HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-08-02 Bd Comm. Minutes•
MINUTES
IOWA CITY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
•RECREATION CENTER ROOM B
JULY 13, 1977
•
MEMBERS PRESENT: Boutelle, Cil.ek, Crum, Mascher, McLaughlin, Moore,
Powell, Stockman
MEMBERS ABSENT: Thayer
STAFF PRESENT: Boothroy, Flowers, Schmeiser, Showalter
GUESTS: See Attached List
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
1. That the Parks and Recreation Commission continues to favor acqui-
sition of the Windsor Heights Addition, Part 4, property as an extension
of Hickroy Hill Park and opposes residential. development of that property.
2. That, regarding the Windsor Heights Addition preliminary subdivision
plat, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommends that neither of the
options which involve the extension of 7th Avenue north be accepted but
that another means of ingress and egress to the east be explored.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAKEN:
The Iowa City Parks and Recreation Commission met in a Special
on July 13, 1977, with Chairperson Stockman presiding.
* McLaughlin moved and Mascher seconded that the minutes of the
meeting be approved as written. Unanimous.
sion of a
Reights Addit
Session
June B
Don Schmeiser and Doug Boothroy, Department of Community Development,
were present for discussion of the preliminary subdivision plat for the
proposed Windsor Heights Addition. Stockman indicated that the Planning
and Zoning Commission had referred the matter to the Parks and Recreation
Commission for its comments because the property is adjacent to Hickory
Hill Park.
Boothroy explained that the proposed addition lies east of Hickory Hill
Park and north of Rochester Avenue and that the developer was proposing
a means of access by an extension of 7th Avenue either through a corner
of the park or through adjoining property. A question was raised as to
who now owns the property and Mr. Don Hoy, Attorney, responded that
Windsor Heights Addition, INc., has the title but that his client,
Mr. Pat Harding, has a contract to purchase the property. fie explained
that the option of access to the property through a corner of the park
•would be the quicker way to proceed because Mr. Harding would not have
to wait for the adjacent property to be developed in order to gain
access. Mr. Hoy indicated that Mr. (larding would not own the land
0
•
Minutes
Page 2
July 13, 1977 •
where the access street could cut across the park but that he would
"trade" a portion of property along Ralston Creek to the City for use
as park land in return for access through the park.
Boutelle asked the developer if the requirements of the Storm {Yater
Management Ordinance had been met and Mr. Harding replied that it had
not been difficult to conform to the Ordinance. Neighborhood residents
were present to ask questions about the development regarding runoff
and flooding and Mr. Cecil Davis spoke in favor of a second access into
Windsor Heights, particularly if the proposed development is approved.
Stockman stated that there were two issues present regarding the proposed
development: (a) where the access should be, and (b) should the property
be developed at all. She noted the Commission's interest in purchasing
the property as an addition to Hickory Hill Park but asked that the
Commission consider the Windsor Heights, Addition as a subdivision and
not as a possible acquisition.
McLaughlin stated his feeling that the function of the park would be
destroyed if a road was put in, noting his doubts that runoff would be
adequately controlled and that the park is the City's only wilderness
park. Cilek indicated that he didn't think that development of the
property would harm the park but that he was concerned about the number
of lots proposed and with the runoff problem. Powell stated his •
feeling that it was reasonable to concentrate on the area south of the
proposed dam site in Hickory Hill Park as an extension of the park.
Mascher agreed with Powell, stating that she was in favor of keeping
the park a natural area and that she was opposed to development of the
property. Boutelle also agreed with Powell and stated his feeling that
development of the property would create pressure on a natural area.
Crum asked if the Commission would be consistent in recommending denial
of the subdivision plat in view of its decision regarding development
adjacent to Willow Creek Park and there was a consensus that this
situation was not comparable to the Ty'n Cae Addition matter.
Schmeiser stated that if the developer complies with the subdivision
requirements, the City cannot deny him approval and suggested that the
Commission review the alternatives regarding access. Following further
discussion, Powell moved and Mascher seconded that the Parks and
Recreation Commission continue to favor acquisition of the Windsor
Windsor Heights Addtion, Part 4, property as an extension of Hickory
Hill Park and oppose residential development of that property. Boutelle,
Crum, Mascher, McLaughlin, Moore, Powell, and Stockman voted aye with
Cilek voting nay and Thayer absent. Motion carried. McLaughlin then
moved and Cilek seconded that, regarding the Windsor Heights Addition
preliminary subdfvision plat, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend
that neither of the options which involve the extension of 7th Avenue
north be accepted but that another means of ingress and egress to the
east be explored. Unanimous. •
0
Min uLes
Page 3
July 1.3, 1977
•
Discussion of Melrose -Triangle Place.
0
Melrose -Triangle Place was discussed with Showalter explaining that
the area is open space approximately 64' wide and 4-500' long off of
Melrose Avenue. Schmeiser indicated that the owner would like to sell
the piece of land and that the Board of Adjustment would like to know
if the Parks and Recreation Commission has any interest in purchasing
it. Following discussion, there was a concensus that the land would
have limited possibilities as park land.
Discussion of proposal to charge a $1.00 fee for reservation of City
tennis courts.
Stockman reported that the City Council had defeated the Commission and
Staff proposal regarding charging a $1.00 fee for tennis court reserva-
tions. Cilek indicated that he was opposed to charging a fee at this
time; he stated he would like to operate as is for the first summer of
the University policy and evaluate tho impact of that policy during
budget discussions. He stated that he would not like to charge a fee
in order to discourage use and that he was opposed to the system proposed
by the Commission and Staff. Stockman stated that the proposal had been
made because the phones had been too husy due to the implementation of
the University policy and that the Staff could not, as a result,
provide full service. She spoke in favor of a regulation process,
stating that she felt it would give the total population a chance to
use the courts. Showalter reported that since the proposal was not
passed by.the Council, the Staff would take phone reservations on
Monday through Thursday from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. only, with City
Park reservations being taken starting on Mondays and Mercer Park
reservations starting on Wednesdays. Several alternatives were dis-
cussed such as having a person to collect a fee at the pools or at
the courts, with McLaughlin stating his feeling that a fee should not
be charged at all for use of the courts. Since the Commission could
not reach agreement on how to best handle this situation at this time,
it will be discussed at a future meeting. More information from
actual usage should be available.
Discussion of problems with ball diamonds.
Showalter discussed problems with the ball diamonds, indicating that
the best solution would be construction of additional diamonds.
Stockman reminded the Commission that the next meeting would be held
on August 24. There being no further business, the meeting was ad-
journed at 10:10 p.m.
• {Respectfully submitted,
Ellen R. Flowers, Secretary
GUEST LIST •
Name
Acldre ;
•
OU Le
Ranson :I'or Attendnnur-
0
i
1
MINUTES
IOWA CITY BOARD 01: AD.JUSINIiNT
JULY 13, 1977 -- 3:30 P.M.
CIVIC CHNTFR COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: McBride, Dickens, Fowles
MEMBERS ABSENT: Coedken, Conlin
STAFF PRESENT: Schmeiser, Kushnir, McKean, Lundquist, Siders, Child
FORMAL ACTION TAKEN:
I. To defer consideration of V-7705, application submitted by Mr. .John .1.
Deninger, until the next hoard of Adjustment meeting, August 10, 1977.
2. To defer indefinitely consideration of V-7706, application submitted by
Southgate Development Company.
3. To approve V-7707, application submitted by Lyle W. Crim for a variance in
Section 8.10.3.A.48 of the Zoning Ordinance by establishing Ernest Street
as an officially approved place and cited Section 414.12(3) of the Iowa
Code as justification for granting the variance: the variance "will not
be contrary to public interest, where owing to special conditions a
literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance will result in
unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of the Ordinance shall be
observed and substantial justice done."
4. To approve V-7708, application submitted by Mr. .lames II. Nesmith for a
variance in Sections 8.10.23A and B.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce
the required front yard setback on Property at 256 Magowan Avenue, and
cited Section 414.12(3) of the Iowa Code as justification for granting
the variance: the variance "will not be contrary to public interest, where
owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions of the
Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of
the Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done."
S. To approve V-7709, application submitted by Mr. Paul M. Bowers for a variance
in Section 8.10.40.11(8)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance (Tree Regulations) to
eliminate a required landscaped island on property located at 620 S.
Riverside Drive subject to the applicant's approval of an innovative
parking area design plan from the Planning and Zoning Commission which
would meet the intent of the Tree Regulations. The Board cited Section
414.12(3) of the Iowa Code as justification for granting the variance:
the variance "will not be contrary to public interest, where owing to
special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance
will result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of the Ordinance
shall be observed and substantial justice done."
6. To deny V-7710, application submitted by Sherman and Velma Ilochstetler for
a variance in Section 8.10.23A. of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the
required front yard setback on property at 409 Second Avenue due to the
following two factors:
(1) the applicant's failure to make the required showing of an unnecessary
hardship, and
(2) the granting of the variance would militate against the public interest
in the eventual elimination of non -conforming buildings.
333/ 1
SUMMARY 01; DISCIISSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAAIiN:
Vice -Chairman McBride called the mceling to order and asked if there were any
additions or corrections to the minutes of the meeting held ou .lune 8, 1977.
