HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 07.16.2020PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, July 16, 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. Election of Officers
Comprehensive Plan Amendments 5. Case No. CPA20-0001 Applicant: MMS Consultants Location: Parcel #1112476001 (north of Camp Cardinal Blvd, west of Camp Cardinal Rd)
A request to set a public hearing for August 6, 2020 on an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation from Public/Private Open Space to General Commercial for approximately 3.11 acres.
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/tJMvdOqvqjMoEtSy0yAKLYgEOo-Gz3ZWcMbs 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 972 3374 8280 when prompted.
Providing comment in person is not an option.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 16, 2020 Development Items
6. Case No. CU20-02 Applicant: Steve Ward on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Location: 4200 Block of Yvette Street SW; Unincorporated Johnson County An application for a conditional use permit to allow for a commercial communication
tower in the County Agricultural (A) zone within Fringe Area C of the City/County Fringe Area. 7. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: June 4, 2020 8. Planning & Zoning Information 9. 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: August 6 / August 20 / September 3 Informal: Scheduled as needed.
1
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: CPA20-0001
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Date: July 16, 2020
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: MMS Consultants 1917 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240 319-351-8282l.stutzman@mmsconsultants.net
Contact Person: MMS Consultants 1917 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City, IA 52240 319-351-8282k.billick@mmsconsultants.netj.marner@mmsconsultants.net
Property Owner(s): Jon Harding 709 Normandy Dr Iowa City, IA 52246
Requested Action: Change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation from Public/Private Open Space to
General Commercial
Purpose: To allow the construction of an event center
Location: Parcel #1112476001 (north of Camp Cardinal Blvd, west of Camp Cardinal Rd)
Location Map:
Size: 3.11 acres
2
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant (open space); Neighborhood Public (P-1)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Vacant (open space), Interim Development, Research Park (ID-RP) East: Residential & Institutional; Low Density
Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) & Low Density Single-Family Residential with Planned Development Overlay (RS-5 OPD)
South: Residential & Institutional; Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) & Neighborhood Public (P-1) West: Institutional; Institutional Public (P-2)
Comprehensive Plan: Public/Private Open Space
District Plan: Not Applicable
File Date: June 25, 2020
BACKGROUND: Jon Harding owns approximately 3.11 acres of property located at the corner of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and Camp Cardinal Road, across the street from 80 Gathering Place Lane. The owner hired MMS Consulting, the applicant, to prepare three applications to allow the development of a 7,000 square foot building that would function as a community event center on the north side of the property. Attachment 5 includes the proposed site plan for the property.
This application proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use map (CPA20-0001). The property is in the Northwest Planning District, which doesn’t have an adopted District Plan. Attachments 3 and 4 illustrate how the proposed amendment is to change the
property’s future land use designation from Public/Private Open Space to General Commercial.
The other concurrently submitted applications include a right-of-way vacation (VAC20-0001), which would allow the owner to acquire additional land on Camp Cardinal Boulevard, and a rezoning (REZ20-0001), which would change its zone from Neighborhood Public (P-1) to Community Commercial (CC-2) with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD) to protect on-site sensitive features. Generally, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be approved for the rezoning to comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant indicated that they intend to use the Good Neighbor Policy and hold a Good Neighbor
Meeting. However, they opted to not conduct an in-person meeting due to COVID-19, but instead
sent letters on June 30 informing neighbors that they will accept comments and questions directly.
ANALYSIS: The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan serves as a land-use planning guide by illustrating and describing the location and configuration of appropriate land uses throughout the City, providing notification to the public regarding intended uses of land; and illustrating the long-range growth area limit for the City. Applicants may request an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan with approval of the City Council, following a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning
3
Commission. Applicants for a comprehensive plan amendment must provide evidence that the request meets the approval criteria in Section 14-8D-3D. The comments of the applicant are
found in Attachment 3. Staff comments on the criteria if as follows.
14-8D-3D Approval Criteria: Applications for a comprehensive plan amendment must include evidence that the following approval criteria are met:
1. Circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come to light such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest.
The subject property was deeded to Johnson County in 1875 as part of a larger tract
known as the Johnson County Poor Farm. The construction of Highway 218 and right-of-way for Camp Cardinal Road in 1981 severed the subject property from the larger tract. In 2012, Johnson County voted to dispose of this property, and on January 23, 2014, the
parcel was sold to Jon Harding (Book 5202, Page 455 in the Office of the Johnson County Recorder).
Iowa City adopted its current Comprehensive Plan on May 14, 2013, just prior to the parcel being sold. The Future Land Use Map designates the subject parcel as Public/Private Open Space, due to its public ownership and sensitive features, including steep slopes, wetlands, and a stream corridor. Future land use maps from earlier Comprehensive Plans simply show the area as remaining a public use. At that time, the area contained no City infrastructure and was generally used for agricultural purposes. The surrounding area only began experiencing significant development following the construction of Camp Cardinal Boulevard in 2007. The emerging neighborhood includes a variety of housing types and a few compatible non-residential uses. Cardinal Pointe South, located approximately a quarter mile to the north, contains a mix of single-family homes, townhouses, and duplexes. There is also a medical office and elementary school located on Kennedy Parkway approximately a half mile to the north, and Cardinal Villas and St. Andrew Presbyterian Church directly east of the property. Additional development
is anticipated in the near future.
Staff finds the sale and development of the surrounding neighborhood as constituting a
change of circumstances. While the current Future Land Use Map designation provides for open space that is both publicly and privately owned, shifting from public to private ownership can change the best use for a property. In addition, the development of the
neighborhood changes the context that existed at the time the plan was adopted. While sensitive features remain on the property, modifying the future land use designation to allow development that accommodates sensitive features, in compliance with the City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance, maintains the spirit of the ordinance. The proposed designation of General Commercial also allows development that is compatible with nearby development.
2. The proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the comprehensive plan, including any district plans or other amendments thereto. A detailed district plan has not been prepared for the Northwest District, but the Comprehensive Plan contains policies addressing land use and natural resources.
4
Land use policies encourage buffers between residential development and major highways (p. 23) and indicate that alternatives to single-family development may be
appropriate for property located at major intersections (p. 27). The subject property is near Highway 218 on the corner of Camp Cardinal Boulevard, an arterial road, and Camp Cardinal Road, a collector street. Because commercial uses are less sensitive to highway
noise, they would be appropriate for this location by buffering residential areas from Highway 218, while benefitting from the visibility and higher traffic counts at this location.
In addition, the Comprehensive Plan supports appropriate transitions between high and low-density development and commercial and residential land uses (p. 25). A higher-intensity commercial use at this property would maintain an appropriate transition with multi-family uses to the east. Lower density residential uses are located farther north and east. Similarly, two Comprehensive Plan Amendments that increased the intensity of uses were approved for properties directly east across Camp Cardinal Road and to the southeast. CPA16-00001, adopted May 3, 2016, changed the future land use map designation for the property north of Melrose Avenue and east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard from Residential 2-8 Dwelling Units per Acre to Office Commercial. CPA16-00003, adopted January 17, 2017, changed the future land use map designation for the property at the northeast corner of Camp Cardinal Road and Camp Cardinal Boulevard from Residential 2-8 Dwelling Units per Acre to Residential 8-16 Dwelling Units per Acre.
Policies regarding natural resources include discouraging sprawl by promoting infill development and continuing to identify and preserve environmentally sensitive areas by enforcing the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (p.42). If the future land use is changed from Public/Private Open Space to General Commercial, the property would be required to
abide by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. As such, the rezoning application concurrently submitted includes a Planned Development Overlay (OPD) to preserve these features.
