The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-04-2005 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, August 1, 2005 - 7:30 PM Informal Meeting Robert A. Lee Community Recreation Center Meeting Room B 220 S. Gilbert Street Thursday, August 4,2005 -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 Items: 1. REZOS-00014 Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Mixed Use (MU) Zone, High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) Zone, and Public (P) for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Jefferson Street and east of Gilbert Street. 2. REZOS-0001S Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) Zone, and Mixed Use (MU) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Davenport Street and north of Jefferson Street. 3. REZ05-00016 Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone and Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Burlington Street and west of Linn Street. 4. REZOS-00017 Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-12) for all properties currently zoned RFBH, including Saddlebrook, Bon-Aire, Hilltop, Baculis, Forest View, Thatcher Mobile Home Parks and property located at 1705 Prairie Du Chien Road. 5. REZOS-00010 Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay - Medium Density Single-Family (OPDH-8) for property located on Longfellow Place within the Longfellow Manor Subdivision. 6. REZ05-00011 Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Dodge Street Court within the Jacob Ricord's Subdivision. 7. REZ05-00012 Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Catskill Court within the East Hill Subdivision. 8. REZ05-00013 Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located south and east of Whispering Meadows Drive within the Whispering Meadows Subd ivision. D. Development Item: SUBOS-00017: Discussion of an application submitted by Steve Kohli for a final plat of Brookwood Pointe First Addition, a 23-lot, approximately 29.26 acre residential subdivision located west of Sycamore Street, south of Wetherby Drive, and north of Dickenson Lane. (45-day limitation period: August) E. Consideration of the July 6 and July 21 Meeting Minutes F. Other Item F. Adjournment Informal Formal October 17 October 20 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 28, 2005 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard - Associate Planner RE: CB-2 Rezoning Applications A number of questions came up at your last meeting regarding the proposed rezoning of the CB-2 properties. The Commission requested a comparison of the current development potential in the CB-2 Zone to the potential in the Mixed Use or Neighborhood Commercial Zone. A table listing the allowed uses in all of these zones was distributed at your last meeting. Differences to note include: · The CN-1, CB-5, and CB-2 Zones allow Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses, such as gas stations. The MU Zone does not. · The CN-1, CB-5, and CB-2 Zones allow indoor Commercial Recreational Uses, such as theaters, video arcades, physical fitness centers, etc. The MU Zone does not. · The MU Zone allows residential uses on the ground level floor of buildings. It allows single family, townhouses, duplexes, and multi-family buildings. It also allows mixed use buildings - commercial and residential. The CB-5, CB-2, and CN-1 Zones allow residential uses only on the upper level floors of a building. · The mix of commercial uses allowed is quite similar between the CB-2, CB-5, CN-1, and MU Zones. However, the buildings and the uses in the CN-1 and MU zoned are scaled to be compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods. o Restaurants in the MU and CN-1 Zones are limited to an occupancy load of 125. The occupancy load for an establishment is determined by a number of factors: the number of available exits; available bathroom facilities; and size and configuration of the seating area. All of the restaurants currently located within the CB-2 Zone areas are under this limit. For example, the occupancy load for Pagliai's is 113 and the Hamburg Inn and Oasis have an occupancy load of 50. o With regard to retail, in the CN-1 Zone each use is limited to 5,000 square feet, except drugstores and hardware stores can be up to 15,000 square feet and grocery stores can be up to 40,000 square feet. In the MU Zone, retail is limited to 5,000 square feet. o Office uses in the CN-1 Zone are limited to 5,000 square feet, with only 2,400 square feet allowed on the ground floor. There is no limit on the size of offices in the MU Zone. o Drive-through facilities are not allowed in the MU Zone. In the CN-1 Zone, drive-through facilities are allowed for financial institutions and July 29, 2005 Page 2 pharmacies. Drive-through facilities are currently allowed in the CB-2 Zone. o The scale of commercial uses in the current CB-2 Zones is primarily constrained by the lack of land available for parking. There are no zoning limits on the size of commercial uses in this zone. · The proposed maximum residential density in the CN-1 and MU Zones is 1 dwelling unit per 1800 square feet. For comparison, this is the same as the density allowed in the RNC-20 and RM-20 Zones, the City's medium density multi-family zones. The maximum density in the low density multi-family zone, RM-12, is 1 per 2,725 square feet. The properties surrounding College Green Park are zoned RM-12. The area located directly north of the Market and Bloomington Street commercial area is zoned RNC-12. The maximum density in the RNC-12 Zone is 1 per 3,000 square feet. · All the proposed zones are intended to be pedestrian-oriented zones with buildings located close to and oriented toward the street and parking screened with landscaping or located behind buildings. As mentioned at your last meeting, the dimensional standards and the maximum residential densities listed in the zoning code for each zone can be misleading. These are minimum and maximum standards that set an outside limit on development. However, what can actually be achieved on any particular piece of property is primarily based on the size, shape, and topography of the site. There are other necessary elements of development, besides the building that will take up space on the lot: required parking, drives, and aisles; loading and garbage collection areas, space for street trees, parking lot landscaping, and residential coverage trees. Of these many factors, needed parking will likely take up the most space on a lot. In fact, parking areas needed to serve commercial and residential uses often take up more space on the lot than the buildings. This fact can be confirmed by merely glancing at an aerial photograph of the city. Off-street parking spaces are required at the same rates in the CB-2, CN-1, and MU Zones. The current parking requirement for retail and office uses is 1 space for every 200 square feet of floor area. In the proposed code, the requirement has been reduced to 1 space for every 300 square feet of floor area. Restaurants, because they generate a higher demand for parking, are required to provide 1 parking space for every 150 square feet of floor area. These are minimum requirements. Many developers choose to provide parking at a higher rate depending on the anticipated needs of the particular development. Parking for multi-family uses is based on the number of apartments and the number of bedrooms in each apartment. 1 space is required for each efficiency or one-bedroom apartment, 2 spaces are required for each 2 or 3-bedroom apartment, 3 spaces are required for each 4-bedroom apartment, and 4 parking spaces are required for each 5-bedroom apartment. The parking requirements in the CB-5 Zone are somewhat different. Off-street parking is July 29,2005 Page 3 not required for commercial uses in the CB-5 Zone. Residential parking is required, but at a lower rate than in other zones in the City. There are several important questions for the Commission to consider: How do the zoning standards and requirements in each proposed zone influence the scale and shape of development? Given what we know about the possibilities for development in each of these zones, what is the best zoning for these areas of the city, given surrounding development and the vision set forth by the Comprehensive Plan? At your meeting on Monday, we would like to run through several different scenarios with you to illustrate the development potential in the various proposed zones. Since Mr. Pagliai's lot along Bloomington Street is the largest undeveloped parcel in the area, we will use it as a test case. Cost of construction is another factor that influences the scale and shape of development on a given property. In general, taller buildings are more costly to build than lower-scale