Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-19 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES FINAL/APPROVED ~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2002 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Anciaux, Ann Freerks, Ann Bovbjerg, Beth Koppes, Benjamin Chair MEMBERS ABSENT: Jerry Hansen, Dean Shannon STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Lori Klockau, Steven Nelson, Judith Klink CALL TO ORDER: Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:37 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Bovbjerg said a listing of the ten current vacancies on various City boards and commissions was posted in the outer lobby. She encouraged members of the audience to volunteer to serve on a board or commission. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended, by a vote of 5-0, to approve amendments to the Zoning Code, Sensitive Areas Ordinance, regarding requirements for Sensitive Areas Overlay Rezoning and Sensitive Areas Site Plans. Recommended by a vote of 5-0, that signage made of durable plasticized cardboard in a metal frame notifying the public of an application be placed on a property immediately upon receipt of an application for a sensitive areas site plan. CODE ITEM: Discussion of amendments to the Zoninq Code, Sensitive Areas Ordinance, regarding requirements for Sensitive Areas Overlay Rezoning and Sensitive Areas Site Plans. The amendment will generally require approval of a Sensitive Areas Site Plan by staff unless an applicant seeks modification of a Sensitive Areas Buffer or seeks a modification of other zoning requirements. Miklo said a full Staff Report was presented at the September 19, 2002 meeting. In review, the City Council had asked the Commission to consider amendments to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) that would result in applications being reviewed administratively by Staff rather than requiring a rezoning process which included a review by the Commission and the Council. That had also been a recommendation in the Development Regulation Analysis prepared by the City's former consultant, Duncan and Associates. Miklo said currently the SAO was a two-tier process depending on the nature of a sensitive area on a property. The first tier required only a site plan review at the Staff level so that if a properly contained one of the environmental features at the time a building permit or subdivision was applied for, Staff reviewed it according to the guidelines and requirements in the SAO to make Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 17, 2002 Page 2 sure that it met those requirements and guidelines. The environmental conditions which fell under that site plan review were properties that contained hydric soils, prairie remnants (one acre or larger), stream corridors, archeological sites, steep slopes (18-24%) or woodlands (two acres or larger). Miklo said the second tier involved the rezoning process. It required the submittal of a plan which required review not only by Staff, but also by the Commission and by City Council. Sensitive areas which fell under the second tier were properties which contained wetlands, critical slopes (25-39%), protected slopes (40%+), wetlands and woodlands located on sites which also contained stream corridors. Miklo said a number of developers and the Council had expressed concern about the length of time the review process took. A Rezoning Overlay process took approximately four months from the time the application was filed until the time it was either approved, denied or some action was taken on it. Miklo said that time frame was required even when the property complied with all the guidelines/requirements of the SAO and no waivers of the underlying zoning requirements were requested. In comparison the Site Plan process could take as little as three weeks, but often took longer. Since the SAC) had been adopted in 1996, approximately 20 propedies had gone before the Commission/Council under the second tier more extensive review process. Approximately 70 properties had been reviewed as site plans by Staff. Miklo said Staff had prepared amendments which would make the review administrative by Staff and would put most properties in the first tier of review. There would also be situations where Staff felt it would still be appropriate to have the Commission and the Council review the development. Miklo said the rationale for the amendment for moving more properties into the first tier was that in some cases if there were clear guidelines/requirements and there was no discretion allowed on the part of the Council or the Commission, such as with a typical rezoning, Staff felt it was more appropriate for Staff to review those because they were a cut and dried matter. However, where there was some subjectivity and the property owner was seeking some relief from the Ordinance, such as a waiver of a buffer requirement, Staff felt those cases should be directed to the Commission and the Council. The proposed amendment basically required that a SAO rezoning would still be required if a !oroperty owner wished to modify a required buffer. Miklo said the buffers which were currently in the ordinance would not change. A second condition which would require review by the Commission and the Council was a disturbance of more than 