Overall, staff finds that the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the future land use designation of the subject property from Public/Private Open Space to General Commercial is compatible with other policies in the Comprehensive Plan,
especially those relating to land use and natural resources. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission set a public hearing for August 6, 2020 on CPA20-0001, the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the future land use designation from Public/Private Open Space to General Commercial for Parcel #1112476001, located north of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and west of Camp Cardinal Road.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Application Statement 4. Proposed Future Land Use Map 5. Good Neighbor Meeting Documents
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
CA MP CAR D INALRDHIGHWAY 218
GATHERING PLAC E LN
DEER CREEK RD
CAMPCARDINALBLVD
HIGHWAY 218
218 SB TO MELROSE AVE
MELROSEAVETO218NB
CPA20-01 - Harding Event CenterNorth of Camp Cardinal Blvd, West of Camp Cardinal Road.µ
0 0.07 0.140.035 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2020
An application submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of Jon Harding, to request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of approximately 3.1 acres of property from Public/Private Open Space to General Commercial
CA MP CAR D INALRDHIGHWAY 218
GATHERING PL AC E LNDEER CREEK RD
CAMP CARDINAL BLVD
HIGHWAY 218
CAMPCARDINALBLVD
218 SB TO MELROSE AVE
MELROSEAVETO218NB
P2
RM12
RR1
ID-RP
P1
ID-RS
RS5
CPA20-01 - Harding Event CenterNorth of Camp Cardinal Blvd, West of Camp Cardinal Road.µ
0 0.07 0.140.035 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2020
An application submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of Jon Harding, to request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of approximately 3.1 acres of property from Public/Private Open Space to General Commercial
June 26, 2020
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Re: Camp Cardinal Event Center
On behalf of Jon Harding we are submitting a request for a Planned Development
Overlay(OPD) in conjunction with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. We are
proposing a change of the land use from Public/Private Open Space to General
Commercial to allow for the construction of 7,000 square foot building that would
function as an event center. Since the current Comprehensive Plan was adopted,
circumstances have changed and the property was sold to the applicant by Johnson
County. The proposed land use will be compatible with the surrounding land uses,
specifically the multi-family and church sites immediately to the east. The property
proposed for development contains sensitive areas that will need to be regulated
according to the City’s Sensitive Lands and Features Ordinance, warranting the request
for a rezoning to Planned Development Overlay (OPD).
Respectfully submitted,
Keith Billick, P.L.A.
MMS Consultants, Inc.
9744-004ApplicantStatement.docx
WARRANTY DEEDACQUISITION PARCEL
SE 1\4 - SE 1\4SECTION 12-T79N-R7WST. ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN
CHURCH - PART ONE
OUTLOT "A"
LOT 2
GATHERING PLACE LANE
CAMP CARDINAL ROAD (R.O.W. VARIES)CA
M
P
C
A
R
D
I
N
A
L
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
(R.
O
.
W
.
V
A
R
I
E
S
)
AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2011054
Q
U
I
T
C
L
A
I
M
D
E
E
D
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
06-22-2020
JDM
JDM
GDM
IOWA CITY
9744-004 1
1259
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT
EXHIBIT
1
1"=50'
138,525 SF
3.18 AC
OPEN SPACE TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=50'
5 25 50
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH,
RANGE 7 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT
IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
PLAT PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
OWNERS \ APPLICANT:
JON M HARDING
709 NORMANDY DRIVE
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52246
LOCATION MAP - N.T.S.
DESCRIPTION - OPEN SPACE TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION
12, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Commencing at the Northeast Corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 12, Township 79 North, Range 7 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Iowa City,
Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S89°07'21"W, along the North Line of said Southeast Quarter of
the Southeast Quarter, 50.20 feet, to the Point of Beginning; Thence S01°03'05"E, along a Line
parallel with and 50.20 feet normally distant Westerly from the East Line of said Southeast
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, 175.17 feet; Thence S89°07'21"W, 32.14 feet, to a Point on
the West Right-of-Way Line of Camp Cardinal Road; Thence S09°21'07"W, along said West
Right-of-Way Line, 239.41 feet, to its intersection with the Northerly Right-of-Way Line of Camp
Cardinal Boulevard; Thence N56°24'45"W, along said Northerly Right-of-Way Line, 581.75 feet;
Thence Northwesterly, 99.74 feet, along said Northerly Right-of-Way Line on an 1100.00 foot
radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 99.71 foot chord bears N35°59'36"W, to its
intersection with the North Line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; Thence
N89°07'21"E, along said North Line, 611.12 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel
contains 3.18 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record.
POINT OF BEGINNING
REZONING PARCEL
A PORTION OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 12,
TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH,
RANGE 7 WEST OF THE
FIFTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN
G:\9744\9744-004\9744-004N-COMP.dwg, 6/25/2020 11:35:06 AM, jdm
Notice of Good Neighbor Meeting and Open House
June 30, 2020
Location: In light of the COVID-19 situation we will not be conducting an in person meeting, instead we
will accept comments and questions directly via email or letter..
To Our Neighbors:
The Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) will soon consider a comprehensive plan
amendment and rezoning for a property in your area. The property is located at the corner of Camp
Cardinal Road and Camp Cardinal Blvd (see attached map). The proposal is to change the Land Use
designation from Public/Private Open Space to General Commercial and Rezone the property from
Neighborhood Public (P1) to Community Commercial (CC-2). The zoning will allow for the construction
of a 7,000 square foot Camp Cardinal Event Center, nestled back into the wooded lot (see attached site
plan and building elevations).
It is anticipated that the Planning and Zoning Commission will review this proposal on August 6, 2020 at
7:00pm. A notice of a formal review by the Planning and Zoning Commission will be sent to all property
owners within 300’ of the property under review by the City. You are encouraged to attend these
meetings and voice your opinions.
As the representative of this request we would like to invite you to take the time to review the
information provided in the enclosed packet and learn about the requested land use change so we may
gather comments and feedback regarding this proposal. Please feel free to send any questions or
comments utilizing the contact information listed below.
Thank you,
Keith Billick
Anne Russett, Senior Planner
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
CAMP CARDINAL
EVENT CENTER
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON CO.
IOWA
6/22/20
.KB
KB
LCN
9744-004IC 2
LOCATION
MAP
X
NTS
G:\9744\9744-004\9744-004W5.dwg, 6/22/2020 2:46:55 PM, Kbillick
A2.0
SHEET used. Do not scale drawings.agreement with the Architect.any other work except by writtenDesign and shall not be used onOnly written dimensions shall beThese drawings and specificationsare the property and copyrightof Andrew Fell, Architecture andcommencement of any work..shall be brought to the notice ofthe Architect prior to theDimensions shall be verified onthe job site. Any discrepancyDATE : 30JUNE2020REVISIONS :PROJECT # 20044msCORPORATE RETREATNEW CONSTRUCTIONIOWA CITY, IOWACAMP CARDINAL ROADS T O A K E S & F E L L WEST ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
FIRST FLOOR PLAN A1.0
SHEET used. Do not scale drawings.agreement with the Architect.any other work except by writtenDesign and shall not be used onOnly written dimensions shall beThese drawings and specificationsare the property and copyrightof Andrew Fell, Architecture andcommencement of any work..shall be brought to the notice ofthe Architect prior to theDimensions shall be verified onthe job site. Any discrepancyDATE : 30JUNE2020REVISIONS :PROJECT # 20044msCORPORATE RETREATNEW CONSTRUCTIONIOWA CITY, IOWAS T O A K E S & F E L L SECOND FLOOR PLAN CAMP CARDINAL ROAD
Date: July 16, 2020
To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner Re: CU20-02 Conditional Use Permit – Commercial Communication Tower for the 4200 Block of Yvette St. SW in Unincorporated Johnson County
Background: Ward Development Services, LLC. has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to the Johnson County Board of Adjustment for the allowance of a commercial communication tower
located on the 4200 block of Yvette St. 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 communication tower within the City/County 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 south and west are also zoned County Agricultural (A). Properties to the east are zoned County Commercial (C)
and County Highway Commercial (CH). The property to the immediate north, located on the north side of Hwy. 1, is zoned County Residential (R-10), allowing for residential development on lots that are at least 10 acres.