buildings. Surface parking is the least expensive to build, but takes up more land. Structured parking and below grade parking is very costly to build, so you will only see structured and below grade parking on properties where the land values are high enough to justify the increased costs of construction. Since, we have not seen high-rise development and below grade parking in the current CB-2 areas, we can surmise that the land values have not reached a point to support such development or redevelopment. Since it is difficult to determine how far in the future such development will become financially feasible, we will present the most development possible for each zoning designation, without regard to cost. However, you may want to keep cost factors in mind as you compare the various scenarios. Please give me a call on Monday, if there is any other information that you would like us to bring to the meeting. Household living Uses Detached Slnale Family Dwellings P Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings PR Attached Sin ale Famllv Dwelllnas PR DUDlexes PR Groue Households PR PR PR PR PR PR Multl-famllv Dwelllnas PR PR S PR PRlS PR Group Living Uses Assisted Group living PR S PR IndeDendent GrOUD Llvlna Fratemal Group Livlna Commercial Uses Adult Business Uses " PR Animal-related General S PR PR PR PR Commercial Uses Intensive PR Commercial Outdoor P P S Recreational Uses Indoor PRIS PR P P P P P Commercial Parking PR PR Uses Eating and Drinking S PRIS P P P P S Establishments Quick Vehicle Servicing S PR PR PR PRlS Uses Office Uses General Office P PR . P P P P P P MedlcaVDental Office P PR P P P P P Retail Uses Sales-oriented PR PR PR P P P PR Personal Service-oriented P PR P P P PR Repalr-Oriented P P P P Hospitalitv-Orlented Retail PR PR P P P P PR Outdoor storage and Display- P PR oriented Surface Passenger P P P P Service Uses ," Vehicle Repair Uses PR PR S Industnal Uses Industrial Service Uses P Manufacturing and Technlcal/Liaht ManUfacturina PR Production Uses General Manufacturina PI:{ Heavv Manufacturina S Salvage Operations Self-Service Storage P Uses Warehouse an!:! Freight P Movement Uses Waste-Related Uses Wholesale Sales Uses . P Institutional And Civic Uses Basic Utilitv Uses PRIS PRlS PRlS PRlS PRIS PRlS PRIS Community Service General Communltv Service P S S P P Þ S Uses Community Service - S~elter S PR PR ÞR PR S Daycare Uses PR PR Þ~ PR PR PR PR PR Detention Facilities ,S Educational Facilities General PR P P PR Specialized P PR P P P PR Hospitals PR Parks and Open Space ,.. PR PR PR PR PR PR Uses Rellglous/Prlvate Group PR P P P PR Assemblv Uses Other Uses Communication PR PR PRIS PRIS PRIS PRIS PRlS PR Transmission Facility Uses P = Pennltted PR = Provisional S = Special Exception STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Sunil Terdalkar Item: SUB05-00017 Brookwood Pointe First Addition Date: July 25, 2005 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Steve Kohli 3129 Dubuque St NE Iowa City IA 52240 Contact Person: Grant Finch Van Winkle Jacob 2570 Holiday Road Coralville, IA 52241 Phone: (319) 338-4939 Requested Action: Subdivision Final Plat Purpose: Development of Brookwood Pointe subdivision First Addition Location: South Sycamore Street - to the north of South Point Subdivision Size: Approximately 29.26 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped part RS-5 and part RS-8 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential - RS-5 South: Residential - RS-8 East: Residential - RS-5 West: Park and undeveloped - P and OPDH-5 Comprehensive Plan: small lot single family and/or duplex File Date: 07/26/05 09/09/05 45 Day Limitation Period: 60 Day Limitation Period: 09/27/05 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Steve Kohli, is requesting approval for the final plat of Brookwood Pointe First Addition, a 23-lot residential development on approximately 29.26 acres. The preliminary plat for the overall development of Brookwood Pointe Subdivision was approved on June 7,2005 by the City Council. 2 ANAL YSIS: The final plat as submitted is in general conformance with the approved preliminary plat. As part of the overall development of the Brookwood Pointe Subdivision, the First addition will consist of lots 1 to 23 for residential development (approximately 6.1 acres) with Outlot A (approximately 1.37 acres) reserved for storm water basin and Outlot B (approximately 21.79 acres) for future development. Construction plans have been submitted and are being reviewed by the City Engineer. Legal papers need to be submitted for review by the City Attorney and the City Engineer. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval for SUB05-00017, a final plat for Brookwood Pointe First Addition, a 23-lot, approximately 29.26 acres residential development located on the South Sycamore Street, subject to staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to City Council consideration. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Final plat Approved by: ~~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ppdadminlstfreplsubOS-00017 brookwood pointe first addition - J ~ {10~ I eÍ' · _ G(e ~ -,-0 iI"" ~~~ ~~ n m lJ r= il 1< lJTI. ""' ~ V" co'" ì I "ç'" ;;: I Il I lJ / () ~ \-- fiÎD r .~ '2 ~ D!E±EfffiE J= IIIIJ G: t Q N1 "38~" \" "". I 0.. I I / Sycemo", ~ ¡¡m~;= n~ ~ 1,(8 ~ c- ~ V) - """"Î I I I _¡=tv ~- w~ '\. e- 'C--- -- c--- y- -- b Il'I ~I-\-?;L- ~-f--I~_' en ~~~ ~m\~Ç-{ Vt=:~ i= ... .. l;;,~"" II: '-- -- " '-1- '<-+- ,'-- _ _ I~~~ \ R=_5~ ~t=--_L~ ~ - '- - 1-+-1.. '- _ 'I- ]l}"' c~~ t=v ¡ ~ ;--<t T \) ~ , ~ --1 rEi==! Þ )""J'C=;BEB ~l/R~\~, ~~~~~~E8t::ñ~ ~~f-l-~~ R:3 ~ ~~':~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~:2='i ¿ t: 5L-1-- 'ª = - ---1_ §ltEs "o~ ,. '-..' :~,>,""'''''~ "" ~c-I-- 51->-- /--.... ~ ml-,- ~ § - "-" 51- rl-' ~ ~ '-- ,- -- -- - ~, "'8': '~,~ '.~ '-- "--'-- "--~ ~ " '-:\1---\- \-1-- ~'~ ~"-..~ ðl§EZ1Et ~PJ J--~ ~ '-- - -w-, , :::;:..- - ,'--.... I-I--~ 15 Nm 'It' ,~""'" ~ I-- r ~_ ~ \" f--t=P ~ ~"'~~\:' --,"~SSn" 1\~f-- '-.) T I- -I~ , C~ ~ SS c::' \--i ,t= 5J1ti'"" t::: ~ rr" , 'f"-1 ¡= ~'" ;:~~ '" c=' Ë '\::' I__pµ -j:::-i r :Si ,," ~ ~ ~ f--' f: \ 'c: _ ~ :::: ~ "'" ~~ t 1'-1 -- ~ Îl - I-- ~~ ~"0 II1I rr~ <::::) II rr \' I '" ~""" w' t:: >-..:::, IJP I I lJ, -- In t:: l:t., JíE±EIji§ 0.. ~ ~ ~ ~ \::::) n II II IlL gæ 9 ~ 1- \-- "- \ U/ ~ ~ ,\--t'---.-y ,y ~ i I-\- = r-> ( 1JI?\ t= r--tk ~ ÌTlI- ~~rn~:= ;j~~ ¡ ;11' ~~J-- Ë¡ ,. f--- i-- '-----' "- I~~ T 1 I'Ø ~ mT co en a: en a: I C - - it) ::I: C a.. o (jl~' "1 i' / / / 10, I ?:' [[..II II - I j /' g " o I § :::æ: a: I C N o ~\\) 0 / ~ r ~ ~ w r - / ~^ '- J / - n l/1 .1::: ::;0; :::J w . r- « Q' o "-- Q' / I ~. ~6ç:; -u « r. ð \1 LL ( o .~ ( ~ u ".~ I- ~..", ~~ ~~ ~~ f'.. ~ o o o I L{') o C(} :J C/) - - - ~ (l) (l) '- ~ C/) (l) '- o E ro ü ~ C/) ( .. Z o ¡.... ~ U o ~ ~ ~ ¡.... rn I 6t6t-9tt-nt - DaG! 'IAIUO. pDOJ ADP!JOII OlÇZ ""I 'BuJNuI&ut CIO'Df~IUM !IDA z o t-t I- t-t o o <C<{ I-~ I- (J) 0 cd: ~ 1-1 ..Jt-t.. a. ~t I-U ..J Z <{ « Õ~ zo..8 ....... 0 u. LL 00 O~ ~I-I ~U o o ~ ca , ,.w" riot .. :¡ so e e g! ! ~ª~i q~ ~ .". : ~¡~ UÊi ~ ~. i. ~L ~~~ ~~~::: ~!~~ !iª~!: ~E~å . ~I p i~l;i~ ~Å~;.æ .. ~iaË~ i ~¡~H / ~ I ~ ~ i ~ f § I ~' I" ¡.III! III~ìI ,. . . . I CI ( ii'WïiiJ) llaulllouSIU :::::J _'II - ~ ~ i ~ä~ an OM I&J ~~~ ~ LLJ I I I I . . I I! I i : ~ I ~ I ~ i I ;t I. D .- .1.1 \ I I '----,--/ .. .." , ", ., ... .....,............, . ". ".",. . ""..""..., ""'''''''''''''''''''''' -- ':r,,:-::::i,~,~;~= -::= -=¡;;,;r. ===-;,:;,;::::i:":=::~T __ _ 1'--------------------- ¡ I H~ :a -..~ "~~--- i. ¡!~'" n I~~kidi!! !..! ¡¡¡ihill ~~ !:!!'!H I. "j""!!' "i! I!!¡;"' ',1 I. I;;!!! il., '~!'''>!' ¡¡¡I 5~!h~~~3 .~! II!I"<" i:~ ,."~!~¡i m ¡¡!!~!!¡: ::!'"~ ~~:¡·,¡¡~~W~ ~~~ Isn~¡~¡ª ~~; h~~¡<~_~~ !¡~ I¡i!,!,!! ..e~ ð..;¡¡..r :t'~,1! I ~¡! ¡i,!!.!..¡~g "! ">,!i¡!: ;111;·¡··,i¡O II! Jmmh I"· } , € ! ¡ ! ¡ , , ! , . , þ ¡ ¡ ~ ¡ I . h ~É H ,,~Ó- h" "I' "' I'· ..... .......... II. .. ?u~n~~t~~~r? ~"·r..,...¡.~ I"....,.t-I"~..I" II ~ ~ ~I ~I! 111111111 ~ 11111 mill i 11111 ri<...······ ."" I.~~.II~ il.'~I'illill. :~:~: :~~~~~~~~~?:¡ .-11111111111.11111 a.:. iii I I I I I I I I ~"--1 I '--J--- r-J -r\ _______ ___ ...\.L_---- I \ I \ - II I i~ ,. :~ ;, , .. I U 1/ 1/ // ~ t',' \ ,. ~,,' >"'>~ -::-'< o:. u; ..."".."",,,,,,"",,.. ... ,..-...,. "..