Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-21-2005 Planning and Zoning Commission - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, April 18, 2005 -7:30 PM Informal Meeting Robert A. Lee Community Recreation Center Meeting Room B 220 S. Gilbert Street Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 7:30 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order. B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda. C. Rezoning/Comprehensive Plan: 1. A public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to amend the South Central District Plan to change the future land use map designation and plan text to change the Aviation Commerce Park designation from Intensive Commercial to Retail/Community Commercial. 2. REZ05-00004 Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning of approximately 54 acres from Public Intensive Commercial (P/CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for property located on Ruppert Road. (45-day limitation period: April 24) D. Rezoning/Subdivision Items: 1. REZ04-00017/SUB04-00017 Discussion of an application submitted by Third Street Partners for a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Housing Overlay - Low Density Single-Family Residential (OPDH-5) zone and a preliminary plat of Village Green, Part XXIII and XXIV, a 76-lot residential subdivision (38 single-family lots and 38 attached zero-lot line lots) on 25.67 acres of property located on Wintergreen Drive. 2. REZ05-00001/SUB05-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by James Davis for a preliminary plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan of MWD Davis Addition, a 14-lot, 50.04 acre commercial subdivision located north of Highway 1, west of Highway 218. (45-day limitation period: May 14) E. Rezoning Item: REZ05-00005 Discussion of an application submitted by Ace Auto Recyclers for a rezoning of approximately 2.22 acres from General Industrial (1-1) zone to Heavy Industrial (1-2) zone for property south of 2752 S. Riverside Drive. (45-day limitation period: May 15) F. Annexation/Rezoning Item: ANN05-00001/REZ05-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City to annex approximately 29.7 acres of property located north and east of Highway 1 & Deer Creek Road, and rezoning the property from County Residential to ID-RS, Interim Development Residential. G. Other Item: Setting a public hearing for April 28 to discuss the proposed new zoning code. H. Consideration of the April 7, 2005 Meeting Minutes I. Adjournment Informal Formal ** Informal Meeting is cancelled due to holiday. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 15, 2005 (For April 21 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting) To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: John Yapp, Associate Planner Re: Proposed amendment to South Central District future land use map Recently the City initiated a rezoning of Aviation Commerce Park from P/CI-1, Intensive Commercial, to CC-2, Community Commercial. The 1997 Iowa City Comprehensive Plan identifies the Aviation Commerce Park property as General Commercial. The South Central District Plan is more specific, and identifies the property as Intensive or Highway Commercial on the future land use map. This reflects the thinking at the time Aviation Commerce Park was being established, that intensive commercial businesses, possibly with some connection to Airport operations, would be attracted to and be appropriate on the Aviation Commerce Park property. Since that time, none of the Airport Commerce Park properties have been leased or sold. The City has received a purchase offer for part of the property from a large retailer. For retail use to be permitted on the property, it needs to be rezoned from Intensive Commercial (CI-1), to Community Commercial (CC-2). For this proposed rezoning to be consistent with the South Central District Plan future land use map, it should be amended reflect Retail / Community Commercial land use for the property, and associated changes to the text of the plan should reflect this change as well. Staff finds that, in this case, changing the intended use of the Aviation Commerce Park property on the South Central District land use map from Intensive or Highway Commercial to Retail / Community Commercial is not a significant change. There are both CC-2- and CI-1-zoned properties bordering Aviation Commerce Park. Infrastructure is adequate for commercial development in both zones. The improvements recommended in the SCD Plan related' to retail development, including pedestrian, landscaping and other appearance issues, would also apply to Aviation Commerce Park. The fact that Aviation Commerce Park has direct access to Highway 1 and Riverside Drive, both arterial streets, mitigates any traffic concerns that retail development may generate more traffic than intensive commercial development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the South Central District Plan future land use map be amended to show the Aviation Commerce Park property, on the north side of the airport, as Retail / Community Commercial, and that the South Central District Plan text be changed to reflect the map change as follows: Intensi'le Commercial. Land available in the western reaches of this subarea with fairly direct access to Highway 1 and near Highway 218 provides opportunities for large lot development. These large properties would be suitable for intensive commercial uses with extensive outdoor storage needs. Entranceway aesthetics need to be considered as these intensive commercial properties develop and' redevelop. Intonsive Commercial development and zoning are planned for most of the 54-acre Airport North Commercial Park. The City plans to provide streets and utilities for the new business park, and the Airport Commission will enter into long-term leases with developers, who may further divide the property for businesses that can function as freestanding entities or provide support services for other businesses and industries in the South Central District. Airport-related businesses and a science center are being encouraged to locate in this new commercial park. (Page 24, SCD Plan) Retail Commercial. As the east retail area of this subarea is upgraded, encouraging intensive commercial businesses located on or east of the Westport Plaza property to relocate to CI-1 zones to the south or west could result in a more compatible mix of traffic and commercial shops, offices, restaurants and residential uses in the area. To address the appearance of the built-up commercial area along Highway 1, entranceway improvements, including upgrading landscaping, creating pedestrian access, introducing a consistent, attractive lighting design and minimizing signs and utility poles within the streetscape, should be considered. . . (Page 24, SCD Plan) Plan for intensive commercial uses to be established in the Airport North Commercial Park, and industrial uses in the south portion of the airport property. (Page 32, SCD Plan) ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed South Central District Plan future land use map Approved by: Karin Franklin, Director, Depa ment of Planning and Community Development South Central District Future Land Use Scenario Proposed April 2005 '~.^.. ! I¡ II I I I Iii ," 1'1' 11 , 1 'II II' i" , ~ : ,,, !iP , 'I it 'I I, ','. {I- í~~ I , I I , ¡ 11· .~ : ¡ , II H I ,L ',' "' . ¡ , , , I ! I ! I , !I î , ì 1 ì "--------~- \\ \\.., -r -, IL..J. Proposed April zoos -----------_._----~ ¡j----- --- - ------ ----~ ;'; Si.IiImiI;r~ Mbœd Use Onn-,,-&.Æ ~ - M..... DeDSity RoIsiIiimiiaI - omœ N - Mím~HouisioIg - ~mlUi iIy 0>' lLh.M I - S ·"A~ a_dal - PIlbU"¡Pmate Open Spaœ Indnslrial/Manulàctnring - Vacant - Airport , - Waterways - PnbJic ServiceslInstitntional . ____.__._____n .... .... n DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVEWPMENT, cm OF IOWA cm _n____m____n___________nm_______________ ----~- _______________________________._______._._.__~.~_.._._,..'____""_··n····_' ___.,._____~._.,.., __ '_"_..._ __n__ City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 15, 2005 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: John Yapp, Associate Planner -1 ~ / ~ Re: Design standards for large retail establishments At your April 4 meeting, the Commission asked staff to research and propose design and appearance standards for large-scale retail development. This request was in response to the rezoning application initiated by the City to rezone Aviation Commerce Park from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Community Commercial (CC-2) to allow a portion of Aviation Commerce Park to be sold to a large retailer. The concerns raised by the Commission included wanting large retail buildings to be designed to facilitate adaptive reuse when the main tenant leaves, to include features that moderate the scale of large retail buildings, and to make sure the design is attractive and compatible with the appearance of other nearby commercial shopping centers such as Gateway One Plaza. In preparing this information, staff reviewed information and ordinances provided by Commission Chair Brooks and other sources, including information from Fort Collins, CO, Tucson, AZ, Madison, WI, Sun Prairie, WI, Palm Bay, FL, and Asheville, NC. There are many other cities that have also adopted or are considering adopting similar standards, and many large retail developments have been constructed using design standards adopted by cities. The standards outlined below are similar to standards that have been successfully used in other cities. LARGE RETAIL COMMERCIAL STANDARDS The large retail commercial standards apply to retail commercial buildings over 50,000 square feet in size. The intent of these standards is to facilitate adaptive reuse of large retail commercial structures, to moderate scale of large buildings, and to ensure consistent appearance with other shopping center developments. Facades and exterior walls 1. For facades that face public streets and/or include public entrances, facades over 100 feet in length shall incorporate wall projections or recesses a minimum of three feet in depth for a minimum of 20 contiguous feet, within each 100 feet of facade length, and shall extend over a minimum of 20% of the façade. No uninterrupted length or façade may exceed 100 feet. 2 feel .. 100 feel ~ U:\rezonings\Aviation park design standards.doc 2. For facades that face public streets or include public entrances, features such as arcades, display windows, entry areas, awnings or similar features must be used along at least 60% of the façade. ~ "i,,·.,__ ' . ; . ,- " , ,~ ..1 . .... ....... '. . .. ¡, .. --.... ...... . ........ . ........ ...... WINDOWS .IIWNINGS ENTRY AREAS A/lCAPES Animating features such as the~ must total aO% of total facade:e"gth for IInytaœcse llÞuttlng II pUbìle .tl'éet Graphic courtesy of Fort Collins, CO Detail features Buildings shall include detail and features that provide visual interest, reduce the perception of the mass of the building, and provide a cohesive pattern to the building. The building façade that faces a public street or includes a public entrance shall include no less than three of the elements listed below. At least one of these elements shall repeat horizontally. All elements shall repeat at intervals of no more than 50 feet. It is encouraged that these visual patterns are cohesive with the articulation of the façade. 1) Color change 2) Texture change 3) Material module change 4) Expression of architectural or structural bay through a change in plane no less than 12 inches in width, such as an offset, reveal or projection. "V'/ø\\ eu\\ð\OØ structural bay layout Graphic courtesy of Fort Collins, CO Roofs Roofs shall have no less than two of the features listed below: 1) Parapets concealing flat roofs and rooftop equipment such as HVAC units from public view. The average height of such parapets shall not exceed 15% of the height of the supporting wall and at no point shall exceed 1/3 of the height of the supporting wall. Such parapets shall feature a cornice treatment. U:\rezonings\Aviation park design standards.doc 2) Overhanging eaves, extending no less than three feet past the supporting walls. 3) Sloping roofs that do not exceed the average height of the supporting walls. 4) Three or more roof slope planes. Materials 1. The building materials shall be predominantly quality exterior building materials, including brick, masonry, stone, stucco, or textured concrete masonry units. Predominantly is defined as at least 75% of the exterior of the entire building, but not necessarily of each building wall. 2. The following exterior building materials shall be used minimally. . Smooth-faced concrete block . Pre-fabricated steel or vinyl panels or sheets Entryways Each principal building shall have a clearly defined, highly visible customer entrance with no less than three of the features listed below. Where additional stores are located in the principal building, each store shall have at least one exterior customer entrance with no less than three of the following features: 1) Canopy or portico 2) Overhang 3) Recess / projection 4) Arcade 5) Raised cornice parapet over the door 6) Archway 7) Outdoor patio 8) Display window 9) Tile work and moldings that are integrated into the building structure and design 10) Integral planters or wing walls that incorporate landscaped areas and/or places for sitting U:\rezonings\Aviation park design standards.doc To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: SUB05-00003/REZ05-00006 MWD Davis Addition GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Applicant's Engineer: Applicant's Attorney: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: John Yapp Date: April 21 ,2005 James R. Davis, Robert A Davis Jan Ellen Smith, c/o James R. Davis 4097 Kitty Lee Road Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: 338-5327 MMS Consultants 1917 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: 351-8282 Thomas Gelman 321 E. Market Street Iowa City, IA 52245 Phone: 354-1104 Approval of a Preliminary plat and a Sensitive Areas Development Plan A 14-lot commercial subdivision North of Highway 1, west of Highway 218 50.04 acres Undeveloped, County A1 Upon annexation and zoning by Iowa City: CC-2, CI-1 CO-1 and RR-1 zoning will be applied to this property North: Residential and vacant; County A1 and RS; Highway 1 Highway 218 Residential and Agricultural; County RS South: East: West: The South Central District Plan identifies the approximate southern 2/3 of this property as Commercial; 2 the northern 1/3 of the property is identified as Office Commercial. File Date: March 30, 2005 45-Day Limitation Period: May 14, 2005 SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: City water and sewer will be made available upon annexation. The property owner will be responsible for extending water and sewer lines, and providing a sewer lift station for sewer service. Public services: Police and fire protection will be provided by the City upon annexation; private refuse collection is required for commercial properties. Transportation: Access to the area will be via Highway 1 with secondary access via Kitty Lee Road. No public transit extends to this property. Sensitive Environmental Areas: The Sensitive Areas Inventory Map shows a potential wetland on the property proposed for annexation that will need to be addressed when a development plan is submitted. The Map also shows potential steep slopes on the property. