HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 06.04.20PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, June 4, 2020
Electronic Formal Meeting – 7:00 PM
Zoom Meeting Platform
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
4. Case No. SUB20-03
Applicant: Watts Group Development Inc.
Location: North of Rohret Road SW, West of Yuma Drive
An application submitted by Watts Group Development Inc. for a preliminary plat of the
West Side Estates - Phase Two subdivision, a 13.10-acre subdivision consisting of 39
residential lots located north of Rohret Road SW and west of Yuma Drive.
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is
impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of
Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
You can participate in the meeting and can comment on an agenda item by
going to: https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJUtc-
uqqT8tHtYEC6z0gG8E1FG0IvsDT8tz to visit the Zoom meeting’s registration
page and submitting the required information. Once approved, you will
receive an email message with a link to join the meeting. If you are asked for
a meeting or webinar ID, enter the ID number found in the email. If you have
no computer or smartphone, or a computer without a microphone, you can
call in by phone by dialing (312) 626-6799 and entering the meeting ID 910
4227 4742 when prompted. Providing comment in person is not an option.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 4, 2020
5. Case No. CU20-01
Applicant: Nick Hemann
Location: 3037 and 3031 IWV Road SW; Unincorporated Johnson County
An application submitted by Nick Hemann for a conditional use permit to allow for a
commercial storage facility at 3037 and 3031 IWV Road SW in unincorporated Johnson
County.
6. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: May 21, 2020
7. Planning & Zoning Information
8. Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please
contact Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or anne-russett@iowa-city.org.
Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: June 18 / July 2 / July 16
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner
Item: SUB20-03 Date: June 4, 2020
Westside Estates
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant and Property Owner: Watts Group Development Inc.
c/o Adam Hahn
425 E. Oakdale Blvd.
Coralville, IA 52241
319-338-4100
adam@wattsgroup.com
Requested Action: Approval of preliminary plat
Purpose: Westside Estates subdivision; To create 39
residential lots
Location: North of Rohret Road and west of Yuma Drive
Location Map:
2
Size: 13.10 Acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped, RS-5 – Low Density Single-Family
Residential
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: RS-5 – Low Density Single-Family
Residential
RR-1 – Rural Residential
South: AR – County Agricultural Residential
R – County Residential
East: RS-5 – Low Density Single-Family
Residential
R – County Residential
West: A – County Agricultural
Comprehensive Plan: 2-8 DU/A
District Plan: Southwest District, Public/Private Open Space
Neighborhood Open Space District: SW5
Public Meeting Notification: Property owners located within 300’ of the
project site received notification of the Planning
and Zoning Commission public meeting.
Subdivision signs were also posted on the site.
File Date: March 23, 2020
45 Day Limitation Period: Waived by the applicant
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Watts Group Development Inc., is requesting approval of the preliminary plat
of West Side Estates - Phase Two, a 39-lot, 13.10-acre residential subdivision located north
of Rohret Road, west of Yuma Drive. The subject property went through the preliminary plat
process in 2017. At the time of the original platting, the subdivision was called Country Club
Estates Eighth Addition. Preliminary plats expire after 24 months unless the applicant seeks
an extension from City Council, so the preliminary plat for Country Club Estates Eighth
Addition expired in 2019. At this time, the applicant is seeking approval for the newly named,
West Side Estates - Phase Two subdivision. The subject property was rezoned from Interim
Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family Residential
(RS-5) in 2017.
The subject property was rezoned with the following conditions:
1. Upon subdividing any of the property hereby rezoned, the Developer shall enter into
a subdivider’s agreement with the City for the installation of Rohret Road as a public
improvement for the first street that will serve the development (a point
approximately 200’ west of Lake Shore Drive).
3
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall pay 50% of the cost of
improving Rohret Road to the western city limits as determined by the City Engineer.
A Good Neighbor Meeting and Open House was held in 2017 for the West Side Estates Phase
One Subdivision, however, the applicant has chosen not to hold a Good Neighbor Meeting
for West Side Estates Phase Two Subdivision.
ANALYSIS:
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Southwest District Plan identifies this area as
appropriate for single-family/duplex residential development. The Comprehensive Plan
envisions a density between 2-8 dwelling units per acre. The preliminary plat shows 39
single-family residential lots, and a proposed density of 4.52 dwelling units per acre, which
meets the intended land use and density of the Comprehensive Plan. The preliminary plat
also allows for the extension of streets from the West Side Estates Phase One subdivision. In
the event that subsequent development to the west is needed, Luke Drive will provide a stub
street for future westward development.
Subdivision Design: The subdivision includes 39 single-family lots and two outlots. In the
RS-5 zone, the minimum lot frontage is 45 feet and the minimum lot width measured at the
setback is 60 feet. The majority of single-family lots meet the minimum dimensional
requirements of the RS-5 zone. Nine lots that front Rohret Road are sized below the lot size
minimum of 8,000 square feet for detached single-family homes. However, Section 14-2A-
7A of the zoning code provides a density bonus that reduces minimum lot size for dwellings
whose vehicular access to garages and off-street parking is restricted to an alley or private
rear lane. Under this provision, minimum lot size is reduced to 6,000 square feet with a
minimum width of 50 feet. In this subdivision, the lots along Rohret Road are in compliance
with this provision. Because Rohret Road is designated as a future arterial road, dwellings
along Rohret Road must also meet a 40’ setback requirement. The houses that are currently
situated along Rohret Road to the east (built during Phase One of the subdivision) meet
this setback requirement. Per section 14-2A-4E-2b of the City Code, all lots in the
subdivision, including lots that front Rohret Road, will be required to have at least 500
square feet of open space in the rear yard. All remaining lots in the subdivision comply
with the regulations for single-family lots without private rear lane access.
Overall, the proposed plat maintains a similar layout and number of lots as the Country Club
Estates Eighth Addition Plat that was approved in 2017. Tumbleweed Terrace has since been
named to Luke Drive. The subdivision design includes the extension of Luke Drive, Sedona
Street, and the private rear drive. Sedona street extends westward before turning south to
connect with Rohret Road. Block lengths within the subdivision fall within the appropriate
range of 300’-600’ in length for local streets, and over 600’ in length for Rohret Road
(designated as an arterial street). The subdivision shows 5’ wide internal sidewalk
connections throughout. An 8’ wide sidewalk along the north side of Rohret Road is shown
as well. City staff requested an 80’ wide right-of-way for Rohret Road during its analysis of
the previously submitted subdivision. This right-of-way width matches the existing right-
of-way to the east.
