HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-02-05 Ordinancei
...
~R
,.
Prepared by: Adam Ralston, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5230
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 4.40 ACRES OF LAND AT 2815
ROHRET ROAD FROM LOW-DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-5) TO COMMERCIAL
OFFICE (CO-1 ). (REZ07-00016)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Hodge Construction, has requested a rezoning of properties located at 2815
Rohret Road from Low-Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to Commercial Office (CO-1 ); and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined
that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that this parcel is appropriate for uses consistent with the
CO-1 zone; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2005) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy
public needs caused by the requested change, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended that conditions be placed on the
development of this property to ensure that it is compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in
this area of the city; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed
rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the Iowa City City Council concurs with the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. The property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning
classification of Low-Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to Commercial Office (CO-1) is hereby
approved:
A portion of the Southeast One-Quarter of the Southwest One-Quarter of Section 18, Township 79
North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of the Southeast One-Quarter of the Southwest One-Quarter
of Section 18, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Iowa City, Johnson
County, Iowa; Thence S00°12'31 "E, along the East line of said Southeast One-Quarter of the
Southwest One-Quarter, 39.41 feet, to the Point of Beginning; Thence continuing S00°12'31'E along
said East line, 616.07 feet; Thence N47°50'48"W, 729.53 feet; Thence N18°07'42"E, 103.49 feet;
Thence N87°53'54"E, 200.08 feet; Thence N77°08'39"E, 88.45 feet; Thence N89°42'54"E, 220.21
feet, to said Point of Beginning. Said Tract of Land contains 4.40 acres and is subject to easements
and restrictions of record.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning
map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and
publication of the ordinance as approved by law.
SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner and the City,
following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County,
Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as
provided by law.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of , 20
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office ~ ~,~dg
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Bailey
Champion
Correia
Hayek
O'Donnell
Wilburn
Wright
that the
First Consideration 2 / 5 / 2008
Vote for passage: AYES: Champion, Correia, Hayek, O'Donnell, Wilburn, Wright,
Bailey. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
Prepared by: Adam Ralston, Planning Intern, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240, 319-356-5230 (REZ07-000016)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a Municipal
Corporation (hereinafter "City"), and Hodge Construction (hereinafter "Owner").
WHEREAS, the Owner is legal title holder of approximately 4.40 acres of property located south
of Rohret Road, and east of Highway 218; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has applied to rezone the property from Low-Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-5) to Commercial Office (CO-1 ); and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of said rezoning
subject to conditions related to ensuring that the property develops in a manner that is
compatible with both the nearby residential neighborhoods and adjacent highway; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code Section 414.5 (2005) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in
order to satisfy public needs that are directly caused by the requested change in zoning; and
WHEREAS, the Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to
ensure that the property develops in a manner that is compatible with both the nearby
residential neighborhoods and adjacent highway; and
WHEREAS, the Owner agrees to use this property in accordance with the terms and conditions
of a Conditional Zoning Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the Parties
agree as follows:
1. Hodge Construction is the owner and legal title holder of the property legally described as
follows:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A portion of the Southeast One-Quarter of the Southwest One-Quarter of Section 18,
Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Iowa City, Johnson
County, Iowa, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of the Southeast One-Quarter of the Southwest
One-Quarter of Section 18, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal
Meridian, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S00°12'31 "E, along the East line of
said Southeast One-Quarter of the Southwest One-Quarter, 39.41 feet, to the Point of
Conditional Zoning Agreement (REZ07-000016)
Page 2
Beginning; Thence continuing S00°12'31'E along said East line, 616.07 feet; Thence
N47°50'48"W, 729.53 feet; Thence N18°07'42"E, 103.49 feet; Thence N87°53'54"E,
200.08 feet; Thence N77°08'39"E, 88.45 feet; Thence N89°42'54"E, 220.21 feet, to said
Point of Beginning. Said Tract of Land contains 4.40 acres and is subject to easements
and restrictions of record.
2. The Parties acknowledge that Iowa Code Section 414.5 (2005) provides that the City of
Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request,
over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs directly caused by
the requested change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, the Owner agrees that
development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the Zoning
Chapter, as well as the following conditions:
a. Existing healthy trees within a distance of 80 feet of the Highway 218 right-of-way shall
be preserved.
b. Sound abating construction techniques such as use of materials that reduce interior
sound levels like masonry, fiber cement siding, and laminated windows as well as a
design that minimizes window, door, and vent openings that are exposed to Highway
218, shall be used if residential uses are developed on this property.
c. There shall be a minimum fifty (50) foot front setback along Rohret Road.
d. Parking areas shall be located behind the front plane of the building, except for a
passenger drop-off/pick-up area and a maximum of eight parking spaces.
e. Parking areas shall not be located between the east property line and any building on
this property.
f. Development on this property shall be in general conformance with the concept site plan
attached hereto and incorporated herein. Any significant changes from the concept site
plan shall require review and approval of the Planning & Zoning Commission.