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This property is in the process of being annexed to Iowa City. The applicant, James Davis, is applying for a 14-lot, 50.04 acre commercial subdivision of the property. Because of the presence of wetlands, a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone and approval of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan is required. The zoning designations of the property are a mixture of commercial zones. Following the lot numbers on the proposed preliminary plat, Lot 3 is zoned CI-1, Intensive Commercial; Lots 1-2, 9-14 are zoned CC-2, Community Commercial; Lots 6-8 are zoned CO-1, Office Commercial; and Outlot B at the north end of the subdivision, identified as an open space outlot, is proposed as RR-1, Rural Residential. U:lsubdivisionslMWD Davis prelimainry and SAO.doc 3 ANAL YSIS: SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone and approval of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan due to the presence of wetlands on the property. The applicant has proposed a wetlands mitigation plan which is being reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers (COE), who have authority over 'Waters of the United States.' COE approval of the mitigation plan, which details the compensatory mitigation, wetland plantings, erosion control, and drainage pattern on the property, should be obtained prior to Council consideration of the Sensitive Areas Development Plan. Description of proposed wetland: As described in the Wetland Mitigation Plan, in order to compensate for wetlands disturbed with this development, part of the created wetland will be on the Davis property on the west side of Kitty Lee Road. On the MWD Davis Addition site, two types of wetland are proposed, a created emergent wetland and created floodplain wetland. The wetlands lead to and surround a pond, which is proposed for stormwater detention. The pond itself is not considered to be part of the wetland proper since it is too deep to support wetland plant life. Surrounding the wetlands is a upland buffer area meant to address the buffer requirements of the City Sensitive Areas Ordinance. There are also existing and proposed wetlands on Outlot A of the MWD Davis Addition site. Wetland buffer: City code requires a 100-foot buffer between any development activity and the perimeter of the wetland. A buffer is defined as: "An area of land that is located adjacent to a designated sensitive area and provides a transition area that protects slope stability, attenuates surface water flows and preserves wildlife habitat and protected wetlands, stream corridors and woodlands." City Code subsection 14-6K-1G(3b.3) states that "buffer averaging may be permitted or required where an increased buffer is deemed necessary or desirable to provide additional protection to one area of a wetland for aesthetic or environmental reasons" [italics added]. The width of the required buffer may not be reduced more than 50% (50 feet in this case). The Sensitive Areas Ordinance gives four criteria by which to review buffer averaging: 1) the proposed land use and its potential impact on the wetland; 2) The design and layout of the proposed development in relationship to the wetland; 3) the physical characteristics of the site and the wetland; 4) Any other factor related to the short- or long-term environmental stability and health of the wetland. In this case the applicant's engineer has proposed 'averaging' the required buffer partly along the western edge of the property, parallel to the Kitty Lee Road right-of-way, and partly at the rear of Lot 6, in the vicinity of the planted screen of pine trees. The applicant's engineer is making the case that a larger buffer in this area is appropriate in order to filter runoff from Kitty Lee Road, before this runoff reaches the wetland; Staff has requested a written request and explanation for the buffer averaging for the Commission. Staff recommends not accepting the buffer averaging as proposed. The area adjacent to Kitty Lee Road will be filled and retrofitted with a storm sewer when Kitty Lee Road is improved in the future. Much of this area is a proposed slope, sloping up to Lot 1, and will not convey water. The area behind Lot 6 does not appear to be integral to the wetland; it U:lsubdivisionslMWD Davis prelimainry and SAO.doc 4 is just an undevelopable area due to the gas pipeline and proposed landscaped buffer. The buffer does not meet the minimum 50-foot requirement between the wetland and the proposed location of the Naples Avenue cul-de-sac. While staff is not opposed to buffer averaging in concept, the averaging should still result in a buffer that is adjacent to the wetland itself. Stormwater runoff from Naples Avenue: The other point-source of runoff that will affect the wetland is directed from the Naples Avenue cul-de-sac. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance discourages direct discharge of stormwater onto a wetland; the applicant is proposing to direct this runoff directly into the pond instead of the wetland. The City's Development Regulations Specialist is comfortable with this concept. Steep slopes: There is a small area of steep slopes to on the west side of the wetland area, that is not proposed to be disturbed other than the planting of vegetation on it. The applicant has identified an area of soil on the property that has recently been stockpiled that may contain steep slopes. It is not the intent of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance to protect such stockpiles of soil. PRELIMINARY PLAT The preliminary plat consists of 14 commercial lots. Lots 3-14 are proposed to be accessed from an extension of Naples Avenue, which is proposed to be designed as a collector street. The access points for Lots 3, 13-14 are identified on the plat. These access points are part of the Conditional Zoning Agreement proposed for the property, and will preserve queuing space for southbound Naples Avenue traffic. Naples Avenue is proposed to have three exiting and two entering lanes at its intersection with Highway 1, as recommended in the approved traffic study for the development. Other improvements to the intersection will be identified on the construction plans for the property which will accompany the final plat. Lots 1-2 are proposed to access Kitty Lee Road via a 40-foot wide access easement. As per the Conditional Zoning Agreement for this property (which to date has not been approved), Kitty Lee Road will need to be improved to collector street standards in conjunction with any development on Lots 1-2. In addition, prior to development on Lots 1-2, a traffic study will need to be done to determine any improvements needed to the Kitty Lee Road / Highway 1 intersection. Grading and erosion control plan: A grading and erosion control plan has been submitted in conjunction with this plat, and has been approved by Engineering staff. Storm water management: Storm water management is proposed to be directed to the pond surrounded by the wetland in Outlot A of the development. Water main and sanitary sewer fees: A water main extension fee of $395/acre will be required. Because the developer is constructing a lift station and sewer system to serve this property, no sanitary sewer fee is required. U:\subdivisionsIMWD Davis prelimainry and SAO.doc 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ05-00006/SUB05-00003, be deferred pending the minimum 50-foot :required wetland buffer being shown, and Commission acceptance of buffer averaging for the wetland area. Upon resolution of the wetland buffer location, staff recommends REZ05-00006/SUB05- 00003, a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone and approval of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and preliminary plat of MWD Davis Addition, a 14-lot, 50.04 acre commercial subdivision, be approved subject to the Army Corps of Engineers approving the wetland mitigation plan prior to Council consideration. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Preliminary plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan Approved by: rtt 1~",::iJ~ Jeff Davidson, Assistant Director, Department of Planning and Community Development U:lsubdivisionslMWD Davis prelimainry and SAO.doc 0r- a a a a I LO a N w a: -- M a a a a ), I ~ . . . . awaI :- ,if 1 II II I I I ~ (j) :i E ~ ~<J ~ / .t- .~:::::; § - }J /~ ~ ~ ~ - / Ie ~ ~ ,.r~ ~ I JJI I f-/;~~ ~4 ~ ~ ~ I~ "- ~ ~ 'III i = - ~ ~ ~ I~ i ¡~ () <J - L ~ ~ .~~ \ Vr- ~ ~ ......~ 9 5~r- ~ ~ L \) \) i / 1>_ U ~Q. Þ J / f- ~ IJ '-~~\ lit 'II}... \ '/y"" ~ ;-- C:SJ'~T ~~ D ] ~.\ rr ~ Ij\==~~~ ~ ... A~ ~ ~::'-8 ~k= ~ ~ >? ~ II-f'v '7 Y '3 ~L-t:.~~ lJ t= þ\ \./ I~~V IrV i~ / "C ct1 o a: Q) ~ ~ ~ " ~ I~[( -g '~~ ~ \ ~ ,~ .c , 0) " :I: Z o Þ-I ~ ,i I ~ \ ~ g ~v ~ \ ~ #;~ /'7 r\ ê : 1\ 00 / T I ) , c.. ~~§ ~ ~ ¿ / U - I r .. ... ..... [ I f I PRELIMINARY PLAT & SENSITIVE MWD DAVIS IOWA CITY, AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADDITION IOWA PUT PRlPAIII!D RY! 11MB COH9ULTAHrB 11ft. lit? SOUTH OILlBln' 8T. 101" em. 1)11'0\ 622<10 OWNRRlMnmMna, ....... R. 0.'111. RDbIrl A. 0.. aDd laD a"n Smith c/o....... It. DI.... 4017 II", .... ... Iøwt. CII.,. an. 1522.tO ~~~;..~~ :r:f.:Lct........... -- \ , \ onlll!l" A'PmIUl'l¥. ThoraM II. Gelmaa 3I!t Eo Yarbl street 10_ Clq, 10_ ... + ~ -..... ,.. IlWD DAVIS ADDITION IOIA CITY. IOW'A -I 1§mI=- CTI~""'·· ..... mll--_.....~ rza¡¡r:."is"'~ -, ~-- , \~----_.... , \ ./ ~x/' ,/ \ ,/ \ / .... ....-......................................... // c()l'lO 11:'5 5\bN ... ,co,~ - ~'ì 11 t<lENíZ I '. ',' J, 0¡:'ffa'o~~\5\ON J / / 1 \' -.¡.J. 05 ...... ~ /'\ ~ \ \~ ,'. ~©/' ./. \"o~ I\,~\ ~~_ ~ / / <J'0o 1 !~ \ ~ r"-"T·-"T"-"T'-"·r-m,... ~~~/'/( ~,\ "t-~ , ,) ;,'1 1&9r1; Z 11 I Z I '3 ...·r . ~~~..,.. /( / I -::~ ,\ Ii I ./ ," ~ Z ',¡/IL -L --+ /./ /» I r - ~NO 1 ! i f' '3 I 4 l 5 I "../' ..,/ 15ECC I! -J,. ~ ~~""//'/I/'/íl L ~-~~~YS:~ ~~RãÄ.~1 -L I ...<.7.>._..._mmm=y I I .... I ~..' '/'-"'1 I I I 4 ./~ // 1 i I ¡ i i »1 ¡I/ i ii I MWS CoauLTAIITI. I tIC. ....-... --- .-.-............. . .-..: -- . .......- . . ..... -.... . .,.,.. - --......., ..,.. ~ _orr_ ..,.. LOCtJW~.YAP -- ----- _..._n._...__ ---- -- --- ---------- ..nn_________.__ I' . ~-- -~- ===:t::::= : ~. --- --. _T__ --- LM.III... 0-. IIU._ _..., Me....... -, ~~. f£.;:r~= __ CONI1IIUC1'ICNOIICUIIIEIU....". =..:.. .-.mm _QUOIT 1'0 .. CO""TOU" '''''TII:''VAL _ , II'OOT PLAT/PWf APPROVED ..... City of 10.. City :¡-æ::.+:r=.=:r= ~_.. I ..~~~ Q;iL . . ... 1 __..,.'ILI:._ ...- ~....- ~..... I '~.~~ IIII I.~"'" I:ïiL ... . __.,,'ILI:.""':' ...- ,~~ =.. -,..",.,,--... ~ STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo Item: REZO-0005 2752 S Riverside Dr. Ace Auto Recyclers Inc. Date: April 21, 2005 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Ace Auto Recylcers Inc. 2752 S. Riverside Drive Iowa City, IA 52246 Contact Person: Don Hilsman Phone: 338 7828 Requested Action: Rezoning from 1-1 to 1-2 Purpose: Expansion of salvage yard Location: South of 2752 S. Riverside Drive Size: 2.2 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Salvage yard -1-1 South: Warehousing -1-1 East: Salvage yard - 1-1 West: Agricultural- County CH Comprehensive Plan: Industrial File Date: March 31 , 2005 45 Day Limitation Period: May 15, 2005 SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: Sanitary Sewer and water lines are located to the north of this property and would need to be extended to allow development. Public Services: Police and Fire protect are provided by the City. The Westport Route with a stop located to the northwest of this property provides transit service to this area. 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 1974, upon the request of the property owners at that time, the City annexed this property as part of an approximately 45-acre annexation. The westerly 300 feet of the annexation area including this 2.22-acre area, was zoned Light Industrial (M-1) and the easterly 591 feet was zoned Heavy Industrial (M-2). The M-1 zoning classification, which did not allow salvage yards, was similar to the current General Industrial (1-1) zone. This and the adjacent properties were rezoned to 1-1 with a citywide rezoning in 1983. At the time that this area was annexed, the property owner entered into a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) specifying the conditions pertaining to the operation of a salvage yard on the adjacent property to the east. The intent and requirements of the CZA were to assure that 1) the salvage yard would be located at least 300 feet east of Old Highway 218 (Riverside Drive); 2) there would be a berm and landscaping to screen views of the property from Old Highway 218 and the Iowa River; 3) the auto recycling operation would consist only of temporary storage of automobiles awaiting crushing and crushed automobiles and equipment relating to the crushing operation; and 4) the area used for auto salvage would not to exceed 5 acres. The CZA was recorded as a covenant running with the land so that it applied to the owner who agreed to it as well as future owners. Neither the previous property owner nor the current applicant has adhered to the conditions agreed to in the CZA. The salvage yard was expanded beyond the 5-acre area agreed to by the City and the property owner and now covers approximately 14 acres. The required berm and landscaping was not put in place or has been removed. The applicant continues to operate a salvage operation on adjacent property in violation of the Conditional Zoning Agreement. The applicant had spoken with the B\Jilding Department about the possibility of receiving a building permit for a new building to serve the existing salvage yard. The Building Department indicated that the current salvage yard was in violation of the 1-1 zoning as well as the CZA and that no building permit could be issued to expand an illegal use. The applicant is now requesting that this 2.2-acre property be rezoned from 1-1 to Intensive Industrial (1-2). If rezoning were approved, the applicant would then be required to apply for a special exception to allow expansion of the existing salvage yard operations onto this property. ANAL YSIS: Existing Zoning: The existing 1-1 zone is intended to provide for the development of most types of industrial firms. Regulations are designed to protect adjacent residential zones and the other uses in the zone. The 1-1 zone permits manufacturing, research and testing, wholesale trade and warehousing, among other manufacture-related uses. It does not allow salvage yards. Heinz Road and Industrial Park Road north of Highway 6 are good examples of 1-1 development. Proposed Zoning: The proposed 1-2 Heavy Industrial zone is intended to provide for heavy or intense industries. The zone is designed primarily for manufacturing 'and fabrication activities, including large-scale or specialized operations having external effects which could impact adjacent less-intense commercial or industrial uses. Permitted uses include industrial, commercial, or related uses. The zone also allows operations such as sand and gravel extraction, and utility substations as provisional uses. Salvage yards may be permitted by special exception only. The following requirements apply to salvage yards if the Board of Adjustment approves a special exception: 1) No salvage shall be permitted within 1,000 feet of an established R zone. 2) All outdoor storage shall be conducted entirely with an enclosed fence, wall or other solid screen, except for driveway areas. Such solid screen shall be constructed on or inside the front, side and rear lot lines and shall be constructed in such a manner that no outdoor storage or salvage operations shall be visible from an adjacent property, street or highway. Storage either temporary or permanent, between such fence or wall and any property line is expressly prohibited. Junk or salvage materials shall not be piled against the fence or higher than the height of the 3 fence. 