Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-06-2005 Planning and Zoning Commission NOTE: The first .July meeting has been moved from Thursday, .July 7 to Wednesday, .July 6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 7:30 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order. B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda. C. Rezoning/Subdivision Items: 1. REZ03-00019/SUB03-00024 Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Co. to rezone approximately 92 acres from Interim Development Residential (ID-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: July 7,2005) 3. REZ05-00008/SUB05-00012 Discussion of an application submitted by Dav-Ed Limited for a rezoning from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-R5) zone to Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) zone and a preliminary plat of Galway Hills Part Four, a 29-lot, 10.41- acre residential subdivision located on Galway Drive. (45-day limitation period: August 1, 2005) 4. REZ05-00009 Discussion of an application submitted by The Stables, LLC for a rezoning from Factory-Build Housing Residential (RFBH) zone to Planned Development Housing-High Density Single Family (PDH-12) zone to allow the development of 30 multi-family dwelling units and 9,000 square feet of commercial space for property located west of Heinz Road. (45-day limitation period: July 29,2005) D. Subdivision Item: SUB05-00009NAC05-00005 Discussion of an application submitted by James Davis for vacation of a portion of unimproved Olde Oak Lane and a final plat of MWD Davis Addition, a 14-lot, 50.04-acre commercial subdivision located north of Highway 1, west of Highway 218. (45-day limitation period: June 26, 2005) E. Other Items: F. Consideration of the June 16, 2005 Meeting Minutes. G. Adjournment. Informal Formal ,~ 1 £~~~'t ~ ~aD.' ....: CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: July 6,2005 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Re: REZ05-03-00019/SUB03-00024 Cardinal Ridge At the June 16 meeting, the Commission requested additional information about the items discussed below. A questioned was raised regarding whether the properties to the north of Cardinal Ridge are in Iowa City or Coralville. The attached map illustrates the new corporate limits after the recent severance of land from Iowa City and its annexation into Coralville. As shown on the map there are two properties consisting of approximately 30 acres located north of Cardinal Ridge that are in Iowa City and will require sanitary sewer service from Iowa City. Questions were raised about the Kennedy Parkway traffic counts conducted in 2003. New traffic counts are currently being conducted by the City and results should be available for July 6 Commission meeting. The Commission asked what could be done about the lack of sidewalks on Kennedy Parkway. There are three mechanisms for funding sidewalk installation: 1) the sidewalks could be installed by the City and adjacent property owners could be assessed for the cost, 2) the Walnut Ridge Home Owners Association could fund the installation or 3) the property owners could lobby the City Council to fund the installation of sidewalks through the Capital Improvements Program. Staff received a Revised Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Cardinal Ridge on Friday, July 1 and hopes to have review comments for the July 6 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. A representative of the Public Works Department will be at the July 6 meeting to address questions regarding sanitary sewer extensions. Attachments: Preliminary Plat Map of Corporate Limits .... o ~ ÍÌ'j~ ~~ ~ 'L I~- I ----t- . I I 03S0c/Oijd ) '/ . ..... -.. , -.. ..... I ~ I I SllW!1 31l/èlDd 0:) All:) I/^OI j[] All:) D 1 1 o City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 6,2005 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo Re: REZ05-00003 - Dodge Street/Conklin Lane/Dodge Street Court At the June 16 meeting, the Commission requested additional information about the issues discussed below. The Commission asked if an exit drive for the proposed bank could be located on Conklin Lane. The Transportation Planning Engineer reviewed this question and confirmed that a driveway should not be permitted on Conklin Lane even if only an exit drive. The City's standard for the distance of a drive way intersection from a street intersection with an arterial street is 150 feet. In this case if an exit drive from the bank entered Conklin Lane, it would be less than 100 feet from the intersection of Conklin Lane and Dodge Street. The Commission asked, if an exit on to Conklin were not be possible, were there any other alternatives to the bank exit onto Dodge Street Court. Another alternative would be to have the drive circulate within the site and exit back to the Dodge Street entrance. Depending on the location of the drive, this alternative may result in the loss of some of the proposed parking spaces or some of the commercial floor area. An exact count of the number of parking spaces required is not possible at this time because we do not know the specific commercial uses that will locate here, or how much of the space will be devoted to storage and mechanical equipment. Staff estimates the plan has at least the minimum number of parking spaces required under the current code. Under the proposed zoning code the property will have excess parking because the requirements for commercial uses are generally being lowered. The Commission asked for estimates regarding the number of vehicle trips per day that would be generated by a drive-through bank and residential uses on this property. If the Dodge Street Court frontage were developed with residential lots rather than commercial development, staff estimates that 8 to 10 dwelling units could be accommodated. So residential traffic would be comparable to the traffic from the 10 multi-family units proposed by the applicant. Based on 6 -7 vehicle trips per day per dwelling unit, we estimate that 60-70 vehicle trips per day would be generated by residential development of this property. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, indicates that a bank of the size proposed by the applicant with 3 drive-through lanes (ATM included) would generate between 986 - 1233 trips per day (50% entering and 50% exiting). Staff conducted a survey of local banks with drive-through lanes and found that on average 38 to 58 vehicles exited the drive-through lanes per hour. Based on a 10 hour business day this equals 380 to 580 exiting vehicles per day. This is considerably more traffic than would be generated by residential development. The Commission discussed the possibility of requiring that the applicant plant a landscape screen on Lori Dockery's property across from the proposed bank drive through exit. I spoke with her and asked if she would be willing to consider allowing Southgate to plant trees on her property to screen her view of the bank exit. She said that she would but she believed that there was an easement on that side of her lot and there was not much room for plantings on that side of her house. She said that she would not be able to attend the July 6 meeting and wished to reiterate her opposition to the bank drive exiting onto Dodge Street Court adjacent to her property. The question of storm water runoff in relationship to the improvement of Dodge Street Court was raised. If Dodge Street Court adjacent to this property, is improved, it will have curb and gutter and a storm sewer. This in and of itself however, will not address the drainage problems being experienced by the property owners to the east and, depending on how storm water is directed, it may actually increase the problem. Dodge Street Court currently slopes from west to east and this will not change with the reconstruction. So to assure that the rate of flow of storm water is not increased to the east, it will be necessary to drain the storm water across the commercial site toward Dodge Street. The City will also need to assure that when the commercial site is developed it is graded to drain towards Dodge Street, not Dodge Street Court. The applicant has submitted a revised concept plan that includes the landscaping, screening wall, sidewalks and monument sign locations discussed in the June 16 Staff Report. We have asked the applicant to submit elevation drawings for the east side of the commercial building and a lighting plan. The City Engineer has determined that 10 feet of additional right-of way is required for Conklin Lane in order to allow a center turn lane and a side walk. We have asked that the applicant to show this on the concept plan. J L .L__J I ---; ==t--¡ I --'I I --~ 1---~---i ! II +__-j I --11-- I I I ':""__J__-I I - --; I I I I --J L - -+-_--=-::!"--1 L Con kli n Lane. --- .' II ..---1 -..- ' I _...--f ...-.. .. '3oc¡. ~' 6 ~ ~ ""( <! ß~z [7 ¿l i5"OZ ::¡ CD 0 Q) < ;::::¡. Q CD ::r -?OO --0 ~ 3 8- Q) CD (Q :J CD .-+ (nC') ;::;:0 CD ::J "U~ Q)'"C ::Jr-+ :: ........ ~.~ rv .. :; '" '" ~ ~ '6'1 ª. ~. STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Sunil Terdalkar Item: REZ05-00008 Date: June 20, 2005 SUB05-00010 Galway Hills Sub. Part-IV GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Dav-Ed Limited 18 Donegal Place Iowa City, IA 52245 (319) 337-4818 Contact Person: MMS Consultants, Inc. 1917 South Gilbert Street Iowa City IA 52241 Phone: (319) 351-8282 Requested Action: Rezoning Approval - ID-RS to RS-5 and Preliminary Plat Approval for the Subdivision of Galway Hills Part IV Purpose: Development of Galway Subdivision part IV Location: South of Melrose Avenue on Galway Drive Size: 10.41 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped - ID-RS and RS-5 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential & undeveloped OPDH-1 & ID-RS South: Highway 218, Park East: RS-5 - Galway Hills Subdivision - Part II West: Highway 218 and undeveloped - ID-RS & P Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Single-Family Residential File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: June 16, 2005 August 01,2005 SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: Sanitary and sewer lines will be extended from Galway Hills Part 2. Public Services: The City will provide Police and fire protection. The City will also provide the refuse and recycling collection. No transit service is available for this area. ppdadmin\stfrep\rez05-00008 galway part iV.doc BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicants, Dev-Ed Limited, are requesting approval for a rezoning from ID-RS to RS-5 for approximately 3.16 acres located south of Melrose Avenue, abutting Highway 218. The applicants have also requested approval for a subdivision of approximately 10.31 acres, including the above mentioned land to be rezoned. The proposed subdivision would include 26 single- family residential lots and one out lot as part of the overall development of Galway Hills. The first phase of Galway Hills Subdivision was approved in 1990 and since then approximately 110 single-family residential lots have been developed. Galway Hills also includes a retirement community and a church on Dublin Drive. ANAL YSIS: Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Southwest Distract Plan stresses the importance the of well-designed, diverse neighborhoods served with streets, sidewalks, trails, neighborhood commercial centers, institutional uses and open spaces with appropriate designs to suit the surrounding single-family housing. This particular property is part of the Willow Creek sub-area within the Southwest District which shows this area as appropriate for single-family lots with a landscape buffer adjacent to Highway 218. The proposed RS-5 zoning will allow development of single-family dwellings on lots of minimum area of 8,000 square feet. This zoning is consistent with the future land use scenario of the South District Plan and is compatible with similar developments in area. Outlot A provides a buffer between many of the lots and Highway 218/Melrose Avenue. Lots 1-9 however are directly adjacent to Highway 218. Staff suggests that the applicant plant a mixture of trees at the rear of these lots to create a buffer as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. However because those lots are not part of the area subject to rezoning, and the subdivision regulations do not require a buffer, this is not something that can be required as a condition of approval. Subdivision Analysis The applicant is requesting approval for preliminary plat of Galway Hills Subdivision Part - IV, a 26-lot single-family residential subdivision. Approval for this subdivision is contingent of above mentioned rezoning approval on the western part of the proposed development. All of the lots exceed the minimum 8000 square feet lot area standard and meet the minimum 60 feet lot width requirement. The design of the subdivision is in general consistent with the subdivision regulations. The primary access to this property will be from Galway Drive. Galway Drive, a cul- de-sac street, will be extended from existing development on the east. With the proposed rezoning and development of the 26-lot single-family subdivision, approximately 182 trips per day would be generated. In staff's view this will not result in inappropriate local residential street volumes. The property contains sensitive areas such as slopes and woodland. The applicant has provided a sensitive areas plan that shows protected slopes and associated buffers, critical and steep slope areas. The plan also shows the wooded area and other isolated trees. Some of the sensitive area will be affected by the proposed development activity, requiring a sensitive areas site plan. Outlot A contains most of the protected slopes and adjoining buffers, part of critical and steep slopes and wooded area. The outlot is proposed to be set aside as private open space. Proposed lots 10-14 and lots 17-20 will contain some of the protected slopes and adjoining buffers, while lots 9-15 and 17-24 will contain some of the critical slopes. The plat incll:ldes a construction limit line so that future property owners are aware that the protected slopes and buffers and portions of the steep and critical slopes shall not be disturbed. The legal papers for the final plat will also need to address the future preservation of these slopes. The construction limit line is not necessary for lots 1-8, 16, 25 and 26 as there are no slopes requiring protection 2 on those lots. Because most of the sensitive features will be included in the private open space or be protected by the construction limit line, in staff's opinion, the plat conforms with the intent and requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Neighborhood parkland or fees in lieu of At the time of development of previous phases of Galway Hills Subdivision, dedication of park land in the southern part of Galway Hills was agreed upon. No further open space dedication is required for this part of the development. Storm water management This development will share the existing storm water basin on the north-east of this property in the Galway Hills Subdivision Part II. Infrastructure fees: Sanitary sewers tap on fees - 2017.44/ acre and water main extension fees - 395.00/acre apply to this subdivision. Summary: In general, the proposed rezoning and subdivision design are consistent with the zoning and subdivision regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff suggests that the applicant plat trees to buffer lots 1-9 from the Highway 218. The construction limit line should be removed from lots 1-8, 16,25 and 26. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval for REZ05-00008, an application for rezone 3.16 acres from ID-RS to RS-5. Staff further recommends of approval of SUB05-00012 Preliminary Plat for Galway Hills Subdivision Part IV, a 26-lot single-family residential development on a property of an area of approximately 10.41 acres. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Location Map 2) Rezoning exhibit 3) Preliminary Plat Approved by: %~/!4~/ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development 3 ~ ~ - - < ~..r::Q 8 ~ ~ CI) .CJ) Q C- ~-..r:: 0 ::IE =tú I en LO 0 co ::> CIJ -..... (0 ex> 0 J: 0 C 0 0 C- I LO 0 0 N ~ W a: t3 ~ ~ ~ ~ t3 C- O> .> '- c ~ ~ Cd (!) tn Z 0 a: Þ-4 . ~ c - u 0 ~ ~ t: 00 GALWAY HILLS REZONING EXHIBIT SUBDIVISION IOWA CITY, IOWA '. '. '. . 1'. . -\.' . . ~ '1 ..........'.\::,....... f~¿~<oi\!. ... .. .... . . . 'A.¿ 'A~I··\·· . ''7 0V~ loF· .,. .'. .... ·.·..-t76' A/C~O/ . j¡ &J/ . .' ·.Ä'¡// L\~. /~('/ ..... .' . >J,f / ' fí <.. .' . . /11/···· ( " .' '. ..' /'¡//......./ . S- ·/lll·.··.··· ...... . . . .;( ··il/~···· ", ..... ~I.IV·. '. ~~ . ~i. ~~..., PUT PRRPARRn ~ l1li5 COIiBULTAIm! IIIC. 1917 SOUTH GIUIBlIT ST. Ion CITY, IOn 5224Ø ""A Æ'N<n.DIT or _""'" NSII'08'02"E ~ ..~ \ ~ \ "\ ~ ~ ~ ~þ ~ Q~ ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTIDN CcInmInctIt at the Nor1hwIIt CGmII" 01 cw.a, ... ~ - Part Two. In 0C0CIrdancI with h Plat. ttw.Df......1n BookJ5. at,._ otthe rIICCII'dI of the .IcItIMon OMIty ReconW'. 0fIIcI; 11wIcIi S5Tt5'Otf'E" ØfI!'IO the SIutherIy~."... or..... ~ 35.44 tilt¡ 'IhIIIoe SM'47'Oø"[" .. ~ _~ RVd-of-MIy h. 121.15 ..... 10 IhI pœff Œ IIEGINC: ::;H~~a~~~.:.':w~=;::= .... 111.34 r.t; 11IeciI N3O"II'1:rw. along MId NcIrth..-I, R~t-oI-Way '... _I' foot; 111.... 1125'3'...... """ MIld _,__ 1M, 1.17 _ to ItI ~ wIttI 1M ... Scluhty ~t-of-Iay line of WIII'OII A... ThIftCl N8I'08'On. aIont ICIId Scuthwly RIght-of-Way tit, 317." fill. to ... POIfT Œ I!IEGItMtG. conb*ml J.11 ~ and "jIcI: to...... II'Idrwb1ctlanl ofrwcanl. LEGEND AND NOTES t . Q - CCINØIIIOtW. c:aIfrEIt. FOIMD - c::oNGRDIIIOtUo CCIMIER. RfElTAIIÆtED -~CCIINDt.III!CGIaDLOCATION - IIIICII01't CiOI8IEIt(S), fOUND (_ Måd) - PII(II£Jt1y CORNEItIIET (=':t..