~,.;..,,,..,,,,.,,,,,,,.,, MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 6,2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL DRAFT MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Anciaux, Ann Freerks, Beth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Dean Shannon, Terry Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Brooks STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Banks, Mitch Behr, Rick Fosse, Bob Miklo, Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRSENT: Pat Edberg, Tom Gelman, Steve Gordon, Mark Hingtgen, Joe Holland, Scott Pottorff, Brad Ruhland, Deborah Segaloff, Glenn Siders, Duane Staskal, Mark Winkler, Clifton Young RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Brooks absent), REZ03-00019/SUB03-00024, a rezoning from Interim Development - Residential Single-Family (ID-RS) zone to Sensitive Areas Overlay - Low Density Single-Family (SAO-5) zone and preliminary plat of Cardinal Ridge, an approximately 92-acre, 93-lot, residential subdivision located west of Kennedy Parkway, subject to necessary easements and an escrow for the extension of a standard 8" sanitary sewer to the south property boundary and a good faith effort for construction traffic to use alternative routes to Kennedy Parkway where possible. Recommended approval, by a vote of 4-2 (Koppes and Freerks voting no, Brooks absent), REZ05- 00003, 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 subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement limiting commercial access to Dodge Street Court to an exit drive only for a financial institution and the conditions recommended in the staff report. Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Brooks absent), REZ05-00008/SUB05-00012, 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. Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Brooks absent), REZ05-00009, 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 subject signs being limited to those permitted in the CN-1 zone and preservation of existing trees where possible. Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Brooks absent), SUB05-00009NAC05-00005 a 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. A. Call to Order Anciaux called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. B. Public Discussion of Any Item not on the Agenda No discussion. 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. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 6, 2005 Page 2 Miklo said the commission asked several questions at the June 16 meeting the he would address. Regarding whether the properties north of Cardinal Ridge are in Coralville or Iowa City, the revised City limit boundary shows two parcels of a total of approximately 30 acres within the City limits which will require sanitary sewer service, one owned by the University and one owned by another individual. Traffic counts have been conducted on Kennedy Parkway and preliminary results are available. One of the counters was malfunctioning, so further counts will be conducted. Counts done in 2003 showed 555 trips per day near Butternut Lane, and 978 trips per day near Melrose Ave. 2005 counts showed 817 trips per day near Butternut Lane and approximately 1000 trips per day near Melrose Ave. Shannon arrived at this point. Miklo said the estimate generally used by the City in subdivisions is seven trips per day from a single- family home, based on surveys in Iowa City. The national average is 10 trips per day. Based on the 86 homes in Walnut Ridge in 2003, a traffic count of 978 at the entrance indicates an average 11.37 trips per day, which is higher than national average. There were homes under construction at the time, which might account for the higher number, and there might be other factors specific to this subdivision. Using the higher number, traffic for both Walnut and Cardinal Ridges, upon completion, is estimated to include 2205 trips per day. City secondary access guidelines indicate a threshold of 2500 trips per day before secondary access should be considered. Therefore, even though traffic at Walnut Ridge is higher than typical, upon completion of both subdivisions, the traffic produced by both is not expected to exceed the secondary access threshold designated by the City. Miklo pointed out that there will be secondary access when Kennedy Parkway is extended to Camp Cardinal Road, as well as when it is extended to link up to Camp Cardinal Blvd, currently under construction. The traffic counts confirmed there is an issue with speeding motorists on Kennedy Parkway, with speeds approaching 37-40 miles per hour during both 2003 and 2005 counts. He said there might be some things the City can do to improve enforcement or increase traffic calming. Miklo also noted that the Walnut Ridge subdivision developer was granted a waiver of the full sidewalk requirement because of the intended rural character of the development. Sidewalks were built only on one side of Kennedy Parkway, and the Homeowners Association has the option to develop a trail network to supplement the sidewalks. There are three options for increasing sidewalk availability. One is for the City to install the sidewalks and assess the adjacent property owners for the costs incurred. The second is to have the Homeowners Association fund installation. Third, the property owners could lobby the council to include sidewalk installation in the Capital Improvements Program. Miklo reported that the revised plat corrects the technical deficiencies and discrepancies noted previously, and includes a mitigation plan that addresses erosion control. Another concern was the extension of sanitary sewer to the adjacent properties, which Director of Public Works Rick Fosse can address. Fosse reported the policy requirements indicate sanitary sewers need to be extended to the boundary of the subdivision and beyond as necessary to provide service to adjacent properties. This is to allow further development of adjacent properties, and prevents land locking future developments away from essential services. Installing sewers at future dates requires access to and control of the properties, either by ownership or easement. Retrofitting these services after construction is completed can be disruptive to the neighborhood. He noted this situation is unusual, but not unique. There are tributary watersheds on three of the four sides of the subdivision, so sewers are needed in all three directions. Also, there is a large band of undevelopable land along the southern edge because of the sensitive areas. It is important to provide sewer service for each of the watersheds. Anciaux asked if sewer lines mainly follow topography. Fosse said yes. Since there are three watersheds from the south, one sewer could be placed strategically to serve all three. A sewer line could be placed later, but the issues to be addressed are securing funds and potential disruption to the neighborhood after the houses are built. Anciaux asked if there was only one possible layout for the sewer, mainly the one to the north. Fosse said there are a number of ways to lay it out in this case, if the route is chosen well. Miklo said a route is proposed on the plat. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 6, 2005 Page 3 Anciaux asked how much land to the south could be developed. Fosse said there is a ridge with three sub-watersheds. One sewer could serve the area, if placed strategically in the middle. Alternately, all the drainage could be sent south, depending on how it is developed and graded. That alternative would require access to an intervening property that is not in their control. Without sewer access from the north, the parcel to the south would be land locked. Smith asked if a sewer or blanket easement would take care of the land locking issue. Fosse said yes, but not construction of the sewer. Anciaux asked where the ridge is located. Fosse said it is just off the map to the south. Anciaux asked how much land would be served by the sewer going to the north. Miklo said the two properties consist of approximately 30 acres to the north. Anciaux asked how much of the land lies north of the ridge. Miklo said approximately 25 acres. Fosse said it would be possible to take it all entirely to the north. Koppes asked for clarification about land locking of the properties, which would not have access regardless unless the University gave permission. Fosse said the City has taken sewer across University property in the past. That was initially a problem with Walnut Ridge, and the City did a project to bring sewer across undeveloped property. Shannon asked if this is a new policy or if it only applies to certain situations or developments. Fosse said it has been in effect for more than 21 years. Situations in the past may have involved going through a piece of undeveloped property, but in the case of abutting developed property, it is reasonable to have sewer extend to the property line. Smith noted that the north and south areas are separate issues. Regarding the policy as it relates to future development, he asked for clarification in the northern section across outlot G, and why the sewer should be done now versus when the parcel is developed and goes through the