The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-03-2005 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, February 3, 2005 . 7:30 PM Formal Meeting City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order. B. Election of Officers. C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda. D. Amendment Item: Discussion of amendments to the Zoning Code, Section 14-6-0 Sign Regulations, to permit electronic changeable copy signs in the Community Commercial (CC-2), Highway Commercial (CH-1), and Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zones. E. Other Items: F. Consideration of the January 20,2005 Meeting Minutes. G. Adjournment. Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings: City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM January 27, 2005 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard - Associate Planner Re: Electronic Changeable Copy Signs In response to a request from Iowa State Bank and Trust Company, the Commission asked staff to research and draft an amendment to the sign regulations to allow signs where the copy can be changed electronically. Subsequent to that request, the City also received a letter from Sign Productions, Inc., writing on behalf of Conoco/Phillips gas stations. Conoco/Phillips is updating signs for all their fueling stations nationwide and would like to have electronically changeable gas price signs. A copy of their letter is attached. The City's regulations currently allow signs where the copy is changed manually, but not electronically. While electronic changeable copy signs provide greater flexibility and convenience for the property owner, they can also cause problems if they are animated, too bright, contain large video-type images, or if there are too many of them. In the current ordinance, electronic changeable copy signs are considered "animated" signs. Animated signs are prohibited in Iowa City due to concerns about traffic safety, sign clutter, and aesthetics. If a sign has flashing, scrolling, or moving images or text, or lighting that is too bright, it can be very distracting to drivers. Due to advances in technology, the use of light emitting diode (LED) displays are becoming more common. LED signs can be several magnitudes brighter than other types of illuminated signs, so if not properly controlled can produce glare that is disabling to drivers. Sign clutter is also an issue. Due to their brightness and appearance of movement a proliferation of such signs can make a commercial area look cluttered, making it more difficult to distinguish between businesses. LED technology also opens up the possibility for bright video-type images, a proliferation of which may change the character of any given commercial area. For these reasons many cities prohibit or restrict the use of such signs. Changes to the ordinance that would allow electronic changeable copy should, therefore, be carefully considered in order to address concerns about animation, sign clutter, and brightness. Attached is a draft of an amendment to the current sign regulations that would allow electronic changeable copy signs with the following restrictions. 1 · Such signs would be limited to the Community Commercial (CC-2), Intensive Commercial (CI-1), and Highway Commercial (CH-1) Zones and could not be located within 100 feet of a Residential Zone. These commercial zones are generally located along major streets and highways and away from residential neighborhoods. · Electronic changeable copy would only be allowed on freestanding and freestanding, wide-base signs. The changeable copy portion of the sign could not exceed 40 percent of the area of the sign face. In the current code, the maximum size of these types of signs is 125 square feet per sign face, so the 40% limit would allow 50 square feet of electronic signage per sign face (100 square feet on a double-faced sign). The allowance is greater for properties close to the interstate highway and for "common signs" for properties that contain more than one business, so on such signs, the electronic changeable copy portion could also be larger. · Electronic changeable copy would be allowed on only one sign per lot. Limiting the number will help prevent sign clutter. Since freestanding signs are typically double- sided signs, it will allow electronic signage on two sign faces per lot. · Iowa City currently allows electronic time and temperature signs. Changing the definition of time and temperature signs to exclude it from the definition of changeable copy signs will allow a property owner to add electronic copy to a freestanding sign on the property without having to eliminate an existing time and temperature sign that is attached to the building. · The sign copy may be changed no more than once per hour and may not be animated (no scrolling, flashing, or moving text or images). · To address concerns about excessive brightness, the proposed regulations contain language to prevent signage that might interfere with, obstruct the view of, or confuse drivers and must meet certain illumination standards. New language is necessary to address LED technology. Of particular importance is a provision that requires such signs to use a dark background with only the sign copy illuminated. in a single color. This will prevent signs where the entire display' is lit except for the sign copy or text. Allowing only monochromatic signs will prevent video-type images and help to prevent potential problems of disability glare and light pollution. In addition, the proposed regulations include a provision requiring that LED signs have ambient light monitors that will automatically adjust the brightness level of the sign based on the ambient light conditions. In