Outlot “A”, shown on the preliminary plat as private open space, consists of 1.28 acres and
will be accessed via Sedona Street. Outlot “B” would be private open space, and act as a
means to access sanitary sewer and storm water easements.
4
Traffic Implications: City Engineering have made note of a deficiency on the plat
regarding grading near the intersection of Sedona Street and Luke Drive. City staff have
requested that the grade in this area be less than 2%, so that crosswalk infrastructure in
this location may meet ADA standards. Upon review, transportation planning staff found
no apparent traffic complications as a result of the proposed subdivision.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The subject property does not contain any
environmentally sensitive areas.
Neighborhood Open Space: Open space dedication or fees in lieu of are addressed at the
time of final platting. Based on the 13.1 acres of RS-5 zoning, the developer would be
required to dedicate .28 acres of land or pay fees in-lieu. Parks and Recreation staff has
determined that an in-lieu fee payment would be appropriate.
Storm Water Management: The previous phase of Country Club Estates was designed to
manage stormwater for this development with a stormwater detention basin located north
of the subject area.
Sanitary Sewer Service: Sanitary sewer service is available to serve this property as a result
of the lift station installed for earlier phases of Country Club Estates.
Infrastructure Fees: Rohret Road is a rural cross section with chip seal surface and drainage
ditches. When Irving Weber School was built, the City improved Rohret Road to a point
approximately 500 feet west of Phoenix Drive. When Country Club Estates Part Three was
developed, the developer extended the improvements of Rohret Road up to Lake Shore
Drive.
As a condition of rezoning the property, the applicant must pay 50% of the cost of
improving the street to the western city limits. The City and/or future private development
to the south will be responsible for the other 50%. Payment to the City will occur after the
final plat is approved.
Until Rohret Road is fully improved, trash and recycling collection for the lots along Rohret
Road must be done via the private rear alley. Because the City does not collect trash and
recycling from private alleys, trash and recycling from these lots must be collected by a
private hauler.
The applicant has submitted a water pressure study demonstrating that water pressure is
adequate to serve the proposed subdivision.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation of approval of the preliminary plat by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, the preliminary plat will be considered for approval by the City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Upon resolution of the deficiencies listed below, staff recommends approval of SUB20-03,
an application submitted by Watts Group Development Inc. for a preliminary plat of the
5
West Side Estates – Phase Two subdivision, a 39-lot, 13.10-acre residential subdivision
located north of Rohret Road and west of Yuma Drive.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
1. Applicant must work with Engineering staff to address the issue related to the grade
of the street near the intersection of Sedona Street and Luke Drive to ensure ADA
compliance.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Preliminary Plat
4. Grading Plan
Approved by: __ ________________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
SANTAFED RDUN LE YCTLAKE
SH
O
RE
DR WILD PRAIRIE DRS E D O N A S T
LUKEDRPHOENIX DR
W ILDCATLNMESA
CTR O H R E T R D
P H O E N I X P L
YUMA DRSLOTHOWER RDG A L L U P P LCOUNTRYCLUBDR
ROHRETCTSW
LAREDO DR
EL PASO DR
TUC S O N P L
KESSLER DR SW
LANDON AVE SWROHRETRDSW
MAIER AVE SWSUB20-03Westside Estates - Preliminaryµ
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: April 2020
An application submitted by Watts Group Development Inc., c/o Adam Hahn, for preliminary plat approval of Westside Estates, a 13.10 acre subdivison located N of Rohret Rd and W of Yuma Dr.
Iowa City Limits
AR
R
P
A SAN TAFEDRDU N LEYCTLAKE SH
O
RE DR WILD PRAIRIE DRS E D O NAST
LU K E D R
PHOENIX
D
R
W ILDCATLNMESA
CTL A R E D O C T
R O H R E T R D
P H O E N I X P L
YUMA DRSLOTHOWER RDG A L L U P P LCOUNTRYCLUBDR
ROHRETCTSW
EL PASO DR
TUC S O N P L
KESSLER DR SW
LANDON AVE SWROHRETRDSW
MAIER AVE SWRS5
RS5
RS5
RS5 RS5 RS5
RS5
RS5
RS5
RR1
RS5
RS5
RS5
RS5
RS5
RS5
RS5
RS5
P1
RS5
RR1
SUB20-03Westside Estates - Preliminaryµ
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: April 2020
An application submitted by Watts Group Development Inc., c/o Adam Hahn, for preliminary plat approval of Westside Estates, a 13.10 acre subdivison located N of Rohret Rd and W of Yuma Dr.
Iowa City Limits
10361218161729302732253133354112745118139152414192021222623283436374038T
UM
B
L
EW
E
E
D
T
E
R
R
A
C
E39 COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES THIRD ADDITION3342343832353637SEDONA STREETLAKE SHORE DRIVEROHRET ROAD31OUTLOT C COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES THIRD
ADD
IT
IONYUMA DRIVESLOTHOWER ROAD OUTLOT "C"OUTLOT "A"LUKE DR
IVE WEST SIDE ESTATES - PHASE ONE(319) 351-8282LAND PLANNERSLAND SURVEYORSCIVIL ENGINEERSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTSwww.mmsconsultants.net1917 S. GILBERT ST.PER CITY COMMENTS -JDM05-15-20WEST SIDE ESTATES -PHASE TWO IOWA CITYJOHNSON COUNTYSTATE OF IOWA03-26-2020RLA756, 1186MAKJDMIOWA CITY1331-651113.10 AC.PER CITY COMMENTS -JDM05-28-20PRELIMINARY PLAT11"=60'GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET01"=60'615304560CORALVILLE, IOWA 52241425 E. OAKDALE BOULEVARD, STE. 201MICHAEL PUGHSUBDIVIDER'S ATTORNEY:PLAT PREPARED BY:MMS CONSULTANTS INC.1917 S. GILBERT STREETIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240Date:City Clerk City of Iowa Cityby thePLAT/PLAN APPROVEDCORALVILLE, IOWA 52241425 E. OAKDALE BOULEVARDWATTS GROUP CONSTRUCTIONOWNER & SUBDIVIDER:PRELIMINARY PLATWEST SIDE ESTATES - PHASE TWOIOWA CITY, IOWANOTE: LOTS 43-52, AND 81 SHALL NOT HAVEDIRECT ACCESS TO ROHRET ROAD.NOT TO SCALELOCATION MAPLAKE SHORE DRIOWA CITY, IOWAWEST SIDE ESTATES - PHASE TWOROHRET ROADMAIRER AVE POINT OF BEGINNINGG:\1331\1331-651\1331-651P.dwg, 5/28/2020 9:34:51 AM, jdm
1061218161729302725313541745118139152414192021222623283436374038394232SEDONA STREETROHRET ROAD31OUTLOT C COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES THIRD
ADD
IT
IONYUMA DRIVESLOTHOWER ROAD OUTLOT "C"OUTLOT "A"LUKE DR
