HomeMy WebLinkAboutA014 - Council Action Form dated January 27, 2015 f
ITEM # 34
DATE: 01-27-15
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: ROOSEVELT URBAN REVITALIZATION AREA PLAN
AMENDMENT FOR 921 — 9T" STREET (FORMER ROOSEVELT
SCHOOL AND NEW CITY PARK)
BACKGROUND:
On November 12, 2013, the City Council adopted an Urban Revitalization Plan and
designated the former Roosevelt School site and the City of Ames park, located at
921 9th Street, as an Urban Revitalization Area (URA). This was done in support of
the adaptive reuse of the former Roosevelt School into condominiums.
In December, 2014, City staff conducted an inspection of the site and the building
exterior for conformance of the improvements with the adopted Roosevelt URA Plan.
After the inspection staff determined that parts of the buildings and site
improvements did not substantially conform to the adopted Plan. If a project does
not substantially conform to an approved URA plan, a property owner would
not be eligible to apply for and receive property tax abatement as is intended
within the URA.
Staff asked the applicant to propose amendments to the URA Plan (as described in
this report), and/or physical changes to the building improvements and the site
landscaping to ensure that the current residents of the Roosevelt would be eligible to
request tax abatement for their 2015 taxes. At this time, Dean Jensen,
representing RES Development, Inc. is requesting that the City Council
approve amendments to the approved URA Plan (Attachment A, Request for
Amendments).
The City Council is asked to decide if the proposed changes to the Urban
Revitalization Plan are acceptable in accordance with the Plan's adopted
criteria, which were intended to support the adaptive reuse of the former
Roosevelt School. At this time Council is not asked to make a determination of
whether the individual property owners are eligible for tax abatement. The individual
requests for tax exemption will be considered by the City Council on February 10,
2015 as part of the annual city-wide determination of tax abatement conformance.
The amendments to the URA Plan requested by the developer are summarized as
follows..
1
Reduced Number of Units. At the time of approval of the Roosevelt URA Plan, 23
units were planned in the adaptive reuse of the building. Since that time, the owner
has worked with buyers of the units to customize the layout and amount of floor area
included in each unit. Some of the new owners were interested in expanding the size
of their unit beyond what was planned. This has resulted in a reduction in the total
number of units from 23 to 20.
Parking Structure Reduced Size. The number of parking spaces in the attached
parking structure as shown on the approved URA Plan is 31. The developer has
constructed a parking structure with 25 parking spaces. Reasons given by the
developer for the reduction in spaces is that fewer parking spaces are needed with
the reduction in the number of units, the total number of parking spaces complies
with minimum zoning requirements, and there is a "pedestrian orientation" of many of
the unit owners. As identified by the developer, a benefit of reducing the overall size
of the parking structure by six spaces is the increase in the amount of open space on
the site.
Atrium Materials. The atrium in the approved Plan was shown as glass panels
(Attachment B, Approved Building Elevations). The atrium as constructed includes
glass panels and steel siding materials (Attachment D, Atrium as Constructed East
and West Sides). The atrium is an important transitional element from the historic
school building to the new, attached garage to the rear. In his request for
amendments, the developer describes a balance of design considerations with
structural engineering requirements for the 2-story stairwell. Such was the case with
the reduction of glass surface area in the atrium area as the necessary approach to
effectively connecting the new and existing structures together. According to the
developer's explanation, the use of steel siding provided the most viable visual and
engineered solution for this area while allowing for soaring glass exposure in the
atrium.
Parking structure windows. A parking structure and atrium have been constructed
and attached to the north side of the existing building. The adopted URA Plan
included windows on the north and east walls of the parking structure to tie the
design into the windows of the school building and to increase the aesthetic appeal
of the garage facades. As approved in the URA Plan, the north wall is to have three
groupings of three windows in each grouping, the east wall is to have two individual
windows, and the west wall no windows (Attachment B, Approved Building
Elevations).
As constructed, the north wall has two window openings filled with thirty glass blocks
arranged in three rows of ten, and an air vent in between the two glass block
windows (See Attachment C, As-Builts and Attachment H Photographs). The
developer added windows to the side elevations. The east wall has two groupings of
three windows in each grouping, and the west wall has a single window on either
2
side of the overhead garage door. Each window has the appearance of 24 individual
panes and a center horizontal meeting bar that are compatible with the main school
building.
