Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-17-2005 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISS'ION Monday, March 14,2005 -7:30 PM Informal Meeting Robert A. Lee Community Recreation Center Meeting Room B 220 S. Gilbert Street Thursday, March 17,2005-7:30 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order. B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda. C. Rezoning Item: REZ04-00030 Reconsideration of an application submitted by James Davis for a rezoning from County A1 to CC-2, Community Commercial (approximately 16.05 acres), CI-1, Intensive Commercial (approximately 20.22 acres), CO-1, Office Commercial (approximately 10.92 acres) and RR-1, Rural Residential (approximately 2.83 acres), for property located north of Highway 1, west of Highway 218 and east of Kitty Lee Road. D. Other Items: E. Consideration of the March 3, 2005 Meeting Minutes. F. Adjournment. Informal Formal **May 30 Informal Meeting is cancelled due to Memorial Day. City of Iowa City MEM'ORANDUM Date: March 11, 2005, for the March 17, 2005 meeting To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: John Yapp, Associate Planner Re: ANN04-00001/REZ04-00030: MWD Davis property annexation and rezoning Since December, the Planning and Zoning Commission has held a series of public meetings on the application to annex and rezoning the MWD Davis Addition property. At your February 17 meeting, the Commission recommended approval.of the annexation and rezoning of this property subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement addressing infrastructure improvements and funding, access control, landscaping and fencing, and sanitary sewer provision. Subsequent to this meeting, representatives of the applicant approached staff with a request to modify some of the conditions recommended for the Conditional Zoning Agreement. In some cases, the applicant's representatives are objecting to certain conditions being included. At your February 3 meeting, the applicant's attorney requested that the Commission reconsider these conditions. Staff wishes to reiterate the -rationale for some of the proposed conditions. Annexation is discretionary, and the Comprehensive Plan requires us to consider economic impacts caused by the proposed incorporation of the subject property. It is a policy in the Comprehensive Plan that annexation should be viewed positively when "Development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing an undue financial burden.on the City." Many of the conditions staff has recommended are to avoid costs related to annexing this property being shifted from the property owner to the City. Staff proposed modifications to the conditions, and commentary are summarized below. A letter from the applicant's attorney is attached. 1. Naples Avenue I Highway 1 intersection: Funding responsibilities for construction of turn lanes and traffic signal improvements as recommended in the traffic impact study, including the developer/subdivider funding 100% of the cost of the north leg of Naples Avenue, and 90% of the cost of turning lane improvements, improvements to the south leg of Naples Avenue, and traffic signal improvements at the Naples Avenue / Highway 1 intersection, as recommended in the February 2005 Menards Traffic Study. The City will reimburse 10% of the cost of these improvements upon installation and acceptance by the City. Said improvements are to be installed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any lot in the development. Note: The 90% / 10% cost sharing of certain intersection improvements is based on the percentage of turning movements during the AM peak at this intersection upon build-out of the proposed development. Without this Davis property being developed, no traffic signal would be warranted at this location. . 2. Naples Avenue design and access: Naples Avenue north of Highway 1 will be constructed to collector street standards, with shared access points for Lots 13&14, ::md 11 & 12, as numbered on the MWD Davis Addition concept plan submitted on February 17. The access drives to Lot 2, the CI-1-zoned lot, shall be opposite this tAese shared access point, and a second access point may be located at the northern edqe of the Intensive Commercial zoned area, to create predictable and consistent access points. Note: These changes were requested due to changes to the concept plan for MWD David Addition. Staff recommends approval of this modification. 3. Kitty Lee Road improvements: Prior to access being permitted to Kitty Lee Road, Kitty Lee Road shall be reconstructed to City collector street standards from Highway 1 to the northern-most commercial driveway. The City will pay the costs for oversizinq the street from a local to a collector street. :::md a left turn lane shall be constructed on Highv.(ay 1 for eastbound traffic turning north onto Kitty Lee Road. To determine if a Highway 1 right-turn and left-turn lanes is-are needed on Highway 1 and to determine the appropriate desiQn of the turn lanes for west bound traffic turning north onto Kitty Lee Road, a traffic study (approved by the City) predicting turning movements related to the proposed land use of Lot 1 must be completed. Any improvements recommended by the traffic study must be completed prior to an occupancy permit being issued for any property using Kitty Lee Road for access. Note: This clarification was requested to tie future improvements at the Kitty Lee Road / Highway 1 intersection to the use of the property. 