The Board unanimously approved the corrected minutes of the meeting held on
.lune 8, 1977.
V-7705. Review of an application submitted by Mr. John J. Deninger
variance in Section 8.10.3A.48 of the Zoning Ordinance to establish
Place and the, north 25' of Lot 10 of Triangle Place Addition as an o
.Jon Kinnamon, attorney from Cedar Rapids representing Mr. Deninger, requested
deferral of consideration until the next Board meeting pending the outcome of
a Parks and Recreation Commission meeting at which time the possible purchase
of the Deninger property would be discussed.
Board members noted receipt of a petition and a written list of objections
filed by adjacent property owners.
A motion was made by Fowles, seconded by Dickens, to defer consideration of
V-7705, application submitted by Mr. John J. Deninger, until the next Board
of Adjustment meeting, August 10, 1977. The motion carried unanimously.
V-7706. Public hearing on an application submitted by Southgate Development
Company for if variance in Sections 8.10.250.1 and 8.10.25A.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow parking spaces within the front yard and to reduce the
required number of park in¢ suaces on nrooerty located west of Van Buren Street
Don Schmeiser, Senior Planner, explained that the applicant had requested
indefinite deferral of the application because an attempt was being made to
comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance,
A motion was made by Dickens, seconded by Fowles, to defer indefinitely con-
sideration of V-7706, application submitted by Southgate Development Company.
The motion carried unanimously.
Public hearing on an app
in Section 8.10.3.A.48 o
Mr. Lyle IV. Crim for a
by establishing Ernest St.
Mr. Al Leff, attorney representing Mr. Crim, explained that the variance was
requested so that Ernest Street could be declared an officially approved place.
The applicant has met all the requisites necessary for showing proof of hardship,
Schmeiser said, which is the basis for granting if variance. If the variance
were not granted, the property owner would be denied use of his property, he
said.
0 •
3-
A motion was niade by Dickens, seconded by Fowles, to approve V-7707, application
subtniIfed by Lyle W. Crim for n variance in Section 8.10.3.A.48 of the Zoning
0rdinuncv by vsurblishiIII! Broes t Rtl'oel :c, ;Ili ufl'icinIIy approved place, and
cited Section 414.12(3) of the Iowa Code as justification for granting the
variance: the variance "will riot be contrary to public interest, where owing
to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance
will result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of the Ordinance
shall be observed and substantial justice done."
A vote was taken: Dickens -yes; Fowles -yes; McBride -yes; Conlin -absent;
Goedken-absent. The variance was granted.
V-7708. Public hearing on an application submitted by Mr. James 11. Nesmith
fora variance in Sections 8.10.23A and B.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce
the required front Yard setback on nronerty at 256 Maeowan Avenue: date filed:
Mr. William Sueppel, attorney representing James 11. Nesmith, stated that the
variance was requested so that the existing roof of a sunporch could be replaced
by something more permanent. The house was the first built in the square block
area, he said, and was built in conformance with the existing Zoning Ordinance
at that time. When the Zoning Ordinance was changed in 1962, the front yard
setback was changed from 25' to 30' in an RIA area. A structural alteration
is desired, he said, over the existing patio which has been there since the house
was constructed. 'There is a metal covering over the patio now and the applicant
wishes to.construct glass walls with a roof. 'The alteration would enhance rather
than adversely affect the neighborhood, he said.
Schmeiser questioned whether the roof structure is presently supported by something
anchored to the ground. Mr. Nesmith replied that it is supported by the wall
rather than by something anchored to the ground. There should be a determination
made as to whether or not this is an existing structure, Schmeiser said. It was
the Staff's understanding that an addition to the home was planned rather than
replacement of an existing structure, he said. Glenn Siders, Acting Building
Official, stated that the house is located closer to the street than other homes
along the street and is non -conforming in setback. Setback .is measured from
the foundation of the structure, he said, not from the overhanging roof. It was
his understanding that the structural alteration would be enlarging the present
structure and would be considered an addition to the house.
McBride stated that the proposed alteration would enhance the neighborhood and
he noted the absence of anyone protesting. There is some question, he said, as
to whether the proposed construction would actually extend the building.
A motion was made by Fowles, seconded by Dickens, to approve V-7708, application
submitted by Mr. .lames N. Nesmith for a variance in Sections 8.10.23A and B.2
of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required front yard setback on property
at 256 Magowan Avenue, and cited Section 414.12(3) of the Iowa Code as justifi-
cation for granting the variance: the variance "will not be contrary to public
interest, where owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions
of the Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of
the Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done."
-4-
A vote was taken: Dickens -yes; Fowles -yes; McBrido-yes; Conlin -absent; Goodken-
absent. The variance was granted.
V-7709. Public hearing on an application Submitted by Mr. Paul M. Bowers for
a variance in Section 8.10.40.11(B)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance (Tree Regulatio
to eliminate a required landscaped island on property lorated at 620 S. Rivers
ve
Mr. Bowers expressed his desire to construct a new, larger building in place
of an existing dilapidated structure located within the rear portion of his
property. Because of the physical limitations of the site, the new building
would be located adjacent to an existing parking area, he said. The purpose
of the variance would be to eliminate a required 9.84 -foot wide landscaped
aisle between the existing parking area and the proposed building so that
access would be permitted to the proposed new building through the parking
area.
Schmeiser stated that if the building cannot be located elsewhere on the property,
the Staff recommended approval of the variance subject to approval of an
innovative parking area design plan from the Planning and Zoning Commission which
would meet the intent of the Tree Regulations.
Mr. Bowers explained that it would be easier to locate the building elsewhere
on the property, however, it would be impossible to put stable footings into
the bank of the Iowa River.
Board member Fowles suggested the possibility of putting the parking in another
location. Mr. Bowers responded that putting the parking in another location would
defeat the purpose of obtaining the variance. Ile pointed out that such action
would ruin the display area for recreational vehicles and would take away some of
the existing trees. Mr. Siders informed the Board that due to the size of the
proposed building, additional parking would have to be provided.
A motion was made by Dickens, seconded by Fowles, to approve V-7709, application
submitted by Mr. Paul M. Bowers for a variance in Section 8.10.40.11(8)(1) of
the Zoning Ordinance (Tree Regulations) to eliminate a required landscaped
island on property located at 620 S. Riverside Drive subject to the applicant's
approval of an innovative parking area design plan from the Planning and Zoning
Commission which would meet the intent of the Tree Regulations. The Board
cited Section 414.12(3) of the Iowa Code is justification for granting the
variance: the variance "will not be contrary to public interest, where owing
to special conditions u literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance
will result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of the Ordinance
shall be observed and substantial justice done."
A vote was taken: Dickens -yes; Fowles -yes; McBride -yes; Conlin -absent; Goedken-
absent. The variance was granted.
on an application submitted by Sherman and Velma llochstetler
on 8.10.23A of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required
at
-s-
0
Ralph Ncuzil, attorney rcprescnting Mr. and Mrs. Ilochstetler, explained that
the house was purchased in 1958 and I.he applicants now wish to make some major
improvements to the building. The old garage was recently torn down, he said,
with the intent of constructing :in addition to the house to be used as a
recreation room. After the garage was torn down, the Hochstetler's realized
such an addition could not be constructed onto a non -conforming building. The
house is non -conforming, Ncuzil said, because it has an improper front yard
setback.
Andy McKean, Legal Intern, sympathized with the plight of the applicants,
however, he felt it would be unlikely that an unnecessary hardship could be
demonstrated. 'rhe hardship is not unique to the subject property, he said, but
is a situation which is faced by every owner of a house with an improper front
yard setback. 'Therefore, the granting of a special exception to the Hochstetler's
would seem inequitable.
Fowles questioned whether the building was non -conforming when it was purchased
19 years ago. Schmeiser stated that he did not know the status of the building
19 years ago but pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1962.
Mr. Hochstetler stated that he had hoped to construct a new basement because
the present basement is "very old and has a low ceiling" and probably prevented
the house from selling approximately five years ago. Mr. Hochstetler asked if
there were any alternatives short of tearing down the house and rebuilding.
"I wouldn't have torn down the old garage from the house had I known I couldn't
rebuild," Mr. Ilochstetler said. Tony Kushnir asked if they had been informed
when obtaining a demolition permit that their house was non -conforming and could
not be structurally altered. Mrs. Ilochstetler stated that they had been informed
by the Building Inspector that it was a non -conforming building and the tearing
down of the old garage would necessitate a variance being granted by the Board
of Adjustment before any new construction could take place. McBride stated
that the only alternative to the situation that he could think of would be for
the people in the area to seek a change in the Zoning Ordinance.
A motion was made by Fowles, seconded by Dickens, to deny V-7710, application
submitted by Sherman and Velma Hochstetler for a variance in Section 8.10.23A
of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required front yard setback on property at
409 Second Avenue due to the following two factors:
(1) the applicant's failure to make the required showing of an unnecessary
hardship, and
(2) the granting of the variance would militate against the public interest in
the eventual elimination of non -conforming buildings.
A vote was taken: Dickens -yes; Fowles -yes; McBride -yes; Conlin -absent; Goedken-
absent. The variance was denied.
The meeting adjourned.
Prepared by
Approved by
0 0
MINUTES
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COORDINATING COMMITTEE
JULY 14, 1977 -- 7:30 P.M.
CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Blum, Cain, deProsse, Jakobsen, Ogesen, Perret
STAFF PRESENT: Geshwiler, Keating, Kraft, Martzahn, Simpkins
GUESTS PRESENT: Emil Brandt, Craig Sonksen
Chairman Blum called the meeting to order. Minutes for the June 9 and June 23
meetings were corrected and approved.
Chairman Blum asked why the motion to increase the parking requirements in the
proposed multifamily zones by .5 space each was not on the agenda. Geshwiler
explained that the staff was waiting for the final survey data before researching
other alternatives. Blum requested that this motion appear on the agenda for
the July 28 meeting.
Geshwiler explained that because working on the zoning ordinance by section has
caused some confusion, a draft of the entire ordinance will be completed before
it is given to staff or CPCC for further review, and that an informational report
which highlights the major features of the new ordinance will accompany this
draft. Blum suggested that an explanation of the differences between the present
and proposed zoning ordinances be included in this report.
Ogesen reminded the staff that the committee was opposed to including a zone in
the new ordinance where mobile homes could be interspersed with other uses.
It was the consensus of the committee that there should be a zone within which
the development of a large contiguous unit of mobile homes is permitted, and that
no zone should allow mobile homes to be interspersed with other uses. The com-
mittee suggested that the P.A.D. section of the new zoning ordinance include the
possibility of interspersing mobile homes with other uses.
Community Facilities Report. Keating explained that the report was now in final
form and that it had been circulated among department heads and commissions for
comment, changes and approval. Ogesen suggested that'Keating have the comments
and approval of these various groups in writing to prevent future conflicts.
Geshwiler told the committee that Dick Plastino had suggested that this report
include some mention of the Ralston Creek projects as possible joint use facilities
for flood detention and open space. The committee agreed that a paragraph about
this possibility be included in the "Parks" section of the report and that the
proposed Ralston Creek projects be indicated on the map.
Committee members suggested changes and made corrections to the report. A motion
was made by Ogesen and seconded by Jakobsen to approve the report as corrected.
The report was approved.
People's Guide and Survey Results. Martzahn distributed copies of the preliminary
report on the People's Guide and Survey, and a list of the cross -tabulations which
have been run to date.
Geshwiler informed the committee that ASPO was going to do an article on citizen
participation featuring Iowa City's citizen participation process.
.333.E
1,:.
Jakobsen explained the process by which cross -tabs are calculated, and Martzahn
asked if committee members wished to have any additional cross -tabs run.
Members asked that cross -tabs be run about bus use, using the response to "How
close would you like your residence to be to a city bus stop?" to determine
whether or not a respondent rides the bus. It was suggested by Cain that data
from these cross -tabs could be used to guide the next bus promotion.
Jakobsen asked that all requests for additional cross -tabs be made by Friday,
July 22, and Blum asked the staff to be sure to notify all departments
of this deadline.
Ogesen referred the committee to the data on page 16 of the preliminary results,
Part F, question one, "Do you think that the following services need improvement
or expansion?" He stated that the most negative response should be listed in
addition to the most positive, and that because there is little difference between
percentages, it is difficult to interpret the data. Martzahn said that she would
weight these responses as on page 6, Part B'question 1, "What three features
are most important in satisfying your housing needs. This along with the
cross -tabs will help to make the data from this question more meaningful.
Issues and Alternatives. Kraft explained that the process for developing issues
and alternatives had been changed to the following:
1. Staff gives list of issues and alternatives to CPCC.
2, CPCC reviews, makes changes, and agrees that list is complete.
3. CPCC sends issues and alternatives to Council to amend and approve.
4. Staff does an impact analysis of each alternative (including legal, social
(equity and impact on personal freedom), economic, neighborhood, ecological,
and financial impacts, and impact on the municipal budget), pointing out
'conflicts and interrelationships between alternatives. This analysis will
only point out the consequences of choosing a certain alternative; it will
make no recommendations. The staff's work will be assigned by area of
expertise, not by issue.
5. CPCC reviews impact analysis, chooses alternatives and makes recommendations
to Council.
6. CPCC sends recommendations and impact analysis to Council for final decision.
7. After Council chooses alternatives, work begins on goals and objectives,
the comprehensive plan, a body of policy and implementing ordinances.
Jakobsen asked if Planning and Zoning would also be reviewing the issues and
alternatives and Kraft replied yes.
The following plan for discussion of issues and alternatives was agreed upon:
Committee members will read the issues and alternatives and decide if the list is
complete. They will make additions and deletions and give their changes to
the staff by 12:00 PM on Friday, July 22. These changes will be typed and mailed
to committee members by Tuesday, July 26 for discussion at the July 28 meeting.
Chairman Blum asked if there was any other business. Ogesen addressed the committee
about the problems CPCC has had in keeping to a regular meeting schedule. He
stated that he was worried that funds would be depleted before the comprehensive
plan is finished, and that it was the committee's inability to meet regularly,
• -3-
0
not problems with the staff, that was delaying progress. Fie suggested that
either the size of the committee or the quorum be reduced as a solution. A
motion was made by deProsse and seconded by Perret to reduce the quorum to
four (4), and to require a fifty-one percent (51%) majority of those present
to pass a motion. All members voted in favor of this change.
A meeting was scheduled for Thursday, July 28, at 7:30 PM.
The meeting was adjourned.
Prepared by:
Debbe nSimpkins, DCD
Approved by: A—tL—
Patt Cain
Secretary, CPCC
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: S-7726. Windsor Heights Addition,
fart IV
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing land use and zoning:
Surrounding land use and zoning:
Applicable regulations:
45 -day limitation:
60 -day limitation:
SPECIAL INFORMATION
Public utilities:
Public services:
Transportation:
0
Prepared by: Doug Boothroy
Date: ,July 7, 1977
Pat Harding Construction Company, Inc.
920 Orchard Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Approval of a preliminary subdivision
plat.
To develop 36 single family residential
lots.
East of Hickory [fill Part: and north
of Rochester Avenue.
15.29 acres.
Undeveloped and RIB
North - School and R1A
East - Single family residential and
RlB
South - Undeveloped and single family
residential and RIB
West - Park and RIB
Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance,
and Storm Water Management Ordinance.
8/1/77
8/16/77
Adequate water and sewerage service
are available.
Sanitation service and police and fire
protection are available.
Vehicular access would be,provided
from Winston Drive. The developer
also proposes another means of access
by an extension of Seventh Avenue
either through a corner of hickory Hill
Park or through adjoining property.
0
0
0
I'hysical characteristics: The topography ie gently sloping to
moderately steep with a slope range
from 2 to 18 percent.
ANALYSIS
The subject addition submitted by Pat Harding Construction Company, Inc., subdivides
a tract of land of approximately 15 acres into 36 lots. There are two important
aspects in the consideration of the subdivision:
The development is adjacent to Hickory Hill Park, and
The future street patterns in the vicinity of the proposed development, i.e.,
should Seventh Avenue be extended north as to provide a secondary means of
access to the Windsor Heights area?
With regard to the first concern, the Park and Recreation Commission, in reference
to a proposed PAD at 1750 Rochester, requested of the Planning and Zoning Commission
that when considering any proposed development adjacent to hickory Hill Park, "a
maximal effort be made to conserve and sustain the present natural complexion of
the landscape by the preservation of existing terrain and plant life and the
addition of new protective landscaping." The subdivision and zoning ordinance,
however, do not provide the kind of site controls that are necessary to preserve
and sustain the natural complexion of the landscape.
The second concern of the Staff is the extension of Seventh Avenue. Windsor Heights,
a 58 -lot development, is presently served by one access which is to Rochester Avenue
although three streets within the area have been stubbed out (two to the west and
one to the north) to permit future secondary access through presently undeveloped
areas. Since the one access to Windsor Heights has steep grades of up to 12 percent,
a secondary means of access to Rochester Avenue should be provided to enable
residents to get out during snowy and icy conditions and provide an intersection
which allows better sight clearance for pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
The developer is requesting that the City extend Seventh Avenue northerly from
Rochester Avenue to eventually tie in with an extension of Winston Drive. A present
60 -foot wide pedestrian access strip into Hickory Hill Park opposite the termination
of Seventh Avenue at Rochester Avenue was acquired by the City for the purpose of
extending Seventh Avenue north should it be deemed necessary. In a Staff Report
dated June 12, 1975, the northerly extension of Seventh Avenue to connect with
Highway I was discussed. It was the Staff's conclusion that the disadvantages
of an extension of Seventh Avenue to highway 1 far outweighed any advantages,
favoring the more appropriate extension of First Avenue. In addition to the Staff
Report, a letter from the Park and Recreation Commission (dated June 3, 1975) was
attached thereto which recommended that Seventh Avenue not be extended north of
Rochester Avenue. However, the Planning Staff is of the opinion that Seventh
Avenue should be extended north of Rochester as to provide secondary ingress and
egress to the Windsor Heights area via one of the alternatives suggested by the
subdivider.
A recommendation for approval of the preliminary plat, Windsor Heights, Part 1V, by
the Commission would allow the orderly and logical expansion of Windsor Heights and,
most importantly, permit a secondary means of' access from Windsor Heights to
Rochester- Avenue.
