The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-16-2005 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, June 13, 2005 - 7:30 PM Informal Meeting Robert A. Lee Community Recreation Center Meeting Room B 220 S. Gilbert Street Thursday, June 16, 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: 1. REZ03-00019/ SUB03-00024 Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Co. to rezone approximately 92 acres from Interim Development Residential (10- RS) to Low Density Single Family - Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA-5) for property located west of Kennedy Parkway and east of Camp Cardinal Road. Concurrent with this rezoning, the applicant has requested a preliminary plat of Cardinal Ridge, an approximate 92-acre, 93-lot single family residential subdivision. (45-day limitation period: July 10, 2005) 2. REZ05-00003 Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone and Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for property located between North Dodge Street and Dodge Street Court, east of Conklin Lane. (45-day limitation period: June 16,2005) D. Vacation Item: V AC05-00004 Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for vacation of alleys in Peninsula Neighborhood Second Addition. E. Consideration of the April 28, 2005 and May 5, 2005 Meeting Minutes Other Item: Election of Vice Chair (Informal Meeting) F. Adjournment Informal Formal STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo Item: REZ03-00019/ SUB03-00024 Cardinal Ridge Date: June 16, 2005 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Southgate Development 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard Iowa City, IA 52246 Phone: 337-4195 Requested Action: Rezoning from ID-RS to OSA-5; Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan approval Purpose: A 93-lot subdivision single-family residential Location: West of the northwest terminus of Kennedy Parkway, west of the Walnut Ridge subdivision. Size: 92.31 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped, ID-RS Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Undeveloped and residential; 10- RS South: Undeveloped and residential; 10- RS East: Residential; OSA-1 and OPDH-1 West: Undeveloped; ID-ORP Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as residential, 2-8 dwelling units per acre. File Date: May 26,2005 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The property proposed for development is accessed via the western terminus of Kennedy Parkway, the collector street that also provides access to the Walnut Ridge subdivision. Camp Cardinal Boulevard, which will connect Highway 6 in Coralville and Melrose Avenue, is being 2 built to the west of this subdivision and will serve as an arterial street for this portion of the city. The existing Camp Cardinal Road will become a collector street. The Cardinal Ridge property has been zoned Interim Development Residential due to the lack of infrastructure to support residential development; with the Kennedy Parkway extending into this property, infrastructure is available to support development. There are sensitive environmental features on this property including wetlands, critical and protected slopes, woodlands, and a stream corridor. The applicant, Southgate Development, is requesting a rezoning to OSA-5 to allow a 93-lot single family residential development on a 92.31 acre property. A Sensitive Area Development Plan is required because the applicant is requesting a reduction of a portion of the required wetland buffer in two locations and wetland buffer averaging for the wetland located adjacent to the stream corridor. The plat also contains Outlots E and G that are reserved for future development and Outlots A, B, C, D and F that will serve as common open space. ANAL YSIS: REZONING Comprehensive Plan: A rezoning from ID-RS is appropriate when the infrastructure necessary for urban development is available to the property. The Comprehensive Plan land use map identifies this area as appropriate for residential development, 2-8 units per acre. The Clear Creek Master Plan, which is the planning document guiding the construction of Camp Cardinal Boulevard, also shows this area as appropriate for residential development. The Comprehensive Plan states that residential development in the Northwest Planning District will be impacted by the existence of extensive areas of sensitive environmental features, and the Cardinal Ridge property is no exception. Because the applicant is requesting modifications to the wetland buffers a sensitive areas overlay rezoning is required. In Staff's opinion, the underlying density requested, Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) is appropriate for this property given the collector street access, environmental characteristics, and Comprehensive Plan gUidance for the area. The area to the east contains the Walnut Ridge development and is zoned OPDH-1 with an underlying zoning of RR-1. All of the lots in the Walnut Ridge are a minimum of one acre. The proposed subdivision includes some larger lots adjacent to Walnut Ridge. Sensitive Areas Overlay Rezoning: The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is to permit and define the reasonable use of properties that contain sensitive environmental features and natural resources, and allowing reasonable development while protecting such resources from damage. The Cardinal Ridge development is designed to primarily develop land that has been previously disturbed (farmed), thus preserving most of the environmentally sensitive areas. Woodlands: Woodlands are defined as any tract of land with a contiguous wooded area not less than two acres and containing not less than 200 trees per acre. Under the RS-5 zone, at least 50% of the woodlands must be retained. According to a note on the plat this property contains 40 acres of woodland, and 12 acres or 30% of woodland are proposed to be removed. Most of the tree removal will occur on the edge of the woodland contained on Outlot G. If other portions of the property are developed in the future, the total tree removal for the Cardinal Ridge property should not exceed 50%. The plan notes that fencing will be installed to protect the woodlands during construction. The Sensitive Areas Plan generally complies with the requirements of the woodland section of the zoning code, however as noted below the plan shows the removal of some wooded areas within the required protected slope buffers. S:IPCDlStaff ReportslREZ03·00019Card Ridge pre plat and SAO zoning.doc 3 Stream Corridor: A stream corridor exists along the southern portion of the property, for which a 60-foot wide total buffer is required (30-foot wide stream corridor plus 15 feet of buffer on either side). The development design includes this stream corridor buffer. Wetlands: Wetlands are located in the southern portion of the property, generally on the north side of the stream corridor, with some wetland 'fingers' extending north into drainageways. As required by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, a wetlands delineation report was prepared by the wetlands specialist and was accepted by the Army Corps of Engineers. The delineated wetlands are shown on the plat. Wetland Mitigation Plan: For properties containing a wetland, a wetland mitigation plan is required as part of the Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning. The wetland mitigation plan must include the type and location of erosion control measures, and a stormwater management plan that addresses stormwater runoff and sedimentation. Subsection G3(c)(3) of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance contains standards for the discharge of stormwater into the wetland including that the partial treatment of storm water runoff through the use of constructed wetlands, detention basins, vegetative filter strips, sediment traps or other means will be considered as part of a mitigation plan. Because a regional storm water basin is proposed to the west of the Cardinal Ridge subdivision, there will not be a storm water basin within the subdivision itself. Storm water will be released directly into the wetlands and stream corridor. The plans submitted provide no description of erosion control methods around the protected wetlands. There are no construction limits identified and there are no sediment barriers identified. The mitigation plan should also address the planting of enhanced vegetative cover with the previously disturbed buffer areas (per section 14-6K-1 G 3.c.(7». These items should be address prior to approval. Wetland Buffer Reduction: A 100-foot buffer around the delineated wetland is required, although it may be decreased under certain circumstances (See section 14-6K-1 G.3) In a letter dated May 18 (copy attached) the applicant proposes to decrease the buffer to as low as 25 feet where it would coincide with individual lots adjacent to Outllot D (lots 67 to 70 and lot 76 and 77) and future lots on Outlot E. The applicant is also requesting that the wetland buffer be reduced from 100 feet to 50 feet for the long narrow wetland located between the back of lots 29-30 and the back of lots 62-64. Based on the information submitted, staff believes that it is reasonable to reduce the wetland buffer where it coincides with development lots. However staff sees no reason to reduce the wetland buffer required between lots 29-30 and 62-64 with Outlot C. This Outlot will be private open space and it will be possible to achieve the full 100 foot buffer around the wetland. Wetland Buffer Averaging: The applicant has also requested use of the wetland buffer averaging provision to increase the wetland buffer adjacent to the stream corridor while decreasing lots 7 and 22 to 25. Staff believes that justifications provided for increasing the wetland buffer adjacent to the stream corridor but reducing it on the development lots is reasonable. Slopes: The plat notes the location of steep, critical and protected slopes on the property, and notes the 50-foot buffer required around the edge of the protected slope. This buffer is required to minimize slope instability and erosion of protected (40%+) slopes. Portions of the protected slope buffer are located in development lots. The final plat and OPDH plan should label these as non-development areas so that future lot owners are aware of the restrictions that apply. The plan indicates that trees will be removed from portions of the protected slope buffer on lots 51-53 and Outlot G adjacent to lot 39. The sensitive areas ordinance prohibits the removal of trees with in a S:IPCDlStaff ReportslREZ03-00019Card Ridge pre plat and SAO zoning.doc 4 protected slope buffer except where necessary for the installation of essential utilities. There are not utilities in the area proposed for tree removal on lots 51-53. The plan should be revised to indicate that tree removal will not occur within the protected slope buffer area. The plan does indicate the need for storm water and sanitary sewer easements on Outlot G and therefore tree removal may be approved to allow installation of these utilities. Several of the lots contain steep and critical slopes (lots 32-37, 39-53, 54-62, 66-74, 76-79, and 80 and 92). The Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires that grading and excavation of steep and critical slopes should be minimized. For the most part the slopes are at the back of the lots where little disturbance will be required during construction. The plan includes a note indicating that only 3% of the critical slopes on the property will be disturbed. The plan should report the percentage of steep slopes to be disturbed. In general, with the exception of the tree removal from the protected slope buffer on lots 51-53, the Sensitive Areas Development Plan appears to comply with the requirements for slopes. PRELIMINARY PLAT Subdivision Design: The plat consists of 93 lots accessed off the extension of Kennedy Parkway, a collector street, and Camp Cardinal Road, an existing street, a segment of which is proposed to be reconstructed to a urban street standards. The lots range in size from 17,000- 44,000 square feet in area along the eastern (Walnut Ridge) edge, to 9,000-10,000 square feet in area. Large amounts of private open space are proposed, primarily along the wetland corridor in the southern part of the property and the wooded slopes in the northern part of the property, but also within the development adjacent to all the rear yards (so no rear yard directly abuts another) and within the Meadowlark Drive loop. A round-a-bout intersection is proposed at the intersection of Kennedy Parkway and Meadowlark Drive both as a feature of the development· and to deter cut-through traffic between Camp Cardinal Road and Melrose Avenue. The plat also contains Outlots A, B, C, 0 and F that will serve as common open space and Outlots E and G that are reserved for future development. Outlot G is labeled as reserved for future condominium development. Since the construction of condominiums on this lot will require a future zoning action this lot should be simply be labeled for future development. Kennedy Parkway Design: In the Walnut Ridge development, Kennedy Parkway was permitted to be designed as a 28-foot wide pavement collector street with a sidewalk on one side. The 28- foot wide street was permitted as a collector street design (rather than the standard 31-feet) due to parking being prohibited on Kennedy Parkway. The sidewalk on only one side was permitted by the City Council at the time the preliminary plat was approved, due to the low density of development, and the opportunity for a private trail system through the development (which was never constructed, though the option is still there if the home owners association chooses to construct it). Consistent with urban design standards Kennedy Parkway within Cardinal Ridge will be 31 feet wide and will have sidewalks on both sides. Round-A-Bout: A round-a-bout intersection is proposed at the intersection of Kennedy Parkway and Meadowlark Drive. Designed properly, this can be an attractive addition to the neighborhood, as well as a good traffic calming device. Staff has reviewed the design with an engineering consultant and finds the design to be appropriate for this location. Like the private open spaces within the subdivision a homeowner's association will be responsible for maintenance of the open space in the center of the round-a-bout. Camp Cardinal Road Connection: Kennedy Parkway is proposed to connect to Camp Cardinal S:IPCDlStaff ReportslREZ03-00019Card Ridge pre plat and SAD zoning. doc 5 Road at the west property line. There may be a concern that this connection will result in cut through traffic using Camp Cardinal Road and Kennedy Parkway between Iowa City and Coralville. This will be only a temporary situation as the new Camp Cardinal Boulevard, which should be competed by the fall of 2006, will provide a better connection when it is complete. Kennedy Parkway and Camp Cardinal Road will serve as collector streets for the adjacent subdivisions. Because Kennedy Parkway is a collector street (with a traffic level of 2,500 VPD before secondary access would be required), there are no capacity issues with extending it to accommodate the Cardinal Ridge development. There are 104 lots in Walnut Ridge, and 93 proposed lots in Cardinal Ridge. This equals 197 lots x 7 trips per day = 1,379 total estimated trips using Kennedy Parkway. A traffic count from June 2003 found only 555 VPD using Kennedy Parkway near it's midpoint (near Shagbark Court). This traffic count also found an 85th% speed of southbound traffic of 39 MPH, coming down a grade on Kennedy Parkway. While the traffic volumes are not high, this speed of traffic would warrant targeted speed enforcement by the City Police Department. Because Kennedy Parkway is currently a dead-end street, it is safe to say the speeding vehicles are residents, visitors of residents, or construction vehicles from homes being built in Walnut Ridge. Sanitary Sewer: Section 14-7C-2 of the subdivision regulations require that sanitary sewer lines be extended to the subdivision boundaries and beyond, as necessary to provide for the extension of sanitary sewer to adjacent properties. This requirement is necessary so as not to deny essential infrastructure to adjoining properties and to allow the city to grow in an orderly fashion. Given the topography of this area, the City Engineer has determined that it will be necessary to provide a sanitary sewer extension to the north and at least one and possibly two extensions to the south. The plat currently does not show an extension to the north or south. Because there may be alternative ways to provide sanitary sewer service to the land to the south, rather than requiring two sewer connections to the south, the City Engineer proposes that a blanket sanitary sewer easement be granted to cover all portions of Outlot C south of the east-west sanitary sewer and that one sewer line extension be planned for the eastern ravine. The blanket easement will provide for the possibility of a second sewer line extension to the adjacent property to the south. But the provision of at least one extension to the south is necessary, so the City proposes that the applicant have the option of building the eastern sewer line to the south at this time or in lieu of building the sewer making payment to the City for the estimated cost of design and construction of that line. In the event that the property to the south develops with sewer service from another direction, the amount paid would be refunded. Without provision of sanitary sewer lines to the adjacent properties, staff would not recommend approval of the Cardinal Ridge subdivision. Storm water management: A regional storm water facility will be built upstream along with the Camp Cardinal Boulevard project. Therefore a storm water facility will not be required within the Cardinal Ridge subdivision. Storm water will be piped to the stream as discussed above. Open Space: According to the neighborhood open space formula, 2.17 acres of public open space or fees in lieu of are required for a subdivision of this size. The Parks and Recreation Commission is considering requiring the dedication of a portion of Outlot C for an east to west trail, if it is possible to obtain the cooperation of the Walnut Ridge Home Owners Association and the University of Iowa to extend the trail to the east to connect to the Clear Creek Trail. If a trail network is not possible on adjacent properties the Parks and Recreation Commission would want fees in lieu of dedication of open space within the Cardinal Ridge subdivision, due to the nature of S:IPCDlStaff ReportslREZ03-00019Card Ridge pre plat and SAD zoning.doc 6 the open space not begin suitable for a neighborhood park. Utility Tap-On Fees: Water main extension fees of $395 per acre are required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ03-00019/SUB03-00024, be deferred pending resolution of the deficiencies and discrepancies noted below. Upon resolution of the deficiencies and discrepancies noted below, staff recommends that REZ03-00019/SUB03-00024, a request for a rezoning from Interim Development Single Family Residential, ID-RS, to Low Density Single Family / Sensitive Areas Overlay, OSA-5, and the Sensitive Area Development Plan and preliminary plat for Cardinal Ridge an approximate 92.31 acre, 93-lot residential subdivision located west of Walnut Ridge, be approved. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: 1. The reference to condominium development should be removed form Outlot G. The notes should read: "reserved for future development". 2. A sanitary sewer line extension should be shown to the north property line. 3. A sanitary sewer line extension should be shown to the south property line or an alternative agreement should be reached to provide sanitary sewer lines to the property to the south. A blanket sanitary sewer easement should be shown on the 0 4. The required 100 foot wetland buffer should be shown within Outlot C. 5. The wetland mitigation plan should address the items noted in staff report. 6. Kennedy Parkway corner lots should have notes requiring access to local streets. 7. The area of steep slopes to be disturbed should be noted on the plat 8. Woodlands should not be removed from the protected slope buffers on lots 51-53. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Wetland buffer modification request (dated Ma \ Approved by: 18) ~~}f;~cl Karin ranklin, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development S:IPCDlStaff ReportslREZ03-00019Card Ridge pre plat and SAD zoning.doc ~ 0) ~ - ~ ,- ~ 00 Z - 0 D..' 0 0 I C') 0 N ~ ~~ L1J Q a: -- "¢ C\J 0 0 0 w I ~ ~ C') 5 ~ 0 ~ 0: CO 0 0 ::::> ~ C/) o ~ D.. t: ) \-~ \ :r:", ~\. \- g ~~ --~/-~- - I t3 :,¡ -, is D.. ( ~ ~ ~ D..~ \ " cr: - ~ ~ 0 Q z , ~ ~ Q) 0> 1J t: a: ....... ::J t3 c: (1j S ....... 0 ....... (f) Q) S . . CJ) Z IX D.. D.. 0 e IX 0 ~ 6 ~ U 0 ~- ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ rJ) "" ,.. .. .......-.- ~ - - """ o .,.,0 ....~. --- ©W'iñ!.©'ii',,@" 1¡, ...... raI~......., ..... '" '" -v-[ Me i.. ! ~~"' i. ~. ~~/ . ! Id . !j) r'~ i ¡l-? @ .1- ..~ n._.~", IIYÆ ~ '" . ~r-I!!!!I I ~~~~_.._¡ I_=-)J~:. ./ '", ! ~.. II:© ~=-"i æ:rm .: '" .~ ~ ~ ~-~ EŒ'i ~ )'0. "" --II< I ," ',,- I ~ "" ~ !t-E-" ,,0 ,,, ~!: I "" !j) --- I '", .". ~..,~~ 1oM)-· to 231.00 rf/PE.J'IIIiIt:r"" """',1\"""""" -:- - '\ \ .. \ 'ARE COST. fUTURE" ARA m::tl 1 I \ \ "\ -720/ I \ \ \ \ \ \ '\ "'. \ I I I \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ '/70, \ \ \ ) \ " /' , ---- " \ \ '\ \ " I \ I \ --.J \ \ 0 "- .0 \ I' I I I I I I I I I I ) I \ "- \ /\ \ \ \ \ I I HOLLAND & ANDERSON LLP 123 N. Linn St., Suite 300 P.O. Box 2820 Iowa City, IA 52244-2820 Phone: (319) 354-0331 Fax: (319) 354-0559 c. Joseph Holland jholland@icialaw.com Lars G. Anderson landerson@icialaw.com LeAnn Heun Iheun@icialaw.com May 18, 2005 Bob Miklo Planning & Zoning Department City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 RE: Cardinal Ridge No: Dear Bob: This letter is a follow up to the meeting we had on Tuesday, May 17. As you are aware the Applicant, Southgate Development Company, Inc., is requesting buffer averaging with respect to certain wetlands delineated within the boundaries of the proposed Cardinal Ridge subdivision. I am enclosing a copy of a Memo dated June 8, 2004, from Liz Maas to Scott and Larry at MMS. I include this in part because it provides information about the delineated wetlands and because I want to refer to certain identified wetland areas by the lettering used on the map which is apart of that Memo. From our discussions on Tuesday I understand that wetlands D and E are the two primary areas we need to address. The concerns over wetland areas A, B, and C have been largely resolved, although wetland area B does somewhat figure into this request since future development may raise the same issue with respect to that area. In Ms. Maas Memo she indicates a general agreement that these wetland areas are" of poor quality" or of "lesser quality." According to her memo, Gene Walsh of the Army Corps. of Engineers indicated a 15 to 20-foot buffer zone around these particular wetlands would be sufficient. I am enclosing an excerpt from a June 2003 Wetland Delineation Report by MMS. (I understand that full report was submitted to the City, but let me know if that is not correct and I will see that it is.) The "wetland drainageways" referred to in that excerpt are the areas A-E, inclusive, as labeled in the Maas memo. As this excerpt indicates, the wetlands along the stream corridor are much higher quality wetlands and deserving of more protection than the drainageways. Buffer averaging is allowed where an increased buffer is necessary or desirable to provide additional protection to one area for esthetic or environmental reasons. The stream corridor and the" wooded wetland" adjacent to the creek are areas which are worthy of additional buffering. Those areas are of higher wetland quality. Southgate is proposing to provide buffers well beyond what is required for the stream corridor and wooded wetland to protect those valuable natural resources, as a part of the buffer averaging allowed by Section 16-K-l-(G)(3)(b)(3). The increased buffering which Southgate proposes for the wetland is as much as 200 feet, e.g. south of proposed lots 64 and 65, where the buffer requirement in the Ordinance is only 100 feet. In fact, the buffering exceeds the minimum almost everywhere in the proposed development. The buffer is maintained at a minimum at a distance of 100 feet in all areas, except where it is shown on the current preliminary plat as 52 feet behind lot 22 and 50.87 feet behind lot 24 for wetland areas E and D. It is also shown as 41.7 feet at the southeasterly edge of outlot E near wetland area B. The effect of buffer averaging, as shown on the current plat, is to increase the total buffer area by almost one acre, as a consequence of the increase in the distance to the buffer line. Southgate has made every effort to design this subdivision consistent with good environmental practices. It could be possible to move certain lots farther to the south and decrease the buffer (which is shown as Outlot C.) For both environmental and aesthetic reasons Southgate would prefer not to do this. The buffer averaging provisions also include aesthetic reasons as a criteria which make it necessary or desirable to provide additional protection to one area. By providing additional buffering along the stream corridor this allows for more open space along the stream corridor. This will be an aesthetic benefit to the residents of the subdivision, the residents of nearby properties, and to the City as a whole. This is a goal recognized in the December 21, 2001 Memorandum of Understanding "Clear Creek Master Plan and Camp Cardinal Road." There are criteria set out in Section 14-6K-l(G)(3)(b)(4) which do not relate directly on buffer averaging, but which relate to reduced buffering. While these do not apply directly, I think that they are helpful in interpreting the intent of the Ordinance as a whole and in considering whether buffer averaging is appropriate. Those criteria do address the environmental and aesthetic concern which are matters which specifically relate to buffer averaging. The first criteria is "the proposed land use of the property and its potential impact on the wetland." Obviously, we are dealing with a residential subdivision. Human activities and the runoff from the properties probably have the biggest long term impact on the wetland. Obviously, construction disturbances have some impact. The increase buffering in certain areas will certainly help to minimize or mitigate the potential impact on the wetlands along the stream corridor. The second criteria is "the design and layout of the proposed development in relation to the wetland." As I said earlier, great care has been taken to attempt to follow the natural topography and to provide greater than required separation (buffering) between the residential lots and the wetlands along the stream corridor. The next criteria is "the physical characteristics of the site and the wetland." As the Maas report noted, the wetlands where the buffer would be reduced as part of the averaging are low quality wetlands. The site lends itself better to protecting the higher quality wetlands along the stream corridor by an increased buffer. The buffer averaging still allows significant protection for even those low quality wetland. The final criteria is "any other factor related to the short- or long-term environmental stability and health of the wetland." It would seem apparent even to lay people like you or I that the substantially increased buffer, by 100% in places, will help accomplish the greatest protection for the wetlands in this area from the effects of human activity. In summary, there are many factors which satisfy the provisions of the Ordinance to allow buffer averaging. We hope that the City staff will agree that the proposed buffer averaging is appropriate for this subdivision and approve this request. If you need clarifications or further information please contact me. Very truly yours, CJH:jm cc: Glenn Siders Karin Franklin Larry Schnittjer "_.--"----_._-"~~_."-- lland h1 v '. Buffer Exhibit Cardinal Ridge Iowa City, Io~va @'J ~ WETlAND AND BUFFER TOTALS 1:««.1 - ~~;~N~~~~ WETLAND AREA ~ - ~~~2 B~~~~~ I~~~~~~ - ~1~~:01¿~E~UFTER WE TLAND A 0.16 ACRES [«.»>J - ~T9LAA~R~S ~ - WETLAND C L.:...:..:...:. 0.04 ACRES \:·»:->:.1 - ~~LAANf>Rfs t «·»1 - ~1L'Att~E~ r:-:-:-:-:l - WOODED WETLAND AREA L...:....:...:. 4.13 ACRES p-;::r;::r-;::J - 30' STREAM CQRR!QOR ~ 8.52 ACRES ~ - 15' STREAM CORRIDOR BUFFER 12.72 ACRES '>'0 [ 2' WETLAND BUFFER EXHIBIT I m II Pro ject Title: N ° CARDINAL RIDGE o. IOWA CITY, IOWA 5 27/2004 9: 26: 32 AM COT MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. lowo City, Iowa (319) 351-8282 Designed by: Checked by: M ~ MMS Consultants, Inc. 1917 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 MEMO copy Date: 06/08/04 Project No. To: Scott and Larry From: Liz Maas Re: Cardinal Ridge request for a wetland buffer reduction and averaging Larry and Scott - Here is a revised copy of the wetland buffer reduction and averaging request with the revisions you requested. Please review it when you have a chance and if I need to change other things - please let me know. I will have it corrected and ready to go whenever you need it. Liz REQUEST FOR A WETLAND BUFFER REDUCTION FOR CARDINAL RIDGE IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA Request to the City of Iowa City for a Wetland Area Buffer Zone Reduction and averaging for the Cardinal Ridge Subdivision off of Camp Cardinal Road. This proposed development is in the northwestern quarter of Section 7, Township 79 North, Range 6 West in Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa. MMS Consultants, Inc., on behalf of our client Southgate Development, would like to request a wetland buffer reduction. A wetland delineation for this property was completed and transmitted to the City ofIowa City in 2003. A total of 0.39 acres (16,988 sq.ft.) of palustrine; emergent; broad and narrow-leaved persistent wetland (Wetlands A, B, C, D and E) and 4.13 acres (179,902 sq. ft.) of palustrine; forested; broad-leaved deciduous (wooded wetland) wetland were delineated. Area for which a buffer reduction is requested: Total existing wetland acreage on this property is 4.52 acres. The wetland areas do not contain species identified by the federal and/or state governments as endangered or threatened; and do not provide critical or outstanding habitat for any species of that type. The small drainageway wetland areas that run down slope to join the small blue line creek do not contain diverse plant associations of infrequent occurrence or of regional significance and they themselves are not identified as a blue line streams on any USGS topographical maps (Figure 1). In addition, the wetlands associated with the blue line stream do not contain diverse plant associations of infrequent occurrence or of regional significance. In a year of average precipitation, the wetland area does not contain standing water throughout the calendar year and does not provide a known habitat for migratory birds of local or regional significance. Only those portions of wetland immediately adjacent to the blue line stream have been delineated as wooded wetland. In addition to the above evidence, on the 19th of May, 2003 MMS Consultants Inc. Wetland Specialist Liz Maas met on-site with Julie Tallman from the City of Iowa City Building Department. At that time, there was agreement that the "emergent" wetland areas (Wetlands A, B, C, D and E) along the hill slopes were of poor quality and that a request for a buffer reduction would be considered by the City. Then again on the 18th of June, 2003, Liz Maas from MMS Consultants Inc, Julie Tallman, Ron Gaines and John Yapp from the City ofIowa City met on-site with Gene Walsh from the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers. Mr. Walsh walked the property with all those in attendance and also recognized the lesser quality of the hill-slope wetlands and recommended a 15-20 foot buffer zone around wetlands A, B, C, D and E. Reducing the 100' required buffer to an averaged 50' buffer does not seem unreasonable. The attached Figure 2 depicts the proposed buffer zones. A 50' buffer zone surrounding the hill-slope wetland labeled "A" would be approximately 1.34 acres in size. MMS proposes an averaged 2.38 acre buffer zone as shown in the attached drawing. The remaining hill slope wetlands and wooded wetland areas along the creek will be buffered by a proposed 9.26 acre buffer zone; compared to a 50' buffer which would be 8.52 acres. In total, an 11.64 acre buffer zone is proposed instead of a 50' buffer which would be 9.86 acres. This proposal provides an additional 1.78 acres of buffer. Based on these considerations, MMS Consultants Inc. would like to request both a 50' buffer reduction and buffer averaging for this project. WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT CARDINAL RIDGE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA I -J Prepared For: j j j j ] j J J I J ~. I J i -J ] ] Southgate Development and The United States Army Corps of Engineers Prepared By: MMS Consultants Inc. 1917 Gilbert Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 MMS Project No. 2265-138 June, 2003 1 Vegetation Much of the natural vegetation of this site has been converted to agricultural use. However, it is evident from the site photographs that the wetland drainageways have not been recently planted. The upland agricultural areas investigated also support upland weed species such as smooth brame (Bromus inermis), various foxtail species (Alopecurus spp.), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), Canadian thistle and rough cockle- bur (Xanthium strumarium). In the upland fencerows, upland tree, shrùb and vine species include common hackbeny (Celtis occidentalis), red mulbeny (MOlitS rubra), choke cheny (prunus virginiana), Tartarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), morning glory (Ipomoea purpurea), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). 1 ] The, wetland drainageways having been constantly disturbed by adjacent planting and harvesting do not support as wide a vegetative variety as that found within the wetlands adjacent to the creek. Instead herb species within the drainageways include reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinaceae), tussock sedge (Carex stricta), and Ohio goldenrod (Solidago ohioensis). Wetland tree, shrub and vine species include American elm (Ulmus americana), silky dogwood (Comus amomum), and black willow (Salix nigra). 1 ] ] In comparison, the wetland area adjacent to the creek supports hydrophytic (water- loving) herb species, such as reed canary grass (phalaris arundinaceae), Ohio goldenrod (Solidago ohioensis), common blue violet (Viola papilionacea), clearweed (Pilea pumila), joe pye weed (Eupatoriadelphus maculatus), boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum) and jewelweed (Impatiens capensis). Hydrophytic shrub species include common elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) and silky dogwood (Comus amomum). Hydrophytic tree species are also found within the creek wetland boundaries, these include American elm (Ulmus americana), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), green ash (Fraxinus pensylvanica), black willow (Salix nigra), box elder (Acer negundo ), sugar maple (Acer saccharinum), and Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides). 1 1 1 -1 ') Hydrology Since the entire property drains to the federally regulated creek along the southern boundary of the property; overall hydrologyofthis site is dominated by drainage of the south facing slopes. The four small agricultural drainageways that lie between the rolling topography of the property drain to the creek. The drainageway wetlands flow either directly to the creek by washouts or are directly adjacent to the wetland area associated with the creek. In order to have a complete understanding of the different wetland areas, specific hydrology is discussed below. In addition, 1he drainageways and wetlands within them are labeled and identified in Figure 4. J J 1 ... Drainageway I The most westerly drainageway, Drainageway 1, contains two pockets of wetland (Wetlands A and B). One sits on the northern end of the drainageway and is connected to a second, more southerly wetland by a washout ditch. The second wetland pocket is directly adjacent to the wetland surrounding the creek. 