35% of critical slopes on a property. Recently this type of case had been seen on First Avenue when the amount of slope disturbance was between 40-50%. If the proposed slope disturbance was less than 35%, then the review would be done by Staff. A third condition which would require rezoning would be the removal of more than the percentage of trees required for the preservation of a woodland. The Ordinance as it was currently structured varied the retention requirements for different zones and also allowed those percentages to be reduced for the installation of essential requirements such as roadways. If they were reduced, the developer had to plant trees to replace those which were removed. Staff suggested that as long as the percentages met those which were specified in the Ordinance, it should be a Site Plan which would be verified by Staff. If the developer requested to remove more than those percentages, that would need to be reviewed by the Commission and City Council. A fourth condition which would require review by the Commission and Council would be the disturbance of more than 10% of a protected feature or buffer for the installation of a utility. Currently the Ordinance allowed for the installation of sewer and water, gas and electric lines through buffers and protected areas in order to bring utilities to the site. Miklo said the Ordinance recognized that those were essential needs for the development. Current Ordinance language said, "The disruption should be minimized and the area should be restored back to its previous condition after the utilities are installed." Miklo said Staff suggested that there should be a cap of 10% of the buffer or sensitive feature that could be disturbed Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 17, 2002 Page 3 before an overlay zone would be required. Other conditions which would require a review by Council and the Commission were development plans which requested to modify dimensional requirements such as height limits, set backs, etc. Miklo said after working with the Ordinance for six years, Staff felt that there were some areas which could be improved and the Ordinance streamlined in the manner outlined in the proposed amendments. The guidelines in the Ordinance were not changing and it would still be possible for Staff to assure that the intent of the Ordinance was being met when they reviewed site plans. For those properties which contained the conditions noted in the Staff Report or some relief of the Ordinance requirements were being sought by a developer in which discretion was required, those would still go before the Commission and City Council. Miklo said Staff recommended approval of the suggested amendments to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance as proposed in the Staff Report. Miklo said questions which had arisen in previous meetings were, "How many Sensitive Areas Development plans were recommended for denial by the Commission and were denied by the Council?" He said there had been none that were recommended for denial. Another question had been, "Generally how much of a critical slope had been disturbed in previous applications?" Miklo said that had varied quite a bit. Most had been under 10%-20%. A few had been more than the suggested 35% which included those recently reviewed on Riverside Drive. Bovbjerg asked if when Staff were doing a review and they felt something should be forwarded on to the Commission, was there any discretion for Staff to make that decision? Miklo said no, not as the amendments were currently drafted. In the current Ordinance generally there was no Staff discretion either. If a proposal met some of the requirements it was a Site Plan, if it did not, it was a Zoning Review. Miklo said a concern about leaving a lot of discretion to Staff with regard to forwarding an item to the Commission was that Staff not be arbitrary, that everyone be treated equally. Everyone going into the process would know what the rules were and what was expected. Bovbjerg asked if it was possible that a plan would go to the Commission for some other reason but would already be under a SAO review by Staff. Miklo said that could happen. He said as many as one-third of the SAO Development Plans that had been reviewed by the Commission would have been reviewed as rezonings anyway due to the developer wanting to increase the density of the development or change a zone from one to another. With a traditional rezoning, the Commission had a lot more discretion and could look at almost anything they wanted, as long as they were not arbitrary and capricious. They would have the opportunity to look at other issues as part of the zoning consideration. Bovberg asked as the process went forward and perhaps went only to Staff review, did Staff feel there might be any weakening or degradation of the environmental protection as the Commission had wanted it to be strong. Miklo said he did not believe so. There were guidelines in the Ordinance and Staff would be diligent about enforcing those guidelines. One of the things that Staff wished to see in the future, when the Code was re-written, would be more clear cut requirements such as caps on disturbance rather than the current vague language of the Ordinance. Those changes would take out as much discretion as possible and make it as black