RECOMMENI NITON
The Staff recommends that consideration of the preliminary plat be deferred pending
comments from the Park and Recreation Commission relating to the issues addressed
above and revision of the plat incorporating the deficiencies and discrepancies
noted below. The Staff is not inclined to make a recommendation regarding the plat
until the Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed the proposal.
DITICIENCIFS AND DISCREPANCIES
1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
The provisions of the Storm {Vater Management Ordinance should be met.
The storm sewer should be extended to the subdivision boundary or Ralston
Creek, whichever comes first.
Contour lines should be extended to the property line and contours are needed
in the southeast corner of the subdivision.
Streets back of curb lines should be shown on the plat.
Location of all existing water mains and sanitary sewers and respective
easements should be shown.
6. Windsor Court should be extended through the development to the adjoining
property on the west.
7. The storm water detention areas should be made a part of the proposed lots.
8. Open spaces should be designated as private and made a part of the proposed
lots.
9. Additional street grades are needed for Wilshire Drive and Winston Avenue.
10. Winston Avenue should be renamed Winston Drive.
Lot 26 should be redrawn as to provide more width at the back property line.
A note should be provided on the preliminary plat to the effect that no
structures are to be allowed within the storm water management basin areas.
Location Map.
ACCOMPANIMENT
Preliminary Plat.
APPROVED BY: 61 eo
PVUI Claves, cting Director
Dept. of Community Development
0 0
HIUK UnT nILL rwnn
MINUTES
IOWA CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 21, 1977 -- 7:30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Cain, Ogesen, Blum, Jakobsen, Kammermeyer
MEMBERS ABSENT: Vetter, Lehman
STAFF PRESENT: Schmeiser, Kushnir, Child
RECOMMENDATIONS TO Tllli CITY COUNCIL:
1. To approve V-7704, the vacation of Hollywood Boulevard from Gilbert Street
east to the eastern edge of the property line of A. E. Greb.
2. To approve 5-7720, preliminary Large Scale Non -Residential Development plan
and preliminary plat submitted by HyVee Food Stores, Inc. to establish a
supermarket and drug store at.the southeast corner of Gilbert Street and
Highway 6 Bypass.
3. To approve 5-7726, preliminary plat of Windsor Heights Addition, Part 5,
with the following contingencies:
(1) that the extension of 7th Avenue up to 100' into Hickory Hill Park
be granted in exchange for the developer's dedication to the Parks
and Recreation Commission the northwest corner of the property as
parkland, with the possible exception of that portion for storm
water retention,
(2) that the walkway be a public easement,
(3) that the size of the water mains be indicated,
(4) that 7th Avenue extended be the point of access to Rochester Avenue
and that it be developed as rapidly as possible, and
(5) that the Legal Staff research the legality of street construction
through parkland.
4. To approve 5-7728, final auditor's plat of Auditor's Plat, No. 32 submitted
by Business Development Inc., et al, and located north of Highway 6 Bypass,
west of Scott Boulevard, south of the CRIF,P Railroad, and east of Industrial
Park Road, with a waiver of the installation of public improvements at the
present time and nse of the resolution adopted for the preliminary auditor's
plat.
S. To approve 5-7729, final plat of a resubdivision of a portion of Lot 2 of
Sturgis Corner Addition submitted by Southgate Development Company, with the
following waivers:
(1) reduction of right-of-way width to 451,
(2) reduction of pavement width to 251,
(3) installation of sidewalks along the.strebts proper,
(4) installation of a 4" x 6' asphaltic concrete walkway along the river,
and
(5) signatures of the utility companies.
6. To approve 5-7734, final plat of Court Hill -Scott Boulevard, Part V, sub-
mitted by Plum Grove ;Acres, Inc.
7. To approve 5-7735, final plat of Court llill-Scott Boulevard, Part VI, sub-
mitted by Plum Grove Acres, Inc.
3333
0
-2-
0
REQUESTS TO THE CITY MANAGI:R FOR INPORMATION OR STAFF ASSISTANCE:
See Recommendation 3(5) above.
LIST OF MATTERS PENDING COWlSSION/COUNCIL DISPOSITION:
1. P-7317. Creation of a University Zone (U).
2. P-7410. Creation of a Mobile Home Residential Zone (RMH).
3. P-7403. Revision of MI and M2 Zones.
SUNDIARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTIONS TAKEN:
Chairperson Cain called the meeting to order and asked if anyone wished to discuss
items not included on the agenda. No one responded.
Cain suggested deletion of the following on the July 7, 1977 minutes: the words
"public discussion of" under item H3, page 1, and the second sentence of the fifth
paragraph on page 4. The minutes of the July 7, 1977 meeting were unanimously
approved as corrected.
S-7720. Consideration of a preliminary Large Scale Non -Residential Development
nl�n .nd nrnliminnry nlat Submitted by HvVee Food Stores. Inc. to establish a
ass: 45 -
Don Schmeiser, Senior Planner, informed the Commission that consideration should
be given in the following order to: (1) an innovative parking area design plan,
(2) the vacation of Hollywood Boulevard east of Gilbert Street to the easterly
property line of A. E. Greb, and (3) the Large Scale Non -Residential Development
(LSNRD) plan and preliminary plat. Schmeiser noted that both the Assistant City
Engineer and the Traffic Engineer found the LSNRD plan acceptable.
The Commission unanimously approved the innovative parking area design plan sub-
mitted by HyVee Food Stores, Inc.
Commissioner Blum questioned whether Mr. Grob had been notified of the proposed
vacation of Hollywood Boulevard. Larry Schnittjer, MMS Consultants, Inc.,
confirmed Mr. Greb's knowledge of the proposed vacation.
The Commission unanimously recommended to the City Council approval of V-7704,
the vacation of Hollywood Boulevard from Gilbert Street east to the eastern
edge of the property line of A. E. Grob. Commissioners requested that Mr. Greb
be sent a letter informing him of the vacation and inviting him to address the
City Council if he has any objections to the vacation.
Ogesen pointed out that in the past the P$Z Commission recommended to the City
Council that sidewalks be installed on both sides of all streets and he questioned
why consideration should now be given to waiving that requirement. There is a
need for consistency, he said, Schmeiser responded that very little pedestrian
traffic is anticipated in the subject arca for quite some time and if and when the
need would arise, the cost of installation of sidewalks could be assessed to the
adjacent property owners. However, the Commission could require the installation
at the present time if they so desired. Tony Kushnir, Assistant City Attorney,
expressed preference for using the City's model subdivision agreement form.
The Commission unanimously recommended approval of S-7720, preliminary Large Scale
Non -Residential Development plan and preliminary plat submitted by HyVee Food Stores,
Inc. to establish a supermarket and drug store at the southeast corner of Gilbert
Street and Highway 6 Bypass.
Cain stated that her affirmative vote did not imply her approval of a curb cut
and intersection with Highway 6 Bypass.
5-7724. Consideration of a prelimina
division, a two -lot subdivision locat
City limits within Johnson County and
en
Sub-
Schmieser stated that the applicant had requested deferral and had submitted a
waiver of the 45 -day limitation period.
The Commission deferred consideration of 5-7724, a preliminary and final plat of
Wegman's One -Lot Subdivision.
a preliminary plat of Windsor Heights Addition, Part
a 15 -acre tract of land located cast of Hickory Hill
Chairperson Cain pointed out that a memorandum had been received from Jim Brachtel,
Traffic Engineer, regarding Windsor Heights Addition. Schmeiser noted that the
Parks and Recreation Commission continues to favor acquisition of the Windsor
Heights Addition, Part 4, property as an extension of Hickory dill Park and
opposes residential development of -that property. In addition, the Parks and
Recreation Commission recommended that neither of the options which involve the
extension of 7th Avenue north be accepted but that another means of ingress and
egress to the cast be explored.
Schmeiser said the City Staff would suggest that the walkway be an easement
rather than a dedicated walkway because of the question regarding maintenance
of the walks. Also, the size of the water mains should be indicated.
Commissioner Blum stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission actually gave
the P$Z Commission no alternative courses of action. lie, therefore, made the
following motion which was seconded by Kammermeyer: that the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommend to the City Council the extension of 7th Avenue up to 100'
into Hickory Hill Park in exchange for the developer's dedication of the north-
west corner of the property as parkland.
Blum suggested that the following recommendation suggested by the Traffic Engineer
be passed on to the City Council: "This subdivision should not he approved unless
additional access to Rochester Avenue can be developed during the time that Part
5's utilities and streets are being developed," Blum questioned whether the
0 -4- 0
Commission had the power to deny a subdivision if the street in question is
outside the proposed subdivision. Tony Kushnir stated that the orderly traffic
pattern of the area relating to the proposed subdivision is subject to denial
or approval by the PU Commission.
Kammermeyer suggested approval of the motion contingent upon the development
of 7th Avenue extended from Rochester Avenue north as rapidly as possible. filum
and Kammermeyer expressed a willingness to add the contingency to the motion.
Kushnir cautioned against using public parklands for other purposes.
Mr. James Street, 215 Windsor Drive, strongly supported the recommendation that
the subdivision should not be approved unless additional access to Rochester
Avenue can be developed during the time that Part S's utilities and streets
are being developed.