The developer explained that, as construction of the project evolved, it became clear
that the west elevation of the parking structure would be the most viewed by unit
owners and the east elevation the most viewed by park patrons. The developer
states that, "Conversely, the north elevation is primarily only seen by quickly
passing automobile traffic, with no visual tie-in to the rest of the Roosevelt
building and its design themes." The developer believes the enhancement of the
side elevations compensated for the reduction in detail on the north fagade.
Landscape Plan. The approved Landscape Plan (Attachment E Approved
Landscape Plan) has been altered by the changing the layout of sidewalks on the
site, reducing the number of trees to be planted, eliminating the gardens on the north
side of the garage from the Plan, adding planting beds between the building and the
City park to the east, and adding a brick patio west of the building (Attachment F,
Revised Landscape Plan). Additionally, the developer has not completed installation
of all landscaping, and requests a provision in the URA Plan to allow to defer
planting until Spring. This is allowed under the Zoning Ordinance, and the developer
has posted financial security for completion of the revised landscape plan.
Adopted "Qualifying Criteria" for Designation of the Roosevelt School Site as
an Urban Revitalization Area. On June 11, 2013, the City Council adopted the
following "Qualifying Criteria" and incorporated the approved site and architectural
plans of the Adaptive Reuse Plan for the URA Plan:
A. The property includes a former public school building that is no longer
used as a school; and,
B. The National Park Service has determined that one or more of the
properties has a structure that meets the National Register Evaluation
Criteria; and,
C. The renovation and remodeling of structures will not destroy or obscure
essential architectural features. In addition, such architectural features
must be enhanced to the extent that it is feasible and prudent to do so.
Staff has concluded that most of the proposed project amendments can be found to
be consistent with the intent for adaptive reuse and the adopted "Qualifying Criteria."
This includes reductions in the number of units, reduction in the size of the parking
structure, changes to the materials for the atrium, additions of windows to the side
fapades (east and west) of the parking structure, and modifications to the Landscape
Plan. The changes to unit count, parking, and landscaping are consistent with
3
Zoning standards and fit the owner preferences for the site without affecting the
historic character of the Roosevelt school building.
Changes to the Atrium are significantly different than what was proposed with a
substantially less amount of glass. Staff believes these changes meet the standards
for historic preservation of transitioning from the old to the new in a manner
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The
atrium changes are visible from the neighboring homes to the east and from 10th
street, but are set well into the site and appear compatible, even with the modern
metal materials.
In staff's assessment, the one exception to consistency is the alteration to the north
fagade of the garage building along 10th Street. Even with the reduction in overall
garage size and enhancements to the side facades, the proposed amendment to
approve less windows made of glass block for the north facade of the parking
structure, as installed, is not consistent with "C" of the Qualifying Criteria.
Architectural features are to be enhanced if it is feasible and prudent to do so. The
divided glass panels and air vent on the north fagade do not enhance the
architectural features of the building nor fully support the complementary design of
the garage to the main building. Furthermore, as a highly visible fagade along the
street, staff felt that the approved plan with enhanced architectural detailing treated
this fagade as a transition to the low density neighborhood to the north.
The developer states that the north elevation of the parking structure is primarily only
seen by quickly passing automobile traffic (Attachment H, North Fagade of Parking
Structure), with no visual tie-in to the rest of the Roosevelt building and its design
themes. This assessment discounts the visual and aesthetic impact of the parking
structure's north fagade on the neighborhood it faces. The street abutting the north
property line of the site is 10th Street. Marston Avenue and 10th Street form a "T"
intersection directly north of the parking structure. As the public travels south on
Marston toward 10th Street and the Roosevelt site, the north wall of the parking
structure is clearly visible from properties on both sides of Marston, between 10th and
11 th Streets.
This building was approved through an adaptive reuse plan as a multiple-family
structure with an architectural design that is compatible with the single-family
character of this neighborhood. Many of the houses built in the surrounding
neighborhood have features consistent with architectural styles of the early to mid
1900's. Fagades of these homes do not include large expanses without traditional
window and door openings. Although the length of the north wall was reduced, the
lack of significant window areas or other detailing creates a blank wall that provides
very little architectural interest or ties into the other architectural features of the
garage windows or school windows.
4
Modifications could be made to the north facade to improve its aesthetic
impact compared to the constructed appearance. Should City Council wish,
options include (1) not approving the amendment and requiring the original windows
to be added, (2) approving an amendment to the URA Plan requiring additional
windows to be added similar to the original design or of glass block, or (3) amending
the URA Plan with requirements to soften the facade with enhanced landscaping,
including coniferous trees and ground cover consisting of planting beds of
perennials, and shrubs (Attachment 1, Landscape Area North of Parking Structure).