a recent phone conversation with representatives from Sign Productions, Inc., it was evident that they may advocate for more far-reaching amendments to the sign ordinance to, allow video image-type signs. The changes proposed herein will allow the type of signs requested by Iowa State Bank and Trust Company and Conoco/Phillips, but will not allow animated or multi-colored video-image type signs. If the Commission believes that a more far-reaching amendment should be considered, staff suggests that this amendment be deferred until the pros and cons of LED video image signs can be more fully researched and discussed. In summary, these proposed amendments to the Zoning Code are in response to a request submitted to the Commission by Iowa State Bank and Trust Company and by Sign Productions, Inc, on behalf of Conoco/Phillips, to allow electronic changeable copy signs to replace reader boards that are changed manually. The changes will provide 2 flexibility and ease of use to the sign owner, but not open the door to animated signs or video-image signs that may change the character of Iowa City's commercial streets and districts. The proposed changes to the regulations will be particularly useful for banks, gas stations, and other businesses that currently use changeable copy to display changing rates, products, and prices. ATTACHMENTS: · Proposed amendment to the sign ordinance · Letter and attachments from Sign Productions, Inc. Approved by: /~~. Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development 3 Amend 14-60-2: Definitions, as follows: ANIMATED SIGN: Any sign or part of a sign th:tt mo','es or h:!s intermittent lighting which. throuah the use of movina structural elements. flashina or seauentialliahts. liahtina elements. or other automated method. results in movement. or the appearance of movement. CHANGEABLE COPY/CHANGEABLE COpy SIGN: A sign, or part of a sian, such as a reader board, with components om:ily ch:!ngeablo by physic:!1 and not electronic methods where the copy is easily changed manually or by electronic means, but is not animated. TIME AND TEMPERATURE SIGN: An identification sign which shows the current time and temperature in an electronic digital format in a manner similar to that illustrated below. At least 40 percent of each sign face shall be devoted to the display of time and temperature. For purposes of this Title. a Time and Temperature Sian is not considered a chanaeable copv sian. Amend 14-60-4B-1 as follows: 1. Changeable Copy Signs: a. Anv sian mav contain copv that is chanaed manuallv. Such signs shall be installed in accordance with the dimensional requirements of the zone in which the sign is located. b. Sians where the copv is chanaed bv electronic means are onlv allowed as specified below: 1). The sian must be located in a CC-2. CH-1, or CI-1 Zone. but mav not be located within 100 feet of a Residential Zone. 2). Electronic chanaeable copv is allowed on onlv one sian per lot. 3). The chanaeable copv mav not be animated (See definition of ANIMATED SIGN in Article 14-9C. Sian Definitions). The copv mav be chanaed no more than once per hour. 4). The sian mav not contain imaaes or be of a briahtness that will interfere with. obstruct the view of. or confuse traffic. The sian mav not contain imaaes that mav be confused with anv authorized traffic sian. sianal or device. The sian mav not make use of the words. "stoP." "ao slow." "caution." "drive in." "danaer." or anv other word. phrase. svmbol or character in such a wav as to interfere with. mislead or confuse traffic. S). The sian must complv with the illumination standards as specified in the followina subsection. 6). Electronic chanaeable copv is onlv allowed on freestandina sians and freestandina. wide-base sians. which must be installed in accordance with the dimensional reauirements of the zone in which the sian is located. 7). The electronic chanaeable cOPV portion of the sian mav not exceed 40 percent of the area of the sian face. Add the following paragraphs to 14-60-7D. Illuminated Signs: 5. Illumination throuah the use of LEDs is allowed on Iv as specified for electronic chanaeable cOPV. All sians usina LEDs must have installed ambient liaht monitors that automatically adiust the briahtness level of the electronic sian based on ambient liaht conditions. At no time shall the sian be operated at a brightness level areater than the manufacturer's recommended levels. The electronic chanaeable COpy must be monochromatic. It must utilize a dark backaround with only the messaae or imaae lit in a sinale color. 6. Permit applications for electronic chanaeable COpy sians must include a cOPV of the manufacturer's operatina manual. which includes the manufacturer's recommended standards for briahtness and other display operations. 7. For electronic chanaeable COpy sians. whether the sian is proarammed from the site or from a remote location. the computer interface that programs the sian shall be made available to the Buildina Official. or desianee. for inspection upon reauest. If the computer interface in not immediately available. the sian shall cease operation until such proaram can be provided. ~""GlN __.I.J~"i-¡~ DESIGNERS & f3UILDERS OF CUSTOM SIGNS Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission Attn: Jan Ream 410 East Washington S t Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Ms. Ream, Re: Upgrades to Pylon signs located: Delimart #1 1920 Lower Muscatine Rd Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Delimart #2 525 Highway 1 West Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Conoco/ Phillips are changing the look of all fueling stations nation wide over the next few years. Included in the image change was the