Commissioners suggested revising the motion to read: to approve 5-7726, preliminary
plat of Windsor Heights Addition, Part 4, with the following stipulations:
(1) that the extension of 7th Avenue up to 100' into Hickory Hill Park be
granted in exchange for the developer's dedication to the Parks and
Recreation Commission the northwest corner of the property as parkland,
with the possible exception of that portion for storm water retention,
(2) that the walkway be a public easement,
(3) that the size of the water mains be indicated, and
(4) that 7th Avenue extended be the point of access to Rochester Avenue and
that it be developed as rapidly as possible.
Ogesen said he was reluctant to act contrary to Parks and Recreation's recommen-
dation against extending 7th Avenue. He said he could not go along with putting
a street on parkland and for that reason would vote against the motion. In
the past, the P$Z Commission has recommended that the subject property be acquired
as parkland, Ogesen said.
Roger Anderson, 509 Rundell, expressed opposition to putting a street through a
park. Ann Shires, 301 Woodridge, stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission
have been trying to purchase the subject property since February, 1976. Jakobsen
commented that the Parks and Recreation Commission have known for two years that
the subject property was available and only during the past three months has
interest been shown in the Ctiy's acquisition of the land.
Commissioners were sympathetic with the idea of adding the property to the park
but said they could not prevent the developer from using it for residential
development if it met the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The
Commission's recommendation does not express an opinion on whether the land
should be used for residential or park purposes, Cain said.
Isabel Turner, 1310 Cedar, suggested that the Legal Staff find out whether state
and/or federal funds could be used for the 7th Avenue extension if it involves
taking parkland. The money may have to come out of local tax dollars, she said.
Ms. Turner also stated that the subdivision should not be approved unless an
additional access can be developed during the time of construction.
Commissioners added as another contingency to the motion that the Legal Staff
research the legality of street construction through parkland.
The Commission passed by a 3-2 vote the following motion: to recommend approval
of S-7726, preliminary plat of Windsor Heights Addition, Part 5, with the
following contingencies:
(1) that the extension of 7th Avenue up to 100' into Hickory Hill Park be
granted in exchange for the developer's dedication to the Parks and
Recreation Commission the northwest corner of the property as parkland,
with the possible exception of that portion for storm water retention,
(2) that the walkway be a public easement,
(3) that the size of the water mains be indicated,
(4) that 7th Avenue extended be the point of access to Rochester Avenue and
that it be developed as rapidly as possible, and
(5) that the Legal Staff research the legality of street construction through
parkland.
Cain and Ogesen dissented. Cain stated that she would like to see construction
of 7th Avenue extended made definite and concurred with Ogesen's feeling that
parkland should not be used for a street.
Blum requested that Chairperson Cain write a letter to the City Council indicating
the Commission's concern for secondary access to the Windsor Heights area as soon
as possible. Commissioners concurred.
S-7727
Frantz
Schmeiser stated that the plat had not been reviewed by the Staff. A waiver of
the 45 -day time limitation period had. not been received, he said.
A motion was made by Blum, seconded by Jakobsen, to recommend to the City Council
denial of S-7727, final plat of Mount Prospect Addition, Part 4.
Mike Kammerer, Shive-Hattery $ Associates,stated th t he would be willing to
submit a waiver of the 45 -day time limitation. Vs
The motion was tabled.
A letter waiving the 45 -day time limitation was submitted by Mike Kammerer. The
original motion was withdrawn. The Commission deferred consideration of S-7727,
final plat of Mount ]'respect Addition, Part 4, until such time as the Staff has
discussed with the City Council a procedure for storm water management.
Schmeiser stated that the Engineering Division found the plat to be acceptable.
The Commission unanimously recommended approval of S-7728, final auditor's plat
of Auditor's Plat, No. 32 submitted by Business Development, Inc., et al, and
located north of Highway 6 Bypass, west of Scott Boulevard, south of the CRISP
Railroad, and east of Industrial Park Road, with a waiver of the installation of
public improvements at the present time and use of the resolution adopted for
the preliminary auditor's plat.
Blum noted that the resolution was drafted after much time and deliberation by
the developer and City Staff and that an auditor's plat should not be construed
as a new method of subdividing land in Iowa City.
5-7729. Public discussion of the final plat of a resubdivision of a
of Riversiae urive
With the exception of having signatures of the utility companies, the plat conforms
with Subdivision Ordinance requirements, Don Schmeiser said. The subdivider has
agreed to install within one year a 4" x 6' asphaltic concrete walkway along
the river. If the subdivider does not do this, the City could install the
walkway and assess the cost to the subdivider, he said.
Jakobsen expressed concern regarding the extension of Sturgis Corner Drive to
West Benton Street. Ogesen questioned whether a development that takes place on
a parcel of land larger than two acres but under two ownerships comes under the
regulations of an LSNRD. Tony Kushnir said that it would not but that this
would be addressed while redrafting the Ordinance. Blum thought the Ordinance
should be changed to be based on control rather than ownership.
The Commission unanimously recommended approval of 5-7729, final plat of a resub-
division of a portion of Lot 2 of Sturgis Corner Addition submitted by Southgate
Development Company, with the following waivers:
(1) reduction of right-of-way width to 451,
(2) reduction of pavement width to 251,
(3) installation of sidewalks along the streets proper,
(4) installation of a 4" x 6' asphaltic concrete walkway along the river, and
(5) signatures of the utility companies.
5-7734. Public discussion of a final plat of Court Hill -Scott Boulevard, Part V
submitted by Plum Grove Acres Inc. and located north of Washington Street
extended and west of Scott Boulevard extended; 45 -day limitation: 8/21/77; 60-d
limitation: 9/5/77.
Schmeiser stated that the plat is in compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance.
The Commission unanimously recommended approval of 5-7734, final plat of Court
Hill -Scott Boulevard, Part V, by Plum Grove Acres, Inc.
The Commission unanimously recommended approval of 5-7735, final plat of Court
Hill -Scott Boulevard, Part VI, submitted by Plum Grove Acres, Inc.
•
Consideration of an innovative parking area design plan submitted by Mr. Paul
Bowers.
The Commission unanimously approved the innovative parking area
design plan submitted by Mr. Paul Bowers as meeting the intent of the Tree
Ordinance.
Don Schmeiser informed the Commission that an application had been received from
the Johnson County Zoning Commission regarding the proposed extension of
Hillside Mobile Home Court which might be of interest to the P$Z Commission.
Tony Kushnir discussed with the Commission the rotating schedule of Assistant
City Attorneys at PFZ meetings. Commissioners expressed appreciation to the
Legal Staff for the services they have provided and requested their continued
attendance at Commission meetings.
The meeting adjourned.
Prepared by
Sherry Chi nn, DCDD/ Secretary
Approved by: _�j�i?�IArs/
Ja Jakob en for
Ju nita Vetter, PgZ Secretary
jx�
CIVIL CEMER.410 E. WASHINGTON St
IOWA CI -354 52240
� 319.351-I000
-IOWA CIf1: IOVY
L.i1I171M`
July 29, 1977
Madame Mayor and Members of City Council
Civic Center
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Re: Windsor Heights Addition, Part V
Dear Council Members:
At a regular meeting held on July 21, 1977, the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended by a 3-2 vote approval of Windsor Heights Addition,
Part V contingent upon a second means of access being provided to the Windsor
Heights area as soon as possible. The Commission recommended that secondary
access to the Windsor Heights area be provided via the extension of Seventh
Avenue north through a corner of Hickory Hill Park into the subject sub-
division.
To emphasize its concern about the urgent nature of the provision of
additional access, the Commission requested that'a letter be sent explaining
that "as soon as possible" should be interpreted quite literally and was
intended to be a strong statement in this regard. The intersection of
Windsor Drive and Rochester Avenue is already dangerous and the addition
of thirty-six houses with the anticipated construction vehicles makes the
provision of another access imperative. Preferably this access should be
provided at the time the subdivision's utilities and streets are being
developed.
Sincerely,
/ac,
Patricia Cain
Chairperson
Planning and Zoning Commission
/sc
33gZ I
I
0
STAFF IMPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared hy: Non Schmeiser
Item: 5-7728. Auditor's Plat, No. 32 hare: July 21, 1977
GENERAI, INFORMATION
Applicant:
Requested action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing land use and zoning:
Surrounding land use and zoning:
Applicable regulations:
45 -day limitation period:
60 -day limitation period:
SPECIAL INFORMATION
Public utilities:
Public services:
Business Development Inc., et al.
Iowa City Chamber of Commerce
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Approval of a final auditor's plat
To describe the different parts and
parcels for the purposes of assessment
and taxation without noting the metes
and bounds of same.
East of Industrial Park Road, north
of Highway 6 Bypass, west of Scott
Boulevard, and south of the CRI&P
Railroad.
135.6 acres
Industry and warehousing in an Nil
Zone (Lot 1 is located in an M2 Zone)
West (across Industrial Park Road) --
industry, warehousing and
undeveloped, and zoned MI,
North (across railroad) -- undeveloped
and zoned RIA and RIB,
Bast (across Scott Boulevard) --
undeveloped (Johnson County),
South -- undeveloped and warehousing
in an M1 Zone.
Provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance
August 1, 1977
August 16, 1977
Adequate water service and sanitary
sewer service via a lift station
are available.
Police and fire protection are
available. Public sanitation service
would not be provided.
