HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-03-10 Public hearingNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing
will be held by the City Council of Iowa City,
Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 10th day of March,
1998, in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; at
which hearing the Council will consider the
following:
An ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter
6, "Zoning," Article E, "Commercial and
Business Zones," Section 2, Neighborhood
Commercial Zone (CN-1) regarding size
restrictions on restaurants.
2. An ordinance amending the approved
preliminary Sensitive Areas Development
Plan for Lot 51 of Walden Hills, containing
2.9 acres and located within the OSA-8,
Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone at the
northeast corner of Shannon Drive and
Irving Avenue.
Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file
for public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
wishing to make their views known for Council
consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time and place.
MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
ppdadminlnph0223.doc
Prepared by: Scott Kugler, Assoc. Planner 410 E.
Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 6, "ZONING," ARTICLE E,
"COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS ZONES,"
SECTION 2, "NEIGHBORHOOD COMMER-
CIAL ZONE (CN-1)" REGARDING SIZE
RESTRICTIONS ON RESTAURANTS.
WHEREAS, the City established the CN-1,
Neighborhood Commercial Zone, to encourage
the establishment of small scale neighborhood
oriented commercial uses within residential
neighborhoods to help meet the day-to-day needs
of neighborhood residents, and
WHEREAS, in order to discourage the
development of uses that are out of scale with
adjacent residential neighborhoods, and to
minimize potential negative impacts of commercial
developments on their surrounding residential
neighborhoods, the CN-1 zone regulations contain
size limits on certain types of uses, including
restaurants, and
WHEREAS, currently, restaurants containing
up to 2,500 square feet of gross floor area are
permitted as provisional uses in the CN-'I zone,
and those exceeding 2,500 square feet require
approval of a special exception, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined
that the use of the current standard based on the
gross floor area of the restaurant is not an
appropriate method of measuring the scale or
intensity of a restaurant use and whether it is
appropriate for the CN-1 zone, but rather a
standard based on the occupant load of the facility
would be a better measure of the potential impact
of the restaurant on the surrounding
neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, Article E,
Commercial and Business Zones, Section 2,
Neighborhood Commercial Zone (CN-1), be
amended as follows:
Ordinance No.
Page 2
a. Section 14-6E-2C, Provisional Uses, be
amended as follows:
5. Restaurants, provided the floor area doos
not oxcood two thousand fivo hundrod (2,500)
squaro feot occupancy load does not
exceed 100 for any one restaurant, and the
total floor area allocated to restaurant use will
not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total
existing or proposed commercial floor area in a
CN-1 zone.
b. Section 14-6E-2D, Special Exceptions, be
amended as follows:
6. Restaurants that exceed two thousand five
hundrod (2,500) squaro foot in floor aroa an
occupancy load of 100, except the total floor
area allocated to restaurant uses will not
exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total
existing or proposed commercial floor area in a
CN-'I zone.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and
pads of ordinances in conflict with the provisions
of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section,
provision or part of the Ordinance shall be
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such
adjudication shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or
pad thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti-
tutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi-
nance shall be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of
,1998.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
ppdadmin~or(Acn 1 .doc
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 27, 1998 (for March 5 meeting)
To:
Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Scott Kugler, Associate Planner
Re;
Proposed CN-1 Zone Amendments Regarding Restaurants
At the Commission's February 19 meeting, possible amendments to the CN-1 zone
regulations regarding size limitations on restaurants were discussed. Attached please find
a draft of an ordinance which was prepared based on the fourth option that was discussed
in the February 13 memorandum. The ordinance would establish an upper threshold for
restaurants permitted as provisional uses based on the occupancy load of the~facility,
rather than on floor area. An occupancy load of between 85 and 100 persons is
incorporated in the amendment. If this approach is pursued, the Commission and City
Council should determine where the threshold should fall within this range. It is estimated
that a typical 2,500 square foot restaurant would have an occupancy load of about 85
persons. This estimate increases to 100 persons for a 3,000 square foot restaurant.
These are general estimates based on the information collected by staff regarding existing
restaurants within Iowa City. The actual occupancy load for a restaurant would take into
account the floor area dedicated to the various types of indoor spaces that make up the
restaurant, as well as the type of seating being provided.
The City Council has scheduled a public hearing on this item for its March 10 meeting. The
Commission should be prepared to vote on this item at the March 5 meeting if possible.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
February 13, 1998 (for February 19 meeting)
Planning & Zoning Commission
Scott Kugler, Associate Planner
Proposed CN-1 Zone Amendment - Restaurant Floor Area Limitations
City Council has requested that staff and the Commission review possible amendments to
the provisions of the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone that deal with restaurants.
This request is a result of a number of unsuccessful attempts that have been made to
locate a restaurant within the CN-1 zone at Court Street and Scott Boulevard. A
summarized history of past attempts to gain approval to construct the restaurant is
provided below, followed by a number of options that could be pursued to address the
concerns raised by Council. However, staff feels that it is appropriate to first discuss the
intent of the CN-1 zone and how the current regulations regarding restaurants came about.
The intent section of the CN-1 zone reads as follows:
The Neighborhood Commercial Zone (CN-1) is intended to permit the development
of retail sales and personal services required to meet the day-to-day needs of a fully
developed residential neighborhood. Stores, businesses and offices in the Zone
should be useful to the majority of the neighborhood residents, should be
economically supportable by nearby population, and should not draw community-
wide patronage. A grocery store or grocery store/drugstore combination is favored
at the principal tenant in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone. In general, the CN-1
Zone is intended for the grouping of a grocery store and small retail businesses and
office uses which are relatively nuisance-free to surrounding residences and which
do not detract from the residential purpose and character of the surrounding
neighborhood. The location and development of neighborhood commercial sites
should follow the criteria set forth for such sites in the Comprehensive Plan, as
amended.
In the past, it was not uncommon for light commercial uses such as a family owned
grocery store or a neighborhood tavern/restaurant to be found within residential
neighborhoods. Examples in Iowa City include the former Seaton's store at the corner of
Court Street and Muscatine Avenue, and former commercial buildings within the Northside
and Goosetown neighborhoods, many of which have now been converted to residences.