~' pa.tIoLS ~ -MY - """""'" . '" BY ŒED 1H .Ii: PtJIIIOI[ NOTED --------------------- - LMJ" ~ NO1[ ) I:! ::== C22-1 - CIJR'Æ: IEQMENT NUW8ER IKDI NØ1ID 01IIEI'MI[. AU. ___ ME .. FEET All) II.NIEnHI ERR(R CF a.o5I..Æ IS L£SS THAN , FOOT N 20,000 FŒT onnlRIJRDIVrnER- DAv-m UIIITID 18 DONlGAL PLACE IOWA CITY, IOWA 522-45 ana's A'I"I'ORNRV" PIIIWP A. LIlT 222 SOUTH LINN STRIIT IOWA CITY, IOWA 5224Ø POINT Of BEGINNING 3117.90' . ..... ".; b ª I" 8 , i .........., . . · , ..~,.' . ..<,- . · .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . · . -. . . . ", . . . ," . w+£ .. ~ It .. . WIllI: IICALI . PIlI tofll ~ i -I J r J i J ......... REZONING EXHIBIT ~ J ~ t. f * "ó" ,} PNG'À1WAY HIUS SUBDIVISION - PART FOUR ~ . 1- q ~ .. '" IOWA CITY, IOWA G: \2500\2542021 \2542021Z.0WG 6/30/2005 10: 47: 55 AM cor I PART FOUR ----- ~lEllfiIlQ)~1E "'¥'IE~~IE ..~____m_____ .../...L:ft;;»------------------- ./ )~ paNT C1F COW~IÆNCEMENT ..,/[ .// ~ ./ : ."-__n._.\L__~n.-----' " I (' I N57"1S' ~..,,/ J! ~ ¡ ...$' .(" ì '..h.__._ L. "'''1 1-___..1________ ~ ¡o I - -_____.....J .. I I I .. I I I "....7'oo"E '21.8~:__._.--"" _......--1--+---~--------_ ""-..ð ___ .. 1 "-"'-"'- ..' ,,' ~--"';/ -.' \ f ¡ ¡ \ r--- ¡ ..__.. , , ,Ô' I¡::¡? .--','- -_ I ~ ~~- "'_ : ~___.J~ ,,~¡ ~ ~ \ "y I \ ~ \,~ ~~ ¡ ~ /~i : / 'ß 00 I ' ~ , ( , , , , . \ \ ~~ \, \ \ ~ ~ ~V)¡ " " S~= ¡¡pg, \ \ "ç¡ \ \ )\0 , \.' 0i( \ ~\\~ \ \ 1~ \~""WAà' ~ , M~\ ~ ",,<1 '\ © " \/\ V \ I>NHP LM!!P ._IUŒ ~A ary, k1NA !IJs.t5 "" .'" ''\'' "" ',,<., "" '~" "" ',< ~ ·~~ttk '1!þ .~~ ..~ MMS CONSULTANTS INC. J DI/29/OO PfR DIY.....EW Iowa City, Iowa (319) 351-8282 '. r <> Q\IIL ENGINEERS <> LAND SUR'Æ'fORS <> f 0> LAND~ ~g~AU~D ~NNERS <0 r 5PBjll, PRELIMINARY PLAT & SENSITIVE GALWAY HILLS SUBDIVISION IOWA CITY, IOWA AREAS PLAN PART FOUR PUT PREPARED BY' IIIIS CONSULTANT5 INC. 1917 SOUTH GILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 OWN~RISURDlYIDER: OAV-ED (JIlITED 18 DONEGAL PLACE IOWA CITY. IOWA 52245 OWNER'S ATTORNEY' PHlWP A. LErr 222 SOUTH UNN STREET IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240 -+-. . ~._~.- ,.~..-.. ',.. , ~--~! ~ ~1 ~'~F~ _,_,_,_' ,_,-==', ,- ''''\bPfT'II01M .a'I.C.-1.C. . 10: ~ ..~:7~:~ .~:__---_ -_-;---q~~~~~;;Ò::~;~k~~-'O':f :-'~~::X~~·,L~~;~:-~~:~ I "IIIIr 01' -...c !"!!!I=.J I~I-! ~ . IWII:ICIU... ,.., . ~'?, T T . . . a ~-;::::=: TAIIT.... It « _ e:=:r- ,-=== _-_ClML.cI -- --c:oncutLMI(J'lOItDWIII.) - DII1NC.u: 1M: - c.nMC IIØ:IOII(g ... -DI5a.o~_ - 1t1U" -.: -UI 4TPQ.1 - ___11--": -,.I!'IDItMIT --IIII_~ o oil'; . ~-1IIIOro:1OIaJIIII:~ D fZ2J IECAL DFSCRIPllON ..... ~ '-tal "-"'1IaoI_ -...- rr-...IsOftd.......,~ .._ItIG'Id......,.~I.........____.11ItII "",,".rF\ole! ..,... ~ 01 IIoe __ c.- "'.... FrocUllloal _ø.-¡ Qullll'__ or 5.~~!...~~L~'!$.~ ..... IubdhIIIDn. ....1 T... ... -.:I thlreo~ ~:r~::x"'~ .....-.t.~ 3111...........,....... _1".__ 1t1"31'22"E,......... w..t »"'E........ _u....U1'-1:"""- 7O..J4fM1: "*- 1411"41'21'" s.u~,. 112.. ,... .... ... -.... _ ...."-1..,. ..... 11Q.13 ""TU'W. .........-.u....' ~'...... .....t...........lh~.. ___ wllh IhII R--*I Plot . SoI2"<tI'ZI tI.,..uo Une. 5-I.27...t,1Io...__c.--......., 1llilEe.'-I, ....t-........,UoI01 """""'... ... 51. (210 ........ &.1..... "...t__r-_, lIf>e, ....,.J4 fwt¡ "'-C4I CIIcIft9 ... Eott...'''''''I-of-_~112.11,..I'''_ ..1IIOIt..... Eo.I.-Ir ......1-01-..' Lht. Iat.~ "'1: 1'hena .... ..... Eo.'-Ir ......t_,-...,. u., 3IQ.'. "'1: 1to_ ..... ..... Ea.t.lr Jtltht-or-_" u.... 1ao.." _t, to It. -.fItI... ...-, -æ.....,-WIr LN. or *"- "- ".... ... ..... Sou"'-l, 1-01-.., ........ "7.1110 '-t n....c. .... ... Sou.'" A l-oP-WO'........ 121.0 ..... __ iriS GIorotI ... :r'="~··IÕ~~~~':.'":"'~:"~t.":: .....1.....-. ____DNIDtnQ,.I'UII"OItÞIII'JC .~ CltAD(CDllIUIJIS_I'IICJ'OIED~CØI"'r«AUIO. IOTIiIL NIU 0I1a1lCAL a.CPI:" nl,ltO.. IOTIiIL NlUOIIaIlCAL&Ø'O 10 . 1IIIu.D . u..ø . N:IICÐI,....t1I call:M.aI:P[NEA WI."~"2I. IOT...NlUOII'CP-'-..II,:uø1l' lOT'" NIU 01 1t£Ø' &OI'U 10 .Cllu.D _ ""'II' ~'''''Ø"IIUPSØ'IINIU 1D....~.....7tI PLAT/PLAN APPROVED by the City of Iowa City CI Clerk "''"' U1IUT't' EASEUENTS, AS SHQIIo I€IIEON, YAY OR YAY NOT, ~~~~~~=~S~s~œ~=: MMS CONSULTAImI, INC. Iowa City, Iowa (319) 351-8282 o~~:c,.~~o o .IENClI.ANOØI\iIÐ.ØIt¡Iþ T....-.G 0 -- ~~- G: \25DD\25-4-2D21\25-4-2D21P.DWG To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: REZ05-00009 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Phone: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: Public Services: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Jeffrey Banks, Planning Intern Date: July 6,2005 The Stables, LL.C. 805 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Brenda Nelson, 319-627-6818 Rezoning from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Overlay Planned Development Housing (PDH-12). To allow construction of two-story, mixed use development with 30 residential units and 9,000 square feet of commercial space. West side of Heinz Road south of Highway 6. 2.72 Acres Office (former single-family dwelling) - RFBH North: Multi-family housing, RM-20 South: Manufactured housing, RFBH East: Multi family housing, OPDH-RS12 and RM-20 West: Manufactured housing, RFBH Duplex and/or small lot single family June 14, 2005 July 29, 2005 Sanitary sewer and municipal water service are available to this property Garbage and recycling will be provided by a private hauler. Police and fire services will be provided by the City. The nearest bus stop is near Highway 6/ Heinz Road intersection, where both the Mall and Lakeside bus routes pass. 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Saddlebrook development was annexed into the City in 1994. The annexation and zoning of this property was subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The major conditions of the CZA specified that the applicant would provide for wetland protection and mitigation; construction of a trail network; dedication or payment of fees for neighborhood open space and dedication of a school site. The subject area was zoned RFBH, Factory-Built Housing Residential zone, at that time. The applicant is now requesting a rezoning from RFBH to High Density Single Family (RS- 12) and a planned development housing overlay (OPDH) to allow the development of a mixed use development with offices and retail on a portion of the first floor and residential apartments on another portion of the first floor and covering the entire second floor. The OPDH request is necessary to allow the mix of commercial and multi-family proposed by the applicant. The current zoning designation (RFBH) would allow this area to be developed for manufactured housing units or limited commercial uses, such as convenience stores, beauty parlors, dry cleaning businesses, video rental stores and restaurants, designed to primarily serve the residents of the manufactured housing park. ANAL YSIS: Comprehensive Plan: This land is located in the South Planning District. The land use plan for this area indicates that is it appropriate for small-lot single-family or duplex dwelling units. This designation was given to the property in 1997 and recognized the development plan that had already been approved for Saddlebrook, including small-lot single family homes in the RFBH zone. The current RFBH zoning classification allows for manufactured and/or mobile homes with provisions for limited commercial uses. When Saddlebrook was first planned it was the developers' intent to include commercial uses, as allowed by the RFBH, on the area now being requested for rezoning. The Comprehensive Plan provides guidance for the incorporation of commercial and mixed-use developments into new neighborhoods. The Plan states that, "Located near an arterial street, or near an intersection of two collector streets, a neighborhood commercial area associated with a public square or park can provide a focal point and gathering place for a neighborhood...shopping areas within convenient walking distance for the residents in the immediate area, and may include such facilities as a post office substation, a day care center, small restaurants and a convenient store. The design of the neighborhood commercial center should have a pedestrian orientation with the stores placed close to the street, but with sufficient open space to allow for outdoor cafes and patios or landscaping. Parking should be located to the rear and sides of stores with additional parking on the street. Including public space, such as a town square in a commercial center, will allow such centers to be a focal point for their neighborhoods that can serve as an activity center for recreation, seasonal festivals, farmers markets, play areas and a bus stop. Apartments above businesses can provide needed housing while increasing the revenue stream for commercial establishments and enhancing the residential nature of the area. Townhouses or small apartment houses surrounding the commercial center can increase the customer base for the commercial uses çnd make efficient use of the services available in the neighborhood center." (p.21) The purpose of the PDH overlay zone is to allow flexibility in the use and design of structures and land in situations where conventional development many be inappropriate and where modifications of requirements of the underlying zone will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance, inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan or harmful to the surrounding properties. It is the intent of the PDH overlay to promote efficient land use with smaller utility and street networks, provide for flexibility in architectural design, preservation of 3 landscape features and open space and to promote an attractive and safe living environment compatible with surrounding residential developments. The proposed PDH-12 overlay will allow for mixed use structures with multi-family and commercial elements. The proposed development would be on a 2.72 acre lot, and would include three two-story buildings with a total of 9,000 square feet of commercial space on the first floor and 30 residential units of one or two bedrooms. The design also includes 79 parking spaces, which slightly exceeds the amount (76) required by the City. Behind the development, on the West side of the lot, are two parking garages, both of which are one-story in height. The applicant has proposed a design which incorporates a central green space surrounded by the three buildings with parking situated on a lane running behind the buildings. In staffs' opinion, there are several attractive design elements in the proposed building plans, such as the use of masonry construction, storefront windows and generous green space. There are a few existing mature trees which may be incorporated in the design. In staffs' opinion, this plan meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the OPDH zone. There is evidence of a flexibility of design with the clustering of buildings on the site, a generous use of open space and an efficient plan for parking. The proposal generally helps promote an attractive and safe living environment which is compatible with surrounding residential developments. Compatibility with neighborhood: At the time the Saddle brook development was annexed the properties lying to the north and east were zoned to RM-20 to allow for multi-family development. In staffs' view, the proposed mixed use multi-family development is compatible in scale and design with existing buildings in the area. The manufactured housing units to the West are lower scale but the proposed two-story building to the West is setback from the western property line by one-story garages along the property's edge which effectively provide a buffer to the two-story development. The existing RFBH zone lying to the south contains a clubhouse for the development and the current proposal is consistent with institutional and recreational character of the club house. In staff's opinion the proposed Planned Development is compatible with the surrounding development. To assure continued compatibility, staff recommends that the uses and signs of the proposed development are limited to those of the Community Commercial (CN-1) zone. Traffic implications: Proposed zoning is very similar to existing zoning and so significant additional traffic is not expected. Under the current zoning (RFBH) the developer could build the area out with either manufactured housing or limited commercial uses. Traffic anticipated for the residential units is 6 trips per day, or 180 VPD (vehicle trips per day) for the 30 units. This is not excessive for Heinz Road, a collector street. The proposed 9,000 square feet of commercial space will generate additional traffic, however, given the relatively small size of the commercial space and the anticipated neighborhood commercial uses, traffic volumes are not expected to overburden Heinz Road. Access and street design: The proposed development will be accessed from Heinz Road off Highway 6. Heinz Road is a collector street and is currently the primary access road for the Saddlebrook developments. In the past, because of increased number of housing units in the area, this single access road has been a concern. A Conditional Zoning Agreement on the overall Saddlebrook development allows occupancy permits for only 416 residential units until the time when a secondary access road is made available. Residential development is approaching the threshold of 416 units, however, as the Saddlebrook Meadows Part 1 development has been approved and platted, which includes plans for a secondary access route, staff expects that secondary access will soon be available to the Saddlebrook developments. Building permits will cease to be issued when the threshold is reached, until 4 such time as a secondary access road has been made available. Pedestrian access to the proposed development from Bon Aire Mobile Home Park, which lies directly to the West, is so limited as to encourage trespassing across the properties abutting the western side of the lot. Staff recommends, for this reason, that the proposed development expand pedestrian access in the West by building a sidewalk to the property line in the Southwest corner of the lot, where Bon Aire Mobile Home Park has a public area. Neighborhood parkland or fees in lieu of: A neighborhood open space dedication is required for this lot. At the time of the original Saddlebrook subdivision and the Conditional Zoning Agreement with Sycamore Farms, the Parks and Recreation Commission determined the amount of open space required for the entire subdivision to be 6 acres based on the Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance. At that time approximately 2 acres of neighborhood open space were proposed along the west side of Lot 6. An additional acre was proposed within the 50-foot wide sanitary sewer easement between Lots 5 and 7. The remaining three acres of Neighborhood Open Space are to be provided along the west boundary of Saddlebrook when that is subdivided, so that it may be combined with open space required for the Gatens' tract to the West, in order to create a more substantial open space area. Infrastructure fees: The $395 per acre fee for water main extension was paid for by earlier Saddlebrook subdivisions. There is no sanitary sewer tap-on-fee for this portion of the city. Stormwater: Requirements for stormwater management for this property were addressed through the larger subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the rezoning of 2.72 acres from RFBG to OPDH-12 and the preliminary plan for Saddlebrook Addition Part 1, Lot 3, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Uses and signs limited to those of the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone. 2. Preserve and incorporate older existing trees, where possible, especially the Fir trees on the West edge of the lot and the large tree in the central green (perhaps building G could be shifted to the north a few feet to make room for the tree). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Site plan 3. Elevation drawings Approved by: /2-~/1V Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development S:IPCDlStaff Reports1REZ05-00009 Saddlebrook mixed-use ~ ( J ( J CI) -;:) ..QC) Eij C) I.... ~t) ~ :3 ~ tj ~ ~ ~ ~ tj '%~ \1 Q~ \~ ÞÁ- ().. '1 Þ _ J I II 1::1 ONiffi),Vdì I I \\¡ Þ = J~ ONV15n.! \ \ 1:> N\I~OVl ¡ l /\ I \~==<l I~VH 111:> ÁNOdOlOd I L /\ il~:> NVIBV~~ \~ Š/L \~ ~\f 3S00N~ )~ ?O'- _ _ __~:) ZN~ / :::r--:.:-- - -I I I 7 :I: m LL e: "ì::: 0 c:: ~ Q) \:) \) ~ Q\)=ï:::; C) "~ Q) Q) Q :oC::~ :I: m LL e: a) U) a: 0) o 8 o I I.C) o N W a: tv) +-" .9 ,.... 1:: ctS a.. - C o E "C "C « ~ o o '"- .c Q) =ë "C ctS en Z o 1-4 5 s ~ t: rJ} ~ z I, 1111 J Ij~ en ;f~ z ~ ~ 4 Is ii . Ii ~~ .J (I).J f ~ Ii ~ 71 1- III III a: I ;¡Ii Z C I ~I'I I I~ IJ~ JI :i IS a'll II ~j.j !tTft 3 ih 13111 I .~ 'II13! 'II ,.O! IUa J t: IU~ 1 I~~I~ l!rMI~ r ¡ 'JJJfl; J ~ :!~I'II;IJ§!¡;! D. II¡II J.. ä I " tî j !~JfJ~fi' Uibl a :':~~i{Jili'll1 "i Uil 8~', ~. ~ JjJitJjJJ ItJ i hIli J JHi J ~ i~ H ! ~£ ..i;h f ~:i 1 ¡ ~H ¡ ~ hw r Iii .. Iii. ! Œ ff':ijlj f 6 =j~J.j d:~ ~1'4" Ii~_ . J U 1 5 iii!: 2 ., § 1 ~ -- ~ ~ Ii t 1 t II If 1 n t ijl~ f iu§! ili ~ ... 9!: 2 å 0.: U ~ 0.: ; !II\~ t "..; WH£ D ";J.~~c z ,,;.rr:.'>, II Illht d '(fi,~ ìi~li nlh ! Iñdt ~ f ~ - J j f ! f} } } 1 r ~ I iOð) I .... .~i ~ ~ m Þ if W! ~1 ~ .. C> Iii :i ~ <3 Iii u :!; ~I ~ to ~ i j ~ w I 1i W w ~ it: !1' :g il wI 1;1 W ~~ To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: SUB05-00009NAC05-00005 MWD Davis Addition GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Phone: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: John Yapp Date: July 6, 2005 James Davis, Robert Davis, and Jan Smith 4097 Kitty Lee Road Iowa City, IA 52240 MMS Consultants 1917 S Gilbert Street Iowa City, IA 52240 319-351-8282 Final Plat approval To create a 14-lot commercial development North of Highway 1, west of Highway 218, east of Kitty Lee Road 50.05 acres Undeveloped: CC-2, Community Commercial (approx. 