4. The Owner and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable
conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code Section 414.5 (2005), and that said
.conditions satisfy public needs which are directly caused by the requested zoning change.
5. The Owner and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold,
redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional
Zoning Agreement.
6. The Parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a
covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force- and
effect as a covenant running with the title to the land, unless or until released of record by
the City. The Parties further acknowledge that this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of
and bind all successors, representatives and assigns of the Parties.
7. The Owner acknowledges that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be
construed to relieve the Owner or future owners from complying with all applicable local,
state, and federal regulations.
8. The Parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by
reference into the Ordinance rezoning the subject property; and that upon adoption and
Conditional Zoning Agreement (REZ07-000016)
Page 3
publication of the Ordinance, this Agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office at the applicant's expense.
Dated this day of , 2008.
OWNER
HODGE CONSTRUCTION
Michael Hodge
President
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
By
By
Regenia D. Bailey, Mayor
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A_ppr~oved by:
City Attorney's Office ~~~ol ~~
State of ~ N-u ,County of S ~ ~ n s o~ ss:
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the 2 fir' day of J_~^~~/
2008 by Michael Hodge, as'President of Hodge Co tr n.
i ~
• ~ cdm~..+a, Expns k Notary i i forth tate of Iowa
1 k
My commission expires: /~ - ~ "-O~
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
State of Iowa, County of Johnson, ss:
On this day of 2008, before me, the undersigned, a notary public
for the state of Iowa, personally appeared Regenia D. Bailey and Marian K. Karr, to me
personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk,
respectively, of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, executing the within and foregoing instrument; that
the seal attached thereto is the seal of said corporation by authority of its City Council; and that
the said Mayor and City Clerk acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the
voluntary act and deed of said corporation, by it and by them voluntarily executed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
My commission expires:
~.~" ~ ; I
/ ~ ~I
/ ~
/ 4`,
t Oy 5V
Y 4
tl /
~ t~` ~~ ~33 ry ~ U ~, I
/~~ ~ /
S µ
Sic (~`i ~ µ~
/ s j 9\ - \
i ~ S~ OP
~~~~ N ~¢ /tea ~~, .~
r~ m ~ to ~ Ip~Cy;;
m
ZypW~Z / ~~ 1^)I
yOD Zp ~ ~/
rm~-11ZAm /
Am~N `O / ~ ~ 60.
~~~ A ~.
Z > ~ YV\
~ Z O
/ o~~ I Ni
,r ~
I
P~
~~'h ~ ~~ ~ ~ of
/ _
/ / ~___ o,L ~ _ II
~ Q^~m ~ ~
. ~./ OP
/ m ~ ~ I
,ws.,~; ,fie _ _ ~ .. . ` .a
N, ~
~ ~
~~
,~ ,~. - ~ o
/~:- ~ ~ ~°
y~,7iMF 9 ~ O
/ ~, 1~. p ~ >, ,
..a
O~
~;
r
. / ~ _ _ ~~ _
/ •.. o eU
OC - )30. p
_ _
-SLL .
MORMON TREK VILLAGE PHASE IV-~ i a.
OL,L l
~ ~ L-
~' ~ ~ g g O DyY =
~ 3 ,
~ ~ Z~
o
r Z ~ .'I
e
~ I.
1
.'
- g 1
£ ~
_ ~
ti
f
~ Lr € ~
o z -a
X5 ~9z+ I
Sd C7 ry
~~ 3 $_ ~~bt7r
D n (/}
~ ~~y 3~ f~~ ~ 9 ~ 9 ~ -
[T]
maF i=f s ~ 7~[7 ~ Z 'Z
~~n 'm ~Ry ~ r~ ~t`~n to
^~,®~ CITY OF IOWA CITY 6a
RAN DuM
~/I EMS
Date: January 30, 2008
To: City Council
From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Re: Item REZ07-00016 - Rohret Road
There were questions from City Councilors regarding screening requirements where commercial
properties abut residential properties; uses allowed in the CO-1 zone; estimated tax revenues
for office uses compared to residential uses; highway noise levels and a request for the minutes
of the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings at which this rezoning was considered.
In cases where a commercial property abuts a residential zone, the S3 screening is required.