However, for much of this qentury there has been a concerted effort in most American
cities to separate residential and commercial uses to the extent possible. This has occurred
mainly as a result of the increased mobility of the general population since the advent of
the automobile and the changing nature of commercial developments to accommodate
customers in automobiles. As a result, commercial areas tend to be located such that
2
nearly every trip to the store must be made by car, thus increasing congestion on the
cities' street systems. The CN-1 zone is intended to be a step in the opposite direction by
providing small areas throughout the city where some of the shopping or service needs of
residents of the surrounding neighborhood can be provided within walking distance or a
short drive from their homes. The development of a CN-1 zone with neighborhood oriented
uses is not expected to eliminate vehicular trips to regional commercial areas, but it is
hoped that these trips will become less frequent if some of the neighborhood residents'
needs are provided nearby.
The danger in permitting commercial uses within residential neighborhoods is that they
have the potential to draw additional traffic into the surrounding neighborhood and produce
other negative impacts on nearby properties if the scale and nature of the commercial uses
are not carefully managed. It is for this reason that the CN-1 zone includes limitations on
the types and sizes of businesses that may locate there, and also contains design
provisions aimed at integrating the commercial areas into the rest of the neighborhood.
There are limitations on the number of parking spaces that can be provided for most uses,
landscaping requirements, provisions to ensure pedestrian connections to the surrounding
areas, and some building design guidelines, all of which are intended to result in an
attractive, small scale appearance that will be compatible with the surrounding area.
The very nature of the CN-1 zone and the population it is intended to serve almost requires
that its development be delayed pending the development of the surrounding residential
neighborhood. This requires patience on the part of the developer. An example is the
Walden Square development on Mormon Trek Boulevard, which slowly developed over a
number of years until the surrounding population grew to a level which could help support
the types of businesses permitted in the CN-1 zone, along with business from through-
traffic on Mormon Trek Boulevard. One of the reasons that the Scott Court CN-1 zone has
not experienced the rapid development of neighborhood oriented uses is because only half
of its immediate neighborhood market area is developed (generally the area west of Scott
Boulevard). Unless a CN-1 zone is introduced into an existing neighborhood on an infill
site, it is likely that there will be a delay before neighborhood oriented uses are attracted to
the site. Otherwise, businesses locating there will have to rely on a much broader
customer base and draw customers into the neighborhood from a wider region.
Restaurants in the CN-1 Zone: Currently, the CN-1 zone allows restaurants of up to 2,500
square feet as provisional uses, meaning that they can be established upon administrative
approval of a site plan and the issuance of a building permit, without any public review
before a City board or commission. For restaurants containing more than 2,500 square
feet, a special exception is required, which involves a public review of the plans by the
Board of Adjustment. The Board can approve or deny the application based on general
standards that deal with an application's potential impact on surrounding properties, and on
an application's compliance with the Zoning Chapter. Restaurants with drive-thru or drive-
up windows are not permitted. The current regulations were adopted in 1994 after being
reviewed by the Commission and City Council. Prior to that time, all restaurants in the CN-
1 zone required a special exception regardless of their size. The changes were requested
by a developer who felt that smaller restaurants would be consistent with the intent of the
CN-1 zone and should be subject to less stringent review than larger restaurants. The
1994 change allowed for a more streamlined approval process for smaller scale
restaurants.
In researching the 1994 amendment, staff studied existing restaurants within the City and
reviewed standards suggested in various planning and zoning publications to determine
where the threshold should fall. The 2,500 square foot limitation was consistent with both
sets of findings. In implementing the regulations, the size of the restaurant is based on the
gross floor area of the building, which includes all of the facility, including the seating area,
kitchen, and storage areas. Since that time, special exceptions have been approved to
permit two 3,200 square foot restaurants within the Walden Square development and to
allow a 3,376 square foot restaurant at 200 Scott Court. Two applications have been
denied for restaurants of 4,000 and 4,666 square feet at 200 Scott Court.
History of Attempts to Develop a Restaurant at 200 Scott Court: As mentioned above,
Council's request to consider changes to the CN-1 zone regulations was driven by problems
that a specific proposed restaurant has had in trying to locate within the Scott Court CN-1
zone. The proposed development of this restaurant has been the subject of three special
exception applications before the Board of Adjustment, two of which were denied, and a
failed attempt to obtain a building permit following the one Board approval for the
restaurant. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission was not directly involved in these
cases, a brief history is provided below.
In 1995, an application was filed by John and Ada Streit for a special exception to allow a
4,000 square foot restaurant to be constructed on the property located at 200 Scott Court.
The application was accompanied by a site plan which indicated that 46 parking spaces
were to be provided, which exceeded the maximum number of parking spaces permitted for
that use in the CN-1 zone. No building elevations were provided, as required. In addition,
the site plan contained a number of deficiencies and did not comply with a number of
Zoning Chapter provisions. Staff attempted to work with the applicants to design a scaled-
back plan that was more consistent with the intent of the CN-1 zone, but the applicants
chose to go forward with their original submittal. Staff recommended denial of the
application based on the size and scale of the proposed use and its inconsistency with the
intent and design provisions of the CN-1 zone, as well as the technical deficiencies
contained on the site plan. The Board of Adjustment concurred with staff's assessment
and denied the request.
In 1996, an application was filed by Steve Kohli, who intended to be the lot owner and
developer of the Streits' restaurant. The application was for a 3,376 square foot
restaurant and a 35-space parking lot with 11 additional "landbanked" spaces which could
have been added if it was demonstrated that they were needed after the facility was
opened. Staff worked with the applicant to have the technical deficiencies with the site
plan corrected, and recommended approval of the application subject to conditions. The
Board of Adjustment approved the application with conditions as recommended by staff.
In 1997, property owner Plum Grove Acres applied for a building permit to construct the
restaurant. However, the plans included a 1,200+ square foot basement area, for a total
of 4,576 square feet. Under the Zoning Chapter, the square footage of a use includes all
space devoted to that use, including basements and additional stories. The Building Official
was of the opinion that a few hundred square feet of basement floor area could be added
for mechanical equipment such as a furnace or water heater, but the size being proposed
would likely result in the restaurant use occupying a portion of the basement, such as
4
storage or office area. The applicant was unwilling to diminish the size of the basement to
coincide with the accommodation proposed by the Building Official. Staff felt that the
location of these components of the restaurant in the basement would result in more of the
first floor of the restaurant being devoted to seating area. It appeared that what was
requested was in excess of the size of the restaurant approved by the Board, and a building
permit was not issued.