334/2-
0
-2-
'transportation:
Physical characteristics:
ANALYSIS
rI
Vehicular access would be provided from
Industrial Park Road, Heinz Road and
Scott Boulevard.
The topography is gentle with slopes
of less than five percent.
"Whenever a lot or subdivision of land is owned by two or more persons in severalty,
and the description of one or more of the different parts or parcels thereof
cannot, in the judgment of the county auditor or the assessor, be made sufficiently
certain and accurate for the purpose of assessment and taxation without noting the
metes and bounds of the same, or whenever the original proprietor of any sub-
division of land has sold or conveyed any part thereof, ... and has failed to
file for record a plat as provided in Chapter 409, the county auditor by certified
mail shall notify all of the owners, and demand compliance (Section 441.65 of the
Code of Iowa)." Auditor's Plat, No. 32, has been prepared at the request of the
county auditor in compliance with the above section of the Code of Iowa because
of the existence of seven "lots" in separate ownership which heretofore had not
been platted in accordance with Chapter 409 of the Code of Iowa.
Presumably, the only reason the plat has been filed with the City for approval is
because of Section 409.14 of the Code of Iowa which states that "no county recorder
shall hereafter file or record, nor permit to be filed or recorded, any plat
purporting to lay out or subdivide any tract of land into lots and blocks within
any city . unless such plat has been first filed with and approved by the council
of such city as provided in Section 409.7... ." Also, according to said section,
"said plats shall ... conform to the statutes relating to plats within the city ...
if such plats shall conform to the statutes of the state and ordinances of such
city, and if they shall fall within the general plan for such city and the
extensions thereof, regard being had for public streets, alleys, parks (emphasis),
sewer connections, water service, and service of other utilities, then it shall
be the duty of said council and commission to endorse their approval upon the
plat submitted to it ... ."
7ne above citations from the Code of Iowa appear to imply that if an auditor's
plat must be filed, then it must be approved by the City which, in turn, could
require compliance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Although the preliminary
plat of the subject auditor's plat was approved by the City Council, it was approved
with the stipulation that that portion of the area (Lot 6) which had not been sold
by metes and bounds description must be subdivided in accordance with the City's
Subdivision Ordinance prior to the issuance of any building permits for the con-
struction of any structure or building on said portion (see attached resolution).
Building permits would be issued for other parcels subject to compliance with
the Large Scale Non -Residential Development plan provisions of the Municipal Code.
Essentially the action which the City took was to forestall compliance with the
Subdivision Code to permit the owners to fulfill compliance with Chapter 441 of
the Code of Iowa. This appeared to he an equitable agreement and, at the same
time, gave the City full control over development under Chapter 409 of the Code
of Iowa and local ordinances.
i
-3-
A final auditor's plat is now being submitted for approval by the City to complete
the process.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is the Staff's recommendation that consideration be deferred but that upon
submission of a resolution and completion of review by the Engineering Division,
the plat be approved and that a waiver be granted in the installation of public
improvements at the present time.
ATTACI@IENT
1. Location map
2. Excerpts from the Code of Iowa
3. Resolution approving the preliminary plat
ACCOMPANIMENT
Final auditor's plat
Approved by: Q
Dennis R. Kraft, it ctor
Dept. of Community Development
Ft.t kC ER�-EiE •
� I1
1
__ -. _ �.. _....
R IA
Q 690 12010 18QO
FILE
' NUMBER=
NORTH
GRAPHIC SCALE : 1"= 660'
S- 77z8
__ -. _ �.. _....
R IA
160
tool
R60,§1021; C73,1561; C97,6917; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39,
16278; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75,§409.131
40.14 Approval condition to filing and re-
cording. No county recorder shall hereafter
file or record, nor permit to be filed or record-
ed, any plat purporting to lay out or sub-
divide any tract of land Into lots and blocks
withlri any city having a population by the
Latest federal census of twenty-five thousand
or over, or within a city of any size which by
ordinance adopts the restrictions of this sec-
tion or, except as hereinafu•r provided, within
two miles of the limits of such city, unless
such plat has been first filed with and ap.
proved by the council of such city as provided
In section 409.7, after review and recommenda-
tion by the city plan commission In cities
where such commission exists.
If In any case the limits of any such city are
at any, place less than four miles distant from
the limits of any other
city,
athen
a such
place
jurisdiction to approve Ptts
to a
line equidistant between the limits of said
cities.
For the information of the city council and
the city plan commission, where such exists,
and to facilitate action on proposed plats, the
city council shall have authority by ordinance
to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations
governing the form of said plats and require
such data and Information to accompany same
on presentation for approval as may be
deemed necessary by the said council.
Said plats shall be examined by such city
council, and city plan commission where such
exists, with a view to ascertaining whether
the same conform to the statutes relating to
plats within the city and within the limits pre-
scribed by this section, and whether streets,
alleys, boulevards, parks and public places
shall conform to the general plat of 'the city
and conduce to an orderly development there.
of, and not conflict or InterNrc with rights of
way or extensions of streets or alleys already
established, or otherwise interfere with the
carrying out of tlae comprl-hensive city plan,
In case such has been adopted by such city. If
such plats shall conform to the statutes of the
state and ordinances of such city, and If they
shall fall within the general plan for such city
.and the extensions thereof, rega-rd being had
for public streets, alleys, parks, sewer connec-
tions. water service, and service of other utll.
ities, Lien it shall be the duty of said council
and commission to endorse their approval upon
the plat submitted to It; provided that the city
council may require as a condition of approval
of such plats that the owner of the land bring
all streets to a grade acceptable to the council,
and comply with such other reasonable re-
quirements In regard to Installation of public
utilities, or other Improvements, as the council
may deem requisite for the protection of the
public Interest.
The council may require that the owner of
the land or his contractor, furnish a good and
sufficient bond for the Installation of the said
CITIES -PLATS, §409.16
improvements according to city speclficatioas
and for the repairs necessitated by defects In
material or workmanship not to exceed two
years from and after completion.
The approval of the city council shall be
deemed an acceptance of the proposed dedica-
tion for public use, and owners and purchas-
ers shall be deemed to have notice of the pub.
lic plans, maps and reports of the council and
city plan commission, if any, having charge of
the design, construction and maintenance of
the city streets affecting such property within
the jurisdiction of such cities.
If any such plat of land Is tendered for re-
cording In the office of the county recorder
of any county In'which any city of the above
class may be situated, It shall be the duty
of such county recorder to examine such plat,
to ascertain whether. the endorsement of
approval by the city council, as herein provid-
ed for, shall appear thereon. If it shall, and
the plat otherwise conforms to the provisions
Of law, said officer shall accept same for re-
cording. If such endorsement does not appear
thereon said officer shall refuse and decline to
accept such plat, and any filing thereof shall
be void. Any failure to observe the provisions
of this section on the part of any county re-
corder shall constitute a misdemeanor In
office. IC27, 31, 35,§6278-1)1; C39,§6278.1; C46, 50,
54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75,§409.14; 66GA, ch 1190,
§31
Referred to In11/09.1, 109.19
409.15 Dlaapproval Ippe:d. In case, on ap-
pllcatlon for such approval of any plat, the
city council shall fall to either approve or re-
ject the same within sixty days from date of
application, the person proposing said plat
shall have the right to file the same with the
county recorder, assessor and auditor. If said
plat is disapproved by the council such disap-
proval shall point out wherein said proposed
plat is objectionable. From the action of the
council refusing to approve any such plat, the
applicant shall have the right to appeal to the
district court within twenty days after such
rejection by filing written notice of appeal
with the city clerk. Such appeal shall be tri-
able de novo as an equitable proceeding and
accorded such preference In assignment as to
assure Its prompt disposition. IC27, 31, 35,
§0278-b2; C39,16278.2; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71,
73, 75,§409.15; 66GA, ch 1190,441
Referred to 10 1409.16
409.16 Vold plat -action to annul: In case
any plat shall be filed and recorded In violation
of sections 409.14 and 409.15, the same shall be
void, and the mayor of any city who shall be
authorized so to do by resolution of the coun-
ell having authority to approve such plat, may
Institute a suit In equity In the district court
In which suit the court may order such Plat
expunged from the records. IC27, 31, 35,96278-
b3:
5,§627&b3; C39,0278.2; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 60, 71, 73,
75,1409.101
§411.49, ASSESSa1F.NTOD VALUATION OF PROPERTY •
mltted to the director within fifteen days after
the final adjournment of the board.
Not later than twenty days after the date
the final equalization order Is Issued, the as.
sessor of the affected assessor jurisdiction
may appeal the final equalization order to the
state board of tax review.
The dates contained In this section pertain.