16.05 acres), CI-1, Intensive Commercial (approx. 20.22 acres), CO-1, Office Commercial (approx. 10.92 acres) and RR-1, Rural Residential (approx. 2.83 acres), North: Residential and vacant; County A 1 and RS; South: Highway 1 East: Highway 218 West: Residential and Agricultural; County RS General and Office Commercial June 7, 2005 2 45 Day Limitation Period: July 22, 2005 60 Day Limitation Period: August 6,2005 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: MWD Davis Addition is a 14-lot commercial subdivision located north of Highway 1, west of Highway 218 and east of Kitty Lee Road. The annexation of this property was recently approved by the State of Iowa. The final plat includes a 'Final Sensitive Areas Development Plan' that depicts the sensitive environmental features and buffers on the property. ANAL YSIS: Conformance with Preliminary Plat: The final plat is in conformance with the preliminary plat. The subdivision consists of 14 commercial lots. Lots 1-2,4-5, & 10-14 are to be zoned Community Commercial, CC-2; Lot 3 is to be zoned Intensive Commercial, CI-1; Lots 6-8 & Outlot A, which border residential property at the north end of the proposed development, are to be zoned Office Commercial, CO-1. The plat includes a resubdivision of Lots 13-17 of RH Davis Subdivision, which are residential lots that have never been built upon. The reference to resubdividing these lots on the plat is necessary for tracking purposes when title opinions are being generated for the property. Access Issues: A majority of the lots will be accessed from Naples Avenue, a proposed collector street into the development. Access will be controlled on the southern 1/3 of Naples Avenue in order to preserve queuing storage space for traffic - the approved access points for Lots 3, 13 & 14 are identified on the plat. The Naples Avenue / Highway 1 intersection is proposed to be improved with a traffic signal and additional turn lanes according to a traffic study approved during the rezoning process for the property. The Iowa Department of Transportation will need to review and approve modifications to this intersection. Lots 1 & 2 are proposed to be accessed from Kitty Lee Road. A Conditional Zoning Agreement and the legal papers for the subdivision specify that prior to access being permitted to Kitty Lee Road, Kitty Lee Road will need to be constructed to collector street standards, and a traffic study must be completed to determine appropriate turn lanes at the Kitty Lee Road / Highway 1 intersection. The legal papers and a note on the plat specify that no lots may have direct access to Highway 1. Sensitive Areas Ordinance: The final plat includes a Final Sensitive Areas Development Plan that depicts the wetlands and steep slopes on the property, and the required buffers. The wetland mitigation plan that was approved by the Corps of Engineers is being recorded and is referenced in the rezoning ordinance for the property. s:\PCD\Staff Reports\SUB05-00009 MWD Davis.doc 3 The storm water management facility and wetland area is proposed to be owned and maintained by a landowners association. Fees: A water main extension fee of $395/acre is required. No sanitary sewer tap-on fee is required, though the developer is required to extend sewer to this property for it to be served, and construct a sanitary sewer lift station. No open space or open space fees are required because this is not a residential development. Conformance with Conditional Zoning Agreement: As part of the rezoning of the property, the applicant agreed to a Conditional Zoning Agreement that specified requirements related to infrastructure improvements, the assigning of costs for public infrastructure, landscaping, proposed fencing parallel to Kitty Lee Road, access control, and provision of sanitary sewer. The terms of the Conditional Zoning Agreement have been incorporated into the legal papers associated with the final plat. Many of these requirements will be reviewed as development proposals are received for individual lots in the development. Vacation of Olde Oak Lane: Part of the land included in the MWD Davis Addition plat is already platted with residential lots, and a portion of unimproved Olde Oak Lane. The affected segment of Olde Oak Lane has never been improved, nor does it serve to provide access to any other properties. Lots 13-17 of RH Davis Subdivision will be 'resubdivided' as part of the approval of this plat, and the unimproved portion of Olde Oak Lane must be vacated as part of this final plat approval process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that V AC05-00005, a vacation of approximately 1.17 acres of unimproved Olde Oak Lane be approved. Staff recommends that SUB05-00009 a final plat of MWD Davis Addition, a 50.05 acre, 14- lot commercial subdivision located north of Highway 1 and west of Highway 218, be approved, subject to the affected portion of Olde Oak Lane being vacated, and construction plans and legal papers being approved prior to Council consideration. Approved by: ~~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Final plat 3. Olde Oak Lane vacation exhibit 5:\PCD\5taff Reports\SUB05-00009 MWD Davis.doc ç Ü « "C :;: as ~ Q 0 I.L.. 0 a: >- ( ) tj r- Ü ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "'C C as ~ oy- ~ ~ ~ .c 0) -- tj J: a. ~ m o o o o I 1.0 o m :J CJ) v .... õ ~ , #.;::. ~v~ ~<v" #{f ~'ff ~~ ,(3 , , 50.05 AC FINAL PLAT & FINAL SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MWD DAVIS ADDITION A PORTION OF WHICH INCLUDES A RESUBDMSION OF LOTS 13-17 OF RII. DAVIS SUBDIVISION. AND A PORTION OF OLDE OAK LANE IN RH. DAVIS SUBDIVISION IOWA CITY, IOWA PLAT/PLAH APPROVED by lbe Cily of Iowa CUy PREPARED 8Y: MMS CONSUlTANTS !Ne. - 1V17 s. Gt\.BERT S"tREET - IOWA CITY: IOWA 52240 - 319 1-8282 owmœ.cr A.TTORm- Thomu tL Oelman 321 & llarkol m-I 10". C~ty, Jon. 52246 =~~:æ=~~ r~~~~:r.= IÞ IT 1tC 1CII.LÞtIII AGÞaII --.. --- :æ .. II,""".."""\.",¡ 111M. . .. WPIIIC æJ/I III Ym MoO' ,,- ,""~ ,\~(/!"'. ~. I'iE$'!'~NI'f'Ea """'" ....- ne lOOT NOIUIOO IIOC»I:Jt,PAœ,7a r./'---"""!!1...!..I....... 1.5..0'SANI'TÞ.IfY """EAR I~ ,,- I--t)' ...';.¡r" "'.p ~I .~- i :W.l)' STOIN __,_~Et...5E ""~ \\...;~ ~. I ¡i ow """'" to-T'I'IÞHMíW rouND1Øf'lP[ 8OCII: 31. I"AGt 178 PlAT PR~PARRD AV· )iNS CONSULTA.NTS UfC. 1917 SOUTH GILBIRT ST. Ion CITY. IOWA 62240 OWNRR/stJRnmnno. _ R. n..... Rober! .. D&w. and. .len Ellen Smith 0/0 Jamø R. 0&_ 409'7 KIlty Leo Road .loft Ctt,. loft 52240 .... mill elM .000tIt oCMI.)', 2005,. tho NC JOtI of ..... R.. Dflvi.. . tut9t .. OOJIIpfoMd IUIder my eapervì_ at. PcIrtiu 0{ M Sut <>-HaIf oftbo Soutå_ añerud ollhe But. Oae-KlIIl of tho North__ Qørtw. ~ o(S"'IÍOIII20. Tøwnlhi Honk. a.q. G W... of tIM F"dtII PriMis* Meridian. Joßeot COQCy. ~. City "~ofwtdola..~..6ònowa: .... m"ftGiDtattt.c.allrofStclio820. ToWMiip79Hortb,R....6Wo-.ofthl Fi '.,*" }.(sri'" Johu:Ia CowIt)', JoWl. City, 10_ 1'hostct S19"SS'I'r'W, ., 0f1b na. ofdtt Sournut QuaåRof Slid s.mo. 20. a di__ of 1073.25 fnt, 10 ~ tboutClOnlMofLot LI ofR.H. um. hbdiYilioa,la IIOOOrdIII;e with.. AartMNo in. Bøot 7, al PlIO I, ollho NOOtdI of tho Jobaoa CouaIy boocder'. oœo. .. POINT OF 8EOINNTN0: 'I'beea NOlGOI''''E, aioal tJa!uterty Ii_ of Lot9, Lot 10 and Lot II of_ R.H. na...Subdivitioo, J96.51 rea. to dtlSoudI of Lot 11. of said JUI. Davia SubcliviJio.o 'T'hhoD S66'"IrJ~ Moøa tb oulherly II.. of.ad Lot 12, a dlauc. 0(7$." r..t. 10 1M So..... comor tMNo ¡.we4"WE, aioqtM EanlrlyliM otllid Lot 12, Id:i,..,. of 199.77 f'oet. Swtll.MIt 00hMI or Lot II of IIicI R.H. DlYhI Subch;lion; Thenoo S6~ln4'1 onalhoSotllMriy Ii..of_ Lot II,. di-.oo of224.f7 tø.t.1O dw 80111... 'I'bnctI N23"42'IrE. I&oDI a. Eutodyli_ofllid Lot LI, a distaoc. ot 129, Thenof; HortIIiwe.my, 116.96.... aIoq said ~)' Ii... .. . Ire of I 54.6 nidi"" QIn" OOIIOÞI Sodwmwly, Mo. 9H1Q toot ehord bean N3M903"W NOa·35'WW, 6O,(IO....cø I poiRtOA the NorthIrIy Ri.ht-ot.Way liDO ofOkl Lan:. ThoncaSBLotr1'3rW, 'Iona wd.Nonberb Ri¡bt-oi-Wayli.... 291.601_ Southaatt COR\IW of Lot 6 of said RH. Im¡' SuW!vilioa; TbeDco NOl"OYJ.5"E oat dID EuIDrty linll of JIi4 R.H. Dms SubdivÌliOll, 4.54U9 fMt. 11:) the S of Auditor'. Paracl No. 2005016, ill aocarrdaøo wnb.. PIal tberwrreconlad i .... II Pip 109, of Iha ~ of !be lo1u11oD CouIty a.cordcr', OOke.; T ....51..0'"£ akMIa: 1M Solltbedy Iiao 01_ AllCÜtOf". PøoeI No. 200.5016, 'mSlaJø 0 43,89 r-. lit the SolldMul con'IIr 1hcNot, wi. point on lilt ~y Ri¡h1-ot: IY ÜIM olm¡h..y No, 21'~ Tboœa Sn"2m"E, aIOßI said SoWhwt:lârly Ri¡h1-ot II)' liao, 1304.33 _ Tbeaca S05"Ot'OS"E, aloo¡ said So.Ihwaamty Rj¡ht-of.Wa ¡III, 260.12 fa< Thenoo Slrl7'39"E, lion, Hid SOIQWOItorIy Riaht-of.Way line 97.24 fo.=t, 10 a p<NRI on tho ElI1liDO oliØ SQUÛ/lIIiIOII Qu.\lDroCsaid. s.ction 10 SOO"l3'4(I'"W, .son, _ Ea.I IiDI. 5.60 r.. 10 iû: iutmootiOll walb ortœrly Rlahc-of-Way lIDo of Hiahway No. I; THnG. S41~.5'36"W, &Ioø& iii orIhorIy Riabor-Way Ii.... 349.13 fwt 'I'hotwIo 86S":n'S9"W, IIonl llill NonUrt 'pklf-W->, liu. 160.2$ loat; TIMno. S23'"39'28"W. &Jon¡ Mid Nortàody Ri¡ll\oof. ay liat, 2U.9I feel; nnc. SSJoS3'27"W, aIoq Slid Nonbdy Ri¡Irt-of-W->, r 13.23 &eI; ThenH S41°1S'l6"W, aioDJ said Nonheriy Riabt-of-Way lia" 345.72 foe S62"03'3~W, aIonø aid No.tborly Riaht-of.Way IiRO 345.14 feer. 10 a poillt West li1II oftbl EutODt-RaI{ofthc SoudlwatQuutmorAid Seotioo 20; OO"I6'U-E, .!on, .w. West lioo, 1602.~ Ceat; ThoAeo NII9"43'( j-E, 250.13 NOO"39'SrE, 32~.s? fi:'ot. to 5IIÌd POINT OF B~O~NO, Said Tilt! of .... .... , I , . , . I ~ " , : ¡ II"' : .3 I ,~ ' '~ ' 'I ¡ l:~ Ii ~ r: v f! · ., II~ !i :n B: · , · , " , Z 14ð.O' ACC($S. I EASNEHT , , . I / / / ,....~ "";.¡r-~ ~. 3 ......." 1U'~ / / / LEG EN D t ð. . o AND NOTES - CONCMSSlONAl. CORNER, FO.If4D - cotfOR£SSIONAL CORNER, RŒSTABUSHED ! ~ ~ i~ ; NOTE: NO LOTS SHAll HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO HIGHWAY NO. 1 r 1 11 1I,!S44'§ ¡ 2.111 Joe 8.5oo'! _ prepcnd afui or undw my dÞct Hc:ItJlnd~ 20_. ...- _ _1J2.!:!!:..-- _ _ /" 0---111 _/~' ;' / 1 I i SOUTH OOMftII ""'"'" 2O-17t1Hæw --- I"CiIJMDQJTY 39.PAG:f:2.:M tiotcry Publle. In and fer 1M State of Iowo. SEAl SIQItId beCtn me thIa _ àoy of _ ,20_ (J1 ~ ~ [ ì ~ ( ~ 0 :!J! -l -" (;if fi ! ¡ \C i/ ~ 'i: ~ 0 --.J~ ~ , 'i: '" 0 " , VI :'J II\,) 0. I 0 ð '" " . ~ " ;:: V) Shø' ... FINAL PLAT AND I FINAL SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN ~. Pc.,..,' nto. MWD DAVIS ADDITION nn A FORf!Ol" 0' WHJCH 1JtCtJJl)f;S A R!3t1BDIVlSJOIt Of LOTS 13-11 OF RH. f>AVIS SIIBlJIVIS!ON. AND A POImOK 01 OLDI OAK :wœ x.. JlR DAVIS SVBDlYt8mil IOWA CITY. IOWA G: \5400\5479005\5479005F1.dwg 6/30/2005 3:08:10 PM CST :. 06/23/05 PER CITY REIJIEW SSP /II_ i Oð/ze/05 i PER GDM REVIEW' -JDM , 06/30/05 ¡ PER CITY COMMENTS -JOM . r MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. Iowa CIty. Iowa (319) 351-8282 Ci'.'l. !::NGIN(CRs <.). lAND SURV(YCRS <> LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS <> LAND PLANNERS <> 2' <> WElt.AND SPECIAUSTS <> õ FINAL PLAT & FINAL SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MWD DAVIS ADDITION A PORTION OF WHICH INCLUDE'3 A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 13-17 OF RH. DAVIS SUBDIVISION, AND A PORTION OF OLDE OAK LANE IN RH. DAVIS SUBDlVlSION IOWA CITY, IOWA PREPARED BY: MMS COOSULTANTS INC. - 1917 S. GILBERT STREn - fOWA CITY, IOWA, 52240 - JI9351-8282 PLAT pRF.PiRrn BY, liYS CONSULTANTS INC. 1917 SOUTH GJLIIERT S"l'. lOW! CITY, IOWA 62240 OWHF.R/mmmvmJm. James R Davis. Robert. A. Davis ond Jan Ellen Smith c/o lames R. Davis 4097 Kitty Lee Roed 10ft. Cìl)', Iowa. 52240 Q1fMRRR' ATI'O'RNF.Y- Thðmu H. Gel.mßn 321 E. Warket stTeet 10118 City, loft 52245 £ LEGEND AND NOTES '" ~ . o I \ ~~ ~ ~ ~,a. \ ~\ ~\ ~\ -T"--- \ \ I \ - ~SS!ONAL CORNER', FOUND - CONGRESSIONAl CORNER. REESTABlISHED - CONGRtSSIOMAl COftNtR. RECQKУi) L0CA1'It:IN - MOPERTY CORNER(S). rOUND (_ noted) - PROP£RTf CORNERS SET (~:thwt~. pemlc L.S Cap - CUT""" - PROPERTY 8c10lf BOUNO.-.RY lIN£S - - - -- CQ(Çft[SSIONAL S£C11ON UNES -------------- RIGHT-OF-WAY lINES - - -. CENtER UNES - lOT LMS. NTERNAL - - - LOT ltÆS, PlAT'FEO OR BY OEED --- - ---- - -- EA5ÐoIENT UN£S. WIDTH" ?URPOS£ NOlED --------------------- - !XIS1ING EASEUEN1 UNES. PURPOSE N01œ (R) - RfOORDED DlNENSION$ {U} - WEASURED DIMtNSIONS C22-j - CURVE SEGUEMT trIJIÆER UII.£~ MO'ItD O'IK£R1ISE, AU. DKH30NS ARE IN FEET .Qi) IfJNDRm1liS ERROR OF a.OSURE IS LESS THAN 1 FOOT IN 20,000 FEET o ~S1£EP ~SLOP[S ~EXIS1ING'NETt.JIi'IDroeEPRESÐI''ÆO ~.J Uti AaŒ:S ~ PROPOSÐ) atEA'JD) Vl£llAHO f'LOQOPU. N ~WE1lAND BUFfER ~~ PROPOSED CREA7ED D4ERGENT YlETlANO 3 II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II ) ) / I \ \ )<, I .Y//~, /" ':"+'~~~E /./ r-T- .' I ___ .'\ 6\ z ~ ~i -f--- / :..{/ 1 '\.. \ ''2~8~'ö%~~ Ii:, ~~/ \ ~ ... 01-00:= /~~/ 1 \ looT I ~~----~- à / ,r:'~l , "\ \ '1 ¡ 1/1 I ¿/. / - ---1 !1f; , 1://( I lzø",~' ¡,~ L---~~l/~·-~-~!-· i~~' I I I I I I I I ~----- I / // ~ W ~ 11 ~ ....t TItI. FINAL PLAT AND ~ ! N i _J..,; oi !: i f FINAL SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN ~ f ~ i!:li ~ { ~ . '"'loot TItI. MWD DAVJS ADDITION ~ ~ f f,,) g f r g ?; ~;>I A PORTION or ::»,c~ ~~ o~ ~i1~lh,~'i I¡Ã~ ~~'lt:S SUBDIV1SION, . . ~,,;: '" IOWA CITY, IOWA G: \5400\5479005\5479005F2.dwg 6/30/2005 315: 01 PM CST IJ MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. Iowa CIty. Iowa (35) 351-8282 f 06/23/05 PER CITY RE\IIEW ~ 06/30/0,5 I PER CITY COMt.lENTS s· SBP/ltt -JD" <> CIVIL ENGlN[[RS <> LAND SURvr'l'QR5 <> <> LANDSCAPE ARCHtltCTS <> LAND PLANNERS <> i' <> WEilAND SPEClAUSTS <> . . ~aÐ e c :.<q pa) :>9L :) old S~l :Æq pou5,soO ~ ZBZQ-~9£ (6~£) OMol '^~!:> DMO :1 ':»11 · &LNYJ.'IllSNOJ SJm: '" ~~ ~ ~©O ~~ ~!{Jþ~ /' /' /' /' /' /' lS:J rid 82: :8£ :2: <;002:/0£/9 BMP'2:S<;006Lt<;\<;006Lt<;\00t<;\ :é) I YAWl 'liJ:J YJlOI to · 0 · L{) Jl91I-N61.J.-OZ 't/I JIN-t/I :is :nu. ,j0 '¡'HVd Y Ó Ö 0 ~~ 0 I')z 0 E 0 :0'111 po( OJd I ~r--. Íi 15 ~ 0 m Z ..to 01"1 , l' NOLLY:JYA J.YJI-,jO-J.HÐI1I :i!!IV'I )1'(0 :i( , 0 ~om,.... ..~ u"<l- e ." . . .~ l!1 Á:!IAH!1S .!I 0 J.v1d :o,m 10045 " -¡; '8 . ~ ¡¡: en en Q. / ~ ª~ .~[ ) 1iI~:¡~ l( ~ ~~ ; '" ;;.; '" Q '" .. ""'" &Jf:;1 ::><>: ~~~ ~P::: (.I) ~>-~ <>:'" 0..>", 0<>: .... <>:::> .., 0.. UJ Q /' UJUJ ~~ QQ · . u1 <>:<>: 0 UJUJO "'''' co ~ ~ :g /' ""-:;-~ /'''<- -:;-1--~ , ' ",,"? /~~ \ ® / \A\?~ ~~ ~ '" ~~¡;Uð@$', ~ / ~ \ ~ )WÞY~ "" .. I d1 .. ©::!] Ii 'tq.,.., '\r' ~ 1!Z~ i\ ~ ~ !V~~ ~n ..~~. '" W@(/I."7li "",""""'" >" ""' (QJ --------~i/{/ I ~'\ I N -\ "' N "' , ;¡; '" m ¡;¡ ~ N N '" ~ º ~ u < 3: º I f- W W ¡>:: UJ f- '" W (D -' ¡;; vi .... 0; u ~ ~ Z ~ ::> UJ Z 0 U (/ ::> ::> >' '" Q W '" < 0.. W '" Q. ~ L~ ~~~ ~Ê: . . c i]~ -"~ c ~ . Ë J J ~ i ~ '" ~ '\r' ffi © '\r' '\r' '\r' @ìJ ¡ êi @~î .3 U ~~: ~ (I) ~~ c~:50 W ¡If&: (j) â~~;;- -i 3fa ~~~ u..1X1X~ _ lr~ ~~vr ffi~ffier.~~ <~ w ffi W z~zA¡¡¡î~ ~FII) ~~~~ú')~ r 88~~ffi~~ ~~3 ~ß~~~~~ O -I....I...Jzz £j ......J !5~lI1ffi~¡¡¡i51- «<~~s. ~<~(I)~~~ 22ffi ~~~UO~~ ~~~W~~~ o5~ Z ~~~~~~~ ~m~~~~~~ßß~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ª~ o §8§ŒŒ~~§Œ8~~99~~~~ã Z 11 II 111111111111 <t: I ! Ii o I I Z <fJ<i<1. 0 ø I: I I ðâ~ § ill i 0> " .E~ g ~ ~ a .~] ~ ~ ....:5 c.. ~ ~ ~ .Q .2 ;:Š ~ Ë ~~ " 0 .Q-;¡C1!~ ~~Õ:2~ ,,- ~£ ~ "5 ~ li ~ g ~ 0 :>. t-~ ü......~_ ~..r:C'I_ ." oO~~Q):2:..2õ 0 :> NO ~"Ë~o"':~OO.~ u " " ~ ~ ~ ~;: g'.~¡i~ ~ g u .~ ~~~~-ð£~-g " " (/ .c 0 ~:5Z~~wi5Y1C -' 0 ~-gõ ~ :C~N(/}m:íf ~f' U) .!ä:>.00 p ~ (I) h tU .~~~1jffifG-~o 00 <~~.+;"1jQ)~§~~ :> " 0,2 ~~~~~~Ë¢:: r " " ~~g~~ ~ 8.~:~ ~ .!:! ; ~ F.c'O }ð'õti?j ~~¢: ~.Q~ a. L'¡;: ~~ùj ~J5:g~~:~ o~ '" -" ~ 8 " 0 0 Fõ'£~ 88~~(I)~ ~ ~ :5 .§" ~ ~~~~ ~g~~~~ -" ;0; < 0,::: CI'I ~ '-' ....0... 0 < ~ 8 ~ a~. ~~ õ 8 I- ...J~..c"U '" ~ ~ z .~'m ~ to .... ~ '" e ~~ " O~.a ~ àu-'5 8ggE~Ïf~~ i§ z "" F1;;~~ê)~õi:ð~-E < ~.c" '" iE ~-"U is '" ~õ~ « ¡:: ...2~ ~~ê;îo... 8 i!! ~ :;~o :;:~£~~Q)~~;:g~ ¡¡ O".c o ......-.t-0-¡;:(I)..r:UI....... !oQ ~~~ U)~oU")ij~4)-eoo IJI .., Q) _.CI'I C ~ g¡ g ~ - en .. '" ::StO~ :S.c~...... :tC1) ..;-c i => '" õ " 0 õ:¡~~~~~:Š.!