Later in 1997, an application for a special exception for a 4,666 square foot restaurant was
submitted by Hodge Construction Company on behalf of the Streits. This application was
similar to the application previously approved, but included a 1,290 square foot basement.
The Board denied this application based on the size and scale of the restaurant.
Current Request/Options: Council is now requesting that staff and the Commission
reassess the way restaurants are regulated in the CN-1 zone. All components of a
restaurant are counted when determining the size of a restaurant, not just the seating area.
The definition of floor area includes "[t]he total of all floors of a building . . ." and includes
"[sipaces in the basement or cellar... if used for a principal or accessory use permitted in
the zone in which the building is located." In the absence of a kitchen, food preparation
area, or an area to store food, a seating area is not much of a restaurant. If in the case of
the Streits' proposal much of the storage and office space was permitted to be located
within a basement, the main level floor area available for seating would have been much
larger and would have allowed a more intensive use of the property than originally
contemplated when it was approved.
Additional information has been collected on the size of existing Iowa City restaurants and
is attached to this memorandum. Since the existence of basement storage areas was not
investigated in 1994 when the restaurant size limitations were put in place, staff attempted
to collect this information, as well as floor area and occupancy or number of seats, for a
number of Iowa City restaurants. Of the 34 restaurants included, seven contained finished
basement areas, four contained unfinished basement areas, and 23 contained no
basements. It does not appear that the additional information on basements would have
affected staff's recommendation in 1994 regarding the floor area threshold of 2,500 square
feet.
Staff's research of other ordinances and national planning publications conducted in 1994
suggested that there be a maximum floor area for a restaurant in a neighborhood
commercial zone of 2,500 to 3,000 square feet, and the research on Iowa City restaurants
suggested a similar figure. A decision was made to allow restaurants of 2,500 square feet
by right, and allow the Board to approve larger restaurants on a case by case basis if it
feels that they are appropriate for the CN-1 zone. Staff is unaware of any substantial
changes recommended by national planning and zoning publications for restaurants in
neighborhood commercial areas over the past few years. In general, the recommendation
is aimed at limiting negative impacts on surrounding residential properties that can be
generated by higher occupancy restaurants. Iowa City's CN-1 zone is a bit more flexible in
that restaurants over the specified size are permitted by special exception rather than
simply excluded from that zone.
Listed below are a number of different options that have been identified for amending the
CN-1 zone with regard to restaurants. Staff recommends that the Commission discuss the
proper course of action at its February 19 meeting, after which it can review a specific
ordinance with the proposed code changes being recommended, if any, at the March 5
meeting. Although all of the options could be pursued, if changes are to be made to the
regulations staff feels that the fourth option is the most appropriate.
Option One - No Change: Obviously, with this option the CN-1 zone regulations would not
be changed, and the Streits could either scale back their plans to conform to the
regulations, or find an alternative location within a more suitable commercial zone, such as
the CC-2 or CH-1 zone.
Option Two - Add Specific Criteria for Determining Appropriate Scale of Restaurant: This
option involves adopting design and intensity of use standards for restaurants within the
CN-1 zone, with drive-thru or drive-up windows still being prohibited. Depending on the
nature of the design standards, this could ensure that a development is adequately
screened and buffered from residential areas, is well designed and landscaped, and
architecturally "fits" into the neighborhood in terms of appearance. Building size would
likely be one of a number of factors considered. Others might include site design, size of
the parking lot, a site's location within the neighborhood and its anticipated traffic impact,
and the type of restaurant and its expected turnover of customers (i.e., fast food rs. full
service).
This option could involve retaining the threshold that separates those restaurants permitted
as provisional uses and those requiring a special exception, or could be administered by
staff, with appeals of the site plan process coming before the Commission. In the former
case, the approval process would not change, but the criteria for evaluating a larger
restaurant would be spelled out in the ordinance and available for potential applicants to
review before submitting a special exception application. In the latter case, the standards
would have to be written as objectively as possible if a staff review is to be effective.
While the decision in either case would still be somewhat subjective, it would be clear to
applicants what factors will be considered. If this type of review is conducted at the staff
level, it should be subject to a major site plan review regardless of the size of the facility,
rather than a minor site plan review (currently a commercial use under 10,000 square feet
requires only a minor site plan review). The major site plan process allows for some
notification of the neighborhood, and gives the applicant, the Building Official, and the
owners of 20% of the surrounding property within 200 feet of the site an opportunity to
seek a public review of the site plan before the Planning and Zoning Commission if they are
not satisfied with the site plan or staff decision. This option would require additional staff
time to draft a set of standards.
Option Three - Increase Square Foot Requirement of Those Permitted By Right: If 2,500
square feet is felt to be too low of a figure for a restaurant within the CN-1 zone, it could
be increased. However, staff is not comfortable arbitrarily choosing a number without
some rational basis or research to substantiate it. Other communities, such as Pittsburgh,
have higher limits within their neighborhood commercial zones of around 3,000 square feet.
The Board of Adjustment has approved special exceptions to allow two 3,200 square foot
restaurants within the Walden Square CN-1 zone and one of 3,376 on Scott Court.
However, staff feels that it is not advisable to just put a figure in place that allows the
establishment of a large restaurant with no public review or no additional criteria.
6
Option Four - Change the Way Scale of the Restaurant is Calculated: It has been
suggested that one way to address the problem is to base the size limitations on the
footprint of the building rather than the gross floor area. Staff does not feel that this is the
best option since multiple-story restaurants and basement seating areas are permitted, if
proper means of egress are provided to meet the building and fire codes. However, the
idea of changing the way the size of a restaurant is measured to determine the intensity of
use could be considered. The threshold could be changed such that the component of the
use that is likely to have the greatest impact on the surrounding neighborhood, the seating
area, is the primary means of determining the scale of the restaurant and whether or not it
is appropriate for the CN-1 zone. If the restaurant regulations are to be amended, staff
feels that this option is probably the one with the most potential. However, staff is
unaware of other communities who have such a standard in place.