The S3 standard requires enough shrubs and evergreens to form a continuous screen or hedge
at least 5 feet in height and more than 50 percent solid year round. With regard to the subject
property, the parking area must be screened from the abutting Mormon Trek Village property to
the S3 standard. In addition, when a lot occupied by a commercial use abuts or is across a
street from a residential zone, the code requires that any parking and loading area and outdoor
work and storage areas be located behind buildings or screened from view to at least the S3
standard. Therefore, any parking or loading area located in front of the building will also have to
be screened to the S3 standard.
It should also be noted that there are additional setback requirements for parking areas that
abut residential zones. Typically, parking areas in a commercial zone must be set back at least
5 feet from a side or rear property line or 10 feet from a street right-of-way. However, when a
commercial property abuts a residentially zoned property, the side and rear setbacks are
increased to 10 feet and the front setback is increased to 20 feet. In the proposed site plan,
which will be adopted as a part of the conditional zoning agreement, the rear parking lot is set
back 60 feet from the property line of Mormon Trek Village. The 8 spaces shown in front of the
building are set back 20 feet from the property line.
At this time, the City is not aware of any firm plans for a childcare center on this property. The
applicant has indicated that a childcare center is a possibility should this rezoning be approved;
however, the property owner would have other options available with a CO-1 zone. Possible
uses are listed below.
The following uses are permitted in the CO-1 zone:
• General Office
• Medical/Dental Office
• Personal Service-oriented Retail (examples include bank, drycleaners, beauty salon)
• General Community Service (museum, library, community center)
• Specialized Educational Facilities (fine arts studio, business or trade school)
The following uses are provisionally allowed in the CO-1 zone:
• Multi-Family Dwellings (must be located on the second floor of a permitted use in the
zone)
• Assisted Group Living (group care facilities such as a nursing home and assisted living
facility)
• Guest house (maximum of 9 rooms)
• Daycare
• General Educational Facilities (elementary, middle and high schools)
January 31, 2008
Page 2
• Commercial Recreational Uses (limited to 5,000 square feet unless approved by special
exception)
• Hospitals
• Parks and Open Space
• Religious/private group assembly
The following uses may be allowed by special exception in the CO-1 zone:
• General animal related uses (veterinary clinic)
• Eating and Drinking establishments (limited in size to maximum occupancy 100,
restaurant drive-through lanes are prohibited)
• Community Service Shelters
• Communication transmission facilities (cell towers must be camouflaged by an allowed
structure such as a steeple or flag pole, and are limited in height)
Rough estimates for tax revenue were made by the Iowa City Assessor's office. An estimate for
tax revenue for a commercial office use similar in size to what the applicant has proposed
comes to approximately $55,000 annually. Estimated tax revenue for 10 single-family
residences comes to approximately $34,000 annually.
Sound levels are of concern for this property as a result of its topography in relationship to
Highway 218. Average sound level readings taken on this property in August, 2007 resulted in
readings of 68 decibels and 72 decibels at two points within the property. Guidelines from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development generally do not allow residential uses that are
assisted by federal funds to be placed within areas having sound levels greater than 65
decibels.
Staff is tabulating the protest petitions and should have results available at the February 5 City
Council Meeting.
Excerpts from the December 20th and January 2"d Planning and Zoning Commission minutes
are attached.
Cc. Jeff Davidson
January 30, 2008
Page 3
MINUTES -December 20 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
REZONING ITEM:
REZ07-000016: Discussion of an application submitted by Hodge Construction for a rezoning from Low-
Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Commercial Office (CO-1) zone for approximately 4.40
acres of property at 2815 Rohret Road.
Ralston presented maps and aerial photographs to the Commission, which detailed the site's original
farmhouse, out -buildings, topography and trees on the property, as well as buildings in surrounding
neighborhoods. He explained that Hodge Construction wants to demolish the house and surrounding
outbuildings and rebuild with a use that would be suitable for a CO-1 zone, for example, a daycare. The
site is currently zoned as RS-5 for residential use, and if it were rebuilt for RS-5 it would yield
approximately 10 residential lots. Ralston explained that the CO-1 zone can serve as a buffer between
residential, commercial, and industrial zones. He added that while there are no commercial or industrial
uses in the area, Highway 218 generates a significant amount of noise, and as such, residential use may
not be the most appropriate for the site. CO-1 uses are generally less sensitive to noise, but if residential
uses are allowed on the second floor of the property, Staff recommends a conditional zoning agreement
and that will require the use of sound dampening building techniques and materials. As far as the
Comprehensive Plan, Ralston said the Southwest District Plan identified the property, and states that low-
intensity, non-residential uses, such as a childcare center or a small religious institution, might be
appropriate. He added that CO-1 zones are designed to be adjacent to residential areas, and there are
homes located to the north and west of the site.