and white as possible. Bovbjerg asked Miklo if he felt that with the almost seven years that Staff had been working with the Ordinance, would that provide them with enough history and to write minimums, guidelines and procedures, and maintain the intent of the Ordinance? Miklo said there were currently guidelines in the Ordinance. In the future, Staff might go back before the Commission to try to Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 17, 2002 Page 4 clarify the guidelines where Staff felt there was a lot of discretion, but that was a different matter. Public discussion was opened. Lori KIockau, 1031 Briar Drive, said she lives directly north of the area called Sand Hill Estates. The sand prairie is located approximately one-half of a mile directly behind her home. Klockau said her concern about the SAC was that if an area such as a prairie remnant was not currently on the Sensitive Areas map, there was no procedure in the Ordinance to put it on the map. She said the area directly south of her home is inhabited by a threatened species protected by State law, has untilled prairie soils and plants, wooded areas and steep slopes and it is not on the Sensitive Areas map. KIockau said her group has approached the Commission, the City Attorney and numerous entities but no one can tell them how to get the area identified on the Map. She said all they have been told is as citizens they have the prerogative to go forward to do a rezoning, yet no one can tell them how. Klockau said if the SAC is lacking something that is glaringly obvious, it is that. Klockau asked how can something that meets all the criteria be put on the Map, when it is not currently identified on the Map. Klockau said the SAC talked about the protection and preservation of habitats for plants, fish, reptiles, and other wildlife in hydric soils, but why just hydric soils. Different kinds of environments provided very specific habitats for plants and certain kinds of animals. Prairie soils and woodlands were other types. Why was protection/consideration given to only one type of soil in the SAC? Klockau said if a developer wanted to develop an area that was not on the SAC map, but it had steep slopes for instance, what would the procedure be? Miklo said under the current structure of the SAC, if the property had steep slopes but they were not shown on the Map and a topographic survey revealed the existence of steep slopes, the developer would be subject to the steep slopes section of the SAC. The SAC was written slightly differently for prairie remnants. It said what was protected were prairie remnants that were shown on the Map. Miklo said the issues Klockau was discussing were valid issues and concerns, but the amendments being considered did not pertain to those issues. They could be reviewed as part of the larger Code review process. Klockau said the amendment before the Commission was an impodant one, but without including the things she was talking about, the SAC was a toothless tiger. When new situations arose it left groups hamstrung to be able to do anything about it. Klockau said there was a guideline for steep slopes in the SAC. For woodlands who went out and counted the trees? She said she felt the area behind her home fell under that criterion, but no one had ever done a count. Klockau asked how did a person get the SAC to apply to anything or to any area that was not on the Map for anything other than slope? Miklo said the SAC required that at the time of a development proposal, if there were woodlands that they and their extent be shown. A calculation would be done to see if they met the two-acre minimum requirement which would kick in the requirements of the SAC. It was a simple thing to establish based on arterial photographs. Freerks asked Miklo to provide a history of the SAC map. Miklo said the SAC map was prepared in the early 1990's by an environmental consulting firm from Waterloo. It was based on information received from the Soil Conservation Service, environmental groups, from aerial photographs which showed forest or woodland, topographic maps which showed many of the steep, critical and protected slopes in the City but not all of them, and known prairies which were provided by a botanist in town but it was not know where all the prairies in town were. Those were mapped to give Staff a basis to start planning for environmental protection. Based Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 17, 2002 Page 5 on that map, the Council had asked that an ordinance be drafted to address the environmentally sensitive features. That was done and the SAC was structured such that it required the property owner to illustrate all known sensitive features on the property. An engineer certified what was present on the property. Other features, such as wetlands and prairie remnants were more difficult to define. That took additional research or study. With wetlands, soil scientists could do an analysis fairly readily, but with prairies it was more difficult and the expertise was not as wide spread in that area. It also required access to a property, which in the case Klockau was referring to, the City did not have access to the property. Klocka said if the City boundaries grow, there was no procedure to apply the SAC to new areas annexed to City property. She said it was obvious