Basing a standard strictly on the size of the seating area would be difficult, as this
information is not readily available and would involve a somewhat time consuming task of
analyzing approved building plans contained in the files of the Housing and Inspection
Services Department. It would also not address differences in the types of seating being
provided within the seating area. However, information on the occupancy load of existing
restaurants is more readily available, as this needs to be determined in order to calculate
the number of parking spaces required, size of the restroom facilities required, proper
exiting requirements, etc. The calculation of a restaurant's occupancy load includes
kitchen and storage areas, but these areas are included at a much lower ratio of persons to
floor area than the public areas of a restaurant. The provision of additional square footage
for storage, whether provided in a basement or on the main floor, would have a minimal
impact on the occupancy of the building. In the case of the proposed 1,200 square foot
basement at 200 Scott Court, the overall occupancy of the building would have increased
by only 4 persons (one person per 300 square feet of storage area). If however, that
1,200 square feet of basement area were to result in a corresponding increase in the size
of the seating area on the main floor, the increase in the occupancy load would be much
greater (generally, one person per 15 square feet or 80).
Using occupancy to establish a threshold would be more appropriate than size of seating
area or floor area of the restaurant. For instance, the occupancy of a certain size seating
area can vary by the type of seating being provided (booths vs. moveable tables and chairs,
counter space, etc.). In addition, some restaurants with relatively little kitchen and storage
space in relation to their seating areas might meet an overall floor area limitation, but result
in a much more intensive use than others of the same size (China Buffet and Jimmy's Brick
Oven Cafe on the attached table appear to have obtained a fairly high occupancy in relation
to their floor area). To determine an appropriate occupancy limit for restaurants in the CN-
1 zone which roughly corresponds to the 2,500 square feet now permitted, some analysis
of the information contained on the attached table is necessary. One approach might be to
sort the restaurants into categories based on whether or not they seem appropriate for the
CN-1 zone, and see if such a categorization suggests an appropriate occupancy level for a
neighborhood commercial center restaurant. Another approach might be to come up with
an estimate of the occupancy load of a typical 2,500 square foot restaurant, the figure
currently being used, and establish the threshold in that manner. Both approaches are
discussed below.
In categorizing the restaurants found in the attached table, staff feels that the following
restaurants might be considered to be appropriate for a neighborhood commercial zone:
Floor Area
Name Occupancy (including basement)
Blimpie/Heyn's 98' 2974
Blimpie (Rochester) 32* 1000
Bruegger's 72 3000
Chill & Grill 43 2300
Cottage 90' 3160
Hamburg Inn 50 3200
Happy Joes 65 2212
Hungry Hobo 1 O0 3220
Linn St Care 70 1716
Quizno's 34* 1232
Sushi Po Po 63 1836
*Number of seats vs. occupancy load
Note: Restaurants appearing on the attached table for which an occupancy load was not listed were excluded
from this list, as well as fast food type restaurants which would typically be accompanied by a drive-thru
service not permitted in the CN-1 zone.
Most of these restaurants clearly meet the intent of the neighborhood commercial zone,
although those with occupancy loads of 90 to 100 may be pushing the limit of what should
be permitted in the CN-1 zone without the need for a special exception review. The figures
suggest that an occupancy load of less than 100 be used as the threshold for requiring a
special exception. Those with occupancy loads of over 100 seem to be more regional in
nature and are perhaps more appropriate for different commercial zones, unless it can be
demonstrated through the special exception review process that they will not have a
substantial impact on the surrounding neighborhood and will be compatible with the
neighborhood in terms of design and scale.
In considering the second approach, staff divided the total occupancy of each restaurant
listed in the attached table by the gross floor area of the facility, to determine how much
floor area each contains per one unit of occupancy. In most cases, about 30 square feet of
overall restaurant space is provided per one occupant, although this can fluctuate based on
the amount of floor area devoted to kitchen and storage space. Both the mean and median
of the resulting ratios also equals approximately 30. If this factor is applied to a 2,500 to
3,000 square foot restaurant, an occupancy load of between 83 and 100 persons is
suggested as an appropriate CN-1 zone restaurant size.
Both methods suggest a similar occupancy range for establishing a maximum restaurant
size that should be permitted by right within the CN-1 zone. Similar to the existing
regulations, this maximum threshold would be established for restaurants to be permitted
as provisional uses, and those above this limit would be required to seek Board approval of
a special exception. Such a standard would address the component of the restaurant that
most closely reflects the degree of impact that it is likely to have on the surrounding
neighborhood. The size of the kitchen or storage area is not nearly as relevant as the
number of people that can be accommodated at the facility. Staff continues to recommend
that no drive-thru or drive-up facilities be permitted in the CN-1 zone.
One drawback associated with this option has to do with the amount of information that
needs to be submitted by an applicant at the time of special exception review. Rather than
submitting more general preliminary plans at the special exception stage, and spending the
money to refine those plans only if the special exception is approved, and applicant must
now have more detailed plans prepared prior to the special exception review to determine
what the occupancy of a restaurant will be, at the risk of the plans not being approved by
the Board of Adjustment.
Summary: Changes are being suggested to the CNol regulations pertaining to restaurants
because of difficulties that one developer has had in gaining approval for the construction
of a restaurant at 200 Scott Court. Whatever course of action the Commission and City
Council choose to take on this matter, staff recommends that the changes be well thought
out and thoroughly examined to determine whether they are best for the CN-1 zone and the
development of neighborhood oriented commercial centers. It is unwise to base a change
in zoning regulations on a single proposal without closely considering the impact that
change will have city-wide.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Iowa City Restaurants Characteristics List.
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and
Community Development
0 ~ 0
0 0 0 0
ZZ ~ Z
~$ 8 o$-~ o
MICHAEL W. KENNEDY
~JOHN D. CRUISE
STEVEN C. ANDERSON
KIRSTEN H. FREY
KANDIE K. BRISCOE
KENNEDY, CRUISE, ANDERSON ~ FREY, L.L.P.
LAWYERS
920 S. DUBUOUE STREET * P.O. BOX 2000
IOWA CITY, IOWA
52244
March 3, 1998
City Council Members
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
AREA CODE
tELEPHONE 351-8181
FAX 351-0605
OF COUNSEL.
