Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-05-2005 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, May 2, 2005 - 7:30 PM Informal Meeting Robert A. Lee Community Recreation Center Meeting Room B . 220 S. Gilbert Street Thursday, May 5, 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/Subdivision Items: 1. REZ04-00017/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, a 76-lot residential subdivision (38 single-family lots and 38 attached zero-lot line lots) on 25.67 acres of property located on Wintergreen Drive. 2. REZ05-00001/SUB05-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by James Davis for a preliminary plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan of MWD Davis Addition, a 14-lot, 50.04 acre commercial subdivision located north of Highway 1, west of Highway 218. (45-day limitation period: May 14) D. Rezoning Item: REZ05-00005 Discussion of an application submitted by Ace Auto Recyclers for a rezoning of approximately 2.22 acres from General Industrial (1-1) zone to Heavy Industrial (1-2) zone for property south of 2752 S. Riverside Drive. (45-day limitation period: Applicant has requested indefinite referral) E. Other Item: Consider a request submitted by Signia Design, INC. for an amendment to the sign ordinance to increase the height limit for free standing signs from 25' to 65' for signs located within 1000' of an interstate highway. F. Consideration of the April 21, 2005 Meeting Minutes G. Adjournment Informal Formal ** Informal Meeting is cancelled due to holiday. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 29, 2005 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: John Yapp, Associate Planner Re: REZ05-00001/SUB05-00003 MWD Davis Addition Sensitive Areas Development Plan We have received a revised wetland buffer averaging proposal for the MWD Davis Addition Sensitive Areas Development Plan. The proposal extends a designated wetland buffer approximately 400 feet south to a culvert under Kitty Lee Road. The culvert captures stormwater and directs it toward the wetland area. The previous version of the wetland buffer averaging proposal extended the buffer approximately 950 feet south along Kitty Lee Road. Other portions of the designated wetland buffer are proposed to be enlarged or reduced to result in slightly more developable land, and to create more predictable, consistent buffer boundaries in relation to property lines. Staff finds this meets the intent of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, which states that one of the considerations for buffer averaging is the design and layout of the proposed development in relation to the wetland. For the buffer area to benefit the wetland, it should be planted with wetland compatible vegetation that will help 'filter' storm water by helping to capture sediments before they reach the wetland proper. The bufferarea along Kitty Lee Road, and in other areas not previously included, should be added to the wetland planting plan that was prepared for the wetland mitigation plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends REZ05-00001/SUB05-00003, a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone and approval of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and Preliminary Plat of MWD Davis Addition, a 14-lot, 50.04 acre commercial subdivision be approved, subject to the wetland planting plan including the wetland buffer area, prior to City Council consideration. / ~ . . . Approved by: ~ ti~ Karin rankhn, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development ATTACHMENTS 1. Wetland buffer averaging proposal 2. Preliminary plat · , I , , , I , , · I , · , I , , , I POINT OF : BEGINNING I · · · I , , , I , - -, r;¡ I · , , I , · · I , , · I , · , I , · , I · , , I , · · I , · , I , , , I , · · I , , · I · , , I · · · I , , , I · , , I , , · I , · , I , , , I . I ~ I \ I I I \ I ~.¡}u. [o)A V~ I I A'iJ~ I~ I I I \ I I I I I ~(()) \ I I I I I I \ \ ~~ \ I I I \ I I I I I I I :: ~~t~ I! ! ~'\~~~ ifl¢ I: >Þ ~i-j<fV"- I I lIP"" 'I , . I . . I , , I I I i I \ \\ Ii ¡ ~~;l ¡ b~~~~¢ff I"~I¡.Þ ¡PJ''\< j<fV'" \ , ~ I , I , I 25013'\ I , · · I · · . I · , . ¡ jl J I : , , I I r----h · , , . i ! , . · . · I I I : I i · , , I I I ' · · I · , I · I , · , I · · · I I I I . I : I II . I II ~ // / . , ~~ ~[o)~V~~~(Q)1NI þ, AT PM;é I ''iJtf'f''I&E ~~ , . . / /'\ /'/' \ /'/' \ /' \ /'/' \ /' /' ~ ~\ .. , \ , '\ , .. \ , "" , f¡¡ äi I<) ~~ , · · I · , I , , I - "\ - - \ , , , \ \ ( , , , \ . , I \ , , , , \ \ \ J \ , , , , \ , , I \ , . . , , . \ · · · · · \ · \ · · I \ \ . \ · I , . . , \ · \ , · , t . r . STA: 8+68.66 \ \ OfFSET, 33.Q0 l · , · · · - - , -. , · , I · · , I · · , I . . I · · I I . . . . I I . I I I I · · · J . · · · I . . , I · · · I-- I : · J · · "" .. I FIGURE 1 A VERAGED BUFFER == 4.55 ACRES 1" = 150' ,,\ \\ ~~ 0~"'~ /' /\..fl)~ \\ ~/" ~. · · · I · · i t i t · · , # I I I I I I PRELIMINARY PLAT & SENSITIVE MWD DAVIS IOWA CITY , AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADDITION IOWA ,I, 1,' I: '. !g" I ~ I; """r~ ¡JNL \LJ'n-N'W .,AO' >t'e R~~~!" ''"" ,;:;1 ,,' :I!t I ii, 1: ; ,', ~~" ' , " 1....1· ' ',n , - ¡ ~ I·J! , , 'I'-~'· . ' . I; ¡ 'Ii ¡I;"'¡~; Ii . , , ,. , 1:"- III I .1 II! , " , " . -~ OWM~'ISUÐOmO¡¡¡; J¡ml~tI R. llii'....iø, Róbm't A. I.IDd Jim EJlen smith çlt) J&me$ R D.avis: 4097 KilLy W6 J«¡ud IQWÄ City, 1"W6 &2240 DQI/ís 9ID!!JJ!$' ATl'QRNU· Thuma$ R -Gelman 321 E. Market Street Iowa City, !QWfI 52245 .. MI\..¡"'\"J UIiI '" 'Ii III Wl'liCt:AIIIIItm' I',. STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES ~ Pl«Wt1<tv &!Q, ItO\lNDAA'(jJtjE5 - - ~ - - CQN(:Rf~OIONI\\. Sf:C"TIŒ< I.JNE~ _'·._.M_'''_ ~ RICliJ.(w.\I!AY I.INES _ - CfJHII< tINES - "or WilES. INTE:~NM- -WTUNEf>, PDlT!EQ OR [tV MEr> ~--~~----- I'AOO~¡¡ EAS1:;ME1>¡f I.JNES '-~""""",'._-""-- - .tXI$TJH(¡: ¡:¡;S!:WEIH !.IllES ,;1")- -.RE¢OO¡¡EP~5 ~i _ CU!1:VliQ;mtElnNI.IM~R '""Ü> -1J11J.INf'Qt.E v _ UQ;iTr"" $, -¡¡A.!,IJTARYMWm:u; '!:t _t:XJST1IK;fJlltlfYOIMNT S; _PIIOPQ$WfJRE:HYQI<ANT ~ -¡m"'I~.w¡;: , ~ ,'~ - 6D!ctiMI>/it Æ ~ W¡\,-r¡:R VALV£ Øi - CU~& INetT --,~- ~ ft:NCEUNE __( ~ £XJ5T1NQ.~TAAY 5EWUt _~!~_ - I'II000œEO SANH~IW 5£W!;R -tXlÕ'T ¡'¡¡¡51011I.!$I;'/<tR ., '" pRJWO!;(¡¡- "'10m< 5EW£~ . - WA1Efl-WN¡::S <--Il.fCJ:fIICM.!.JNtS , '-1tltF'HOIitUllts ~ - CAS lINES ~tfa¡¡:ÐoQ11iOI~M.l!)J~5A/!1'if'lf!:nAU)t1\INOO(~J1IS N01£$:: THI'SIl!;:AN't,lJIÇAl1QNOfALl¡>ffOOQ$lõP\.ITIUTi.ES:JIojOWN ON ~IS PlAT ARt $\.II!$ÇT 10, MOOIFK:ATIOO ANO/QII CHANG[ 11;1t AG1\JA~!¡!lf; ¡t¡Ij ) l~I\1ItIN Of Af.);'PfJ0:f'9:SroFA<:1ll11£S S<lA~¡;a-E\(II!f1.EtJWI'I1:!.tOl>1$Tti:Uï:111)NºQtI}MENT$, ~ICt< A~TO I!tPRfl'iAf\ÉP AN!> SU!!M!ntP $\Jl!SEQYw,rmJHE APf'ROI'AtOF'THISP1,AT, C.ONTOI;JR INT¡;:RVAL.. _ 1 FOOT :fIAT~ MMS CONSUL'f'AflTS me. 1917 SOUTH, GILBERT 8'1', IOWA CITY, IQW.ã 522:41) " . ,--'-~ , , \ , ,0--,-,- 1:''':1'' . ' , "\, :eO , , \ , "..:, '"' ":,',,' ,\ ;" ", ',' ", , ",,/"", "''1:"" , ;,\..' , .\ .. I, .' 'EC""'\ 9W§<Q8H'."'IQ"J ~""'''''W'''_''''''fo<1;~n-W...........t\It< "'~,..,.._,_... """".It"",,,," _~·Wf. '\1>0"""'''''_' .......¡¡,__I<io~(i<iIO_~~_IiI\~¡~» (o",$<N_1 _~""a¡¡t~.H..""'''''''_''__,.<t\II'''M__'':¡¡;,o.:),;··.. 1""'_"'''.__ _'~",,""_1U;1II:/iiIiI!III/ =.....mI'f,<#!'tljOt_""'....¡,.¡il¡~"'\oIN.....1>I..'t.....M""'"~ _.,_, ~\I> ~_,....'f:,,:WI;....._l\j~_~ 110..... '\U1tWf¡ "¡¡¡;'o"'*_""''¡¡;'" ¡,;of 'ill '", ~~~IJf;1*·"".'" th, _'''''''''' "''''.,¡,¡; --...iI) !~"",~'_",!ÄiW~,þ,,""_\""'2. ._¡;¡,l~foi~\I'i\llittio__.."",t".,........t'""%I<_ 1_ ä~,.,~WV......t "'" _1I\\O"'_.....I1!1;"~#:~ ~H"" Joll1._....t,......__...-.,·¡:ry¡"""J""timlÖli...."'_ 1,¡~............,~WIo;.r;11<.....""'I!ii~ !I , ..71o«;4«\iJ,W/,þ,\oJ>',..... ....."'.~,fW'_~*"''''''......,,_~~}''''*_·._ k'~~·_'1!>""1IIIm """'...."..,."'iI'i_.~.""..."'"' ,."..I_.......\..<Io,.~ , 1i\i....,_~._""''''''':'1iI,,!-< ....\o:~""'_,...""'..-w,.,'*I\"'IIMi:·.1'I;!;~JJ!....tÇI~ -"",",Io<f.-~'L,;~!IJ\;IWf..~. "_'=l..!O'...!!t.~_,..:It\el,,, "'\l!<_ _""".=.:I'f.wt1IiI,"'~...".,"......_~. ,.".1 >'\"'..., !IO..~I~,1¡;"".. ;Ø_':) 6'Q; .(;; ¢""W ~",<¡f, "'''''\"....,~'''' !IJgO'-""...,~IIPI:.'»hi>\:,'.....:iOI! _;;,u....""'__"' ~.... ""'woM...n.........! ~'ty""'¡::;':.,!!i'f"*_"iO!......__1I<!1....·:..·"""" ~ _..tiI!<rI'~,ww..!>,MI,<,;;;i;..""I\."',....."'" ",!!>'JI» ...,_,~..o¡.;;w;;~ ......_¡;;;:~,~II '~:'I\I"" """"';;,u¡¡;¡,__'¡¡jNWoy-:j!o ~~I'\· .ut; ,"AA···'M:O-W,I!'fW<.'""",,fl:Ij:_lItoIWijt"",1I(i.; W4~to:itl ~ SV'.\t~'",,"'--i~"*''''''i:.:II\i<;:'''''''''''''-'''.\O)''\<'~=:m, _....w~,"""~ ",*, .......;¡U,w '_"*,~.\A;,._,,*,1Ii<_, ~Jì¡..:",~::W~r;:'~~~~r~~J:}'~"")O>f»: ';"'¡_"'~'_.~~'t__¡r;,¡'''''''~_''''''''~='t *,\!I"""'__1'E'm~t_!,o.""I'«t{t~_:IoI<_<ØI'1"" "94!....."""'!oMio«.._..._......_ MWD DAVIS ADDITION IOWA C~T,(. JOWA '. " , , , , .'\ , . ,. ~ , \ .. ,\ '. \\ ~~-<' ",:':,,;'.}./'5,,\'rIf:\'.' ,. \\,,0( \ ..~.' \~'\ , \ ' , ~ ' '\ ~\ \~\ .. \~\ \ \ "1?/I \, . \.p>- '." ~.. \' \. ©\ \ .~ \ .. \ "é"h \ '\.~ ,,:\ .. \ \ .. , .. \ , '''',j ~ ,., ~ · , · · , · , "'P'" "'..-'- G , , , , o ! ,m ,"*" .-,- 1 ~~¡¡¡:}¡O_(!IIIiWAl;Cl;S$tO_~~1 rn"",WfiihlM!O!