rezoning and platting process. Fosse said there is some flexibility on when it is done, as long as a plan is in place to work it in at a later date. Then it would work into the new development. Freerks asked if that is how payment factors in, such as escrow. Fosse said escrow is more applicable for the south end, where no future development will trigger installation of sewer. There needs to be an obligation that would run with the land, written into the legal documents. Fosse added that there have been cases where the sewer extension is missed, such as one of Southgate's adjacent developments where the sewer was not extended across a lot to continue in the drainage area. That is a contributing factor that led to the construction of a lift station in the next subdivision. Such a project involves extra expense for the developer, and long-term expense for the City to maintain the lift station, such as energy and weekly maintenance costs. Smith asked for further clarification about the policy. It seems there is latitude for sewer in the north area, which can be done later. Behr said in the north, an easement would be put in the legal papers with the preliminary plat, stating that the buyer must put in the sewer. Koppes asked what would happen if the land was not developed. Behr said that is the risk that remains. Smith confirmed that the situation is the same for the north in that case, that it is land locked, no sewer reaches the area, there is undeveloped land between their parcel and Walnut Ridge. So the gap would be narrowed, but the loop would not be closed in this instance. Behr agreed. Anciaux asked for confirmation that the southern area would best be covered by fees or escrow instead of construction. Fosse said yes, since it is hard to determine what line would serve it best until development plans are submitted. A blanket easement and payment for the cost of installing the sewer would best serve everyone's needs. Behr added that the difference between the two areas is that the north one will get sewer when it is developed. However, the southern area does not have any planned development, so there is more of a risk involved. Smith asked if a blanket easement of the south parcel would be feasible, to prevent land locking for the benefit of a future developer. Fosse said there is benefit also to the City, by allowing continuing development. However, retrofitting sewers is unpopular even when in easements. Plahutnik said the policy states sewer should go to property lines unless there is excessive cost to the developer, or topographical issues. He asked if there is agreement that Southgate's cost would be excessive in this case, and therefore would meet the criteria of the exception. Fosse said a compromise would be to establish an escrow to put in a standard eight-inch sewer under regular Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 6, 2005 Page 4 terrain. That would leave a gap in expense, to be covered by the developer, but would not be an excessive cost. Smith asked how long the escrow would last. Fosse asked whether it is possible to put a time limit on the escrow. Behr said it is possible, and it has been done in other circumstances. Smith asked for clarification on what guidance is needed from the commission regarding the sewer issues. Miklo said a motion would either be to require the sewer, or to waive the requirement with or without conditions, such as an easement or escrow. Behr said it would be a modification or waiver. The questions are first whether the sewers should be extended. If not, will an easement be required. If an easement is required, would payment be required. It would be a modification or waiver to not follow the subdivision. Joe Holland, Southgate Development Co., addressed traffic concerns first. He said bringing construction vehicles in from the west is not practical, partly because the build-out will be from east to west, and also because of the quality of Camp Cardinal Road. Camp Cardinal Road will be improved to the north property line, but beyond that is a gravel road and does not accommodate access for construction or other vehicles. Particularly when the road is soft, there is potential damage to the gravel areas of the road, which would be a detriment both to the cities and the residents who live on it. Though effort will be made to use that road as much as possible, the only practical access will be through Walnut Ridge and across Kennedy Parkway. Holland said in December 2001, an agreement between Coralville, Iowa City, and Southgate, which included a sanitary sewer concept plan, used Kennedy Parkway as the dividing line between the two cities along a ridge. Natural gravity drainage north of Kennedy Parkway is to the north, and natural gravity draining south of the parkway is drain to the south. In spring 2005, Iowa City and Coralville did severance and annexation, so everything north of Kennedy Parkway is in Coralville, while everything south of it is in Iowa City. In the case of this parcel of land, sewer will be run uphill. That is why a lift station is being built to counter gravity in the drainage area. The north part of the land is part of Cardinal Ridge. Sewer needs there will be driven by later development needs. Southgate has no objection to installing sewer in the north area as needed when the time is right. That area is reserved for future residential development, and that would be a more appropriate time to determine where that sewer should be located. The location will be driven by the development plans, and Southgate is willing to enter into an agreement committing to extending sewer to the property lines in the north as it develops. Regarding the south end, Southgate is willing to provide a blanket easement over everything on the south end of the property for sanitary sewer service, wherever it is desirable and necessary. Since it would be installed later, it might be disruptive to sensitive areas, but the degree of disruption is difficult to estimate. Also, installation would only disrupt the south end, when the property is developed in that area. The ultimate question is who will pay for the sewer line. The City wants Southgate to pay for the $75K value, either through direct installation or escrow. The sewer will only benefit that southern parcel. Southgate would like the cost and location of the sewer to be left to the southern parcel property owner at the time of development, while agreeing to provide a blanket easement. It is a matter of proper timing and cost. He said the hope is that the Commission will approve the request, reserving extension in the north until that area develops, and accepting the easement for the south. Plahutnik asked for confirmation that Southgate does not want to build the sewer to the south property line, and whether reading the policy as a requirement to extend to property line is incorrect. Holland said not exactly, that the provision is discretionary. The requirements outlined by Fosse do not apply in this case, since the area will not be land locked and existing development will not be disrupted because of the direction the line will run. There is a provision in the ordinance that allows the commission and the council to. modify or waive the requirements. The blanket easement, as opposed to installing the sewer itself, would be a modification. Freerks said she agrees that the sewer is a requirement, and the request is for a waiver. Fosse said if tributary watershed is served, it is necessary, but if not, then no. Behr said this should be treated as a Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 6, 2005 Page 5 modification. Freerks asked why the time is not yet right for sewer. Holland said it has more to do with proper placement within the site during development, so all interests are best served by waiting. Freerks asked whether there would be a conflict if the north parcel owner would like to develop before Southgate is ready to develop that parcel and bring the sewer through it to the north. Holland said that is often an issue, Southgate wants to treat other owners well, and does not want to create problems. Siders said Southgate is committed to putting in sewer at some point. Currently the development is at preliminary plat. The sewer would be determined through the final plats, which may not occur for several years, so it does not impact the parcel to the north at this time. Fosse said that is accurate. Anciaux opened public discussion. Tom Gelman, 714 McLean Street, spoke on behalf of the Walnut Ridge Owners Association. He said there are safety concerns with the proposed rezoning. The Interim Development Zone is based on inadequate infrastructure, and the rezoning as proposed will be done without changing that infrastructure. In particular, no