IVECWPRDL WEST SIDE ESTATES - PHASE ONE(319) 351-8282LAND PLANNERSLAND SURVEYORSCIVIL ENGINEERSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTSwww.mmsconsultants.net1917 S. GILBERT ST.PER CITY COMMENTS -JDM05-15-20WEST SIDE ESTATES -PHASE TWO IOWA CITYJOHNSON COUNTYSTATE OF IOWA03-26-2020RLA756, 1186MAKJDMIOWA CITY1331-651113.10 AC.PER CITY COMMENTS -JDM05-28-20SITE GRADING ANDEROSION CONTROL PLAN11"=60'GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET01"=60'615304560CORALVILLE, IOWA 52241425 E. OAKDALE BOULEVARD, STE. 201MICHAEL PUGHSUBDIVIDER'S ATTORNEY:PLAT PREPARED BY:MMS CONSULTANTS INC.1917 S. GILBERT STREETIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240CORALVILLE, IOWA 52241425 E. OAKDALE BOULEVARDWATTS GROUP CONSTRUCTIONOWNER & SUBDIVIDER:SITE GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLANWEST SIDE ESTATES - PHASE TWOIOWA CITY, IOWANOTE: ALL TREES ON SITE SHALL BE CLEARED AND GRUBBEDDURING CONSTRUCTION.NOT TO SCALELOCATION MAPLAKE SHORE DRIOWA CITY, IOWAWEST SIDE ESTATES - PHASE TWOROHRET ROADMAIRER AVE
CWPRDL010203DG:\1331\1331-651\1331-651P.dwg, 5/28/2020 9:35:29 AM, jdm
Date: June 4, 2020
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner
Re: CU20-01 Conditional Use Permit – Storage Facilities for 3037 and 3031 IWV
Road SW
Background:
Nick Hemann has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to the Johnson County Board
of Adjustment for the allowance of a 20+ unit commercial storage facility to be used for boats
and recreational vehicles on property located at 3037 and 3031 IWV Road SW., in Johnson
County. It is the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine if the conditional use
that is being applied for, a commercial storage facility within the City’s Fringe Area, should be
recommended for approval to the City Council.
The subject property is within Fringe Area “C” of the Fringe Area Policy Agreement, and outside
of the City’s growth boundary. The Johnson County Zoning Ordinance requires that cities be
allowed to review Conditional Use Permits within their extraterritorial jurisdiction (the area
covered by the Fringe Area Agreement). Conditional Use Permits in Johnson County require a
4/5 majority vote of the Board of Adjustment to approve if the use is opposed by a vote of the
City Council.
The subject property is zoned County Agricultural (A). Adjacent properties to the north, east,
and west are also zoned County Agricultural (A). The property to the south is zoned Public (P)
and is in the City’s landfill area.
Proposed Land Use:
The Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) defines a Commercial Storage
Facility as “A facility, including a building or group of buildings, used for the storage of personal
property where individual owners control individual storage spaces. A commercial storage
facility may include outdoor storage for boats, recreational vehicles, or other vehicles.”
As the subject property is located outside of the City’s Growth Boundary, the property is not
discussed in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The existing neighborhood character features
large plots of farmland and scattered rural residences. The subject property contains over 37
acres. The proposed commercial storage facility use would be setback at least 50 ’ from the IWV
Road SW. right-of-way, and over 150’ from the eastern property line.
The proposed storage facility use must comply with supplemental conditions from section 8.1.23
of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance pertaining to Commercial Storage
Facilities. As the applicant is proposing a facility with more than 20 storage units, the facility
would need to comply with the following County supplemental requirements.
1. Road Access: Shall be accessed off of a paved road.
2. A Site Plan Review approved by the Zoning Administrator in accordance with the
provisions of subsection 8:1.25 shall be required to obtain a building permit.
May 29, 2020
Page 2
3. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with subsection 8:1.24.
4. The application shall comply with all Environmental Standards in Chapter 8.3.
5. The application shall comply with all Johnson County Public Health requirements and
all other applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
The proposed storage units will not feature commercial contractor bays and will therefore not be
supplied with water or septic systems. The units will be 14’ x 50’ in size. The County requires
the applicant to disclose the number of storage units that will be built at the time of site plan
review. The proposed location of the building will result in the removal of two existing
outbuildings. A concept of the proposed building layout is attached to this memo.
City Analysis:
City Transportation Planning staff have reviewed the application and found no apparent issues
with respect to site access or volume of use. The County’s parking code requires one off-street
parking space for every ten storage units.
As noted above, the proposed site is within the Iowa City Fringe Area, but outside of the City’s
future projected Growth Area. The subject property is not likely to be annexed into the City in
the future. While the City is in the process of revising its Fringe Area Agreement and the shape
of the City’s Growth Boundary, the subject property is not currently envisioned to be included in
any Growth Boundary expansion efforts.
Despite the subject property sharing a common border with the City’s Landfill property to the
south, City staff have not expressed any concern with the subject use’s adjacency to the City
landfill property.
While City staff have typically expressed a desire to locate commercial land uses within the City
limits, the Conditional Use Permit process allows the City to have a more precise understanding
of the purpose, scale, and intensity of any potential future land use. In this instance, we know
that the proposed use is for a commercial storage facility, with upwards of 20 storage units, to
be located on a remotely traveled and sparsely populated portion of the County that is outside of
the City’s future Growth Boundary plans. As far as the use is concerned, it could be argued that
the scale and nature of the proposed end use, one that will not require water and sewer supply,
is fitting for an Agricultural zone. Furthermore, the County’s Site Plan Review process provides
a formal process for ensuring that development of the site will meet pertinent codes related to
storm water management, accommodation of parking, and compliance with the County’s
sensitive areas ordinance.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of an application submitted by Nick Hemann for a conditional use
permit to allow for a commercial storage facility at 3037 and 3031 IWV Road SW in
unincorporated Johnson County.