Proposed Land Use: The Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) defines a commercial
communication tower as “A tower, pole, or similar structure, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces, or other support structures, designed to hold one or more communications antennas. Communication towers are typically freestanding, guyed or attached to another
building.” The tower is intended to fill a gap in cellular signal service in the southwestern Johnson County area. The applicant has stated that the tower will provide better connectivity to support emergency response calls needed to service the area. The applicant also stated that there are no options to collocate onto another communications facility in this area. Completion of the proposed tower would allow for up to three other users to use the tower site for colocation
of services.
Plans attached to the application show a 195’ tall commercial communication tower, on a 75’ x
75’ area. The perimeter of the tower area would be landscaped to County standards. The tower would be protected by an 8’ tall fence along the site’s perimeter, with an additional three strings of barbed wire atop the fence.
As the subject property is located outside of the City’s Growth Boundary, the property is not
discussed in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. While analyzing potential changes to the City’s
Growth Boundary, the City has identified the subject parcel as a potential area of expansion for
July 10, 2020 Page 2
inclusion into the Growth Boundary. The County’s future land use map currently shows the subject parcel as planned for Intense Commercial/Low Intensity Industrial land use. The existing
neighborhood character features large plots of farmland and scattered rural residences. The subject property contains over 38 acres.
The proposed commercial communication tower must comply with the following supplemental conditions (summarized) from section 8.1.23 of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance pertaining to commercial communication towers:
1. Provision of additional materials. a. Narrative explaining the proposed location, and why colocation is not being
pursued. b. Proof of liability insurance. c. Site plan. d. All plans required by section 8.3 – Environmental Standards. 2. Tower setback requirement from parcel lines of 110% of the tower height. (This equals 214.5 feet for the subject tower application)
3. Installation of a landscaping buffer. 4. Installation of security fencing.
5. Specific lighting standards.
6. Independent inspection of the tower every 36 months. 7. Submission of an operation and maintenance plan.
8. Submission of a decommissioning plan.
9. Compliance with County Environmental Standards. 10. Alterations to tower height or location will have to be legally conforming.
The applicant is simultaneously applying for a special exception to reduce the setback requirement from the eastern property line. The tower is proposed to be setback 187 feet from the eastern property line, which does not meet the County’s requirement of a setback equaling 110% of the height of the tower (214.5 feet). The review and approval of special exceptions are at the sole discretion of the Johnson County Board of Adjustment. City Analysis:
Zoning: The proposed commercial communication tower use is allowed in all County zoning
designations except for County Environmental Resource Preservation Zoning District (ERP). The use is therefore an allowable conditional use in the County Agricultural (A) zone. The subject property already contains a transmission tower, which would be situated approximately
141 feet from the proposed tower. City and County Planning staff requested that the applicant provide a statement detailing how the communication tower can be located safely in proximity to the transmission tower. The applicant was able to provide a statement from the project engineer
(see Attachment 5), certifying that in the rare event that would cause the tower to fall, the maximum fall zone radius would equal about ½ of the tower height.
July 10, 2020 Page 3
Fringe Area Agreement:
For agriculturally zoned properties located outside of the City’s Growth Boundary, the Fringe Area Agreement directs uses to be consistent with a Rural/Agricultural area as indicated in the Johnson County Land Use Plan and as designated in the Johnson County Unified Development
Ordinance. The County Unified Development Ordinance permits commercial communication towers as a conditional use in Agricultural Zoning Districts.
Current and Future Land Use: As noted above, the subject parcel might be included in a potential future expansion of the
City’s Growth Boundary. The County’s Future Land Use Plan indicates that the subject parcel is
slated for Intense Commercial/Low Intensity Industrial land use. City staff finds that the proposed use is appropriate for either the existing agricultural land use, or the potential future designated commercial/industrial land use. Communication towers can be found in abundance in agricultural zones, and if the existing surrounding land use and zoning persist, the overall character of the subject parcel will not be greatly affected by the existence of the tower. Likewise, the existing County Commercial zoning to the east of the subject parcel is already adjacent to a transmission tower on the subject property. Assuming the tower is built, any new occupants of a commercially oriented future land use on the subject parcel would be developing
on the parcel with the understanding that the parcel hosts two rather large utility towers.
Compliance with County Conditions:
Staff recommends that the conditional use permit for the tower at the proposed location only be allowed if the applicant can obtain the necessary special exception to reduce the required setback distance from the eastern property line. Additionally, staff recommends that all other
County supplemental requirements be fulfilled. County Planning staff have also recommended a condition of approval of the conditional use permit that the applicant obtain approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to locate the communication tower in its proposed
location. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of an application submitted by Ward Development Services, Inc. for a conditional use permit to allow for a commercial communications tower on the 4200 block of Yvette St. SW in unincorporated Johnson County. Approved by: ________________________________________________ Danielle Sitzman, Development Coordinator, Department of Neighborhood and Development Services Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Fringe Area Map 4. Application Information 5. Fall Zone Letter
HIGHWAY 1 SW
PHEBELNSWMAIERAVES W
SHARONCENTERRDSWGRICHARDCIRSW
OSAGE ST SWYVETTESTSWLANDON AVE SWMAIER AVE SWCUP20-024200 Block of Yvette St. SW. µ
0 0.2 0.40.1 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2020
An application submitted by Steve Ward, on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit for a 195' Communication Tower and 75' X 75' fenced compound on property located at 4200 block of Yvette St. Sw.
R
R10
C
R5
A
CH
MAIERAVESW
SHARONCENTERRDSWPHEBELNSWOSAGE ST SW
HIGHWAY 1 SW
YVETTEST SW LANDON AVE SWMAIER AVE SWCUP20-024200 Block of Yvette St. SW. µ
0 0.2 0.40.1 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2020
An application submitted by Steve Ward, on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit for a 195' Communication Tower and 75' X 75' fenced compound on property located at 4200 block of Yvette St. Sw.
R O H R E T R D S W
LANDON AVE SWMEADEPLSW
PHEBELNSWOSAGE ST SWMAIERAVESWYVETTESTSW
GRICHARDCIRSW
HIGHWAY 1 SW
SHARONCENTERRDSWMAIER AVE SWJohnson County PD & S
CUP20-024200 Block of Yvette St. SW. µ
0 0.25 0.50.125 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2020
An application submitted by Steve Ward, on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit for a 195' Communication Tower and 75' X 75' fenced compound on property located at 4200 block of Yvette St. Sw.
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER SITE
NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC
AT&T
IAL04225
Maier West
Johnson County, Iowa
Respectfully Submitted
Ward Development Services, LLC
June 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Application for Conditional Use Permit with Johnson County, IA
B. Narrative Statement by Applicant’s Representative and Compliance with
Ordinance
C. Exhibits:
1. Vicinity Map of the Area
2. PIN Sheet associated with the Parent Parcel
3. Deed associated with the Parent Parcel
D. Zoning Drawings.
A. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Conditional Use Permit Request
JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Date of Application: ______________________
Parcel ID #: _____________________________ Application #: ________________
In accordance with Chapter 8:1.20 of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance, the undersigned
requests consideration and approval of a Conditional Use Permit located on the property herein described:
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Proposed Use ___________________________________________________________________________
Address of Location _____________________________________________________________________
Owner of Record and Address:_____________________________________________________________
This application shall be filed with the Johnson County Planning, Development and Sustainability
Administrator complete with the following information:
1. A location map for the proposed site. 2. A document explaining the proposed use including but not limited to the number of employees, parking facilities, days and hours of operation, provisions for water and wastewater, type of equipment to be
used, and signage.
3. 10 copies of the required site plan identifying the access, the structure(s) to be used for the proposed business, and any Supplemental Conditions as required. 4. The names and addresses of all owners of property within 500 feet of the property described in this application.