new arterial streets with accompanying connecting streets are planned. While statistically Kennedy Parkway can handle a little more traffic, this situation is unique and poses some unique safety concerns that will only be aggravated by increased traffic. In addition to lack of adequate sidewalks, there is higher traffic volume than expected, confirmed by the traffic counts, as well as speed concerns. Both driveways and streets intersect with the parkway, the rolling design of which invites speeding. No other routes exist to handle construction traffic or additional traffic from the outlots after they are developed. He said measures should be implemented to minimize traffic hazards potentially caused by the increased traffic volume. That would mean thinking about the street system, and lack of arterial streets, along with the timing and succession of the streets. He offered two alternate options intended to accommodate the interests of both the developer and residents of the Cardinal Ridge and Walnut Ridge subdivisions, and distributed a hardcopy explanation of the options. He explained that both options involve changing the sequence of events involved in the development, such that Camp Cardinal Blvd would be completed before the subdivision is completed, which would accommodate the increased traffic. Gelman added that development of Outlots E and G may increase the traffic volume beyond the limits cited by Miklo, where additional secondary access should be investigated. Right now, there is no indication when the connection between Camp Cardinal Road and Kennedy Parkway will be completed. Also, if the connection between Camp Cardinal Road to Kennedy Parkway is completed before the boulevard is connected to Kennedy Parkway, it would create an arterial route from Coralville to Iowa City through Walnut Ridge and Cardinal Ridge subdivisions. Both of his suggested alternatives are intended to accommodate both development and safety concerns, and would require a conditional rezoning agreement that modifies the sequencing of development activities. Mark Winkler, 124 Kennedy Parkway, said he is concerned that inadequate time has been spent evaluating the impacts of this rezoning. The residents have learned that the big picture extends beyond Cardinal Ridge to include condominiums and possible schools. He would like more explanation about what the big picture looks like, what the ultimate traffic count looks like, and where the assessment comes from. His concern is that with schools at both ends of the area, the traffic count could change dramatically, and they are already above the national average. Mark Hinataen, 70 Alder Court, said his property abuts the subdivision. He said his children catch buses on Kennedy Parkway, and they congregate along the parkway because of lack of sidewalks. At the end of the street, the bus makes a three-point turn in order to turn around and exit the street. He has real concerns about the safety of the children when the streets are connected and traffic includes people driving to work, as well as the heavy construction equipment. He also would like better explanation about what will be happening in the adjoining subdivision to prevent damage to the natural gas pipeline. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 6, 2005 Page 6 Deborah Seaaloff, 53 Burr Oak Court, said Walnut Ridge was attractive as a relatively quiet and rural area that is still close to the City, though it really is not. She also expressed concern with children waiting for buses on Kennedy Parkway, and also that the sidewalk is not contiguous, but crosses the parkway at several points. She asked the commission to keep in mind that there are children on the streets, and the traffic will be increasing, while at the same time the sidewalk situation is not entirely safe. Duane Staskal, 105 Kennedy Parkway, said he lives directly off of the parkway and has very small children. There is no sidewalk on his lot, and no access to one nearby, so the children are in the street. Every car has to pass his house to get out of Kennedy Parkway. He said he is also concerned about the increase in traffic in the area. Anciaux closed public discussion. Freerks asked for an explanation of how traffic is planned for the future in that area. Miklo said Camp Cardinal Blvd is slated to be completed in approximately a year, July 2006. It is planned as an arterial street to connect Highway 6 and Melrose Avenue. Kennedy Parkway was designed as a collector street, funneling traffic from local streets to Melrose Ave and west to the boulevard. Anciaux asked if Old Camp Cardinal Road will connect into Kennedy Parkway. Miklo said yes, they will intersect. He said there are plans to improve the road as the development progresses, but there are no plans to improve the Coralville leg of the road. A series of additional minor streets are also planned for the area. Koppes asked if there was a report from the recent Parks and Recreation meeting. Miklo said no decision has been made about whether land or fees should be dedicated, but details can be determined in the final plat. Freerks asked if the traffic estimates include outlots E and G. Miklo said no. Behr said the area could not be developed without a new plat being submitted. At that time, secondary access needs can be reviewed and required. Miklo said the current concept plan shows 17 additional lots on outlot E in the main area, as well as some offsite to the west. Freerks asked if the north would be higher density. Miklo said anything other than single-family would require rezoning. Koppes asked the developer if they are committed to completing access to Camp Cardinal Road. Siders said yes, the City required improvement to the north property line as part of the development. He said he has concern with improvements because of the grade of the hill up to the property line. Freerks asked what the timeframe is to extend Kennedy Parkway out to the new boulevard. Siders said it depends on the infrastructure, particularly sewer, being extended in the new area. Freerks asked if it would be a long time. Siders said that is unknown. Plahutnik asked how quickly the road improvement would progress. Siders said sections would be completed as the development progresses. Koppes asked why the connection to Camp Cardinal Road was required. Miklo said if there is no connection, then all traffic would have to use Kennedy Parkway and exit the area to the south. The connection would provide some relief for the parkway and allow people to take a northern route. Koppes asked if there would be an increase in cut-through traffic between Coralville and Iowa City. Miklo said the new boulevard is designed for higher speeds with limited intersections, and should be a more attractive route than Camp Cardinal Road through the subdivision. Koppes noted there is a risk of opening the area to increased traffic from the subdivision before the boulevard is ready. Smith said the plan is still in preliminary plat, and would have to go through final platting before houses are constructed. Plahutnik asked Gelman to comment. Gelman said that there is no indication when the connection between Kennedy Parkway and the new boulevard will be complete. Cardinal Ridge and other nearby areas could be completely developed before the connection is made. He said that is a zoning issue, and a conditional zoning agreement issue, and that there should be a specified expectation about when the connection will be complete. This is an opportunity to control development in accord with traffic capabilities on the parkway. Freerks asked if Southgate owns the property where the extension is proposed. Siders said Southgate has control of it, but does not own it. Miklo said once the rezoning is approved, single- Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 6, 2005 Page 7 family development on outlots E and G could go forward without any further zoning activity. There would be an opportunity to apply secondary access guidelines at time of subdivision approval, but indications are that traffic will not reach the threshold before then. Otherwise there have to be good reasons to impose extra requirements. Anciaux asked if Old Camp Cardinal Road qualifies as secondary access. Miklo said yes. Anciaux said it is unlikely that many people will cut through from the north with the boulevard so close to completion. Smith said the subdivision is unlikely to be completed within a year. Smith asked for confirmation whether the traffic counts included projections for the outlots. Miklo said the outlots were not included. Behr added that the outlots will have to be platted, and the secondary access concerns can be addressed at that time. Smith asked if Camp Cardinal Road satisfies the requirement. Miklo