3) For fire protection, a fifteen foot wide, unobstructed firebreak completely surrounding the salvage yard shall be maintained. 4) The storage of rags, paper and similar combustible waste shall not be closer than one hundred feet to any property line unless enclosed in a masonry building of not less than four hour fire-resistive construction. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Riverside Drive/Old Highway 218 commercial - industrial corridor is one of the few industrial areas that exist in Iowa City. This area is particularly suited to industrial development because it is flat, has rail access, has access to the Interstate Highway System, and access to the airport. In addition to recognizing this area as appropriate for industrial development, the South District Plan recognizes Old Highway 218 (Riverside Drive) as an entranceway to Iowa City. It is the first exit from Highway 218 from the south. Because of its high visibility, the South District Plan talks about the need to upgrade this entranceway to the city and raises concerns about the existing salvage operations in the area. The plan notes that expansion of the existing salvage operations may be considered only if effective screening is provided for the existing salvage yards. In staff's view the effective screening of the salvage yards in this area will require adherence to the conditions of the 1974 CZA. This would include setting the operation farther back from Riverside Drive, the construction of a berm and evergreen landscaping to screen the salvage operations from the street and adjacent properties, and the removal of vehicles so that the salvage operations are confined to a specified area. In addition to this being a major southern entranceway to the city, the Comprehensive Plan discusses an east-west arterial street to serve this area of the city. The Capital Improvements Plan includes the extension of Mormon Trek Boulevard south of the airport to Riverside Drive and then the continuation of this arterial as McCollister Bourlevard east across the Iowa River to Scott Boulevard in east Iowa City. This major capital improvement, which is being funded by over $6 million of federal and local dollars, is intended to spur economic development in this part of the city. In staff's opinion the further expansion of a salvage operation in this location is counter to the efforts of the City to attract industrial uses, which increase the tax base and provide jobs, to this part of the community. In staff's view a salvage yard is a service that may be necessary to serve the community. However because of the negative effects on adjacent properties and the general character of an area, such operations need to be strictly controlled. The current and previous owners of this property have demonstrated an unwillingness to adhere to agreed-upon controls on the existing salvage operations. The existing operation continues to have several illegal aspects. In staff's opinion it would be unwise to expand this operation further in this area, given the City's commitment to improve the entranceway and invest in capital improvements in this part of the community. Zoning this one parcel for intensive industrial uses raises the issue of a spot zoning, in that this one property would be given more intense zoning than surrounding properties. Although two adjacent property owners have indicated support for this rezoning, it is staff's opinion in the long- term, the continued expansion of this illegal salvage operation is not in the public interest and the goal of spurring economic development in this corridor. Summary: This property was annexed into the city as part of a larger annexation. The previous and existing owners of this property have not adhered to a Conditional Zoning Agreement intended to minimize the negative effects of a salvage yard. The salvage yard has expanded on to land that was never zoned for such a use. Any further expansion of the salvage yard may be counter to the City's investment in this area to spur economic development and would constitute a spot zoning. 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ05-00005 an application for a rezoning from 1-1 to 1-2 for 2.2 acres located on S. Riverside Drive be denied. A IT ACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Photograph 3. Applicant's statement 4. Correspondence Approved by: , Kar:' Franklin, Director Department of Planning and Community Development S/pcd/staffreport/REZ05-00005.doc ~ ~ tj ~ ~ ~ ~ tj -'-'"--'\ ~ .~. i I / ..// --- o .,.. - (J) ~ :::s ~~o V)'-~ ~~a::: ¡§o;;;:ï:: """:)<.>1.( 9 !!J 8 ¡ AYIIItJft 1/1) (¡) t: (¡) a\) ~ 0 !I>~ ~ 1.0 o o o o I 1.0 o N W a: . ~ "¡:: C 0) -c "~ "~ a: " en z o ..... 5 o ~ ~ t:: 00 , - ^""^ ~c ~ II = ~ Q) ãi o '" 0) c !5.. a. Cö ~ ç Ü ~ o II o ç ë3 J: ~§ £'E U ~.~ .8ö "- I! 0,0 QP U _,C ~..~ æQ ~ ACE AUTO RECYCLERS, INC. 2752 S. Riverside Dr. . Iowa City, IA 52246 . (319) 338-7828 Reason for rezoning: We need to upgrade our facilities. Our office is too small and we do not have adequate storage to recycle automobiles. With the increase in population in the Iowa City area the numbers of junk: autos have also increased. In 2003 we processed 3,804,920 lbs of scrap which amounted to 1268 cars. In 2004 - 5,511,180 Ibs-1778 cars. By rezoning this parcel we would accomplish two things. We would have a building positioned in such a way that it would provide a natural screen. With the landscaping in front and around the building, it would be very appealing to the traffic passing by. It would also give us the upgrades we need to better serve the community. Ace Auto Recyclers, Inc. \ c' v L-ì .n\ (,; '....,. \', \ \':1 ':-J "-EMIR. Agent STANNARD MOVING & STORAGE P.O. Box 1666 Iowa City, Iowa 52244-1666 . Phone: (319) 351-1552 Wats: 1-800-247-0465 March 30. 2005 City of Iowa City Iowa City. IA Dear Sirs: This Letter is in support of Ace Auto Recyclers, Inc. attempt to get approval to improve their property with a new building and other amenities. We are the next door neighbor to the south at 2820 S. Riverside Drive and are exposed to the current empty, unimproved lot. I have reviewed their plans and believe that what they are proposing will be a major improvement in our neighborhood. The new building, screening and green space proposed in their plans would be very much more attractive than the current situation. In addition. I would welcome an improvement in Riverside Drive by the city as well. It would dovetail right into their plans to improve the visual appearance of the neighborhood. Thank you tor your consideration. Sincer~. ."""/ Rand:L~ President y~ ¡? ·n\ ¡,....V -v Companv/Organlzatlon Date Due Job Number PO Number Ph. Fax 319/354·2962 Contact Name Phone ( ) TO: FROM: RE: DATE: City of Iowa City, Planning and Zoning Keith Hemann, Hawkeye Weld and Repair Re-zoning along Riverside Drive March 30, 2005 To Whom It May Concern, I would go along with the re-zoning on this parcel if Ace Auto is willing to spend the extra money on fencing and landscaping. These changes would be an improvement and an asset to this particular area. From the time we purchased our property along Riverside Drive, we have continued to mow and landscape to make the view more attractive to those coming and going from Iowa City. I can be reached regarding this matter at 319-354..,9353 during regular business hours, 7am to 4:30pm. Thank you. ~~ Keith Hemann ... .t\1 L¿ ',,1 is : ¡ í I ¡ ¡ , To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: ANN05-00001 / REZ05-00006 Annexation of Clear Creek LLC & Horton properties GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: John Yapp Date: April 21 ,2005 City of Iowa City C/o Planning Department 410 E Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Karin Franklin Phone: 356-5230 Annexation and rezoning To allow property to be incorporated into the City of Iowa City North east of Highway 218 / Deer Creek Road Approximately 29.7 acres Undeveloped & one residence; County· Residential North: Undeveloped; County Residential South: Highway 218 & Deer Creek Road East: Undeveloped; ID-ORP West: Highway 218 & Deer Creek Road The general Comprehensive Plan does not address this property, and a more detailed district plan for this area has not been completed. The Clear Creek Master Plan identifies this property as commercial. April 5, 2005 N/A 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In May 2002, the City Council adopted by resolution (RES. 02-183) a Memorandum of Understanding endorsing the Clear Creek Master Plan. Thís plan envisions the development of approximately 462 acres north of Melrose Avenue, east of Highway 218 and south of Clear Creek in Coralville. The proposed development include residential and commercial uses, with the commercial development focused along the Highway 218 right-of-way and in a commercial node near the center of the area. The remainder of the area is proposed to develop with a variety of residential uses. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended endorsing the Clear Creek Master Plan in April 2002. The Memorandum of Understanding was also adopted by the City of Coralville and includes an agreement to cooperate on the construction of a new alignment of Camp Cardinal Road. Camp Cardinal Road will serve as the main arterial street access to this developing area, as well as providing a north-south arterial street connection between Iowa City and Coralville. The owner of the majority of this 29.7 acre property is owned by Clear Creek LLC, whose representatives have requested annexation to Iowa City. A one acre parcel of the annexation area is owned by Beverly Horton, who has also consented to annexation to Iowa City. ANAL YSIS: ANNEXATION The annexation policy in the Comprehensive Plan states that annexations are to occur primarily through voluntary petitions filed by property owners. In addition the Comprehensive Plan establishes three criteria under which to review annexation requests. 1. The area under consideration for annexation falls within the adopted long range planning boundary. The area proposed for annexation falls within the adopted long range planning boundary in Iowa City. Land just to the north of this property was recently annexed by the City of Coralville. 2. Development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing an undue burden on the City. Annexation of this property is consistent with the Clear Creek Master Plan. Infrastructure will be extended by private development interests, and there should not be an undue burden on the City for allowing this property to be annexed to the City of Iowa City. 3. Control of development is in the City's best interest. Given that this property is within the City's growth area, and is located adjacent to Highway 218 in an area proposed for commercial development, control of development is in the City's best interest. 3 The conditions for voluntary annexation appear to have been met. The Comprehensive Plan states it is the intent of the City to look favorably on voluntary annexation proposals within the designated growth area. The owner of the one-acre property, Ms. Horton, has requested that the City levy portion of property taxes for her property be transitioned so the immediate burden of increased property taxes is less severe. State Code allows the City levy of taxes to be graduated on 25% of the assessed property value the first year; 40% the second year; 45% the third year; 70% the fourth year; and 85% the fifth year. The County and School District portions of the tax levy would be unchanged. Given the residential nature of the Horton property (compared to the Southgate property) and its small size (one acre) staff recommends the City portion of the tax levy be transitioned according to what is permitted by State Code. REZONING Access: The property is accessed by Deer Creek Road, a gravel road that would become part of Iowa City once this property is annexed. As part of the recently agreed-to 28E agreement between Johnson County and Iowa City, Johnson County is responsible for maintenance of Deer Creek Road 'from Melrose Avenue to the north city limits', except that Iowa City is responsible for dust control. Once development is proposed on this property, the right-of-way for Deer Creek Road will need to be dedicated to the City as public right-of-way. Consistent with the terms of the road maintenance agreement, staff will contact Johnson County representatives to determine interest in amending the agreement due to this annexation. Given that no development and no infrastructure improvements are proposed at this time, Interim Development (I D) zoning is appropriate for this property. The existing single family residence is permitted to remain. Any additional development on either the Clear Creek property or the Horton property would require a subsequent rezoning and development proposal. Because adjacent properties are zoned Interim Development - Office Research Park (ID-ORP), and the long-range use of this property is expected to be commercial, staff recommends this property be zoned ID-ORP at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that ANN05-00001, a proposed annexation of approximately 29.7 acres of property located north and east of Highway 218 and Deer Creek Road, be approved, and for the Horton property, the city portion of the property tax levy be transitioned according to what is permitted by State Code. Staff recommends that REZ05-00006, a rezoning of approximately 29.7 acres of property located north and east of Highway 218 & Deer Creek Road, from County Residential to Interim Development - Office Research Park, ID-ORP, be approved. Approved by: Kari Franklin, Director, Dep rtment of Planning and Community Development ~] ~^ tj ~ ~ ~ ~ tj , J en a: ê CJ ~ I ~ I lO o Z Z < c o ~ ~ C C c( -æ ~ {) .... æ "5 Z o t-f 5 o ~ ~ t= rJ:J REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION Clear Creek LLC, owner of certain property located in Johnson County, Iowa, hereby requests that that property be annexed by the City of Iowa City, on a voluntary basis. Attached hereto is a legal description of the property, along with a map showing the general location of the property to be annexed. Date: ó?