}4<- ~,1:liIi!Il¡,rø;.oM) ~I;t _O'4~WffllO _I!W '. At 1!Jt1l:ftW'it~1>& ""1IIIIAI'U;~ AVI;>iYt, iAU. ø, iN$TAJ.W ~"~'lj\!fp,,,t¡.¡l'-tI!AI'f (;fiM ~ fl>l\ l¡j ~ I"f«)'.a:r ' , , . . .,. ,..>. j:e ",' · ~4-" 3 · , ......'], " .. '. I, ',M; ",,' -- - · , lI.nJ.D.I\lI! j ;,'....,'*"'", .¡-,"""',' i' .. , \ , , .. . ~-,~ . POINT OF BEGINNING 9 1,~~ A~ LOCATION MAP 'NOT TO SCALE .. , \ 1@: , , -'. · · h;: \, n '.'" \ \ , ~~, ~::'1~TIN(¡ '/II:1I,A ( TQ œ:l'1Im~\W ~¡,,,,,ACfIt1¡ ~1'Il(Æ><1SWf;fIUtl:o\Wò:o.AAUn.Qf)!!-p,~1IoI D~_¥Ji?Q:1TQCI<JIUAAEA1) ~T /1M~~HUW.Nl.YA\."'1>Ei!Affi:¡ ..^y~I)I TAAI~I~'P,¡(.~ ¡;¡;~\tR { f . -, , ,II , ! III II' , I III' " II" ~'4; I. j ····~#¿.f . ,~~';;~_"'"t' , I 1:_...~:;;,4':'t,#<:t:'- 'j t I· ¡.....~(,#".- j'.' '~I " I' , .' .' , \ .. .. , : ~/ , \'1 #.~:'.i''''''' 1 ,¿'....'''~,''',~.I! ""'!'",,,>, 1'1 : ",,-"tøF' , , :'"',,,,,, I , \ ¡ , 10 / .. \ , .. '. -', ~~~ ". . "'" ", I.'.' -' ""," , '\ (C.V0'<J~pmA~Q!J¡("","N¡.n.JoNI} \ .. ":':'.,' ",,' \\ \ ,/ ",- '--"-" _AT"""" ~- ,/' ~.... "''''' _@w ""'''' ~'" /', /x":;~':'·;X)?-" /~,/::,/,;-',",,,, ," / ¿" '..~, /' " , .....,¡'" " . /-/ &':' "/~,i./:./ './ ! 'WiI<" ',' \. ¡",%./ ^ '"'! ( '.~'l'''''''- '/ ./ / ' ;,' ':':'«'\ t .. '",)iI :/>/ ,i :/' ';"'''/'''/.j'/'/'/ "/''', X<Y!jj " -',' /,/,/,·/\.:,·:t%~;' ::~,"f.~j/<~'" ,,/ ".< ~""i:""',Y</J:i(',:,;F' ," "Ii;:: .~,:-f=:/;:,>:/,--~,,,,,,;,//%>/<,,,/'.:"<7<'/·/" /)', :,~" '" '/..: ' / " ' ." ,",," ",' < ~:;: 'c.,'"w//·, , ~ "/' ./C"/ ',j{< __/"",,,;/ ',/,'> > /.;(, ,;I' :<:.i{",,· " //. .,.,,/,..,",/..../ '"' "y",./"'../.,)/' /'/1,' "/"';1' /,;. ".'/';/ o"- /' / "" /\ 1. ,/ :,/,):" ';h':;;'~"""'~' /~../. ,/' ,/./ .,.... "//' / /'. /; >~,' '" , ,. c. , " "" ',' / j' .,: ,('>:.,>:>/:>~ /'\<\~~\ /' '/' / ) ,// '. ///":'<, 'J";<'"'/;/'.""J *"";,:!ð\" "/ //"', ,/', ';¡ ;"(/"';...r"/,, Ý),~ <'" "../,''', '" /~)'iA?:' //;')~A<i':r / //.'/ " /,., .' ,I,. """"";<,'0 ,\1>-':-" , '"'/ /':;/ /" . " /( /.£.' ~ /// /~/// '7 'f' ',\¡,';' '~';p' ,.:,~'".,:/, /', /, ";4.,., ,. ¡"/' ""/', '~" / ~';/ /,., .... / /' , ., 'x·' ~.'.. "<' ,', ,/ / . ,',/ ",:-',>r',.>.... '" )/, /;"',,,." ,," // ~ j' " ""-"3"',,/· )' //./ 7' ,/ ,./ / / //l/ (''"'', ',p" " / ,",.." ' f.':' ,",' ,,,,' ',/ .,'" " ,i ./ ,",', / /' ."/," :!\iJ\lk')', '" ;/'"/'>./:,,/'/'/ " ,/ ./¢" ~'.- ".,/ / /.,' " ....'~/. '/""'/".' .' /1-' '" '.' ;:,/ ",.. '/ " /', " " ./ ,//,0, . /" ;: ./ ,.- .... ./ "'/1'" ',~ X'":/ / ,/"I'( ,/',./ ,,'I· " .!: " '/"/' /'<' ",. , ,/' / ~ ;.;-., ,'..;,' '/ ,/' ..-: ')' I" .' :¡" f~ ,/ \\ "y .. .. , , 1 ' , 1 )1 ,,' , , "J ¡ ilf \ I] ¡ "",.' q;'.lJ':' t: 'Ii I ...:¡II ,", ";i'¡¡"¡¡',,'¡ .,_.,;;.,,11,·,:1 "" ""'1 · ':'''",',:'' , : ,~ , ,If, I" " , í , I / . . " . " .' ,(.' , · · · , / ','':./,' .. '. PLAT/PLAN APPROVED by Uu.! City 01 IQwa City // · , , , , / , , i";\"i",' , 1,1":/, _t ,1"/'; ~, ""'d" 'J"";'" ' 1/14 . l' AI!Q.~ .. "'''''' Œ "'~ ./' !HIYTYtp.$£WI~.A~!l\JQÍ\N!!fIteOÌ!.i\<AY'OO ,I"y!;ØT. N ;j,UW ~M"TAJj:Ym;\\ ¡R U~$, AA¡¡/I:II ST\lRII ~iJ(~ UI!tS. ~/PI' ll/AftR utft$, !4<:o!1$~C_ PlA.'!a- fOi: m:T~, iI'()<rOf';l~J'i$~~M' _--\ 'AO\If '..j PJ. r"NIN1E(¡! /<l!1~¡ !!>!W P¡:~'~~~ll ~. '~:mo1oAAl1\ ~~ fA tfCOIII¡.... !~ '.. ...~..."... >'·h~.'.·.."',"..' T ....". .>......,.,.~~' ..·.w.·..w.' PfII.~;¡r hA\'WOôr'\ (lIH~"1· ,C,..¡¡.c.j .......... Sf,\: ðt./l&.~ßm tIItt ~~- NOT TO $(:;0\I.( /> / .. / '/ ./ j,. -,;, ;""""""",' "~"'ìl: :'1'· " " , , · / , · 1 , , · I · · · , · · , , .. /"", "',. ß' " ".... "', " ....., "', ",. ", ~·~,c.c. '""'" . , COt.\D sco~D1>\~fðt.\ " î I J ..,/'" f·P.C.Ç. !; Qt:\-'!.Il.K " \, ..-: / ; * .....-', Wg_"", . "'I \Î. , / / .. .. .. oZ,"" .. 1" / , / , ....--'"" , ...- , , .. , , , , , , "", z , . '" ; J tA¡;;t.\1" o~"\'B~\s\ot.\ I/'IZÑD S\J .. ¡::éiV,,-"'¡:;:'¡: ,I""'" .... I I , / " " -, , 1 1 · · · · · , ,¡; , , j ," Iß .' ~~.. ~ ~( , ~;ii(\ "Y~~ ~.... ~ - ;:>\ I t.\D S¡;;CO sco101J1ì"ION $ J """ ¡øf<'t\.U;fttU.II;j)OC....!«»(UfMW HIüH...AYtl"~_~($T~ 1'."~"Tt<fTl\itI¡mU:::r( I""A(:(:I::J1Q ja"C~<4I'11J:!PfJi1T't. '\ ¡.~i',I..(: ,," / , j I .' . I r z 1.- .' .' " z <;" -I -L I .. " " " " .. ,-""/ .' \ , " .. I , " $ 6 4 "1 " I ~~1oII:III*t 1I4(fflI ~ ~11!,~.~a.~. JIm Wl:J!CWI !IWII11'111¥1/Y11 ~lcA!§rn[n~çllilN: NDT1!):SCA ·t" r I ," ~o.//,-"" ~_.~---- A ! / I , ; I :: 1-,f J.... 0 I ~ t. I'!;j ï v g jr~ 8, I ~ '" , t ~~¡Ja/Q~ ,t~/I"'J.(Ø '~,\>OlgíM ,¡.; ....rn;ø I ~I'-W-'I9I!..I'W Cl)Wf,ll:lrt, !W'/II! '¡>t:jIÇfI'(St'!IEW $1\<Ji '~óWir(/ iWfH~ wP ¡;t",II«1B1i1'fP! $!I MMS CONSULTAN'!'!!, lIro, 'm~.,þÍji_,~ .;> I'.<..\W HttI1$ ,ç; WI1:W!'!'I!:"(OO Q', '''''~AAf';,W;liW.ÇffiQMm>''(¡,~Q- '''~¡O¡;1µO¡¡¡,$W;;~'''', ' , U~ PRELIMINARY PLAT & SENSITIVE AREA!! UEVEL\)PMEN'r PLAN MWD DAVIS ADDI!'ION IOWA 'CITY , IOWA (.: \5'1O!)\~,17\i~¡.~,~,\~¡179(t'J:,P ,j.,.,S 1 /27 /4;)J,;~1 ]" ;:9;.31 Ni CSf ~'I>M. _.. _w '!'¡"OOf MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Don Anciaux, Bob Brooks, Beth Koppes, Dean Shannon MEMBERS ABSENT: Jerry Hansen STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, John Yapp, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Garry Klein, Caroline Dieterle, Gary Saunders, Kathy Cochran, Larry Schnittjer, Scott Pottorff, Don Hilsman, Jason Hilsman RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 4-1 (Shannon voted against), to amend the South Central District Plan future land use map to show the Aviation Commerce Park Property, on the north side of the airport, as Retail 1 Community Commercial, and that the South Central District Plan text be changed to reflect the text changes as shown in the 4/15/05 Staff Memorandum. Recommended approval, by a vote of 4-1, (Shannon voted against), REZ05-00004 a rezoning of approximately 54 acres from Public Intensive Commercial (P/CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC- 2) zone for property located on Ruppert Road subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement addressing: 1) Sidewalks to be installed on Ruppert Road from Hwy 1 south to a sidewalk system in Aviation Commerce Park, including pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian signals at the Ruppert Road 1 Highway 1 intersection. 2) Pedestrian walkways be provided between the principal buildings on each lot and the public sidewalk system, to be identified and reviewed as part of the site plan review process for each lot. 3) A landscaping plan be required as part of the site plan review process, showing how parking areas, loading docks, outdoor storage, dumpsters are screened from view, and the landscaping of other areas of the site not taken up by required paving or building areas. 4) The preliminary plat indicating necessary improvements to the Ruppert Road 1 Hwy 1 intersection and the Ruppert Road 1 Riverside Drive intersection. 5) A future subdivision of the property indicating other transportation and infrastructure required based on the expected traffic. 6) Design criteria for large retail establishments as listed in the April 15, 2005 Staff Report. Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, ANN05-00001, annexation of approximately 29.7-acres of property located north and east of Highway 218 and Deer Creek Road and for the Horton property, the city portion of the property tax levy be transitioned according to what is permitted by State Code. Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, REZ05-00006, a rezoning of approximately 29.7-acres of property located north and east of Highway 218 and Deer Creek Road from County Residential to Interim Development - Office Research Park, ID-ORP. CALL TO ORDER: Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. COMPREHENSIVE PLANI REZONING: A public hearinq on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to amend the South Central District Plan to change the future land use map designation and plan text to change the Aviation Commerce Park designation from Intensive Commercial to Retail 1 Community Commercial. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21,2005 Page 2 REZ05-00004, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning of approximately 54-acres from Public Intensive Commercial (P/CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC- 2) zone for property located on Ruppert Road. (45- day limitation: 4/24/05) Yapp said the South Central District Plan identified Aviation Commerce Park as intensive commercial. In 1997 when South Central District Plan had been written, the feeling had been that that property would be appropriate to attract businesses that would have some connection to airport operations and would attract intensive commercial businesses that would not need visibility from Highway 1. During approximately 5- years none of these properties have been leased or sold. The City had recently received a purchase offer for part of the property from a large retailer. For the property to be used for retail development, it would need to be rezoned to Community Commercial. To make the South Central District Plan consistent with Community Commercial zoning, the map would need to be changed. An overhead projection showed the current (1997) South Central District Future Land Use map with the proposed April 2005 version. Yapp said the proposed rezoning would be consistent with all the designation of the commercial properties that fronted on Hwy 1 and the commercial properties to the west. The property to the south, airport property, would not have a negative impact from retail development. Improvements recommended in the South Central District Plan for retail development for this area would include pedestrian improvements, landscaping improvements and other appearance related improvements. Yapp said Staff felt these issues would apply to this property as well as to the other retail properties in the area. Text changes would be needed to the Plan which would include removing the specific reference to Intensive Commercial for this particular property and referring to it as General Commercial Development; removal of the word intensive from several places in the Plan; and removal of specific reference to retail commercial to be referred to as general commercial development in this area. Rezoninq: The property is also proposed for Community Commercial zoning. As requested by the Commission at their last informal meeting, Staff had prepared some standards for design of any "big box" business. Big box being defined as anything over 50,OOO-square feet in size. The design criteria would serve a number of purposes including · make sure that the design would be consistent with the Gateway One shopping center plaza · allow such a large building to be easily adapted for smaller commercial uses if the main tenant ever left Staff had done research in addition to the information provided by the Commission chair. The proposed design criteria would be very consistent with other things that had been done nationally. These included: · make sure the façade had some projections or recessions at least every 100-feet which would allow the façade to be more easily broken up into smaller commercial buildings. · require that any façade that faced a public street or included a public entrance included things that were common in shopping centers such as display windows, awnings, arcades or another entry- way feature. · require that the exterior wall of the building have some details including color change, texture change or other architectural elements at least every 50-feet to add visual interest to the building and to create break-points that might be broken up into smaller buildings at some future time. · make sure that the roof-line had features that would conceal roof-top equipment, would include over-hanging eaves to create visual interest or sloping roofs · require that building materials be brick, masonry, stone, stucco or textured concrete as opposed to being pre-fabricated steel or vinyl panels on at least 75% of the building · make sure that entry-ways had easily identifiable entry-way features such as canopies, over-hangs, arcades, patios, archways, display windows (at least three features to help define the entryway). Yapp said Staff recommended that the rezoning be approved subject to some site design standards that were referenced in the South Central District Plan including: · sidewalk connections from Hwy 1 including a cross-walk at Hwy 1 1 Ruppert Road intersection · sidewalk connections to commercial businesses on this property · pedestrian walkways from the Ruppert Road sidewalk to each commercial building Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21,2005 Page 3 · landscaping plan required as part of the site plan review process which would show screening of parking areas, loading docks, outdoor storage, dumpsters and other areas that are not taken up by required paving or building areas · preliminary plat indicating any necessary improvements to the Ruppert Road / Hwy 1 intersection and the Ruppert Road / Riverside Drive intersection Public discussion was opened. Gary Klein, said with the rezoning they were talking about public land which made it a special case in the first place. It seemed to him that anything that should be done for this instance should be an exception rather than a rezoning issue. Obviously public land could be used a number of different ways including as he'd suggested at the previous Commission meeting a fire station, assisted housing or things that through special exception could have taken place. He asked that the Commission consider that one of their desires was to create a new building that would be allowed to be broken down into smaller retail spaces if the tenant should leave. He wondered if there should be a retro-fitting of the building that will be vacated if the new Wal-Mart was constructed. He asked if Planning and Zoning had any authority to consider that. His second concern was regarding transportation. Klein said the City Council in Winston-Salem, North Carolina had recently had Wal-Mart withdraw a zoning request at a location there, in part, because it had to do with traffic issues. In the Winston-Salem newspaper report that he'd read, the article mentioned that Wal-Mart looked for on a daily basis 25,000 - 30,000 vehicles to visit their shopping center. Klein said he wondered if Ruppert Road access could support that many vehicles trips in addition to the many trucks that went along with that. He said the 1997 Comprehensive Map showed much of the property being considered is no longer agricultural as it was in 1997. The area around the airport itself was significantly different. His point being that land use was being considered; since it seemed to be being used up pretty quickly from 1997 to 2005 one of the things to consider was, was this the best use of public land? Caroline Dieterle, said prior to being on the board for New Pioneer Coop she'd really had no business experience. She's learned a great deal in the time she's been on the board. She was very aware how much store traffic meant to the success of a business. She said considering the investment that is being made into this relocated rezoned spot, she thought what Klein had said about traffic was very pertinent. Traffic had been alluded to very briefly in the Staff report, that there would have to be some changes in the traffic flow. Dieterle said that was probably one of the understatements of the decade. It would make a huge difference to have the amount of traffic there that would make that store a 'successful' store. She was bothered by the land use issue as well. She had been a former member of the Airport Commission during the 1970's. At that time there had been a fight going on about whether or not to continue having an Iowa City airport because of financial issues and "this and that". It had continued to be a struggle ever since. Dieterle said it had always come down to the idea that the airport was needed because of the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics and serving them. It was true that the majority of the air traffic that went through the airport was commercial aircraft and persons who came to Iowa City for the sports. The overriding idea was you still needed to have the airport there for UIHC. At that time there had been a real concern about trying to keep the area surrounding the airport free from this type of intensive development because in the event that there would be any tYRe of aeronautic tragedy the amount of casualties realized would be obviously greater if there were heavy development around the outside of the airport. Dieterle said she felt that was still true. Even if the airport were never enlarged or runways lengthened, the fact remained that the more people you put around an airport a potentially bigger disaster could occur. Dieterle she would like to reiterate what Klein had said about the use of public land, this was City land. She felt that we would be sorry down the line if the land were not used for more of a public purpose, even for parks. She asked the Commission to deny this rezoning request and send it back to the Council and ask them, 'What were they thinking?" Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21,2005 Page 4 Gary Sanders, said he had a question regarding the change in the Iowa City Charter which now did not allow a referendum on zoning matters as it had in 1989. He asked if the Office of Mr. Yapp or Mr. Behr had contributed to that discussion or entered into the participation of the discussion of the change of the charter so that it was no longer legal to have a referendum based on a land use change as it had been in 1989 when the City of Iowa City voters through petition had had a referendum on the change of land use for the first Wal-Mart. Yapp said he was not familiar with that change. Behr said there had been a Charter Commission appointed by the City Council that had done that. Sanders said he was very pleased that the Commission was going to pass this item this evening because of the fact that they were going to go by the use and not the user. Sanders said he wished to announce for the public, for the Commission and any media present that he, earlier in the day, had made formal contact with the Lion's Den Corporation. His goal was to bring in the largest pornography palace in the Midwest. He restated his name and said he looked forward to coming before the Commission at a future date where again the Commission could consider the land use and not the land user. Kathy Cochran, said as the Planning and Zoning Commission, she assumed that they looked at sustainable growth and issues in planning. In changing the zoning here, she saw a nightmare on 'our' hands for Iowa City. If the zoning were changed to allow a bigger store or bigger retail there, there would be the issues of traffic which had already been brought up and the issues of the airport which had been brought up. What was growing up around that area now were also the housing developments on the south side of the airport and the commercial properties that had since sprung up along Hwy 1. Cochran said if indeed said suggested retail store went in there, there would be issues of empty buildings. She felt better planning was needed; she didn't know what could/would go in there. Additionally there was Menards that would be moving to a larger location which posed the question of another empty building and what would go in there. Cochran said she felt there would be a snowball effect if the Commission changed the zoning and if big or even little retail stores located there. The resulting snowball effect and chain reaction on businesses already located in Iowa City would not be good for Iowa City or for that area of town. It would change the dynamics of that area of town. Cochran said she was not saying that change was not good but the change that was being suggested with the proposed rezoning was definitely not good. She hoped that the Commission would think this through, nip this in the bud now and have better, perhaps more public uses which had already been suggested. She'd prefer to see more moderate to low income housing built there, a definite need in Iowa City, or a fire or police annex station(s) built there. Cochran said there were lots of uses for that land to improve it, it should not be rezoned and built upon just to be using it. Because there was a buyer at hand, she didn't think things should be changed just to help them along. It would be a bad decision. Public discussion was closed. Freerks said there had been some good questions and good thoughts brought up. She asked Behr to address the question regarding empty/vacated buildings. She thought other communities had standards regarding this issue. Behr said if she was asking about a user coming in and what would become of their current (old) building, that would not be something that was tied to the rezoning and would not be germane to the Commission's view at this point. They could not consider it. Freerks asked if that could be a consideration somewhere down the road. Would there be anything that the Commission could do about it? Behr said it would not be. He said the City and buyer could work on that separately, but that would not be something that would come through the P&Z Commission. However, if there would be a change in use, then it would be a separate matter. Freerks asked Staff to address the question(s) of traffic. Yapp said Ruppert Road would have direct access to Highway 1 and Riverside Drive, both of which were arterial streets. Highway 1 carried 25,000- 30,000 vehicles currently. Ruppert Road would need to have some improvement with a large traffic Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21, 2005 Page 5 generating use. The City would expect to see the design plans for those improvements with the preliminary plat, not at this stage of the process. Yapp said the Chairperson of the Airport Commission had attended the previous formal Commission meeting and had indicated that the Airport Commission was in favor of this rezoning. Brooks asked if as part of the purchase agreement, was the applicant required to do a traffic study or just that they would do improvements as necessary. Yapp said some of the agreements had already been negotiated as part of the purchase agreement. Staff would have a better idea of any other improvements when they received the preliminary plat. Because this was City property the City would do its own traffic study, the potential buyer was not required to do one. Brooks requested discussion regarding the Commission's standpoint on the conditions that were proposed. He said his interest with the design standards was that the City faced the potential of vacant buildings in a number of cases around the community. Sometimes a developer stepped forward to redevelop a large facility into a vibrant and viable commercial zone as had been the case with WardWay Plaza. His interest in setting design standards was to make a building more adaptable should it become vacant at some time in the future. Freerks said she was interested in the design standards as well for the reasons that Brooks had just stated. She did not like the idea of vacant buildings, if there was any way at all to make a building more viable for the future it would be a small price to pay for the developer. Koppes said she was also in favor of the design standards as outlined in the Staff Report for the reasons Brooks had stated. Anciaux said his sentiments were the same. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve an amendment to the South Central District Plan future land use map to show the Aviation Commerce Park Property, on the north side of the airport, as Retail / Community Commercial, and that the South Central District Plan text be changed to reflect the text changes as shown in the 4/15/05 Staff Memorandum. Koppes seconded the motion. Freerks said she felt the proposed Comprehensive Plan change seemed reasonable, it seemed to fit. It didn't matter whether she agreed with what was going there or not, it met the requirements. The change from intensive commercial to retail / community commercial was reasonable. The Intensive Commercial was a bit of an island surrounded by retail commercial, the proposed change would make for a more viable area to have it all be retail commercial. Anciaux said he felt the change in designation was not all that significant from what it had been. It would improve the ability for the City to sell it and build tax base with it. Shannon said he was not comfortable with the change in the Comprehensive Plan. He had not been in favor when a street had been built down the middle. The plan then was to have businesses that would go along with the airport. In keeping with that thought, it was too bad that it had not worked. Perhaps five years was not enough time for Airport Commercial Park to develop. He could not support the change to the Comprehensive Plan at this time. Shannon said it scared him to have this that close to the airport. Maybe the Airport felt good about it but he did not. Shannon said he'd looked at the map and gone to the site, but couldn't see it as a good fit. If they wanted to sell the property then perhaps they should close the airport. Anciaux said he'd asked the question previously if this met the FAA guidelines and it did. If the guidelines were not met then it would all be a mute point. Since the guidelines were met, the FAA apparently felt this would be safe. Koppes said the FAA would not let them build anything if it were not safe. She would support the Comprehensive Plan change. It would match the rest of the area pretty well and looked like a good commercial area. She would not speak on what was moving there, just consider the land use. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21, 200S Page 6 Brooks said he felt the same way but somewhat reluctantly. The Airport Commission had attempted for five years to market the land with the other zoning but it had not materialized. He felt the change would help concentrate some commercial activity in that area. He would support the proposed change. The motion passed on a vote of 4-1. Shannon voted against. Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve REZOS-00004, a rezoning of approximately S4-acres from Public Intensive Commercial (P/CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for property located on Ruppert Road subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement addressing: 1. Sidewalks to be installed on Ruppert Road from Hwy 1 south to a sidewalk system in Aviation Commerce Park, including pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian signals at the Ruppert Road / Highway 1 intersection. 2. Pedestrian walkways be provided between the principal buildings on each lot and the public sidewalk system, to be identified and reviewed as part of the site plan review process for each lot. 3. A landscaping plan be required as part of the site plan review process, showing how parking areas, loading docks, outdoor storage, dumpsters are screened from view, and the landscaping of other areas of the site not taken up by required paving or building areas. 4. The preliminary plat indicating necessary improvements to the Ruppert Road / Hwy 1 intersection and the Ruppert Road / Riverside Drive intersection. S. A future subdivision of the property indicating other transportation and infrastructure required based on the expected traffic. 