said yes, though quality is a concern. Freerks asked about construction traffic. Behr said that use of alternate routes can be encouraged, but is not easily enforceable. Freerks suggested that the Walnut Ridge subdivision explore ways to address their concerns with sidewalks. Anciaux said that sidewalks should not be waived in the future. He asked if there was a motion. Behr said that if the recommendation will include sewer or other alternatives, it should be included in the motion. Smith asked if there was consensus on the sewer requirement. There are three options, one to ensure access rights, with easements in place. He considers that a requirement. The second is consideration of timing and placement of the construction, given the intent to develop a final plat in the future. That is less of a concern with the north end, as that would be addressed when it is platted and developed. Construction is a concern in regard to development in the south parcel, due to unknown locations, topographical issues, and unknown development. He hesitates to require installation at this time due to extensive costs and burdens involved. The third point would be whether to require an escrow fee to facilitate construction. Freerks asked if the discrepancies on the plat had been resolved except for sewer. Miklo said yes. Anciaux said the Commission's recommendations would not make everyone happy, but that the recommendations will still need approval of the Council, which would be another opportunity to make a case. Smith asked if a dollar amount should be assigned to the escrow in the motion. Behr said no, only designate a standard sewer cost. Smith asked whether a timeframe should be assigned to the escrow. Freerks asked if having a timeframe and limit on an easement is often done. Behr said typically a timeframe is not needed with an escrow. This situation is different because the developer does not want the money waiting indefinitely. While it is possible to include a limit, it is not required. Freerks said she is uncomfortable with setting a time limit. Behr said there are practical considerations to keep in mind if the escrow is arranged without a time limit. Miklo suggested a fifteen-year limit be considered in this type of situation. Koppes asked if the money would still be held in escrow if development of all but one lot occurred, for example. Miklo said no, it would be addressed when doing the subdivisioning to the south. Freerks agreed with an escrow for an eight-inch sewer for fifteen years. Koppes asked if anyone on the commission was interested in delaying connection of Camp Cardinal Road until after Camp Cardinal Blvd is finished next year. Anciaux said he could not see the development being completed before the boulevard. Freerks asked about limiting development in outlots E and G until the connection is completed. Anciaux suggested waiting until the final plat is submitted, then do another traffic study. Freerks asked staff to make a note to look into that when the plats come through. Miklo said that subdivisioning for both outlots would come before the Commission for review. Freerks asked to include a request in the motion for "best effort" to have construction traffic use other routes. Behr said the request to use Camp Cardinal Road would be for a good faith effort. MOTION: Smith moved to approve rezoning and preliminary plat REZ03-00019/SUB03-00024 for Cardinal Ridge with the required inclusion of easements and establishing an escrow account for a Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 6, 2005 Page 8 single standard eight-inch sanitary sewer installation for the south property boundary, with a term of 15 years or until property build out to the south. Plahutnik seconded the motion. Freerks asked to amend the motion to include a good faith effort for construction traffic to use other access routes where possible. Smith and Plahutnik agreed with the amendment. Behr said that if 15 years passed and the south property was not developed, the escrow would be returned to the developer. If it develops and there is need, the money will be applied to the cost of the sewer. Smith asked for confirmation that if the south property is developed and the sewer is not served from the designated boundary, the money would be returned in that circumstance as well. Behr said yes. Plahutnik said that Camp Cardinal Road is not a feeder street, so there is not a great deal of traffic, but it will provide an outlet to Coralville. He noted that speeding is an enforcement issue, and sidewalks need to be addressed either by the homeowners association or taken before the City Council. He noted that the City will be growing and building all around that area in the future. He also said the sewer has to go to the property boundary line unless compelling reasons are given to allow otherwise. Freerks also recommended work on the sidewalks in the subdivision be done soon. Anciaux said he would support the motion. There is always an interim period in development that creates dissatisfaction. The motion was passed on a vote of 6-0. Freerks asked when the next council meeting is scheduled. Behr said July 19. 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. Miklo said questions from the last meeting included whether the exit driveway from the bank could open onto Conklin Lane rather than Dodge Street Court. He verified with a traffic engineer that it could not, because there is not enough space for the standard 150 foot separation between a driveway and arterial street. The space in this case is only 100 feet. Also, an exit at that point would often be blocked by traffic waiting at the intersection. The only alternative to having an exit onto Dodge Street Court in this case, since the City does not want an additional driveway onto Dodge Street, would be to have an internal circulation system through the parking lot. That would require redesign of the layout of the site, and might possibly reduce the number of parking spaces. The new code will reduce the parking requirement, so the building square footage might not need reduction, but that is unknown at this time. Regarding an estimate of the amount of traffic generated if the area developed residentially, based on the pattern of development nearby, assuming duplexes on the lots, an estimated 70 trips per day would be generated onto Dodge Street Court. That is similar to what is being added based on the apartments planned above the commercial. Regarding the bank traffic, national statistics indicate a bank of this size with three drive-through lanes would generate 986-1233 trips per day. Since it would be an exit only, half that traffic would be using Dodge Street Court, which would be approximately 493-616 additional vehicles. Surveys of local drive-through banks were also done, and the numbers were close to the national average at 380-580 exiting vehicles per 1 O-hour business day. Regarding whether the developer could be required to provide screening on the property to the south, he spoke to the concerned property owner, who said she would consent to have trees planted on site. She reiterated that she would rather not see a driveway across from her house. The revised concept plan illustrates the screening wall, landscaping, and sidewalk locations that were recommended by staff. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 6, 2005 Page 9 Miklo reported on that for drainage of the area, staff recommended the developer fund 50 percent of the reconstruction cost of Dodge Street Court, including storm sewers. The City Engineer indicated that the street drains to the east, so improving just one part of the street would not address the drainage problems to the east. Complete reconstruction of Dodge Street Court around the corner would be required, which would be a considerable expense to the City. The City Engineer said when the plan is approved, they would ensure that the development itself drains to Dodge St. and not to Dodge Street Court Also, in order not to increase the drainage problems to the east, the drainage collected from the reconstructed Dodge Street Court should be directed across the development instead of to the east. Anciaux asked if the development would make drainage matters worse. Miklo said it would, unless the water is directed across the property. Smith asked about placing storm sewers in that location. Miklo said the sewers would have to be released and the natural flow is to the east. Miklo said the City Engineer determined that an additional 10 feet of right of way is needed for the sidewalk on Conklin Lane to accommodate a sidewalk and a turn lane, especially if the bank exit is there. If the bank exit is not located there, then five or six feet is enough. The staff recommends approval, with