-~g-oG CLEAR CREEK LLC ~c7~ by: Teresa L. Morrow, Manager STATE OF IOWA ss: JOHNSON COUNTY This instrument was February, 2005 by Teresa >f1- acknowledged before me on the ~ day of L. Morrow, as Manager of Clear Creek LLC. (Stamp or Seal) /MJ r------c.JõsephHëillãñd-----l fiJ'" I Iowa Notarial Seal I .. I! Commission number 141011 : I My COMmission Expires I I ~Iarch 24, 2005 I L______.. _________________.J c in and for the State \\Server\shared\WPDOCS\LLC\Clear Creek, L.L.C\Request for Voluntary Annexation.wpd REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION I, Beverly Elaine Horton, owner of the property described as Lot 1 of Horton's First Addition in Johnson County, Iowa, hereby request that this property be annexed by the City of Iowa City on a voluntary basis. The parcel number of this property is 1112203001. Furthermore I request that the City property taxes be phased in according to tax transition schedule in State Code for this property. Signature 11.w&1& U,.;." i;{,.,~ Beverl aine Horton This instrument was acknowledged before me on the ç ',;~ day of Âr-; I 2005, by Beverly Elaine Horton, as owner of Lot 1 of Horton's First Addition. Date: '1- 5' -a-5" i~ SONORAE FORT i 1- Commission Number 159791 . . MY_COmmiss~on Expires ow -<, 7- òc, ~L.(LJ f~ Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Ppdadm/hortonvolan nex. doc ,~ 1 -~= -....tt ~---~ ~~~!! "':. _.1' ...;~_ r CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: April 11, 2005 c~a4~ To: City Council ,1[,1 From: Karin Franklin, Directo Re: Proposed Zoning Code It is our understanding that recently members of the City Council have met with members of the Land Development Council (LDC), a group of representatives from the Homebuilders Association and the Iowa City Association of Realtors, about the new Zoning Ordinance. Attached is the document distributed to you by the LDC and a response from the staff based on our work ~ith the Planning and Zoning Commission. Cc vPlanning & Zoning Commission City Manager -- I I " , ¡ I f ~ ~ ':~ :: I I \ " ~ _ ) : J The following summary is prepared by the Land Development Council. This summary is not exhaustive. Rather, is intended only as a brief overview of some key sections of the proposed Development Code rewrite. OVERLAY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT The goal should be to reduce the need for a burdensome OPD process. Unfortunately, the proposed Code revisions significantly expand the areas that trigger the OPD process. An OPD should allow for flexibility in design to meet the particular needs of the site. This code mandates design standards, particularly in the area of garage placement and pedestrian facilities that actually eliminate flexibility. R Zones · Attached homes (a-lot duplex) are only allowed on comer lots and have strict design standards. · Duplexes are only allowed on comer lots and have strict design standards. · The minimum lot sizes are increased in a majority ofthe R zones thus increasing urban sprawl and decreasing affordability. · Design standards are written throughout the new code. · Only 1 car is allowed to park in driveways of single family homes that meet the required setbacks. It is difficult to detennine how or who will enforce this prOVISIon. · All lots less than 60' have mandated design standards. RM Zones · Multi-family buildings on llot are required to be designed for privacy, with no direct views between windows. It is not clear what constitutes a direct view and who will interpret this. · Attached single family and duplex uses have strict design standards. · Building material standards are written throughout the code. · The Central Planning District, which is very large, has very restrictive design a.I11f building material standards. OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS Open Spaces · It is unclear whether the developer is required to dedicate the real estate (1) once the plat has been approved and the public improvements have been installed, or the earlier of within 2 years after approval of the preliminary plat or by the time , . the City hás issued 50 percent of the certificates of occupancy for the subdivision. Ground Cover · Paragraph 4 of Section 14-5K-3(C) is too vague. Requiring developers to not only dedicate a portion of land, but also to grade, seed and make it ready for recreational use runs the very real risk of completely eliminating any financial responsibility the City should rightly bear for new park space. Fees In Lieu/ Use of Funds · This section provides that "all payments will be used to acquire or develop open spaces, parks, recreation facilities and greenways/trails that will benefit the residents of the subdivision or planned development for which payment has been made." (emphasis supplied). This language is too vague. Serious questions remain as to who will determine what benefits the residents of the subdivision. · This section gives the City five years in which to use the funds, with the ability to extend that period for another five years if less than 50% of the subdivision has been constructed. This is too long of á time period. . · Park ground needs to be included as part of the public improvements accepted. REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES The proposed code has excessive built-in delays and regulatory hurdles. The goal should be to make the approval process as predictable and efficient as possible and development professionals should enjoy a presumption of approval. Mandatory Neighborhood Meetings · While well-intended, this section is an unnecessary as state law already requires public notice and comment for any rezoning application. Performance Guarantees · The City currently has enough enforcement mechanisms without requiring performance guarantees. · There are no criteria set forth about when a performance guaranty would be required and no details about when those guarantees would be returned. Code and Zoning Amendments · A super-majority vote should not be required by Council when they disagree with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation on amending the Comprehensive Plan. · Requiring Council to meet with Planning and Zoning Commission anytime there is an "informal consensus" on Council that is contrary to the P&Z's recommendation is unnecessary, costly, and reinforces the presumption of disapproval. SENSITIVE AREAS The HBA does not view respecting our environmentally sensitive areas and encouraging affordable housing as competing policies. · Sensitive Areas should not be included in the Overlay Planned Development process. · Jurisdictional wetlands should be removed from City regulation. They are already covered by the Army Corps of Engineers. · The proposed code utterly fails to consider other effective wetland management strategies such as replacement, preservation, restoration/enhancement, and banking. · "Grove of Trees" is a new definition. However, its relevance to ecological standards of the area that makes it necessary to protect as an environmentally sensitive feature. Response to Land Development Council Summary of issues within the proposed Zoning Code Planned Development Rezonina Process Land Development Council: "The proposed Code revisions significantly expand the areas that trigger the OPD process." Response: Without any specific mention of what new areas the Land Development Council is referring to, it is difficult to know how to respond to this assertion. However, with the reorganization in the Code, there may be some confusion about several issues. · Sensitive Areas Overlay Rezoning: There have been no changes to the types of sensitive features that trigger a rezoning process. In the current code the sensitive features that trigger a planned development process are listed in 14-6K-1 C-3. In the proposed Code this same list is in 14-51-3B. · In the current code, if a property owner wants to develop a manufactured housing park where the land is divided into lease lots, a rezoning to RFBH is required and the development must meet the standards in the code for manufactured housing parks. In the current code, the standards for manufactured housing parks are located in 14- . 4D and the standards for the RFBH Zone are located in 14-6D-6. In the proposed code these standards have been simplified and incorporated into the planned development section of the code, thus eliminating an unnecessary zoning designation and simplifying a rezoning process that is currently confusing due to standards that overlap and in some cases conflict with one another. PLEASE NOTE: This process is distinct from the placement of individual manufactured homes on lots within standard subdivisions. In the current code and in the proposed code, manufactured homes, mobile homes, and modular homes are considered single family dwellings and allowed within standard subdivisions, if they are converted to real property and taxed as a site built dwelling, as provided in the Code of Iowa. Contrary to the Land Development Council's assertion, there are a number different ways that the proposed code will reduce the need for the planned development process: . One of the most common reasons that developers apply for a planned development rezoning is so that they can modify the dimensional standards of the base zone, such as lot size and width, building height, and setbacks. In the proposed Code, in exchange for meetinQ certain objective' standards, lot size. lot width. and setbacks may be reduced in all the Sinale Family Zones without triQQerina the need for a planned development rezoninQ. This will allow single family development on smaller lots, resulting in a win-win situation for both the developers and homebuyers. Because per lot infrastructure costs are lower for smaller lots, the resulting home lots are more affordable to homebuyers. The developers reap the financial benefits of being allowed to sell more home lots per acre. It can also help to slow the rate of urban growth and allows flexibility to preserve environmentally sensitive features of the site without having to go through a planned development rezoning process. . Another common reason for requesting a planned development is the desire to build attached dwelling units, such as townhouses on land zoned for single family 1 residential. Even though townhouses are allowed in the High Density Single Family (RS-12) Zone by right without going through a planned development process, the required lot width is too high to make townhouse development feasible. Therefore, in the proposed Zoning Code, the lot size and width standards for attached single family dwellings (townhouses) have been reduced in the RS-12 Zone, which will allow the development of townhouses without triggering the need for a planned development rezoning. Sinale Familv Zones land Development Council: "Attached homes are only allowed on corner lots and have strict design standards." Response: The proposed Code does contain a proposal to disallow duplexes on interior lots in the RS-8 Zone (thus only allowing them on corner lots) with the intention of encouraging a balance of detached and attached dwellings in this particular zone. However, the following changes in the proposed code will allow more opportunities for attached homes. · Attached homes will be allowed on corner lots in the RS-5 Zone, the most prevalent residential zoning designation in Iowa City. The.current code does not allow attached homes of any type in the RS-5 Zone. The site development standards are intended to ensure that the attached homes will be compatible with the single family homes in the neighborhood. · Lot size and lot width have been reduced in the RS-12 Zone, so with the new code it will be possible to build attached homes in the RS-12 Zone, without having to go through a planned development rezoning process. The site development standards codify the standards typically negotiated through the planned development process. · The requirements in the RIO Zone have been changed in the proposed code to allow detached single family, attached single family, and duplexes. Currently, only upper floor apartments are allowed in this zone. The site development standards are intended to ensure that these residential uses will be developed in a manner that is compatible with the other land uses allowed in this zone. · Attached homes are also allowed in almost all of the Multi-family Zones, as is the case in the current Zoning Code. land Development Council: "Duplexes are only allowed on corner lots and have strict design standards." Response: In the proposed code, duplexes are allowed as follows: · In the RS-5 Zone on corner lots - Currently duplexes are not allowed in this zone. · In the RS-8 Zone on corner lots - currently duplexes are allowed on any lot that meets the lot size requirements, which has resulted in whole areas being developed as duplexes. The proposed change will encourage a mix of single family and duplex development in the RS-8 Zone, which will help to create more stable neighborhoods over time. · In the RS-12 Zone on any lot. · In the RNC-12, RM-12, RM-20, RNC-20, and RIO Zones on any lot. 2 Land Development Council: "The minimum lot sizes are increased in a majority of the R zones thus increasing urban sprawl and decreasing affordability." Response: In the current code the minimum lot size for detached single family dwellings in the RS-5 Zone is 8,000 square feet; in the RS-8 Zone, it is 5,000 square feet; in the RS-12 Zone it is 5,000 square feet. The minimum lot sizes have not been increased in the proposed Code. In fact in the proposed code, the minimum lot size, minimum lot width, and minimum setbacks may be reduced through the density bonus provisions (14- 2A-7A), thus providing new opportunities to reduce sprawl and increase