5. $250.00 application fee plus a $10 sign fee ($260.00 total). Cash or check only. Please make checks
payable to the Johnson County Treasurer. 6. Applications within two (2) miles of any city must notify that city.
___________________________________________________
Applicant or Representative (Please Print) _______________________________________________ Signature of Applicant, owner, contract purchaser, or agent
___________________________________________________
Address
___________________________________________________
Telephone number
Part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 25, Township 79 North, Range 7 West of the Fifth
Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa
195' Communication Tower and 75' x 75' fenced compound
4200 Block of Yvette St. SW, Iowa City, IA 52240
Doug & Yvette Yansky
Steve Ward, on behlf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC
15 Park Place, Swansea, IL 62226
314-503-4444 steve@ward-development.com
112577002
June 8, 2020
Steven K. Ward
1
2 3 4
5
7 8
9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
6
B. NARRATIVE STATEMENT
June 11, 2020
Johnson County Board of Adjustment
913 S Dubuque St UNIT 204,
Iowa City, IA 52240
RE: IAL04225 Maier West
Re: Submittal of Application for a Conditional Use Permit by New Cingular Wireless PCS,
LLC (AT&T) to allow for a setback variance to allow for the construction, operation, and
maintenance of a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of an 195’ multi carrier
monopole antenna support structure with attendant ground based equipment compound on the
property leased by the applicant located on a tract of land located in the 4200 Block of Yvette Dr.
SW, Iowa City, IA.
Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment,
I write in regard to the above-referenced project to supplement the Application for Conditional
Use Permit that is being concurrently filed. This letter is submitted on behalf of the owners of the
property in conjunction with AT&T. AT&T is applying for this Conditional Use Permit to allow
AT&T to construct, operate and maintain a communication property on land owned by Doug &
Yvette Yansky. This letter provides a general overview of the project, including the need for the
site and its design parameters.
With the filing of this Application, AT&T requests your support and a written determination that
AT&T has met the criteria of the Johnson County Unified Development Code We also request
this Application and supporting documentation be entered as part of the official records of this
proceeding.
Applicant
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC
7900 Xerxes Avenue S
Bloomington, MN 55435
Property Owner
Doug and Yvette Yansky
4224 Yvette St. Sw
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-330-0787
Agents for Applicant and Property Owner
Steven K. Ward
Ward Development Services, LLC
15 Park Place Centre
Swansea, IL 62226
(314) 503-4444 Phone
(866) 655-2853 (Facsimile)
I. Location and description of property
The subject property is in the 4200 Block of Yansky Street SW on the west side of the street in a
agriculturally used property. The property is zoned A-Agriculural. The proposal for this request
is to vary a side setnack to allow for a Conditional Use Permit to be filed to allow AT&T to
construct a 195’ monopole tower in the easterly portion. The tower will be constructed to allow
for the possibility of at least three (3) other user to utilize the site. The site, when completed, will
become part of AT&T’s network that will provide coverage to the impaired service area that
presently in this portion of Johnson County. This site provides coverage to the area east of along
the Highway corridor
The primary objective for AT&T is to place a facility at this location is to provide adequate
coverage to the residences in this area and vehicular traffic in all directions of the proposed site.
This geographic area is an existing coverage gap in AT&T’s network, and customers in the area
experience a high frequency of “dropped call” and “no signal found.” This impaired coverage
area prevents AT&T customers from initiating and carrying calls and transmitting data. After
placement of this facility, coverage will be substantially improved, resulting in better coverage
for current and future AT&T subscribers in the area. This will provide the citizens additional
choices for their communication needs. The site will dramatically improve AT&T in-building
coverage as customers continue to use their wireless devices as their principal form of
communication. Local Police and Fire departments report that about 75% of 911 calls originate
from wireless devices.
II. Why and how this location was chosen
A. Technical reason for choosing this site
This location was chosen after a “Search Ring” was developed and issued by AT&T’s Radio
Frequency Engineers. The Search Ring indicates a geographic area in which potential sites may
be located which will result in the maximum amount of coverage in an impaired service area.
Other factors considered during system design are the terrain elevation, ground clutter and
foliage. Wireless technologies are governed by line of sight limitations and wireless phones
generally need to “see” a compatible wireless communications facility for operation of customer
phones, transmissions, and reception.
Almost all Radio Frequency Engineers will use prediction tools to generate propagation studies
in order to determine how effectively a proposed cell site will provide the required coverage.
Radio Frequency Engineers with AT&T have generated a comprehensive Propagation Study that
depicts the current lack of coverage in the area and which shows much improvement with the
proposed structure
Site Acquisition Contractors, such as Ward Development Services, are instructed by AT&T’s
management to target existing cell sites, rooftops, towers, and to utilize any existing structures to
collocate equipment on within the Search Ring first, in order to minimize new construction,
expedite improved coverage, and to meet the spirit and intent of local zoning regulations, which
typically encourge collocation.
The above considerations and processes were followed in selecting the site that is the subject of
this Application.
B. Coverage objectives and reasons for choosing this site
AT&T’s objective in placing a facility on the Subject Property is to improve impaired service in
the area. The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) restricts the power output on all
telecommunications antennae, requiring additional sites to fill in gaps in the network. The
number of wireless communications facilities correlates to the size, terrain, and amount of
customer traffic in a specific area. While AT&T endeavors to collocate on existing structures
wherever possible, the lack of existing structures requires a new wireless communications facility
to be built. AT&T’s service is limited by (Radio Frequency) coverage, which propagates from
antennae located on towers. There is no other possible way to cover this area without building a
new tower, as there are no collocatable structures available in the area that meets the objectives
of the Radio Frequency Engineer’s criteria. AT&T consistently seeks to increase or supplement
their coverage footprint so that they may serve their growing customer base. Due to the present
and anticipated growth of cell phone use, complaints from existing AT&T customers losing their
signal while driving in the area or while using their devices in their homes necessitate the
additional coverage that will be provided by this tower. As there are no existing structures in the
area, our search was to locate a property that met the intent of the requirements for a Conditional
Use Permit.
There is only one communication tower in the area. This tower is a 130’ SST tower at 4127
Maier Drive to the northeast. The tower has Verizon and T-Mobile as tenants. The highest
elevation for AT&T is 92’ which will not meet our needs.
III. Compliance with the Johnson County Zoning Ordinance
This Application complies with the requirements of Johnson County Code of Ordinance. Below
find a response to the criteria required for a Conditional Use Permit Exception per Section
8:1.28[F] (1) a-e of the Unified Code.
F. Conditional Uses. These are uses which generally have a distinct impact on areas in which
they are located, or are capable of creating special problems for bordering properties unless
given special attention.
1. Review Criteria. To provide for the appropriate review of the location, site development,
and conduct of certain designated uses, in any determination upon a particular conditional use
at the location requested, the Board of Adjustment shall consider the following guidelines:
a. That the proposed location, design, construction, and operation of the particular
use adequately safeguards the health, safety and general welfare of persons
residing or working in adjoining or surrounding property.
The new tower will enhance communications for the area and bring additional
voice, text and data to users. As mentioned many people do not use landlines
and cell phones is the most widely used tool for emergency communications.
The FirstNet network for first responders will also be able to utilize this
structure for their needs as part of AT&T’s nationwide contract to deploy this
system
b. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the quality and supply of
water, air, and light to surrounding property.
There will be no affect to either the quality or supply of water, air, and
light to surrounding property.
c. That the proposed use will not adversely affect established property values
of adjoining or surrounding buildings.
The facility is located in an area used for farming and industrial uses.
There will be no adverse affect to property values
d. That the proposed use is in accordance with the character of the area and the
peculiar suitability of this area for the proposed use.
The facility is located in an area used for farming and industrial uses and set
adjacent to electric transmission lines and tower. This are is well suited for this
proposal due to the existing adjacent uses
e. That the proposed use is an appropriate use of the land and will not discourage
appropriate uses of other land.