Approved by: ________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, Development Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
May 29, 2020
Page 3
Attachments: 1. Location Map
2. Application Information
DEER
CREEK
RD
2
1
8
S
B
T
O
M
E
L
R
O
S
E
A
V
EPRE
S
T
ON
L
N
LUKEDRPHOENIX
D
R
W IL D C ATLNROHRET R DLAKES
H
O
R
E
D
R
MELROSE AVE CAMPCARDINALBLVDMAIER AVE SWSLOTHOWER RDKANSASLN SW
SLOTH O W E R
RDS W
S A N T A FE
DRHEBL AVE SWRYAN
C
T
KANSAS AVE SWJAMES AVE SWROHRETRDSW
NEUZIL RD SW
HIGH
WAY 218
HIGH
WAY 218
HURT RD SWIWV RD SW
CUP20-013037 & 3031 IWV Rd SWµ
0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: May 2020
An application submitted by B7 Property LLC for a conditional use permit for storage units for RV's, boats, etc. on property located at 3037 & 3031 IWV Rd SW. Iowa City Boundary
R
C-AG
AR
A
P
DEER
CREEK
RD
218
S
B
T
O
M
ELR
O
S
E
A
V
E
M A S O N
D R
MELROSE AVE
ROHRETCTSW
MAIER AVE SWSLOTHOWER RDKANSASLN SW
MELROSEAVE
S A N T A FE
DRHEBL AVE SWKANSAS AVE SWJAMES AVE SWROHRETRDSW
NEUZIL RD SW
HIGH
WAY 218
HIGH
WAY 218
HURT RD SWIWV RD SW
P1/RM12
RR1
ID-RP
RS5
RS5
RS5
RS5
RS5
RS8
RS5
RM12
RS5
RS12
P1
RS5
RS5 RS5
P2
RS5
RS5
RM12
P1
RS5
ID-RS
RS5
RR1
RS5
RS8RR1
RS5
RS5
RS8
RS5
ID-RSCO1
RS5
ID-RP
ID-RS
RS5 RS5
P1
RS5RS5
RR1
CUP20-013037 & 3031 IWV Rd SWµ
0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: May 2020
An application submitted by B7 Property LLC for a conditional use permit for storage units for RV's, boats, etc. on property located at 3037 & 3031 IWV Rd SW. Iowa City Boundary
DEER
CREEK
RD
2
1
8
S
B
T
O
M
E
L
R
O
S
E
A
V
EPRE
S
T
ON
L
N
LUKEDRPHOENIX
D
R
W IL D C ATLNROHRET R DLAKES
H
O
R
E
D
R
MELROSE AVE CAMPCARDINALBLVDMAIER AVE SWSLOTHOWER RDKANSASLN SW
SLOTH O W E R
RDS W
S A N T A FE
DRHEBL AVE SWRYAN
C
T
KANSAS AVE SWJAMES AVE SWROHRETRDSW
NEUZIL RD SW
HIGH
WAY 218
HIGH
WAY 218
HURT RD SWIWV RD SW
Johnson County PD & S
CUP20-013037 & 3031 IWV Rd SWµ
0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: May 2020
An application submitted by B7 Property LLC for a conditional use permit for storage units for RV's, boats, etc. on property located at 3037 & 3031 IWV Rd SW. Iowa City Boundary
3037 & 3031 IWV Rd SW, Iowa City, IAB7 Property LLC, PO Box 152, Solon, IA 52333B7 Property LLCPO Box 152, Solon, IA 52333319-321-61335/21/20201114226001storage units for RV's, boats etc.the NE corner of the NW NW of Section 14-79-7
May 21, 2020 Project # 9414-014
Johnson County
Planning, Development & Sustainability
Attn: Josh Busard
913 S Dubuque Suite 204
Iowa City, IA 52240
Re: Conditional Use Application – 3037 IWV Road SW
Dear Josh:
On behalf of our client, Nick Hemann, we are submitting an application for a
Conditional Use for storage facilities to be located on Parcel 1114226001. The land has
two residential structures on it (3037 and 3031), both are rentals and the owner
intends for those homes to stay, partly so someone is always on the site to watch over
things because there will be no employees on site. The proposed storage units are
intended to be for RV’s, boats, etc. not commercial contractor bays, therefore there will
be no bathrooms or water. There will be a smaller sign close to the road, on the existing
bank, in front of the pine trees along the west side of the driveway. There will also be
signage along the east side of the building as well. The units will be 14’ x 50’ and there
will be more than 20 units. The proposed location of the building will mean the removal
of 2 existing outbuildings. This property is within the City of Iowa City’s Fringe Area -
Area C Outside Growth and this application will be sent to Iowa City staff for review.
Sincerely,
Sandy Steil
MMS Consultants Inc.
cc: City of Iowa City
Source: Johnson County Auditor’s Office 9414-014APO_052020.docx
Adjacent Property Owners List
3037 & 3031 IWV Rd
Within 500’
MMS Project #9414-014
B7 PROPERTY LLC
PO BOX 152
SOLON, IA 52333
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 E WASHINGTON ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52240-1826
DENNIS M HEBL
3915 JAMES AVE SW
IOWA CITY, IA 52246
HAROLD PAUL NEUZIL
2963 NEUZIL RD SW
OXFORD, IA 52322
MARY L HURT
PO BOX 220
HILLS, IA 52235-0220
TIMOTHY ROGERS
3688 KANSAS AVE SW
OXFORD, IA 52322
TYLER R ROGERS
2965 IWV RD SW
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
Proposed sign(319) 351-8282LAND PLANNERSLAND SURVEYORSCIVIL ENGINEERSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTSwww.mmsconsultants.net1917 S. GILBERT ST.IWV ROADNW1/4, NW1/4 SEC14-T79N-R7WIOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTYIOWA05/20/2020LRSLRSSAS9414-0141CONDITIONAL USE PERMITEXHIBIT11"=150'G:\9414\9414-014\9414-014W.dwg, 5/21/2020 10:09:28 AM, SAS
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 21, 2020 – 7:00 PM
ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max
Parsons, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sara Hekteon, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Chris Thompson, Kevin Monson, John Yapp, Steve Gordon
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of SUB20-04, an application submitted
by Pleasant Valley LP for a preliminary plat of the Pleasant Valley Preserve subdivision, a 7-lot,
7.6 acre residential subdivision in unincorporated Johnson County.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ20-02, an application submitted
by Tailwind College St. IC, LLC for a rezoning from Central Business (CB-10) zone to CB-10 with
a Historic District Overlay (CB-10/OHD) for the properties located at 109, 111-113, 115, and 117-
121 E. College Street.
By a vote of 6-1 (Martin dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of SUB20-05, an
application submitted by Allen Homes, Inc. for a preliminary plat for Community View subdivision,
a 35.21-acre subdivision consisting of one public lot, three multi- family lots, and 57 single-family
lots located east of Scott Boulevard and north of American Legion Road.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. SUB20-04:
Applicant: Pleasant Valley LP
Location: 4390 Sand Road SE
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting was held because a meeting in person was impossible or impractical
due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff and the public
presented by COVID-19.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 21, 2020
Page 2 of 13
An application submitted by Pleasant Valley LP for a preliminary plat of the Pleasant Valley
Preserve subdivision, a 7-lot residential subdivision in unincorporated Johnson County.
