Swygard agreed it will be a great addition to the area. Eastham commented that it will be interesting for the Council to consider paying for these additional improvements, there appears to be more money for infrastructure here for development than in other more conventional developments. Hopefully the Council and City Manager will be generous in their considerations of these additional costs to develop this area A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 10 of 15 DEVELOPMENT ITEM SUB15-00003 Discussion of an application submitted by Advantage Custom Builders for a preliminary plat of Mackinaw Village Part 6, a 8-lot, 4.59-acre residential subdivision located west of Mackinaw Drive and south of Manitou Trail. Miklo showed a map of the property area. A preliminary plat and Planned Development Overlay (OPD) Plan for Mackinaw Village, a 115-lot, 75.25-acre subdivision, was approved in 2004. The Plan allowed for cluster development to preserve environmentally -sensitive features and a landscape buffer adjacent to Interstate 80. Final plats for Mackinaw Village Parts 1-5 have been approved. The preliminary plat for Part 6 has expired and the applicant is now requesting re - approval with a modification to the sidewalk design. The 2004 plat included an 8-foot wide sidewalk along the south side of Outlot A on the north side of Tranquil Bluff Trail, and a 4-foot sidewalk along the south side of the street in front of lots 108 to 115. The 8-foot walk is part of the Iowa River Corridor Trail and connects to the 8-foot wide trail on Foster Road and the trail that goes under Interstate 80 to Water Works Park. The applicant is proposing to move the 8- foot wide sidewalk to the south side of Tranquil Bluff Trail where it will provide pedestrian access to lots 108 to 115, as well as serve as a link in the Iowa River Corridor Trail. There would be no sidewalk on Outlot A. Given the size, shape and slope of Outlot A, it is likely to serve as passive open space, similar to the median on Iowa Avenue and Melrose Avenue. In staffs opinion it is not necessary to provide sidewalk access to Outlot A. Moving the wide sidewalk to the south side of the street will eliminate the need for trail users to cross streets at two locations along Tranquil Bluff Lane. The new location will however, place the responsibility for snow removal and maintenance on the owners of lots 108 to 115, where in the previous design they would have been responsible for only a 5 foot wide sidewalk. In staffs opinion, the relocation of the wide sidewalk will be beneficial to the trail system and recommends approval of the new design. Staff recommends that SUB15-00003 preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 6, a 4.59-acre, 8-lot residential subdivision located west of Mackinaw Drive and south of Manitou Drive be approved. Freerks asked what the approximate size of the outlot. It was pointed out to be .82 acres. Thomas stated he was not familiar with that particular trail and asked if it was not unusual to have it run along residential property in this way. Miklo stated they try not to but in some locations there is no other option, the trail needed to extend from Foster Road to the Water Plant Park under the interstate. They have explored, and will continue to do so, the possibility of locating a trail across an outlot that is owned by homeowner's association more adjacent to the river but this is a very rugged area and it may difficult to get a trail through there. Thomas asked if it would not be appropriate to just have the bicyclists to use Tranquil Bluff Trail Road as a shared option. Miklo said bicyclist certainly could, but this trail is also intended for pedestrians. Thomas stated that an 8 foot sidewalk would encourage bicyclists to use the sidewalk rather than the use the road, and pedestrians might find that mixed -use as a potential conflict. Miklo said some bicyclists will choose to stay on the street, and that they wanted the 8 foot wide sidewalk for pedestrians. Miklo also pointed out there is already 8 foot walks on the west side of Mackinaw Drive and there have not been issues with bike and pedestrian traffic that the City is Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 11 of 15 aware of. Eastham asked if the 8 foot walk that is along Mackinaw is maintained by the homeowners, and Miklo confirmed it was. Thomas asked if there was a requirement that if a homeowner has an 8 foot sidewalk they have to clear it and Miklo confirmed that was the case. Freerks opened public hearing. Duane Musser (MMS Consultants) was available to answer any questions the Commission has regarding the preliminary plat. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to approve SUB15-00003 preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 6, a 4.59-acre, B- lot residential subdivision located west of Mackinaw Drive and south of Manitou Drive. Martin seconded the motion. Eastham commented that he felt this was a better location for the trail, and feels the 8 foot width of the sidewalks and trails are good for kids who are on bicycles. Martin like the location of the trail doesn't require crossing of a street. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: February 3 & February 5, 2015 Eastham moved to defer approval of the minutes until the next meeting. Eastham felt the minutes did not accurately reflect the discussion at the meeting, particularly the formal meeting. Theobald had some corrections to the minutes as well. On the February 3rd minutes, on page 6, paragraph 4 talking about public goals economic development was also mentioned as a public goal and that should be reflected in the minutes. Then in the February 5`" minutes Theobald was credited on page 10, paragraph 5, with making the motion, which was actually made by Eastham. She seconded it, so it is listed in reverse in the minutes. Thomas requested after listening to the audio of the minutes to have more detail regarding the discussion after the motion before the votes. He said that he would provide recommendations for corrections. Martin seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING INFORMATION Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 12 of 15 Eastham commented that at a Council meeting in January there was the first consideration of the rezoning of the cottages on Dubuque Street as historical structures. The Council was asked, before the