approval for their customers to upgrade gas price changers to LED. In the Cedar Rapids/Iowa City/Coralville area all Conoco/Phillips marketers will be upgrading their fueling centers. If they are to remain consistent with other Conoco/Phillips marketers the opportunity to upgrade to LED Gas pricers needs to be addressed. Conoco/Phillips has approved Sign Productions to manage the Oasis project in this area. We would like to request a meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission oflowa City to discuss a change in the sign ordinance code allowing LED gas pricers. The units will be Daktronics 2ft high x 6ft long Double faced LED Gas Price Sign. Control unit at base of sign with 18" LED characters. The signs will have a single price displayed. The units can not be changed to allow scrolling messages. Enclosed are drawing of how the signs would look if LED gas pricers are approved. Discussion points: Unifonnity for Conoco/Phillips Ease of Maintenance for customer Safety Aesthetics Please let me know when it would be convenient to meet? 1010 FIRST ST. NW . CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 52405 . 319-364-6697 . FAX 319-363-8034 AS/GIN 6Iili1i1i11Jii.[.J~I-¡=tfŒJSI DESIGNERS & BUILDERS OF CUSTOM SIGNS Sincerely, 1010 FIRST ST. NW · CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 52405 . 319-384-8897 . FAX 319-383-8034 I~NI'SND'-L:::JnDDl:ld --~--~~-- ~ ~ -- ~- -- IR!JwO¡jJ(fj Z# 1~'V1N 1130 SdllllHd O:>ONO:> ~ ~ !;: I !¡ I æ ~G ",[!Ii Q~(') i~~~ ~8~"'i ~Œ~i (,).~~~S' ~58Œ¡" :¡"C~CI)e ::> . ~ ~ it ;;!~;'d~ ~. .. III .. a~;¡...I>:: I¡¡:~~ ~ ~ u ~~ :z:a ~¡., ~~ (.)æ I!¡~ I~ ~ lr-~ ~ ~ ~~ ~¡¡¡ lIð ;! :¡¡; Ii ~ ~ :¡: i3g ZÙi¡§ 0~!5 ¡:Œ~ Q.~'" -~5 a:'~ U§!i1 UlQ¡::: w~~ O~!h m!!!!:! 0;;;;';' ,~{¡! :i::~ ~~ ou .. ~ <:J - '" ~ ~ ~ ;;::: (.) . ~ ¡;¡ t! 0.... . :!;I~ i I ¡ ~ ~ ~ ~;¡ ~ ~ ð a ~ '" 3~ @~~ ~8o tt ~IH~ . !Ig~; ~~~~i5 ~ ~ I i!i ~ ~ ~ I ~ ., ~ ¡¡ ., i'! ;;: ~ ~ F5iV/'si\icn£5nacJt::ld !JYJ@)O{ff!fj , ~# 1~'V1I\I1l3a SdllllHd O:>ONO:> I!! i3 ð;:s ¡¡; ~~ ~ ~~ Zg: -0> º~i3 S! ~ I-~¡¡; Q. ...... .. §... :¡¡~ ::~ D iIQ~ -I~ ~ ¡. ~ u~~ fa:! Iß~~ Ii iiI Wi'" ~.. C:::¡CI !" ..& ...¡; ......i5~ &0 ¡. m~!!! o~ ~ J~ ~ OCi~ !r~ 13 ~~ I!ï ':: Ci ~ ")~::'i ~ I!:! ~o>¡r:: ~~ ~f:i ""~~ ~ ~'" 01: ~ lr-~ ¡¡ :±=--f- ~ ~ +=----¡ ~ ~ ~ . '" ~ In! .,~ ... i ~~ ¡~ I!!g ;! ~~~ 1iI~ ri¡¡ h . ~ ~ I!! (! ....(! C> ~ '" :ö: Ii! ~ ~ ~ ii'! '" Q ~I!!~ ii;;!m ;... ~ " ~ :!; "" '. :1 ~ i I i ~~ ~ !ü'i ale"".. II! II ~ w 8!; ~ :¡¡ !I is u ¡¡; ~¡~ii MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 20,2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Beth Koppes, Dean Shannon, Don Anciaux, Jerry Hansen, Bob Brooks MEMBERS ABSENT: Benjamin Chait STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Schnittjer, Bob Wilson, Evelyn Frey, Linda Huff, Kim Kirchner RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-1, (Brooks voting against) REZ004-00017/SUB04-00017, a rezoning from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Housing Overlay - Low Density Single-Family Residential (OPDH-5) zone and a preliminary plat of Village Green, Part XXIII and XXIV, an 83-lot residential subdivision on 25.67-acres of property located on Wintergreen Drive subject to the following conditions: A minimum 7-foot setback for Lots 85 to 102 and Lots 111 to 130 The front yard area must be landscaped with shrubs and a fence as illustrated on the OPDH plan Lots 65 to 84 and 131 to 134 must be a mixture of models A 1, A2. and B Identical combinations of zero-lot lines must not be repeated on adjacent lots The medial between driveways must be landscaped with a hedge as illustrated on the concept plan Where two driveways are located together, they will be tapered to minimize front yard paving The final landscaping plan be approved with the final OPDH plan Landscaping on Outlots must be installed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any of the lots. For individuals lots, landscaping be required when the occupancy permit is issued for that particular building or prior to. CALL TO ORDER: Anciaux called the meeting to order at 7:32 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING/SUBDIVISION ITEM: REZ004-00017/SUB04-00017, discussion of an application submitted by Third Street Partners for a rezoning from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Housing Overlay - Low Density Single-Family Residential (OPDH-5) zone and a preliminary plat of Village Green, Part XXIII and XXIV, an 83-lot residential subdivision on 25.67-acres of property located on Wintergreen Drive. Miklo said Staff report had been given at the two previous meetings so he would provide a brief recap. The area to be rezoned included a large open space outlot for stormwater detention. It was a planned development overlay which represented an increase in density over what would normally be allowed in an RS-5 zone. Staff had estimated that if the same street layout were used, there would be approximately 25 more housing units in the proposed design than in a standard RS-5 subdivision with 60-foot / 8,OOO-square foot lots. Some increase in density had been approved in 1993 with an OPDH plan. With the proposed smaller, narrower lots there would be an increase of 17-additional units. The proposed plan would allow attached units, otherwise in a single-family zone attached units were not allowed. For the central lots a decrease in lot area of about 60% was proposed compared to the normally required 8,000 square-foot lot. For the adjacent zero-lot lines the reduction in lot area/lot width Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2005 Page 2 would be approximately 25%. Miklo said with this particular OPDH plan there were a lot of variances from the RS-5 