Records indicate that the farmhouse on the property was built around 1900, but there is documentation to
show the house is historic. He pointed out some steep grades on the property, which will affect
development, as well as several stands of mature trees, which should be preserved as a noise buffer. He
said the 2006 Traffic Survey counted 4,600 trips on Rohret Road, while the road is indicated for a
capacity of up to 12,000 daily trips. He said a CO-1 use would fall well within the trip capacity of the road.
The road also has sidewalks on both sides.
He said Staff recommends approval of the item subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement that specifies
four items:
1. The trees along Highway 218 are preserved within an 80-foot right-of-way as a buffer.
2. If there are residential uses on this property, sound abating construction techniques be used.
3. Parking will be located to rear of the building.
4. If parking will be located on the side, it will be to the west, not the east, due to the existing
residential uses to the east.
Brooks asked what the Comprehensive Plan indicates as possible uses for the land on the east side of
Highway 218 (across the highway from the site). Miklo said the Southwest District Plan shows anorth-
south street that would enter into an area called the Carson Lake Neighborhood, and the Plan shows
neighborhood commercial in the area, specifically non-residential uses along the highway that would be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Meisner, with MMS consultants, said he and Hodge Construction are in agreement with all of the
conditional use items except number three, where there would be no parking allowed in the front of the
property. He said they would like to see eight parking spaces, maximum, including some handicapped
spots, at the front of the building as part of a proposed loop drive. He said front parking is important
January 30, 2008
Page 4
because of a tree line in the middle of the site that will need to be preserved, thus cutting into available
space on the west side. He also said that the property is located on an arterial street, and it is not unusual
to have front parking on such a road. He said front parking would be screened from Rohret Road to make
it less visible. Meisner noted that if the property were developed as a daycare it would be important to
have convenient parking places at the front of the building for parents dropping off and picking up their
children.
Commissioners inquired about the trees and sensitive areas on the property, and Miklo said that his office
has not been able to do a full analysis of the property, but will know more when there is a site plan
proposal. Koppes said if it was put in the Conditional Zoning Agreement there would be no question that
the trees would be preserved. Eastham said it would be good to be specific and identify the trees to be
preserved on the plan.
Digmann spoke to the Commission about possible businesses Hodge Construction had considered as
occupants for the site, and said that they would need to be destination-type establishments, such as a
day care, religious center, or offices, none of which would require highway access. He also agreed with
Meisner that a limited number of front parking spaces would be important-- one for the customers of the
future business, and two, because of the terrain and trees existing on the site. Digmann noted that it
would be important to leave some open area as a playground if the site develops as a daycare.
Freerks referenced letters of concern over "mature oaks," and asked Meisner about Hodge Construction's
intent to preserve trees, including those in areas not protected. Meisner said Mike and Dave Hodge are
the "biggest tree lovers you'll ever find" and their intent is always to keep as many trees as they can.
Brooks asked about setback requirements, and Miklo said because of setback averaging, he suspects the
building could be no closer than 40 feet to Rohret Road. Brooks said he would consider allowing parking
in the front if the Board could place a 50-foot setback condition which would give room for a circular drive
and some good screening between the street and parking.
Amy Charles, 1341 Shannon Drive, said she is concerned about safety in the area. She cited increasing
police calls in the neighborhood, and she is worried that the proposed change in zoning will further isolate
the street, as there would be no residential uses facing the street. There would not be anyone aware of
what is happening along the street. She said if this is rezoned from residential she would want to see a use,
such as a community center or day care, which benefits the neighborhood. She questioned if it was zoned
office what could go on this property. She also was concerned about parking and said that a having a use
that is not obviously residential would not benefit the quality of the neighborhood.
Shannon asked for clarification about Charles concern about how this proposal would affect crime in the
neighborhood. Charles said that if this is developed with anon-residential use there would be no houses for
a long stretch. She said that if something happened on the street during the evening, there would be no one
to see it.
Melinda .1427 Rainer Drive,_told the Commission she thinks the traffic count numbers are deceiving
because at peak travel times people in the area can find it very difficult to pull out onto Rohret Road, and
she is concerned about added traffic and safety. She also is concerned about trees she sees from the
back of her home, property values, and run-off from the elevation change from the proposed site to her
property. She is concerned that there not be a restaurant with a beer garden.Koppes suggested that
Paulsen contact the traffic planner regarding her concerns about traffic.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Brooks inquired about screening requirements. Miklo informed the Commission that there are
requirements when a commercial property borders a residential area. He said the requirements include
vegetation screening when parking areas are involved. He also pointed out that many of the trees
Paulsen was concerned about are actually on the condominium property.
January 30, 2008
Page 5
Smith asked how staff felt about a limited number of parking spaces in front
Miklo said that his Staffs main concern with front parking is that the site sits in a pleasant residential area.