conditions addressing issues outlined in the June 16 staff report.. No further information has been received on lighting or appearance of the building on the east side by the residential zone. Shannon asked why the property owners would not be assessed for improvements to Dodge Street Court Miklo said assessing property owners for improvements is difficult. It could be proposed, but it has rarely occurred. Koppes asked if it would have to wait for the Capital Improvement Plan. Miklo said he is not sure, since it is a small segment. Anciaux asked if sidewalks would be on both sides of the street. Miklo said yes. Joe Holland, attorney for Southgate Companies, said the plan is good use of the site and an opportunity for the City and area to have improvements. It is a good plan all around, since the City would like improvement to Dodge Street Court, and he encouraged the Commission to approve it. He said that in regards to the screening issue, the property owner was not concerned with lights and the driveway on that side of her house, but simply did not want a bank to be located across the street from her house. Not putting a bank there is not an option. However, the planned screening on the site is better, and the property owner will not need to maintain it. Freerks asked staff for confirmation that the property owner was against the driveway or the appearance of a commercial area. Miklo reported the property owner said the headlights were not her concern, but the appearance of a commercial building was. Because this is a driveway, it cannot be screened, like the rest of the commercial development will be screened by the brick wall and landscaping. Koppes said the proposal was to put trees of varying heights on the residential side of the street to screen the driveway. Koppes asked if the developer agrees with a conditional zoning agreement that if the bank is not put in that location, then the exit driveway will not be put there either. Holland said yes, they would limit an exit driveway to a bank only. Anciaux asked how requiring drainage to go to the east would work. Miklo said it would be added as a condition that the applicant provides a route for drainage from Dodge Street Court across their property. Siders said he is not sure that it is physically possible to take drainage from Dodge Street Court across their property, nor does he believe it is their responsibility. Anciaux asked how much of the lot drains onto Conklin Lane. Miklo said most of it drains toward Dodge Street. He said the issue is that the City would not be requiring improvement of Dodge Street Court unless there was development activity. If development activity occurs and the street is improved, there is a good chance that the drainage problem will be worse, which is why this question is being raised. Behr said site plan design standards require that development make provision for drainage. This does not apply to the street, just when the development comes in. This standard would not apply to the street when there is a site plan. A CZAthat includes street design for storm water drainage would have to be done separately. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 6, 2005 Page 10 Anciaux opened public discussion. Clifton Youna, 1124 Dodge Street Court, read a letter from Oscar Graham, a concerned resident who could not attend. Concern is that the bank drive-through exit onto Dodge St. Ct, along with the entrance traffic from the duplexes and proposed apartmetns, will increase activity and create a traffic safety issue. Many children walk around and through the area because of camping at Hickory Hill, especially during the summer months. Young added his concern with issues already raised, but another underlying concern is with potential increases in property taxes and decrease in quality of life. The residents love the area, and want it to remain their home. They do not object to development but do object to the proposed commercial bank driveway onto their residential street. Pat Edbera, 1380 North Dodge, said she agrees with what Young said. She added that her concern is with safety issues with the 90-degree corner near the bank, regarding visibility and traffic. She said the plan is not well thought out, and the traffic at the corner will be a big mess. She agreed that she and the residents love the area. Koppes asked what the current zoning is. Miklo said it is zoned RS-8 and CI-1. Anciaux closed public discussion. Freerks said she is still concerned about the bank driveway. Koppes said the bank would generate more traffic than she expected. Freerks agreed, and added that there would be a lot of traffic making a tight turn. Koppes asked about adding a traffic light on Dodge Street by Conklin Lane. Miklo said it is not in the current project, but would be studied once the street improvements are complete. Freerks said she likes the plan, but would like the bank moved so it could exit onto Dodge Street. That is what the Comprehensive Plan calls for, and the bank outlet onto Dodge Street Court is a source of concern. Smith asked where the provision was located in the Comprehensive Plan. Miklo said it is in the North District Area, which is an element of the plan. Freerks read from the plan, and noted the development meets most of the plan requirements. However, the plan could be reconfigured to place the bank differently. However, if it were moved, the traffic increase would not be high enough to warrant the developer paying to improve Dodge Street Court Koppes asked how many fewer parking spaces would be required with the new code. Miklo said it is difficult to speculate, but the plan would have to be redesigned to allow the bank to be shifted. Freerks asked if the decrease would be minimal, according to the memo. Freerks read from the memo, that some parking spaces or commercial flooring would be lost. Smith said he agrees that it is not an ideal plan, though the lot is very tight and does not allow very much flexibility. The street improvement is a benefit to both the City and the neighborhood. He is comfortable with a CZA that provides for egress only access limited to a financial institution. He does not see a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Freerks said she does see a conflict, and that 580 exiting vehicles is substantial. Smith noted that exiting onto Dodge Street Court would allow access to Dodge Street via an intersection, versus an uncontrolled driveway. That would increase safety. Anciaux asked if Dodge Street will extend further to the east. Miklo said no, there are limitations to development due to topography and sanitary sewer issues. Anciaux asked if Conklin Lane would extend through Hickory Hill Park. Miklo said there is some development potential in the area, but not a significant amount. Anciaux confirmed that additional traffic would not be collected except from the RS-8 zone. Freerks said the RS-8 traffic is not a concern, just the traffic that spills out from the bank. Koppes said she also is concerned with the traffic counts from the bank, but she is less concerned by a bank than other potential commercial uses. Freerks said she thinks the bank could be placed differently. Koppes noted it is not an easy space to develop. She said she likes the residential, as well as the mixed-use aspect. Smith said having traffic exit at an intersection is preferable. Koppes said the intersection is not controlled, though it could be in the future. She noted that an exit from the lot Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 6, 2005 Page 11 could also have a signal in the future. Smith said a traffic light at the driveway is unlikely. Smith said he would support a CZA under conditions of a bank only in that location, and with an exit only onto Dodge Street Court MOTION: Plahutnik moved to approve REZ05-00003 with the conditions of allowing only a bank drive-through in the location, and requiring an egress only driveway, as well as the other items already agreed upon for the CZA. Smith seconded, and asked what the appropriate term would be for a bank. Miklo said financial institution would be a broader term, and is the way it is addressed in the zoning ordinance. Miklo asked if Plahutnik would like to address storm water at this point. Plahutnik said no, water drainage for the lot has been addressed, and storm sewers will be taken care of on the street through the improvements done by the developer and the City. Behr asked if the CZA would address other concerns noted in the staff report. Miklo said staff would create a CZA referring to the concept plan and the verbiage of the staff report. Behr asked if that is consistent with the motion. Anciaux said yes. Koppes asked if screening on the residential property is included. Plahutnik said no. Holland