zone being requested. Questions that should be considered when reviewing an OPDH plan included: Was the increase in density warranted by the design of the development? In this particular case was it better than the previously approved OPDH plan granted in 1993? Was it compatible with the intent of the RS-5 zone that applied to much of that part of Iowa City? Was it compatible with the Comprehensive Plan? Miklo said for the lots that had rear lanes or a private alley in the back, Staff felt it would be possible to reduce the lot width for those lots. Staff was concerned about the proposed 5-foot setback for those particular lots and recommended that it be a minimum of 7-feet and that it be landscaped between the house and the street. The applicant had submitted four basic building models and proposed that two of the models be required for Lots 65 -72 and all four models be permitted for the remainder of the narrow lots. Miklo said when looking at the overall plan, it should be a cohesive neighborhood. The intent / spirit of the RS-5 zone should be honored throughout the development. Staff questioned if the proposed models would be compatible with the overall character of the proposed development in that particular location and with the existing RS-5 neighborhood on Sterling Drive. Miklo said Staff recommended that if the Commission chose to approve the application that the following eight conditions be required as part of the approval: · A minimum 7 -foot set back for Lots 85 to 102 and Lots 111 to 130 · The front yard area must be landscaped with shrubs and a fence as illustrated on the OPDH plan · Lots 65 to 84 and 131 to 134 must be a mixture of models A1, A2 and B. Miklo said Staff did not recommend the approval of proposed dwelling models C and D. It was a judgment call whether models C and D were compatible but Staff did not think they were compatible with what had been proposed or with the character of the zone. · Identical combinations of zero-lot lines must not be repeated on adjacent lots · The median between driveways must be landscaped with an evergreen hedge as illustrated on the concept plan · Where two driveways are located together they will be tapered to minimize front yard paving · The final landscaping plan be approved with the final OPDH Plan · Landscaping on common Outlots must be installed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any of the lots (To address the concern about the lack of landscaping that had occurred on the Outlot.) · For individuals lots, landscaping be required when the occupancy permit is issued for that particular building or prior to. Anciaux asked if the requirement for evergreen landscaping in the median between the driveways would cause a sight problem. Miklo said near the street they would probably want to have it 2-feet or lower, there were evergreen species available that wouldn't grow taller than two feet. The intent was to help break up the mass of the concrete. The large amount of front-yard paving on the narrower lots was one of the things that made that model less compatible with the neighborhood. Shannon said it was his understanding that the developer would not build these homes. His concern was the restriction on a lot owner of not being able to build the model of home they chose if the same model was on the adjacent lot. Miklo said that was the case in most OPDH plans. People purchasing lots knew before hand what they were getting into when they bought into it. Miklo said if the builder wished to do a variation of the model that would be an option. It was a condition recommended by Staff but the Commission could modify or eliminate that particular recommendation. Staff's concern was that there could be an entire street with the same model. The underlying zone was an RS-5, typically in an RS-5 zone each house had some individuality or individual character. That was the point of trying to keep with the spirit of an RS-5 zone. On the overhead map Miklo indicated which lots met the RS-5 standards. On those lots any type of home could be built as long as they met the building codes and the standard set-back requirement that already applied. Miklo said no density increase, bonuses or any reduction in lot area was being given/received for those particular lots. Freerks suggested a compromise might be to have no more than two in a row. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2005 Page 3 Anciaux asked if a home owner brought in a completely different plan or different façade could they do something different? Miklo said recommendation #3 said, "variations in the façade designs being approved at the time of final OPDH plan" which provided options for customizing a person's home. For some OPDH plans the Commission had seen exact drawings of what would be built. For OPDH's like the Peninsula, there was a code that listed a menu of how a building could be put together, but that particular code was probably stricter than what they were looking at. Miklo said that because these are zero-lot lines so individual homeowners would not have a choice anyway because a builder would be constructing these two joined units and homeowners would buy them after that. Public discussion was opened. Larrv Schnittier, MMS Consultants, representing the developer. Schnittjer said for the units on the east side of the north-south street and on the south side of the east-west street, the concepts for those homes was to have considerable flexibility in the floor plan and somewhat flexibility in the footprint of what ever was to be built there. Given that the developer intended to sell the lots, the developer wouldn't want to have basically two sets of building plans that persons could chose from and