Russett began the staff report with an aerial of the project site which is located just off Sand
Road and just west of the Pleasant Valley golf course. Next she showed the zoning map and
where the City boundaries are and what is unincorporated Johnson County. The land in question
is currently zoned residential.
In terms of background this property is in the Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area, Area B,
which is outside of the City's growth boundary. The request is to subdivide the parcel into seven
lots and one outlot and this would be subject to the rural design standards.
Russett next showed the preliminary plat which shows the seven lots front along the new street,
Pleasant Valley Drive, which has access off Sand Road. All the lots are about an acre in size.
She noted the portion of the plat that shows the stormwater management, the stormwater
management will be provided in two detention basins one at the northwest corner and the other
at the northeast corner and the stormwater will be subject to the Johnson County stormwater
management regulations.
In terms of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, this parcel is outside the growth boundary
and within fringe Area B and the recommended land use direction is to maintain agricultural land
uses. However, this area was rezoned to residential in the 1960s and the Fringe Area Agreement
allows development to occur consistent with current zoning.
In terms of next steps, this will move forward to City Council and then onto the Johnson County
Planning and Zoning Commission and then finally the Johnson County Board of Supervisors.
Staff recommends approval of SUB20-04, an application submitted by Pleasant Valley LP for a
preliminary plat of the Pleasant Valley Preserve subdivision, a 7-lot residential subdivision in
unincorporated Johnson County.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Chris Thompson (Cooper, Crawford & Associates) is representing Pleasant Valley LP and stated
Russett did a great job of presenting the project and they are in agreement with all staff
recommendations.
Martin asked what is happening on the other side of Pleasant Valley Drive that is not yet plated.
Thompson replied at this time nothing's planned, there is a larger portion of property but it's kind
of oddly shaped and they don't plan to do anything with that area.
Signs noted that the road is already there. Russett confirmed that is correct and it currently is
access to the golf course and they're following the current alignment of that drive.
Parson noted he is an avid golfer and for the longest time thought Pleasant Valley owned that
area so was a little surprised when he saw this. He asked if ownership the same, both north and
south of that drive. Hensch noted it is all, including the golf course, owned by the same family.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 21, 2020
Page 3 of 13
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved to approve SUB20-04, an application submitted by Pleasant Valley LP for
a preliminary plat of the Pleasant Valley Preserve subdivision, a 7-lot, 7.6 acre residential
subdivision in unincorporated Johnson County.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Parsons sees no reason not to approve this application.
Hensch agrees with Parsons, this is in compliance with the Fringe Area Agreement and he
doesn’t have any concerns at all about this.
Signs agreed, it is pretty straightforward.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CASE NO. REZ20-02:
Applicant: Tailwind College St. IC, LLC
Location: 109, 111, 115, and 117-121 E. College Street
An application submitted by Tailwind College St. IC, LLC for a rezoning from Central Business
(CB-10) zone to CB-10 with a Historic District Overlay (CB-10/OHD) for the properties located at
109, 111, 115, and 117-121 E. College Street.
Russett reiterated this is a rezoning application for a historic district overlay for several properties
within the Ped Mall on East College Street. She reminded the Commission that these local
landmark rezonings ensure the preservation of historic resources in the community and require
upon approval that exterior changes to these buildings undergo historic review, which could be a
review by the City Preservation Planner or the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). The
HPC did review this application at their meeting last week and recommended approval of the
landmark designation. Russett added although this item isn't related to the development project,
the applicant is seeking to preserve the existing buildings that front East College Street and build
a new building behind those historic structures and that review of the development, the new
buildings, would be subject to historic review upon approval of this rezoning.
Russett next showed an aerial of the site and then the zoning map. All of the area is zoned CB-
10, which is the downtown zoning designation. She pointed out property which is currently
Martinis is currently a local historic landmark.
Russett next went through the properties and showed some current photographs and some
historic photographs. First is 109 East College Street, which is the west bay which was
constructed in 1874. Next are the central bays of the Dooley Block at 111 through 113 East
College Street and the east bay of the Dooley block at 115 East College Street.
Next is a historic photograph that shows the Dooley block prior to the demolition of the central
bays. The central bays were demolished, and the Sears company built there as a three-bay
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 21, 2020
Page 4 of 13
building in 1929. Moving on to the Crescent block, 117 and 123 East College Street, which is
currently Revival and Union Bar, Russett showed a historic photograph of the Crescent block at
the left side of the screen and the Dooley block in the center. Russett pointed out Martinis, which
is currently a local historic landmark. Russett noted the storefront at 121 E. College Street was
remodeled, so it is not the original facade of the building. It was remodeled in 1930 to reflect an
art deco styling, so even though it's not the original facade, it was remodeled during the period of
significant, so the art deco storefront is an important feature of this building.
Russett noted the next steps after the Planning Commission makes a recommendation, City
Council will have a public hearing and if approved, exterior modifications will be subject to the
historic review process.
Staff does recommend approval of REZ20-02 for a rezoning from Central Business (CB-10) zone
to CB-10 with a Historic District Overlay (CB-10/OHD) for the properties located at 109, 111-113,
115, and 117-121 E. College Street.
Martin asked how this historic overlay will affect the restaurants there, the current restaurant
signage, and patio seating. Is there anything that can negatively impact the current business.
Russett replied if they wanted to make any changes to the size or the signs that would be subject
to historic review. Martin noted the original Sears sign shown she thinks is far too large for
current sign standards, so could someone then decide to put a sign like that up since that was
original. Russett replied yes and noted they had a project similar to that on the Historic
Preservation Commission agenda last week where a historic sign was larger than the current
signage standards and HPC recommended approval of it, but it needs to also get a special
exception from the Board of Adjustment to approve the signage size requirements.
Martin wanted confirmation they wouldn’t see a negative impact on the current businesses
because it's just a facade and signage restraints and there could potentially be benefits. Russett
replied there's definitely benefits if the buildings become local historic landmarks, there's a grant
program that the projects could potentially be eligible for so there are financial resources as well,
but only for the exterior of the buildings.