They believe office and commercial uses can fit into a residential area as long as they are not overly
commercial. He said he thought a limited number of parking spaces, well screened, could work. He said
he would like to see a concept plan showing how that might work.
Motion: Brooks said he would like to see more detail, and made a motion to defer until January 2, 2008.
Shannon seconded it. Freerks clarified .which areas the Commission would like more information and
details on: a 50-foot setback from the street, eight parking spaces in front of the building, the proposed
circular drive, and protection of the grove that runs north and south through the property. Brooks added
that he would like some kind of statement on site lighting.
The board voted 6-0 (Plahutnik absent) to defer the vote until January 2, 2008
MINUTES January 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
REZ07-00016: Discussion of an application submitted by Hodge Construction for a rezoning from Low-
Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to a Commercial Office (CO-1) zone for approximately
4.40 acres of property at 2815 Rohret Road.
Ralston informed the Commission there was one minor change to the application-a submission of a
concept plan. He reviewed the application, pointing out the house and outbuildings on the property which
the applicant would like to demolish in order to build a structure consistent with a CO-1 zone. Ralston also
pointed out the stands of mature trees on the land, as well as the undulating topography.
Ralston reviewed the applicant's concept plan, which showed eight front parking spaces, two of which
were handicap spaces, screening on the south side along Rohret Road, the building footprint and parking
spaces to the rear of the building. He said the concept plan met Staff's expectations. Ralston said a
conditional zoning agreement would be appropriate. Ralston stated the main concern was the parking,
and that it be kept to the rear. He said the Conditional Zoning Agreement would state that if the parking
needs to be moved, the application would be brought back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. He
also said the CZA should require all the vegetation in certain areas of the property be preserved, and if
there are changes in that area, those also need to come before the Commission. Ralston stated that with
those specifications, Staff recommends approval.
Miklo added that the code requires evergreen screening along certain areas of the parking lot, and that
there will be further scrutiny when the property is developed. He also pointed out specific areas of trees to
be preserved, and reminded the Commission of the recommendation fora 80 foot buffer strip along
Highway 218 which would preserve the trees in that area.
Freerks called for questions to Staff.
Brooks asked about the trees in the north-south zone, the possibility they are growing on a sensitive
slope area, and how that would affect their preservation. Miklo said he was not yet sure if that specific
area was a protected or sensitive slope, but that information would be verified at the time of the site plan
when the property is developed.
Brooks asked how the Commission could describe those trees for the benefit of protecting them before
the Commission knows the results of the survey. Miklo said the Commission could describe the area in
the CZA based on an elevation point, measurement, or a drawing that would be attached to the CZA
before the item goes before City Council.
Smith said the policies are already in place to address those issues, and what the Commission is
discussing tonight is just the rezoning. Miklo said he was not yet sure if the Sensitive Areas Ordinance
protects the trees in question, and there was some previous discussion about wanting parking in a certain
January 30, 2008
Page 6
area so that the trees and slope in question were left undisturbed, which is why the Commission may
want to lock into that with the CZA.
Freerks reminded the Commission that protecting the trees and having the buffer along the highway was
kind of a "swap" for having the eight parking spaces in front of the building.
Koppes asked if stating, "general compliance with the concept plan" would be specific enough wording in
the CZA. Miklo said the more specific the Commission could be, the fewer questions that will come up in
the future.
Freerks opened the public hearing
Glen Meisner, with MMS Consultants for Hodge Construction, asked the Commission if he could answer
any questions for them.
Smith asked about the setback for the building being 50 feet, and if the applicant was comfortable with
that. Meisner said the concept drawing showed a setback of 61.7 feet. Brooks asked about the
approximate square footage of the building. Meisner responded that the concept drawing showed a
building of about 80 feet by 100 feet, which equals about 12,000 square feet. Brooks commented that the
parking area with 50 spaces seemed like more parking spots than need by a daycare. Meisner said the
number of sparking spaces proposed on a concept plan are calculated the square footage of the building.
Lucy Wibbenmeiner, asked what the property was going to be rezoned as, and what would be built on the
site. Smith and Freerks explained the rezoning was for a CO-1, and one of the proposed uses would be a
daycare. Miklo added that CO-1 was for office uses, possibly limited retail, but the most likely use would
be for office space.
Wibbenmeiner asked if the Commission would be voting on the matter that night, and Freerks said that
they most likely would be voting, and if they did not, they would ask the applicant to defer because of the
45-day limitation period. Koppes added that after P &Z votes, the matter goes on to the City Council,
where there will be more time for the public to speak.
Wibbenmeiner said she has always enjoyed the farm on the property, and if there is going to be
something commercial on the site, she might like a say in what goes in. She said she had spoken with
neighbors, and one had mentioned the possibility of a small coffee shop or something similar.
