Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA004 - Council Action Form dated January 23, 2007 ITEM #: alk DATE: 01/23/07 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: INTERPRETATION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF ADAPTIVE REUSE AND THE ASSOCIATED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS BACKGROUND: Existing Project Timeline & Request. City staff has received an application for an Adaptive Reuse from the property owners of North Grand Mall, GK Development. The applicant plans to expand and renovate North Grand Mall, located at 2801 Grand Avenue. The application was submitted on December 12, 2006. Due to its location on a state highway, a two-week review was required to accommodate review by IDOT. Preliminary staff comments to GK Development were issued on December 20, 2006, and were followed up with a Development Review Committee meeting with the applicant and further comments were provided on December 22, 2006. The applicant submitted revised plans on January 9, 2007, to address the previous comments from staff. Comments pertaining to the additional information included within the resubmittal were provided to the applicant on January 12, 2007; however, questions from staff have arisen resulting from the applicant's resubmittal and the overall process. It should be noted that there continue to be Development Review Committee comments that have not yet been addressed, and the North Grand Mall Adaptive Reuse application is not yet ready to go to public hearing. Originally the applicant approached City staff with the idea of updating North Grand Mall and remaining within the same building footprint. The applicants found that they could not make the project economically viable without expanding their square footage,which limited their ability to comply with other on-site standards. This led staff to consider the Adaptive Reuse process,which allows potential waivers to certain development standards in order to either preserve an historic structure or to ensure the continued economic viability of existing development. The developer now plans to construct a "Lifestyle Center" out of a portion of the existing mall and to include a new separate structure approximately where Okoboji Bar and Grill is located. This project therefore includes the demolition of the southern portion of the mall and the construction of four detached structures within the lifestyle center, totaling approximately 137,835 square feet, and the remaining structure, Future Retail E, which would be approximately 14,820 square feet in size. Please see the attached existing and proposed site plans. Process. The Adaptive Reuse process includes the requirements of a Major Site Development Plan, including the criteria, submittal requirements, and hearing process. The process begins with review by the Development Review Committee, then a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, followed by a decision by the City Council. Interpretation. City Council is being asked to clarify the intent of the standards pertaining to the Adaptive Reuse process and the specific performance standards in order to insure that said standards are correctly and consistently applied to both the current and future Adaptive Reuse applications. The purpose statement, identified in Municipal Code Section 29.306(1), for the Adaptive Reuse process is as follows: (1) Purpose. The purpose of these adaptive reuse provisions is to foster the renovation and reuse of structures that have historic, architectural, or economic value to the City and are vacant or at risk of becoming under utilized, vacant or demolished. The North Grand Mall applicant wishes to apply the Adaptive Reuse provisions based upon the mall's economic value to the City. Staff has allowed this application with the understanding that, although demolition is occurring and new structures are being proposed, the remaining portion of the existing mall will remain economically viable only as a result of the new structures. Therefore,we are treating the whole site underthe Adaptive Reuse procedure. However, the Adaptive Reuse process must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine if the demolition and/or new construction would warrant this process. It is important to not consider retention of a small or minor structure on a large site as justification for waiving standards on the larger balance of the site. The staff has determined that GK Development's proposal to redevelop the mall site retains a significant portion of the site's economic value and therefore