1 ~ j J I '""~ STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo Item: REZ05-00003 North Dodge Street Date: June 16,2005 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Southgate Companies P.O. Box 1907 Iowa City, IA 52244-1907 Contact Person: Glenn Siders Phone: 337-4195 Requested Action: Rezoning from RS-8 and CI-1 to CC-2 Purpose: Development of mixed used building and bank Location: 1126, 1128 and 1425 N. Dodge Street Size: 2.19 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Commercial building and vacant Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: South: East: West: Residential - RS-5 Residential - RS-8 Undeveloped - RS-8 Cemetery and Commercial - CC-2 and CN-1 Comprehensive Plan: Mixed Use File Date: March 1, 2005 45 Day Limitation Period: Waived to June 16 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: An approximate 1 acre portion of this property with frontage on North Dodge Street (Hwy. 1) is zoned Intensive Commercial (CI-1) and contains a commercial building and parking lot. The CI-1 zone is intended to provide areas for sales and service businesses that are typically characterized by outdoor display, storage and/or sale of merchandise, repair of motor vehicles, outdoor commercial amusement and recreational activities or by activities conducted in buildings or structures not completely enclosed. The remaining approximate 1.25-acre portion of the property with frontage on Dodge Street, Conklin Lane and North Dodge Street Court, is zoned Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) and until recently contained two houses. The RS-8 zone 2 is intended to provide for development of small lot single-family dwellings. Duplexes are allowed as provisional uses on lots with a minimum lot area of 8,700 square feet. The proposed Community Commercial (CC-2) zone is intended to provide for major business districts to serve a significant segment of the total community. In addition to a variety of retail uses, these centers may typically feature large traffic generators requiring access from major thoroughfares. ANAL YSIS: Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The North District Plan states: ".. .the plan designates the area directly east of Dubuque Road and Conklin Lane as appropriate for a mixture of residential and commercial development. Careful consideration must be given to the design of any development in these areas to assure that it is compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Development ideally will be mixed use with a residential component facing Dodge Street Court. Vehicular access for commercial uses will be limited to the current curb cut on Dodge Street. This will require shared access for these properties. If it is not possible to achieve a mixed use development adjacent to Dodge Street Court the preferred use is residential similar to the existing residential development in the area." Appendix B of the plan defines Mixed Use as: Areas intended for development that combines commercial and residential uses in a single building. The commercial component should emphasize locally oriented retail, service, and office uses that will compatible with surrounding residential development. Commercial uses will typically be located on the ground floor with housing above. Development is intended to be pedestrian-oriented with buildings close to and oriented to the sidewalk. The applicant has submitted a concept site plan, which illustrates their intent for development of the property if the rezoning is approved. The concept plan does illustrate some of the elements envisioned by the North District Plan for the area. A mixed use commercial/residential building is proposed in the north east corner of the property. A bank with drive-through lanes is illustrated in western portion of the property. A landscaped berm and brick wall are proposed to screen the commercial development from the dwellings on North Dodge Street Court. Proposed Conditional Zoning Agreement: Given the expectations outlined in the North District Plan and the fact that there are existing homes and the potential for further residential development directly across Dodge Street Court and to the east of this property - in staff's opinion any commercial rezoning should be subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The CZA should spell out requirements for development of this property that are in addition to the requirements of the CC-2 zone. Staff recommends that the CZA address the following issues based on the need to provide a good buffer for the residential zone to the south and east and to document some of the elements shown on the applicant's concept plan: Buildinq desion: Brick buildings limited to 2 stories and featuring store front windows, canopies or awnings and upper story fenestration as illustrated on the elevation drawings submitted. Staff has requested an elevation of the east side of the building which will be visible from Dodge Street and the adjacent residential zone. Pedestrian access: Sidewalks are required between the Dodge Street public sidewalk and the proposed buildings. We recommend that a sidewalk be provided between Dodge Street Court and the two story commercial building. The landscape strip between the residential and commercial parking may be a good location for this sidewalk. A sidewalk will be required in the right-of-way adjacent to Conklin Lane and Dodge Street Court. The City will construct the sidewalk on Dodge Street as part of the reconstruction project currently underway. 3 Landscapinq and screeninq: To create an adequate buffer along Dodge Street Court, the City Forester recommends that white pines be planted 35 feet on center within the 20 foot setback. He also recommends crab apple trees be planted 30 feet on center within the street right-of- way between the sidewalk and the curb. He suggested red splendor or prairie fire. There may be other species of trees that meet the objective of creating a screen between the residential area the commercial development but also provide more variety. The applicant's plan includes an 8-foot high masonry wall on top of a 2-foot high berm along Dodge Street Court. This will result in a 10 foot high barrier between the Dodge Street Court and the commercial development. In lieu of such a large wall staff recommends that the wall be 5 feet high with some articulation such as taller piers and decorative brick work. The wall at the Ardenia Condominiums at the corner of Kirkwood Avenue and Marcy Street is a good model (photo attached). With this design and the trees recommended by the City Forester, a more open and pleasant pedestrian environment could be created. The zoning code requires that the parking area for the apartments be screened, so we would recommend that the wall be continued to the residential driveway. Evergreens would be appropriate at the south end of the garage. Street trees are required at a ratio of 1 tree for every 60 feet of street frontage along Dodge Street and Conklin Lane. These trees should be planted on the property rather than in the street right of way. The screening trees on Dodge Street Court will satisfy the street tree requirements along that street. Siqns: Staff recommends that other than signs permitted on the buildings, that signs be limited to two monument signs on Dodge Street. If one of the monument signs is located at the corner of Dodge and Conklin Lane it should be no farther than 20 feet back from the Dodge Street right-of-way. We recommend that no signs be permitted on the south side of either building, on the west and east side of the bank building within 50 feet of Dodge Street Court right-of-way, or on the east side of the two story building within 200 feet of Dodge Street Court - again, this is to help make this commercial development compatible with the adjacent residential zone. Liqhtinq: Staff has requested more specific information about the site lighting plan including any lighting proposed for the residential parking area. Our goal is to minimize effects on the adjacent residential zone. Any lighting under the bank drive-through canopy should be recessed into the underside of the canopy to avoid glare. Street improvement: Because it will provide access to the multi-family residential parking area, Dodge Street Court will need to be brought up to City standards. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to pay for half the cost of the street adjacent to their property. The City would pay for the other half. Additional right-of-way will be necessary to bring the street right- of-way width to 50 feet. Access: The North District Plan states that commercial access will be limited to one curb cut onto Dodge Street. The applicant's concept plan includes a drive-through bank exit onto Dodge Street Court, a residential street. Given the specificity of the District Plan regarding no commercial access to Dodge Street Court, staff does not feel we have the latitude to recommend something expressly contrary to the Plan. Sensitive Areas: Although there is a wooded ravine to the east of this property and some mature trees associated with the houses that were located on Conklin Lane, there are no known sensitive areas regulated by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance on this property. Many of the trees will be removed for the Dodge Street reconstruction project currently underway. The applicant's plan would result in the removal of the remaining trees. 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ05-00003 an application to rezone 2.19 acres form RS-8 and CI-1 to CC-2 be approved subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement which requires adherence to the principles of the North District Plan as discussed above. Attachments: 1 . Location Map 2. Applicant's Concept Plan 3. Suggested buffer wall design Approved by: L ~ {LÜAl_~ Karin Fr nklin, Director Depa ent of Planning and Community Development ~~ ~ \) 0Q ~ u__ "-- -- :J::r: ~ J ~ t3 ~ ~ ~ ~ t3 II) en a: en a: c - ('I) o o o o I LO ~ W a: 1i) Q) '- .... CI) Q) C) "'C o C . Z LO C\I V ..- cð CD C\I ..- ..- ~ <0 C\I ..- ..- ž o I- ~ U S ~ t: Cf'j ·~ "'ø IDë 1£ O'JID ...... c: 5 "0 E ~ a.ro ~ VJ o a. 0 (1.)- .- 00-. üo.. . ..c:Q;~ ,'! ßI¡ 1:: > ü c: (I.) OlD'" O~ K8 zo~ ()(f) ~ -]~ ]i~ 11<= ~~~ ~ ~\;....~ j l~~ .mf·:,,' "" -t-_ -.-:: ~ O~~~_... , I I I . I I I I I 9 I I I : I -:::: ':;---..:: -=.~ = ..: = .;~-:.~::: =-~=--~-:d- I I I M 1 7"'0 h 1¥ ~-Q ¿ '" ., ~ o <D .. 1 I : It. , ! I l .~ltl;::1 1il.iTI~ t - ¡if? c::=-- ?J U\\'i v.ov ~ ~ -----------~~ ~ ..-..- I -L--..-.. I I f-- I 10 I I .~ _0 J'~ '" V1 ~ a>ë r:J'a>"" "0 E ;; 00..9 00;>; .J::ã)ð t > "" o a> ;; ZO.9 ~ ¡¡: ~ .::s { ,_.1 <1 CI§ ]lJ en +-'0) c...c. Q,) U U+-, c: 0) o~ Ow Æ 1~ I ~ i "'" £~ ~- ¡ <3 t! <:n " ¡;: E"':¿¡ 8:-::: ù£ '" 0;: ~. .;:) J5 I -- E '----_,¡. i~- Ji I I; ¡~ ~ jj Bç: ~ tfj"2: 6 ð:.- Ld~_ ~;:r f.- ,,8 >- ¿E -J ;'¡; .s 32 8 ü ), L----~ I \ 1 c¡ 01 '-1 "tS¡ ';7 , ÆI UJ¡ : ~¡~ ú)!:- - ~ m ~M'") f) ""0 ,_. '" ," 1 -, -..^ ~,"t!t'Z)¡::,; ~ ^w ;s , f'- b . ., -'"" ',," --'" .. û - :,:-;::::~?, .-',., ,~ 1 ~~~-~... !~~~~ ~ ~ØD'~ -~ CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: May 26,2005 ! ' . r 'ì.~ . M~oJ,Jt To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Karin Franklin, Director, P 0 / ----- Re: VAC05-00004 Peninsula Phase II-alleys To facilitate installation of utilities, the Peninsula Development L.L.C. has requested the vacation of the alleys platted in Phase II such that these alleys will become private alleys rather than public alleys. We recommend approval of this request. In the platting of Phase II, 3 foot utility easements were provided at the rear of lots abutting alleys to enable the installation of gas and electric utilities. Presumably space within the alley abutting this 3 feet was expected to be provided for the actual installation of the utilities. We have been informed by representatives of MidAmerican Energy Co. that the company policy at this time is to avoid placement of utilities in public rights-of-way since any future relocations of those utilities would be at the cost of the utility company, acçording tb City policy. So the resolution of this is to transfer ownership of the alleys from the City to the developer and retain easements over the alleys for public access, emergency services, and garbage pick-up and establish a hold-harmless provision in the easement such that the public does not incur costs for pavement repair caused by the provision of the public services. As public alleys, the rights-of-way were open for all of the uses and services noted above; snow removal was the responsibility of the abutting owners; and the City (public) was responsible for the pavement for its life (approximately 20 years). As private alleys, the uses and services will remain the same; snow removal responsibilities will remain the same; the public will have no pavement maintenance responsibilities; and an easement will be granted by the developer to MidAmerican for space in the alley abutting the 3 foot easement for installation of utilities. Cc Barry Kemper, Peninsula Development L.L.C. Aaron Cooper, MidAmerican Energy Ron Knoche Brian Boelk \ 11/11111 !lnl 'I~;i ;I~ . = ... ~I ¡:¡! Iii! ì ¡dj t- c ,0 ~t~ ìh111 11111 ä d~lä ~~ ~~HJ i~ ~jH lIi!II!i1Ii'(!J1 illi~ I~j~ ¡ Ii I. 1I.1Pn I ~ 0 ¡at c l~~ ~I ~t~: ,Ihll. 11 'I !@ihl~~ :¡¡!o.f' ... .81 t ~~ lId J d I B Z .. s I I , '0 ~j : Ilpn, It'll it ~z: I Ie. II È! ~ . II I!' II!!' h'¡r Sil I ¡ I u. Of- 0« O-.J ID- er:: o-.J rn« IZ OLL Wz Zo «f- -.J - ~o (f)o z« zo wz D-O U Ww I(f) f- ~ i! ¡ i!!!~1 J d ,d~ ~ hm¡ni Iii: . . :~ :11 ú Ii;, ¡ ~." . I=a§ .a· S!g! iI;¡g~ ~.~5 ~l~g i ]!.ï) ~:l~ j c I~ .~I'II,¡tJ·r " ~ þ 1~5a¡¡J~¡~~:. ~i~ ~~ l~'~~~ïï~'h¡ ~l._ g2 1~E~~~88~~~£R ~]~ J~ '"¡;rf,~~;~ fto .~ü ~i !jiIH~~i~ HI~t e~ ¡-l'¡¡~~H:' rH §2 ,1 ~~~bl ~~zt ¡Jm ~~ ;~I:I¡¡¡jl~~; ~~i ð8 ~·:~:::~.~.t~~:.. ~1¡ ~t J~~~~·:]!~~:~I ~í2 f~ }*ç~~~~:~~!~~ i,j ~. "¡~'~~~'"þ~" "Ac ~~ 1.,1, !~~r~l! !~~ " ,_ili'."r..." ~." ~5 ~!~.~J~~RJl'! $.~ ~~ !~iJi""'Hr, ~j¡ ~I !~~~~~¡j!:*~j it_ ~~ i~~~~~~!!~i~~ l~{ !~5~~€:~;~ij~ i~8 ti~i~~g~~~~~~ i~* ~~¡qt~Þ~:~ï5 ~~.-. 1i':'!i~~~~-t .z~ ~~IVI~~;i:~!i. ;~i '~;~~;lÆ'!!ir ~~~ !!!!!¡¡¡¡Ìj!¡ I!! ~I~~:j~i~llf~ ~1i - q.:.:.:,.-u. ~ liol:¡!: ;;~:I i~~~:~~J:~~~J !~! i~!:~:!g~¡li~ ~f1 ~jt~~~~~~~~jl ~~f :6i~sti~;~i~~! 1;~ lª¡f~~~~¡~~~~o~~£ :*t:~.'!;=~'"':Z"'o".~'-'='" ~ # ~ ~~ ~. ". ~~ š· ". .~ it 05 ~; .. o. Sf ~: ~~ !~~ ". ~~ .~ ~¡¡ ~~~ d~ ~~~ ~ ":-' ~~:.? 'ii::£::' . "1ì> ,,~ &,~ 'd' "< .¡) of?.z¡o(, 0(", «a » a~""'A- -'f.1è ~¡/' ©~ ¡ ~ ~ . ----~---- -------- -------- ~ 0\ -------~ - --I". .--'" .....!5 ~ 4' - - I;' ~ ~ g ------------- I ! ~ ~ " ~ ~ \ " I ~~ k';- (i \ i. ~ ....," i ~ i \ - -- \. ~ I (\ '- ð ~ \ z! g ~ ~ ~ o §; ¡ ~ 2 ~ m: .,¡ ... ... .. o .. i:ì '" .,¡ \ ~ ~ ~i<"1' '!h" .)~~ " "1ì>1Ø ,~« <'.I'd' .¡¡, ~ f:o "1ì>.>ø;<o(<< o(© ~ <'.I » 'd' ...,,~ 'f.1è of?4j? is' ©¡@J l .>Í ~ ñ .~ ~ ! / . , . . \\ / ~¡ - " ~ i = - I h - ~ ~ \-J" 'i ~ t; I ~. ~ p ~ r · . I \ ~g ~;!'r ! Ii! III ·~i~ .~R 'II -i ~Lì.· ~ ~i I~n I.; I II! i i" n II, Iii ~~ ~ ~ · H j ~ I jÍ . ~~. II II I I W:::o ¡¡ iLHHH ~ ti ", '1 ~ !:' er !\ fI " ~ 15 ,II~ Iii unugg II I ..... <J <>....." '" 'i ¡Ii, MINUTES PLANNING and ZONING PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 28, 2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL PREUMIHARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Anciaux, Beth Koppes, Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks MEMBERS ABSENT: Dean Shannon STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Barbara Buss, Dennis Nowatny, John Kammermeyer, Craig Dahlen, Glenn Siders, Gary Kleinfelder, Pam Ehrhardt, Steve Gordon, Ed Jones, Cecile Kuenzli, Scott Hochstasser, Dan Smith, Charles Eastham, Larry Svoboda, Gary Moore, Bob Welsh, Lori Dahlen, Larry Schnittjer, Joe Holland, Mike Pugh, Ann Bovbjerg, Mark McCalhon, Patti Santangelo, Mike McLaughlin CALL TO ORDER: Brooks called the public hearing to order at 7:32 pm. OPENING REMARKS: Chairperson Brooks said the purpose of this meeting was to hold a public comment hearing on the new Zoning Code for the City of Iowa City. A draft of proposed changes to the Zoning Code had been made available to the public in February, 2005. Since that time, P&Z staff had attended numerous civic group meetings to present information on the proposed changes and three public informational open houses had been held during which time the public had been invited to attend to meet one-on-one with staff and Commission members to ask questions and discuss areas/issues that needed clarification. All of those comments along with any additional Public Review Draft Comment Sheets received would be entered into the public record and would become part of the Commission's deliberation process as they moved through the adoption of the new Zoning Code. A copy of the proposed Code was available on the City's web page as well as on a CD or in hard copy format from the Planning and Community Development office. Brooks said this would be the first of at-least two public hearings before the Commission. All commentary received would be considered and utilized in the process of developing the final Code which would be voted on by the Commission and then sent to City Council for their review. The Council would also hold a series of public hearings before the Code was adopted. This public hearing would go until 10:00 pm. Persons were requested to limit their comments to five minutes to provide everyone an opportunity to speak. If all persons had had the opportunity to speak, persons would be welcome to speak a second time for an additional 3-5 minutes. Brooks said the Commission had already received a large amount of public input in the form of letters, e-mails and comments during the public informational meetings. There were several items which the Commission would be directing staff to review further and provide suggested changes or revisions to the proposed Code for re-consideration by the Commission. Potential re- review items included the location of shelters in certain neighborhoods and ways to keep existing duplexes in certain zones conforming with the proposed changes in the Code. Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 2 of 20 Motion: Anciaux made a motion to accept and put into record all correspondence received to date. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: Barbara Buss, 718 S. Summit, said she was there to urge the Commission's support for the proposed changes to the Code. She thanked Karen and Staff for the careful way the proposals had been made with special consideration for public input. She felt the specific proposals spoke to the common interest of the community. Two groups, homeowners and landlords, would speak before the Commission. Each would speak in its own self interest as property owners. It would be up to the Commission to decide which of those self interest's best coincided with the interests of the City. Homeowners were persons who owned property as their home, their largest financial asset was the equity in their homes. Their interests would be to protect the value of their investment by maintaining their property and the neighborhood in which it was located. The stability of Iowa City's neighborhood followed from the pursuit of that self interest. Landlords, who owned rental property but had little interest beyond the revenue from their property. This group did not include the many landlords with a sense of civic responsibility. They also had a significant investment in the property they owned. Their interests in maintaining the value of their investment did not extend to any interest in preserving the quality of the neighborhood of which their property was a part. Iowa City had a large population of short term residents who did not make significant financial or emotional commitments to the places they lived. This lack of commitment on the part of the tenants allowed landlords to disregard neighborhoods. This disregard furthered the self interest of the landlord group by devaluing the property in these neighborhoods for homeowners. Buss said it was often taken for granted that there was a presumption in favor of property rights as belonging strictly to the person who owned the property. It went without saying that you could not keep an elephant in your backyard just because you owned the backyard. She quoted from Eric Freifogal, Professor of Law, University of Law. "American's have largely forgotten the links between property rights and the common good. Dominant myths not withstanding, it has been clear for generations that the only sound way to justify private rights in land is to point to the contributions property makes for the common good." Buss said she felt the proposed revisions spoke to the common good. She, as a homeowner, cared very much about her neighborhood and about Iowa City as a place of neighborhoods and hoped that the Commission would act in support of the common good by supporting the proposed revisions. Dennis Nowatny, 511 Washington Street, said he lived in commercial property and had rental properties across the street from him. Goals for the Code had been to simplify the Code and get more affordable housing in Iowa City. The Code had doubled from 200 to 400 pages. CB-2 zoned property owners were notified that the two major CB-2 zoned areas would be split into six pieces. That would not simplify the Code. Pagglia Pizza and the old house on Bloomington Street would become non-conforming heights because they were higher than 37 -feet. The R/O zoned area on Washington Street would also become nonconforming as they were more or less 35-feet in height. 35-feet seemed to be a suburban height limit and did not fit with some of the neighborhoods and homes closer to the downtown area. Affordable housinq. The east-side of downtown was zoned RNC-20 and were allowed to have 5- bedrooms in those houses. On P. 394, definitions, in the Code, only 4 bedrooms would be permitted which would cut away another bedroom and its use. 10-years ago when RM-12 had Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 3 of 20 been downzoned to RNC-12, four to three bedrooms, the use of one bedroom had been lost. City Council had provided assurances the change would be reversed, it had never happened. CB-2 to R/O reduced the usable lot size by~. Currently CB-2 could build lot to lot, 100-foot height. R/O cut down to ~ lot build on and cut 2/3 of height from 100-feet to 37 -feet. He'd prefer to see the R/O and CB-2 zones merged into the CB-5 zoning. Keep the older building usable as they had been in the past. John Kammermever, 116 Fearson Avenue, said he'd served on a committee in the 1970's-80's that had spent over 6-months revising the Comprehensive Plan. It asked too much of the Commission, Council and the public to comprehend the new Code. · The revision should have been done in stages looking at residential zones, commercial, etc. · Opposed to the design regulations that had crept into the Code. · Need less zones rather than more zones, the zones needed to be more flexible. · Simplify not complicate the Code; pages doubled in quantity. · Less regulations rather than more. · Avoid at all costs making properties non-conforming or taking value away from property. Comprehensive Plan should be looked at as a broad brush overview document and not adhered to rigidly. Looked at and revamped every 5-years. One of their major principles had been with any change in zoning or Comprehensive Plan to minimize making a property non-conforming; to not take value away from property. He felt there would be major non-conformities arise with the proposed new regulations. Kammermeyer said his analogy was "For development in the City of Iowa City, we are slowly hemorrhaging to Coralville and North Liberty. They are more flexible in their regulations for development." Iowa City needed to look at that or they would be left in the dust. CraiQ Dahlen, 2018 Waterfront Drive, one of two current managers of the Hilltop Mobile Home Park. He felt it would be wrong to change the property from exceptional zoning to provisional zoning because that would be taking away the voice of the people. The shelter house wished to build on Waterfront Drive. Hilltop Mobile Home Park and thirteen businesses along Waterfront Drive did not wish them to build there. There were many voices opposing each other right now, he felt those voices needed be heard. If it went to provisional zoning those voices would be taken away. Dahlen read Shelter House Rules for Guardians of Dependents, Rule #8. It stated that the Shelter House might have occasion in which clients of Shelter House might be on the State's Sex Offender list. It was the guardian's responsibility to provide care and supervision for the well- being and safety of dependants. Dahlen said the potential was to have sex offenders staying at the Shelter House both day and night. Currently at the Mobile Home Park they had 85 children and there were 60 children across the street at Ha-Cap, which meant 145 children were also there day and night. The House of Representatives had passed a bill that sex offenders could not live within 1,000 feet of a school or day-care center. If they felt it was an important issue, why didn't the City give it the same consideration? Dahlen urged the Commission to keep the zoning as Exceptional Zoning. Glenn Siders, PO Box 1907, said he represented the Land Development Council (LDC), an organization conformed primarily of the development community in this area. Their membership expanded to include home builders, realtors, construction industry, financiers, suppliers and retailers. Their membership represented over 1,000 businesses. Their group had formed one- year ago when they learned that the zoning code was becoming more than what they'd anticipated it to be. Based on The Duncan and Associates Report issued 4-years ago, the LDC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 4 of 20 had thought that the Zoning Ordinance would be reviewed, critiqued, amended, some problematic areas changed and enhanced and see more flexibility. The current product was 423 pages of redesigned codifications. They were opposed to many things in the ordinance, it was impossible to read it page-by-page. They objected to the public hearing being the first opportunity which allowed them to have oral presentation before the Commission. Siders said the LDC had condensed their concerns to a few problematic areas. DesiQn Elements: It was their opinion that the market should bear the design of a home. When a homeowner purchased a lot and built a property, they should be able to build what they wanted. Siders said the argument was frequently heard now that there was not a flexibility that existed or the opportunity now for people to build what they wanted. There were different markets and neighborhoods available with different types of construction which documented what the people wanted to buy and at affordability that they would buy. Siders said if the City wished to incorporate standards for development of property, such as alleys, then the City needed to step up and take the responsibility to maintain those alleys. He did not think that that responsibility should be passed on to the homeowners. He didn't see that opportunity in the proposed ordinance, he saw the opposite. Siders said the LDC commentary would primarily be directed toward the residential and not commercial aspect of the proposed changes. Gary Kleinfelder, 1131 E. Washington Street. Approximately one-year ago he was considering redeveloping two properties in the RS-8 zone that were across the street from him. He'd spoken with Staff, who'd suggested that some changes would be proposed for the RS-8 zone. He'd been told that in the new subdivisions zoned RS-8 basically all that had been built were duplexes. The City wished more of a mix of housing so the Code revision would be changed. However under the proposed changes, duplex standards would be applied to all current existing RS-8 zones. His concern was with the non-conformity issue. He'd just completed two duplexes which under the zoning proposal would become non-conforming. Brand new buildings built as condominiums for future marketability, 3-bedroom units with the potential for a fourth in the basement. If they were sold to a family who wished to install the fourth bedroom or a bath in the basement, they would be denied a permit. Kleinfelder said currently there were probably less than 1 % of duplexes in Iowa City in existing duplex zones that met the standards in the proposed Code. Kleinfelder said he was waiting to hear why a huge block of properties would be made non-conforming and why certain types of improvements could not be made to them and hoped that this situation could'be addressed in an equitable manner. Pam Ehrhardt, 1029 E. Court Street, said she personally wished to thank each Commission member and the Planning Staff for the tremendous amount of work, the time invested and thoughtful considerations put into the proposed Code revisions. She said there might be a struggle now but for years to come citizens as well as developers would thank them for the revisions of the Code. She wished to speak in support of three areas. AllowinQ duplexes only on corner lots in RS-8 zones would encourage a good mix of single-family homes and duplexes in the development area. It would avoid what had occurred in the Longfellow Manor where all the homes were duplexes and unlike the rest of the neighborhood where all the homes were a good mix. DesiQn standards for narrow lots. There seemed to be a trend toward increasing urban density by using narrower lots. She felt it was imperative that there be a design standard to avoid having blocks of a wall of 2-door garages which was not a welcoming entrance to homes. Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 5 of 20 Good Neiqhbor Policy mandatory. There had been many instances when the good neighbor policy had worked and the developer had met with the entire neighborhood. Listening to and discussing with each other had worked very well. There had also been instances where developers had ignored this policy and hostilities and mistrust had developed. Steve Gordon, 1718 Timber Hills Dr, Coralville. Land Development Council (LDC) representative. The proposed Zoning Code was a large document which covered many complex issues. A large part of the code as written would serve the citizens of Iowa City well, the LDC planned to focus on areas which they felt would place an undue burden on future homeowners and renters. One of their basic philosophies was that the market should drive individual housing choices. They were opposed to design standards. The concept of new urbanism or traditional neighborhood was a relatively new development philosophy which placed a large emphasis on architectural and design features of a dwelling and the placement of various structures within the development. The LDC felt the choice of design should market driven and not mandated. They felt that a lot of new urbanism concepts had been mandated within the Code. They also felt that a lot of the changes in the proposed code would decrease the availability and make it more difficult to provide market rate affordable housing in Iowa City. Residential Zones RS-5 Zone: Minimum lot size increased from 60-feet to 70-feet. Density bonus back to 60-feet if certain design standards are met. Don't feel is a bonus as 60-foot lots currently allowed in RS-5. Design standards, P. 18, #6 require an alley unless criteria are met. Proposed changes will mean that a lot of the current, attractive, comfortable housing designs will no longer be allowed. 50% requirement will be especially burdensome and eliminate many current popular house plans potentially forcing houses to be larger and more expensive. LDC recommends minimum lot size of 60-feet per current code and garage standards removed. There would be a second density bonus for 50-foot lots allowed if criteria met. LDC propose bonus be lowered to 45-foot lots if alleys or rear lanes are used. RS-8 Zone: Minimum lot size increased from 45-feet to 55-feet. Density bonus allowed for 40- foot lot. LDC propose minimum lot size remain at 45-feet per current code, density bonus be changed to allow 35-foot lot if alley or rear lane used. RS-12 Zone: Minimum lot size increased from 45-feet to 55-feet. Density bonus allowed for 30- foot lot. LDC propose minimum lot size remain at 45-feet as per current code. P18. #6 - Garaqe Desiqn Standard. LDC propose this section be removed. P18. #3 - Sinqle Family Dwellinq will allow only one car to be parked in front setback area. Persons w/ 2-car garage can have only one vehicle parked in driveway. LDC feel in un-enforceable; should be removed from code. Minimum front yard setback reduced to 15-feet in all residential zones. Utility easements typically located in first 15-feet of front yard. All front yard landscaping and trees would be in easement and not likely to be repaired in event that easement space is needed for public repair. LDC feel 20-foot setback more desirable. They propose and support a minimum setback of 25- feet which would allow for larger front yards and enhanced landscaping. Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 6 of 20 Proposed setback of 15-feet and required garage setback of 25-feet, not all persons will wish to design a home with a garage set-back 10-feet from front façade of home. Streetscape with some houses set back 15-feet and some 25-feet or further which would not make an attractive streetscape. Duplexes and Attached Sinqle-Familv rO-lot linel RS-8 Zone: In proposed Code would only allow on corner lots and must meet design standards listed on pp. 169 and 175-176. LDC feels the design standards are unreasonable and will drive the cost of construction and ultimately the price to the consumer up. LCD propose that the design standards be removed and that duplexes and O-Iot line dwellings be allowed by right within the zone per the current code and not just on corner lots. These types of units have become a staple for quality, market-rate affordable housing in Iowa City and surrounding standards. RS-5 Zone: Same design standards and placement restrictions apply to duplexes and O-Iot line dwellings. LDC feels restricting these units to corner lots and having each unit a different street is acceptable in this zone. All other design requirements should be removed. RS-12 Zone: Duplexes and attached Single-Family are allowed anywhere within the zone. The same design criteria would apply. LDC feels the design criteria should be removed. P. 171 requires additional design criteria if there are 4 or more attached units. LDC feels these requirements should be removed as they would further drive up the cost of housing. P. 172 - Maintenance. It would be required to secure an access or maintenance easement for all lots that abut the O-Iot line side of a dwelling. This would be required to be recorded on the deed before the issuance of a building or occupancy permit. This would allow both sides of a O-Iot line unit to have an access easement to work on the side of their home that would be next to the other unit. It is not possible to deed over the property to the consumer before you build it; LDC feels this requirement can not be met. LDC propose the access and maintenance rights be secured in the covenants of the subdivision as is the current common practice and this requirement be removed. Multi-Familv Zones Parking would only be allowed behind principle buildings and concealed from view of fronting streets. The current Code does not allow parking in the front yard set-back area but allows flexibility to deal with lot topography and corner lots. LDC propose that parking be prohibited in front-yard setbacks but not required to be behind buildings as per the proposed code. P. 28 #3-C - requires that more than one building on a lot must be designed to preserve privacy. Proposed Code indicates this can be achieved by placement of windows to prevent direct views into windows of adjacent buildings and units. Are no criteria as to exactly what this means. Windows are dictated by safety standards and live-ability issues. If two multi-family buildings are parallel to each other, does this mean that one of the walls of one of the buildings can contain no windows? LDC feels this section needs to be better defined and would recommend that it be removed. Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 7 of 20 The same section prohibits balconies and air-conditioning units from being located along a building wall that is within 20-feet of a building wall of an adjacent building on the same lot if that wall contains a window or door openings. By design, balconies or air conditioning units are within 20-feet of the walls or window or door-opening that they serve. LDC questions why is privacy more important for the adjacent building but not for the building the units are on and that they serve. LDC feels this is an unreasonable requirement and if balconies and air-conditioning units are truly a menace to privacy, they should be eliminated all together. LCD recommends that this requirement be removed. P. 40 #3-B requires an S-2 landscape screening standard between any parking areas where headlights will shine on a wall containing ground level windows. The examples used for acceptable parking configurations on P. 39 have entire building facades that would require the S- 2 screening which requires a landscape screen that ranges from 2-feet to 4-feet in height, and at- least 1/3 of the shrubs must grow to a height of no less than 4-feet. LDC feels having entire facades of buildings where tenants park and enter the building shrouded by 4-foot tall shrubs poses a serious safety concern. LDC recommends this requirement be removed. P. 41 #6 requires entrance doors to individual units located above ground level must be accessed from an enclosed lobby or corridor. There are many good apartment building designs that utilize covered stairways and landings to access upper level units. LDC feels this requirement is too restrictive and should be removed. P. 41 Section E - Desiqn Standards. These types of design standards lead to increased construction costs and ultimately higher costs for the residents. P. 42 - Central Planninq District Desiqn Standards are very restrictive. They take up five-pages. The Central Planning District is meant to preserve the historic character of the District, it is a wide reaching district that includes many acres of undeveloped land in the northern part of the city. LDC feels the established historic districts can accomplish the preservation and historic feel of their specific neighborhoods. To have such restrictive detailed design standards over such a large area including large areas of undeveloped land is unwarranted. Commercial Zones CN-1 Zone. The requirements on P. 68 do not seem feasible or conducive to commercial uses. The build-to line is set at 5-feet back from the front property line. At least 65% of the build-to line must contain a building which means on a 100-foot wide lot, at-least 65-feet of the lot will contain a building that is no more that 5-feet back from the property line. The first 15-feet of a front lot is usually reserved for utility easements. To meet this requirement in areas already developed, the utilities would have to be moved; in undeveloped areas they would need to be placed in a location different from current practices. The LDC question if the City Engineering Department and local utilities have been consulted regarding this issue. The requirement will force parking to the rear of the lot or behind commercial uses. The LDC feels that clearly would not be conducive to a small business trying to provide convenience to its customers. In most successful CN-1 zoned projects around Iowa City the building isolated on the side or rear of the lot and the parking is located so customers have convenient, easy access to the business. The LDC feels that the Code is trying to address a problem that does not exist. By definition in the proposed Code, a CN-1 zone has direct access to an arterial street. The proposed Code will put buildings 5-foot back from the right-of-way line on the City's busiest Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 8 of 20 streets. The opinion of the LDC is that this will jeopardize the safety of both vehicles and pedestrians and would not be aesthetically pleasing. P. 71 Section L - 0, Buildinq Architectural Standards. The LDC propose that these be removed or modified to be less restrictive. CB-5 and CB-10 zones have the same design standards found in the CN-1 zone. Certain design standards seem appropriate in these zones because of the unique nature of our downtown and the desire to preserve that nature. It needs to be certain that the requirements encourage and promote the revitalization and business health of these areas and are not a deterrent. Planned Development Overlay Zone. As mentioned in the description the OPD zone should permit flexibility in the use and design of structures and land. Flexibility is the key word. As with residential zones, the LDC feels that certain design standards are mandated which takes away from the flexibility and creativity that should be allowed. The OPD zoning process should be a tool where the City and developers have an opportunity to be creative and find new and innovative ways to develop property. Restrictions included: · Attached single family uses must comply with the design standards for an RS-12 zone. · Design standards limit housing to certain-craftsman neo-traditionallook · Multi family & duplex uses must comply with design standards of multi-family zones, very limiting. · All commercial development must comply with CN-1 standards, not feasible in a lot of areas · Undue emphasis placed on pedestrian oriented street frontages with limited interruption from driveways. Design feature found in new urbanism but not necessarily a desire feature in all development design in all situations. · Alleys or rear lane access are required on all lots if the lot dimension is reduced unless the garage standards met. P. 113 Section 2-C. #1, states that private streets are discouraged. Throughout the proposed Code the use of alleys and private rear lanes is encouraged and sometimes required. It is the assumption of the LDC that alleys and rear lanes are considered private streets as there is no provision in the Code for these to be dedicated to the City. Section 2-C. #3 The developer must submit legally binding papers setting forth the procedure for maintaining private streets and providing garbage and snow removal and how these services will be paid for. The proposed code requires rear alleys and lanes but makes the upkeep and routine maintenance the responsibility of the residents, thus further affecting the affordability of housing. The LDC believes at a minimum that if the City is going to require alleys they should also take the responsibility for routine maintenance and long term care of those alleys. Ed Jones, 1047 Scott Park Drive, said property rights are absolutely critical. It seems the City of Iowa City does not seem to care about the individuals who buy property and what they should be allowed to do with it. Jones said he very much resists the proposed changes to the Code. The design issue is so subjective that in a lot of cases the citizen does not know what his/her rights are and they are interpreted by the government. Jones said this is too cumbersome. He'd just finished a project and found the coordination with the City to be cumbersome to deal with. Sometimes City Staff's decisions were much more restrictive than the Code. There needed to be a rule of law that stated that both parties are aware of what the criteria are. That is not the case now; the proposed Code will make it more restrictive. Jones said The free market system is the most efficient way to supply the needs of the citizens. Government has not proven it can do that. Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 9 of 20 Cecile Kuenzli, 705 S. Summit Street, thanked the Commission for having undertaken this project. She had done some reading and it seemed as if Staff were trying to simplify the process, consolidate things and put them in places where a person didn't have to flip through the Code book sixteen different places to find the information pertaining to a single topic. She felt that was a lot of work that had to be done, Staff had done it and she felt it was a wonderful job that Staff was doing for the public. She would be speaking in favor of adopting the new zoning code. Kuenzli said as she wandered around Iowa City, she found that too much of the new construction was both faceless and graceless. Construction where garages were the main feature, where concrete driveways dwarfed the lawn or sidewalk, where you had to look hard to find a front entry because it was recessed so far it could barely be detected. There was the same lack of landscaping, the same roof lines, the same neutral colors and the same building materials. Same, same, same meant boring. She felt there was not much choice when someone wanted to buy a new house in Iowa City. Much of it looked the same. In the last 10-years various family events had taken her all over the nation and everywhere she went she was interested in what was going on in terms of new construction. She frequently found herself saying, "That is so interesting, why can't we do that in Iowa City." Kuenzli said she felt the proposed Zoning Code would enable things that were more interesting to be done. Cities that were attractive had a lot of regulations that encouraged good design. Portland, Boulder and New Haven, CT, had made great comebacks. They were cities where there was a lot of regulation and regulation specifically concerning design. She didn't think we needed to fear change in Iowa City. She felt that the change the Zoning Code would represent might result in a better housing product and in a more desirable community for all Iowa Citians. Scott Hochstasser, 3727 Forrest Gate Drive, said he didn't live or own property in Iowa City. He was a professional land use planner. He practiced planning on the west coast in the state of California. Hochstasser said he'd lived in Iowa City for eight years. He'd watched the development boom and the economy grow. Ours was an incredibly vital and incredibly amazing community. He felt that the consultant and Staff had done a fantastic job of trying to mitigate and mediate the issues that were being heard between the development community and the people who wanted to preserve or protect the City to keep a viable and sustainable community for the future. Hochstasser said a number of years ago, as an adjunct professor he'd sent a team of graduate students from the University to the City Council with a report of findings about barriers to affordable housing in Iowa City. He was very pleased to see that the proposed new regulations would actually lower some of those barriers and allow for future affordable housing development - - real affordable housing development. Hochstasser said he'd like to say that the planning process is just that, it is a process. A lot of discussion would be heard yet this evening. He'd been looking across the tops of heads searching for an empty chair to sit in and had taken note that many of the heads had less hair or graying hair. He felt that the way the process was going, most of the people in the room would not even see the Code implemented or feel the effects of it. However, the process would continue. He felt that the Zoning Code, by being more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, would take the City of Iowa City forward in a much more complete and well designed way. Dan Smith, 905 Wylde Green Road, representative of the Land Development Council. Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 10 of 20 Chapter 8 - Review and Approval Processes and Procedures Smith thanked the Commission, Bob Miklo, Karen Franklin and all others in the Planning Department who'd been working on the Code for such a long time. Neiqhborhood Meetinq -Mandated, Chapter 148 B, #7 , PP 352-353 Said the LDC felt this was an unnecessary provision for a variety of reasons including the significant delay that it would impose upon the development process. As everyone knew, time was money. Such a delay with such onerous uncertainty as to how the reporting requirements would be used and if they would be used in the future process of a planned development or for an up-zoning. It would be a significant cost and delay built into process from the start. The LDC encouraged neighborhood meetings. They felt it was the best practice and encouraged their members to do so. However as the Commission had seen on many occasions, numerous neighborhood meetings had been held and there was still contention and dispute. It would never go away. The State Code recognized that. That was why there was the public hearing process both at Planning and Zoning and at the City Council levels. Smith said the mandatory neighborhood meeting created the presumption of disapproval. The LDC wished to see the presumption that when a developer came to Staff or before the Commission that their proposal would meet the Code be built into the Code more often. The clearer it was in the Code, the easier it would be to read and therefore enjoy that presumption. Performance Guarantees, Chapter14 8 B, #9. Smith said it was unnecessary to include the performance guarantees in the Zoning Code as it was already included in the Building Code. It was problematic from a couple of different perspectives, the most important being that it could be nearly impossible to secure the money for a project from a lending institution. If a development loan was taken out, the City was asking a lender to securitize another loan on the same underlying assets which simply could not be done. The Building Department already had performance guarantees and they had the ultimate power to withhold building permits or to grant them. If there was something that needed to be done the City already had the authority to accomplish that. Chapter 148 0, #7, P. 378 Planned Development Rezoning and the language that talked about the character of the development. Once approval for a planned development had been received, if certain things were changed such as street-layout and character of the development. Smith said reading the Code as someone who would be liable for that Code and responsible for it, the language was too arbitrary, too open for interpretation and far too subjective. It could easily lead to an abuse by making exactions of a developer that are not listed in the Code and thereby starting the whole planned development process over again anew. Smith said the LDC looked forward to working with the Council. Charlie Eastham, President of Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship. The Housing Fellowship was an affordable housing developer. They generally supported the efforts the City was making in proposing the revisions to the Zoning Code. They were particularly pleased about providing more flexibility in all residential zones for smaller lot sizes which would help the Fellowship to meet some of their goals in providing affordable housing in newer developments. He requested that the Good Neighbor / Neighborhood meetings be re-worked to provide for a greater possibility of participation by people interested in or who would be living in the proposed development. In his experience in two separate instances they'd tried to obtain rezoning for affordable housing development. They'd initiated neighborhood meetings in both re-zoning Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 11 of 20 requests and had found that there was a lot of opposition to the meetings. However, there had been participation in the public hearings before the Commission and the Council by persons who would be living in the proposed residential developments. Eastham said it might mean a few more hearings but there would be a lot to be gained by obtaining participation by people who would benefit from the proposed housing and/or who would be interested in living in the proposed housing. Eastham said generally he felt this was a good effort and a good start. He felt overall the comments and comments about the design standards were well taken, there were some things hopefully to be worked out over the long run. Eastham said he hoped Staff and the Commission would continue in their efforts. Larry Svoboda, resident of Coralville, property owner in Iowa City. When he'd first moved to Iowa City it had been going through the urban renewal process. The general housing and most construction in Iowa City was fairly unsophisticated, he thought the builders in Iowa City were also unsophisticated because everything being constructed was not too nice to look at. Over the years he'd built a building himself and had gone through a learning process, and decided that we needed more design and sophistication in the buildings being built in Iowa City. He'd recently served on a design review committee that had put together a proposed ordinance for Iowa City. They'd created a menu and list of building features whereby the builder could select from the menu certain building amenities. When a total of xx points was reached, the builder could get a building permit and proceed. Svoboda felt that had been a good approach as it gave the builder the choice of what he could do to improve the design of his building, based on the builder's choice - not the City's choice. Svoboda said it had been a start. He'd pushed for dental moldings, cross-heads, things to add to the building's design but he'd not been too successful on the committee design enhancements. Svoboda said it seemed that anything that was historic in nature had been over-represented on that committee. He'd watched this process become an ugly two headed monster which had gone from the ability of the designer and builder as to what they'd like to do to strictly what the City wished to see. He felt there was an over-emphasis on historic features on a building and nothing else counted. He felt there were other types of building features that were equally important which improved the value of the community as well. P. 44 , Central Planning District, as an example of being