then find a builder to build it. The developer's intent had been to set some parameters as to how the structures would be sited and less parameter on the architectural quality and character of the home including porches and facades. They didn't want to set floor plans and total structure design. Freerks said that was what was done in an OPDH. Schnittjer disagreed saying it could be interpreted that way but he felt there was enough flexibility in the OPDH plan to allow it to be something more flexible too. Freerks asked Schnittjer how he felt the bottom two plans went architecturally with the rest of the neighborhood. Schnittjer said they didn't view the lots that backed up to the railroad as being as much tied to the neighborhood as Staff did. That is why they wanted to pick additional styles that could be used in that space. They were adjacent to the neighborhood but were separated by the park and by the street. Miklo said the Commission was not looking at interior layout or approving a floor plan. They were looking at the façade and general footprint. Schnittjer said the illustration of the top home design was one of three that were very similar in footprint that he had selected to submit to show what could be built there. The other two designs didn't have the second story, the middle portion of the garage and various changes to them. Schnittjer said he'd like at least that much flexibility and a lot more. As long as the street side site plan was similar to what was illustrated the builder could use a totally different floor plan. His question was, Miklo had made the comment that these items had to be set out at the final OPDH Plan. The developer's intent had been that the final OPDH plan would have this same flexibility so when someone purchased a lot and wanted to obtain a building permit, the site plan/building permits would be just like normal lots. The building department would review the plans for conformance with the plans and issue the permit. Miklo said these were not normal lots where someone could buy a lot and build a house. These are zero-lot lines where two houses are joined so the decision on what to build is dictated by the adjacent lot. Regardless of what is shown on the OPDH plan individual consumers would not be able to choose their own house plan. This is the nature of zero-lot line developments. Freerks såid what she was hearing was that the developer wanted the flexibility of an RS-8 zone but this was not an RS-8, it was an RS-5 within an OPDH. There was some give and take there. The developer was gaining many additional lots and with that there were certain things such as minor restrictions and guidelines that needed to be included. Schnittjer said he didn't see the recommended conditions as being minor restrictions. Bob Wilson, 1838 Sterling Court, said he'd lived in his house for approximately 8 years. His lot adjoined the field that was being discussed. When he'd purchased his lot he knew it was in an industrial area and that there would Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2005 Page 4 be a certain amount of noise there. Since they'd resided there, a factory had been built which was considerably louder than anything else there. Wilson said the proposed white pine buffer might buffer the noise from the railroad, but the noise from the factory seemed to emanate from the top of the building. When standing in his backyard or in the field the noise was very very loud. Wilson said he couldn't image living any closer to the factory, which was approximately two football fields away. He wondered if just green space could be left at that end of the development as a tree buffer would not help. Evelvn Frev. 1855 Sterling Court, said the proposal of the zero-lot lines and of reducing the lot width and the 5-foot setback was completely foreign to the Village Green sub-development. To propose two rows of housing on an alley in their neighborhood took it from a village like neighborhood, as referenced in Karin Franklin's newspaper article, to row houses in Baltimore. On north Dover Street there was an example of this same zero-lot line concept. The lots were very very narrow with duplexes on them. There was an extensive amount of concrete on the lots. The advantage was their back windows looked out on a cemetery so they could see green trees. The residents of the proposed neighborhood would see a wall of buildings out their rear windows and the front would be very different from any other yard in that neighborhood. Frey said she felt for the people that would live across the street from those duplexes as they would just see a wall of buildings. It would feel like they were living in Baltimore, which was not appropriate in this neighborhood. Linda Huff, 1856 Sterling Court, said she echoed Frey's feelings about the neighborhood. She had resided in the neighborhood for 20 years, she was one of the longest term neighbors. They didn't intend to move and she would like to see the neighborhood continue on as they had since the initial development. In 1993 they had compromised to the original OPDH-5. Where would those kids play? Currently the kids went to the pond, to the park or played in Huff's back yard. They'd had many baseball and football games in their back yard. Where would the kids for the proposed development play, there was a lot of concrete there. The traffic area - would the kids be playing in the street? Huff said she felt a lot of the neighbors would like to have the neighborhood stay as it was and continue to have greenery and play area for the children. Kim Kirchner, 2906 Sterling Drive, said she wished to reiterate what Frey had said. She'd read a statement at the first meeting and had continually spoken