4. Kitty Lee Road funding: The developer/subdivider paying funds equal to ~ the cost of reconstructing Kitty Lee Road to City local street standards from the northern-most commercial driveway/entrance intersection to the south property line of Lot 1 of RH Davis subdivision Part II. Note: the applicant's representatives are objecting to this condition. Staff has recommended this condition based on the fact that land being developed to urban densities is typically required to construct infrastructure to city standards. Because Kitty Lee Road will not be used for direct access to this property, staff is recommending the developer/subdivider be required to pay 50% of the reconstruction cost. This will avoid this cost being absorbed by the public, or by the property owner on the west side Kitty Lee Road, in the future. 5. Landscaping: The perimeter landscaping generally depicted on the preliminary landscaping plan dated 1-27-05 be planted prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any lot in the development. Note: No changes are proposed to this section. 6. Fencing: The design of any fencing along the west and north boundaries of the commercial lots identified as Lots 1 and 2 on the MWD Davis concept plan being approved by the City as part of site plan approval. Note: Staff has learned the fence being proposed is the same design as the fence around the existing Menards. For a structure that has the potential to be located along 900 feet (the equivalent of approximately 3 city blocks) of Kitty Lee Road, staff recommends this fence have some more articulation or visual interest. Iowa Code allows cities to impose reasonable conditions on granting of rezoning requests, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy pubic needs directly caused by the change. In this case the applicant is requesting CI-1 zoning adjacent to an area that the Southwest District Plan indicates may be developed for rèsidential purposes in the future. Given the location of the proposed CI-1 zoning adjacent to a street that currently provides access to a residential area and across the street from an area that may develop for residential uses in the future, staff believes that requirements for a buffer and design considerations for the fence are reasonable. 7. Access control: No direct driveway access to Highway 1 is permitted. Note: No changes are proposed to this section. 8. Sanitary sewer provision: Requirements for the sanitary sewer lift station to be sized to serve the proposed development with potential to be upgraded to serve the entire watershed. Note: No changes are proposed to this section. 9. Highway 1 sidewalk: In lieu of a sidewalk being constructed along the Highway 1 frontage, the developer/subdivider paying for the paving cost of a four-foot sidewalk. The City will use this money for a public sidewalk in the future as part of future Highway 1 pedestrian improvements. Note: The applicant's representatives are objecting to this condition. City code requires sidewalks be constructed within public right-of-way frontage. In the past the City has sometimes waived this requirement for properties fronting on Highways. Through the District Planning process, residents have requested sidewalks or trails along Highway 1 in existing parts of the City. Installation of these walks will now need to be built at the public's expense. Given the public demand for sidewalks staff questions waiving the requirement for future developments. Because there currently is not a sidewalk network in this area staff recommends that applicant pay for the paving cost but not be required to install the sidewalk at this time. This alternative will be less expensive for the applicant than installing the sidewalk. 10. Kitty Lee Road I Highway 1 streetlight: At the February 17 meeting, the Commission added a condition regarding a streetlight at the Kitty Lee Road / Highway 1 intersection. Staff has learned that, once this property is annexed to Iowa City, the City will work with Midamerican Energy to have a streetlight added to this intersection. It does not need to be a condition of the rezoning, as the streetlight will be installed by Midamerican Energy. not by the developer. At your March 17 meeting, the Commission has the options of 1) make no changes to the recommendations already made on this project; 2) Recommend approval of the annexation and rezoning subject to an agreement as presented on this memorandum; or . 3) Recommend approval of the rezoning with changes to these conditions as requested by the applicant's representatives, or as otherwise determined by the Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends REZ04-00030 a request to rezone approximately 50.03 acres of property from County A1 to CC-2, Community Commercial (approximately 16.05 acres), CI-1, Intensive Commercial (approximately 20.22 acres), CO-1, Office Commercial (approximately 10.92 acres) and RR-1, Rural Residential (approximately 2.83 acres), be approved subject to an Annexation and Conditional Zoning Agreement with conditions as outlined in this memorandum. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Zoning exhibit 3. Concept plan Approved by: ~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development PHELAN WALKER TUCKER TUCKER MULLEN GELMAN LLP 321 East Market A T TOR N E Y S Post Office Box 2150 Iowa City, Iowa 52244-2150 Phone: (319) 354-1104 Fax: (319) 354-6962 E-mail addresses: . attorney's last name @ptmlaw.com www.ptmlaw.com William V. Phelan Bruce L. Walker Richard M. Tucker Thomas H. Gelman Gary J. Schmit Margaret P. Winegarden John E. Beasley Dean D. Carrington Susan J. Frye Pope S. Yamada Daniel W. Boyle William M. Tucker [1922-2003J Charles A. Mullen [1937 -2001J A T LAW March 11, 2005 1--1r. John Yapp Associate Planner City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 Re: MWD Davis Annexation and Rezoning Dear John, This is a follow up to our recent meeting and discussions pertaining to the Conditional Zoning Agreement for the MWD Davis property relating particularly to its rezoning- as it is annexed into the City. The 9 enumerated staff recommendations previously forwarded by the Planning and Zoning Commission with its recommendation to the Council have been under review and scrutiny by both the owners and a pr.ospective purchaser of the large CI-l tract. Those recommendations numbered 7 and 8 are acceptable to the owners. Those recommendations numbered 2, 3 and 5 (with slight modifications as discussed with you and Karin Franklin) are acceptable. Recommendations 1, 4, 6 and 9 are not acceptable. The owners request modification or removal or those conditions as set forth below: 1. Naples A venue/Highway 1 Intersection The owners propose they be 100% responsible for all Naples Avenue/Highway 1 improvements north of the Highway intersection. The owners further propose that they be 100% responsible for the right turn/deceleration and left turn lanes heading north onto Naples A venue. The owners further are willing to pay 50% of the cost for the traffic light at the Naples/Highway 1 intersection, with the City picking up the remaining 50%. Finally, the owners do not wish to pay any of the expenses for any improvements relating to Naples Avenue south of the Highway 1 pavement or any turning lanes turning south. The owners believe this is a fair March 11, 2005 Page 2 allocation of expenses and consistent with other precedents for recent developments on Highway 1. 4. Kitty Lee Road funding The owners believe that imposing a requirement for payment of funds equal to half the cost of reconstructing Kitty Lee Road is illegal and constitutes merely a tax, with there being no basis under Iowa Code Chapter 414.5 or otherwise to impose this requirement in connection with the annexation and rezoning. Specifically, 414.5 of the Iowa Code indicates that any conditions in the Provisional Zoning Agreement "must be reasonable and imposed to satisfy public needs which are directly caused by the requested chan~e". Since the real estate (other than that referred to at requirement 3) will have no access onto the road, there is no direct relationship that can be reasonably established between the Kitty Lee Road improvement and the rezoning. If, as an alternative, the City wishes to put into the Conditional Zoning Agreement that there will be no access onto Kitty Lee Road from the annexed and rezoning property (excepting as anticipated in recommendation 3), that would be acceptable to the owners and will be consistent with legal authority and precedent. 6. Fencing The fencing requirement is inappropriate. First, it is not a zoning or annexation issue, but rather a development or site plan issue. As such, imposing the fencing requirement as part of the Conditional Zoning Agreement seems quite inappropriate. Additionally, the landscaping requirement (item 5), which is acceptable to the owners (even though not a zoning matter), was for the principal purpose of providing landscape screening for the likely fence in question. As such, the requirement for approval of the fence design is redundant and inappropriate, and is intended as merely a very short tenn solution for which the landscaping plan intends to be the pennanent solution. Because the development of property lying westerly of the annexed property is not likely in the immediate future, there will likely be an opportunity for the landscaping to grow and provide the screening that is intended - perhaps in advance of any development to the west. Finally, it is not reasonable to propose a requirement for administrative approval where no standards or criteria exist. 9. Highway 1 sidewalk This requirement is also illegal and constitutes merely a tax. There is no current need for a sidewalk on Highway 1 and neither the annexation nor rezoning establishes a direct cause for such an improvement. There is no planned sidewalk. Rather, the City is merely requesting funds to possibly install a sidewalk. Whether or not there should be a sidewalk along the frontage is not an annexation or rezoning issue; it is a development related issue that also relates to the development of all surrounding properties. At the present time there are no sidewalks at any location on Highway 1 from its intersection with Riverside Drive, nor have there been any recently required in connection with any developments on Highway 1. Furthennore, this development is on the west side March 11, 2005 Page 3 of the Highway 218 bridge which makes a sidewalk connection even less likely to occur at any time in the near future. As such, this requirement should be removed. If installation of a sidewalk is justified in the future and provides benefit to the property, an assessment can then be made by the City. If the City staff agrees with the owner's position as set forth in this letter, we would ask that a revised written recommendation be made to the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the City staff does not so agree, we would ask for a revised written recommendation on what has been agreed to and we will present the areas of disagreement directly to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Your cooperation on these matters is much appreciated. Very truly yours, a(p~ Thomas H. THG:kc cc: Jim Davis Dave Larsen MMS Consultants, Inc. Tom O'Neil, Menards, Inc. Sarah Holecek Mayor Ernie Lehman MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 3, 2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL DRAFT MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS EXCUSED: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Beth Koppes, Jerry Hansen, Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks, Don Anciaux Dean Shannon Benjamin Chait Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Mitch Behr Tom Gehlman CALL TO ORDER: Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF IOWA CITY: ODeninQ remarks by Bob Brooks. 