CHARLES A. BARKER
Re:
Proposed Amendment to the Ordinance Regarding
Restaurants in the CN-1 Zone
Dear Council Members:
I represent Plum Grove Acres, Inc. It is my understanding
that you have before you for your consideration proposed amend-
ments to the CN-1 zone provisions of the zoning ordinance. I
would like to talk to you briefly about these proposed amendments
and the issue of restaurants in the CN-1 zone in general.
It is my understanding that you have been presented with a
proposed ordinance dealing with the appropriate size of restau-
rants in this commercial neighborhood area. I would like to urge
your favorable consideration of this proposed ordinance. In its
report, the Iowa City Staff asked you to develop an ordinance
that is well thought out and not merely designed to address the
needs of one restaurant owner. At the same time, City Staff goes
into great detail about the history of that one restaurant owner
and his attempts to obtain a special exception to operate a res-
taurant in a CN-1 zone in eastern Iowa City. I agree that the
ordinance should be designed to meet the needs of the community
as a whole and not the needs of the individual. However, the
story of that one restaurant owner is a prime example of why this
amendment to the ordinance is necessary.
The City Staff report points out that in 1996, approval of a
special exception was granted to Steve Kohli on behalf of John
and Ada Streit for a restaurant with 3,376 square feet and a 35
space parking lot with eleven spaces land banked. When a build-
Page -2-
March 3, 1998
ing permit was sought on the project, the applicant was told that
because there was a basement on the building plans, there was
more than 3,376 square feet in the building and, as a result, the
permit was denied. A new special exception request was filed
which included the area of the basement in the square footage
calculations. This request was denied, despite the fact that the
number of tables in the proposed restaurant in both applications
was the same.
The restrictions on the CN-1 zone are designed to make sure
that commercial uses within the area are consistent with the
neighborhood feel of the area and are not too intensive for the
surrounding residential property. In this case, the impact on
the neighborhood between the applications had not changed at all.
The foot print of the building was exactly the same; the number
of parking spaces was exactly the same; and the number of tables
was the same. The only difference was the inclusion of a non-
public basement storage area and office space in the square foot-
age calculations -! a change that has absolutely no impact on the
surrounding neighborhood.
As the attachment to this letter clearly points out, there
are 72 units of apartments and townhouses to the north of the
proposed site, 96 units to the south, 78 units to the west, and a
possible 60 or more units to the east. The net result is that at
least 548 people live within walking distance of the proposed
restaurant. This is clearly a perfect location for a restaurant
as anticipated by the commercial neighborhood zone.
Given the goals of the CN-1 zone and the restrictions on the
commercial uses therein, the use of an occupancy load requirement
makes more sense than the use of a square footage requirement.
The occupancy load tells us how many people the commercial use
can accommodate, which is directly tied to the restaurant's im-
pact on the neighborhood. The only real question is what occu-
pancy limit should be established for those uses which do not re-
quire a special exception.
With respect to the proposed ordinance before you, I would
like to point out a few things. First of all, in the Staff's re-
port to the Planning and Zoning Commission, a copy of which has
been presented to you, the Staff lays out 11 restaurants that it
believes clearly meet the intent of the CN-1 zone. This memoran-
dum, however, uses seating numbers for four of those restaurants
rather than occupancy figures so the occupancy numbers in this
chart are understated.
Page -3-
March 3, 1998
Second, City Staff points out that these 12 restaurants
clearly meet the intent of the CN-1 zone and should therefore be
used as references for determining what the appropriate limit on
occupancy should be. The staff then goes on to state that those
with high occupancy loads may be pushing the limit of the CN-1
zone. This statement clearly evidences faulty logic. The whole
purpose for looking to these restaurants as benchmarks is to de-
termine what the occupancy limit should be. One cannot say that
they are perfect examples of CN-1 restaurants except for the fact
that their occupancy levels are too high when the whole purpose
of looking at the restaurants is to determine an appropriate oc-
cupancy level.
Furthermore, one restaurant that is located in the CN-1 zone
has been left off this list. Jimmy's Brick Oven Caf~ has 3,126
square feet and has seating for 195 people. Its occupancy would
be even higher. In light of the fact that this restaurant was
approved in the CN-1 zone, it must be suited and appropriate for
the zone. Thus, we believe the appropriate occupancy limit at or
below which no special exception is required should be 130 per-
sons.
Finally, as long as you are considering whether or not to
amend this ordinance, it seems to me as though you might as well
correct other deficiencies in the existing ordinance at the same
time. The ordinance currently limits the total floor space used
by restaurants to 20% of the total commercial floor space in the
CN-1 zone. Other sections of this ordinance have been amended to
reflect the fact that this limitation is to "existing or pro-
posed" commercial space. Without this amendment, the issue of
what types of uses are acceptable in a CN-1 zone depends entirely
upon building order.
In summary, my client, Plum Grove Acres, Inc., respectfully
requests that you pass this ordinance by changing the eligibility
requirements to be based upon an occupancy load figure rather
than a square footage figure and that you establish the maximum
occupancy load at 130 persons. We are also requesting that you
change the ordinance to include the word "existing or proposed"
so that the second half of the ordinance will read as follows:
"and the total floor area allocated to restaurant use will not
exceed twenty percent (20%) of the existing or proposed total
public commercial floor area in a CN-1 zone."
I thank you for your time spent on this problem. I plan on
attending the City Council session to discuss this issue with you
in more detail and I will be available to answer your questions
Page -4-
March 3, 1998
at that time.
eration.
Once again, I thank you for your time and consid-
KHF/kas
cc: Bruce R. Glasgow
John A. Streit
kfS~\i62b594'~
Kirsten H. Frey ~
COURT HILL - SCOTT BOULEVARD PART IX
The area in question is surrounded by several multi-family
uses including:
NORTH: 52 apartment units and 20 townhouses
SOUTH: 72 apartment units and 22 townhouses
WEST:
36 apartment units, 26 duplexes and 16 units in existing
4-plexes
EAST: 7 vacant lots and 5 acres zoned for multi-family
Thus, this restaurant site is currently surrounded by 246
existing apartments and townhouses and has the possibility of
being surrounded by an additional 60 units. Assuming that there
are two persons per dwelling unit, at least 548 persons would be
within walking distance of the proposed restaurant site.
kfS\o62b5948
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing
will be held by the City Council of Iowa City,
Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 10~h day of March,
1998, in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; at
which hearing the Council will consider the
following:
1. An ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter
6, "Zoning," Article E, "Commercial and
Business Zones," Section 2, Neighborhood
Commercial Zone (CN-1) regarding size
restrictions on restaurants.