overly restrictive, "the exterior wall material of a building must consist of clap-board style siding, wall shingles, brick, stone or stucco." Svoboda said the proposed Code would make the new Tower building non-conforming as that building was constructed mostly of glass. He suggested if that was the approach the City wished to take, they should list certain items they did not wish to see instead of only items that they did wish to see which would give more latitude to the builder. Svoboda said he'd like to see this go back to a common ground. He felt there were two good arguments at hand. The homeowners had a legitimate argument that they didn't wish to see the City deteriorate with poor style and buildings. The building owner and developer had to have the latitude to pick their own design within a parameter that the initial Committee had tried to establish. Svoboda said he'd like to know what had happened to the proposal created by the Committee he'd served on. Garv Moore, 2018 Waterfront Drive, said many of his neighbors were very concerned about the situation. His was a unique perspective as he was a Salvation Army soldier and had also driven Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 12 of 20 school buses. Moore said within 50- or 60-feet of where people stopped for the shelter was the school bus stop where 85 children were picked up. The last 5 or 6 children who were picked up at the bus stop were special education children who would be very vulnerable to anyone from the homeless shelter. There was a need for a homeless shelter, his suggestion was to place it further down where there was more industrial development and no residential area near it. Of the homeless persons who ate dinner at the Salvation Army's site, currently there were six registered child molesters. That was his main concern; his neighbors were also upset about values. He felt that the proposed site for the shelter was a very dangerous and inappropriate place, too close to residential. It needed to be much further from the residential area. Moore said he was in a 'torn' position as he knew from his work with the Salvation Army that there was a need for a homeless shelter but the proposed location would be too risky for the children and the neighbors. Bob Welsh, said on P. 1 of the Code the purpose was stated. He hoped that everyone in the room and in the community agreed with those purposes. He suggested that was the place to start discussion. Were they valid purposes or not. He requested that every one of the specific suggestions received be reviewed and considered if it helped to carry out the purpose(s) or not. If it was not consistent with a purpose, then change it so it would be consistent with a purpose. When persons spoke of and/or requested that changes be made, that they would consider and identify with which purpose it was not consistent. Welsh said of the eight purposes, he'd guess the most difficult one would be the first purpose, to conserve and to protect the value of property throughout the City. He said the purpose did not say to preserve and protect the value of every piece of property in the City. He felt that was a significant difference and personally liked purpose #1 as it was stated in the proposed Code. Lori Dahlen, 2018 Waterfront Drive, said she lived and worked there. P.55 142 C, #1 Dahlen said this area of land was currently zoned as special exception. She'd spoken before the Commission on previous occasions. Their request was that the land not be zoned as provisional use. Dahlen said she'd brought a mother and her two children with her to the meeting. They were uncomfortable speaking before the Commission. The woman's husband worked part-time for the Dahlen's and part-time evenings at another job. The husband was very concerned about the Shelter House issue and also wished to see the land remain zoned as special exception. It was a situation that needed to be talked about. If the zoning were changed to provisional use, the public in the surrounding area would have no say about it. Dahlen said it was a burden to her to think that she would need to be able to protect a women and her children in their home if the Shelter House were to be located across from the Mobile Home Park and that there might be sex offenders in the shelter, use the Shelter's services and/or be in the area. Dahlen said it was a great concern to the husband and to the resident's of the mobile home park. If the Shelter House were to be relocated to their area, then all of the emergency housing for Iowa City would be located in one area and that would not be an ideal situation for anyone. Larry Schnittier, 1917 S. Gilbert Street, member of the Developer's Council Group. Area of concern: Sensitive Areas Ordinance. This was an existing and had been some slight modifications to it. As currently written and proposed to be revised, this section of the Zoning Ordinance might become the greatest deterrent to growth and development that the City had devised to date. Schnittjer said nearly no one had Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 13 of 20 any serious argument about the necessity to preserve environmental features but they did not like the way it was currently regulated. Jurisdictional wetlands were currently under the control of the Army Corps of Engineers. He felt that was all that should be necessary as the Corps had requirements for identification of wetlands, requirements for how wetlands could be affected or not affected, reconstructed elsewhere, reporting requirements on how well the wetlands were surviving after they had been constructed. Schnittjer felt the whole section on wetlands was a duplication and sometimes conflicted with the Corps requirements. Stream Corridors: He felt there needed to be some rethought in the process. Buffers were defined based on character or how a stream was classified. The SAO section of the Code should be included in the Storm Water Management section and as such the buffers could be applied to a specific need of a stream corridor and not just based on where that line was on the map. Requlated Slopes - Schnittjer said he had a lot of reservations about the regulated slopes. He'd brought a demonstration to the meeting but would defer presenting it. If the SAO were to be kept in the Zoning Ordinance, he felt the following should be considered: · Remove any requirements for a level II review if the applicant does not wish to utilize cluster design or otherwise modify the underlying zoning requirements. · Paraqraph C. Jurisdictional Wetlands - Wetland Mitigation Plan Required. This section needed to be re-captioned. There was nothing in the section that was relative to a mitigation as the terminology used by the Corps of Engineers or other wetland specialist. A more appropriate captioned would be Wetland Protection Plan. As such this paragraph should be located after the Wetland Delineation paragraph so that the process would be sequential and the procedures required to determine if a wetland existed. · Paraqraph E, Wetland Buffer Requirements. The opening paragraph needed to be modified to take into account the considerations relative to the constructed and/or altered wetlands where natural landscapes adjacent to a wetland that are required for the buffer probably would not exist. · Compensatory Wetland Mitiqation. References to specific ratios should be eliminated and replaced with 'as required by the Corps of Engineers' to avoid conflicts and confusions. · Section G-4 E, Monitoring Requirements. The Corps of Engineers had specific requirements that had to be met. This section did not add anything except another level of unnecessary bureaucracy and should be replaced with a requirement to provide duplicate copies of the Corps of Engineers required reports only if there was some reason the City thought there was a need for duplicate jurisdiction. · Requlated Slopes. The normal lay person did not relate to what the actual slopes were of the percentages. There was no correlation between degrees which most lay persons understood and percent of slope. A normal perception would be that a 50% slope would be a 45degree angle, which was wrong. A 50% slope was a one-in-two slope which was considerably less than a 50degree angle. A 40% slope, called a protected slope, had a 25degree slope angle. Schnittjer said he'd be willing to illustrate those with the props that he'd prepared for the meeting. Schnittjer said there were many things about the slope section that bothered him. He would like to see the Slope Section changed and completely re-written to correlate the slopes with degrees of protection. The greater the percentage of slope the greater the degree of construction protection. Current protected slopes could be modified as long as the resulting slope was less Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 14 of 20 than 40%. Created slopes in excess of 33% should have specific engineering to assure stability and erosion control. Schnittjer said if the City was trying to clean-up the current Code they should get rid of the steep slope requirement. There was nothing in the ordinance that said what to do with or not to do with Steep Slope. He felt it was just an extraneous piece of garbage in the Code. The only thing they had to do was to draw a line on the map which indicated where "steep" slopes were; no other requirement. Critical slopes requirements should coincide with the maximum allowable grading that could be done under the Engineered Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance that was in existence. A critical slope would be modified to be a 29% slope instead of a 25% slope. Protected slopes should be taken out of the ordinance except where a slope of some to be defined gradient was within a certain distance to be defined of an adjacent property where there was potential for damage to another person's property; Wooded Areas. Schnittjer said he failed to see the justification for applying different levels of protection to the different zones. RR-1 had a 70% retention requirement for woodlands, all the Residential Zones were 50% retention, Commercial zones were 20%. In his estimation a tree was a tree no matter what zone it was in. There was no protection at all for landmark trees. He felt that issue needed to be looked at. Joe Holland, 123 N. Linn Street, said he'd like to see common sense in the ordinance. He represented a large variety of persons coming from virtually every perspective in terms of what was happening with land use planning. He remembered attending the public hearings in 1982 and 1983 which were the hearings for the current ordinance. It had been the foundation of what the current ordinance was. He had a problem with the philosophical approach to the current ordinance in terms of how it had been rolled out. Holland said if he were going to try to push an agenda through he'd give someone a thick document that was so dense and had so many interrelated references that people would freeze up. The tendency when someone froze up was to pass the item as is. The Commission had heard from a variety of persons quoting from chapter, section, subsection and sub- subsection. Holland felt a public meeting was not a good forum to do legislative analysis and legislative drafting. He'd been professionally involved in those types of open forums and they typically were not very productive. Holland said he wished to focus on the design perspectives of the ordinance. He remembered the proceeding when it had become clear to him the agenda on the part of Planning and Zoning staff to take control of the aesthetics of buildings and their appearances in Iowa City. It had been a hearing on a variance before the Board of Adjustment, approximately 7,8 or 10-years ago. The City Staff had indicated that they were going to require certain things as part of the variance. The Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission had asked if they could require those things, Staff had said no, but they thought it would look good. Holland said he didn't connect it at the time as it had been part of the typical give-and-take and ask for more than you think you can get as part of the process. Holland said he'd watched over the last few years as the whole concept of Staff designing buildings had unfolded. It came at a variety of levels; in the ordinance where there were detailed design criteria and bonus points granted for certain design elements, it was pervasive through out the entire ordinance. He'd been told that the word design appeared throughout the ordinance over 500 times. 3-4 years ago City Planning Staff had employed an architect on staff so that when a developer came in with a project the architect could design and re-design the appearance of the building. That had happened on a number of occasions on projects that he'd been involved in. Holland said he didn't think there was any ill design on the Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 15 of 20 part of City Staff. They genuinely believed in what they wanted to accomplish. They had a vision within the Planning Department as to what Iowa City should look like. The real fundamental question for the Commission and eventually for City Council to grapple with would be who would set that vision for Iowa City and how would it be implemented. Holland said he'd lived in a whole variety of residential settings in Iowa City from corrugated steel Quonset huts on the University's campus to residential houses. Housing had developed a culture of its own. Everyone's housing hut had essentially been identical and persons had each done their own thing to modify it and make it look different. When the barracks had been built at the end of World War II, they had been built without a tree in sight. He considered that organic architecture. Structures are constructed all over the world, all over the State and all over Iowa City that each individual person might not consider attractive. Whole neighborhoods might not be considered attractive but the people who live there infuse the properties with life. Holland said the majority of the Commission had been on the Commission when the issue of snout houses had come up with the Sand Hill Estates subdivision. He'd thought that the Council had sent the message that they were not interested in that sort of design standards but now they were back in the ordinance. In Sunday's Gazette there had been an article about how garages were becoming porches in people lives and how they were a place to socialize and to conduct activity. Holland said that was adaptation and culture developing out of the organic feeling where people took what a property was, invested themselves in it and turned it into something that the Planning Staff did not imagine, what he might not imagine, something that no one else might imagine. He felt there was a philosophical battle over what group of people would control how our neighborhoods developed and how they would look. The proposed ordinance vested that power in twelve or so people in the Planning Department because there were so many provisions in the ordinance where there were little bits of discretion given here and there, little bits of incentives that could be given and little bits of punishment that could be inflicted over design issues. It was not over if it would be a good land use proposition or did the structure fit with the integrity of an area. Holland said it was very interesting to hear people speak from the east side neighborhoods talk about how wonderful those neighborhood were because they could never be built under the zoning ordinance. Lots were too small, too big a lot ration, side yards were too small, there were all kind of reasons why the Longfellow and Dodge-Governor neighborhoods that people seemed to admire could never be built. They'd developed by and large without zoning ordinances. He had a copy of 1926 Zoning Ordinance, all six pages of it. Holland said he didn't disagree with the fundamental concept of zoning or disagree with reasonable regulation. People had great battles over what reasonable was. He urged the Commission to particularly look at the design issue and how much of a choke hold they would have over the organic development in Iowa City. Holland said there was a very famous Supreme Court Case which dealt with taxes. The quote was, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Holland said he'd say, "The power to regulate is also the power to destroy." The proposed design specifications destroyed innovation and destroyed creativity. They put people into boxes in terms of what they could build. A person might not like what was built or might not like what it looked like but it was a creative innovation that had come about. No one knew what sort of organic culture would develop. Holland said he defied Staff and the Commission to say what a pedestrian friendly streetscape was. Why was it any less friendly for someone to walk into someone's garage, sit down and have a beer out of their mini-fridge than it was to sit down on their porch? Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 16 of 20 Holland said he agreed with the speakers who'd spoken in favor of removing the design criteria form the ordinance. Not to give people free-reign but simply to allow things to develop in a way that partially was driven by reasonable regulation and partially driven by market forces. Mike PUQh, 1. South Gilbert Street, current president of the local Homebuilders Association and member of the Land Development Council. The local HBA was comprised of 425 business members which constituted the second largest HBA in the state of Iowa. NeiQhborhood Open Space. Pugh said the LDC and HBA were generally in favor of the Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance. It had been in existence since 1994. In general builders and developers liked to ordinance, they felt it added value to subdivisions and developments. There were items in the proposed draft that gave cause for concern for builders and developers based on 1) they had lived with the ordinance since 1994 and had seen some of the problems that could arise under the ordinance and 2) was driven in part by an Iowa Supreme Court case in West Des Moines regarding an ordinance that was álmost identical to the one being considered in the proposed development code. Dedication of land in connection with the dedication of other public improvements and timinQ of the dedication. Currently the dedication of land happened two years after approval of the preliminary plat or when 50% of the occupancy permits for the subdivision had been issued, which ever occurred sooner. The payment of fees in lieu of dedication had to be done prior to the issuance of a building permit. The LDC and HBA would like to see some consistency there. They'd like to see parks be considered a public improvement and be accepted as a dedication when all the other public improvements were accepted by the City. They would also like to see more objective standards for what was required to prepare the site that was to be dedicated, i.e. prepared prior to dedication. Currently there were a lot of inconsistencies from one development to the next in terms of what was required such as grading, trimming of trees, seeding, etc. They'd like to have objective standards in the Code that really gave notice to the developer as to what was required; similar to the objective standards for installation of streets, water mains, etc. In connection with payment of fees in lieu of dedication they had several concerns. The current ordinance and the proposed Code required the City to use those fees for neighborhood open space within 5-years of approval of the preliminary plat and it could extend the 5-years in additional 5-year periods if less than 50% of the occupancy permits had not been issued for a sub-division. The LDC and HBA felt that was unreasonable. They felt that the City should use those funds for open space and green space within the subdivision within a more reasonable period of time such as 2-3 years. In the proposed draft those monies would not be returned to the lot owners unless the lot owners applied to the City in writing for a lot refund. There were two very limited windows for applying for the funds: at the expiration of the 5-years they had 180 days to apply in writing to the City in order to receive that particular refund. If the City's 5-year period was extended for additional 5-years, then the lot owners had 180 days from the end of the 10- year period in which to apply for the refund. The HBA and LDC believed that if those funds were set aside for a particular development, that there should be an automatic refund of those monies if they are not used by the City whether it be at the end of two or three years. The refund should not go to the developer but go to the citizens who've purchased lots in that particular subdivision. The refund should be automatic and pro-rata to each individual lot owner. LanQuaQe of the ordinance that discussed why or how funds are used when fees are paid in lieu of dedication. The current ordinance required that all payments be used to acquire or develop open spaces, parks or recreational facilities or greenway trails that would benefit the residents of Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 17 of 20 the subdivision or planed development for which the payment had been made. The HBA and LDC felt that was too vague and was not in compliance with the Iowa Supreme Court case which basically said that those fees, if permissible under Iowa law, had to be used for two purposes: 1) to cover the City's administrative expenses in regulating that particular development or 2) as compensation for services that were provided to the subdivision or to the property owner. It was not an administrative fee to cover expenses. The fees, if they are used, had to specifically benefit the residents of that particular subdivision. In the West Des Moines case, the fees had been used for neighborhood parks. The Supreme Court had said if there was any was any benefit at all to the general public by use of those fees that constituted an illegal tax. The HBA and LDC felt that under the current ordinance if fees are paid in lieu of dedication, language needed to be tightened in terms of how those fees were used. It should be that the fees are used specifically for that particular subdivision. Not for neighborhood parks. Refund monies - if the money is not applied for as a refund the presumption was that that money either trickled its way into the general park fund or found it way into the general fund of the City coffers. In either case, the HBA and LDC felt at that time it constituted a tax that was not permissible by the Iowa Legislature. Pugh said this was a great opportunity for changes to be made based on the history of having lived with the ordinance for 10-years and based on the guidelines that the Supreme Court had provided in connection with an ordinance that was almost identical to the proposed ordinance. Ann Bovbierq, 1710 Ridge Road, said she'd seen the beginning of some of this and it was interesting to see it finished up. She said along with the previous speaker who'd spoken about the general purpose of the Code, the good of the City was and always had been the basis of it. The one that had been voiced over the years with the old zoning and the old Comprehensive Plan as well as the new one was that there might be consistency, might be predictability and that there might be usability. The Code should be something that people could use. Bovbjerg said as she'd looked over the draft she had been very pleased that instead of just saying maybe this or maybe that, the Code had been very specific. It might sound like over specificity or over regulation but sometimes too vague had been an issue. Persons would say they'd drawn a development or made a plan and they didn't know if it met Code because there was nothing specific enough. Bovbjerg said she was pleased with the specificity of the proposed code and was also pleased to see the diagrams and the pictures, it meant a lot of more than words. Bovbjerg said she also appreciated that the draft constantly referred to other parts of the Code or other parts of City Code which spoke very specifically to persons who said they didn't know where to go next. Bovbjerg said these kinds of things were useful; they were the kinds of things that citizens and builders had been asking for. Bovbjerg said if there were specific requirements or wording or things that didn't work or things that developers and/or builders told the Commission that they were hard to work with, then that should be where revisions were made. If something was not useful then you might as well not have it. What ever revisions were made, they should come from persons who had been affected, from people who had used it. She was very pleased that the Commission was having the public hearings for just that reason. Bovbjerg said the previous speaker had spoken about Neighborhood Open Spaces. That had been a hard slog. Persons on the Commission, the Parks Commission and City Staff had looked at court cases and other cities in other jurisdictions to figure what kind of connection must there be, what kind of vagueness can't you have. One particular aspect of that had been saying that Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 18 of 20 dedicated acreage must be relative to density of people not to just acreage. It had been a very good and almost a landmark part of the ordinance. Bovbjerg said she was very glad that the Commission was listening to the public, all of whom would be affected. It would be a useful ordinance. Mark McCalhon, 811 College Street, member of the Historic Preservation Commission and College Green Representative. P. 51 Historic Preservation Exemptions - Special Provisions Recently the HCP Commission had been discussing and looking at what could they do to 'make people do the right thing' with historic or key structures in lieu of some of the most recent unsuccessful historic districts that had not passed over the last year. Section A-2 was an improvement over what the Code currently had. McCalhon felt it was a good move in the right direction but further into Section A it said 'the exception was necessary'. He didn't understand why it could not be made as an acceptable use. A very select number of properties, 40-50 "Gems" within the City, would be affected. The creation of an added value for the adaptive re-use of those properties so the likelihood of that property surviving over time would be preserved. McCalhon said he had a problem with the word necessary. What was the standard, had a provision been put in that really would not have any application over the long term. He wondered if it even needed to be a special exception for those types of uses. He said this would not mean every old building, just those identified as key structures by Historic Preservation, Planning Commission and/or properties on the National Historic Register. Patti Santanqelo, 3035 Stanford, member of several Affordable Housing Boards and attendee of many Scattered Site Housing meetings. Santangelo said she knew they were thinking of recommending social urban inclusionary zoning. She wondered if Staff and the Board had thought about adding that into the Code, it might be better to include it sooner rather than later. She liked 'the smaller lot sizes as it would hopefully make it easier for affordable housing. Mike McLauqhlin, 614 Pine Ridge Rd, rental property owner in the near downtown area. Most of his properties were in RN-12, RNC-20, RNC-12 zones. In February he'd applied for and been granted building permits to add an addition to the back side of single family homes to duplex the properties at 512 and 514 S. Dodge Street. On March 30, 2005 he'd applied for a building permit to complete the same procedure for 530 S. Dodge Street. The last building permit had been issued at the same time the proposed Code had been introduced to the public in the open house sessions. He'd read through the proposed Code which stated that upon passage the new rental permits would be permitted according to essentially one less non-related occupant. What the proposed Code did not address was the situation he was in. He'd received building permits and had a significant financial investment in the three projects. All three additions already had the foundations poured, footings in place, slabs laid and plumbing in place. One was almost entirely framed. McLaughlin felt he was almost in a race between getting his additions completed and the potential passage of the Code. He might have to apply for new permits which would reduce the non-occupancy allowed by one tenant from what the intentions had been when the permits had been applied for and granted. McLaughlin requested that there be a provision added to the proposal that took into consideration when a building permit was granted, the significant investment that had been made with that permit and to allow the occupancy to be granted under current levels of the existing Code as opposed to potentially having it dictated by the proposed Code. Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 19 of 20 Glen Siders, Land Development Council, said the LDC had a very serious concern as the proposed Code was a very thick, complicated document which would have a significant impact on the City. He concurred with the comments made earlier that the revisions should have been broken down and analyzed via sections and then run through public hearings. A comment that the LDC had a particular concern with was with the grandfathering in of existing developments and approved subdivisions, many of those lots were less than 60-feet. The LDC did not feel that they should be obligated to come under the new ordinances that came about such as the design standards. They felt that should be a consideration. They did not agree with the philosophy that a 60-foot lot was a narrow lot; it could be reduced down. They did encourage Staff and the Commission to consider a new urbanism zone which would allow for the opportunity and flexibility to incorporate those criteria; they felt the trigger should be a 45-foot wide lot or less. One of the concerns they had with the design criteria was that they had heard frequently that some of it was imposed because the City had problems within in-fill development. In-fill development was different than new development and probably should be looked at differently than the ordinary standards. Scatter Site Housing Task Force forthcoming proposal. Consideration should be given to should the new code be adopted and then amended to incorporate the SSHTF recommendations or incorporated before passing the Code? Sensitive Areas Zone. In the new ordinance it was proposed that if a feature had a sensitive feature it then became a part of the OPDH Plan - they were opposed to that requirement. It was very difficulty to find any property that did not have some sensitive feature on that property. The feature might be a very small percentage on the property. A sensitive feature should not trigger an OPDH which would put the developer/builder into the OPDH design criteria and related regulations. Siders said if the City did have one thing that was available and one useful tool the SAO should be a stand-alone ordinance and not part of the OPDH. It should be a checklist as it was very clear in the ordinance what had to be done. If someone wanted to alter the standards, then that would be a different situation. The LDC thanked the Board for allowing them input during the public comment hearing. CLOSING REMARKS: Brooks thanked the members of the audience for attending and for their input. He said this public hearing would be the first of at least two public comment hearings. The Commission had developed a list of issues raised during the hearing, it was expected that additional items would be received. Brooks encouraged everyone to document their input on the Draft Comment Sheets and give them to the Planning and Community Development Office. Howard requested that persons who had very specific requests for amendments be sure to put a contact phone number or contact information in case Staff needed to contact them for a clarification. It was Staff's intention to compile a list of all suggested amendments and they wanted to be sure that they had the person's input correct. Persons were also reminded to sign- in on the Sign-In sheet at the entry to the room. Brooks said the next public comment hearing had not been scheduled yet as there had been no way to anticipate the amount of speakers and input received during this hearing. Staff and the Commission would now work through the input received and look for other options to get additional input and public involvement during the public hearing processes. If persons had Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 20 of 20 signed in they would receive notification of future public meetings. Notifications would also be placed in the local newspapers. Brooks said the Commission had hoped that by the end of the summer they would be through with their review of the Code and would be able to send it to the Council for consideration. He thought It was the Council's intention to have a series of work sessions with the Commission as well as hearings for public input. The Commission wished to move the process along as quickly as possible but acknowledged the importance of taking time to investigate and review potential problematic items and to review those concerns with various public groups. Brooks said it had been mentioned several times that the proposed Code was twice the number of pages as the current Code. The new Code was a single column format with larger print and more detailed illustrations where as the old Code format was double columns with small print. Brooks and Howard encouraged persons to contact Howard if they had questions, comments or concerns prior to the next public hearing. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Freerks made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 pm. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 5, 2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL DRAFT MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Wally Plahutnik, Bob Brooks, Beth Koppes, Don Anciaux, Terry Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: Dean Shannon STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Schnittjer, Kim Kirchner, Jean Lakin, Scott Pottorff, Mary Ott, Frank Hickey RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, REZ04-00017/SUB04-00017, a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Housing Overlay - Low Density Single- Family Residential (OPDH-5) zone and a preliminary plat of Village Green, Part XXIII and XXIV, a 76-lot residential subdivision on 25.67 acres of property located on Wintergreen Drive. Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, REZ05-00001/SUB05-00003, a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone and a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and Preliminary Plat of MWD Davis Addition, a 14-lot, 50.04- acre commercial subdivision subject to a wetland planting plan including the wetland buffer area prior to City Council consideration. CALL TO ORDER: Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. 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-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. Miklo said this item had been before the Commission on several occasions. The underlying zoning was RS-5, Low Density Single-Family residential. In 1993 a planned development was approved to allow single-family lots and clustering of zero-lot lines on the property. Last year the applicant had come forward with a proposal for another planned development that would increase the number of zero-lot lines by 18 additional units. Over the course of the past few months the Commission had reviewed several versions of those plans. The latest version, compared to the 1993 plan, increased the density or the number of units by 12 additional units versus the 18 units the Commission had not recommended approval of at a previous meeting. The density was within the maximum density allowed by a Planned Development Overlay. The issues of drainage and stormwater management had been resolved. The Public Works Department had reviewed the stormwater drainage plans and felt that they were satisfactory, met City requirements and probably would improve drainage for that area including the lots adjacent to Sterling Drive. The technical deficiencies identified on the plan had been corrected. Staff recommended approval of REZ04-00017/SUB04-00017. Public discussion was opened. Larrv Schnittier, MMS Consultants, said he was there to answer any questions the Commission might have. The biggest change to this plat from the previous ones was that they'd removed all the zero lot-line lots on the east portion of the subdivision. The lots around the perimeter of the planned developed part were all single-family units now. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 5, 2005 Page 2 Kim Kirchner, 2906 Sterling Drive, said she lived next to the field being developed. She said it appeared that the land was being built up, was it for drainage or why. She was concerned due to the amount of water she currently received in her backyard from the lots to the north of her which were built up considerably higher than her lot. If her yard received run-off from the proposed new lots as well as the existing lots, she would not be amiable to that situation. Kirchner asked if a berm was still going to be installed next to the rail road tracks and would there be a noise barrier from the industrial property to the south? She was happy that the number of single-family homes in the development had been increased. Miklo said the plan showed a berm along the railroad tracks with an eight-foot fence and evergreens. Freerks asked if the meeting they'd previously suggested had been arranged between the residents and the commercial property owners. Miklo said Staff had advised the neighbors to contact Steve Nasby in the Economic Development Office to try to arrange a meeting. Jean Lakin, 1609 Somerset Lane, lived in the Wellington Condominiums slightly to the north of the proposed development. She'd visited with Miklo previously regarding the stormwater drainage issues. Frantz Construction had developed the Wellington Condominiums which included a 4.5-acre retention pond. They currently had sand from the streets and silt coming into the pond so it was a valid concern for the condominium association to know what was going to happen with the stormwater drainage. She was surprised to see all the proposed development was on 25.67 -acres of property. It was the smallest acreage she'd looked at, had the City measured that specific acreage. Freerks requested the applicant's engineer to address Ms. Lakin's questions. Schnittjer said he'd personally not worked on the project so he would not have in-depth details. Regarding the drainage concern by property owner to the west he said the area was being built up but a drainage swale along the west property line was planned as part of the development. The swale would be collected into two different storm sewer systems that would drain the water away. The storm sewer systems would typically extend to the property line which would help to alleviate some of the existing problems and take care of any new problems which might result. Regarding noise control he said there probably was not anything that could be done to completely solve this problem short of finding a way to stop the noise itself. The berm and the trees would go across the south property line; the developer didn't have the right or the financial resources to run the berm and trees along the railroad all the way up to First Avenue. Regarding pond silting, he didn't have an answer as the pond was located in another development. It might be due to the surrounding areas silting into the existing basin. The proposed basin for the Village Green pond had a different character. It would not be as deep and the sides would not be nearly as steep. The ponds Lakin had referred to had been excavated ponds and the sides capped with stones. A culvert ran under the street that drained the ponds in the Wellington Condominium area. Miklo said Public Works was aware of the situation, if the ponds had been turned over to the Condominium Association they would be responsible for their maintenance over time. In the Village Green area, the Homeowner's Association would be responsible for the maintenance of the basin as the City had not indicated a desire to take over the green space. Regarding the acreage of the development area Schnittjer said that the property was L-Shaped which extended from Sterling Drive and another new street in the area all the over to Scott Boulevard, it was a sizeable area that made up the 25 acres. Schnittjer pointed out on an overhead site map where the storm water storage area and two new drains would be. He said previously there had been no stormwater intakes and it had simply been ground run-off to 'where-ever'. Brooks asked who would be responsible for keeping the intakes open. Schnittjer said the storm sewer system got to be a hybrid in planned developments. Anything that had to do with public streets and drainage of those streets was the responsibility of public works to take care of. He indicated the areas where the stormsewer system was private and would be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve REZ04-00017/SUB04-00017, a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Housing Overlay - Low Density Single- Family Residential (OPDH-5) zone and a preliminary plat of Village Green, Part XXIII and XXIV, a 76-lot Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 5, 2005 Page 3 residential subdivision (38 single-family lots and 38 attached zero-lot line lots) on 25.67-acres of property located on Wintergreen Drive. Anciaux seconded the motion. Freerks said she was happy to see that the drainage and stormwater management issues had been resolved. She felt there would be improvement of the drainage issues for many persons in the neighborhood after the development was completed. There had some give and take, she felt it would be a nice development. Plahutnik said it might be a dense development in one area but it was a development that also preserved a large amount of green-space in a neighborhood. It was a benefit for everyone in the neighborhood to have a park type area preserved within a development. Koppes said she felt it would help with the stormwater issues and was a good compromise. Anciaux said MMS Consultants and the City Engineers had stated that the drainage would be better; he felt the project would eventually benefit the whole neighborhood. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. 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 Hwy 1, west of Hwy 218. (45 day limitation: 5/14/05) Miklo said this item had been on the Commission's agenda recently. Lots would be zoned CI-1, Intensive Commercial, CC-2, Community Commercial, and CO-1 Office to provide a transition to the single family homes located in the county along Kitty Lee Road. Outlot B contained wetlands for the most part, Outlot A would have a built wetland in the center of it to mitigate other wetlands which would be disturbed. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance required a 100-foot buffer between any development and the wetlands. At the previous Commission meeting there had been discussions about mitigation of wetlands. A provision in the Code allowed the City at its discretion to approve wetland buffer averaging where a portion of the buffer could be moved to better protect the wetland. The applicant had proposed shifting the buffer in several areas to the pan-handle area that ran along Kitty Lee Road. They'd submitted a written justification, the logic being that the area drained into the wetland area. By using the pan-handle area as buffer area it would filter the stormwater before it got to the basin. The previous proposal had had the buffer averaged even further and had more of it extending along the roadway. Staff had not concurred with that proposal as they felt it did not meet the intent of wetland buffering. The applicant/developer had come up with a compromise that Staff did recommend for approval subject to the wetland planting plan including the wetland buffer area be approved by Staff, prior to City Council consideration. Scott Pottorff, MMS Consultants, said he was there to answer any questions. Mary Ott, 4056 Kitty Lee Rd, asked if Outlot B would remain rural residential and was it still considered a wetlands lot? Miklo said there were some wetlands and buffer areas on it; the lot was unlikely to develop. It would be zoned RR-1, rural residential, which would allow for up to one dwelling but it also had wetlands and would require buffers. The lot would be difficult to access. Pottorff said except for the small finger area of Outlot B the entire lot was taken up by wetlands and wetland buffers. The remaining area probably would not allow for a house to be built there. Koppes asked who would maintain that lot. Pottorff said he didn't know for sure at this time. The developer would be required to monitor the wetlands that would be created on the outlot for 5-years. At this point there was no plan for a land owners association to take the parcel over, there had been discussion of subdividing it up and trying to give it to the adjacent home owners. At this point the developer would be responsible for it. Miklo said a subdivision would have to come before the Commission for their review. Public discussion was closed. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 5, 2005 Page 5 Miklo said according to the Zoning Code, a sign had to be within 1,OOO-feet of an interstate highway in order to take advantage of the ordinance. The Code defined an interstate as 4-lane divided highway with controlled access. Public discussion was opened. Frank Hickev, Signia Design, St. Paul, MN representing Slumberland as their signage consultant. Hickey said he was not comfortable going in to a community and asking them to change their signage code on such an abstract note. He felt that the request was very open ended just for the issues that the Commission had been discussing. Slumberland was a destination retailer which meant that persons left their homes and went to the business to shop in a fairly competitive market. They'd looked at the destination first, the proposed location from major site lines, the way the grade would work and sized the sign age appropriately for clear recognition. In dialogue with the City they'd looked at various sign sizes to see what the site lines would be. Signia had concluded that 55-feet with the size and setback of 950-feet from Hwy 218 would be the right size. The FAA had given them documentation that it would not be in violation of airport clearance and/or illumination. Hickey said they did not wish to oversize the sign either as they didn't want to have a client spending money needlessly or a sign be an eyesore. They wanted it be a compliment to the surrounding locations. They were concerned about locations to the east that would be granted a 55-foot sign that would be between Slumberland and the highway. With their low building and the 25-foot high pylon sign they would not be able to be recognized. That would be a detriment to the retailer. Anciaux asked if a retailer such as Slumberland would be allowed in an area zoned Highway Commercial. Miklo said no, generally it was limited to businesses that served highway traffic such as truck stops, hotels, restaurants. Hickey said in this case there were grade issues in terms of landscaping. Site lines from a vehicle moving at a certain speed would be uncomplimentary to Slumberland. Hickey said he'd visited with the contractors doing the grading at the site about grade shifts because that was critical too. They'd done a lot of research with the preliminary sizing to see what the grade eventually would be. Hickey said he didn't know what the grade eventually would be across the road to the west between Hwy 218 and Slumberland. They went upon the worst assumption that the building would be blocked from other development. Brooks asked what was the company's schedule for construction and opening? Hickey said as soon as possible. Public discussion was closed. Freerks said she often talked about precedents. She understood that the applicant wanted an answer right away so they could move forward. She was not comfortable allowing this in that zone because of the implications it would have for all of the other areas that were in the community. The Commission needed to take a look at the whole community and how this would impact that. She felt it would be short sited for the Commission to approve an amendment to the ordinance because it worked for just one company. In the future the Commission was going to review the entire ordinance. She didn't wish to rush into anything as a domino effect might occur. Anciaux said he was not in favor of having a 55-foot high sign outside of the Highway Commercial zone. Even at 55-feet in height he was not sure that the sign would be visible from Hwy 218. Since the Commission was going to review the sign ordinance in its entirety he didn't wish to make spot by spot determinations which might be a detriment later on. Koppes said since the Commission was going to review the sign ordinance after the Code revision was completed she did not wish to address this now. She was concerned that they might change something without fully seeing how it might affect the big picture. Plahutnik said it was regrettable that the discussion had gone forward with Code enforcement without realizing what the differences were between CI and CH zoning. There were other CI zones in the city and this would open it up for them as well. He couldn't support changing it now. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 5, 2005 Page 4 Motion: Freerks moved to approve REZ05-00001/SUB05-00003, a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone, a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and Preliminary Plat of MWD Davis Addition, a 14-lot, 50.04-acre commercial subdivision subject to Staff approval of a wetland planting plan including the wetland buffer area prior to City Council consideration. Koppes seconded the motion. Freerks said it was again a compromise; however she didn't wish the Commission to be setting a precedent with the approval of the tentacle usage of the wetland buffers. It had been a complicated area to develop. Koppes said each case was unique; she agreed about not setting a precedent. Since this would drain directly into a stormwater receptacle she would support it. She liked the wetlands plantings. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. 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) Brooks said the applicant had requested an indefinite deferral. Miklo said the applicant had met again with staff and agreed to rectify some of the outstanding zoning violations on the property before coming back with a proposal to proceed. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to indefinitely defer REZ05-00005. Koppes seconded. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. 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-feet to 65-feet for signs located within 1000-feet of an interstate highway. Miklo the current sign ordinance allowed signs within 1000 feet of an interstate highway in a Highway Commercial Zone to be as tall as 65-feet. It was specifically intended to allow businesses such as motels, truck stops or gas stations which relied on business off the interstate highways. Other zones which were common along highways such as the CI-1 zone and the CC-2 zone had a 25-foot sign height limit just as anywhere else in the City. The applicant had proposed to develop property on the east side of Mormon Trek Boulevard. The property's frontage was within 1000-feet of the highway but the property was zoned CI-1 Intensive Commercial therefore the sign height limit was 25-feet. Miklo showed photos which demonstrated the contrast in height of a 65-foot sign and a 25-foot sign. Anciaux asked if there were concerns with the airport. Miklo said if it were within the airport overlay, it would have to be submitted for approval. Miklo indicated on the map where CH-1 zoning was located, mainly at interstate interchanges. He indicated what area at the interchange an approximate 1,000 foot area would encompass. Freerks asked what would prevent existing businesses in that area from requesting to have 65-foot high signs. Miklo said if the City amended the Code, any business in an Intensive Commercial or Highway Commercial zone could avail themselves to a 65-foot tall sign. Freerks said some of that area was very close to residential areas. Miklo said to the north there was an RM-12 development with condominiums and multi-family buildings. There was also RS-8 with planned development overlay located near that area as well. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 5, 2005 Page 6 Brooks said he felt the same, once the Commission started to open the door to this type of exception it would be difficult without giving due time, analysis and evaluation of the impacts around the community. He favored deferring until the Commission had gotten into the sign ordinance in more detail. He didn't wish the Commission to find itself in a situation that it might regret. Hickey said he respected the Commission's comments and agreed. Signia typically looked at and talked about the variables of hardship even with a variance. Even though it was a retailer, with the conditions they had with grade, the distance and what they'd uncovered making it a unique situation within the Code and requesting a variance, was the framework that they'd taken. He asked if that would be an approach they could use. Miklo suggested he visit with the building department about a minor modification which under certain circumstances might allow up to a 10-foot addition to a sign. Hickey said Signia did urban planning work as part of their signage work. Their idea was not to make signage pollution but information; they tried to work with municipalities regularly. CONSIDERATION OF THE APRIL 21.2005 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Smith made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:27 pm. Anciaux seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill s:/pcd/mi nutes/P&Z/2005/05-05-05.doc