public hearing, to declare their ex-parte communications and at least three Council members, if not more, indicated that they had conversations with people, including the property owner, and the City Attorney indicated that they should disclose at the meeting if there was content in those conversations that was different than the information that was available at Council meetings. Eastham stated it has been his understanding that he was not to engage in conversations or meetings with people who were invested in applications before the Commission. That seems to be different than what the City Attorney was saying at the Council meeting and is concerned he is being asked to conform to a different standard than the Council for ex-parte conversations. Freerks stated she prefers the Commission's standard better, to have all conversations in the public forum. It can cause animosity if the public feels conversations are happening behind the scenes. Hektoen stated that the Commission's by-laws state that all ex-parte conversations should be disclosed, and the nature of the conversation. If that conversation biases the Commissioner, they must acknowledge that and recuse themselves from consideration of the matter. It is a best practice to avoid engaging in ex-parte conversations, it is not prohibited, you are just required by the by-laws to disclose. Eastham confirmed he has no problem with the disclosure, it is a good idea. He has had people contact him to discuss an application and his practice is to say he is unable to discuss it. However, he feels he is not inclined to continue to tell people who contact him that he cannot discuss due to a rule, but that it is a practice. Freerks still asserts the benefit is to have all the conversations in the public forum. Eastham disagreed and stated he saw the benefit of allowing the public to discuss their opinions on an application if they reached out to a Commissioner the same as if they came to the public hearing. Freerks just felt that puts others in a disadvantage of not everyone hearing all the same information, everyone needs to have the exact same information to make informed decisions on the applications brought forth. Miklo noted that when a new commissioner starts they attend an orientation session and one of the things that is discussed is ex-parte communications and it is stated that it is best to avoid it but if you cannot avoid the conversation or comments, then reveal it at the meeting. The American Planning Association puts out literature and advice on how to operate meetings and that is the advice they give. The benefit of telling folks to come to the meeting is everyone hears both sides of the story. Hektoen stated the risk of a private conversation between the Commissioner and a member of the public is a perception of bias. Miklo stated it should make the Commission's job easier by telling the public to come to the meeting, rather than engage in private conversation. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 13 of 15 Eastham reiterated his concern that he is expected to operate at a different expectation than the Council is. If the Council had been advised to do what everyone tonight is suggesting then he would not have an issue. Miklo said there is a memo from the City Attorney that spells out the best way to approach ex- parte communications. Thomas asked how recent that memo is, and Miklo believed within the past 5 or 6 years, after the Iowa Supreme Court overturned a zoning application in Dubuque due to ex-parte communications. Eastham noted that the City Attorney addressed that case in her discussion with Council and stated it was unclear what the actual case law is. Her advice was to avoid ex-parte communication, and if you have them reveal them. But she did not say there could not be ex-parte communications. Freerks said she has stated she prefers that the Commission does not have ex-parte communication because in the past there had been issues between Commissioners and it was an ugly situation. The Commission needs to come to each meeting with an open mind and hear the same information and have the same access to ask questions and that is the healthiest way to conduct the Commission. She advises people to contact City Staff when they have questions or want to make comments to her. Thomas stated there has been occasions over the past few years, that as part of the public, given the complexity of a given rezoning that the five minutes at the podium or sending an email to Staff wasn't going to be the best way to communicate what those issues were. And therefore he would suggest meetings with all the Council. He agrees that should not be standard practice but in some situations it is necessary. Freerks stated the Council is more of a political body than the Planning and Zoning Commission and that is the difference, and that is why they get people lobby them. Hektoen asked if Eastham was proposing amending the by-laws or what was the goal. Eastham did not feel that was necessary. Hektoen noted she would be more diligent about asking before each agenda item to have the Commissioners disclose any ex-parte communications. ADJOURNMENT Theobald moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. Motion carried 6-0. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 14 of 15 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014-2015 FORMAL MEETING TERM EXPIRES 6/5 6/19 7/17 8/7 8/21 9/2 9/18 10/2 10/16 11/6 11/20 12/18 1/15 2/5 2/19 DYER, CAROLYN O5/16 X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E EASTHAM, CHARLIE O5/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN O5/18 X O/E X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE O5/17 X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X SWYGARD, PAULA O5/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE O5/18 X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X THOMAS, JOHN O5/15 X X I X I X X I O/E X O/E X X X X X X X INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 2/3 2/20 9/18` 2/3 DYER, CAROLYN O5/16 X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE O5/16 X X X X FREERKS, ANN O5/18 X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE O5/17 X X X X SWYGARD, PAULA O5/15 X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE O5/18 X X X X THOMAS, JOHN O5/15 X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused = Not a Member = Work Session