Signs noted in the report comments the developer is planning to build a new structure behind the
historical structure. From the overview it looks like some of those buildings go all the way back
to the alley and so is it okay if they demolish parts of those buildings in the rear. Russett noted
that the demolitions would have to be reviewed by the HPC prior to the demolition. Hekteon
noted the whole property will be zoned historic, not just the facades.
Hensch asked if this historic designation then allows these properties to become eligible for the
State Historic property tax credits. Russett noted that was correct.
Baker asked about the redevelopment behind the façade and what regulations kick in controlling
the height of the redevelopment and can something go above the current facade behind it higher.
Russett said that would have to be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission and staff
has reviewed some preliminary designs, and the applicant has already submitted a historic
review application. The City Historic Preservation Planner did a sightline study and provided
some recommendations on what might work in terms of height but the HPC will make those final
decisions. The only reason City Council would be involved in this is if the applicant is seeking
TIF funding otherwise Council would not have a say in the project.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 21, 2020
Page 5 of 13
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Kevin Monson (Neumann Monson Architects) is representing Tailwind and noted this project has
been in the works for probably a year and a half and they've had multiple opportunities to review
the project with City staff and with the City administration. He noted it's a very complex project
and some of these storefronts have been vacant for a very long time and one of the issues with
the current size is that local businesses cannot utilize that large of a footprint. With this project for
instance the Sears and Roebuck building it is going to be reduced in size to the original footprint
of the adjoining Dooley block buildings and thereby making it much more advantageous for local
businesses to be able to use that footprint. The Union Bar will be reduced in this project, again,
downsizing the size of the building. Additionally the Union Bar has been selling its equipment so
there'll be another use for that facility. Monson stated this it is a good project for the Ped Mall to
get it alive again and get appropriate businesses back in that block. It's an exciting project but
they have a lot of steps to go before they make it happen.
Signs asked what they are envisioning, will there be residential in the rear. Monson confirmed
that is correct, they are looking at a residential facility. They've been guided by City to the height
restriction and their building will be no taller than the Graduate Hotel. He added the beautiful
thing about this is there actually will be a garden space between the existing buildings and the
new building, so they will be separated and that separation actually helps differentiate the older
historic buildings from what is a contemporary building to be placed at the rear of the site.
Hensch asked if these buildings facades have all been remodeled, although very long ago, so
will the facades have stay as they are now, or any improvements would have to be as close to
the original construction prior to remodels. Monson noted the façades have been greatly altered
over the years and stated they are going to be kept as they are now except for the Union Block
where the Union Bar is as they would like to restore that section closer to the Montgomery Ward
era of the building, rather than the Union Bar era of the building. He noted the upper elevations
above the first floor are fairly intact and very similar to the conditions when they were first built,
so those will be maintained and restored to continue on that heritage. They will also be following
the Secretary of Interior's guidelines for Historic Preservation with the new construction and not
match the existing building with the new structure because that would be historically incorrect.
The Secretary of Interior guidelines states it is not appropriate and can be confusing for the
public as what was there and what wasn't there.
Baker asked if they are envisioning the development behind the facade to be as high as the
Graduate Hotel. Monson confirmed the guidelines that they’ve received says they can go no
higher than the Graduate Hotel. He noted it's interesting when looking at the sight lines,
because of the distance of that building setting back from the Ped Mall, there are very few views
of a new building. Because the existing buildings are so close when one is in the Ped Mall there
isn’t much of a glimpse of anything behind it. Monson also stated they promise not to put any
plaid on their building either like the Graduate Hotel did.
Townsend asked if Monson has any idea what other businesses would be interested in residing
in these buildings. Monson is not sure but they do have a not-for-profit that they’ve been talking
to for over a year about occupying the Crescent Block building, the top floors of it, and that is
looking promising.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 21, 2020
Page 6 of 13
Signs noted by taking off the back parts of some of those larger buildings they are going to end
up with more reasonably sized units as far as potential rentals go. Monson replied that's right
and they think it is the right way of preserving downtown but also making it viable. They to
restore these buildings and get them back into service and building the buildings behind the
current structures is the answer.
Dyer asked if the new building have windows on all sides. Monson confirmed it will.
Hensch asked if some of the upper floors of the structures are unoccupied presently or have
been for some time. Monson confirmed that's correct.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved to approve REZ20-02, an application submitted by Tailwind College St. IC,
LLC for a rezoning from Central Business (CB-10) zone to CB-10 with a Historic District
Overlay (CB-10/OHD) for the properties located at 109, 111-113, 115, and 117-121 E.
College Street.
Baker seconded the motion.
Townsend noted her surprise that those buildings weren't on the historic society already. She
does wonder what will happen to the ones on the other side of the street and if they are going to
try to put those on historic society. Russett mentioned they are working on a nomination to the
National Register right now for the entire Downtown District to hopefully be listed in the National
Register of Historic Places. Townsend added she would hate to see some funky high rise right
across the street. Signs stated it is already there, the one on the corner is a relatively new
structure from the 70s or 80s, so part of the blocks already been redone by the Plaza Center
One.
Signs stated it sounds like an interesting project and a way to maintain the street character in the
Ped Mall and take better advantage of the rest of that space. He agrees there's a positive to
reducing the size of some of those massive buildings with it'll probably help limit some of the
massive uses of those buildings. He is intrigued and thinks there could be some real good things
happening there.
Hensch supports this application now even more than when he was reading it because he thinks
it's very important to maintain the character and history of Iowa City and now learning that a lot of
those spaces are unoccupied anyway, that is not the best use to get more people downtown.
They need places to live, they need more businesses and more variety of businesses. Plus, this
will allow the property to be eligible for tax credits.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CASE NO. SUB20-05:
Applicant: Allen Homes, Inc.
Location: East of Scott Blvd and north of American Legion Road
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 21, 2020
Page 7 of 13
An application submitted by Allen Homes, Inc. for a preliminary plat for Community View
subdivision, a 35.21-acre subdivision consisting of one public lot, three multi- family lots, and 57
single-family lots located east of Scott Boulevard and north of American Legion Road.
Russett began the staff report noting this is a preliminary plat application for the Community View
subdivision. She showed the location of the subdivision and noted this area has been before the
Commission a couple times in the recent past. Currently it is zoned ID-RS.
In terms of background, the Commission should remember the annexation and rezoning that was
before them a few months ago. Those were also adopted by City Council earlier this year. Since
the approval of the annexation and rezoning to ID-RS the applicant submitted another rezoning
application requesting that this land be zoned RM-12, which is a multifamily zone, and P-1, which
is a public zone and intended use as a future City Fire Station. The remainder is 22.5 acres
would be zoned RS-5, a single-family zone. That rezoning is currently going through City Council
and the second reading of this rezoning occurred at Tuesday's meeting and the third reading
would be scheduled for June.