Notice. Public notice has been published and action is now requested on amending
the Roosevelt Urban Revitalization Area (URA) Plan. The URA includes the
information required by Code of Iowa Section 404.2(2), as well as the site plan. In
addition, the owners of residential units in the Roosevelt URA Area, those who own
property to the west as far as Northwestern Avenue, the owners of property along
the north side of 10th Street adjacent to this site, and the owners of property along
the east side of Roosevelt Avenue adjacent to this site have been sent letters
through the mail describing the proposed amendments and providing information on
the date, time, and location of this City Council meeting.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council can approve a resolution amending the Roosevelt Urban
Revitalization Area Plan, as requested by RES Development, Inc., if it finds the
amendments are consistent with the Qualifying Criteria for the Roosevelt Urban
Revitalization Area.
2. The City Council can approve a resolution amending the Roosevelt Urban
Revitalization Area Plan, as requested by RES Development, Inc., with additional
modifications to the North Fagade Windows. This alternative will require the
installation of additional windows similar to the original design. This also
will include conditions that RES Development, Inc. provide an updated window
plan of the North Elevation to the Planning and Housing Department for
administrative approval of final details, and provide the following items to the City
Clerk's Office by January 31, 2015:
A. Financial security in the form of a Letter of Credit, cash, or check in the
amount of the cost of the materials and labor for the installation of two
groupings of windows with three windows in each grouping on the north
fagade of the parking structure of the dimensions and spacing, as approved
on the plans for which a building permit was issued to construct the parking
structure,
B. An itemized estimate of the cost of materials and labor for the installation of
the windows, described in Condition A; and,
5
C. A letter committing to complete the window installation on the north fagade of
the parking structure no later than May 1, 2015.
3. The City Council can approve a resolution amending the Roosevelt Urban
Revitalization Area Plan, as requested by RES Development, Inc., with
modifications to require additional landscaping be added to the North Fagade.
This would include conditions that RES Development, Inc. provide a landscaping
plan to the Planning and Housing Department for administrative approval of final
details, and provide the following items to the City Clerk's Office by January 31,
2015:
A. A Landscape Plan that includes five trees, either White/Concolor Fir, Blue
Spruce, or a combination of both, together with planting beds of perennials
and shrubs, distributed throughout the open area between the parking
structure and the property line along 10th Street; with the White Fir and/or Blue
Spruce trees a minimum of six feet in initial height, at the time of planting,
evenly spaced in the open area between the building wall and the property
line; with the existing Crabapple tree in this space to remain.
B. An itemized estimate of the cost of the materials and labor to install the
required trees, shrubs, and perennials, and financial security in the form of a
Letter of Credit, cash, or check for the amount of the cost estimate; and,
C. A letter committing to complete the installation of trees, shrubs and perennials
along the north fagade of the parking structure no later than May 1, 2015.
4. The City Council can choose not to amend the Roosevelt Urban Revitalization
Area Plan if it finds the amendments are inconsistent with the Qualifying Criteria.
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The developer, RES Development, Inc. has proposed amendments to the adopted
Roosevelt URA Plan that are consistent with the "Qualifying Criteria" for the URA
area, with the exception of the amendment proposed for the north fagade of the
attached parking structure. The north fagade is a significant element of the project's
design and transition to its surroundings that warrants the use of features that
harmonize its appearance with the surroundings.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council accept
Alternative #2, thereby amending the Roosevelt URA Plan with the conditions
described in this report to include additional windows on the north fagade of the
building.
6 I
Attachment A — Request for Amendments — Pg. 1
was
now
RES DEVELOPMENT, INC. RES DEVELOPMENT
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, January 20,2015
This letter is a request to amend the Urban Revitalization Plan for 921 9"'Street. Starting in April of
2013, RES [development,Inc..set off on an ambitious journey to repurpose a vacant but historically
significant school building and produce a high quality urban infill development. As of today, we have
substantially completed the renovation and redevelopment of the old Roosevelt School. The reality of
adaptive reuse is that due to a number of valid reasons,many complex decisions are necessarily decided
verbally in the field by qualified individuals rather than in more traditional meeting room settings with
paper and pen, Below is a list of minor changes that were required to accomplish our goals of seeing
Roosevelt Reimagined:
1. Reduced number of units: Always designed as owner occupied units,we gave residents an
opportunity to customize their living space. The result is that it reconfigured our unit count from
23 to 20 condos.