something had to be done sooner or later. Miklo said the Map covered the City's growth area, so it went beyond City limits. Klockau said what Southgate Development had done in offering to set aside 18 acres of prairie, was commendable. To the extent that any area was preserved, that area needed to go on the Map. Bovbjerg said the Commission and Staff had gone back and forth many times about things not being on the Map. If it was discovered that an area was mapable and should be mapped, was the Map amendable? As long as the Commission was using the Map, which was incomplete, as the baseline, they could not do anything that was not on the Map. Miklo said the Map was a rough estimate or indication of where known sensitive areas were. When a developer submitted a development plan, they were required to show sensitive areas that didn't necessarily appear on the Map. They had to show topographic lines and from that Staff could discover where steep, critical and protected slopes were. Woodlands had to be shown. It was easy to calculate if there were 2-acres and therefore regulated by the SAC. Stream corridors were simple to find based on topographic surveys. Just their presence on the property, even if they were not reflected on the map, then required that the developer comply with the SAC. The one exception to that was prairie remnants. Miklo said he thought what may have happened was very late in the process of drafting the SAC, which was drafted by a committee of environmentalists, developers and experts in various fields, someone suggested adding prairies so it was tacked on as an afterthought. Prairies were not as easily defined as the other features. Anciaux asked if there was a set size for a prairie. Miklo said it had to be one acre in order to be regulated. Anciaux asked if a person had a 70-acre woodlot, could some of it be developed? Miklo said depending on what the zone was, the SAC allowed for removal of part of the woodlands. Anciaux asked if a person had 70-acres of prairie, were there guidelines for that? Miklo said it was somewhat subjective. The SAC said, "The development shall be designed to retain the maximum amount of prairie remnant possible while not precluding reasonable beneficial use of the property". Miklo said that would be a case of, some of the prairie could be removed but it was not know how much. Anciaux suggested that that subject was not germane to the issue being discussed. Miklo said that was correct, there were no amendments being proposed to the prairie remnant portions of the SAC. Steven Nelson, 1033 Sandusky Drive, asked if under the proposed amendments to the SAC, if Staff reviewed something and approved or disapproved it, could a developer or citizen's group appeal the Staff's decision. To whom would the appeal be made? Bovbjerg said there was an appeal process. Miklo said the appeal process would depend on what type of review was required. If it was a site plan, it would not be an appeal process. If owners of 20% of the properties surrounding the area of the site plan submitted a petition, it would send the review up to the Commission instead of Staff. If it were a subdivision, the subdivision would be reviewed, not the sensitive areas element of it. If someone believed that Staff was misusing or misinterpreting the SAC, it could be appealed to the Board of Adjustment or to District Court. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 17, 2002 Page 6 Bovbjerg asked if a Staff review were to take place, would a notice be placed on the property so the public would know that the possibility of a development on that site might occur. Miklo said when ever a site plan process occurred, a notice similar to the rezoning subdivision notice was placed on the property indicating that a review was going forward. It listed a contact number for persons to call Staff and get information about the process. Miklo said years ago cardboard signs were used and they often got blown away or misplaced. Staff began using a more sturdy plastic sign in a metal frame, which the City might wish to consider utilization of the same type of sign for site plans to assure that they were on the property and were more visible. Miklo said currently if a rezoning or subdivision occurred, property owners within 300 feet received a letter. The notice was sent based on the edge of the property and not just where the feature was located. In most cases the people of the neighborhood on the edge of the tract of land received a notification, but they would not necessarily know a sensitive areas site plan was being reviewed by Staff. If it was just a site plan and no subdivision was involved, there currently was no procedure for notifying neighbors other than a sign on the property. Miklo said if the Commission wished to include that as an additional recommendation, they could do so. Judith Klink, 1105 Harlocke Street, said she was unhappy that City government was going in "this" direction. She said Staff making decisions about sensitive areas did not allow for any public input. Klink said any rezoning should be subject to public scrutiny. In the case of the Southgate Development off of Harlocke Street, the neighborhood had been concerned about the destruction of two ravines on the property. Glenn Siders had walked with Klink through the ravines, identified trees