Ing to the completion of the assessment, noti-
fication of taxpayers, the filing of protests with
local boards of review, the sessions of board
of review, and the abstracts of assessment,
shall pertain only to even -numbered years. In
odd -numbered years, the dates pertaining to.
the completion of the assessment, notification
of taxpayers, filing of protest with local hoards
of review the sessions of local boards of re-
view, and the abstracts of assessment, shall be
those dates contained In sections 441.23, 441.26,
441.28, 44130, 441.33, 441.37, and 441.45. [C51,
§483; RGOA743; C73,§836; C97,41382; S13,§1382;
,M, 27, 31, 35, 39,§7143; C46, 50, 54, 58,§442.18;
C62, 66, 71; 73, 75,1441.49; 66GA, ch 205,44, ch
1199,§131
14lcrrrd to Io 1461.23. 641.16, 661.33, 411.31
441.50 Apgraisers employed. The conference
board shall have power to employ appraisers
or other technical or expert help to assist In
the valuation of property, the cost thereof to
be paid In the same manner as other expenses
of the assessor's office. The conference board
may certify for levy annually an amount not
to e.cceed forty and one-half cents per thou-
sand dollars of assessed value of taxable prop-
erty for the purpose of establishing a spe-
clal appraiser's fund, to be used only for
such purposes. From time to time the confer.
ence board may direct the transfer of any
unexpended balance In the special appraiser's
fund to the assessment expense fund. [C50, 54,
58,1§405.19, 405A.6; C62, 66, 71, 73, 75,1441.501
44151 ,Repealed by 65GA, ch 1230,1§8, 9.
44152 Failure to perform duty. If any as-
sessor or member of any board of review shall
knowingly fall or neglect to make or require
the assessment of property for taxation to be
of and for Its taxable value as provided by law
or to perform any of the duties required of
him by law, at the time and in the manner
specified, he shall forfeit and pay the sum of
five hundred dollars to be recovered In an
action In the district court In the name of the
county or In the name of the city as the case
may be, and for Its use, and the action against
the assessor shall be against him and his
bondsmen. [RGO.§738; C73,§827; C97,§1367; C24,
27, 31, 35, 39,§7126; C46, 50, 54, 58,9§40529,
44127; C62, 66, 71, 73, 75,§441.521
1lnhhmmC 1691.7
44153 Political activity prohibited. Neither
the assessor nor any employee of the assessor's
office shall directly or Indirectly contribute any
money or anything of value to any candidate,
his agent or personal representative, for nomi-
nation or election to any office, or to any enm-
2172
palgn or political committee, or take an active
part in any political campaign, except to cast
his vote, or to express his personal opinion,
nor shall any such candidate, person, repre.
sentative, agent, or committee, solicit such con-
trlbutlon or active political support from any
such officer or employee. Any person convicted
of violating any provision of this chapter shall
Immediately be dismissed from office or may
be punished as for an Indictable misdemeanor.
[C46,§§405.28, 405.29; C50, 54, 58,§§405.28, 40529,
441.28; C62, 66, 71, 73, 75,6441.531
Puoahmmt. 1697.7
44154 Construction. Whenever In the laws
of this state, die words "assessor" or "asses•
sors" appear, singly or In combination with
other words, they shall be deemed to mean
and refer to the county or city assessor, as the
case may be. [C50, 54, 58,6§44129, 442.13; C62,
66, 71, 73, 75,§441.54)
44155 Conflicting laws. If any of the pro-
visions of this chapter shall be in conflict with
any af,thelaws of this stale, then the provi.
slons of this chapter shall prevail. IC62, 66,
71, 73, 75,§441.551
Con W7o tion alit,. M.A. ch t91.17t
441.56 Assessor's dulleacombined appoint-
ment. When the duties of the county assessor
are combined with the duties of another officer
or employee as provided In sections 332.17 to
332.21, the person named to perform the com-
bined duties shall be appointed as provided In
sections 441.5 to 441.8. [C62, 66, 71, 73, 75,
§441.56)
arfrr d to in 1332.22
44157 Reporting of agricultural land valaa-
don. Each county assessor shall, not later
than February 1 of each year, report to the
department of revenue the following Informa-
tion:
1. Proposed changes In the valuation of agri-
cultural land In the county.
2. The total increase or decrease In agricul-
tural land valuations which will result from
the proposed changes.
3. Specific changes proposed In the valua-
tions of agricultural land located adjacent to
boundaries of the county. [66GA, ch 205,§5]
411.58 to 441.64 Reserved.
441.05 Platting for ansessmeut and Wmtfou
by auditor. Whenever a lot or subdivision of
land 1s owned by two or more persona in
severalty, and the description of one or more
of the different parts or parcels thereof cannot,
In the judgment of the county auditor or the
assessor, be made sufficiently certain and at,
curate for the purposes of assessment and
taxation without noting the metes and bounds
of the same, or whenever the original proprie.
tor of any subdivision of land has sold or
conveyed any part thereof, or Invested the
public with any rights therein, and has failed
to file for record a plat as provided In chapter
per
not
plat
gral
sixt
thea
pro'
be r
chat
audl
and
570;
35, 3
64, E
GGGf
plat
audit
by U
file I
and 1
fice c
It sh:
acknf
IC73,
39,§61
GGGA
4!41.
meat
surve
442.1
4422
217: ' :177
1 active
to cast
Ipinlon,
, repre-
1ch con -
am any
.nvlcted
er shall
or may
meanor.
1, 40529,
ASSESSMENT AND VALUATION Oe PROPERTY, §441.71
489, the county auditor by certified mall shall
nilly all of the owners, and demand com-
pliance. If the owners faii to execute and file
the plat within sixty days after the Issuance
of such notice to execute and Ole said plat for
record, the auditor shall cause a plat to be
made as the auditor deems appropriate In ac-
cordance with the provisions of chapter 409.
The auditor may contract for the services of a
registered land surveyor as necessary to com-
ply with this section. Every conveyance of
land In this stale shall be deemed to be a
warranty that the description therein con-
tained is sufficiently definite and accurate to
enable the auditor to enter the same on the
plat book required to be kept; and when there
Is presented for entry on the transfer book
any conveyance In which the description Is
not sufficiently definite and accurate, the audi-
tor shall note such fact on the deed, with that
of the entry for transfer, and shall notify the
person presenting it that the land therein is
not sufficiently described, and that It must be
platted within sixty days thereafter. If the
grantor in the conveyance shall neglect for
sixty days thereafter to Ole for record a plat
thereof, then the auditor shall proceed as is
provided In this section, and cause the plat to
he made In accordance with the provisions of
chapter 409 and recorded In the office of the
auditor, and the office of the county recorder,
and In the office of the assessor. [C73,§5568-
570; C97,§§922-924; 513,§§922-924; C24, 27, 31,
35, 39,§§6288, 629:1, r.:�s, 0298; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62.
64, 66, 71, 73, 75,16109.27, 409.31, 409.33, 409.36;
&GGA, ch 1190,§151
441.66 Execution and fillug-effect. The
plat shall be signed and acknowledged by the
auditor, who shall certify that It was executed
by the auditor by reason of the -failure of the
owners named to tlo so, and the auditor shall
Me It for record In the office of the auditor
and In the office of the assessor and In the of-
fice of the county recorder, and when so filed
It shall have the same effect as if executed,
acknowledged, and recorded by the owners.
[C73.§568; C97,§922; 513,§922; C24, 27, 31, 35,
39,§8.200, C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75,§40928;
66GA, ch 1190§151. _. __,
441.87 Costs and expenses. A correct state.
ment of the costs and expenses of the plat,
survey and record, verified by oath, shall be
presented by the auditor to the board of su-
pervisors, which shall allow the same. [66GA,
ch 1190,§151
441.68 Collection or assessment of costa
The auditor shall at the same time assess the
amount pro rata by area upon the several sub-
divisions of the tract, lot or parcel so sub*
divided, and it shall be collected In the same
manner as general taxes, and shall go to the
general county fund. [C73,§568; C97,5022; 513,
66?7:1,73, 75,§400.30;366GAA,, ch 1190,415 50, 1 56, 82,
441.69 Appeal. Any person aggrieved by a
notice to execute and Ole a plat given by the
auditor, or by the use of an erroneous plat for
assessment and taxation purposes, may within
thirty days from the date of the notice appeal
therefrom to the board of supervisors by giv-
ing notice thereof in writing to the board of
supervisors and thereupon no further proceed,
Ing shall be taken by the auditor. [C73,6570;
C97,1924; 5134924; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39,§6296; C46,
50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75,§409.34; 66GA, ch
1190,§151
411.70 Determination by board. At Its next
session the board of supervisors shall deter-
mine the matter and direct that a plat be
executed and filed or that the auditor accept
a plat for filing, and shall specify the time
within which the action shall be taken. The
aggrieved person shall be given an oppor,
tunity to be heard In person or by counsel.
[C73,§570; C97,§924; 513,§924; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39,
§6297; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75,§409.35;
66GA, ch 11903151
441.71 Plat requirements. Every plat re-
quired by this chapter shall describe the tract
and any other subdivisions of the smallest con.
gressional subdivision of which the same Is
part, numbering them by progressive num-
bers, setting forth the courses and distances,
the number of acres, and other memoranda as
Is necessary; and descriptions of the lots or
subdivisions according to the number and
designation thereof on the plat shall be deemed
sufficient for all purposes. A plat recorded
pursuant to this chapter Is for assessment
and taxation purposes only and shall not con.
stitute a dedication or Impose any liability
upon the state or any of Its political subdivi-
sions. 166GA, ch 1190,§151
CHAPTER 442
SCHOOL FOUNDATION PROGRAM
aefe"<d W I. 11266.6, M.S. 111.9, 261.1, 261.2, 221.6, 299.6, 962.91, 266.2, 296.1, MAT
6n 66GA, eh 266.11 for Ymppn" -PPMP21.11on for eom DOVllon "eon,om.r "'I" In"X
Ame.dmenu W fhb ob.pnr by 66GA, eh 19, 2W .mWe l0 Jeno." 1. 1976, .e. 127 thereof
442.1 State school foundation program. 442.3 State foundation base.
4422 Foundation property tax - livestock 442.4 Enrollment.
credit. 442.5 Miscellaneous Income -expenditures.