The remaining land on the property can be used for agricultural proposes, sold
for commercial use or used residentially. The overhead transmission lines may
be an issue for residential development, but the proposed tower would not affect
that use
2. Approval and Conditions. The Board of Adjustment may approve a Conditional Use Permit
subject to compliance with certain required conditions. The Board shall state the specific
requirements of said conditions and the time limit for compliance. In no event shall the permit
be issued unless and until satisfactory proof of compliance is presented to the Planning and
Zoning Administrator.
3. Denial. If an application for Conditional Use Permit has been denied wholly or in part by
the Board of Adjustment, no new application for substantially the same use at the same location
shall be re-submitted for a period of one (1) year from the effective date of the final denial of
such application unless approval to file prior to the expiration of the one (1) year period is
granted by the Board of Adjustment
4. Time Limits on Conditional Use Permits….. Applicant has read and understands the
ramianing portion of the Code. No response is required
I hope that by supplying you with this overview of the project that you will agree to the need for
this facility and that you will be able to support our Application to provide wireless
telecommunications services to the citizens of the County.
Please contact me if you have any questions or if additional information is required.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Steven K Ward
Steven K. Ward,
Ward Development Services, LLC
Authorized Agent for AT&T
C. EXHIBITS
D.
ZONING DRAWINGS
®BLACK & VEATCHAT&TMOBILITYCOVERSI5&11"x17" PLOT WILL BE HALF SCALE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED90°135°45°270°225°180°315°0°N90°135°45°270°22
5
°180°315°0°NTO OBTAIN LOCATION OF PARTICIPANTS UNDERGROUND FACILITIESBEFORE YOU DIG IN IOWA, CALL IOWA ONE CALLTOLL FREE: 1-800-292-8989 ORwww.iowaonecall.comAREA MAPVICINITY MAPLOCAL MAPDRIVING DIRECTIONSSITE PHOTOENGINEERINGPROJECT INFORMATIONREFERENCE MATERIALSDRAWING INDEXPROJECT: NSBAT&T SITE ID: IAL04225FA#: 14642901PACE#: MRUMW027339PTN#: 3529A0HH3NAT&TMOBILITYMAIER WESTIOWA CITY, IA 52240SI5&ROBLEY A.EVANS2020905/06/20202021SEE INDEX BELOWROBLEY A.EVANS2020905/06/2020
765767769770773770735740745750755760765770745750 755 760764731733
735
737
739
74
1
743
74
5745750755
760
76
5
76
7
768
769
76976
8
7
6
6
762 760
750749 74
9
7
5
0
7
5
5740745750755760 765770767
76
8765
746
756
7
5
8760764 765767769770773770735740745750755760765770745750 755 760764731733
735
737
739
74
1
743
74
5745750755
760
76
5
76
7
768
769
76976
8
7
6
6
762 760
750749 74
9
7
5
0
7
5
5740745750755760 765770767
76
8765
746
756
7
5
8760764
HYD
E®BLACK & VEATCHAT&TMOBILITYC-190°135°45°270°225°180°315°0°N
733735737
73
9
74
1
74
3
7
4
5745750755
760733735737
73
9
74
1
74
3
7
4
5745750755
76090°135°45°270°225°180°315°0°N®BLACK & VEATCHAT&TMOBILITYC-1.1ROBLEY A.EVANS2020905/06/2020
90°135°45°270°225°180°315°0°N®BLACK & VEATCHAT&TMOBILITYC-2ROBLEY A.EVANS2020905/06/2020
®BLACK & VEATCHAT&TMOBILITYC-3ROBLEY A.EVANS2020905/06/2020
®BLACK & VEATCHAT&TMOBILITYC-6ROBLEY A.EVANS2020905/06/2020
®BLACK & VEATCHAT&TMOBILITYT-1ROBLEY A.EVANS2020905/06/2020
®BLACK & VEATCHAT&TMOBILITYL-190°135°45°270°225°180°315°0°NROBLEY A.EVANS2020905/06/2020
®BLACK & VEATCHAT&TMOBILITYL-2ROBLEY A.EVANS2020905/06/2020
www.bv.com
May 26, 2020
RE: Proposed ATT Installation
Iowa City, IA
Site Name. Maier West
Address: 4200 Block Yvette St SW
Iowa City, IA 52240
FA: 14642901
To whom it may concern
The proposed 195-foot Monopole that will be installed at the above site will be
designed and manufactured in accordance with the following requirements.
1. Loading from all applicable building and industry codes
2. Proposed and future appurtenance loading
3. Maximum Fall Zone radius equal to or less than half the height of the tower
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 952-896-0751 or at
evansra@bv.com.
Sincerely,
Black and Veatch
Robley A. Evans, PE, SE
ROBLEY A.
EVANS
20209
05/26/2020
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 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: Adam Hahn, Wally Taylor, Judy Tokuhisa, Sandy Steil
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 4-3 (Townsend, Martin, and Dyer in the negative) the Commission recommends
approval of SUB20-03, 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.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of CU20-01, 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. 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. SUB20-03: 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. Heitner began the staff report with an aerial view of the subject property and a view of the
existing zoning and surrounding zoning. Heitner noted the subject property is wedged into the
Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting was 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.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 2 of 13
southwest corner of the City, the current zoning on the subject property is Low Density Single Family Residential or RS-5, the zoning to the west is County Agricultural and the zoning to the south is County Residential which is large lot agricultural residences. Regarding background on this application this property was rezoned to RS-5 in 2017. With that rezoning came a couple of conditions, first with the first phase of development there would be public improvements on Rohret Road to about 200 feet west of Lake Shore Drive. Second the developer would pay 50% of the cost of improving Rohret Road to the western City limits. The property did go through the preliminary plat process in 2017 and at the time of that platting, it was called Country Club Estates, Eighth Edition. That preliminary plat expired in 2019 as there's a two-year limit on those plats. So this active application has been renamed Westside Estates
Phase Two subdivision. Heitner showed the proposed plat noting there's 39 lots for residential use. The plat continues to use the streets that were a part of Phase One, Luke Drive and Sedona Street and then bends southward and reconnect with Rohret Road. Heitner noted with that Luke
Drive there is a stub street just in case there is any future development to the west. He doesn’t believe there are any plans for that right now but that's always something they'd like to see just to keep those options open. Heitner also noted there are two outlets on the plat, Outlot A is in the
southern portion of the plat behind the nine homes fronting Rohret Road which will be private open space. The other outlot, Outlot B is between lots 71 and 72 and it’s intended to be an access for sanitary sewer and stormwater infrastructure and access easement for those utilities. As Heitner mentioned there are nine homes that are proposed to front Rohret Road, that is a continuation of a pattern that was already approved and was done in the development in Phase One. He noted those lots are smaller lot sizes than typically allowed in the RS-5 zone, however City Code states if there is rear alley or rear drive access, those lots can go below the required minimum of 0.18 acres and therefore these lots that are proposed in this subdivision are about point 0.14 acres and about 50 feet wide, which is identical to the lots that were approved in Phase One further east on Rohret Road.
In terms of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Southwest District Plan notes that this area is appropriate for single family and duplex residential development. The Comprehensive
Plan envisions a density between two and eight dwelling units per acre. The preliminary plat is showing a proposed density of 4.52 dwelling units per acre so that meets the land use prescription and the prescribed density in the Comprehensive Plan. Heitner showed a map from
the Southwest District Plan and circled the area that it is calling for single family/duplex residential and the prescribed density from the Comprehensive Plan. Heitner noted this plat isn't directly tied to any improvements on Rohret Road but there are a couple things he does want to mention that because of the subdivision there will be a need for future improvements on Rohret Road at some point. The plat is showing an 80-foot-wide right-of-way on Rohret Road which matches the right-of-way that is seen to the east. He reiterated this improvement is going to be made at a later date it won't be made necessarily simultaneous with the development being approved. The Capital Improvement Plan for the City shows the project in its Plan but shows that it is unfunded. There will be some need for additional right-of-way to achieve that 80-foot right-of-way with, about 13.73 feet along the north side of the road. All that
right-of-way will come from the north side of the road and will be dedicated to the City at final platting. Some other traffic implications Heitner wanted to discuss was in the staff report they made note of a deficiency based on some grading, however that deficiency has been resolved.