warrants Adaptive Reuse. The staff will be requesting the City Council's concurrence on this interpretation. The Adaptive Reuse process allows the City Council to waive some or all of the applicable Zone Development Standards and General Development Standards so long as the project conforms to the provisions of Ames Municipal Code Section 29.306, which are as follows: (a) The renovation and remodeling of structures for adaptive reuse may 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. (b) Where landscaping and public space required by Section 29.403 cannot be provided on site, any area on site that is available for landscaping shall be so utilized. When the City grants permission, the owner or operator of the site must also use areas within the public right-of-way and adjacent to the site to satisfy landscaping requirements. (c) Where necessary parking cannot be provided on site, reasonable provision for parking shall be provided off site. Specifically, staff is asking for interpretation of Municipal Code Section 29.306(3)(b)within the Adaptive Reuse Performance Standards, related to landscaping, which is subsection (b) above. 2 , Utilizing the North Grand Mall application as an example, the applicant has requested waivers from several landscaping standards. However, the language above clearly requires that attempts be made to locate required landscaping within the right-of-way or in other off-site locations. This requirement can be readily applied to those standards that define landscaping by minimum area only. However, it would be difficult to apply this landscaping relocation provision to those landscaping standards that have site-specific purposes, such as buffering between residential and non-residential uses, or the breaking up or shading of large expanses of parking lot pavement. For example, the North Grand Mall application includes the following requests: 1.) Flexibility to utilize the right-of-way and adjacent property to comply with the overall 15 percent landscaping requirement within the PRC zone; 2.) A waiver from the 10 percent landscaping required within the parking lot; 3.) A waiver from the landscape median and landscape island requirements in parking lots; and, 4.) Flexibility to utilize the right-of-way and adjacent property to comply with the landscape buffer requirement from the residential property, which adjoins the southwestern portion of the site. Although the language within Subsection (b) does not clearly define which landscaping standards can be met through the use of rights-of-way and adjacent properties, staff finds that the requirement that defines landscaping by area only is a clear measurement and is not regulated by location or for a specific use. The City Council would therefore have the ability to require the applicant to utilize the adjacent right-of-way and property to satisfy item 1 above. In regards to the other landscaping requirements, items 2 through 4 above, staff believes that applying the landscaping relocation provision reflected in Section 29.306(3)(b)would not make sense. Therefore, it appears that these relocation provisions should not be applied to the site specific landscaping requirements and should be waivable. If the City Council were to agree with this interpretation, then staff would further suggest that it would be reasonable to allow the applicant to request waivers from items 2 through 4 under the following conditions: 1) That they do all they can do to meet each of the site specific code requirements 2) That they utilize any alternative provisions allowed by the code 3) That they provide documentation that the project would no longer be viable under a strict application of the site specific landscaping standards. With regards to the second condition, it should be noted that Section 29.403(4)(g))allows consideration of alternative landscape designs that would meet the intent of the law. This was the option recently approved by City Council that allows the East 13t'Street developer to substitute mass landscaped areas for the required median landscaping in parking lots. 3 ALTERNATIVES: 1. The City Council can interpret the Adaptive Reuse procedure as follows: 1. To allow staff to review each Adaptive Reuse application on a case-by-case basis for presentation to the Council for determination if the proposals pertaining to economic value warrant the process. 