2~',~ An ordinance amending the approved
__ 2 preliminary Sensitive Areas Development
Plan for Lot 51 of Walden Hills, containing
2.9 acres and located within the OSA-8,
Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone at the
northeast corner of Shannon Drive and
Irving Avenue.
Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file
for public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
wishing to make their views known for Council
consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time and place.
MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
ppdadm~nJn!~0223.doc
Prepared by: Scott G. Kugler, Assoc. Planner, 410 E.
Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING
CHAPTER BY CONDITIONALLY AMENDING
THE USE REGULATIONS AND THE
APPROVED PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR LOT 51 OF
WALDEN HILLS, A 2.9 ACRE PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE SENSITIVE AREAS
OVERLAY ZONE (OSA~) AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SHANNON DRIVE
AND IRVING AVENUE.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Walden Wood
Associates, II, LLC, has requested that the City
rezone approximately 2.9 acres of property
located at the northeast comer of Shannon Drive
and Irving Avenue by amending the approved use
regulations under the approved sensitive areas
development plan for Lot 51 of Walden Hills; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning will allow
alterations to the plan which will result in a lower
density and an improved streetscape; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code ~j414.5 (1997) provides
that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning
request, over and above existing regulations, in
order to satisfy public needs directly caused by
the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the applicant acknowledges and
agrees that certain conditions and restrictions are
reasonable to ensure that the proposed
development will not negatively impact the
existing residential neighborhood to the east,
specifically by providing for adequate access to
the proposed development and by addressing
neighborhood compatibility through ensuring a
development similar in appearence to that
indicated on plans and elevations submitted by
the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to develop
and use this property in accordance with the
terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning
Agreement to ensure that access and
neighborhood compatibility issues are
appropriately addressed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY
Ordinance No.
Page 2
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. APPROVAL. Subject to the terms
and conditions of the Conditional Zoning
Agreement attached hereto and incorporated by
reference herein, the previously approved
Sensitive Areas Development Plan for the
following described property is hereby amended
as depicted on the revised Sensitive Areas
Development plan associated with this ordinance:
Lot 51, Walden Hills, Iowa City, Iowa, in
accordance with the recorded plat thereof.
SFCTION II. TONING MAP. The Building
Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to
change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City,
Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final
passage, approval and publication of this
Ordinance as provided by law.
SI=CTION III. CONDITIONAL ?ONING
AGRFEMFNT. Following final passage and
approval of this Ordinance, the Mayor is hereby
authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk
to attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement
between the applicant and the City.
SFCTION IV. CFRTIFICATION AND
RFCORDING. After passage and approval of the
Ordinance, and after execution of the Conditional
Zoning Agreement, the City Clerk is hereby
authorized and directed to certify a copy of this
Ordinance and the Conditional Zoning Agreement
for recordation in the Office of the County
Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the
Applicant's expense, all as provided by law.
SFCTION V. RFPFALI=R. All ordinances and
parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions
of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SFCTION VI. SFVI=RABILITY. If any section,
provision or part of the Ordinance shall be
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such
adjudication shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or
part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti-
tutional.
SFCTION VII. FFFFCTIVF DATE. This Ordi-
nance shall be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of
,1998.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 30, 1998 (for February 5 meeting)
To:
Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Scott Kugler, Associate Planner
Re:
REZ97-0018/SUB97-0030. Lot 51, Walden Hills.
Attached please find a copy of the most recent version of the revised preliminary sensitive
areas development plan and preliminary plat for Lot 51 of Walden Hills. The most recent
change involves the proposed subdivision of the lot into 25 small lots ranging in size from
2,589 square feet to 5,041 square feet, with the remaining 1.25 acres being designated as
an outlot for open space and the private drives. A typical building lot would contain one
dwelling unit, a driveway to an attached garage at the rear of the building, and side yards
of 3.5 feet. The appearance of the development would be no different than the most
recent proposal, which showed all of the units on one lot, but with an identical building
arrangement. The subdivided lots would allow potential buyers more favorable finance
terms in purchasing the units, according to the applicant. Staff recommended approval of
the previous version of the plan.
Staff feels that the proposed small lot concept is in line with the design guidelines
contained within the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, as well as the Housing Goals and
Strategies contained on page 45 of the Comprehensive Plan, encouraging smaller owner
occupied houses on smaller lots. In addition, the proposal is consistent with the concepts
presented in the Iowa City Community Housing Forum Report (December, 1997) regarding
small lot zoning and reduced lot widths. While the recommendations contained in these
documents generally suggest lots of 4,000 square feet, most of the proposed lots in this
development contain less than 3,000 square feet. However, the gross area per dwelling
unit for this development, including the shared open space of Outlot 51-A, is over 5,000
square feet. The individual lot lines could be redrawn such that most lots contain over
4,000 square feet by extending them farther back onto the property over the access drives
and the outlot. The resulting development would be no different than that being proposed.
The proposed lot lines seems to make it more clear that the open space on the outlot is to
be shared by all, rather than split into separate ownerships. Because of the large common
open space being provided, staff feels that the lot size, lot width, and setback reductions
being requested are justified.
Other Zoning Chapter compliance issues, such as parking and tree requirement. s, are
adequately provided for on the plan. The City's tree regulations would not normally apply
to single-family lots. However, staff feels that this is a planned residential development
with multiple dwelling units regardless of how the lots are being split up, and that the tree
requirements should be enforced as part of the development plan approval. The plan
shows an adequate number of trees to meet the requirements of the Zoning Chapter.