affordability. The minimum lot width has been increased for detached single family dwellings in the RS-5, RS-8, and RS-12 Zones to reflect how land has been typically subdivided over the last ten years and to provide adequate lot width to accommodate current single family home designs. Land Development Council: "Design standards are written throughout the new code." Response: Each of the base zone articles contains "site development standards." Many of these standards exist in the current code, but are scattered throughout different sections. With the proposed code, an attempt was made to consolidate all these various standards into each respective base zone article to make the code easier to use. Some new standards are incorporated into the Code based on recommendations from Duncan and Associates, the consultant hired by the City to analyze the shortcomings in our current code, and also based on the policies and goals of Iowa City's comprehensive plan. An attempt was also made to provide more flexibility in the Code to allow activities and development not currently allowed. With this added flexibility, standards are incorporated into the Code to address potential negative impacts on surrounding properties. For example, in commercial zones outdoor storage of materials and products is not currently allowed. The proposed code allows outdoor storage and display areas, provided certain site development standards are met to protect surrounding properties and public areas along street frontages. The same is true in residential zones. For example, lots narrower than 60 feet or less than 8,000 square feet are not currently allowed in the RS-5 Zone. In the proposed Code, smaller lots are allowed, provided certain site development standards are met to ensure that the residential character of the resulting development is similar to that enjoyed in other areas zoned RS-5. Land Development Council: "Only 1 car is allowed to park in driveways of single family homes that meet the required setbacks. It is difficult to determine how or who will enforce this provision." Response: This is an existina standard inthe zonino code. Subparagraph14-6N-1B-3b of the current zoning code states, "Except as provided below, in R zones and in the C and I Zones within 50 feet of an R zone, no parking shall be permitted in the front yard." In the paragraphs following there are various exceptions to this rule listed, one of which is the one mentioned. by the Land Development Council. This provision remains the same in the proposed code. Required setbacks (yards) are intended to provide open space on a lot, and thus only certain minimal uses of the setback areas are allowed. However, in the proposed code, the minimum front setback for the principal dwelling has been reduced from 20 feet to 15 feet. The minimum setback for a garage is 25 feet, which would allow room for parking in front of the garage without encroaching into the area that is intended to remain open space on the lot. The minimum garage setback 3 also enables parking a large vehicle, such as a truck or SUV, without it hanging over the sidewalk. In addition, the setback standards in the Code are minimum standards, the homeowner/developer/homebuilder always has the option to set a garage back further on the lot to allow room for additional cars to be parked in the driveway. Land Development Council: "All lots less than 60 feet have mandated design standards. " Response: Only one new site development standard has been added to the Code in the single family zones. Paragraph 14-2A-6C-6 states, "On lots less than 60 feet in width, garages and off-street parking areas must be located so that they do not dominate the streetscape...." There are many ways that this standard can be met The code provides some examples of ways to meet the standard, but any option that meets the requirement will be allowed. This provision is intended to respond to repeated references in Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan to establish garage placement standards for small single family lots. This approach was also recommended by Duncan and Associates and has been employed by a number of communities around the country to provide opportunities for smaller, more affordable home lots while ensuring that the resulting neighborhoods will remain attractive and livable and retain value over time. Multi-Familv Zones Land Development Council: "Multi-family buildings on 1 lot are required to be designed for privacy, with no direct views between windows." Response: In the current code, multi-family buildings located on the same lot must be separated by a distance equal to the height of the highest building (14-6Q-2E). This provision is intended to provide adequate space between buildings to provide for light, air, and privacy between dwelling units and to provide adequate separation for fire protection. To maximize density, multi-family buildings are often built to the maximum height allowed in the zone. In most multi-family zones, the height limit is 35 feet. Therefore, on lots with multiple buildings, the buildings must be separated by at least 35 feet. In the proposed code, in order too provide more flexibility in the placement of buildings on a lot, this standard was reduced to a minimum separation distance of 10 feet. However, allowing buildings to be located in such close proximity may result in a loss of privacy to the residents living the buildings. Therefore, standards to address privacy and fire protection were added to the code. In the proposed Code a multi-family building is allowed to be located within 10 feet of another multi-family building on the same lot provided that the buildings are designed to provide a minimum amount of privacy between dwelling units. The proposed code states, "Buildings containing residential uses must be designed to preserve privacy. This can be achieved by placement of windows to prevent direct views into the windows of adjacent residential dwelling units." This provision also contains standards for locating balconies and air conditioning units and meeting fire separation requirements. The standards are fairly straightforward. The alternative is to require a greater separation distance between buildings as is required in the current code. Land Development Council: "Building material standards are written throughout the Code. The Central Planning District, which is very large, has very restrictive design and building material standards." 4 Response: The "Central Planning District Multi-Family Design Standards" are currently located in 14-5H-5N of the City Code. These standards were adopted in 2000 to address concerns expressed throughout the community about the unacceptable design of multi-family buildings, particularly in the older parts of the city where a real mix of housing types exist. Large apartment buildings were being built without windows or doorways facing the street, resulting in long blank building facades along residential streets. In addition to the blank facades, many of the buildings were out of scale (bigger and taller) than surrounding development. Large parking lots were located along street frontages and adjacent to single family homes without any screening or landscaping. Sometimes the building would be built "on stilts" with the parking located at the street level under the building. The adoption of these multi-family standards has greatly improved the quality and design of multi-family buildings in the Central Planning District. During subsequent comprehensive planning efforts in other parts of the community, these same concerns have been expressed along with requests to extend these standards citywide. Therefore, in the proposed code, the Central Planning District Multi- family Design Standards have been more appropriately located in the multi-family article of the code. The basic minimum standards have been applied in all multi-family zones. The more detailed standards that address compatibility within older neighborhoods only apply in the Central Planning District. The current point system used in the current code has proven to be quite cumbersome and difficult to administer consistently. Therefore, in the proposed code, the point system has been eliminated and the standards have been rewritten to be more objective and easier to administer. The PRM and the RIO zones already have design standards in the current code. These have been rewritten to be consistent with standards in the other multi-family zones and to clarify standards where there has been some confusion in the past. Open Space Reauirements No chanQes have been made to the existinQ open space requirements in the code other than to clarify that required improvements to the open space have to be made prior to dedication to the City. Review and Approval Procedures We agree with the Land Development Council that the approval process should be as predictable and efficient as possible. That is why the review and approval procedures are clearly stated within the proposed code. The current code lacks clear information about where to apply and what procedures have to be followed to get a permit or an approval. The vast majority of this chapter of the code is not new. It is a codification of the existing procedures. Land Development Council: "While well-intended, (the mandatory neighborhood meeting requirement) is an unnecessary [sic] as state law already requires public notice and comment for any rezoning application. Response: Currently, the city has a voluntary "good neighbor meeting" policy, which encourages developers to meet with surrounding property owners prior to application. Such meetings help to dispel misinformation and rumor about a project, and provide an 5 avenue for input from the surrounding property owners outside of the adversarial atmosphere of the public hearings. For developers that have utilized this practice, it has often helped to reduce community opposition and helped to smooth the approval process. The Planning and·Zoning Commission feels that these types of meetings should be required when there is a request for an annexation or an upzoning adjacent to existing residential areas. Land Development Council: "The City currently has enough enforcement mechanisms without requiring performance guarantees. There are no criteria set forth when a performance guaranty would be required and no details about when those guarantees would be returned." Response: There are no new requirements for performance quarantees in the proposed zoning code. There are only a few instances in the current zoning code where a performance guaranty is required. These have not been changed. This section merely explains the procedure if a performance guaranty is required. Land Development Council: "A super-majority vote should not be required by Council when they disagree with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation on amending the Comprehensive Plan. Response: The current code does not explain the procedure for applying for a change to the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan and accompanying district plans were created with the input of hundreds of citizens. These grassroots planning efforts are monitored and closely reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission feels that any request for changes to the plans to address the desires of individual property owners should be carefully considered in the context of the larger plan. Because the Commission is more intimately aware of the public input and the various elements of the comprehensive plan and district plans, they feel that their recommendations regarding changes to those plans should receive greater weight in the decision-making process. Land Development Council: "Requiring Council to meet with Planning and Zoning Commission anytime there is an "informal consensus" on the Council that is contrary to the P&Z's recommendation is unnecessary, costly, and reinforces the presumption of disapproval. Response: The zoning code used to contain a provision that required a super-majority vote of the Council in cases where the Council disagreed with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation. In fact, a majority of cities in Iowa contain this same provision. The Council voted to eliminate this provision from Iowa City's code a number of years ago and in it's place adopted aresolution to meet with the Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss cases where they disagreed with P&Z's recommendation. In the proposed code, this procedure is referred to in the procedures section to make it clear to the applicant what will occur if there is a disagreement. This is not a chanQe to the current practice and such a meeting is conducted both in cases where P&Z has recommended disapproval and the Council is intending to approve the application and in cases where P&Z recommends approval and Council intends to disapprove the application. 