2. To determine that the ability to utilize rights-of-way and adjacent properties to satisfy the landscaping requirements would only be applicable to the minimum landscaped area requirement of the underlying zone, provided that the applicant has made every effort to meet each requirement on site. 3. To determine that site-specific landscaping requirements are waivable, subject to the following conditions: 1) That they do all they can do to meet each of the site specific code requirements. 2) That they utilize any alternative provisions allowed by the code. 3) That they provide documentation that the project would no longer be viable under a strict application of the site specific landscaping standards. 2. The City Council can direct that modifications be made to the proposed interpretation. 3. The City Council can refer this item back to staff for additional information. MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: This is a complex and unusual issue. Staff is asking for the City Council's interpretation of these issues to better understand and explain the Adaptive Reuse process and standards to our current and future customers. Staff has outlined its understanding of Adaptive Reuse and how it may be interpreted. Staff has also utilized an existing application as an example to help define the lack of clarity in the process. Based upon the information presented within this Council Action Form, and absent any further direction from Council, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council approve Alternative #1. Under this alternative, the City Council will interpret the Adaptive Reuse procedure as follows: ❑ To allow staff to review each Adaptive Reuse application on a case-by-case basis for presentation to the Council for determination if the proposals pertaining to economic value warrant the process. ❑ To determine that the ability to utilize rights-of-way and adjacent properties to satisfy the landscaping requirements would only be applicable to the minimum landscaped area requirement of the underlying zone, provided that the applicant has made every effort to meet each requirement on site. 1) To determine that site-specific landscaping requirements are waivable, subject to the following conditions: 2) That they do all they can do to meet each of the site specific code requirements. 3) That they utilize any alternative provisions allowed by the code. 4 �' • i,.� „tsar„. ', : � I 1 •grD:,l I •r�!f SNHor .,. c 1�— ='�_ ■� ` �� �� / r .=ice IV'.w:3�..l.��a Imo, -a a. ■,o; !I MOWN IN N U11 �����1�11111111111� � _, 11 v7 EZ■� In i jilin iiTV _ ' �' � �q►. �'' '' `�� ' 1� IIII ■:i 1 I■�■, R.�ir��+ � rmull - ' II ��I IW�.Z�.B S;'t i-si) s7�:3:!i.:Y�CsZ;�3,.��.•.Zi.•7•'p• � '� �..., 0i �I TREETS • • . �, OFFICE �� AMES, • � , 1/8/2007 11:27:59 PM F:\Projects\58371054\cadd\existingconditions-22004.dgn - To I � o lm In 4 \ p F ND E AVE UE \ CLOSE) `\my / 0 O 0i0-2 I I 00 -- — _ --{ — JIr c II\ l \ ,B•LSZ I — �I' _ N •• O'Y6i s ,Z-06 o —— III 1161 II m 1 Lt . m ICI I � I IN o III z I IIn In � III I ��� m III �O tT� Z m N �L I I .yJy/�9 � III � II / \ III w w I J, lad II � + _ 47.5' 193.9, —8 S— B"5---4` :-� I I � I 3. w O SO rw y z o\\ \ \ GR DYLVENUE \ \\ \\ c o \ In 71 4 y i �W ,GcP 0 p0}ro REVISIONS NO. ATE DESCRIPTION STREETS OF NORTH GRAND AMESOFFICE 1 110107 REVISED BASED ON DEC COMMENTS DATED 12122/00 2Z9 S.WelnutAve.,Sle F r 2801 GRAND AVENUE EXISTING CONDITIONS Ames,Iowa50010 AMES,IOWA H (5 2t. ,.�. m i ?0► ylca! - �iM► i • r - �y t Ll,: s�•o� lam_LA 1, .w .�► .4 •tom i. i. �_ _._. i - ■■v `� - �.■��', aS�h'a.�:BL.a�i■3:ii�■g_•+w"A: ';•eta ail i �I `�• �M` � off � - f:'�' :�` x x .r •. �ai �lj x I NP 71 •�� f 1© F�110; V I1 i M. in In % ��_ •d�I•S�S«Su,[CZx.i�� +Z«:i�Z+�:i«Zii:FZ. Z• ..,.�.r ■&� � � ��� ��A .lrl M a�A Ii l.'✓1�'•]%M A.iii♦ �'��IM.I'M'�'w[M:w�i'I.Z��i.•ii'..M 1.'!•M�w� nn. i cu� , • • • �� AMES OFFICE �� 1/9/2007 1.44:46 AM F:\Projects\58371054\cadd\proposedconditions-22004.dgn T o I 2 m I y O m y I \ � I m _ rn I 209.6 \ FERNDALE AVENUE — — — FMM ALL A> / 9 50' SETBACK JFP � t C.°' m /• / � i I fi ( 'dAl) ( 'dAl) c bz 6L / T Im m —=12 W oop W I N _ — —r ®®--®®®—®®® I _ r 39 _ o J i a� 6'I I .0. TO -� 2 m s I x coi a 10 O m tI Z 132.7 j m ' I! c- I n I m ,I I m � II m Z µ dA m � I ,6 i ;. Vf EN 77 w 1 y 0 � � T 0 I i --0 8 S s ��$ w W W K 3 {� r c/ 3.v am cn c s n a Ij z� <v 'dAl TAIL I � <o dAl 11' Tzo bz 50' SETBACK —_ —— � _ r y AA SSg., --4 I~L FIR ESED ,y Q F PYLON SIG I' 77 x ._� a GRAND AVENUE S o o � r a � N r O x 1 ryryry���ppp REVISIONS z NO.DATE DESCRIPTION STREETS,OF NORTH GRAND AMES OFFICE xo a :' $ i -niui IEVISED eeseo ox nac coadexts DATED larvae 71SS.1NelflutAVB.,ShBD m k 2801 GRAND AVENUE PROPOSED CONDITIONS Ames,bwe50D10 N r� 41 � AMES, IOWA (5�2tm1