In terms of technical compliance with the City's subdivisions regulations, it appears that
the plat is in conformance with the City's subdivision regulations, provided that the City
agrees to the proposed lot size, lot width, and side yard reductions being proposed. There
are some minor deficiencies that will need to be addressed, but it is anticipated that these
items will be addressed prior to the February 5 meeting. Staff recommends that these
items be addressed before the Commission votes on the plat.
The Senior Building Official has noted that although the building separation distances are
adequate, the amount of overhang on the units will be limited to six inches unless
constructed of non-combustible materials. There is a six-foot separation required between
the buildings, with an allowable one-foot projection into that area. However, another
provision of the building code requires that any projections into the six-foot required area
be of non-combustible materials. The buildings are proposed to be seven feet apart, which
leaves six inches for an overhang for each building without encroaching into the six-foot
required area. This may slightly impact the building elevations submitted for these units.
Given the number of units contained within the overall subdivision, staff recommends that
as a condition on the approval of the plat, that Shannon Drive be constructed from Rohret
Road to its intersection with Irving Avenue prior to the development of any lot within this
subdivision, and to the north property line of former lot 51 prior to the development of Lots
68-79. Staff feels that this is necessary to avoid excess traffic from this development
utilizing the streets within the existing neighborhood to the east. Although some of the
roads within Walden Hills have been constructed, the current street system would
encourage the use of Coil Drive or other streets within the Walden Woods subdivision for
access. Connecting Shannon Drive directly to Rohret Road would provide a more direct
access to the proposed lots and help avoid additional traffic within Walden Woods.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ97-0018/SUB97-0030, a request for a revised preliminary
sensitive areas development plan and preliminary plat of a Resubdivision of Lot 51, Walden
Hills, a 2.9 acre, 25-1ot residential subdivision located at the northeast corner of Shannon
Drive and Irving Avenue, be approved, subject to the construction of Shannon Drive from
Rohret Road to its intersection with Irving Avenue prior to any development on Lots 55-79,
and extended to the north in front of lots 68-79 prior to or concurrent with the
development of said lots 68-79, subject to the appearance of the dwellings substantially
conforming to the elevations and illustrations submitted by the applicant, and subject to
approval of a revised grading plan prior to Council consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map.
2. Preliminary plat and revised sensitive areas development plan.
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and
Community Development
<C
0
0
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
January 9, 1998 (for January 15 meeting)
Planning & Zoning Commission
Scott Kugler, Associate Planner
REZ97-0018/SUB97-0030. Lot 51, Walden Hills
At the December 18 meeting this item was deferred at the request of the applicant to allow
it time to consider the possibility of subdividing this property into individual lots. Staff has
received no revised plans or other information indicating the applicant's intent. As
indicated at the December 18 meeting, the current plan on file is ready to be voted on and
staff recommends approval of that plan if the applicant chooses to go forward with it.
Please refer to the staff recommendation below in this instance. If the applicant intends to
submit revised plans, staff recommends deferral to allow sufficient time for staff review. A
waiver of the 45-day limitation period will be needed if this item is to be deferred again.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ97-0018/SUB97-0030, a request for a revised preliminary
sensitive areas development plan and preliminary plat for Lot 51 of Walden Hills, a 2.9
acre, 25-unit development located at the northeast corner of Shannon Drive and Irving
Avenue, be approved, subject to the construction of Shannon Drive to provide vehicular
access to Rohret Road prior to the issuance of building permits for Lot 51, and subject to
approval of a revised grading plan prior to Council consideration.
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and
Community Development
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
December 12, 1997 (for December 18 meeting)
Planning and Zoning Commission
Scott Kugler, Associate Planner
REZ97-OO18/SUB97-0030. Lot 51, Walden Hills
Attached please find a copy of the revised preliminary sensitive areas development plan
and preliminary plat for Lot 51 of Walden Hills, as well as building elevations for the
detached dwellings being proposed for the site. The plan now indicates that a total of 25
dwelling units are to be constructed along Shannon Drive and Irving Avenue. The four
town house units previously proposed for the rear of the lot have been removed from the
plan and replaced with an area of open space.
The building elevations indicate that four different floor plans will be utilized in the
development, each with three different facade treatments available. Although the plan
does not indicate how the different types of units will be distributed on the site, it appears
that there will be some variety within the streetscape, which the Commission felt was
important in earlier discussions. The elevation drawings indicate that the units will contain
two or three bedrooms, and range in size from 998 to 1470 square feet.
Staff feels that the revised plan represents an improvement over the previously approved
plan for Lot 51, will present a more attractive appearance from the street, and will be more
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood once this subdivision is built out. Concerns
were raised earlier about the "garagescape" being created behind the units. This is a result
of removing the garages and driveways from the front yard, and while it may be somewhat
less attractive at the rear of the homes, staff feels this is outweighed by the improvement
to the appearance of the development from the street and neighborhood.
Staff feels that the removal of the four town house units previously proposed at the rear of
the lot will improve the development in a number of ways. It will create an area of usable
open space for the residents of the lot, which was lacking in previous versions of the plan.
Although Lot 51 is adjacent to a large outlot, this outlot provides for mainly passive
recreational uses and a trail. Since the design of the dwelling units with the attached
garages provides no "back yard," the open space will likely be appreciated by future
residents, as it could provide an area for a grill, picnic table, sunbathing, or a play area for
children. A better view of the pond and Willow Creek natural area will also be provided for
all of the units, rather than just those few along the north edge of the lot. In addition, the
change in design will result in the private drives at the rear of the units being single-loaded
rather than double-loaded, which should help to mitigate the appearance of the rear
garages.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ97-0018/SUB97-0030, a request for a revised preliminary
sensitive areas development plan and preliminary plat for Lot 51 of Walden Hills, a 2.9
acre, 25 unit development located at the northeast corner of Shannon Drive and Irving
Avenue, be approved.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map.
2. Preliminary sensitive areas development plan and preliminary plat.
3. Proposed building elevations.
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and
Community Development
,,', //
WA T£R TO WN
BEDROOMS
2. 5 BATHS
GE OR GE TO WN
1276SQ FT.