Freerks stated that Wibbenmeiner might want to discuss her concerns and ideas with the applicant later,
but during the meeting, questions were to be directed to the Commission.
Melinda Paulsen, 1427 Rainer Dr., expressed her concern over the parking lot, and said it would be
basically in her back yard. She asked about the screening. Miklo said there are screening requirements
for commercial parking areas, and requirements in the zoning for an evergreen hedge to screen the area
from residential zones. He stated the zoning requires the evergreens be at least three feet tall when
planted and reach a minimum of six feet at maturity.
Paulsen asked about the possibility of a security light right in front of her living room window and what
recourse she would have about something like that. Miklo said there are lighting standards that do not
allow light trespass on to an adjacent property. The standards state the light must be downcast and the
light may not exceed one-foot candle at the property line.
Paulsen inquired about the possibility of the building sitting vacant for a few years, being bought, and then
being rezoned again for something different, like a Hooters restaurant or beer garden. She said she was
concerned about this because of property values. Freerks said the Comprehensive Plan shows the
property as residential or a type of commercial that would fit into the area, typically an office or a daycare
that has daytime traffic, but not a lot of evening traffic.
January 30, 2008
Page 7
Paulsen asked about where the outside play area would be if the property was developed as a daycare,
and expressed concern about children having to cross a parking lot in order to access the playground.
Amy Charles, 1346 Shannon Dr., brought up her concerns over neighborhood cohesiveness, safety, and
keeping the area a place where all the residents are able to pay attention along the streets to what is
going on outside. Charles mentioned several recent police calls to the neighborhood. She told
Commission members that if the property is developed as planned, it would be a long stretch from Rainer
to the highway where there would be basically nobody paying attention.
Charles asked about the possibility of a future owner changing the use of the site from a daycare to
something else allowed under CO-1 zoning, and if there was someway to restrict what might be allowed.
Freerks said any business that fit within the CO-1 guidelines would be allowed use of the property. Miklo
stated CO-1 is mainly an office use, and the only retail use would be personal service, such as a hair
salon. Hospitality uses are allowed, such as a guesthouse, but only up to nine rooms. He added that
private schools would be allowed, as well as religious institutions. He stated food service establishments
are limited to 100 occupants, and the code does not allow drive-up service.
Charles said that although she understands the site is seen as a buffer for noise along the highway, she
pointed out houses right along the highway further north where noise was apparently not an issue.
Plahutnik agreed that while there has been no shortage of developers who are willing to build right up
against a highway, he finds it laudable that Hodge is not looking to put houses on the site. Charles said
she thinks there is a premium on land close to the University for those people interested ih walking and
biking.
Eastham said the Commission is looking at including a concept plan with the rezoning which will be part
of the condition zoning agreement, and that will continue with the zoning for the site into the future. He
added that if the building were sold in the future, and used for another purpose, the conditions of the
zoning would still apply, unless the zoning agreement were changed.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve CZ07-00003 with five conditional zoning agreements:
1. Existing healthy trees along Highway 218 within 80 feet of the highway right-of-way will be
preserved.
2. Sound abating construction techniques will be used if residential uses are developed on the
property.
3. Except for a passenger drop-off and pick-up area, parking areas, in excess of eight spaces, shall
be located behind the front plane of the building.
4. Parking areas will not be located between the east property line and any building on the property.
5. Minimum building setback of 50 feet.
Brooks seconded the motion
Freerks called for discussion of the motion.
Freerks said there was no language in the motion to protect the trees as part of the swap made for the
eight parking spaces in the front of the building. Smith said he thought the building setback was another
tradeoff the applicant made. Freerks said that did nothing to protect the grove. Smith said he thought the
grove was shown as undisturbed in the concept plan, and the regulations with a sensitive or critical slope
area would protect the trees. Koppes pointed out that it was unknown if the slope qualified as a sensitive
area. Freerks added the Commission has the ability to do more.
Eastham asked if the concept plan should be part of the conditional zoning agreement. Miklo said it was a
possibility, and the rezoning could state that the applicant must generally conform to the concept plan.
Miklo said the Commission's main concerns seemed to be three-fold: placement of the building,
placement of the parking, and preservation of trees on the slope. Miklo said the Commission could qualify
January 30, 2008
Page 8
and say, "General conformance with the concept plan and if there's a significant change regarding the
setbacks, parking, building, or the trees on the slope, it must come back to the Planning and Zoning
Commission." This would give the Commission some extra assurance of getting what they saw on the
~~
concept plan. Smith said the problem with that was what is general conformance"? He stated he feels
the Commission has some very specific requirements for the conditional zoning agreement. Freerks said
there was currently no wording to prevent the building from being moved over on to the slope. Smith said
he thought logistical issues would make such a move unpractical, rendering the slope and the trees
inherently protected.