6. Design criteria for large retail establishments as listed in the April 1S, 200S Staff Report. Anciaux seconded the motion. Freerks said the public had discussed wanting to have the best use for the land, wanting to have parks, police and fire stations. Part of that was having a tax base and having development. She felt right now the best use for this particular piece of land would be commercial. Anciaux said the City was not selling off the whole parcel. If the City wished to install a fire station or other public use they could. Park land could also be developed but it would probably be a step down from what the potential of the land could bear and this was not a good location for a park. He would support the motion. Shannon said what he felt about the changing of the Comprehensive Plan held true about this as well. He was not comfortable with the whole development and felt it was a bad place for it. Shannon said he could not support it. Koppes said what the Commission had previously discussed regarding the Comprehensive Plan was very true. This would be a good commercial use, not talking about who but what. With all the other commercial in the area it would fit in well. Brooks said he hoped who ever the tenants will be in that area would take the hint from the Commission's discussions regarding design criteria and that they were looking for quality, something that would have a future adaptive use if necessary. They wanted the area to be an asset to the community and to this part of the community as well. Brooks said he hoped that the issue with design criteria standards would be helpful in development of that piece of property. Freerks said she was aware that the Commission could do nothing regarding an empty shell, nor tie it to a rezoning but hopefully in the future look into what other communities did in those types of situations. She would be open for ideas as to what had been done with other large buildings that had sat or would have sat empty. The motion passed on a vote of 4-1. Shannon voted in the negative. REZONING/SUBDIVISION ITEMS: REZ04-00017/SUB04-00017, discussion of an application submitted by Third Street Partners for a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-S) zone to Planned Development Housing Overlay - Low Density Single-Family Residential (OPDH-S) zone and a preliminary plat of Village Green, Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21,2005 Page 7 Part XXIII and XXIV, a 76-lot residential subdivision (38 single-family lots and 38 attached zero-lot line lots) on 25.67-acres of property located on Wintergreen Drive. Miklo said the applicant had requested that this item be deferred to the 5/5/05 meeting while the drainage issues were worked out. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to defer REZ04-00017/SUMB04-00017 to 5/5/05. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZ05-00001/SUB05-00003, discussion of an application submitted by James Davis for a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone and approval of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and preliminary plat of MSD Davis Addition, a 14-lot, 50.04-acre commercial subdivision located north of Highway 1, west of 218 subject to the Army Corps of Engineers approval of the wetland mitigation plan prior to Council Consideration. (45 day limitation: 5/14/05) Yapp said this was an application for a 14-lot commercial subdivision. Lot 3, the large lot located on the north side of Highway 1 and the west side of an extension of Naples Avenue was proposed for Intensive Commercial zoning. Lots 1, 2 and the lots on the east side of Naples Avenue up to Lot 9 were proposed for Community Commercial. Lots on the north end of the proposed cui-de sac would be Office Commercial that would abut existing residential properties off of Kitty Lee Road. The City Council had voted approval of the annexation of this piece of property and voted their first vote on the rezoning ordinance. The rezoning was still in process at the City Council level, the annexation application would be forwarded to the State which ultimately would grant the annexation. A preliminary plat could go forward at this time, a final plat could not be approved until the property was annexed and zoned into the City. The plat consisted of a new street, Naples Avenue, extending into the property with a cul-de-sac to provide access to the commercial lots. Lots 1 and 2 would have access to Kitty Lee Road, a rural designed road. As part of the CZA the road would need to be improved to City standards prior to the two lots having access to it. Because of the presence of wetlands on the property, it would be a sensitive areas development plan. The applicant had prepared and was working with a wetland mitigation plan through the Corps of Engineers who had federal jurisdiction on wetlands. A portion of the wetlands that would be disturbed as part of the development would be mitigated on the west side of Kitty Lee Road and a portion would be mitigated on this property. All the wetlands and stormwater management would be located on an outlot, a proposed pond would be surrounded by a wetland. Staff felt that the wetland buffer was an issue of concern associated with the· plat. City Code required a 100-foot buffer around wetlands, a buffer between any development activity and the wetland itself. Once the new wetland and the buffer were established, no paving, grading or other development activity could occur within the wetland buffer. City Code allowed for averaging a wetland in order to provide more protection to one part of a wetland versus another. A 100-foot wetland could be averaged to as little as 50-feet if the 50-feet were made up in another spot. Yapp showed a depiction of the wetland with the 100-foot required buffer. The buffer would extend onto some of the proposed private property lots which was permitted by City Code but no development activity could occur within the buffer. The applicant had proposed averaging the buffer with an extension along Kitty Lee Road. A gas pipeline easement and set-back area from Kitty Lee Road would not be developed due to the pipeline easement. Yapp said Staff recommended that the applicant's proposed averaging layout not be accepted. What was contemplated in the City's Code was an averaging to accomplish greater protection to one area of a wetland than another. The applicant's proposal appeared to Staff to not be consistent with the intent of a wetland buffer, which was to provide some protection to the wetland between it and any development activities, any paved areas that might have run-off and any immediate impacts from adjacent development. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21, 2005 Page 8 It was noted in the Staff report that there needed to be at least 50-feet between the wetland and Naples Avenue. The proposal submitted by the applicant provided the required 50-feet, however the issue of concern was the nature of the buffer averaging. The proposed plat was in conformance with the CZA in other ways. Naples Avenue was proposed to have two north-bound lanes and three south-bound lanes for exiting traffic consistent with the traffic study for this development. It had the appropriate access points to preserve queuing space on Naples Avenue and was acceptable in all other respects. Yapp said Staff recommended deferral pending the minimum 50-foot required wetland buffer being shown and Commission acceptance of the buffer averaging for the wetland area. Koppes asked if there were any federal requirements on the buffering or just City Code. Yapp said the Army Corps of Engineers did not require buffering, it was an Iowa City City Code. Public discussion was opened. Larry Schnittier and Scott Pottorff, MSS Consultants. Schnittjer said they had several issues with the buffering situation. · Staff contended that the drainage channel located in the lineal buffer would probably be filled at the time Kitty Lee Road was improved ·someday.' That was not a know fact · MMS Consultants doubted it because it would entail extra fill over the proposed relocation of the pipelines. There was a considerable drainage area that came down through that space that they felt the buffering would help the impacts to the wetlands. · MMS currently had a permit from the Corps of Engineers approving their proposal. · The Code enforcement agent agreed with their position. Freerks asked if there currently was a wetland along the channel. Schnittjer said there was not. There were two major drainage ways coming from the west that would be incorporated into the drainage channel. Freerks said her concern was, it was a buffer. She didn't see any wetlands along the tentacle strip so it was not buffering anything. Schnittjer said there was no current wetland in that space and there was not proposed to be any in that space. Pottorff said there currently was a strip of wetland that ran in that area, the strip they had shown on the site illustration was MMS' proposed mitigation. They would be filling in the naturally occurring wetland. Freerks said, then it would not be a wetland that would be being buffered later. A wetland buffer was an area that nurtured and supported