2. Parking structure size reduction:Given the reduced number of units(see above),and the
"pedestrian orientation"of many of the unit owners (due in part to the Roosevelt`s conveniently
close location to downtown, ISU, bus lines and Mary Greely facilities)the number of parking
structure spaces was correspondingly reduced from 31 to 25 which is compliant with city parking
capacity code. In addition to reducing the demand for potentially underused building size and
materials,one direct benefit of the reduction was a resulting increase in usable green space on the
east/park side of the structure.
3. Parking structure windows: As construction of the project evolved it became clear the west
elevation of the parking structure would be the most.viewed side by unit owners and the east
elevation the most viewed side by park patrons. Conversely,the north elevation is primarily only
seen by quickly passing automobile traffic with no visual tie-in to the rest of the Roosevelt
building and its design themes. However,simply by moving the windows originally planned for
the north elevation around to the west and east sides,a natural tie in to the west and east facades
of the original Roosevelt school building and its new large windows was created and provided
enhanced architectural continuity.
4. Atrium materials: Balancing design considerations with structural engineering requirements,
sometimes not apparent until construction has begun,often requires significant compromise.
Such was the case with the reduction of glass surface area in the atrium area as the necessary
approach to effectively connecting the new and existing structures together, Use of'steel siding,
complimentary in color and design to all connected structures,provided the most viable viSUal
and engineered solution for this area while still allowing for soaring glass exposure in the atrium.
2519 CHAMBERLAIN ST, STE 101 AMES, [A 50014
Phony.(515)208,5485 Fax:(515)268.8181
7
Attachment A — Request for Amendments — Pg. 2
5. Landscape plan. Maintaining harmony with the new city park to the east of the Roosevelt while
also forming a subtle,tasteful,yet clear boundary between public and private lands was a primary
goal in the modified landscape plan. This new plan incorporates these minor modifications
without substantially changing the original plan.
We appreciate your consideration of approving these changes within the demanding context of adaptively
reusing a historically significant building and look forward to cooperatively working with you in the
future as the project continues to evolve.
Respectively yours.
Dean Jensen
RES Development, Inc.
2519 Chamberlain—Suite 101
Ames. IA 50010
8
Attachment B — Approved Building Elevations
.........
,�4arp.
S
� ..yam.. .. .....; ..
ate.
"d
k -
- �WFIRRIE,
� 3
kmX Elwe`.;u�:
d
y I
7Originalndow Pattern of� 1
8 s
i
A4
-
1
r
i-•W Ebax4r.
V
.t 7
F
Original Atrium Design
A-5
9
Attachment C — As-Built Building Elevations
f:
;11
I
w
d
A14
I
i
c
0
MmiD
A13
10
Attachment D — Atrium as Constructed (West and East Sides)
,t 1H M�M 1,[.
L
s.
e
I II
' 4
6 0
n
11
Attachment E — Approved Landscape Plan
SHEET L.01
Y
a
CI I5
I
u
i
f
Ed
LLI
FIVED
4
E T
}
S
V,-
i mow',
?
a
12
Attachment F — Revised Landscape Plan
SHEET L J1
... . ...._ �u,�, 1(((
-
01
a
r- at 1� eu4M
F4ovn✓KLFM5 f'€.�j f � 4 �} �. j.,� � �'�'f 1.
1
jk_._.,. Eau.: -� ��` _ ._'�'�✓/ � �'""' a... ., f Yl�.
d
F o^»xsw.. m>....-..rr.e \LIJ
kfY.41rWt11 to •�' lart �^ Li'.... .n:,. W
ry
j -r
(Q
N4! Y I v
i
� +e
..un.:� K +^a ��`"' 'ti' ;- .. '., r y £ay•ey,•exreu�7ya:,�S
LLJ,.
a r
€6 s
-t
13
Attachment G — East & West Parking Structure Facades
IN
.�
two"we
Mi
MW
Ow
Tor
WIWI
n
a.,
f�
all
�
�- -'`
77 7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7i w
a
{
h
v.
14
Attachment H — North Facade of Parking Structure
t � ,
^ram
,�
Mv
a
�, P3
urn � fry
C V
\
t
` 1
..
OW M
15
Attachment H — North & East Fagades of Parking Structure
r
° � a
..�� Z�
16
Attachment I — Landscape Area North of Parking Structure
�R
a
m
17