~ 9 '" i '-' " " ~g~~þ:~'õ~~ "'- " 0" '" o a::'¡;: :;¡ 0 ~~ -E f ~~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ [5 ~=f§ ~ '" g§ Õ.2~·~~ g~-g !!i '" 00 .., <z.o m oU oZ 0.000' 0 - 1 MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 16,2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL DRAFT MEMBERS PRESENT: Beth Koppes, Dean Shannon, Don Anciaux, Wally Plahutnik, Terry Smith, Ann Freerks MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Brooks STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr, Ron Gaines OTHERS PRESENT: Joe Holland, Glen Siders, Eric Bachner, Maude Doerfeldt, Doug Wenzel, Jim Baker, Rick Amart, Pat Janes, Lynette Amart, Steve Rohrbach, Allan McVay, Clifton Young, Oscar Graham, Mary Lou Emery, Chris Grieve, Lori Dockery, Mike Dalton, Dave Fuller RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, VAC05-oooo4, vacation of public alleys in the Peninsula Neighborhood Second Addition. CALL TO ORDER: Anciaux called the meeting to order at 7:32 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING ITEMS: REZ03-ooo19/SUB03-ooo24, discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Co. to rezone approximately 92 acres from Interim Development Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single Family - Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA-5) for property located west of Kennedy Parkway and east of Camp Cardinal Road and a preliminary plat of Cardinal Ridge, an approximate 92-acre, 93-lot single family residential subdivision. The location of the property was established using various maps, aerial photographs, photographs of the actual terrain and an exhibit which showed the proposed preliminary plat. Miklo said the applicant had requested to rezone this from Interim Development Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) with a Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA-5). The Comprehensive Plan identified this area as appropriate for residential, 2 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan also talked about the need to preserve and/or work with environmentally sensitive areas in this particular of the City of which there were several associated with this particular property. A wetland and stream corridor were located along the southern edge of the property along with some woodlands. Protected and critical slopes were also located on the property. The plan, as submitted, generally conformed with the woodland requirements for the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO). The plan also indicated a few areas for removal of trees from a protected slope buffer area; those trees would need to be retained on the property except where they were accommodating a sewer and storm sewer easement. The SAO allowed the removal of trees for that purpose but the other trees identified for removal within the protected slop buffer on lots 51-53 did not comply with the SAO. The SAO required a 30-foot buffer along the stream corridor which was being adhered to in the proposed plan. A series of wetlands were associated with the stream corridor and there were also some smaller pockets of wetlands. The applicant had requested that the 1oo-foot required buffer around the smaller wetlands be reduced to 25-feet in some locations. A buffer reduction was permitted by the SAO; Staff recommended approval of the buffer reduction except in the open space area where they felt that the 1oo-foot buffer could be achieved. The applicant had also requested wetland buffer averaging which would provide for an increased buffer where it was necessary to preserve a specific wetland and allow a Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 16, 2005 Page 2 reduction in buffer elsewhere. Staff recommended approval of the wetland averaging. The protected slopes were being set aside and protected as open space on the development. Some of the protected slope buffers coincided with development lots, Staff recommended that they be identified as 'no-build' areas on the plat so that future owners would know that they could not remove the trees or build on those buffer areas. The SAO provided direction that disturbance to critical slopes and steep slopes should be minimized. It appeared to be the case with the critical slopes, as less than 30% were proposed to be disturbed. Notations were needed on the plat regarding the steep slopes to indicate how much would be disturbed. A unique feature associated with the plat was large open space outlots which were being set aside to preserve the sensitive features as well as to provide private open space. As a result of the proposed design, no two rear yards would be adjacent to each other. Two large outlots had been identified for future development. On the plat one had been identified for condominium development however the word condominium would need to be removed because that would require rezoning. The Commission's information packet contained a concept plan indicating how a second area, identified for future development, would be divided into single family lots. A round-about was being designed into Kennedy Parkway to help calm and/or slow traffic as it moved through the subdivision and adjacent neighborhoods. Miklo said Staff had a concern about sanitary sewer being provided to adjacent properties through this development. A trunk line was being built in the southern portion of the property. Given the topography of this general area of the city, the City Engineer had identified the need to provide at least one if not two sewer lines to the adjacent property to the south to ensure that the area could be sewered as well as a line to the north. The current plat did not show the provision of those sewer lines. Staff recommended that those sewer lines be shown on this site before the plat was approved. In the southern area Staff had proposed that one sewer connection could be provided and built by the developer with this development or they could pay for the cost of the design and future construction of the sewer line. In the event that the property to the south was developed from another route, then the developer would be paid back for the expense. The City had requested a blanket easement for the remainder of the tract which was not slated for development so that in the event it would be determined that a second sewer was necessary, there would be a route reserved for it. Staff recommended that the northern route for a sewer be installed as part of this subdivision approval. A subdivision of this particular size would require 2-acres of neighborhood open space to be dedicated. The Parks and Recreation Commission was reviewing the plat and were considering requiring the dedication be along the creek if a trail network could be worked out through the larger neighborhood which would require negotiation with the Walnut Ridge Homeowners Association. The trail would be extended to the east, tie in with the Clear Creek Trail system and eventually further to the west where future open space was anticipated. In the event that terms could not be reached with the adjacent property owners, the Parks & Recreation Commission would request fees in lieu of open space because open space in the area would be isolated and not very useful for the neighborhood. The Staff report listed a number of technical deficiencies associated with the plat. Miklo said Staff recommended that the application be deferred until the deficiencies were resolved. Upon resolution of the deficiencies Staff recommended approval of the rezoning to RS-5, Low Density Single-Family, the Sensitive Areas Overlay and approval of the preliminary plat. Ron Gaines, City Public Works Office / City Engineers Office was in attendance to answer questions regarding the sanitary sewer issue. Plahutnik inquired regarding the installation of the sewer extensions for future development and asked if that was a standard City policy for this type of subdivision. Miklo said that was a requirement of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Behr said among the regulations for Subdivisions the City Code required dividers and sub-dividers to provide a complete sanitary sewer system, "that the sanitary sewer shall extend to the subdivision boundaries and beyond as necessary to provide for the extension of the sanitary sewers to adjacent property." That was one of the many Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 16, 2005 Page 3 regulations for subdivisions. There was a general provision in City Code that provided for exceptions, waivers or modifications to the regulations. The exception provided that upon recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission the Council could waive or modify the requirement if it would result in "extraordinary hardship because of unusual terrain, excessive costs or other such non-self inflicted conditions or if it would result in poor subdivision design or a substantial degradation of natural features." Behr said if the Commission felt those circumstances existed Council could grant the exception so long as the public interest was being protected and the modification or waiver would not nullify the intent of the regulation. Public discussion was opened. Joe Holland, 123 N. Linn Street, representing South Gate Development. Holland said the good news was that this was a good development, it was very low density - about 1 housing unit per acre. As currently proposed the development would be the first step in an area-wide development for this whole area. Camp Cardinal Boulevard was currently under construction and scheduled for completion in Summer, 2006. He felt that there was no serious disagreements between the developer and Staff regarding the 'deficiencies' or areas where further understanding needed to be generated. A notable exception related to the sewer issues. Holland said the City had requested a sewer extension at the northern boundary of the property but the developer did not feel that was appropriate at this time. That area, Outlot G, was located at the northern end of the property and subject to development at a future time. The intention was that something would happen in that area in the future, it seemed at that time it would be a more logical time to extend sanitary sewer service to that area. Holland said it was his understanding that that area was going to be annexed into Coralville as part of the Master Plan to construct Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Some land had been severed from Iowa City and annexed into Coralville and vice-versa. Holland said he needed to find out more and verify where the annexations had taken place. If that had happened or was going to happen, it made even less sense to extend sewer to the northern boundary at this point. Holland said he felt that was an issue best reserved for the future when it was known what was going to happen on Outlot G and where would be an appropriate place to place the sewer. No development could occur in the northern portion until the sewer was installed and at that time the developer could come back before the Commission, Public Works and the Council. Holland said the developer was not really saying no they wouldn't do it, it was a matter of deferring it until a more logical and appropriate time in the future when something was happening in that area and it was known where would be the best place to put the sewer in. Holland said the south sewer was a more problematic issue and much of that was related to cost. Looking at the topographic maps, to install the sewer would require going under the creek and going up the hill to the south to the property line. The best cost estimate the developer had obtained was that the sewer would cost in excess of $50,000 to design and install. Holland said if the sewer were going to serve an immediate purpose he felt it was a cost that could be negotiated out between the property owners in the area. He said there was discussion that the property to the south was going to be significantly sewered by a new sewer which would be constructed to the southwest of that property. Holland said because of the topography of the land and the need to sewer farther out to Camp Cardinal Boulevard, it would be a consideration of an area wide sewer design and not just this extension running from one property to another. Holland said it would also be a gift to the property owner to the south. The City had requested a blanket easement and the developer was willing to provide one because it would be in a wetland area and no development was slated to occur in the future. Who ever had the property to the south and eventually developed it would be getting a free sewer if they chose to use it at Southgate's expense. There had been no proposal made to recoup any of the cost to repay Southgate. Holland said the idea of an escrow had a superficial appeal but it was unknown who in the audience would live long enough to see what happened to the escrow because it was unknown when or what would happen to the property to the south. Holland said Behr had referred to the ordinance that talked about sewering. That ordinance didn't say that it was mandatory to take the sewer to the property line; "it shall extend to the subdivision boundaries and beyond as necessary to provide for the extension of the sanitary sewers to the adjacent property." Holland said the developer felt there was nothing necessary about it at this point. When the time came the property owner to the south might find it necessary because they wanted to sewer that property. Holland said it would be a blind sewer, it would go up to the property line and dead end. It was not typical Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 16, 2005 Page 4 practice for the City to require a sanitary sewer extension to every boundary of the property. Typically they followed the streets or followed some reason to serve an adjoining property. To literally read the ordinance would be to take the sewer to all four corners and maybe beyond that which would need to be done in every application. The developer didn't think it was 'necessary' because provisions could be made for the future, the City would have a blanket easement and the party to the south who felt a need for a sewer could pay for it when the time came. Holland said Behr had read the provisions for waiving this non-requirement obligation. Unusual topography in this situation would require going under the stream bed and up a hill to get to the property to the south. Substantial cost would be certain, actual cost would be unknown without engineers going out, shooting the elevations and obtaining bids from contractors. Estimates from MMS ranged from $50,000 to $75,000. Neither the topography or the substantial costs were self inflicted. Holland said the proposal was a good proposal, people would have open back yards and no one would have a neighbor in their back yard. He would hate to see a sewer requirement get in the way of something that would have such a large benefit for the City of Iowa City. Holland said he felt they could work out all the other details, he was not sure if they could get the sewer details worked out before the Commission or if that would need to be decided at Councilleve!. It would be helpful to the developer if the Commission would make a recommendation to the Council for waiving any extension of the sewer to the southern property line. Koppes asked if there were estimates as to cost for the north. Holland said significantly less. Koppes asked if there were topographical issues. Holland said there would not be the topographical issues to the south as it was a more gently sloping part of the site. In the south there would be nothing built between the trunk sewer and the property line. To the north there would be something in there, the sewer that would be laid in the north parcel would need to meet the needs of what would happen there. If done now, the future needs would not be known and it was untimely to require it now. The City would have the same alternative in the future, it did not have to be done as part of this application. Plahutnik said Holland had used the concept of 'a gift' as a reason for not sewering to the south. Did he have any knowledge of SouthGate being the recipient of a gift as such - hooking up to a sewer fine that had been extended to the border for the next subdivision? Holland said he didn't have any personal knowledge but suspected that they had from time to time. However SouthGate had paid very substantial fees to tap into City sewers that had already been constructed. Sand Hills was a good example. Plahutnik requested Staff to look into this further. Glen Siders, SouthGate Development, said when they had built Walnut Ridge they had struck a partnership with the City where the City had extended the trunk sewer to them. In turn as SouthGate had developed Walnut Ridge they had had to pay a sewer fee for every acre they'd developed to pay it back so it was not a gift. It had been a big help for the City to pay the money upfront and to bring the sewer out so that SouthGate could begin development. In the past 6 months SouthGate had investigated the purchase of two properties where the sewer was available through right of way but was 14 of a mile away. In both cases they had asked the City how the sewer could be brought to them, the response had always been 'you can pay for it to can bring it up there.' When the question had been posed regarding tap-on fees or something to help the developer recover the cost, the City's response had been that they didn't like to do that. Siders said he didn't recall ever having a gift where someone had run a sewer to their property, not withstanding a trunk line sewer or something similar. Freerks asked for a clarification as to if this was or was not a typical practice. She'd been under the understanding that this was something the City typically did in terms of running sewers where necessary. It was part of the City's Code. Gaines said in the two years that he'd been with the City Engineering department all the sewers had been run to the property line. As Holland had indicated, frequently the sewers followed the streets but more typically the City tried to have them follow the contours or bring the sewer up the low areas so they could get the maximum use out of the sewer. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 16, 2005 Page 5 Smith asked if was correct as indicated on the map that four sewer taps were being brought up to the property line, all on the west side of the property line? Gaines said that was correct. Freerks said it seemed like it was not a rare thing to do, to try to plan for future development. Gaines said Holland had made a reference to the property to the South. In an ideal world 75% of it would be sewered to the south. There was a little bit of a ridge line so dependent upon the grading and layout of the development it could possibly be sewered to the south. The problem was that there was a property owner to the south whose property would have to be run through to sewer to the south. By not extending the sewer they would actually end up with a land locked property without sewer. Anciaux asked who owned the property to the north. Smith said the plat indicated the University of Iowa. Siders said to the north in Outlot G where Staff had requested the removal of the word condominium on the plat, SouthGate anticipated a future development in that area. The point that they were trying to make was at a future time when SouthGate came to the Commission with that proposal, at that time it would be appropriate to figure out where and how the sewer would be placed. Freerks asked if they would be willing to pay fees into an escrow account for sewering to the north. Siders said SouthGate would not. Smith asked Siders if it was correct that SouthGate had no problem installing the sewer to the north, they just wished to defer it until they actually developed the area. Siders said that was correct, that would be appropriate time, when the property was developed. Freerks asked what if the property to the north were sold? Siders said then they would have the sewer extended to that property. If they sold it off, the sewer would already be to that property. Behr said he thought Siders was saying that if the Outlot were sold off, there would be sewer extended to the property line of it. The developer of that parcel would then be responsible for the installation of their own sewer. Freerks asked Staff to explain why they were requesting sewer installation to the north now instead of deferring to the time the property was developed. Miklo said he thought the City Engineer was anticipating that this was fairly rugged topography and there was a clear route where the sewer would be ideal. In addition to the University there was another property that it would eventually end up serving. Miklo said the whole issue of extending utilities to the edge of a property was similar to extending the streets. In order to allow the City to grow they needed to get to the next property. Shannon asked where the Coralville / Iowa City boundary would be? Miklo said that the land to the north of SouthGate's property would continue to be in Iowa City. The land beyond that was annexed into Coralville. Siders questioned Miklo's statement. Miklo said he would provide a map showing the new City boundary line at the next meeting. Eric Bachner, Walnut Ridge resident since November 2002. Bachner said he was only going to focus comment on the traffic issue associated with Kennedy Parkway. He'd read the Staff report and felt that there were some significant flaws in the analysis about whether or not Kennedy Parkway could be used as infrastructure to support the development. Page 2 of the Staff report said,'The Cardinal Ridge property had been zoned interim development residential due to a lack of infrastructure to support residential development. With the Kennedy Parkway extending into this property infrastructure is available to support this development." Bachner said it seemed that Kennedy Parkway was an important part of this rezoning and allowing this development to go forward. Bachner said Kennedy Parkway had been designated as a collector street which meant that 2500 vehicles per day on the road was the target traffic level. The Staff Report on page 5 referenced a study done in 2003 which found only 555 vehicle trips per day on Kennedy Parkway near its midpoint. Bachner said he didn't understand why with a dead-end road would the mid-point of the road be used to determine the traffic level. He had counted 104 lots in the Walnut Ridge development, 53 of which were behind the midpoint line. The study's traffic count had counted traffic generated by approximately Y:z of the lots; approximately Y:z of those lots were undeveloped or Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 16, 2005 Page 6 unoccupied. Therefore 555 vehicles for 26 lots of traffic equated to 20 vehicle trips per day per lot. Adding the 92 lots from the Cardinal Ridge development plus the 104 lots from Walnut Ridge development at approximately 20 trips per day equated to 4,000 vehicles per day which exceeded the Kennedy Parkway capability by almost double. This counted only the traffic from the back of the Kennedy Parkway which substantially underestimated what the real traffic could be on Kennedy Parkway. Bachner said it might be more or less, but there was no analysis of it in the report referenced by Staff. The cut-through issue had also been noted in the Staff Report. It had been projected that when Camp Cardinal Road was built the cut-through traffic would be minimized. Bachner distributed a map which showed the positioning of Camp Cardinal Road and Kennedy Parkway. The Staff Report had concluded that the traffic would go around the Walnut Ridge Development and pass over the Kennedy Boulevard. Bachner said it was visible from the map that the route was shorter to cut through Kennedy Parkway and would logically be faster to cut-through traffic. Even if all the traffic didn't cut through, there would still the 20 vehicle trips per day per lot plus cut-through traffic from West High School and the adjoining lots, and the construction traffic. He felt the Staff Report was incorrect in its projection of traffic trips/flow based on the 2003 traffic study and highly underestimated the number of vehicle trips using the Kennedy Boulevard. Bachner said based on his projections and his understanding of the Iowa City. ordinance which required a second access route to support development, until some other road was built to support the traffic Cardinal Ridge should not be connected until a secondary access was available. Miklo said the 2500 vehicle trips per day referred to in the Staff Report and in the City's Secondary Access Policy was not the recommended cap or capacity of a collector street, it was the point where a second means of access would be necessary. Collector streets generally had the capacity for up to 5,000+ trips per day. With this particular development there would be two points of access, Camp Cardinal Road and Kennedy Parkway back to Melrose Avenue. Secondary access would not be an issue with this development. However if there would not be a connection to Camp Cardinal Road, then the issue of secondary access would be a concern as there would be only one way into this development and there wouldn't be a second access for emergency vehicles. Anciaux asked Staff if there was a need to recalculate the traffic counts. Miklo said there was a calculation in the report based on the total number of lots in Walnut Ridge and the proposed number of lots in Cardinal Ridge which would result in approximately 1400 trips per day. The 20 vehicle trips per day Bachner had used was very high, the national standard for trips per day for single-family lots was 10, from previous studies in Iowa City it was about 7. Even if the national figure of 10 was used, the street had the capacity for what would be generated by the remaining build-out of Walnut Ridge and the entire build-out of Camp Cardinal and the properties that would feed into this. Bachner said it didn't matter if there was a national figure or not, Staff had actual data they'd collected which showed 555 trips per day on a dead-end street with only Ì'2 the lots built out. That was actual data for their particular area. Plahutnik said construction traffic was not specifically mentioned in the report that Bachner had referenced. Since he had observed the daily traffic patterns, had there been a lot of construction traffic going back and forth to build the new houses. Bachner said houses in their particular subdivision were built one at a time. The report indicated it was from June 2003. It might be possible that some construction traffic had been built into the 550 trips. During the last two years there were still some undeveloped lots and some of the built houses were still unoccupied. He and Doerfeldt had driven around and counted the lots; he conceded that some commercial traffic such as lawn service vehicles and construction traffic may have been included in the traffic report. Freerks asked Staff to have a City Traffic Engineer review the numbers before the next Commission meeting. Maude Doerfeldt, Walnut Ridge resident and representative of Walnut Ridge Homeowners Assoc Board. Doerfeldt said she appreciated the opportunity to express her concerns as a resident and as a parent as well as the concerns of her neighbors regarding the proposed development of Cardinal Ridge. She said Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 16, 2005 Page 7 their primary concern was one of family. Regardless of any impressions of what Walnut Ridge might be, it was a family neighborhood. Many residents of Walnut Ridge had pre-school and school aged children. At her best estimate there were at least 75 school aged children living in the neighborhood. Many of the children waited for the school bus on Kennedy Parkway. One of the primary attractions of her neighborhood for many of the residents when they had chosen to live there was the fact that it was off the beaten path. Several of her neighbors had been told in no uncertain terms by their realtor, who had a very close personal relationship with the developer, that Kennedy Parkway would never be extended. They had all been under that impression when they had purchased their homes. Doerfeldt said they were primarily concerned with the potential increase in traffic volume. As noted in the Staff Report and by Bachner's report, the traffic flow would increase substantially. At a minimum it was expected to increase four-fold. As noted in the Staff Report, excessive speed was already an issue in part due to the steep hills along Kennedy Parkway. At the time of the traffic study there was considerable construction, the heavy construction vehicles were notorious for tearing down the hills at speeds in excess of 45 mph. There was currently a steep hill entering into Kennedy Parkway and when the proposed connection was completed there would be an equally steep hill on the other side of Kennedy Parkway. There was a sidewalk on only one side of Kennedy Parkway. In order to stay on the sidewalk pedestrians had to cross Kennedy Parkway at least once and sometimes twice if they had to cross the street just to get to it. The proposed option to solve the problem was to build the private north-south trail system along the existing easements, but that didn't solve the problem as there was no north-south connection to Melrose Avenue without crossing Kennedy Parkway. That presented a terrific hazard to school-aged children who had to cross the street. Doerfeldt said as a parent her nightmare scenario was a high-school aged driver from the Cardinal Ridge development tearing down Kennedy Parkway trying to get to West High because they were late for school and running over a child who was crossing the street to get to a school bus. Doerfeldt said their concerns could be allayed in part if 1) Camp Cardinal Blvd were completed prior to the initiation of construction in the Cardinal Ridge development and 2) Kennedy Parkway were connected to Camp Cardinal Boulevard only upon completion of the entire road. Doerfeldt said the timeline for these projects was very unclear to the residents of Walnut Ridge. In a letter dated June 25, 2005, Karen Franklin had stated to a resident of Walnut Ridge, "we project at least 3 - 5 years between when Camp Cardinal is completed and the connection with Kennedy Parkway. In that time traffic patterns using Camp Cardinal should be clearly established." The Staff Report dated June 16,2005 indicated that it would only be a temporary situation as the new Camp Cardinal Boulevard should be completed by Fall 2006 and would provide a better connection when it was complete. It was not clear to the residents of Walnut Ridge what was the order of development. Doerfeldt said as a representative of the Homeowners Association of Walnut Ridge, they had the following concerns and questions which still remained unanswered: 1. What was the timeline for completion of Camp Cardinal Boulevard? What was the timeline for the connection of Kennedy Parkway to Camp Cardinal Boulevard? What was the timeline for the commencement of development and construction in the Cardinal Ridge sub-division? In what order would they occur. Doerfeldt said virtually every time / every person they met with they received a different answer. 2. Would construction on Cardinal Ridge be started from the east via Kennedy Parkway as it currently existed or would it be started from the west via Camp Cardinal? If it was to start from the east, then the residents were terribly concerned about the additional increase of construction traffic on Kennedy Parkway and bearing the burden of developing that entire subdivision through their neighborhood. 3. Would there be any circumstances under which the plat might be changed, it was modified slightly every time they saw it. On past plats the route for Kennedy Parkway had been more circuitous, now it appeared to be more of a straight shot. The addition of a round-a-bout was a welcome addition. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 16, 2005 Page 8 Siders said July 28, 2006 was the projected completion date for Camp Cardinal Blvd to open to traffic. He doubted if it would deviate much from that date. He could not give a time frame on the development. They anticipated developing from the east to the west within Cardinal Ridge. In their business the market determined how fast they went. It could be built out as quickly as two years or it could be longer. They anticipated final platting in different phases; at his best guess they might do the east half of this property which would be the (initial) phase. He questioned if they would even be able to get that phase done this year because of the time frame they were in to get the plat approved. By the time they could get infrastructure in the ground they were looking at late fall or early winter work and would have to make a decision if they wished to proceed this year or not. It would not be feasible to start construction from Camp Cardinal Road mainly because the infrastructure now came from the east and went to the west. That was the way they'd need to progress with their development. As far as when Kennedy Parkway would connect with Camp Cardinal Blvd, he had no idea. The market would determine when it would happen. Gaines said even with the build-out of this particular development there would still be quite a gap between Cardinal Ridge and Camp Cardinal Boulevard which was not even in the planning phase. Siders said there was no sewer or water infrastructure to that particular area and they did not even have a concept plan yet. Doerfeldt said she wished to go on the record and state their concern, they had been assured that traffic patterns would not be established from Cardinal Ridge via Kennedy Parkway, that people would not get in the habit of using that road. If there were no other way for them to leave their neighborhoods, she did not see how that would be avoided. Douq Wenzil, resident Walnut Ridge; member of Homeowner's association; parent. Wenzil said he along with many of the neighbors had significant concerns in terms of the safety of their children and the safety issues that the proposal presented to the children residing in Walnut Ridge. With the 92-lots plus the significant areas of future development, their concern was that Kennedy Parkway not become the major through-fare as well as the issue of cut-through traffic and short-cuts through their development. There were steps that could be taken by Planning and Zoning and positive steps taken by the City to give a higher probability of minimizing the significant safety concerns. There was enough time to come up with solutions and enough time to give thought as to how the development would occur. Wenzil said neither he nor anyone at Walnut Ridge was against development, they supported development and continued expansion of housing opportunities in Iowa City. Their concern was that the steps be done in a way that would minimize their safety concerns and end any potential danger to their children in the neighborhood if Kennedy Parkway became the main thoroughfare for all the traffic for all the additional development. Jim Baker, 30 Alder Court, Walnut Ridge, member of the Board of the Homeowner's Assoc. He wished to underscore what the Commission had been hearing about the traffic mess posed by the development at Cardinal Ridge. Baker said it seemed only prudent and he urged the Commission to require connection to Camp Cardinal Road before development began so the construction traffic could be sent to Camp Cardinal Road rather than the boulevard. Baker said it was his understanding that there were to be two connectors to the new development not only Kennedy Parkway but also Camp Cardinal Road. It seemed prudent to the residents of Walnut Ridge to have both opportunities for traffic to be moved during construction and during development at Camp Cardinal. Baker said during the presentation they'd heard about a pedestrian and bicycle trail from Cardinal Ridge into Walnut Ridge. The outlot on Walnut Ridge that had been shown to offer an opportunity from Walnut Ridge for a bicycle path was a wetland, heavily wooded and needed ongoing protection. To place a trail there would be a great expense and the sensitivity of the land compromised. Baker said there was no easement for a connector where that outlot connected into Cardinal Ridge and urged the developer to look into an easement to the Clear Creek bicycle trail. Baker urged the Commission to take a proactive strategy to controlling traffic in Walnut Ridge and Cardinal Ridge as it was developed. Freerks asked if it was correct that City Staff had spoken with a representative of the Walnut Ridge Homeowners' Association regarding a trail easement. Miklo said that discussion had not occurred yet, it was scheduled for later in the week. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 16, 2005 Page 9 Rick Amart, resident of Walnut Ridge, lot adjacent to the proposed Cardinal Ridge subdivision. Amart said he'd like echo the concerns regarding the safety of their children and the risks that would be posed by opening Kennedy Parkway before completion of and connection to Camp Cardinal Blvd. He asked if any other mechanism of exiting their cul-de-sac had been investigated other than Kennedy Parkway. Their children had no sidewalks to walk on and had to wait on the edge of Kennedy Parkway for the school bus. When the children rode their bicycles or visited their friends they had no option but to interact with Kennedy Parkway. Amart said the speed and traffic issue was already in existence at Walnut Ridge. Amart said he'd written the letter to Karen Franklin; she'd replied to him stating that yes in fact it was an issue and the speed was already a problem however the volume of traffic in Walnut Ridge did not warrant the City's concern over it at the present moment. Amart said he lived there and there was no doubt that there was a speed problem; he guessed that the speed limit was observed less than 10% of the time and was exceeded by more than 15 mph more than 50% of the time. Amart said there would be no doubt that kids coming from North Liberty would cut through Walnut Ridge and be on a cell-phone or on the way to school or to basketball and that would place one of their children at risk. Amart said he did not wish to read about one of their children in the newspaper. He felt it was a serious issue and it needed to be addressed. Amart said he felt the proposed project would substantially increase the volume of traffic over Kennedy Parkway which was currently not safe. Many of his neighbors were of the same opinion. There needed to be traffic calming measures on Kennedy Parkway today and certainly before it was hooked up to anything else. Amart said Franklin had also indicated to him that Cardinal Ridge would be connected from Highway 6 to Melrose prior to its connection to Kennedy Parkway. It sounded like that was now in question. He was very disappointed to hear about that. Franklin had also indicated to him that they would not be having a tremendous amount of construction traffic over Kennedy Parkway. It sounded like that was in substantial question as well. Amart said that was very, very disappointing. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to express his concerns. Freerks asked Miklo to discuss the City's policy regarding traffic calming measures in terms of a collector street. Miklo said Traffic Calming policies relied on two measures 1) speed of traffic and 2) volume of traffic. Kennedy Parkway met the speed of traffic test but did not meet the volume of traffic test quite yet. Amart said he felt that the second the City connected the road the volume would definitely be reached. Anciaux asked why there were no sidewalks in the Walnut Ridge subdivision. Miklo said when it had been proposed it was seen as being a rural subdivision. The developer had asked for waivers of sidewalks. The attempt had been to create a large-lot rural environment; it had been thought that sidewalks would not be as necessary so they had been waived with the exception of one side of Kennedy Parkway. There had been an option for a trail network through the subdivision at the option of the Homeowners Association but it had not been put in place. Anciaux asked if there would be any way to rectify that situation or if it was something that the homeowners would have to do on their own. Miklo said there might be a way for some type of assessment project where sidewalks could be retro fitted in. The City would be willing to explore that with the homeowners in Walnut Ridge if there was enough interest from them to do so. Pat Janes, recently moved to Walnut Ridge, said she definitely had a lot of concerns regarding the traffic. Their lot on the side was on Kennedy Parkway. The traffic speed and traffic volume were both already very high. A contributing factor was that West High was just across the street and generated a lot of traffic at least twice a day. Kids also left at different times of the day for lunch or during their open hours which created opportunity for lots of traffic through Walnut Ridge. Janes said it was very interesting that when the Walnut Ridge community had been planned, the waivers would not have been given if the idea had been that the community would become a through-way. Obviously that had not been the intent when the zoning was done and the waivers were approved initially. Janes asked the Commission to think of that and honor that with their consideration for what to do with the new development. Freerks asked if Kennedy Parkway had always been planned to be a collector street. Miklo said although the design had changed somewhat over the years the general design had always shown a connection to the west - a stub street indicating that it would continue on. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 16, 2005 Page 10 Plahutnik said he imagined that the developer would have put three more houses on the cul-de-sac at the end of the road to maximize profit if the plan had not been to eventually have a through street. Siders said the reason there were no houses at the end of the street was because since day one of Walnut Ridge it had been decided that there would need to be a secondary access through the area and the adjoining properties in the future. That was why the road dead-ended. He had been the developer for Walnut Ridge. Lynette Amart, 74 Burr Oak Court, asked if Kennedy Parkway was a collector street and not subject the typical traffic calming measures what was standard for a collector street as far as sidewalks. How could this be considered a collector street with a sidewalk on only one side and all the residents on the other side of the road? She had small children ages 4 and 7. She was at home during the day and could verify with all the residents who had spoken regarding the speed on Kennedy Parkway. She was certain vehicles traveled 45 to 50 mph coming down Kennedy Parkway approaching Burr Oak Court. She'd asked the City to send an engineer to explain why there was not an option for a ramp access to the sidewalk. When she took her children bike riding and they left Burr Oak Court they had to cross Kennedy Parkway to get to the sidewalk. There was no ramp there so an adult had to dismount from their bike and help her toddler get his bike over the curb to get to the sidewalk or they had to ride on Kennedy Parkway against traffic to the next driveway to get to the sidewalk. The City Engineer had told her that there could be no ramp there. In order to accommodate the American's with Disabilities Act there had to be a ramp on the opposing side of the street in order to have ramp to ramp. Since there was no sidewalk on the other side of the street there was no way to have a ramp. Amart said she wished to provide this information to the Commission so they would be aware that the residents of Walnut Ridge were not just whining and complaining. This was a serious safety issue for their children. They stood in the street to wait for the school bus and if they rode their bicycles they had to ride on Kennedy Parkway against traffic to get to the next driveway to get to the sidewalk or they had to get off their bicycles and try to get them up and over the curb. Amart said this was a tremendous safety issue now. The thought of more traffic coming through was unimaginable. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Plahutnik made a motion to defer REZ03-00019/SUB03-00024, an application to rezone approximately 92 acres from Interim Development Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single Family _ Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA-5) and a preliminary plat of Cardinal Ridge, an approximate 92-acre, 93-lot single family residential subdivision. Shannon seconded the motion. Smith asked if the Commission should decide the question of accepting easements in lieu of extending sanitary sewers to the north and south property lines. . Koppes said she would like to know more about the sewer to the south and how difficult it would be to install in terms of topography/terrain. Gaines said his boss, Ron Knoche, City Engineer, and Rick Fosse, Public Works director would want to echo here was that in an earlier phase of Walnut Ridge there had been an opportunity to extend the sewer to the west property line and the City had not done it at the appropriate time. In this particular situation because the City was unable to service the northern properties the developer would have to build a sewer lift-station at his cost and then give it to the City. The need for lift-stations should be avoided because there were costs that the City has to incur for maintenance, etc. That extension would have been one where the City did not follow the roadways but would have followed the terrain features. In this particular case it would have been run through one of the lower areas very close to where the lift-station is now. Freerks asked if the terrain to the south would prohibit development in that area? Gaines said 75% of that area ideally would benefit by being sewered to the south, the top 25% would be benefited by tapping into the sewer that would be through Cardinal Ridge. Gaines indicated the land owned by a separate property owner; where the sewer connection would be that would drain back into Walnut Ridge; and which parcel of land would become land-locked and unable to be sewered. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 16, 2005 Page 11 Koppes asked about a blanket easement in case the property were sold. She suggested a similar blanket easement could be done for the north in case that property were also sold. She said the property line was right at the sewer that was not being developed and asked if that was as big a deal as stopping it on the Walnut Ridge side. The sewer was already to the property line of the outlot. Miklo said they would ask the City Engineer if he saw an alternative to bringing it to the property line. Miklo said there may have been some concern about the timing of development of that particular piece. Behr said if the easement was given over the southern part, it merely became an issue of cost. Anciaux said in this situation he didn't feel comfortable not requiring the sewer. He'd prefer to say leave the sewers in, let the City Council look at the associated costs and decide whether they wanted to do it or not. It would be easier to send it up to them that way and let them throw it out if they so preferred. The Council had a better idea of their checkbook. Miklo suggested since the motion for a deferral had already been made, they could request the City Engineer to provide more information at the next Commission meeting. Shannon said they'd stumbled on to a problem that was not involved with this particular addition. He was hearing a real concern regarding the sidewalk issue however it was in an area that was not part of the development. He requested to hear more from the City on how they could correct the sidewalk problem. Shannon said he'd like to see the City show some leadership rather than wait for the Walnut Ridge residents to get together and talk about it. As a property owner, over the years the City had given him deadlines to get sidewalks fixed which was fine. He felt the City should take a leadership role to see how to correct this problem. He requested Staff to provide more information at the next meeting. Anciaux said this was a good case-in-point as to why the Commission should never waive sidewalks in any residential area or subdivision. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. 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. Miklo indicated the location of the property on an overhead map. A portion of the property which contained the Mayor's Youth Center was zoned CI-1, the remainder of the property with frontage on Dodge Street, Dodge Street Court and the surrounding properties were zoned RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Residential. The concept plan showed a proposal for two commercial buildings, one in the north-east corner of the property and another, a potential bank, in the southern portion of the property along Dodge Street Court. One entrance was shown onto North Dodge Street and an exit for a potential drive-through bank onto Dodge Street Court. A second driveway was shown for the residential uses for apartments above the commercial building. The Comprehensive Plan for this area indicated the possibility of a mixed-use development consisting of some combination of commercial and residential zoning. The Comprehensive Plan had very specific language as to what should occur there, "Careful consideration must be given to the design of any development in this area to assure that it is compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. Development ideally will be mixed use with 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." Miklo said given the language in the Comprehensive Plan, Staff felt that a commercial CC-2 zoning might be appropriate for this location. To ensure that it adhered to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan they recommended that any commercial rezoning be subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) which would spell out specifics on how the property would develop. One of the conditions that Staff Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 16, 2005 Page 12 recommended was that there be some controls on the building design. The applicant had shown a masonry building with pitched roofs and commercial store fronts on the ground floor which Staff felt would be compatible with a residential environment. Staff recommended that any zoning approval would require adherence to this general type of building design. Given the specifications of the Comprehensive Plan Staff also recommended that there be pedestrian connections to the sidewalk on Dodge Street. The City planned to build a 5-foot side walk on Dodge Street, an a-foot sidewalk would be located on the other side of Dodge Street. The developer would be required to install sidewalks on Conklin Street and Dodge Street Court. Staff also recommended that if this was the concept plan that was chosen, that there be some type a pedestrian connection back to the retail center from Dodge Street Court. Miklo said in order to assure that there was a good buffer between this development and the neighboring residential uses, Staff recommended that there be some type of decorative masonry wall of varying heights and with architectural detail built on Dodge Street Court and that it be accompanied with a screen of evergreen trees and ornamental trees. The City Forrester had suggested white pines, a fast growing tree which would screen views of the parking lot, commercial development and lights from the second floors of the residents on the other side of the street. Staff recommended that there be a prohibition of signage for the portion of the east side of the building adjacent to the residential zone. Signage be permitted on the portion along Dodge Street, on the store fronts, the side of the potential bank building that faced Dodge Street and the lot corners. There be a prohibition of signage within 50-feet of Dodge Street Court and the south side of the commercial/residential building. Signs other than fascia signs on the wall of the building be limited to two 5-foot high monument signs anywhere along Dodge Street and located so as to minimize their effect on the adjacent residential neighborhood. Miklo said Staff had asked the applicant for more information on the lighting plan including the type and height of the lights. The goal of the plan was to minimize the effect of the lights for the parking lots onto the adjacent residential development. Access - the concept plan showed an exit onto Dodge Street Court. Staff felt given the specificity of the District Plan regarding no commercial access to Dodge Street Court, Staff did not feel that they had the latitude to recommend approval of the proposed access point. Staff also recommended that because the plan projected residential parking for the residential apartments above the commercial having access to Dodge Street Court that the developer improve the street to their property line. The City would pay for Y2 of the improvements but the developer would be responsible for a portion of the street given that they would have access for their multi-family development. Miklo said Staff felt it might be appropriate to have commercial zoning in this area but given the sensitivity of the adjacent residential properties and zones that there would be need to be a number of conditions to assure that the goal of the Comprehensive Plan to make this compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood was achieved. They would recommend approval only with a CZA which addressed the principles of the North District Plan as discussed in the Staff Report. Anciaux asked if the exit from the drive-through could be put onto Conklin Street. Miklo said it could not. The traffic engineers had looked at that option and felt it would be too close to the intersection of Dodge Street and the intersection with Dodge Street Court. Anciaux asked how far was the access from the intersection of Conklin Street and Dodge Street Court? Miklo said the plat showed approximately 25-feet. How far from Dodge Street down to where it said 'drive exit' on the plan. Miklo said there is approximately 100-feet of frontage on Conklin Lane. Anciaux asked if this came to fruition was there a possibility that the bank would not be located where it was shown on the plat? Miklo said Staff would recommend that there be a concept plan that laid out the general locations of the building. It was Staff's understanding that the applicant did not have a bank designated for this site. It could be some other type of commercial venue. In a CZA Staff would not necessarily indicate that it had to be a bank, just that there could be a second commercial building there that could contain other uses allowed in the zone. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 16, 2005 Page 13 Public discussion was opened. Joe Holland, representing Southgate Development. Holland said he didn't believe there was much in the way of issues as indicted by Staff in their presentation. There was a great deal of agreement and common ground on various things that Staff had proposed in the Staff Report regarding changes to the project to make it more appealing to Staff and to the neighborhood. Holland said when specifically asking about dimensions it was important to remember this was only a rezoning, a concept of wishes and hopes of how the project would turn out. The dimensions were close but not accurate to the foot. They were talking about an appropriate use for this property and not every little detail of the project. Holland said it was not clear from the Staff Report if Staff still had an objection to the location of the bank and the exit onto Dodge Street Court. Staff had said they could not recommend it because of the North District Plan. Holland said that was a narrow reading of the North District Plan. He'd read the Plan and accurately reading the portion about the Dodge Street commercial property, the idea behind restricting access was to limit access off of Dodge Street. He said having too many curb cuts off a road that was heavily trafficked and with businesses along it could be problematic with the vehicles entering and exiting the properties. Holland said there was language in the North District Plan beyond that which had been quoted in the Staff Report that was significant. The Plan continued on to say, "In addition, small offices or mixed use commercial apartments could be developed along Dodge Street across from the dairy if this area becomes more intensely developed in the future. Rear alleys should be built and utilized to reduce curb cuts onto Dodge Street." Holland said the Plan was never contemplated or intended to talk about an exit off the property. He was not sure that a District Plan was supposed to get down to the level of an existing curb cut which existed in 2001. The developer did not have a problem with restricting the access to the proposed access off of Dodge Street which was consistent with the District Plan. Holland said it would not be an entrance/egress and access to a property, it would be an exit from a bank and only an exit. In a certain sense Dodge Street Court would function as an alley, a narrow area to carry low volume traffic although it would be substantially improved from its current condition. Traffic coming out of the access would be traffic exiting from the drive-through lanes, not from the bank. He felt that most persons who exited from the bank would not take a chance on exiting through the drive-through lanes and being stacked behind other vehicles. The stacking effect would be a traffic calming device. Holland said it would be a light duty exit off of the property and not be an ingress/egress in the sense that the North District Plan talked about it. Holland said he felt the project had a lot of merit. To find a bank that served this area of town, one would have to go downtown or over to Rochester Avenue, neither of which was very close. The plan was a concept, no bank had said yes they wished to use the site yet. If no bank expressed interest, it might become some other commercial venue. Holland said the real question that the Commission needed to wrestle with and to send a recommendation to Council was, was the general mixed use of residential and commercial a good use for this site. Steve Rohrbach, architect with Rohrbach and Carlson Architects representing Southgate Development, gave a power-point presentation showing how he'd attempted to address the architectural concerns that had been raised. The main entrance off of North Dodge would be at approximately the same location as the current entrance to the Mayor's Youth building. One two story building (commercial lower level; residential upper level) and one single story building preferred to be a bank. Primary parking would be gathered between the two facilities. North Dodge Court would give residential access to garages and additional parking for the apartments. Rohrbach said the access point and the design of that particular part of the site had been very problematic to develop as it narrowed down to the corner. To get an efficient design without any type of access exit out would be very inefficient. The architect had purposely included a canopy over the drive- through lanes to try to mitigate exit traffic from that access and direct most of the traffic flow to the main entrance/exit onto North Dodge Street. The architects were willing to work with Staff to achieve the residential feel with screening, the masonry wall and other features. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 16, 2005 Page 14 Allan McVav 1124 Conklin Lane, said he'd met several times with Miklo and passed the context of those conversations on to this neighbors, most of whom were in the audience. It was a very small area that they resided in and they were very concerned that the development be done tastefully and with great care. McVay said personally he found the development to be pretty good. His personal concerns were primarily · Access to and screening on Dodge Street Court. · Lighting - taillights would shine into everyone's homes on Dodge Street Court. · Avoidance of the curb cut into Dodge Street Court from the bank. · Driveway for parking lot for apartments should be avoided. Dodge Street Court was a tiny street, to add more units and vehicle trips would be a real issue. · Appearance of the wall, screening and trees. · Sound was also a concern. McVay said the exit from the bank pointed directly toward one of his neighbor's houses, there was very little space there. Clifton and Teresa Younq, said they lived at the end of the street. Theirs was a little house and the drive that went to it was downhill. Dodge Street Court used to be narrower and was not as hard before the duplexes were built. There had been good water runoff from the street. Currently persons parked in the roadway rather than in their driveways. He was concerned that people residing in the proposed apartments would park anywhere that they wanted to. The street was lower on one side so water ran down the street to their driveway which now had a gulley in it. Every time it rained, the water runoff flooded the ramp into their home and their basement flooded because they were getting all the water from the street. He had 1-inch of mud in his basement. Young said he was concerned about the traffic, with his wife, who had a disability, taking their dogs out on her scooter and with the current condition of the road. With more construction, more cement and higher elevations of the street he was worried that he would get more water into his driveway. Anciaux asked what would be the standard of development for the street. Miklo said local street, curb and gutter up to the east property line. The street would be built at 26 to 28-feet which would allow parking. Smith asked if the proposed street project would improve the street and mitigate some of the run-off. Anciaux and Miklo said it might or might not, the developer would need to address that. Gaines said he had not looked at the plan, but he would guess that any of the water should be captured within the developing site itself without anything spilling onto the street. Gaines said this was at the concept stage and the City had not seen any development plans. Miklo said the City did not require stormwater management for commercial sites under 3-acres so this would not be subject to the City's stormwater ordinance. Pat Edburq, 1380 North Dodge Court, said the City had installed a street-sign so persons would know what street she and her neighbor lived on. She asked for a clarification of where the property lines were and where the proposed rezoning was. The City's rezoning sign was located on the property line instead of on the actual site. Oscar Graham, 1130 Conklin Lane, said he also had a piece of property that exited onto Dodge Street Court. He was against anything that would enter or exit onto Dodge Street Court. The street was narrow, Ms. Young was a handicapped individual and the bus picked up her up 5-days a week. The street was so narrow that the bus had to back down to pick-up Ms. Young. Traffic egression out of a bank or the apartment building didn't seem feasible to him to have in that type of a situation. He would prefer to see the area remain as it was, residential. There would also be no additional room for parking by the Dodge Street Court residents or the apartment dwellers because of the narrowness of Dodge Street Court. Mary Lou Emery. 1331 Dodge Street Court, said she had resided there for 12 years. She appreciated the thoughtfulness that had gone into the design of the buildings, the wall and screening with trees. She hoped if the project were approved that the trees would stay and become higher and thicker. Her main concern had to do with the exit from the proposed bank onto their neighborhood street. She was also concerned about the drive into the parking area for the apartment building. That area was a very, very small short and narrow street. The increase in the volume of traffic on that street and the increase in the noise level in what had been a quiet neighborhood would really be quite significant. She appreciated the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 16,2005 Page 15 efforts that had been made to reduce the impact of the proposed development upon the neighborhood but she hoped that the Commission would take seriously an option to move the drives off Dodge Street Court. Smith asked if it was correct that the plan was to improve North Dodge Street Court on the south side. Although it was very narrow and chip seal at present, if developed the road would be improved so that it would be wider, concrete curb and gutter and avoid some of those concerns. Anciaux asked if it would be done in a timely manner. Miklo said Staff recommended if Dodge Street Court were to be improved the Developer pay for Y2 and the City Council would have to commit to paying for Y2 of the road and also be included in a CZA for the developer's commitment as part of the rezoning. The improvement should occur before the occupancy of the apartments. Koppes asked for a clarification regarding the number of proposed apartments. Miklo said 10 apartments which would require 20-parking spaces. Koppes asked if the number of proposed bedrooms was known. It was not. Chris Greve, 1265 Dodge Court, said he was one of 4-duplexes located directly across the street from the proposed parking lot. Greve said he agreed with many of Staff's recommendations. He did not wish to have the drive through access from the bank. One of his main concerns was the lighting. In a CZA he would like to see requirements for dimmer lights and for the lights to be angled away from the residential properties. He realized that trees were planned, but it could be 15-years from now when they would be tall enough to cover views from the second level. Greve said the duplexes all had front facing bedrooms which could be a problem from the lighting from both the parking lot and from the angled section of the commercial building. He would like consideration to be given to no lighted signs on that area as well as on the back or there could also be a time provision so that lighted signs were not permitted on the portion of the commercial building that angled toward the houses until when the trees grew tall enough to cover the second story. Shannon said there was a very good ordinance which dealt with lighting and how much light could come onto a property from adjacent properties. Anciaux said in the last 20-years there had been tremendous developments in keeping lights on location, Mercer ball park diamonds were a good example. Lori Dockerv. owned the house on the corner that proposed bank exit faced. Dockery said her primary concern was that Dodge Street Court would not be able to handle all the traffic, however after she'd heard that the street would be widened so that two cars could pass she felt better about the situation. She was very glad that the wall screened the view of the parking lot, however during the 3-D presentation, she noted that she could still see directly across to the bank and the cars coming through the drive-through. There were some bushes but no brick wall. Dockery said she didn't understand why the bank couldn't be moved around so that it could exit in a loop fashion so all traffic would exit through the North Dodge access. She felt it was silly to have three different entrances, everyone could use the Dodge Street entrance/exit. Mike Dalton, said he and his wife had built the first duplex. He agreed with Dockery, he didn't like the idea of the two exits onto North Dodge Court. Theirs had been a nice quiet neighborhood, to increase the traffic flow he was not in favor of, especially with a neighborhood resident who was handicapped and exercised her dogs on Dodge Street Court. Dalton said he would not like to see any entrance onto Dodge Street Court. Dave Fuller, Dodge Street Court, said he'd like to emphasize that most everything looked fine, he agreed with the widening of the street, the low lighting, and the architecture. He was opposed to the entrance and exits onto Dodge Street Court. There seemed to be plenty of frontage on North Dodge Street that could be used instead of invading their street and their properties. Holland said there were a lot of things that would be a win-win situation for the neighborhood. They'd heard complaints about storm water management and how it affected people's lives, about the street being too narrow and parking, this would be an opportunity to have the street improved. If there was no access/exit for the bank, there probably would not be any improvements to Dodge Street Court. The entrance for the apartments could be moved to North Dodge Street. The developer's hoped that this Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 16, 2005 Page 16 would be something that would benefit the neighborhood by allowing the light duty exit and by allowing the residential parking to come in off North Dodge Court. It would be hard to say how much traffic would increase; the little bit of traffic exiting from the bank would not be a big issue. It was a very small, odd shaped site. Rohrbach Carlson Architects had tried to figure out a way to make things work on the site with a loop around the bank. The problem was that it pushed the bank back and a lot of parking would be lost on the south side which restricted the use of the property. All traffic circulation would be internal with more internal conflicts on the site. The design was at a concept stage, a lot of thought had gone into how to best utilize the site but in a way that made it an asset for the area not a detriment. A logical use for the site would be a convenience store but that had never been seriously considered because it would not fit the residential character of the near-by properties. Holland said the people at Southgate and Rohrbach Carlson did care about how it would impact the people in the neighborhood. The lighting was a serious issue and he'd had a number of discussions with John Yapp regarding it. There were extensive provisions in the zoning ordinance to minimize and prevent the escape of light off-site. Because this was in the concept stage it would not be possible to get into details but he was sure that Southgate would go a step beyond the required if possible to comply with the Ordinance and be a good neighbor. Southgate had been a company in Iowa City since the mid 1950's and they wanted to be a good citizen of the community. That was in part what this project was all about, trying to make a good use of this property. Holland said they'd heard a lot about traffic. This would be a drop in the ocean in terms of traffic that would be added by the drive-in bank. Not every customer would go through the drive-through, it was not something that would be used around the clock. Holland said he felt too much had been made of it as far as the impact it would have versus the positive impacts of stormwater management, a 28-foot paved street and bringing needed services to the neighborhood. Rohrbach said the lighting would be covered by City Ordinance and they would do what they could to mitigate light that transferred off site. Rohrbach said when they had a mixed use development where there was residential and commercial traffic, there was a lot of good planning sense to try to keep the two types of traffic separate which is what they had done. They had tried to keep the residential traffic and its access to the site in its own location. It was a different type of traffic that came and went at different times than the commercial traffic. There would be 10 apartment units, 20 spaces and 8 garages. They had purposely not put a connection between the residential parking and the commercial area; they might also utilize some security features. Koppes said if a bank didn't go there the zoning would allow for a fast food place which would have a lot more traffic at later hours as would an ATM machine bank at a bank location. Was there