Miklo added that given some public concern, the Commission might want to add a minimum setback for
the parking along the east property line. Smith asked what the codes require, and Miklo said it was 10
feet. Brooks said he thought that area had a fairly steep slope and building on that area would be
expensive and require retaining walls. Koppes said her concern was that the Commission was leaving
one whole side of the property open with no protections. Brooks said as much as he would like to protect
trees, he does not want to tie a property owner into preserving them, given that the Commission has had
no report from the city forester about value or condition of the trees in question.
Koppes responded by asking about the parking area on the other side of the building, and Brooks said
the Commission already had standards they've agreed to, and if the Commission wants to make
provisions every time a CO-1 butts against a RS-5, they should have it in the code. He added that the
topography of the site already makes it costly for the developer to move the parking further east.
Smith asked for the City Attorney's advice if "general conformance to the concept plan" gave the
Commission any additional guarantees without creating too many ambiguities. Greenwood-Hektoen said
such a statement would be, generally, a good way to get the Commission what they see on the concept
plan. She said she thought the concept plan seemed a little ambiguous but if it was to scale it could be
included with a CZA.
Freerks pointed out the Commission already decided to wait for a concept plan to make a decision, yet
now they seemed unwilling to apply anything to the CZA. Smith disagreed, saying the motion to the CZA
limits parking in the front of the building to no more than eight spaces, and requires a 50-foot minimum
setback. Freerks said that those were things they didn't need a concept drawing to understand. Smith
said there were three different amendments to the CZA that the concept drawing helped the Commission
visualize.
Eastham made an amendment to motion to offer a sixth condition: the development would be approved if
it's in general compliance with the applicant's submitted concept plan, or it would need to return to P & Z
for approval. Koppes seconded the amendment to the motion. The amendment to the motion carried on a
vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent).
Freerks called for any further discussion on the amended motion. She stated she agrees the trees in
question will probably be protected because of the slope. She added that she believes the site, being
adjacent to the highway, is a good place to have a CO-1, and that it can fit nicely with the neighborhood.
Eastham said a big factor, for him, in rezoning from a RS-5 to a CO-1 was the Southwest District Plan,
which discussed the parcel in question specifically, and considered it for commercial development as an
alternative to residential. The motioned carried on a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent).
Miklo stated the rezoning item would be scheduled for the January 29th City Council meeting
PROTEST OF REZONING
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
• ~ ,`~
~~~
,~l yy _ ,~
'' ~'.nl~__......_ -~.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning
change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior
boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the
rezoning of the following property:
:_.
~•.
2815 Rohret Road - --
(KEZU7-00016) = -
.~,
-:: ~ _.
This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that suc~~: ~ ~ .
rezoning shall not beco e effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-firths ~_
of all the members of~tl~ council, all in accordance with 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. /
By:
Owner(s) of
STATE OF IOWA )
ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY)
a~~ ~~~~ '
Property Address
~: r ~, C'~..~ S~~ ~' ~
On this ~~ day of ~;~,i~~~~, 20 l>~, before me, the undersigned,
a Notary Public in and for s~'d County and~tate, personally appeared
p~s~ ~~~- and
to me known to the identical persons named in and who executed the within and
foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary
act and deed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
Orig: Subd Folder
Cc: CA
LA18 BASSETT
PCD ~.OamiNon Nutt 16Tti3
Council ~ ~ ~ _~ ~
~~
Media File
~-(~
Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030
ORDINANCE N0. 08-4297
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 7, ENTITLED FIRE PREVENTION AND
PROTECTION," CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED "FALSE FIRE ALARMS," TO PROVIDE THAT
FEES FOR FALSE ALARMS BE SET BY RESOLUTION, TO CLARIFY WHEN A FALSE
ALARM FEE IS ASSESSED, TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT
CERTAIN INFORMATION, AND TO AMEND DEFINITIONS.
WHEREAS, section 7-3 of the City Code presently provides for false alarm fees;
WHEREAS, the current fees do not reflect the actual administrative costs incurred by the Fire
Department for false alarms;
WHEREAS, it is preferable to set fees by resolution rather than by ordinance;
WHEREAS, section 7-3 is presently complex and difficult to enforce and includes a dual false
alarm schedule; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS
1. Title 7, entitled "Fire Prevention and Protection," Chapter 3, entitled "False Fire Alarms,"
Section 3, entitled, "Definitions," is amended by deleting the definitions of "Alarm Servicer,"
"Alarm System," and "Automatic Fire Alarm," and adding the following new Definitions:
Designated Employee: Person empowered by the owner or alarm user to respond on their
behalf.