for having more single family units and less of what was illustrated on the map. She was concerned with the duplex styles that were being proposed and again wanted to advocate for more single-family units in the proposed development. Public hearing was closed. Motion: Shannon made a motion to approve REZ004-00017/SUB04-00017, a rezoning from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Housing Overlay - Low Density Single-Family Residential (OPDH-5) zone and a preliminary plat of Village Green, Part XXIII and XXIV, an 83-lot residential subdivision on 25.67-acres of property located on Wintergreen Drive subject to the eight conditions including: A minimum 7 -foot setback for Lots 85 to 102 and Lots 111 to 130 The front yard area must be landscaped with shrubs and a fence as illustrated on the OPDH plan Lots 65 to 84 and 131 to 134 must be a mixture of models A1, A2 and B Identical combinations of zero-lot lines must not be repeated on adjacent lots The medial between driveways must be landscaped with a hedge as illustrated on the concept plan Where two driveways are located together, they will be tapered to minimize front yard paving The final landscaping plan be approved with the final OPDH plan Landscaping on Outlots must be installed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any of the lots. For individuals lots, landscaping be required when the occupancy permit is issued for that particular building or prior to. Freerks seconded the motion. Hansen said he would be in favor of going with the conditions. The neighborhood didn't want to see a change in the neighborhood, the developer didn't want to see restrictions, the Comprehensive Plan called for diversification of housing, people said they didn't want sprawl so the Commission said infill would be more dense. Everyone had a side. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2005 Page 5 Hansen said if the developer was unhappy with the conditions, he would suggest asking for an extension from the developer to see if some type of compromise could be reached. Freerks said she felt that they'd given that at the last two meetings. Hansen said he understood that but he'd heard a lot more opposition to it tonight. He didn't want to slam to door on the proposal but "if we put this up the developer is not going to like it and it is just going to lay there, just like the last one did from 1993." Hansen said he'd rather have something that could work for everyone. Miklo asked Schnittjer if there was any indication that the developer would be willing to defer. Schnittjer said he didn't think he could give that as the developer had not wanted to defer at the last meeting. Schnittjer said he didn't have any problem with the first and second conditions. He had some concerns about the third. He didn't have any real problem with the fourth as long as they were not tied to an interior architectural floor plan and also architectural detail on the outside. He understood some of it was needed but he didn't want to see everyone constructed identical either. Schnittjer said he didn't like to see an evergreen hedge on a driveway in Iowa, particularly at this time of year because of snow drifts and everything else that occurred with it. Schnittjer said when he had first seen the slide at the bottom, he'd thought it was probably a river rock median which would allow people to step out onto something other than mud when they exited their car. He personally had not gone to look at that particular structure. Schnittjer said driveways today were barely wide enough to park two vehicles and to be able to get out and stand on the concrete. It would be a lot worse if they were tapered. Miklo said there was some type of landscaping proposed to be there on the application plan, he asked Schnittjer if he knew what it would be. Schnittjer said he had not selected materials. It would be better in his judgment if it would be deciduous shrubs so the wind could blow through it to some degree and not pile snow up on the neighbor's driveway. Hansen said he thought that these were some of the things that there still was some talk to be had. If he had to vote on this tonight, he would vote with the conditions. The opposition he was hearing was telling him to turn it down and go back to square one. Schnittjer said from his discussions with Mr. Frantz, if the Commission felt they needed to turn it down, that was fine. They would look for a favorable vote, one with some modifications of the restrictions. If they couldn't do it, then the Commission needed to do what they had to do. Miklo said in terms of whether it was an evergreen hedge or some type of landscaping, that was not a real issue with Staff. He said thre was a lot of paving shown, and staff was now looking for a way of softening it so it would be more compatible with the RS-5. The Commission could opt to strike evergreen from the condition wording. Hansen said he felt the real issue was the design of the zero lot lines. Freerks said she felt that was the thing that was most important and key to making this a cohesive development. That was where she felt very strongly. Hansen said he did too, but their thoughts on this probably could be addressed by other designs. The developer didn't wish to be locked in to a design. Freerks questioned as to when these drawings had been given to City Staff. There had been an opportunity for the developer to give more than just these few and it hadn't been done. The Commission had raised this same concern when they discussed this in December. Schnittjer said they could have put together 16 plans but they had six lots. 