1983 was the last comprehensive review of the Zoning Code. Duncan and Associates, a zoning and development consulting firm, reviewed the zoning code and identified four objectives / goals for the rewrite to comply with. Currently the City is approximately 'midstream' in the process. During next 30 days there will be a series of public open house forums including one-on-one question and answer sessions with City Staff and the Commissioners, solicitation of public input and continued Staff presentations to interested groups. The Commission will then have a series of public hearings with formal input from the public. The Commission will review all the input, make possible revisions to the Code and vote on a formal recommendation to the City Council. Copies of the proposed revisions to the Code are available in hard-copy format, on CD disk and on the Planning and Community Development's City web page. . Overview of proposed revisions to the City's Planning and Zoning Code presented by Karen Howard. Presented in PowerPoint format with narrative by Howard. More user friendly Code. Strategies to facilitate economic development within the Code. Simplify land use classification system. Reduce parking requirements. Strategies to improve commercial areas. Consolidate zoning districts [CB-2; RFBH] Implement new management access standards. Emphasize the Good Neighbor Policy. Strategies to provide lower cost housing in the community. Brooks thanked citizens for attending the meeting and encouraged them to attend the upcoming meetings over the next few weeks. Bob Miklo said Staff were available to give presentations regarding the proposed revisions to interested community groups. Persons should contact the Department of Planning and Community Development to schedule a presentation. The overview presented by Howard would be broadcast on the local City channel on television. The proposed Code was available in 3 formats - online, diskette or hard copy. A Reader's Guide would be available next week which explained how to read the Code and also compared the proposed Code to the current Code. PUBLIC DISCUSSION was re-opened to provide an opportunity for persons to speak who had arrived after public discussion had closed, unaware that the meeting had started at 7:00 pm. Tom Gehlman said he represented Jim and Bob Davis and their sister Jan Erickson. The Commission had recently reviewed and sent their recommendation to Council to approve the annexation including a Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 3, 2005 Page 2 Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). He was there to request that the Commission review and make revisions to the CZA prior to the 3/22/05 City Council meeting. On behalf of his clients he'd already visited with City Staff to consider 'tweaking' some of the terms of the CZA to get a more meaningful recommendation. Staff had approved some revisions already but others needed to be reviewed and hopefully approved by the Commission. Motion: Koppes made a motion to reconsider REZ04-00030, a request to rezone property west of Highway 218 and north of Highway 1 at the 3/17/05 Commission meeting. Anciaux seconded the motion. Hansen said the neighbors who'd attended and/or spoken at the previous meeting should be notified. Miklo said Staff would send out a notice to them. Brooks said there had been a very strong neighborhood involvement at the previous meetings so it would be the courteous thing to do to notify them. The motion passed on vote of 5-0. OTHER ITEMS: Miklo said a third public workshop had been added on 3/31/05 to be held in Council Chambers. Hansen said he'd like to extend a formal Thank You to Don Anciaux for his past year of service as Chairperson for the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as for his attendance at all the Scattered Site Housing meetings. Anciaux said he'd attended 22 Scattered Site Housing meetings in the last year. Anciaux requested that it be noted, 'for the record', that City High was going to go the State Basketball Tournament! CONSIDERATION OF THE FEBRUARY 17. 2005 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Koppes made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:02 pm. Freerksseconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill s:/pcdlrnlnutes/p&zl2005/03-03-05.doc . Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 3, 2005 Page 3 Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Attendance Record 2005 Term Name EXDires 1/6 1/20 2/3 2/17 3/3 3/17 4/7 4/21 5/5 5/19 6/2 6/16 7/7 7/21 8/4 8/18 9/1 9/15 10/6 10/20 11/3 11/17 12/1 12/15 D. Anciaux 05/06 X X X X X B. Brooks 05/05 X X X X X B. Chait 05/06 X 0 X X 0 -- -- A. Freerks 05/08 X X X X X J. Hansen 05/05 X X X X X E. Koppes 05/07 OlE X X X X D. Shannon 05/08 X X X OlE OlE Term Name Exnires 1/3 2/14 2/28 3/14 4/1 4/18 5/2 5/16 5/30 6/13 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 10/3 10/17 10/31 11/14 11/28 12/12 D. Anciaux 05/06 CW X X B. Brooks 05/05 CW X X B. Chait 05/06 CW X 0 -- -- A. Freerks 05/08 CW X X J. Hansen 05/05 CW X X E. Koppes 05/07 CW X X D. Shannon 05/08 CW OlE OlE INFORMAL MEETING FORMAL MEETING Key: X = Present o = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused N/M= No Meeting -- -- = Not a Member CW = Cancelled due to Weather