STAFF IMPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Submitted hy: Doug Boothroy
Item: S-7729. Sturgis Corner Addition Datc: July 21, 1977
CHNERAL 1NFORNIATION
Applicant:
Requested action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing land use and zoning:
Surrounding land use and zoning:
Applicable regulations:
45 -day limitation period:
60 -day limitation period:
SPECIAL INFORMATION
Public utilities:
Public services:
Transportation:
Physical characteristics:
Southgate Development Company
1902 Broadway Street
lowa City, Iowa 52240
Final plat approval
To establish 10 lots for commercial
development
East of South Riverside Drive and
north of Highway 6 Bypass
10.3 acres
Undeveloped and C2
North - commercial and C2
West (across Riverside Drive) -
commercial and C2
South (across Highway 6) -
City service garage and C2
Hast (across Iowa River) -
sewage treatment plant and
M2
Requirements of the Subdivision Code
8/14/77
8/29/77
Adequate central water and sewage
service are available.
Sanitation service is available
as well as police and fire protection.
Vehicular access would be provided
from Riverside Drive and highway 6
Bypass.
Topography .is gentle with a slope
of less than five percent.
33AI2
-2-
'fhc subject addition ie. a final plat of a portion of Lot 2 of Sturgis Corner
Addition. The proposed development is consistent with the preliminary plat as
previously approved.
Concerns previously addressed by the Stal'I' in connection with the proposed sub-
division (i.e., the preservation of the Iowa River rivcrfront area, the
connection of Sturgis Corner Drive to Highway G Bypass, and the eventual
connection of Sturgis Corner Drive with Benton Street) had since been resolved
(see Staff Report S-7714) with the preliminary plat.
RECOMMBNDA'I'l ON
The Staff recommends that consideration of the final plat be deferred, but that
upon revision of the plat incorporating the deficiencies and discrepancies noted
below and review of the legal papers, the plat be approved and the following
waivers granted:
1. Reduction in the right-of-way width for 45 feet (9.50.5A.2a.3),
2. Reduction in the pavement width to 25 feet (9.50.5A.2b.3), and
3. The construction of sidewalks along the street (9.50.51:).
DrpICIBNC,IL'S AND DISCREPANCIES
1. A metes and hounds description is required on the final plat for its approval.
A. Boundary dimensions should be indicated in hundredths of feet and noted
in the legal descriptions,
11. The distance from known points of references to points A and C in
the boundary should be indicated or the points of intersection of
boundary lines along the Iowa River referenced to offset markers, and
C. The word approximately should be deleted from paragraph four in the
legal description.
2. Signatures from the utility companies should be provided.
3. The area designated on the plat as Riverfront Area should be labeled as
"to be donated to the public."
Arra roar. u-rc
Location map
Ar'rnVDA\ IMPNIT
Final plat
Approved by:�L sg
Dennis R. Kraft, Dire tor, DCD
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: S-7714. Lot 2, Sturgis Corner
Addition
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Requested action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing land use and zoning:
Surrounding land use and zoning:
Applicable regulations:
45 -day limitation period:
SPECIAL INFORMATION
Public utilities:
Public services:
Transportation:
Physical characteristics:
Submitted by: Don Schmeiser
Date: April 7, 1977
Southgate Development Company
1902 Broadway Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Preliminary plat approval
To establish 11 lots for commercial
development
Bast of South Riverside Drive and
north of Highway 6 Bypass
10.3 acres
Undeveloped and C2
North - commercial and C2
West (across Riverside Drive) -
commercial and C2
South (across Highway 6) -
City service garage and C2
East (across Iowa River) -
sewage treatment plant and
M2
Requirements of the Subdivision Code
4/17/77
Adequate central water and sewage
service are available.
Sanitation service is available
as well as police and fire protection.
Vehicular access would be provided
from Riverside Drive and Highway 6
Bypass.
Topography is gentle with a slope
of less than five percent.
-z-
0
ANALYSIS
The subject addition is a subdivision (rep int) of Lot ! n1" Sturgis Corner
Addition which w:is previously appruvvd. The 14 -lot subdivision would provide
lots for commercial development served by the interior extension of Sturgis
Corner Drive from Riverside Drive. Particular elements of the subdivision
which should be addres:.cd are:
I. The location of a walkway along the Iowa River,
2. The connection of Sturgis Corner Drive with Highway 6 Bypass,
3. The eventual connection of Sturgis Corner Drive with Benton Street, and
4. Concerns which are included under the "deficiencies and discrepancies"
section of this Report.
The River Corridor Plan developed by Stanley Consultants for the Riverfront
Commission suggests thin a linear trail system be developed along the west
side of the Iowa River through this subdivision. The immediate question is
if such a trail system is to be established, who constructs and maintains it?
Apart from the River Corridor Plan, which legally has no control over private
development, the Subdivision Ordinance requires that sidewalks be installed
along both sides of all streets within a subdivision. The subdivider has
requested a waiver in the construction of sidewalks within the subdivision.
His contention is that the type of commercial development which will occur will
not precipitate much pedestrian traffic. The Staff is inclined to agree.
In lieu of the construction of sidewalks along the street, however, the sub-
divider should then be responsible for the construction of a sidewalk through
the subdivision and in a location along the Iowa River. The sidewalk could
be located within the right-of-way of that portion of Sturgis Corner Drive which
parallels the River, within an easement along the River or within right-of-way
dedicated for the sidewalk. The latter alternative would be the least acceptable
as the City would be responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalk. It would
appear that the most appropriate location for the sidewalk would be along the
cast side of Sturgis Corner Drive from the north boundary line to Highway 6
Bypass which would have fewer physical limitations.
Lots 11 and 14 were intended to be dedicated to the City for riverfront access.
The Riverfront Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission should resolve
whether they wish to assume the dedication and thereby the maintenance of these
lots or whether they would prefer an easement across the lots.
The subdivider proposes to connect Sturgis Corner Drive with Highway 6 Bypass.
Limited access to Highway 6 is, of course, a concern; however, there would not
in this case be a median break nor signalization for traffic control. The
Highway Commission and City 'Traffic Engineer have reviewed the proposal and
are amenable to the intersection.
-3 -
The subdivider has provided for the eventual extension of Sturgis Corner Drive
uurtherly to Benton Street by terminating the street at the northerly houndary
lint•. A connoetion between Renton Street and highway b Bypass would probably
result in :1 bypass rouse for trnfl'ir wostcrly bound un Highway I from Renton
Street. '['his has the advantage of relieving traffic• on Riverside Drive,
particularly at the congested intersections at Benton Street and at Highway
6 Bypass/Ilighway I. And, increased traffic on Sturgis Corner Road would foster
business development in Sturgis Corner addition.
RECONSIENDATION
It is the Staff's recommendation that comments relative to the linear trail
system along the Iowa Inver be received from the Riverfront Commission and
the Parks and Recreation Commission prior to consideration of the subject sub-
division. Such deferral, however, would require that the 45 -day limitation
period be waived. Approval of the subdivision should be contingent upon
resolution of the deficiencies and discrepancies noted below and granting a
variance in (1) the width of the right-of-way for Sturgis Corner Drive,
(2) the width of the paved surface, and (3) the construction of sidewalks
along the street.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCRIA'ANCIES
1. Should the Parks and Recreation Commission and Riverfront Commission resolve
that an easement along the Iowa River would be preferable to the dedication
of Lots 11 and 14, the lots should be incorporated into Lots 6, 9, 10, 12
and 13 by extension of the side lot lines cast across Sturgis Corner Drive
to the river.
2. Lot 1, which is an unbuildable lot, should be incorporated into Lot 2.
The maintenance of Lot 1 would then become the responsibility of the
property owner of Lot 2.
3. The location of a walk along the Iowa River as decided upon by the Parks
and Recreation Commission and the Riverfront Commission should be illus-
trated on the plat and be approximately eight feet in width.
4. The plat illustrates a right-of-way and pavement width for Sturgis Corner
Drive as 45 feet and 25 feet respectively. Along the right-of-way is
a 10 -foot ca:iement for utilities which could also be used as open space
to meet the requirements of the Tree Regulations. However, areas
within the casement where utilities are located could not be planted
with trees.
S. Lot 1 of Sturgis Corner Addition should be indicated on the plat.
6. At the intersection of Sturgis Corner Drive with Highway 6 Bypass, curbs
should be extended to within one car length from the edge of pavement of
Highway 6.
7. A storm drain should be installed at the intersection of Sturgis Corner
Drive with Highway 6.
I:
i
4. The street cross-section detail should show and indicate a two percent
cross slope in lieu of a two percent parabolic crown.
9. The water main should be shown to "loop" around the sanitary sewer manhole
at the corner of Lots 12 and 13.
ATPACHMENT
Location map.
ACCOMPANIMENT
Preliminary plat.
Approved by:
Dennis R. Kraft,-DiTkktor
Dept. of Community Development