anything that could be done for screening of the headlights. Rohrbach said without doing something on the south side he didn't think so. The south side was not there property - he didn't know how the property owner would feel about screening on their property. Rohrbach said because of the triangular nature of the site, their ability to work with that end of the site became problematic because the site blocked down so much. He felt the issue of the number of cars exiting the banking facility wouldn't be the number that was being talked about, they would be exiting the area and not effecting the eastern part of the street. The traffic that would use North Dodge Court would be residential traffic, the same nature of traffic that used it now. Rohrbach said he would like it if they could get the facility turned so the headlights would exit onto Conklin Street but they were limited to the current proposal. Plahutnik said a bank drive-through was fairly low use. If it turned out not to be a bank was there a possibility that there would not be an exit there? Once the exit was there, it was in. Siders said they did not have a bank lined up but they would like a bank on that site. They would be willing to concede that if they did not get a bank they would not have a drive-through access for a convenience store. Behr said if the applicant was willing to defer it would be appropriate for the Commission to state their thoughts about the access and whether or not restrictions in the CZA would be appropriate to give Staff and the developer some feedback. If the applicant was not willing to defer they would have to vote and give their recommendations as to conditions for a CZA. Miklo said the Commission could ask the applicant to waive the 45-day limitation period until the next meeting or they could vote this evening with any recommended CZA conditions. Given that the plan was influx, more information had been requested as noted in the Staff report and there would be some changes, ideally this application would be deferred Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 16, 2005 Page 17 to the next meeting. The Commission could give Staff and the applicant some direction on the two issues of concern which were the two driveways onto Dodge Street Court. Freerks said it sounded as if there was agreement between Staff and the developer on most things except the drive through. They had discussed the curb cuts, apartments and traffic. Plahutnik said given the specificity of the District Plan, the Plan had spoken directly to no commercial access to Dodge Street Court. Miklo said page 2 of the Staff Report had the quote from the District Plan, Staff had taken the combination of the two sentences as the direction that there should not be a curb cut for commercial uses on Dodge Street Court. The District Plan had been developed through a citizen participation process, several persons from this neighborhood had participated, this particular corner had specifically been discussed as to what was desired in that part of the neighborhood and it had been the concern that given the character of the street that it not have commercial access. Freerks said it sounded as it there were issues of safety as well as blending the two areas, RS-8 and commercial. Siders said the last two commercial projects that Southgate had done they had separated the commercial and the residential traffic, Walden Square for example, The residential had been put behind the complexes with garages and parking and the commercial had been put out front. It had worked out very well which had been one consideration with this site. An option with this site had been to build all residential and access onto Dodge Street Court. He was not sure that there would not have been more traffic generated with that proposal. Siders said he wanted to put a bank on the site was because 1) there was not one in the neighborhood and 2) it was a low traffic generating occupancy. That was why he'd agree to if it was not a bank then they would not exit out onto Dodge Street Court. With the installation of the combination commercial/residential, the neighborhood had the opportunity to have their street improved. Freerks asked if there was some way to put the ATM machine somewhere else. Siders said that would be an option of the bank, most banks they had talked to in the past preferred the canopy and a shelter structure. Freerks said that would be one option to eliminating the lights coming in to the residential area at night. Siders said he was not sure that Southgate would be willing to agree to that, he was not comfortable telling a bank how they had to set up their business. Anciaux asked if Siders would be willing to defer. Siders said if it would help and he would get a couple brownie points he'd defer to the next meeting. Smith said it was a traffic hazard according to the City Engineer to have the traffic exit out onto Conklin Street. Were there safety reasons and why? Anciaux said he'd like to have that reviewed again. Rohrbach asked Staff to clarify with the engineer - was it a hazard when it was an entrance and an exit. If it would be just an exit would it change their opinion of that situation? Gaines said he was not the engineer that had reviewed this site and did not know the particular site details. However it was a rule of thumb that the City typically wanted 150-feet between an access and an intersection. They were looking at 100-feet of frontage between two intersections. Anciaux asked Staff to look into that further. Dockery said she wanted it to be clear that the issue of the drive though was not that there would be lights in her windows, that side of her house was a hallway and bath. Her issue was what she would see visually - it would be a business not a house. It did not fit in with the neighborhood. She would be able to see the bank very clearly as only bushes were planned for screening. She liked the idea that commercial would be coming to the area, especially if it would be food places for their neighborhood. If the elimination of both entrances onto Dodge Street Court meant the developer would not improve it she didn't think that would be an issue for anyone in the neighborhood except perhaps for the Youngs at the end of the street who were getting all the runoff. The neighborhood would rather have Dodge Street Court unchanged rather than have it approved with the bank and apartment drive onto it. Conklin Street was not proposed Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 16, 2005 Page 18 to be reconstructed so it didn't fit that one street would be a good one and the other would remain a dirt road, it just didn't fit. A business drive would not fit in to their neighborhood. Miklo said part of Conklin Street would be improved as part of the Dodge Street project. Dockery said but not all the way down to the park and not in front of her house. The City had proposed a median on Conklin Street. Dockery said that was not a good idea either. McVay said all things considered they would rather leave Dodge Street Court the way it was rather than make the road 'better'. If the road was going to be improved, the fewer cuts the better. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Freerks made a motion to defer REZ05-00003, an application 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. Koppes seconded the motion. Smith asked if there was a consensus among the Commission that they would be interested in covering that with strict limitations such as exit only, for bank purpose only. Freerks said she didn't have a problem with the apartments and having a curb cut on to Dodge Street Court. She thought it was wise to separate the traffic, it was a safety issue. She was hesitant about the drive for the bank. She requested Staff to investigate if there was any possibility that it could be done any differently. She also requested Staff to talk with the Traffic Engineers to see if the exit could go onto Conklin Lane. She understood that safety was the main issue. She liked the plan and idea of having something commercial in that area but she was not sure she would support the drive-through. Miklo said he was sure that the exit could not be onto Conklin Street. Smith said his personal preference would be to have the traffic exit onto Conklin Street. If that was not possible due to safety reasons then they had no alternative but to do that. Given the fact that they had a City street that was not improved and they had an opportunity to improve it by allowing the very limited restriction, he thought it would be a good thing for the City, the community and because the improvement would be paid for in-half. If the residential access came off Dodge Street then that street improvement would probably not take place. Freerks said there was another alternative, to have the bank drive through work another way. The drive through did not have to spill onto Dodge Street Court. Smith said the developer had an alternative for the residential access in which there would be no traffic on the street - without the commercial access the cost of the street improvement for 10 apartments would be a cost consideration for the developer. The developer could open an access for the residential from the commercial area and the street for the City would remain unimproved for the City. The City would lose the opportunity to pay for Y:z of the cost. His opinion was if they could find a way to control and limit it he would support it. He was not in favor of an ingress/egress and major traffic through fare. Shannon said the point had been made that if this was not a commercial site and would be a residential site only, the traffic flow would be greater. Miklo said he was not sure that traffic would be more if this was developed for residential uses rather than a bank exit. He said he would ask the Transportation Planner to provide some estimates for drive through banks. Shannon said he wondered if this would not be a better situation than all apartments due to traffic numbers. Another plus would be that the City would get rid of the unsightly old dairy building. Anciaux asked that staff provide traffic estimates for the possible uses on this property including a drive thru bank. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 16, 2005 Page 19 Koppes said if she could limit it just to a bank, she would be in favor of the drive through - an exit only and a bank only. She didn't want to see anything else such as fast food located there. She liked how the residential was separated. Plahutnik said Southgate owned the property and they were going to develop it. The Commission had to look at what would be good for the community, would have the lowest impact on their neighborhood and have some beneficial effects as well. By limiting the egress to a bank and otherwise no curb cut there, he would generally support it at this time. Anciaux said he would generally support it. If it were developed as just residential, there would be at least 10 units on the north side of Dodge Street Court and the traffic would probably be the same. This way there would be an improved street. If the exit could be limited to just an egress and a couple trees planted on Dockery's property so the lights would not shine on her house at night, that would be a plus. If the wall was not going to screen the bank then the landscaping would be his preference. Freerks asked Dockery if she owned her property on the corner. Dockery said she did. Miklo said if the owner of the property to the south agreed, the CZA could require the developer to plant screening on that property. Dockery's concern had been that she would be looking out onto a commercial venue. Her preference would be to have it obscured by trees of varying heights. Anciaux said adding windows to the wall, some trees and shrubs to landscape the bank's area. Freerks asked if it was a single lane out onto the street and not a two-lane. Rohrbach said he thought they would want to bring it down to a single lane or as close as possible. It was such a short distance there but it was not proposed to come out the full 3-lanes. Miklo asked the Commission to clarify if they wished some screening by the developer on the property to the south. Anciaux said that was correct, either a wall with landscaping in front of it or some way to transition it. Miklo said since stormwater management was not a requirement for this project. There had been some reference to the stormwater improvements in trade for the access, did the Commission want a condition that the developer show that stormwater was actually being improved as part of the road improvements. Anciaux said he would not want this to generate any more water going the other direction. He was sure that the developer could figure a way to capture it. Siders said he had no idea, he was not an engineer. Stormwater was not a requirement on this, he would make no guarantees. Miklo said it had been said that by improving the road the developer was going to improve the stormwater flow in this area. It seemed like some of the logic from the Commission for approving the bank drive onto Dodge Street Court was that it was going to improve the storm water situation. Was that something that the Commission wished to address in the CZA? Smith said he'd raised that question. He had been clarifying that the street improvements would include storm sewer. The answer that he'd gotten was yes it would be there. By virtue of it being there Smith said he thought the water runoff would be mitigated, he had no desire or felt it needed to be included in the CZA. Freerks asked if they were assuming that it would be taken care of ? Smith said he was assuming that by adding a storm sewer that currently did not exit therefore the water would be taken away manually rather than naturally as it was. In his perception it would have to improve the situation. If it was not required for the site then he saw no need to add the additional requirement. In his mind by pure appearance it appeared to improve the situation. Miklo asked if it was the consensus of the Commission not to address stormwater management. Smith said it was not a requirement because of its size. Miklo said many of the conditions that were being put on were not requirements, they were above and beyond what zoning required. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 16, 2005 Page 20 Smith said he did not see any reason to. Plahutnik said storm sewers on the road gave him a comfort level there. Anciaux said he would like to make sure that there was a storm sewer there in that area and it had not collapsed as had happened in other parts of town. He wanted to be sure that the curb and gutter was going to be fed into a storm sewer some place there, the excess water would not be going down the street and (the project) it would not be generating any more water - he would like to look at it. Koppes said she felt they needed to look at the street. She did not want to put it on the CZA because when they built the street it had to be built to standards and the City would do that. The City and the developer were sharing the costs. She did not want to make it worse for anyone. Freerks said then the Commission was stating that they did want to look at it as far as the street design. Koppes and Smith said yes, in terms of street design. Smith said the thought it did. Freerks said they wanted to make sure that it did. Koppes asked Staff to verify it for them. Smith said as far as the property itself, with the wall it would have to get pretty deep to get off the site. Anciaux said legally the developer could not direct additional water off property. Behr said when considering what went into a CZA, a CZA could contain things that were necessary as a result of result of changing of the zoning. That was what they needed to focus on. Smith said his concern would be to ensure that the CZA included street improvements that would also include stormwater collection and drainage within the road improvement through the normal street design. Miklo said the Commission was indicating that they wanted to be sure that the street did not direct any more water to the east. Smith said make the street had storm sewers, especially near the end of the lot to ensure it would not flow off. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. VACATION ITEM: Smith recused himself stating though his employment he might have a potential conflict of interest. VAC05-00004, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for vacation of alleys in Peninsula Neighborhood Second Addition. Miklo said the City would vacate the alleys as public alleys, then they would become private alley which would allow greater flexibility for the placement of utilities in the Peninsula Development. What they saw on the ground would not change. Staff recommended approval of the vacation. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Shannon made a mofion to approve VAC05-00004. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF THE APRIL 28 and Mav 5.2005 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve both sets of minutes as typed and corrected. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 16, 2005 Page 21 OTHER ITEM: Miklo asked if the Commission would prefer to meet July 6, as a majority of the Commission could not meet on July 7. The Commissioners agreed to change the next formal meeting to Wednesday July 6 at 7:30 pm Monday June 20,7:30 pm - informal work session to review the Code rewrite. Monday June 27, 7:00 pm - public hearing on the Code rewrite ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Smith made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:27 pm. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill s:/pcdlminuteslp&zi200516-16-05.doc