There was some question about whether Sedona Street would be a through street or whether it
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 3 of 13
would have a yield sign at the intersection with Luke Drive. Public Works decided it would be appropriate to have that yield sign on Luke Drive instead of Sedona Street because if the yield sign was going to be on Sedona there would need to be some adjustments to the grading to accommodate ADA compliant crosswalks. Sedona Street will be the through Street and the grading on the grading plan and preliminary plat is accurate. Other than that Transportation Planning staff did not find any other transportation related complications resulting from the proposed plat. Heitner noted there will be a need for some dedication of neighborhood open space of the subdivision about 0.2 acres of land, Parks and Recreation staff however determined that for this subdivision a fee-in-lieu payment would be appropriate.
Regarding stormwater retention, previous phases of this subdivision planned for stormwater retention from this phase so that will all primarily be located north of the subdivision in a wet
basin to the north. Heitner reiterated the applicant will be required to pay 50% of the cost of improving Rohret Road
from the point where it is improved right now to the western city limits and that will occur after the final plat is approved. Additionally, from a carryover note when this plat was addressed three years ago, there was a requirement that the applicant submit a water pressure study demonstrating that the water pressure is adequate and that that has been done to Public Works satisfaction. Heitner noted in terms of community correspondence, staff received 24 emails at his last count and two phone calls from the public regarding this proposed preliminary plat. Primary concerns raised are there was not enough time notice was given to neighbors formulate responses to the proposed preliminary plat. He noted staff typically strive for a notice period of mailing out the notices 7 to 14 days prior to a meeting date. With this meeting, staff sent out the notices last
Thursday morning, 7 days in advance of the meeting. Some other concerns involved the Rohret Road right-of-way expansion and if there would be any impacts for neighbors directly south of the right-of-way. Some comments were about City staff having favoritism with the development
company in this development in the past and then also just some sense that the project is too dense for the neighborhood. Heitner noted all those community comments have been forwarded to the Commission.
Parsons asked what's the main or significant differences between this plat and the one that was submitted back in 2017. Heitner responded there wasn’t anything significant, there are some differences with respect to sanitary and stormwater, sewer infrastructure placement, but in terms of number of lots, placement of lots, the street pattern, density and number of units, that is all the same. Parsons also wanted clarification since the southern side of Rohret Road is in the County, does that mean the northern side is going to be improved in the southern side is going to be left as is. Heitner responded it is his understanding is that the improvements are not scheduled to take place simultaneous with this development and more than likely the improvements would be done
to both sides of the road at the same time. However he reiterated it’s not currently not funded in the City's Capital Improvement Plan to do those improvements right now.
Signs asked though wasn’t the widening parts of the improvements of the road to happen on the
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 4 of 13
north side, not on the south side of the road. Heitner confirmed that was correct, the right-of-way that will be needed will come from the north side. Hekteon added a couple points of clarification regarding the requirement to improve or to pay the fee to improve Rohret Road arises from the Conditional Zoning Agreement that was executed in 2017. With this plat there is not going to be any need for additional right-of-way to be dedicated from the property to the south, but if the project does go forward there may be the need for some sort of temporary construction easement. Staff recommends approval of 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. Hensch asked if Heitner could refresh the Commission's memory about what goes into
preliminary plat approvals. Heitner stated typically when staff reviews preliminary plats, they're looking at a number of subdivision guidelines. Most of those are focused on street design, adherence to the Comprehensive Plan, lot sizes, density, setbacks, and overall does it comply
with the City Code. Hensch asked again for the differences of this preliminary plat from the one the Commission approved in 2017. Heitner stated it is pretty similar to the plat in 2017, it's the same number of units and it's the same density. There was a change to the street names and there were some changes with respect to placement of sanitary sewer and stormwater intake inlets. But otherwise, the plats are similar. Hensch noted whether Rohret Road has been designated by the City as an arterial street. Heitner confirmed that is correct. Hensch asked if the City transportation department analyzed traffic impacts for this development and did not see any traffic implications. Heitner confirmed
that's correct. So Hensch noted if there's additional right-of-way that needs to be obtained, it's going to come from the north side of Rohret Road and not the south side other than temporary construction easement when the road is improved. Heitner confirmed again that was correct.
Lastly Hensch commented, for the public, it was important to note the Commission members have no interaction with developers throughout this process, the only time they ever discussed this is in their meetings in public and if anybody ever had an interaction, an ex parte
communication, they'd be obligated to reveal that to the Commission in these public meetings. He wanted the public to be aware that they do not have conversations with developers other than in a public setting. Martin asked about the policy of letters being sent out seven days ahead of time but wanted clarification if that means the public needs to receive letters seven days ahead of time or staff just needs to send them by seven days. Heitner replied it's been their procedure to try to postmark them by seven days but acknowledges that might be something they need to reevaluate. Martin noted she remembers when this came before the Commission in 2017 as she was on the
Commission at that time. She is curious about the difference of neighbors that lived there in 2017 versus today as a lot of these houses are newly built. She wonders if Heitner knows how many people were living there in 2017 that sent you an email about this. Heitner can't say he
knows.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 5 of 13
Signs noted another thing to point out here from what he can tell is the vast majority of the people who sent emails do not live in this area, at least one of them lives in North Liberty. Martin wondered if a good neighbor meeting was held before this particular meeting. Heitner replied there was not. Martin questioned why not and Heitner said it is the applicant’s decision. However, in 2017 there was a good neighbor meeting out there but Martin noted that was in 2017 and now there is a whole different population. Hensch opened the public hearing.
Adam Hahn (Watts Group) noted this is a continuation of the current phase out there with the application from 2017. As Heitner mentioned there were some minor modifications to the sewer system other than that there wasn't changes to density or lot sizes, it was simply a refresh of a
preliminary plat that expired last year. He noted that the first phase of this subdivision is going so well that they're excited to hopefully start some infrastructure work this winter and be through final plat approval next summer to start building out there on this final phase. He noted it's an
attractive area of town and with great school districts. Dyer asked why they did not have a good neighbor meeting. Hahn replied they thought without having changed anything from the preliminary plat that was approved three years ago they were staying within the desires and consistency of what's out there already. Dyer acknowledged people do come and go within three years. Martin made a suggestion that while everyone followed the guidelines, people really do like to be included, especially when it's a new development like this. Going forward it’s a really good idea to continue that camaraderie including the neighborhood. Hensch added the Commission always strongly advocates for good neighbor meetings, acknowledging they know they're not required, but it's helpful when you tell people nothing has changed. That would help with a lot of the anxieties.
Wally Taylor (4403 1st Ave SE, Cedar Rapids, IA 52402) noted he is an attorney from Cedar Rapids representing Judy and David Tokuhisa who live on the south side of Rohret Road just
across from the proposed development. The Commission should have received Judy's letter as well as his email. First of all, they are requesting a postponement of this meeting because as discussed earlier here there was such a short notice of this meeting. Additionally, even though
people who wrote to the Commission may not live right there, they are concerned about what the City of Iowa City does and have every right to express their feelings that this meeting needed to be postponed. Again he asks that they perhaps not make a decision tonight on this proposal. With regard to the essence of the concerns about this proposal, as was indicated in Judy's letter and his email, it is his understanding that over the years as this project has gone through a previous iteration and now the current proposal and it is not clear what is going to happen to Rohret Road, how and when the widening would take place. And the Tokuhisas are concerned that the widening would take place on their property rather than the north, thinking that the houses were not designed or sited in such a way that the widening of Rohret Road could take place on the north. So what he’s hearing tonight is that the plan is for widening to take place on the north and they would feel much more secure if there were some documentation or some
written confirmation of that. As noted by Heitner, the plans are not firm and the road construction
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 6 of 13
will not take place in conjunction with this plat, so they're still unsure whether or not the road will indeed be widened on the north and not the south. He would ask that if the Commission is going to recommend approval of this case, that a condition of that that approval be a recommendation that any widening of Rohret Road take place on the north and not on the south. Hekteon wanted to clarify that because the southern portion is in the County there isn’t
expansion to the south. The dedication of the right-of-way will come at the final plat and with the
approval of the final plat the City will have sufficient right-of-way to build Rohret Road. The final
plat is the official documentation saying that the City is not planning on taking land to the south.