Russett showed the rezoning exhibit to show the location of the single-family versus multifamily
versus the public zone. She reminded them this rezoning is pending and there are several
conditions that are associated with this rezoning. First is that the development generally
conforms with the concept plan that was submitted to staff in February. Another condition is that
there are trail connections to the City park and trail networks. The next is that there's a
permanent drainage easement from the American Legion Road improvement project, and lastly
that traffic calming measures are incorporated. Russett showed the concept plan that's
associated with the condition pointing out the proposed fire station, the multifamily units and the
single-family lots. Overall there's one public lot, three multifamily lots and 57 single-family lots.
There is also an outlet for stormwater management. The plat also shows an extension of
Eastbrook Street, street connections to the existing single-family neighborhood to the east, and
the addition of a new street, Aiden Street, which would run north/south through this subdivision.
There are two trail connections, one at the western side of the plat which would connect into
Scott Park and then another trail connection at the northeast end of the subdivision which will
connect to an existing trail.
In terms of differences between the plat and the concept plan, the concept plan did have a cul-
de-sac which has been removed and staff supports the removal of that cul-de-sac. There's one
additional lot on the plat than was in the concept. Russett said these are minor changes and
staff finds that this plat does conform with the concept plan and compliance with the concept plan
will also be further reviewed at the site plan stage, particularly for the multifamily buildings.
In terms of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, through the condition that the plat
conforms with the concept plan, there's an assurance that there's going to be a transition and
density from west to east. The concept also identifies a variety of housing types which is
encouraged by the Plan. Additionally, the subdivision shows an interconnected network of
streets which is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan.
In terms of the condition related to traffic calming, the subdivision includes three different
approaches. The first is the pavement width of the street is 26 feet wide. Then there is a traffic
circle proposed at Tottenham Avenue and Aiden Street and there's a raised crosswalk mid-block
on Eastbrook Street. All these options are agreeable to staff and they address the proposed
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 21, 2020
Page 8 of 13
rezoning condition related to traffic calming.
Neighborhood open space is also required for residential subdivisions. Russett noted this will be
addressed at final platting and dedication would be required of either 1.17 acres or a payment of
an in-lieu-of-fee and based on the proximity of Scott Park an in-lieu-of payment would be
appropriate.
Stormwater management is shown on the plat as outlot A, which is actually an existing storm
water detention easement area, the applicant is proposing to decrease the land area of this
easement but maintain the volume necessary for the proposed development. Public Works staff
has approved the preliminary stormwater calculations and the grading plan and will review the
final storm water detention designs at final platting.
The role of the Commission is to determine whether the plat complies with the subdivision
regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. In terms of next steps, the third reading of the rezoning
ordinance is scheduled for the June 2 Council meeting. The preliminary plat will also be reviewed
by City Council after a recommendation from the Commission and after approval of the rezoning
and preliminary plat the applicant can submit an application for final plat.
Martin asked if lots 16, 17, 18 and 24 through 28 in a flood zone currently. Russett replied that
portions of the plat are. Martin asked if part of that stormwater management plan will help
mitigate the flooding or is it just going to be the problem of the new owners. Russett noted there
is an easement there for stormwater, but it doesn't necessarily take those lots out of the
floodplain, and the development would need to be consistent with the City floodplain
management ordinance. Additionally, the buildings would need to be built outside of the
floodplain or raised. Martin noted if someone's trying to get a mortgage on that new construction,
the lot being in the flood zone also plays a part of that, so that's still a problem for the new
owners. Russett stated the City allows some development within the floodplain. Martin agreed
but noted the homeowners would have to then get their own flood insurance, so that's just their
problem.
Martin’s next question is regarding the multifamily units, are those four-plex, duplex, townhouse
style, or multistoried. Russett said they are stacked flats. At the time of site plan review, staff will
review their plans for consistency with this concept here.
Signs asked if the buildings just to the west of this area would be considered stack flats. Russett
doesn’t believe so but thinks maybe the applicant can speak better to this. Martin noted those
buildings Signs is referring to are more apartments looking like a condo/apartment complexes.
Signs asked what designates a building a stack flat. Russett replied a stack flat maybe has one
entrance into the building and maybe a communal staircase and there would be three units
stacked on top of one another with a shared stairway for example.
Dyer asked if the stack flats have to be handicap accessible. Russett said they would need to be
depending on the number of units and the height of the building. Dyer asked if there'll be
elevators and Russett was unsure.
Baker asked for a quick clarification regarding the raised sidewalk and what is meant by that.
Russett noted that it is kind of like a combination speed hump and crosswalk.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 21, 2020
Page 9 of 13
Hensch stated since City Council still hasn't improved the rezoning with the RM-12 designation,
is there a problem if the Commission approves the preliminary plat and then Council disapproves
the rezoning. Russett stated City Council will act on the rezoning before the plat.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
John Yapp (Allen Homes, Inc.) noted they worked with the City staff on designing the preliminary
plat based on the concept plan. He feels they made some improvements through that process,
both in the stormwater system design and with traffic calming and more detail on the trail
connections. Regarding the question about the flood area he doesn’t believe it is floodplain, it is
a stormwater management easement. Regarding the apartment buildings to the west, the
difference between those and a stack flat are in those buildings there's a center corridor with
apartments on either side, a more traditional apartment building design, stack flats are just units
off of each other, but there's no common corridor, just units on each side.
Dyer asked if the buildings will have elevators. Yapp replied they have not designed the buildings
yet so cannot answer that.
Hensch asked for clarification that none of the residential lots would be in a floodplain. Yapp
confirmed that was correct. Hensch then asked what's the cul-de-sac becoming. Yapp said it
will be a backyard for the lots in that area.
Steve Gordon (4078 Buckingham) lives just to the east of this proposed development and
wanted to discuss the pretty substantial line of trees and nature area that extends from lot 41 all
the way down to lot 61. It’s about a 20-foot area that is not farmed, and it has some wildflowers
and some weeds of course and a substantial line of trees there. He wanted to see if there was
any way that there could be some assurances that the trees are preserved as much as possible.
He understands once lots are sold they lose control, so he’s just hoping through some sort of
conservation easement or parameters that say no grading and cutting down trees in that area or
a 10 or 15 foot outlot in that area to preserve the area.