a wetland. That was why she had concerns. It didn't make any sense that the applicant's engineers were saying that it buffered a wetland, because it did not. Schnittjer said it would be filtering the water that came in from across the road. Freerks said it still was not buffering a wetland. She remembered quite specifically that when the Commission had made the changes and amendments to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, they had discussed this in great deal. She had understood what the purpose of a wetland buffer was for - it was to maintain, help support and nurture the wetlands that are now proposed to be mitigated by the applicant. She was not seeing that; she was seeing strange shapes that to her didn't seem to have a purpose. Pottorff said MMS felt that that particular drainage way was buffering the wetland as far as cleaning the water that would eventually travel to the wetland more than any other area there. There would actually be water flowing in that ditch. Once Kitty Lee Road was improved there still would have to be a ditch. The rest of the area would be just slope adjacent to the wetland. Except in a very large storm, there would never be water flowing through the rest of the buffer area except for where they had illustrated the strip buffer. Freerks said she was trying to be open and listen to them but she felt it set the wrong precedent. She felt it was giving a piece of land so that something else would work. She asked what was the grade and was it a steep grade? Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21, 2005 Page 9 Schnittjer said the north-south gradient would be relatively steep but it would be sloping the other way. What he saw as the difference between Staff's position and their position was, Staff's was a 'physical' buffer, MMS Consultants were talking about an 'ecological' buffer. Pottorff said the north-south would basically be like a road ditch. Going north would drain toward the blue- line stream MMS was creating as part of the mitigation leading toward the pond. There would be a somewhat steep slope; all of the buffer area would be steep slope but they would have part of the steep slope area coming down to the ditch. To him it was still providing benefit to the wetlands. Pottorff said as proposed, the area was sitting much higher than a lot of the adjacent ground. All the lots sat much higher so there would be slope from those lots down to the pond and wetland mitigation fairly all over. Anciaux asked if Staff had seen the federal permit. Schnittjer said they had not he'd just received it. The permit had basically been issued subject to the owner's signature. Once the permit was signed and recorded, then it would be approved and they could start construction. Miklo said the federal government did not regulate buffering. It was a requirement that had been put into place in 1995 when the Sensitive Areas Ordinance had been written. A committee that had proposed the buffer had consisted of environmentalists and developers who had consulted with the buffer averaging was designed to allow some areas that were more sensitive to have a greater buffer and then some areas that were less sensitive to have less buffering. Miklo said regardless of whether the area proposed by the applicant was approved as buffer or not, it was an easement. It was not going to develop, the benefits of it would be there one way or another. The benefits of a buffer located in the otherwise required location would not be there if the applicant's wetland buffering average was approved. Freerks said the Army Corps of Engineers had signed off on the mitigation plan but it had nothing to do with the City's local standards. They were really talking about two separate things. She'd like to see a revised drawing. Brooks asked how would the lots drain, surface drainage? There was going to be a lot of paving, where would the water be going? Pottorff said MMS was actually not working on the Site Plan, so they were not positive. He guessed that a portion of the front would go out into the street and down to a low point and into the pond that way. On the backside he could see the potential of it being piped down into the pond. By standards, it was necessary to pipe 5-year storm to the pond. A larger flow could come down the slope into the back area. Pottorff said he couldn't give the Commission a good answer. Anciaux asked where / which way would the two lots to the north of the large lot drain? Pottorff said he'd like to see them drain off to the street, that was how he intended to grade the lots. There would be more slope going to the north than to the east due to the nature of the ground. He'd like to slope them back toward the street and provide storm sewer in the street for all the lots to bring it down and put the water in the pond. Freerks said she felt Staff's proposed design did what the true spirit of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance asked to do - to buffer a wetlands area, to nurture and help maintain, and give it a little bit of room. Brooks asked what type of area and/or distance to the north property line was being discussed. Pottorff said 20-30 feet and 5-10 feet. Brooks said another concern he had was this was not something that had come up out of the blue, it was something that was part of the ordinance that had been known about when the subdivision was laid out. Especially as it related to the large lot, he hadn't been convinced that the north-south spine along Kitty Lee Road was really serving as a buffer. Brooks said he'd have real reservations about approving the proposed plan. He didn't feel it was following the spirit of what was intended with the buffer zone. It had been know about since the site was being considered for development. Anciaux asked if the Commission had any concerns about the road. Brooks said he was not convinced that the proposal was in the spirit of the intent of what a buffer zone was for. Brooks said he didn't feel it Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21 , 2005 Page 10 was appropriate to give approval of the requested design until he felt that every attempt had been made. A twenty to thirty foot difference in the large lot was insignificant but perhaps became more significant in the smaller lots. However when talking about the amount of watershed coming off the large lot, he didn't buy it. Schnittjer said he didn't wish to get into an argument. He just wanted to be sure he had a clear understanding of where things were and to express his position. He said he didn't think that the "intent" was well defined in the ordinance. They'd worked on the design concepts for this based on meeting the requirements. These aspects had been in their plans for a long time. The other problem they had with bumping the buffer out to the east was it then became actually the property line of this lot. Development could not occur within any required yard, set-back would be based on the buffer line. An additional twenty foot buffer in the required rear yard in addition to that lot in the two smaller eastern lots. Freerks said there had been other areas developed that had had wetland buffers on them. Schnittjer said they had not been commercial property with the dollar value as it is. Yapp said Staff would and did support reducing the buffer for Naples Avenue as long as it met the minimum 50-feet. Schnittjer said they'd met that requirement. They'd modified the design of the wetland and the location of the street to meet that requirement. Freerks said she felt something more could be done. They could all come to a better understanding of what the ordinance was defined as. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Freerks made a motion to defer REZ05-00001/SUB05-00003, an application for a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone and approval of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and preliminary plat of MSD Davis Addition, a 14-lot, 50.04-acre commercial subdivision located north of Highway 1, west of 218 subject to the Army Corps of Engineers approval of the wetland mitigation plan prior to Council Consideration. Anciaux seconded the motion. Freerks said to defer would give an opportunity to talk further and come up with a solution. This was a big project and she would like to see it done right. She felt they were close yet very far off in terms of the type of precedent they could be setting by allowing this buffer averaging. The whole idea of a wetland buffer was to buffer the wetland; she didn't see it with the proposed tentacle of land. Freerks said she'd like Staff to work a little harder with the developer for one more try and hoped they could come up with a solution. Shannon said that particular lake didn't even exist until the freeway had been built. He was very sad when the freeway had been built because the lake that had preceded this one had been a dandy lake. It was currently in the middle of the intersection of Highways 1 and 218. The current pond had been established, the previous pond had been much better. Shannon said he had a hard time getting excited about this proposal because he'd tromped down through that area and didn't recall any wetlands being there. He was quite sure it had not been there 20-years ago or it had been very minimal, it had been just a pasture. He had walked down through there many times and didn't recall a pond/wetlands being there. He had a problem with losing natural wetlands and creating them someplace else. Shannon said he was not against wetlands, they were good. However in this particular case he was having a problem with it because it may have been partially created by man. He wanted to do the right thing but had doubts about this particular site. Anciaux asked what was or defined a wetland. Yapp said wetlands had hydrologic soil(s) as well as plant life characteristics. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZONING ITEM: REZ05-00005, discussion of an application submitted by Ace Auto Recyclers for a rezoning of approximately 2.22-acres from General Industrial (1-1) zone to Heavy Industrial (1-2) zone for property south of 2752 S. Riverside Drive. (45 Day limitation: 5/15/05) Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21,2005 Page 11 Miklo said the 2-acre site plus a larger 45-acre site had been annexed into the City in 1974. The eastern area of the annexation had been zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, which allowed salvage yards under certain conditions. The frontage had been zoned M-1, Light Industrial, which did not allow salvage yards. At the time a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) had been entered into. It had restricted the salvage yard operation to five acres, a series of conditions had been imposed upon the rezoning. The intent had been to keep a light industrial area between the salvage yard and the highway and there would be a berm with landscaping surrounding the salvage yard so it would not be visible from the adjacent light industrial lands, from the river or from the highway. That agreement had been a covenant which had been recorded with the property. It had applied to the owner who'd owned it at that time as well as to all future property owners. It had been recorded with the deed. There had bef3n an attempt to build the berm and some of the landscaping but it had been removed by the owner of Ace Auto and had never been replaced. The current salvage operation now exceeded the 5-acres originally 'approved. The salvage yard now was approximately 14-acres and had been illegally subdivided. The applicant had approached the City building department about repairs or replacement of shop buildings on the site and had been told that because this was in violation of the CZA as well as the current 1-1 zoning that had been applied to the property in 1974, a building permit could not be issued for the expansion or the rebuilding of the shop on the property. A General Industrial (1-1) zone was characterized for the most part by manufacturing plants or warehousing. The Heinz Road and Proctor & Gamble areas were good examples of what the intent of the 1-1 zone was. It did not allow salvage yards. The proposed zoning, 1-2, was a more intense industrial zone that allowed many of the same things an 1-1 zone did but also allowed sand & gravel extractions, more heavy industry and by special exception, salvage yards. Miklo said the Staff Report noted several conditions placed on salvage yards if they are approved for an 1-2 zone. One of the conditions required that a wall or solid fence be built around the property and that the salvage material could not be seen over the top of the fence. The current salvage yard, did not meet the agreed upon CZA nor the fence requirements of the 1-2 zone. The Comprehensive Plan called for this area to be an entrance way to Iowa City. It is the first entrance from the Avenue of the Saints and Highway 218. The City intended to build a 6-million dollar road to the north of this property that would cross the Iowa River. One of the intents of that road was to spur economic development, job creation and improvement of the tax base. One of Staff's concerns with adding to the salvage operation in this area was that it would not foster economic development, it would be less likely that this area would be cleaned up, it would not attract job creating or a tax base increasing industry. One of the reasons that the Comprehensive Plan identified this area as appropriate for industrial was because it was one of the few areas of the city where all the features that industrial users looked for were located, i.e.: access to the highway system including the interstate highway system, access to rail, fairly flat land. Staff felt that the whole corridor would be conducive to industrial development. Miklo said Staff felt that there should be a place in the community for salvage yards. It was a service that a community of this size needed and that had been the thinking in 1974 when the agreement was reached. A salvage yard that was bermed, screened, landscaped and not highly visible would be a service to the community. If the original agreement had been adhered to and the owner was possibly thinking of adding to the salvage yard in the area located back from the highway, that would be a different situation. Staff felt given that the previous and existing property owner and operator of this salvage yard had not complied with the current zoning or the previously agreed upon CZA, Staff was unable to support the rezoning request and recommend denial. Miklo showed several photographs of the current location and visual impact of the existing auto salvage yard. Freerks asked if the property had been illegally divided. Miklo said the original owner of the property in the area that had been annexed had been Gordon Russell. He'd had an agreement with Paul Paulsen to operate the salvage yard on the property. At some point it had been subdivided with out the City's subdivision review. Public discussion was opened. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21,2005 Page 12 Don Hilsman, said Ace Auto Recyclers was owned and was operated by Denny McCaw, himself and their sons. It had been stated that they'd expanded to 14-acres. They'd purchased the original 10-acres and owned an additional 16-acres which bordered currently vacant land. Consistent with the 1974 zoning agreement they were operating 300-feet east of Riverside Drive. Paul Paulson had never owned Ace Auto Recyclers. In 1980 they'd leased 10-acres from Paulson and in Deceniber of 1982 they'd purchased the 10-acres that they were leasing. At that time they had been in direct contact with a City Inspector regarding the earthen berm. Hilsman said they'd had permission from the City Inspector to remove the berm and spread it out in a low lying area. At that time they'd been told by the City to replace the earthen berm with a chain link fence with slats on it, which they'd done. Hilsman said they would work with the City on a 60-foot by 120-foot building and there would be a solid screen coming off the building on each side. At this time they had cement blocks 8-feet high that did an excellent job of screening. Hilsman said from time to time they'd had to stack cars, it went back to their situation in 1980 when they'd come to town and were processing or recycling approximately 600 to 700 cars/year. In 2004 they'd processed 1700 cars for scrap. Koppes asked Hilsman if he had any documentation regarding the City giving them permission to remove the berm. Hilsman said at that particular time they'd had someone from the City down there. He should have documented names and stuff, it had kind of been like an inspector at that particular time. Koppes asked if the City might have any documentation. Miklo said the City did have some records of the original 1974 agreement and some legal actions that the City had taken in 1987 that had referred to the lack of agreement. Miklo said he didn't know what had been said in 1980. The area adjacent to Highway 218/ Riverside Drive had never been zoned for this type of operation, regardless of what an inspector might have said or might not have said. Miklo said in terms of the screening of this area, it did not comply with the recorded CZA and it didn't comply with the current requirement for salvage yards. Hilsman said they planned on working with the City on this, they wished to do what was right and to get it done. It was not really an expansion of the salvage yard itself, it would be a warehouse and expanded office to update their facility. It went back to the amount of cars they were recycling. Hilsman said he'd provided letters from adjacent businesses that they would go along with anything that was necessary for Hilsman to do this on his property. Hilsman said they wished to install a building and were willing to spend thousands of dollars to make it look pretty as an entrance to the city. As far as screening, with the 8-foot blocks and a building with wings, that would take care of 70% of the problem. They'd discussed with Staff regarding planters with foliage that kept its color year-round or a solid fence in front of their entrance gate. Jason Hilsman, said Ace Auto Recyclers was