The plat will state the 80-foot right-of-way is to be dedicated by the property owner.
Judy Tokuhisa (3305 Rohret Road) stated her concern is she has a 75-year-old oak tree in her front yard and it extends far into what is considered the right-of-way on the south side so she asks if she can be guaranteed that they are not going to put a sidewalk or any widening or any
cement in what is the right-of-way on the south side. Her concern is because trees die when you damage the root ball and the root balls, the bases of the roots of trees, are many times bigger than the canopy of the tree. Which means that an extremely old tree, plus all the walnut trees
and the apple orchard, all those roots are extending into that ditch. The right-of-way is currently a ditch and she would not like to see those trees taken out. She would like to see is that the ditch is not disturbed because that's going to kill the root balls of the trees.
Signs noted it was his understanding in 2017 when they approved the first part, that the additional land needed for the City was included in the development on the north that was being developed. And that the additional land needed for the widening of Rohret Road related to this portion of the development is also being included by the developer on the north. The townhouses are being set back appropriately from that area, and that it is in the rezoning agreement. Russett confirmed that is correct that all of the additional right-of-way that the City needs to create that 80-foot right-of-way for Rohret Road is coming from the Watts Development property all to the north side, none of it is coming from the south. She added the trees that Tokuhisa is speaking to may be in the existing right-of-way and whenever that street is developed there
could be impacts to those trees. However, as Heitner mentioned, this is this is not going to be developed as part of the Watts's development, the City is just asking for a fee for future development of the street. At this time they don't know when that will be, it's currently not a
funded project and based on conversations with Public Works, it’s not on the radar of something that's going to be coming up soon.
Martin noted Tokuhisa also talked about traffic impact in her letter and wondered if she is interested in expanding a little bit more about her feelings towards the traffic with this new portion of the development. Tokuhisa stated there is only one road for all the people that live out there and as they add more people, that road becomes more and more congested. As it currently is she cannot turn it into her driveway anymore because people cruise by her and pass her with her turn signal on. It's just so congested and people don't want to wait. Also with parents coming to the school that road is totally unusable, it turns into a parking lot. Hensch stated he drove out and looked at this property and area and then got out and walked around. Number one, Tokuhisa has a beautiful property, so he understands her concern. He also agrees Slothower Road needs to be developed and as more development occurs to the north of this area the Planning & Zoning Commission will need to address those issues so they
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 7 of 13
can get improvement to Slothower Road so people can go to the north and have access to Melrose Avenue. He wanted to note just as one commission member, he hears what Tokuhisa is saying and agrees with her and wants her to know their voices are being heard on that issue. Wally Taylor addressed the Commission again and had a question regarding the plat that was approved back in 2017 and that it definitely said the road would be improved to the north. However the questions is what extent is that 2017 plat still valid or has it expired and voided. Hekteon responded there was a 2017 final plat of what is Westside Estates Phase One that's final and currently being constructed and developed. The preliminary plat for this specific land has expired, and that's why they have resubmitted this application. However the Westside Estates Phase One is still in effect and in that phase the right-of-way necessary to establish an
80-foot right-of-way was dedicated at that time to the north side of Rohret Road for Phase One and Phase Two.
Hensch closed the public hearing. Parsons moved to approve SUB20-03, 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. Dyer seconded the motion. Hensch stated he absolutely hears the concern of Judy Tokuhisa as she has a great place out there but thinks her concerns have been addressed in this meeting to his satisfaction. He does absolutely believe that her concern about the traffic as far as there not being second way in and out the subdivision is a real concern but that's something the City will need to keep in mind as future development occurs out there, to put it upon developers to improve Slothower Road so
there can be access to the north on the west side of the city limits. Townsend stated she is concerned that there are a lot of people in emails and letters saying that
they want more time to respond to this project. Hensch agrees with Townsend that's a completely legitimate concern, noted he has comfort in
the fact that the preliminary plat has not changed since 2017 and this is exactly what the Commission approved (other than that sewer work). He is not quite sure what new information that could be brought forward because the Commission has already addressed all those issues. Parsons agreed and additionally he feels strongly they should only defer an application if they feel like there is a missing a piece of information that would make a huge difference, or strengthen this application or be better for the community or just this specific area as a whole. He hasn’t seen that tonight and that's why he is they voting that they move to approval. Martin stated she understands what both are saying but do want to say a lot can happen in three years, especially with all of the development and that there are people who now live there that
didn’t before. Additionally the Commissions received so many letters of people saying that they wish that they had a little more time to at least have a conversation, or even address their concerns or conversation with the developer and it might all be just fine. She thinks when there
are that many people in a short amount of time saying, whoa, hang on, they are the ones that are
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 8 of 13
going to tell us how this will impact them. She also noted they need to really relook at notices, seven days of mailing, not postmarked, is not much time to have a conversation. Finally she stressed they are in an environment and a climate right now that needs to listen and allow people to be heard across the board. Dyer stated she agreed with Martin that less than a week notice for a big project is really not considerate of the public, if there's just one property, one house or one business, it might be somewhat different. She feels they have the opportunity to allow the public to express their concerns or their approval. Government agencies are not well regarded right now. Townsend added at this point the Commission does not know what the concerns are, the public
is asking for more time to gather their thoughts and express their concerns. Signs stated he is just going to go out on a limb and suspect that the 20 some people that
emailed asking for the deferral of this are indeed doing so on to support the Tokuhisa’s, which is amazing but most of them don't live in this neighborhood, several of them say where they live and it's not in this neighborhood. So they are writing letters to support Tokuhisa and her interest
in having more information about the street plans, and that has been addressed. He is pretty confident that that the street is not going to be paved over her trees because the land for doing that has been dedicated by the developer on the north side of the existing road. He doesn’t disagree with the fact they need to tighten up the criteria for these mailings and again they heard a concern about not having good neighbor meetings. The Commission has had this discussion many, many times and this Commission wants there to always be a good neighbor meeting, then they need to take that to City Council and have that acted on. He gets little concerned when they beat up developers for not having one when it's not a requirement. In this particular case, this is an extension of all the things that was discussed and worked on in 2017, yes some of the concerns may be written by people who are new to this neighborhood, but he doesn’t think that's the case personally. Everything that's being proposed here tonight is exactly what was proposed
back in 2017 so he is not inclined to delay. He doesn’t feel a need to delay this particular one because two weeks from now they’re going to have the exact same conversation. But he would like to figure out what they as a Commission want for a timing standpoint when it comes to
mailing neighbors as he would agree this was not enough time. And he would like this Commission to have a discussion about what they want as far as good neighbor meetings goes.