6 Sensitive Areas The Planning and Zoning Commission agrees with the HBA that respecting our environmentally sensitive areas and encouraging affordable housing should not be competing policies. Currently, on sites with sensitive features, development density is allowed to be clustered away from sensitive areas through the planned development process, thus allowing flexibility to preserve environmental features while providing needed housing opportunities within the City. No chanoe to this wise practice is proposed in the new code. Land Development Council: "Sensitive Areas should not be included in the Overlay Planned Development Process." Response: Currently, sites with sensitive areas that trigger a sensitive areas rezoning are required to be reviewed through the planned development process. This process provides the flexibility to modify the underlying zoning requirements so that development can be clustered away from sensitive features of the site. In other words, the planned development process allows a transfer of density to areas of the site more suitable for development. This is not a change to the current ordinance. However, the provisions have been simplified and consolidated into one section of the Code. Land Development Council: "Jurisdictional wetlands should be removed from City regulation. They are already covered by the Army Corps of Engineers. The proposed code utterly fails to consider other effective wetland management strategies such as replacement, pre.servation, restoration/enhancement, and banking." Response: No substantive chanoes have been proposed to the current sensitive areas ordinance. The current zoning code incorporates the required review by the Army Corps of Engineers and also incorporates required buffered areas around jurisdictional wetlands. No changes have been proposed to this section of the Code. The change proposed by the Land Development Council would be a substantive change to the current ordinance. The current and proposed codes contain the same provisions for compensatorv mitiaation in cases where development activity is proposed in a reaulated wetland. It also allows the very measures mentioned by the Land Development Council. (See 14-51- 6, Jurisdictional Wetlands, particularly subsection F, Design Standards¡ and subsection G, compensatory mitigation. Land Development Council: "'Grove of Trees' is a new definition. However, is [sic] relevance to ecological standards of the area that makes it necessary to protect as an environmentally sensitive feature." Response: The definition of "grove of trees" is not new. It has always been in the sensitive areas ordinance. No change to this definition or how "groves of trees" are regulated is proposed in the new code. 7 MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 7, 2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL DRAFT MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Beth Koppes, Don Anciaux, Bob Brooks, Dean Shannon MEMBERS ABSENT: Jerry Hansen STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, John Yapp, Sunil Terdalkar, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Garry Klein, Randy Hartwig, Gary Saunders, Steve Kohli, Evelyn Fry, Jay Honohan, Ed Peirson, Robert Cronch, Bob Wilson RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, REZ05-00002/SUB05-00005, rezoning from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone (10.92-acres) and Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone (18.34-acres) subject to 1) A CZA agreement which specifies cost sharing for Sycamore Street improvements 2) Outlot A stormwater management facility being built with Phase 1 3) An easement created to facilitate a sanitary sewer being extended to Sandhill Estates 4) Staff approval of the final landscaping plan to include large variety of evergreen trees. Legal papers for the final plat specifying that any fencing will be on the inside (west side) of the row of landscaping. and a preliminary plat of Brookwood Pointe, an approximate 29.26-acre, 106-lot residential subdivision located west of Sycamore Street, south of Wetherby Drive, north of Dickenson Lane. Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, SUB05-00001, a final plat of JJR Davis Second Addition, a 14.76-acre four-lot commercial subdivision located east of Mormon Trek Boulevard, south of Highway subject to staff approval of legal papers and construction plans prior to Council consideration. Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, SUB05-00002, a final plat of JJR Davis Third Addition, a 5.05- acre, two-lot commercial subdivision subject to staff approval of legal papers and construction plans prior to Council consideration. Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, SUB05-00007, a preliminary and final plat of Ashton Place, an approximately 2.62-acre two-lot residential subdivision located at 39 Normandy Drive and 820 West Park Road subject to Staff approval of legal papers prior to Council consideration. CALL TO ORDER: Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Garry Klein, 628 Second Avenue, requested to make comments on the new zoning code. Anciaux asked Klein if he had attended any of the public workshops on the proposed revisions to the Code to present his commentary. Klein had not. Brooks and Miklo said there would be public hearings regarding proposed revisions to the Code scheduled for the end of April and during May at which time commentary specifically on the Code would be received. Behr said at this time the Commission and Staff would not be able to respond to any inquiries/commentary. Klein said once he heard a presentation he needed time to think it over before speaking and wished to provide 'food for thought' for the pubic hearings. Klein said in the new Code a lot of thought had gone into residential planning. With respect to the commercial codes there were limitations as to minimum size of land use for retail, but there were no maximums listed. He wondered if that would be of interest to consider. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 7, 2005 Page 2 Brooks said there were forms available for public input and comment on anything in the proposed Code. It was important that all input be documented. He requested that Klein complete a commentary input form and turn it in to the Planning and Community Development office. REZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM: Consider setting a public hearing for April 21, 2005 on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to amend the South Central District Plan to change the future land use map designation and plan text to change the Aviation Commerce Park designation from Intensive Commercial to Retail/Community Commercial. Yapp said Staff were requesting the Commission to set a public hearing for 4/21/05. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to set a public hearing for 4/21/05 on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to amend the South Central District Plan to change the future land use map designation and plan text to change the Aviation Commerce Park designation from Intensive Commercial to Retail / Community Commercial. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZ05-00004, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning of approximately 54-acres from Public Intensive Commercial (P/CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC- 2) zone for property located on Ruppert Road. (45- day limitation: 4/24/05) Yapp said this property, know as the Aviation Commerce Park, had been zoned to Intensive Commercial and subdivided approximately 5-years ago. The property was subdivided as commercial property in order for lots to be leased with the proceeds to help support airport operations. Since that rezoning and subdivision, none of the lots had been leased or subdivided. The general Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1997, identified this property as general commercial property. The South Central District Plan (SCDP) identified it as intensive commercial property with the intent that lots would be leased for businesses somehow related to airport operations or symbiotic with the airport. Because the SCDP was so specific, it was Staff's recommendation that the SCDP map be amended. With the proposed change to Community Commercial, a more retail oriented zoning designation, the property had the potential to attract more vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The prompting for the rezoning was that a large retailer had proposed to purchase part of the property from the City. The retailer had agreed to realign Ruppert Road at their own cost, to install left turn-lane improvement at the Ruppert Road and Highway 1 intersection which would be signalized and to provide $100,000 for any other off-site improvements such as pedestrian facilities or possible signalization of the Ruppert Road - Riverside Drive intersection. Iowa City Transit provided access to the Highway 1 corridor including Westport Plaza. A transit route with bus-stops currently used the north segment of Ruppert Road. The Transit Manager had indicated that it would be possible to re-route the bus along Ruppert Road if there was significant retail traffic in that area. The SCDP noted that pedestrian walkways were non existent in that area. If the rezoning was approved for retail development, one of the conditions that staff recommended was to add pedestrian signals to the Ruppert Road / Highway 1 intersection as well as pedestrian connections to any and all commercial properties in this property. The SCDP also recommended that landscaping be upgraded as part of any retail development. Because development of Aviation Commerce Park for retail would have an impact on traffic flow and potentially effect redevelopment potential on adjacent properties, Staff recommended that a landscaping plan be submitted with any development plans. With any areas not taken up by building or required parking be landscaped and attention be paid to the landscaping of those properties. The Airport Commission had some control over these properties and had recommended approval of the City selling a portion of this to a retail developer. At the request of the Commission, Randy Hartwig of the Airport Commission was in attendance to answer questions. The City had initiated the rezoning to Community Commercial in order to facilitate the sale of the land. Because the SCDP map identified this Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 7, 2005 Page 3 property as intensive commercial, Staff recommended that the map be changed. If this property were to be rezoned to Community Commercial, Yapp said Staff recommended: 1) Sidewalks to be installed on Ruppert Road from Hwy 1 south to a sidewalk system in Aviation Commerce Park, including pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian signals at the Ruppert Road / Highway 1 intersection. 2) Pedestrian walkways be provided between the principal buildings on each lot and the public sidewalk system, to be identified and reviewed as part of the site plan review process for each lot. 3) A landscaping plan be required as part of the site plan review process, showing how parking areas, loading docks, outdoor storage, dumpsters are screened from view, and the landscaping of other areas of the site not taken up by required paving or building areas. 4) The preliminary plat indicating necessary improvements to the Ruppert Road / Hwy 1 intersection and the Ruppert Road / Riverside Drive intersection. Brooks said at the informal Commission work session the question had been raised about how the Airport Commission viewed the change in zoning and any change in development in this area as it related to the future of the airport. He invited the Airport Commission to address this question. Randv Hartwiq, Airport Commission representative, said they'd discussed this issue at their March meeting. They had all agreed with the idea of rezoning the rest of the Aviation Commerce Park to Community Commercial. The Commission was encouraged by the prospects of additional sales due to the rezoning. Hartwig said, speaking personally, he felt it was an appropriate use of the property as well. Public discussion was opened. Brooks reminded the members of the audience that the Planning and Zoning Commission was discussing the land use, not the land user. They were looking at the appropriateness of the zoning change for this entire tract. Garv Sanders, asked since the related public hearing was scheduled for 4/21/05, did the Commission anticipate voting that evening? Brooks said the Commission could decide to vote. Sanders asked what date would it then go to City Council? Brooks said usually the following week or two. Sanders said if the Council had to set a date for the public hearing for the rezoning and then have two subsequent meetings, it would take three City Council meetings after the 2151 of April. On the third one we can anticipate them passing this. Sanders asked if all the discussion from the informal meeting that he had attended on 4/4/05 would be available from the City in written form, if he was interested in going back and looking at the record from the work session. He felt the Commission raised some good questions at that meeting. Miklo said minutes from the informal meetings would be ready in approximately one week. Sanders said if a property were zoned at the moment retail commercial and a retailer wanted to make it Intensive Commercial to allow a certain kind of business, would the City or Commission then be allowed to consider the user. Would it be germane? Yapp said often when a zoning was proposed what users would be located on the property was unknown. There was a lot of commercially zoned land that the property owner tried to rent or sell it for what ever uses that would be allowed in that zone. Miklo said the Commission generally tried to look at the use not the particular user because the property could always be sold to another user. Sanders said if for example a company such as the Lion's Den wished to build a rather large adult book store, it would have to be zoned Intensive Commercial. Was that correct? Yapp said he believed that was the only zone that an adult business would be allowed in. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 7, 2005 Page 4 Sanders said he wished that the Commission would consider the following 'What If' scenario. 'What If' it leaked out that the Lion's Den, the largest purveyor of pornography in the Midwest, had a desire to use a certain property in Iowa City near an interstate to build the largest pornography palace in the Midwest and they simply had to ask the Commission to change the zoning from Community Commercial to Intensive Commercial. Would the Commission then consider it in their preview to consider the user and not just the use? Sanders said he hoped to get an answer on 4/21/05. He felt the user was germane. Sanders asked Behr to verify that it was correct that the Commission was under no legal obligation to not consider the user, just as there was no force of law in what their recommendation to the Council would be. Behr said that was correct. Sanders repeated that there was nothing in law that said they could not consider the user as well as the use. Behr said the City Code set forth the parameters in the area in which the Commission was to make their decisions and their recommendations. Those parameters were land use and not user. Behr said what ever direction this rezoning was going in, he would tell the Commissioners the same thing that he had told them Monday evening, it was the use and not the user. Also, Chairperson Brooks would tell the audience the same thing, no matter which direction the rezoning was going. Freerks said she felt what it came down to often was that they could discuss it but the Commission could not say that it had anything to do with their decision. It really was about the use of the land. Sanders said to think about the Lion's Den. Maybe someday I will invite them here, if that is all we can do. If we can not consider the user. He thanked the Commission for their time and indicated he'd be back on 4/21/05. Garrv Klein, 628 Second Avenue, said it was his understanding that Intensive Commercial zoning could be used for warehouse and freight movement and that Community Commercial could not be used for those purposes. He said in this case, he felt they needed to consider the user. One of the main ways of doing business for this particular user was a lot of fleet trucking, day in and day out, many trucks every day, warehousing within their very large structure. Klein said he wondered with this particular case, because of the way the structure would be used, that the user would be germane to think about now and on 4/21/05. Klein said he had previously brought up about minimum and maximum use. He was optimistic that the new Code would go through. In looking at the draft copy of the new Code, the Community Commercial minimum lot requirements were 2700- and 2500- square feet for a building. The proposed building was to be 214,OOO-square feet. On the 22-acre lot being discussed basically a building the size of 11 regulation sized football fields and the parking that went around it was being discussed. Klein said his question was one of maximum use and what was missing from the picture here was an ability to make a decision that took that into account. Land was becoming a scarcer quantity in Johnson County. If they'd been following any of a number of other discussions such as the affordable housing issues, Klein said he felt this land could have been used for subsidized housing as an example. Klein said those were the items he encouraged the Commission to think about until 4/21/05. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to defer REZ05-00004, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning of approximately 54-acres from Public Intensive Commercial (P/CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for property located on Ruppert Road to 4/21/05. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZONING/SUBDIVISION ITEMS: REZ05-00002/SUB05-00005, discussion of an application submitted by Steve Kohli for a rezoning from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone and Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone and a preliminary plat of Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 7, 2005 Page 5 Brookwood Pointe, a 29.2-acre, 106-lot residential subdivision located west of Sycamore Street, south of Wetherby Drive, and north of Dickenson Lane. (45-day limitation: 4/15/05) Terdalkar said this land was currently zoned as ID-RS Interim Development Residential. In the South District Plan it had been identified as appropriate for low to medium density residential development. The requested rezoning was for both RS-5, Low Density Single Family Residential, and for RS-8, Medium Density Single Family residential zoning. The land currently had major access from south Sycamore Street and was also connected by Russell Drive to the neighborhood streets. Improvements to Sycamore Street were funded in FY'09 of the Capital Improvements Plan. The subdivision application was for 106-lots, 39 lots in RS-5 and 67 lots in RS-8 zone. The subdivision would be served apart from the Sycamore Street and Russell Drive by the new streets Ashland Court, Covered Wagon Drive, Vesti Lane and Terrapin Court. A trail way would be developed as part of the subdivision which would connect Wetherby Park and Sycamore Greenway. Issues considered in analyzing the subdivision and re-zoning were double-fronted lots on Sycamore Street; landscaping to create a buffer along Sycamore Street and drainage issues. Terdalkar said Staff recommended approval of REZ05-00002/SUB05-00005, as it was in general compliance with the Comprehensive Plan with the three conditions listed in the 4/7/05 staff report and a fourth condition identified at the 4/4/05 informal meeting. [Payment for landscaping along Sycamore Street; at the time of development - landscaping and fencing addressed in the final plat legal papers; any fencing must be on the inside (west) side of the landscaping along Sycamore Street]. Miklo said the Commission had also requested that additional larger species of evergreen trees such as white pines be used in the buffer in the rear yards of those properties. It was Staff's understanding that the applicant was working on that but Staff did not have a revised landscaping plan. If that was a concern to the Commission, they could recommend approval subject to Staff approval of the landscaping plan or they could defer this to the next meeting so that the Commission itself could review the plan. Koppes asked if there would be a direct connection to Wetherby Park. Terdalkar said Covered Wagon Drive would have a trailway going along the south boundary of Wetherby Park. Public discussion was opened. Steve Kohli, applicant, said Staff had provided a complete report, he had nothing to add. They were working on the additional trees and would provide what ever was needed. Kohli said these things were outside of ordinances and codes. The ordinances and codes existed to protect both sides. Applicants/developers knew what they were getting into and Staff/Commission knew what they were getting into. In this particular case, Kohli said he really didn't have a problem with planting trees. They'd discussed it with Staff before they'd started. They'd done some other subdivision further to the south and had taken that onto themselves. Kohli said it just started going in the wrong direction to require things outside of Code. That was his only Caveat but their landscape architect was working on it. Miklo said in the Code was a general prohibition against double-fronting lots in the Subdivision Regulations. The Comprehensive Plan discussed that if the Commission was going to approve something that was undesirable because it resulted in backyards without privacy or long fences along the streets, that there should be some type of landscaping or buffering. Although it was not directly spelled out in the Code, it was certainly referred to in the Comprehensive Plan and subdivision code. The other option would be to not approve this particular design that resulted in double fronting lots. Brooks said he didn't think that the Commission had had major concerns with that, just with the size of the plants. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Freerks made a motion to approve REZ05-00002/SUB05-00005, a rezoning from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone and Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone and a preliminary plat of Brookwood Pointe, a 29.2-acre, 106-lot residential subdivision subject to the four conditions as noted in Staff's presentation and with Staff's approval of the landscaping plan. Shannon seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 7, 2005 Page 6 Freerks said she didn't see a problem with this. She saw the trees as a give and take. The City allowed double fronting lots provided that they are landscaped to provide the future residents with a buffer from the arterial street. In the Code many items were not spelled out specifically which allowed for some give and take. She felt it would be a good development. Brooks said with respect to the landscaping issues, at Monday's informal meeting the Commission had discussed that the plant material needed to be on the east side of any fence that was installed so that the landscaping would be on the public side of the fence. Miklo said that was noted on the plat. If the large evergreens were added, they would need to be on the west side of the fence, but the hedge would be on the east side of any fence to make the public view from Sycamore Street more attractive. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZ004-00017/SUB04-00017, discussion of an application submitted by Third Street Partners for a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Housing Overlay - Low Density Single-Family Residential (OPDH-5) zone and a preliminary plat of Village Green, Part XXIII and XXIV, a 76-lot residential subdivision (38 single-family lots and 38 attached zero-lot line lots) on 25.67-acres of property located on Wintergreen Drive. Miklo said this item had been on several previous agendas and reviewed by the Commission. The area had an underlying zone of RS-5 single-family which allowed lots of 8,000-square feet provided that they were 60-feet wide. In 1993 an overlay zone had been approved which allowed the eastern area (of the development) to be developed with zero-lot lines, single family-houses that are joined at the lot line. The applicant had proposed to revise the approved 1993 plan. Miklo indicated on an overhead site plan which lots were proposed to be standard RS-5 single family sized lots instead of zero-lot line lots, a difference from what the Commission had reviewed in January, 2005. They would be 8,OOO-square feet in area and 60-feet in width. This change would be in conformance with the underlying RS-5 zone. The lots on the western part of the development would also be standard RS-5 lots. Miklo indicated on the site plan where the zero-lot line lots were proposed to be located. They would be approximately 2,500-square feet to approximately 4,OOO-square feet. The lots would be fairly narrow, approximately 27- to 35-feet in width and served by an alley in the back. Staff felt the alley allowed for some reduction in lot width in that the driveways, concrete and curb-cuts would be in the back of the units allowing for an unpaved front-yard. The applicant was still requesting to reduce the front yard to 7-feet as opposed to the standard 20-feet. Miklo said comparing the proposed plan to the 1993 approved plan, the zero-lot lines were removed from the eastern area but additional units added to the center area. There would be 12 more units than approved with the 1993 plan. Miklo said Staff recommended approval of the proposed changes however the conditions that were of concern in the January 2005 application were noted on the plan and remained a concern. Those conditions included that landscaping must be planted prior to any occupancy permits being issued. Freerks asked Miklo to discuss in further detail the 7-foot front yard and the parking width. Miklo indicated on the site map where parking on one side of the street, between the sidewalk and the street would be 12-foot wide, and on the other side of the street it would only be 6-foot wide. Miklo said the Public Works department had not signed off on the drainage plan or the grading plan yet. If the Commission voted to approve the application, it would need to be subject to Staff approval of those plans. Public discussion was opened. Evelyn Frey, 1855 Sterling Court, said if there was not an approved plan for drainage, it was her request that the Commission hold off until they had something that was approved because it was one of the huge issues for this area. When there was a heavy rainfall, their circle drive filled up several feet deep with Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 7, 2005 Page 7 water and became "Lake Sterling." Frey said she's spoken before the Commission previously, the biggest issue with the plan was the center area which still had way too many units planned for that area. Frey said she'd hoped that they would have seen some type of change from the developer. The design had not changed much/any and it was way too many units for that particular area. Jav Honohan, 1510 Somerset Lane, said he was there on behalf of himself as a property owner in the neighborhood. Honohan said it was his understanding that some of his neighbors had submitted e-mails to Miklo regarding this application. He requested that those e-mails become part of the record. Miklo said the e-mails had been received and would be entered into the record. Honohan said several members of the Wellington Condominiums had expressed concern to him. He had just been informed three days ago regarding the issues with this proposed development. His concern was the density, it was more dense than the Comprehensive Plan of 1993 indicated. He felt they should stick with the plan. Honohan said they were quite concerned with the traffic flow from this development. Vehicles would exit onto Village Road, travel down Wayne Avenue and go out on Dover Street. Wayne and Dover Streets were not collector streets. Unfortunately they had become collector streets because of their location. With the proposed 104 units it had the potential to add 150 more vehicle trips per day. The residents along Village Road were very concerned about the traffic. Sooner or later there would be the desire to have a stop-light at Wellington and Village Road. Another concern was the drainage. They didn't know where the drainage would go in this particular area. Honohan said some of the teachers at Lucas School had expressed a concern about what would be added to their particular school district if this application were approved as it stood now. The populations of the schools was something to be concerned about when discussing 104 units of residential. Freerks asked Staff to address the density issue raised by Honohan. Miklo said the Comprehensive Plan in this general area called for two to eight dwelling units per acre. The proposed development would be more dense than the planned development housing overlay zone that had been approved in 1993 but that should be distinguished from the Comprehensive Plan. The overall development would be approximately 4 units per acre because it included the large storm-water retention basin and would fall within the density of the Comprehensive Plan. Certain areas might be more dense but overall it stayed within the density of the Comprehensive Plan. Miklo said 76 actual units were proposed not 104. The applicant had not started the numbering of lots at number one. It would be 12 more units than approved in 1993 and six less than the Commission had reviewed in January, 2005. Miklo said Sterling Drive and Wintergreen Drive would be connected so traffic would be more dispersed in that area rather than all the traffic being forced back through Sterling Drive. The 12 additional units would produce anywhere from seven to 10 additional trips per day, at an estimated maximum 120 vehicle trips per day from the proposed additional units compared to the 1993 plan. Staff felt in the scope of a neighborhood of this size, they did not feel that the traffic trips per day would be significant. Anciaux asked if Staff ever foresaw the need for a traffic light in this area. Miklo said Staff had not studied the need for a traffic light at Scott Blvd and/or the streets that enter to Village Green so he could not give an indication one way or the other. Ed Pierson, 2054 Hannah Jo Court, asked if the 12-foot was from the center of the street or the curb line. Miklo said from the curb line. Pierson asked if the two water retention units shown on the proposed site plan which currently did not exist, would they be installed? Miklo said that was correct. A trail was planned to go through the southern easement area and connect to the other side of the stormwater facility. Miklo said with respect to stormwater management, Public Works Department had approved conceptual plans. The area would drain toward the existing basin and toward a proposed basin. The concept had been approved but the detailed calculations had not been done or approved yet. Brooks said from earlier public input there had seemed to be a problem with backyard drainage on Sterling Court. He asked if Public Works was confident that that problem would be corrected. Miklo said there would be two drainage easements added as well as drainage over the street and through the stormwater system on the street which would improve the situation. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 7, 2005 Page 8 Robert Crouch, 42 Pond View Court, asked if a tree line was shown on the southern section of the development. Miklo said that was correct, they were proposed to be white pines and indicated on the site map where the tree line was to run on the western to eastern boundaries. Crouch asked when the trees would be planted. Miklo said before any certificate of occupancy for any dwelling in this development could be issued, the landscaping would need to be in place. Crouch said he'd spoken before about the large manufacturing building to the south of the proposed sub- division across the railroad tracks which had roof top units and north wall vents that created a lot of noise. He asked Staff if the developer had indicated that he was concerned about the noise and/or had suggested a solution or proposal to deaden the sound in that area. Staff had heard from the developer during discussions that they shared that concern and that was one of the reasons they would plant the evergreens. Staff didn't know if it would solve the problem. Steve Nasby, the City's Economic Development Coordinator had worked with ALPLA on economic development projects and was aware of the issue. He said Nasby had taken some sound measures in the area and found that they did not exceed federal guidelines for a residential area. He'd spoken to some of the neighbors regarding it, Staff had advised that there be a meeting set up with the neighborhood and factory representatives but he didn't know the status of the proposed meeting. Crouch said he'd like to be involved as he'd been in building maintenance for a number of years. A possible solution for the roof top units could be a noise barrier around the units on the south and west part of the roof; buffers could be placed on the side vents that would direct the noise in a different direction. Miklo said Staff had suggested to the neighbors who'd contacted them, to contact Steve Nasby to request that the meeting be set up. The more neighbors involved the more likely they were to get results. Brooks said from the previous plan, he did not remember the note that was on the current plan regarding an 8-foot high berm with 8-foot wood fence and white pines along the south property line. That would be 16-feet high with white pines which could eventually become 40- to 50-feet tall. It looked like the developer was attempting to address some of the visual and sound issues, however sound was a very difficult thing to work with. Brooks said the Commission could make the recommendation as well that the meeting between the manufacturing plant and the neighborhood be set-up. Bob Wilson, 1828 Sterling Court, said he was concerned about the alley, the density and the zero-lot lines in the middle of the development. He was concerned as to how the alley would be maintained and felt it could become a blighted area. Wilson said with respect to the single-family lots around the edge, was there a certain value housing proposed to be built on those lots. Miklo said that was something that the City did not regulate, they regulated lot size. The area would be zoned similar to those on Sterling Court. These lots were the minimum for an RS-5 zoning, it was what the ordinance required and there was no way the City could require a larger lot size. Unidentified speaker, asked how could the stormwater retention area be included in the calculations for units per acre when it would not be usable for homes or housing. She said the berm would have an impact on stormwater flow. When the plan had been put out initially, there had been a berm at the back end which had blocked the flow of water and kept the water in the backyards of persons along Sterling Court. Miklo said 1993 OPDH plan for this property was the first time that stormwater area was allowed to be used for density in an OPDH. Staff had recommended against stormwater area being used or housing being transferred from the stormwater area to the housing development. At that time, the Commission had overruled Staff. It was up to the Commission on a case-by-case basis whether they wished to give credit for an area in a planned development or not. A planned development allowed the clustering of units in a small area but it did not obligate the City to approve the clustering. Miklo said the berm would be along the railroad tracks. The speaker said she was aware of that but currently there was a very flat ditch along the railroad tracks. Persons could walk down from the tracks right on to a person's property. She felt the berm would create more of a ditch. Brooks asked Staff to direct Public Works to look at the impact the berm would have the drainage problem. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 7, 2005 Page 9 Pierson said he didn't realize that the berm situation and the fence would be a part of this development. He asked if the fence would be the length of the tree line. Miklo said it had been added with the latest plan, the length of the fence was not clear on the plan. Pierson said he'd encourage the Commission to make the length of the fence be the same as the length of the evergreen row that Miklo had indicated earlier. Pierson asked once the fence was installed, whose responsibility would it be to maintain it. Miklo said the individual lot owners would be responsible for the fence that abutted their properties. A homeowner's association would be responsible for snow removal and maintenance of the alley. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Koppes made a motion to defer REZ004-00017/SUB04-00017, a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Housing Overlay - Low Density Single- Family Residential (OPDH-5) zone and a preliminary plat of Village Green, Part XXIII and XXIV, a 76-lot residential subdivision on 25.67-acres of property located on Wintergreen Drive. Shannon seconded the motion. Koppes said she'd prefer to defer until the Commission had more information about the berm, the fence and where the fence would end. Brooks said he'd like to recommend that the homeowner's association be responsible for the fence so that there would be continuity in the maintenance of the fence. The fence would benefit not only the residents of this subdivision but the adjoining areas so it should be the responsibility of the homeowners' association to maintain it. He'd like there to be some assurance that the fence would be properly maintained. Miklo said Staff would discuss that with the applicant. It would be a reasonable conditional requirement of the OPDH, especially for the areas where the fence abutted residential properties. Freerks said there would have to be access to the properties. Sometimes people did things to their properties such as adding another garden. She could see where that type of condition could be problematic. Miklo said hopefully by the time the fence needed repair(s) the evergreens would be grown. Miklo said for CZA or OPDH conditions there needed to be some connection to the zoning at hand. An argument could be made because more housing was being added adjacent to an industrial area that some buffer should be provided for the additional housing. Miklo said at their informal meeting the Commission had discussed the design of the individual zero lot lines. Did they wish to give any direction to the applicant on that issue? Brooks said his feeling was that the Commission had given the applicanUdeveloper direction several different times and they had not heeded it. It would be up to the Commission. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to accept correspondence. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. SUBDIVISION ITEMS: SUB05-00001, discussion of an application submitted by James Davis for a final plat of JJR Davis Second Addition, a 14.76-acre, four-lot commercial subdivision located east of Mormon Trek Boulevard, south of Highway 1. (45 day limitation: 4/24/05) Yapp said this was a final plat for property on the east side of Mormon Trek Boulevard. It was in conformance with the preliminary plat. This plat included the four western commercial lots. Grace Drive was proposed to partially extend into the property with a temporary turn-around. Lot 4 would have access from Eagle View Drive. At this time the applicant was not pursuing extending Grace Drive all the way to Dane Road in order explore possible use of public property for extension of that road. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 7, 2005 Page 10 Staff had previously recommended that the Federal Aviation Administration be required to approve the Grace Drive alignment. At this time since Grace Drive would not extend onto airport property, Staff did not feel that FAA approval should be required with this subdivision. Dane Road bordered the east side of this subdivision. Staff recommended that Dane Road not be required to be reconstructed until the property to the east annexed into the City and was also proposed for development. The plat noted that lots 1, 3, and 4 would not be permitted to have direct access to Mormon Trek Boulevard, which was consistent with the City's Access Control policies for arterial streets. Yapp said Staff recommended approval subject to Staff approval of construction plans and legal papers prior to consideration by City Council. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Freerks made a motion to approve SUB05-00001 subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. SUB05-00002, discussion of an application submitted by James Davis for a final plat of JJR Davis Third Addition, a 5.05-acre, two-lot commercial subdivision located on the east side of Mormon Trek Boulevard, north of its intersection with Dane Road. (45-day limitation: 4/24/05) Yapp said the Third Edition was in general conformance with the preliminary plat. On the preliminary plan, lot one had two lots, the applicant had since proposed one larger lot. Eagle View would be reconstructed to city standards. The plat included access restrictions for direct access to Mormon Trek Blvd. Lot two was to access Mormon Trek Blvd at a previously approved access point, opposite the Dane Road / Mormon Trek intersection. Staff recommended approval subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction plans prior to consideration by Council. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Shannon made a motion to approve SUB05-00002 subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration. Anciaux seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. SUB05-00007, discussion of an application submitted by Casey Mahon for a preliminary and final plat of Ashton Place, a 2.6-acre, two-lot residential subdivision located at 39 Normandy Drive and 820 West Park Road. (45-day limitation: 5/1/05) Terdalkar said the subdivision would facilitate access to the Iowa River from this property and would not create any new parcels. Because there was no development proposed at this point, Staff felt that the sensitive areas along the river would not be effected by this subdivision. They were in receipt of revised drawings, all deficiencies and discrepancies had been resolved. Staff recommended approval subject to Staff approval of the legal papers prior to Council consideration. Brooks asked what were the 10-foot walking easements noted on the drawing. Miklo said they had been added to the most recent plat, Staff had not had discussions with the applicant regarding them. Yapp said it appeared that they provided access to the river. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve SUB05-00007, subject to Staff approval of the legal papers prior to Council consideration. Shannon seconded the motion. Shannon said it was his understanding that most of this area was in the flood plain. When you canoed up and down the Iowa River, much of the area was pretty rugged (unkempt). He hoped that the applicant had plans to do something with the land besides letting huge weeds grow up; it would be for the betterment of the community. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 7, 2005 Page 11 OTHER ITEMS: Miklo said City Council had discussed the Davis subdivision. The conditions that they were pursuing were slightly different than those that the Commission had recommended. Staff requested the Commission's direction as to if they wished to meet with the Council to discuss the changes or not. Council was pursuing: · The developer not pay any money for Kitty Lee Road north of a commercial driveway · 80%/20% funding for the traffic signal. · Council had asked Staff to come up wi design criteria for the next Council meeting and not leave it open to discretion. · If sidewalks are constructed within the next 10 years, the property owners would be waiving their right to oppose a special assessment. Anciaux said his feeling was that the Commission didn't have a handle on the finances of the City or what was economically feasible, the Council was in a better position to determine that. If Council felt it was fair, he would go along with Council's judgment. Freerks said except for Kitty Lee Road, it was somewhat splitting hairs. Koppes said she preferred not to have this come it back before them; it was getting into small details which she preferred the Council to review and decide upon. Shannon said he preferred not to quibble. Yapp inquired if the Commission wished Staff to prepare more information on design criteria for big box retail development based on discussions at Monday's informal meeting. Brooks requested more information on design standards to minimize the big box effect. Freerks said she'd done a review on-line, there was a huge difference in what you saw in terms of big box. In Iowa City, if you asked, things could happen and it didn't have to be a huge expense. She was very interested in discussing this further. Anciaux said the life expectancy of big box stores was approximately 20-25 years. It would be nice if they were constructed in a way so as to lend themselves to future subdivision and were designed in a way that they could easily be divided up into smaller retail space and the façade didn't have to be completely reworked, it would be a benefit. Brooks said he and Staff had discussed having the first public hearing for proposed revisions to the Zoning Code on April 28 at 7:30 pm. CONSIDERATION OF THE MARCH 17.2005 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Freerks made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Anciaux seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Koppes made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:07 pm. Anciaux seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill s:/pcd/minutes/p&zl2005/04-07 -05 .doc