'Where did you draw the line on how much you put on for six lots?" Schnittjer said if Frantz was going to build these structures and had some idea of what he wanted to build that would be fine. But when they were lots for sale and people could hopefully build almost what they wanted, the developer had difficulty in being tied down. Freerks said these were more than a few restrictions, but the developer was gaining so much too. When there was an OPDH, there was a planned development and that was what she couldn't get away from. They were trying to plan something, so it was not just what-ever from whom-ever purchased a lot. In this case individual homeowners would not be purchasing lots and building themselves as these are zero-lot lines. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2005 Page 6 Miklo said there might be some middle ground where there was some language such as 'they will generally conform to the plans illustrated, variations may be approved by the Director of Planning at the time of building permit or some other way to make that condition a little more flexible. Schnittjer said it had been said that the City had given a lot. He felt the developer had given a lot too. The developer had almost 26-acres and 83-units, a little over three dwelling units per acre. The City and the neighborhood were getting an immense piece of open space that might not be the most desirable location because it was next to the railroad track and to Scott Boulevard. The drainage area was a necessity however the developer could extend the lot lines into that space and each lot owner would own a part of it and they'd tell the rest of the neighborhood to stay out. They didn't have to put it into an outlot. Parks and Recreation didn't want the outlot area so it was up to the developer to take care of it. Koppes and Freerks asked Miklo to give an example of wording that would make condition #3 more flexible for the developer but still have the approval process. Miklo suggested, "Lots 65-84 and 131-134 be a mixture of models similar to illustrations A-1, A-2 and B, and that variations of these models be approved by the Commission." Freerks and Hansen said they didn't see just any plan a home builder wanted to build as being part of an OPDH plan. Miklo said it was the Commission's charge to determine whether the proposed models would be compatible or not. They had to have a picture to determine that. Another way to determine that would be to allow them to come back before the Commission with some variations and not have to go through the whole re-zoning process. Brooks said he was at the point where he was very uncomfortable approving this. He was sensing too much disparity between what the developer thought they could do under an OPDH and what he thought they should do. The plan for the zero lot lines was one issue that bothered him. Brooks said he didn't know that just vaguely wording it was adequate. Things like what had been done in the Peninsula and other OPDH plans where there were very well defined guidelines. He was also troubled with the 5-foot or 7-foot setback on those lots. He said the difference between 5- and 7 -feet was indistinguishable, most people were not going to know the difference. Because of the driveway configurations on the other side of the street; all of the on-street parking for practical purposes was going to be forced over in front of the homes that were basically sitting on the sidewalk. He agreed with a variety of housing types, but not a variety that was stuck in the middle of an RS-5 neighborhood that was sticking something completely foreign right in the middle. Freerks said she didn't have a problem so much with that. It was kind of scaled in a certain way until it got to the center portion. She thought the plans were adequate for what they had proposed to put there. She didn't wish to put the brakes on this, it was unfortunate that it hadn't been worked out ahead. Freerks said they'd had so much information given on this, Staff had worked on it, the developer had worked on it, neighbors had come in and given their opinions and expressed their concerns. When it went to Council and they saw a split decision or that it had been turned down, the Council usually wanted to pass something. It was her fear that everything would get thrown out the window as the Council was not always as informed about all the details. The Council dealt with the political aspects of items and that was what she saw as a problem because then there was information that was lost. Freerks said she felt it was the Commission's job to work through it and get something figured out. Brooks said the general ideas that were portrayed in the eight recommended requirements were probably good and valid if the Commission wanted to see this go forward. He was not totally convinced that they did. Brooks said the recommended requirements were good and they were general but they were not to the level that he would want to see to vote in favor of this application. Hansen said he was not sure that the Commission re-wording the condition regarding the zero lot lines was going to do anything to push this along. They might end up with a piece of property that just sat there. Freerks said she thought there was a big demand for this type of thing, she thought it would be an exciting development with the proposed changes and Staff's guidelines. It could be a very stable and inviting neighborhood. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2005 Page 7 Hansen said one of the things the Commission was to consider was, was the proposal better than the original OPDH. At this point, he didn't know. Another concern was the traffic pattern. Hansen said traffic was one of those things where they never had a study before it was there and they never had a study after it was there to know if their opinion had been right yet it was something they were supposed to consider. Hansen said at this point he was not for this. Brooks said he wished he could say he was for it, but he didn't feel comfortable that this was the right combination of what everyone understood an OPDH was and how it was going to work. He sensed that the developer wanted to have more freedom to allow anything to happen than he interpreted an OPDH to allow. He was not comfortable with re-writing something yet this evening that would create a series if guidelines and expectations that he would be comfortable with and that they could move ahead on. Freerks said she was fine with Staff's recommended conditions with some minor modifications. Shannon said he was not wild about conditions #3, #4, and #5. He'd always said he was not comfortable looking at pictures and saying "this is a good house" "this is a bad house". One person's junk was someone else's gold. Shannon said as long as someone's home was not destroying the whole neighborhood, far be it for him or Staff to decide what someone else's home should look like. Shannon said it was his understanding that the developer wanted the Commission to vote this item up or down, not another deferral. That was why he was willing to go with the eight conditions even though he was not happy with all of them. It would go to the Council and they could make political decisions that the Commission could not. The Commission had already deferred this twice so send it on through and the developer would get his day in court. He didn't want to see this item fail if the Commission sat on it. He thought the developer who'd built all the homes north of this area had done a very nice job. Koppes said her opinion was that she wanted all eight conditions included with the Commission's recommendations. She was concerned that if the Commission voted without the conditions, then the Council could easily re-do it and approve it with no conditions. She wanted the Council to see the eight conditions. It was a pretty good development, and she understood the developer's frustrations on being limited, but it was an OPDH and he was getting a great increase in density. Anciaux said this was very complicated. He was probably going to vote for it with the eight conditions. If not that then he'd rather go back to the RS-5 on this property. Miklo asked if the Commissioners who were supportive of the eight conditions wanted to have the word evergreen removed from #5. Anciaux asked if there was a consensus to remove the word evergreen. There was a consensus. Hansen said he did not want to see a split decision either. He wanted to be fair to the developer and to be fair to the homeowners in the area. He felt if there was something better for the developer that they could all be happy with if they just put this item off and had more time to work on it. The motion passed on a vote of 5-1, Brooks voting against, to approve REZ004-00017/SU B04-00017 with the following conditions: A minimum 7 -foot setback for Lots 85 to 102 and Lots 111 to 130 The front yard area must be landscaped with shrubs and a fence as illustrated on the OPDH plan Lots 65 to 84 and 131 to 134 must be a mixture of models A 1, A2 and B Identical combinations of zero-lot lines must not be repeated on adjacent lots The medial between driveways must be landscaped with a hedge as illustrated on the concept plan Where two driveways are located together, they will be tapered to minimize front yard paving The final landscaping plan be approved with the final OPDH plan Landscaping on Outlots must be installed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any of the lots. For individuals lots, landscaping be required when the occupancy permit is issued for that particular building or prior to. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 20, 2005 Page 8 OTHER ITEMS: There were none CONSIDERATION OF THE JANUARY 6. 2005 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Brooks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Hansen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 pm. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill s:/pcd/minutes/p&zl2005/0 1-20-05 ,doc en (l) - ::J .!: ~ c: o '¡¡j .!!! E E o Ü 0> .!: C:I.C) 00 No 'ON æå N O>~ .!: CO 0> c: ::J (l) C:c:0> .!!!COCO a......,a.. = Q ... I:I:J I:I:J ... S S Q U~ ø ~ ¡.,¡ Z = Q ~ ~ ... ~ = ~ Q~ ~ N ~ trì ~ ~~= ~ == ~ ~~N =~ ~ ... = = ~ =..... 0 ~..... --< ~ ~ þ ... U ~ ~ Q ~ 111 .... ¡::¡ .... .... ¡::¡ .... r-- ::: .... .... !:::! .... .... => ~ .... ~ .... 111 ::: 0\ .... ..... 0\ QC) .... àC ~ QC) .... !::! r-- r-- ¡::: ~ .... ;;ø !::! ~ 0\ .... ..... 111 ~ 111 .... ~ t: ..,. r-- .... ;<¡ !:::! ~ r-- .... ¡::¡ !:::! N => !::!:>< :>< 0 :>< :>< :><:>< .... ~:>< :>< :>< :>< :>< f:!:1:>< 0 '" 'D 'D 00 § ~ <r) <r) r- 00 '¡;' '2 '2 '2 '2 '2 S;:S2 ~&j <r) <r) <r) <r) <r) <r) <r) 0 0 0 0 0 00 ~ ~ = = ~ = ., <:> .. ... .. 1)Ij ~ = .¡;¡ <:> .¡ .. e .. = Š~ .CI .. ~ ~~ = V ... oJ . = = .( ..; ~~ ZQ ø z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ z ~ N .... ¡::¡ .... QC) !::! .... .... ..,. ::: .... .... .... ãi .... r-- .... = .... !:::! => .... N .... Õ; 0\ ~ 111 ::: QC) .... àC QC) .... ¡::: ~ r-- ~ .... ;;ø => !:::! 111 ~ .... iì'¡ !::! 111 QC) ::: ..,. .... ~ ..,. .... ;<¡ QC) !::! N ..,. ::: N .... !:::! .... !:::! ::: :::::: ::: ::: :::::: .... V V V V V VV '" § ~ 'D <r) 'D 00 <r) r- 00 '§. '2 '2 '2 '2 '2 Qe " >< <r) <r) <r) <r) <r) <r) <r) E-¡¡¡ 0 0 0 0 0 00 ~ ~ = = ~... = ., <:> .. .. .. ~ = .¡;¡ <:> .. .. ., eJ! t = ~ = .. ~~ < =V ... = Z ~ == .( ..; ~~ ¡¡ -5 oJ " ::: ] B ~ ~ ~ '" bl)-e "0 ~·ß dJ] ,,-Ê~:E~ "~,,:EoJ,,, f!St/}$OÕ§ ò::«ZZU .. II II II II II II ~ f:!:1~::: :>G:><OOZ U