a family business that he took a lot of pride in. Often times their business was portrayed in a negative view as a junk yard. They are recyclers of auto parts. The business had been called Ace Auto Recyclers from its inception. It had had the same name prior to its relocation to Iowa City in 1980 and for the past 25-years. Recycling was a key word, even more than it had been before. Hilsman quoted the Webster's Dictionary definition of recycle and said that everything their business did reflected recycling. They did two main things at their business. Recycle cars - they had an onsite car crusher that smashed cars after which they were hauled to Wilton where they were processed and reused for other steel purposes. They also offered affordable used auto parts which was another form of recycling. Hilsman said he felt they were a service to the city as they picked up many cars from around the city, for the City and from the local businesses. With the recycling of cars there was also a lot of waste involved. They needed a new facility to handle the waste. Every three weeks they recycled 300-400 tires. Hundreds of gallons of waste oil and transmission fluid was recycled. They had a license to resell anti-freeze, they reclaimed Freon from the air conditioning systems and they disposed of over 1700 batteries annually. They operated under safe environmental guidelines and worked with the Department of Natural Resources, The Iowa Waste Reduction Center, were members of the Iowa Automotive Recyclers Association, and one of their staff was an officer on the IRA Board. They had the appropriate permits to recycle, kept up to date on new standards and better ways to run their business. Hilsman said he felt that in all these aspects they were an asset to the community. They needed a new facility to keep up with the city's growth. In 2003 they'd processed 3,804,092 pounds of scrap steel metal Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21 , 2005 Page 13 or the equivalent of 1268 automobiles. In 2004 they'd processed 5,511,180 pounds, approximately 1778 vehicles, a 510 automobile increase in one year's time. Hilsman said he disagreed with the Staff report that said a recycling facility would have a negative effect on economic development and diminish the general character of the area. He felt recycling should be ~elco~e ev~r~here. If they built a new building with the proper screening, it would be as nice as any Industrial bUilding that would locate there. It would also increase the property values of the adjacent businesses. Freerks asked if there had been a limit on the number of autos that could be stored on site. Miklo said it was not the number of autos, but the number of acres - 5 acres. Hilsman said their facility had not changed since 1974. The wind had blown their back shop down in 1998. They had not been allowed to expand or rebuild, the building still leaked today. As any business expanded it needed new facilities to progress. Today was 2005 and they had not been allowed to progress. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Freerks made a motion to deny REZ05-00005, a rezoning of approximately 2.22-acres from General Industrial (1-1) zone to Heavy Industrial (1-2) zone for property south of 2752 S. Riverside Drive. Koppes said her preference would be to defer. Anciaux said he'd prefer to see it deferred. The motion died for lack of a second. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to defer REZ05-00005. Shannon seconded the motion. Anciaux said Modern Marvels on the History Channel talked about junk yards and what they were capable of doing. Whether Ace Recyclers could do something like that remained to be seen. He felt they provided a valuable service. He suggested that they provide an elevation that showed the proposed building, it would be helpful. He'd like to see something that would improve the looks of the area. Freerks said she was all for recycling. Under other conditions and if things were different she could support this. What Ace Recyclers did was very important for the community. She'd spoken earlier about setting precedents and she couldn't ignore the fact that they were in violation of their CZA and they were in violation of the underlying zoning. Freerks said she'd have to look at the next person and what they'd do and say. She would not feel right about doing this. The Hilsmans had spoken about doing what was right and spending money, she thought they needed to start with catching up, which probably could not be done it two weeks. It would have to be done over time, then they could come back to the City to try to work something out. Anciaux said he agreed with Freerks. The CZA had been violated, the Hilsman' had an opportunity with this to possibly get it up to snuff and even better. He'd like to give them the opportunity to work with Staff until the next meeting to see if could bring the property into conformance and to screen the property appropriately for an entrance into the City. If it became apparent that things could not be worked out, he would vote against the application. Freerks requested Staff to create a list of things that fit and did not fit in the CZA and in the current zoning. She wished to discuss this again but felt it was a much broader problem. Shannon said this was a bigger problem than what he'd realized. In his mind it was all do-able. He didn't understand why the City had allowed them to continue in violation for this long. Things could be corrected, he'd like to see something worked out to make it the way it could and should be. Koppes said she'd like to see the applicant propose something back to the City. She agreed with Anciaux she would also have to vote to deny the application if progress were not made. She said having an entrance way into the City look good was important. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21,2005 Page 14 Brooks said he agreed with what had been said and was perplexed that in 20-years if this had been in non-compliance something had not come to a head before now. He would like to see more effort to come into compliance. It was an importance service that needed to be accommodated in the appropriate way. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Anciaux said with respect to the e-mail letter from Sham Russell regarding water run-off, had Rick Fosse been apprised of the concern. Miklo said the e-mail had just been received and he would follow up with Fosse. ANNEXATION/REZONING ITEM: ANN05-00001/REZ05-00006, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City to annex approximately 29.7 acres of property located north and east of Highway 218 and Deer Creek Road, and rezoning the property from County Residential to ID-RS, Interim Development Office Research Park (ID- ORP). Yapp said Staff had received voluntary requests for annexation from these two properties. The adjacent properties were zoned ID-ORP, Staff recommended the same zoning for these properties. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve ANN05-00001, a proposed annexation of approximately 29.7-acres of property located north and east of Highway 218 and Deer Creek Road, and for the Horton property, the city portion of the property tax levy be transitioned according to what is permitted by State Code. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve REZ05-00006, a rezoning of approximately 29.7-acres of property located north and east of Hwy 218 and Deer Creek Rd, from County Residential to Interim Development - Office Research Park, ID-ORP. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. OTHER ITEM: Motion: Koppes made a motion to set a public hearing for April 28, 2005 to discuss the proposed new zoning code. Freerks seconded the motion. Koppes asked regarding time limits. Miklo and Brooks suggested the five minute, two minute rule. Miklo said since this was a public hearing and because the Commission would not be voting, they might just want to take input and not respond or give in to a debate. If the hour became late, the Commission could announce that because they were deferring this item and there would be a future opportunity for public input, they were going to close the public hearing. The Commission Chair should announce that the written comments received would be entered into the record. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Miklo distributed a revised City Council rotation schedule. It would be revised again when a new commissioner was appointed approximately the first week of May. An informational meeting would be held at 5:30 pm on Tuesday for persons who owned property in the CB-2 zone. It was not a public hearing, Staff was providing an educational program before the public hearing on the zone changes that would accompany the new zoning ordinance. CONSIDERATION OF THE APRIL 7. 2005 MEETING MINUTES: Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 21, 2005 Page 15 Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Koppes made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 pm. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill s:/pcd/minutes/p&zl2005/4-21-05.doc