False Fire Alarm: The activation of a fire alarm system not by fire or hazard, but through
careless use, technical failure, equipment malfunction, improper installation, or the negligence of
the owner or lessee of an alarm system or of his or her employees or agents. False fire alarm
does not include alarm failures caused by water, gas, electrical, telephone or other utilities not
under the control of the alarm user, or the willful act of a person other than the alarm owner or his
or her employees or agents.
2. Title 7, entitled "Fire Prevention and Protection," Chapter 3, entitled "False Fire Alarms,"
Section 4, entitled, "False Fire Alarms Prohibited," is amended by deleting Section 4 and adding
the following new Section 4 in lieu thereof:
A. No person shall maintain a fire alarm system that produces a false alarm to which fire
department personnel are expected to respond.
B. Within thirty (30) minutes of the fire department's response to a location due to a false fire
alarm, an owner shall personally report to the place of business or residence to reset the alarm.
However, an owner is not required to personally report if the alarm user, a designated employee,
a service provider, and/or the owner's agent reports within thirty (30) minutes of the fire
department's response to a location.
C. A violation of this section will subject the person to an assessment of fees as provided in
this chapter and/or to the penalty provisions contained in section 7-3-8 of this chapter.
3. Title 7, entitled "Fire Prevention and Protection," Chapter 3, entitled "False Fire Alarms,"
Section 5, entitled, "Required Information," is amended by deleting Section 5 and adding the
following new Section 5, entitled "Fee Schedule," in lieu thereof:
A. False Alarm and Failure to Report Fees shall be set by resolution. All fees shall be paid
within thirty (30) of date that the fee is assessed.
B. As an alternative to the imposition of fees for false alarms based upon technical failure,
equipment malfunction, or improper installation, the Fire Chief or designated representative may
waive such fees if the owner returns to the Fire Chief or designated representative a statement of
repair deemed satisfactory by the enforcement officer. In addition, the Fire Chief or designated
representative may waive such fees if the owner and/or alarm user agrees•to upgrade the existing
alarm system in such a manner which, in the determination of the Fire Chief or designated
Ordinance No. 08-4297
Page
representative, will significantly reduce or eliminate further false fire alarms. The alarm owner
and/or alarm user shall submit appropriate documentation and specifications of such alarm
system upgrades to the Fire Chief or designated representative for review. If such alarm system
upgrades are approved by the Fire Chief or designated representative, imposition of the fees for
false alarms based on technical failure, equipment malfunction, or improper installation may be
held in abeyance for up to ninety (90) calendar days to allow for the installation and upgrade of
the fire alarm system. Notice of approval or disapproval of the Fire Chief or designated
representative shall be given in writing and served on the owner and/or user by regular mail.
Failure of the alarm system owner and/or user to complete such upgrades within the specified
ninety (90) calendar days may result in the imposition of the specified false fire alarm fee as
provided herein.
~~
4. Title 7, entitled "Fire Prevention and Protection, Chapter 3, entitled "False Fire Alarms,"
Section 6, entitled, "Unintentional False Fire Alarm Fees" is amended by deleting Section 6 in its
entirety.
5. Title 7, entitled "Fire Prevention and Protection," Chapter 3, entitled "False Fire Alarms,"
Section 7, entitled, "Notice of False Fire Alarm," Subsection B is amended by deleting it and
adding the following new Subsection B in lieu thereof:
The notice shall provide that all fees shall be paid within thirty (30) days of the date of the
notice.
6. Title 7, entitled "Fire Prevention and Protection," Chapter 3, entitled "False Fire Alarms,"
Section 8, entitled, "Penalties," is amended by deleting Section 8 and adding the following new
Section 8 in lieu thereof:
Any violation of this chapter shall be considered a simple misdemeanor or municipal
infraction punishable by a penalty as provided for in subsection 1-4-2D of this Code.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the
provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti-
tutional
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this 5th day of February , 2008.
R
ATTEST:- Ly~i.~T~ 6~
CITY CLE K
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
Ordinance No. 08-4297
Page 3
It was moved by o' Donnell and seconded by Chamyion that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES:
~.-
X
x
x
x
~.-
x
NAYS: ABSENT:
Bailey
Champion
Correia
Hayek
O'Donnell
Wilburn
Wright
First Consideration 1 ~ ~ 5 /?008
Vote for passage: AYES: Correia, Hayek, .Wilburn, Wright, Bailey, Champion.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: O'Donnell.
Second Consideration 1 / 29 / 2008
Vote for passage: AYES: Wilburn, Wright, Bailey, Champion, Correia, Hayek,
O'Donnell. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None..
Date published 2 / 13 / 2008