Hensch asked if the trees are right along where that fence line would have been and would they
be in the back of the lots that are developed. Gordon replied they would be in the back of lots 41
through 61 and he imagines there was a fence line there at one point. There's no fence along the
back of his lot or neighbor's lots, but yes, there could have been a fence line there at some point.
Hensch stated the reason for his question is if the trees are far enough back the construction
would not interfere with those trees. Gordon noted they are on the back of the lot lines so they
are clearly within the rear yard setback area, so there would be no construction of a house or
structure in the area, but it wouldn't prevent a homeowner from cutting them down and putting a
fence along their backlot line or something like that.
Martin asked Yapp about the green squiggle line along all those lots that Gordon was just talking
about and is that the row of trees. Yapp confirmed that is the traditional landscaping symbol for
trees. Martin asked then if that means the intention is for those trees to stay. Russett replied
that is not the case, the plat wouldn't require that, it is just showing that the trees exist. Hekteon
noted there's actually a potential need for a drainage easement in that general area and that was
one of the conditions of the conditional zoning agreement. Russett correct that it was not in that
area.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 21, 2020
Page 10 of 13
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved to approve SUB20-05, an application submitted by Allen Homes, Inc. for a
preliminary plat for Community View subdivision, a 35.21-acre subdivision consisting of
one public lot, three multi- family lots, and 57 single-family lots located east of Scott
Boulevard and north of American Legion Road.
Baker seconded the motion.
Martin stated she would want a little more information about new construction being done in a
flood zone. Obviously, there's a disconnect as if it is a flood zone or not. As they all know,
Idyllwild was ordered to cease any further development after the after the 2008 flood, Normandy
flooded many times until there was finally a buyout, and she just feels like before they jump into
those muddy waters they have a little bit more information. Additionally, she is not totally
comfortable with the apartments, condos, stack things, or whatever. Again, she would just like to
have a little bit more information. Obviously, everybody knows that this is going to be developed
at some point, but this is the point where they can ask these questions and help to make sure
that they are going forward clearly, and not getting into a sticky situation where the City or the
State ends up needing to bail people out should the floods continue. While it is true they have
not had any anything like 2008, but the dog park certainly has flooded since then, in a very large
way.
Signs acknowledged Martin’s concerns but noted it is a pretty substantial rise up throughout
those lots, 16, 17, and 18, they are going uphill pretty fast. Martin stated that is why she is asking
that question because she thinks they need to have a clear answer to know for sure.
Hensch noted when they did the rezoning, he asked that question and in looking at the topo map
it is pretty clear the residential lots were out of the floodplain. He is surprised by the confusion
because he thought that had been resolved.
Russett noted that according to the plat she has, there are lots that are identified within the
floodplain, portions of lots, and the thing is this area is going to be regraded so those flood
boundaries may change. Martin asked whose responsibility would that be to get a certificate of
elevation or to put forth a LOMA (Letter of Map Addendum), would that be the with the City or
required of the builders to alleviate any future issue with the City or State needing to bail
anybody out. Parsons believes it would be the homeowner or the developer.
Hekteon stated the City has their floodplain ordinances which developers have to comply with,
and if they don't want to comply with it, then they need to grade it get themselves to get out of
the floodplain. So it's up to them to decide how to proceed, whether they want to regrade it or
construct improvements that they do allow in the floodplain. So those things are in place and it's
up to the developer to choose how they want to proceed.
Signs pulled up the GIS mapping on the Johnson County's website and overlaid the floodplain
plan and the hundred year plan and it does pretty significantly impact the area that Martin is
concerned about from what he can tell which surprises him because he thought the typography
there was significantly bit more rise. Hensch noted however it is the developers obligation to
meet the requirements of the floodplain ordinance and the Commission has approved things
before with properties in the floodplain knowing before any construction be allowed that would
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 21, 2020
Page 11 of 13
have been mitigated.
Martin understands all that but is looking towards the future of making sure that the City is then
not tasked or taxed with more water situations that then end up needing to buy out properties.
Hekteon stated the City has a more robust floodplain management ordinance than they did when
the areas around the river were developed.
Dyer asked when the floodplain ordinance was revised. Russett replied if was revised after 2008
but was unsure of the exact date.
Signs commented on Gordon’s comment because he finds it funny because he's on the other
side of the fence literally and figuratively and so to that point if he was building on either side of
that line he would love to have those trees remain and suspects the developer is smart enough
to realize that would be probably a favorable amenity to pretty much anybody who wants to buy
those lots. But if there was somebody there and they didn't want the trees and they wanted to cut
them down and put up a fence, he then goes over to personal property rights, that is their right.
Hensch agrees and thinks that's an amenity and a benefit for everybody, being a native Iowan
they know that fence lines get filled with volunteer trees so the quality of those trees is likely not
real high and people will probably want to clean them or reduce some of the numbers within the
tree lines and put more beneficial species in there to encourage the growth of other things.
Hekteon noted the floodplain ordinance was amended in October of 2010.
Parsons asked if the flood concerns were because of Ralston Creek. Martin confirmed it was
and can't remember if it was last year or two years ago when the dog park was underwater
significantly for quite a while. That area has taken on a lot of water, which she understands was
part of how they rerouted Ralston Creek was so that the dog park would flood and not other
developed areas, and while things have been revised water doesn't seem to care what we say.
Dyer noted another issue as they’ve had a number of development projects come before them
where the neighbors complain that it's their backyards, and nothing would be built behind them.
Hensch noted the dog park was designed to be a flood, water detention area and Outlot A for
this subdivision is clearly part of that detention area for stormwater.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 (Martin dissenting).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MAY 7, 2020:
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of May 7, 2020.
Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 21, 2020
Page 12 of 13
Parsons noted his term was not renewed so there would need to be a new vice chair come July.
Hensch asked when will the Commission hold elections. Russett said it will be at the first
meeting in July. Hensch noted then will be absent on vacation in North Carolina and won't be
available on June 18 and July 2. He did note he would like to serve again as Chair, but his
feelings will not be hurt if someone else wants to.
ADJOURNMENT:
Townsend moved to adjourn.
Parsons seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2019-2020
1/17
(W.S.)
2/4
4/2_)
2/21
2/21 3/7 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/16 6/6 6/20 7/18 8/15 9/5 10/3 10/17 11/7
BAKER, LARRY X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X
DYER, CAROLYN O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X
FREERKS, ANN -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E X X X O/E X X X X O/E O/E X X X X
PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X
THEOBALD, JODIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X
12/5 1/16 2/6 4/2 5/7 5/21
BAKER, LARRY X X X X X X
DYER, CAROLYN X X X X X X
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE O/E X O/E X X X
PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE O/E X X X X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member