Hensch agrees with Signs and also thinks they should ask staff to put that on a future agenda to address how many days out the mailing should be sent and also the issue of the good neighbor meetings. He also has had the exact same impression as Signs that many of these letters are at the behest of the Tokuhisa which is admirable. He does believe in citizen participation and in people being heard, and they have given them the opportunity to participate. He also this is the exact same thing from 2017, the same plat that had already been approved, nothing has changed. His is also really comfortable acting on this tonight as in two weeks they’d just have the exact same conversation. Baker brought up the sense that the Commission has the impression that most of these letters do not come from people in the neighborhood and are not directly affected. Hensch said many
of the emails had the person’s address listed and they were not people who lived in the direct neighborhood. He acknowledged they have a right to make comments and have their voice heard, he just felt it was worth noting.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 9 of 13
Dyer noted she doesn’t think it's great for the Commission to make assumptions about what people would say when asked for more time. If she were one of those people who said she didn't have enough time she would be really insulted if the Commission decided I didn't have anything to say different. Parsons asked if the final plat would be coming to the Commission at some point in the future as well. Russett noted final plats go directly to Council and are not seen by the Commission. Martin stated she would support deferring, they may have the exact same conversation two weeks from now but that's just fine, giving people the chance to have their voice heard is what is imperative. Also agreeing with Dyer, the Commission cannot assume they know what anyone is
wanting to say. It also doesn’t matter where people live if they want to vocalize this and it is our job to listen.
Parsons stated he is going to take the position to hold firm on his motion and not retract it in favor of a deferral.
Parsons also noted that if this fails the Commission tonight and Council approves it, Council can offer the Commission a consultation which actually gives this Commission a forum to bring up all the other issues about the timing to the Council themselves. Baker added there will be a public hearing at the Council meeting where the public can discuss their concerns. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-3 (Townsend, Martin, and Dyer in the negative).
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. Heitner began the staff report with an aerial view of the subject property, it is the County and the proposed conditional use would take place in the northeast corner of this parcel. He next showed a view of the surrounding zoning; the subject property is zoned County Agricultural. The
property itself does border the Iowa City landfill that's a public zone. For the most part, it's fairly agricultural around this area. Heitner showed another map of the subject property within the context of the fringe area between Iowa City and Johnson County. This particular property is in
Fringe Area C but outside of the growth boundary. Background on the application, it is an application to the Johnson County Board of Adjustment
for the allowance of a 20-plus unit commercial storage facility to be used for boats and recreational vehicles. It's the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight 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 City Council. Heitner reiterated the proposed land use is for a commercial storage facility for boats and RVs. The subject property is not discussed in the City's Comprehensive Plan as it's far enough outside of the City's subdistrict planning
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 10 of 13
areas. As mentioned before the existing neighborhood character is pretty rural with sporadic residential development. Heitner showed a pictometry view of the subject property to provide a little bit more context of the rural surroundings. Heitner showed the concept plan from the applicant showing the proposed building dimensions and layout within the subject property. It would be an L shaped building that's about 300 feet on the long side and about 200 feet on the shorter side. The building is sufficiently setback from IWV Road and form the east property boundary. Heitner stated with the Conditional Use Permit process that the County has, there's a number of conditions that they can request be obligated with these permits and with this particular permit for a commercial storage facility with 20-plus storage units, the five conditions that the County requests are:
1. The road access is provided off a paved road. 2. There will be a site plan review process with the County. 3. The use complys with off street parking regulations and in this case one parking space for
every 10 storage units. 4. The application would comply with environmental standards and the County's Code with respect to sensitive areas, stormwater management, soil erosion and so forth.
5. County Public Health requirements and federal, state and local regulations apply to the proposed site. In terms of how the City views its analysis of this application, the subject property is outside of the City's growth area within the Fringe Area and it's not likely to be annexed. Heitner noted while the City is doing some analysis right now on potentially adjusting its growth area this particular area is not up for consideration for any kind of growth area expansion. Additionally since this property does share a border with the City landfill, this use will be fairly far removed from the landfill. The role of the Commission tonight is to determine if the conditional use being applied for, a
commercial storage facility, within City’s Fringe Area should be recommended for approval to the City Council. In terms of next steps after Commission and City Council consideration the item will be brought to the Johnson County Board of Adjustment for their approval.
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. Hensch asked how far the homestead is from the landfill. Heitner stated it is definitely hundreds of yards away. Hensch noted they are always looking for the best use of a property and it’s really limited out there because of the location of the landfill. He asked if this Conditional Use Permit application is compliant with the Fringe Area Agreement the City currently has with the County in this area. Russett replied it is consistent with the Fringe Area Agreement as the current zoning that exists now allows this use. Martin asked if there was an expiration date on this Conditional Use. Heitner replied no, it is his understanding the use would just run in perpetuity.
Dyer asked if there is any likelihood of the landfill expanding closer to this area. Heitner said they talked to Public Works staff and they didn't express any concerns about the adjacency of
this use permit or any future expansion plans northward.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 11 of 13
Hensch opened the public hearing. Sandy Steil (MMS Consultants) representing Nick Hemann and stated for those that aren't familiar this is the road that goes past the landfill entrance. Also to add to Dyer’s point the City has acquired property already for future landfill expansions and they would have to fill all of that property up before they would look at expanding. Steil noted there are two residential property structures on the property where the storage facilities are intended to go and this new building will actually block the view and maybe some of the smells from the landfill. She reiterated this is a conditional use, not a zoning.
Hensch closed the public hearing. Parsons moved to approve CU20-01, 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. Townsend seconded the motion. Parsons noted from a City standpoint he doesn’t see anything wrong with this application and it's
also presents a unique opportunity since this is right nearby the landfill so it could actually in a
way provide a benefit to the nearby residents that are there
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MAY 21, 2020: Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of May 21, 2020. Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett gave a few updates from the City Council meeting on Tuesday. The rezoning on
American Legion Road was approved as was the plat for that site. Also approved was the Pleasant Valley Preserve plat down by the golf course in unincorporated Johnson County. Russett noted there wouldn’t likely be a meeting in two weeks so she wanted to acknowledged Parsons for his service on the Commission. He has been on the Commission for five years. Parson noted one change over that time he was glad to see was getting the updates from Council meetings on projects. One question that is left in his mind is that they are an independent Commission, they are independent thinkers and non-biased, but are they truly looking at the aspects of an application that City Council wants them to because their whole job here is to make life easier for Council so they don't have to dig in the weeds because that's our
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 12 of 13
job. Also he would just like to say thank you to Council for giving him the opportunity to serve the City in this capacity. They have accomplished quite a bit as a Commission in the last five years, it is exciting to just drive around and see all the projects they've approved. To Anne, Ray, Sara and the rest of the staff, thank you for your work and making our lives easier in making these decisions. To the rest of the Commission, it's been a pleasure serving every other Thursday with all of you and he hopes their paths cross again in the near future. To all, thank you, best wishes and good luck. Hensch noted Parsons is a rock-solid commission member and they’ve been very fortunate to have him. People that haven't been on this commission don't realize it truly is a thankless task and every vote taken results somebody being mad. People don’t realize that we all do this
because we think it's the right thing to do, it's a sense of duty, and we realized that we make some really hard votes that people are upset with us about, but we do the best we can do and what they think is the right thing to do.
Hensch also stated the Commission would like to bring up for further discussion that the City Council needs to have a discussion about making good neighbor meetings mandatory and try
and extending the timeline out for when notices need to be sent to neighbors and maybe even enlarge that area. Signs wanted to add to the discussion a document or a walkthrough that outlines the process. For example, the 45-day thing and how does extending a notification period impact that or how is it impacted by this the 45-day thing, it would be helpful to know how it's supposed to work. Hensch stated the 45-day process is a Code requirement, unless the applicant waives that. They have added what is the Commission's role to staff reports so they know exactly what they're supposed to be doing on something because it's easy to lose track of that based on the role for a subdivision versus rezoning versus a plat.
ADJOURNMENT:
Townsend moved to adjourn. Dyer seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2019-2020
1/17 (W.S.)
2/4
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 6/4
BAKER, LARRY X X X X X X X
DYER, CAROLYN X X X X X X X
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE O/E X O/E X X X X
PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X TOWNSEND, BILLIE O/E X X X X X X
KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member