that the neighborhood hoped could be saved and the results had been great. Klink said they were convinced that every effort had been made not to disturb more than was absolutely necessary. Klink said she would I~e much happier if City government went in the direction of the good neighbor policy. It should be required that developers inform residents beside any proposed development site very early in the process, telling the neighborhood what their ideas were and seeking input from the neighborhood. The more informed persons were, the better able they would be to make intelligent input into the whole process and the whole process would be a lot more democratic. Klink said she had a distrust of leaving things to a small group of very talented people in the Planning Staff and not having an opportunity for the public to be informed and to be involved. Public discussion was dosed. Motion: Chair made a motion to approve the amendments to the Zoning Code, Sensitive Areas Ordinance as delineated in the Agenda. Anciaux seconded the motion. Freerks said she understood the need and desire for having streamlined, focused requirements but was uncomfortable with taking away public input. She said that in some cases, the waters had been muddied, people expected things that could not be achieved when they came to a sensitive areas rezoning and it was frustrating for people. However, a lot of good things had been achieved as a result of the discussions which occurred. Freerks said she would like to find a way to have the public input at an early stage, such as an amendment that would mandate the "Good Neighbor Policy", so that people could get involved early but still have development OCCUr. Chait said it was his understanding that Freerks concerns did not have a mechanism at that point either way. They did not pertain to the amendments being discussed. Miklo said in terms of the Code re-write, the "Good Neighbor Policy" was an element that Staff was pursuing. When they got to that part of the Code, that was something that the Commission might wish to look at. There was a distinction between site plans and rezonings. Site plans placed the burden on the developer to show that they had met the code and the ordinance on the books. With a rezoning, they were seeking something from the City and the City had a lot more discretion to say yes or Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 17, 2002 Page 7 no. That was why there was a different procedure. Chair said this was simply a matter of expediting simplistic reviews, he supported that. Anciaux said he supported the amendments at this level also. It was outlined in the SAO and Staff could apply and expedite those as well as the Commission could. Koppes said she would like to see better announcement, but that could be discussed and added after the amendment was voted on. This amendment set a good guideline, the applications that the Commission had been most concerned about would have come before them anyway. She also supported the amendment at this level. Freerks said she wanted to make sure that things such as immediate visual notification and mandatory use of the good neighbor policy be reviewed and noted in the record. Bovbjerg said she would like Staffs suggestions regarding permanence of the signs, the good neighbor policy, notification of neighbors, and updating the Map noted for the record. Anciaux called the question. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Miklo said in terms of the question of a sign being posted on the property, he would suggest that the Commission make a recommendation that as a follow up to this, the Council instruct Housing and Inspection Service Department to place signs on sensitive areas site plans similar to signs placed for subdivisions and rezonings. Miklo said the question of the good neighbor policy was a bigger question. Staff was currently reviewing that. When the ordinance came before the Commission in December or January it would have a proposal for a mandatory good neighbor policy for developments of a certain threshold. As applied to site plans or sensitive areas, Staff would look at that question, but it would probably have to go back before the Commission and the Council with some specific policy questions to be addressed. Motion: Freerks made a motion that signage of durable plasticized cardboard in a metal frames be placed on a property immediately upon receipt of an application and stay up until the application was acted upon. This would apply to all sensitive areas developments going through a site plan. Chait seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Bovberg asked what about prairies and areas not currently on the Map and how to get them on the Map. Miklo said that was something they would look at with the general Code review. Miklo said Staff hoped to have some drafts of the larger Code review available in December or January. He encouraged persons who had interests in the SAO item or similar items to stay in touch with Staff and to look at the City's web page. Their input and ideas would be solicited when this portion of the Code re-write came before the Commission. OTHER: Behr said at the last meeting the Commission had requested information about what the fine would be when a violation went past the third violation. He had checked with the attorney who handled that. She had said that the fine stayed the same beyond the third violation, but she had not faced beyond a third violation so it had not specifically come up. CONSIDERATION OF THE OCTOBER 3, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 17, 2002 Page 8 Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve the meeting minutes with corrections as given to Miklo. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. ADJOURNMENT: Koppes made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 pm. Anciaux seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Jerry Hansen, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill shared on citynt/pcd/rninutes/p&z/p&zlO-1 ?-02 doc FIN~4L/~4PPROVED ~ POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - October 22, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Stratton called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. ATTENDANCE Board members present: John Stratton, Bev Smith and John Watson; board members absent: Bill Hoeft and Loren Horton. Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Kellie Tuttle present. Also in attendance was Captain Tom Widmer of the ICPD. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Smith and seconded by Watson to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. · Minutes of the meeting on 09/10/02 · ICPD Department Memorandum 02-44 · ICPD Use of Force Report- August 2002 · ICPD Quarterly/Summary Report- IAIR/PCRB, 2002 Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeft and Horton absent. REPORT FROM NOMINATING COMMITTEE Watson and Smith were on the nominating committee. The committee reported that they would like to nominate John Stratton as Chair and Loren Horton as Vice Chair of the Board for another year. CONSIDER MOTION TO FIX METHOD OF VOTING Motion by Watson and seconded by Smith for voting to be by voice vote. Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeft and Horton absent. NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICE OF CHAIRPERSON Motion by Watson and seconded by Smith to nominate Stratton as the Chair of the Board. No other nominations were presented. Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeft and Horton absent. FINA L/.,IPPR 0 VED NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICE OF VICE- CHAIRPERSON Motion by Watson and seconded by Smith to nominate Loren Horton as Vice-Chair of the Board. No other nominations were presented. Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeft and Horton absent. OLD BUSINESS · Mailing for Service Clubs (video showing) A draft listing of service clubs selected by Horton was included in the packet. A draft letter regarding the video mailing was also included. The video was shown at the City Council work session on October 21 st. Watson will present the video at the Noon Kiwanis Club on November 5. Motion by Watson and seconded by Smith to go ahead with the mailing to the service clubs that were selected by Horton. Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeft and Horton absent. NEW BUSINESS · Police Traffic Stop Data Study Stratton noted the memo from Horton in the packet listing his concerns. Stratton stated that the study does not address if there is discrimination in deciding whom to stop. Watson said it was premature to discuss in detail but thought that the Board should review the information when there is a full year worth of data. Stratton stated the purpose of the Board was to look at these issues on a complaint basis, not Department-wide. The Board agreed to review and discuss the one year study after completion. PUBLIC DISCUSSION No public discussion. BOARD INFORMATION Stratton received a phone call from a person complaining about harassment by a City employee. Stratton informed the caller that the Board only deals with complaints concerning sworn officers. Widmer indicated that the person in question is not a sworn officer. Legal Counsel Pugh stated this was out of the Board's jurisdiction. FIN~4L/~PPR O VED STAFF INFORMATION Tuttle informed the Board that at the October 7th work session the City Council directed Staff that they wanted minutes for Boards and Commissions within 21 days of the meetings. Minutes can be in draft form. The Council will continue to receive final minutes after Board approval. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Watson and seconded by Smith to adjourn into Executive Session. Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeft and Horton absent. Open session adjourned at 7:34 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 8:00 P.M. Motion by Smith and seconded by Watson to accept the level of review for the Chief's report on PCRB Complaint #02-03 and #02-04 at 8-8-7(B)(1 )(a), on the record with no additional investigation, in accordance with the Ordinance. Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeff and Horton absent. Motion by Smith and seconded by Watson to grant the Chief an additional extension on Complaint #02-01 for 45 days and extend Complaint #02-02 until December 20th to complete the reports. Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeft and Horton absent, ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Smith and seconded by Watson. Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeft and Horton absent. Meeting adjourned at 8:03 P.M,