!iXTlil.;l()l{ (;
F. XTF, I(101~.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ97-0018/SUB97-0030. Lot 51, Walden
Hills: Amended SADP and Preliminary Plat
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact person:
Requested action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing land use and zoning:
Surrounding land use and zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Applicable Code requirements:
File date:
45-day limitation period:
Prepared by: Scott Kugler
Date: November 6, 1997
Walden Wood Associates, II, LLP
325 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Phone: 337-4195
MMS Consultants
1917 S. Gilbert St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Phone: 351-8282
Approval of an amended Sensitive
Areas Development Plan and
Preliminary Plat for Lot 51 of Walden
Hills.
To alter the proposed development plan
and easement locations for this lot.
At the northeast corner of the
proposed Shannon Drive and Irving
Avenue.
2.9 acres
Vacant, OSA-8
North:
East:
South:
West:
Willow Creek, West High;
Vacant, OSA-8;
Vacant, OSA-8;
Vacant, OSA-8.
Residential, 2-8 dwelling units per acre
Chapter 14-7, Land Subdivisions
October 16, 1997
November 30, 1997
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Walden Woods Associates II, LLP, is requesting approval of an amended
preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan and preliminary plat for Lot 51 of Walden Hills,
containing 2.9 acres. Previously, Lot 51 was to be the site of 35 dwelling units, including
three four-plexes along Shannon Drive and 23 attached units in groups of three, six and eight
per building, with the buildings running perpendicular to Irving Avenue. The revised plan
includes the four-plexes as previously proposed, but the other units are to be replaced with
20 town houses arranged mainly along Irving Avenue with the garage access to the rear of
the buildings, for a total of 32 dwelling units. With the revised plan, the location of storm
and sanitary sewer lines and access easements would change, and thus a revised preliminary
plat for this lot is also being proposed.
ANALYSIS:
Preliminary Plat: The only reason to revise the preliminary plat for this Lot is the revised
access plan and easement locations. There are a few corrections that are needed on the
plat/plan. Staff recommends deferral pending resolution of these items. A revised grading
plan is also required as a result of the changes to this plan. This should be approved prior to
Council consideration of the plat.
Revised Sensitive Areas Development Plan: Lot 51 does not contain any sensitive features
requiring review under the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. However, this lot was contained on
the overall Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Walden Hills. Major changes to the
previously approved plan requires an amended plan. Although this plan is called an amended
Sensitive Areas Development Plan, the City is really being asked to approve a revised housing
arrangement on this lot. No sensitive features contained within the Walden Hills development
will be impacted further as a result of the revised plan.
Staff feels the proposed plan for Lot 51 is an improvement over the previously approved plan.
The revised plan will present a more attractive appearance to the rest of the neighborhood
than the previous proposal. The drive behind the townhouses will function similar to an alley
and remove the garages for these units from the streetscape. Staff recommends that the
applicant consider also replacing the proposed four-plexes with similar townhouse units,
which would also improve the traffic situation along Shannon Drive. The four-plexes along
Shannon drive would result in six of the units having driveways backing out onto the collector
street. A similar townhouse arrangement could be designed to share the access drive being
proposed along Irving Avenue. Since the four-plexes were approved in the previous plan, staff
feels it is not reasonable to require this change to the plans, but passes this recommendation
on to the developer as a suggestion for approving the development. As an incentive for
changing the plan, it may also be possible to reclaim some of the dwelling units being lost as
a result of the revised plan.
The four units being proposed at the rear of the lot are not the most desirable in terms of
their visibility or the view from the front of the units, which will consist of garage doors and
decks of the units fronting on Irving Avenue. However, these units will have a view of the
pond and stream corridor open space located to the north of the lot.
Staff is concerned about the construction of these units prior to the construction of Shannon
Drive out to Rohret Road. This would result in a great deal of traffic traveling through the
Walden Wood subdivision initially. Therefore, staff recommends that the approval of this
plan and plat be conditioned on the improvement of Shannon Drive prior to the issuance of
building permits for Lot 51.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ97-O018/SUB97-0030 be deferred pending the resolution of the
deficiencies and discrepancies listed below. Upon resolution of these items, staff
recommends that the request for a revised preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan for
Lot 51 of Walden Hills be approved, and that the request for a revised preliminary plat for Lot
51 of Walden Hills be approved, subject to the approval of a revised grading plan prior to City
Council consideration of the plat, and subject to the improvement of Shannon Drive to
provide a connection to Rohret Road prior to the issuance of building permits for Lot 51.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
The legend contains some errors and missing information.
DEVELOPERS ATTORNEY needs an apostrophe (DEVELOPER'S).
Public Works has not yet commented on the revised plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
2.
3.
4.
Location map.
Revised preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan and preliminary plat.
Previous plan for Lot 51.
Building elevations for proposed townhouses.
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and
Community Development
0
0
z
Z
0
]
O0
OL~
Z
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the City Council
of Iowa City will hold a public hearing on the
loth day of March, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of the City of Iowa City,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa,
regarding a long-term management plan for the
reduction and maintenance of the deer
population in Iowa City.
Persons interested in expressing their views
concerning this matter, either verbally or in
writing, will be given the opportunity to be
heard at the above-mentioned time and place.
03/06/98 11:06 ~3193351535 U of I ADMISSION ~]002/002
DeerMana§ement Commiteee Minority Report"* ....
There were things I liked about Plan B (e.g., the nesting of the four items relating to the killing of deer under 4b.; the wording of 4e.),
but the wording of 4d. bothered me too much to vote for Plan B.
As an editor, I "do" words for a living. For me, there is a significant difference in meaning between ~may be utilized" and "will be
considered." It is possible to interpret "may" as "permi~ion" or as "perhaps." I like that leeway. "Will" is an imperative.
The word "utilized" implies action. Ironically, "considered" is the wor. d peop.le on the..committeq. used when they talked about the
meaning of section 4d., however there was resistance to'r~pla 'clog' "utilized" with "considered."
Who knows what methods to maintain the deer herd may be utilized in the future? But don't we all believe that every available method
should be "considered?"
The other sticking point for me was that I believe each individual on this committee compromised quite enough to reach the
unanimous consensus to select sharpshooting as the best method of removing deer from our community. It bothered me that the DNR/
NRC's unhappiness with our decision held as much sway over the committee as it did. [ prefer not to play that game.
Respectfully,
Janet ~
905 Fifth Ave.
Iowa City, LA 52240
March 6, 1998