said the only points the developer does not agree with are the off-site screening and draining the storm sewers off of Dodge Street Court. The other conditions mentioned in the June 16 staff report and the recent updates, as well as the points regarding the financial institution and driveway, are all agreeable. Smith said the second still stands. Koppes said she would not be supporting the motion, due to concerns with having a financial institution at the corner with two quick turns close to the exit. She likes the plan in general, just not the bank location. Freerks said she also would not support the motion because of the location of the bank. The plan is very good, but she is not convinced it is the best for the location. Residential across from the commercial with high traffic from the bank exit would not be blending or merging the two zones, as well as issues with safety. Smith said he would support because it is a Community Commercial Zone, which is intended for that zone level. Shannon said the traffic number for the bank surprises him, but this is a very good development in spite of the cars, and he will support it. Plahutnik said he would prefer not to have an exit onto Dodge Street Court, though having it close to the corner is helpful. He supports the motion. Anciaux said he also would prefer not to have an exit onto Dodge Street Court, and he would prefer the drainage issue be addressed better, but he will be supporting the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-2, Freerks and Koppes opposed. Anciaux noted again that the recommendation will next go to council, and concerns can be addressed again at that point. Miklo said the drive-through bank would require special exception from the Board of Adjustment as well. 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. Terdalkar said there is a correction in the description from 29-lots to 26-lots, due to revision of the plan. He said the request is for rezoning approximately 3.16 acres, located to the south of Melrose Avenue abutting Highway 218. The Southwest District Plan says this land is appropriate for low- medium density development. Major access for the subdivision will be from Melrose Avenue through Galway Drive, which will end in a cul-de-sac. Sidewalks will be on both sides of the street. Site includes sensitive areas, such as critical slopes and steep slopes, as well as wooded areas. Most are located in Outlot A, which will be reserved as private open space. A construction limit line has been included in the plat, restricting the construction area to protect sensitive areas as much as possible. Staff suggests including a landscape buffer for lots 1-9 to reduce visibility and possibly noise Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 6, 2005 Page 12 from the highway, but that is a suggestion, not a requirement. Staff recommends approval for both rezoning and subdivision. Koppes asked what sort of pipeline runs through the Outlot A. Terdalkar said it is a pipeline easement for hydrocarbon transportation incorporation. Koppes asked who would be responsible for the pipeline if the company abandons the project. Behr said it depends on the terms of the easement. Smith noted that in this case, compliance with other codes and regulations on removal and maintenance is required as well. Anciaux agreed this area is highly regulated. Smith said in these cases, the pipes are typically cleaned, capped, and plugged. Scott Pottorff, representing Dav-Ed Limited, said he is available to answer questions, but has no additional comments. Freerks asked whether a landscape buffer is planned. Pottorff said the developer agrees a buffer would make the lots more valuable, and that the developer has a plan in mind. Miklo said there have been cases during a rezoning where the City has required a buffer. However, since this is not a rezoning situation, the City cannot require it. Anciaux opened public discussion. Brad Ruhland, 41 Donegal Place, said his primary concern is that as few trees as possible be removed during the development. He has planted 20 trees on his lot, and an additional 22 in the outlot. He also would like care to be taken that the ravines are not filled. Freerks asked if Ruhland has spoken to the developer about his concerns. Ruhland said yes, and the developer said that would be fine. Miklo said the plat includes a construction limit line, and that no grading or clearing activity is planned in the ravine, except as necessary for the storm water facility. Anciaux closed public discussion. Anciaux asked if this needs to go to a second meeting before vote. Miklo said recently if the rezoning is straightforward and there is no controversy, they have been voted in one meeting. 4. MOTION: Koppes moved to subdivision REZ05-00008/SUB05-00012, 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. Smith seconded. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. 5. 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. Miklo introduced Jeff Banks, a graduate student in Urban & Regional Planning, who is an intern for the City. Banks reported the property is located south of Highway 6, and the design has three main buildings, all two floors. Building H is entirely residential, while buildings G and I are residential on the second floor. There is a lane behind the buildings with 79 parking spaces, including two one-story parking garages. Green space is planned in the central part of the development. There is an existing mature tree in the center of the planned green space, which the developer has agreed to retain. The zone across Heinz Road is multi-family, and includes two more mature trees the developer has agreed to retain by shifting the location of the parking garages. Staff feels that the institutional and recreational nature of the Saddlebrook Clubhouse located adjacent to this property is compatible with a mixed-use development. Koppes asked about the number of residential units in the area. Banks said the current number, 388, is approaching this threshold for secondary street access. Koppes asked how commercial space was considered in this case. Banks said Saddlebrook Meadows was platted in the southeast corner, which Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 6, 2005 Page 13 would provide secondary access. Koppes asked whether a traffic signal would be needed for a commercial development with access to Highway 6. Miklo said the commercial space is only 9000 square feet, and its customer base will likely either be surrounding development, or will be low-traffic uses such as offices. Also, the RFBH zoning was intended to serve the needs of the nearby mobile home court, so the current increase in traffic will not be significantly higher than what is allowable in the current zoning. Koppes said traffic on Highway 6 is always a problem because of motorists turning left. Miklo said it is an area of concern that is being monitored by the DOT and City. Anciaux asked when the south arterial route would be done. Miklo said it is hard to predict, since it is not on any capital improvements plan. It may be in place in 10 years, but there is no way to know for sure. Smith asked about the recommendation to expand pedestrian access in the west in the staff recommendation. Banks said the developer agreed to that recommendation and submitted revised drawings that included the sidewalks. Koppes asked for confirmation that there are manufactured homes right behind the proposed development. Miklo said there are storage and common facilities for the development in the southeast corner of Bon Aire, and Bon Aire could establish a sidewalk connection later if they so chose. Banks said staff recommends approval of rezoning and preliminary plans, subject to the conditions that the uses and signs be limited to those of the neighborhood commercial CN-1 zone, and preservation of existing trees wherever possible. Miklo noted that attempts will be made to save the trees, but it may not be possible given the construction activities. Koppes asked whether the manufactured home residents would be without screening if the trees were not saved. Miklo said screening is required by code, so the issue would be reexamined at the time of site plan review. Steve Gordon, with AM Management, said this is the last piece of the Saddlebrook parcel for development, which will be called the town center. The site plan has been a joint effort between staff and the developer, and is designed to fulfill the Comprehensive Plan, as well as serve the surrounding residential communities. Ample green space is allowed in the plan, to be inviting to pedestrians, and visually appealing to motorists. Parking is located on the sides and in the back; the buildings are compatible in size and design with the surrounding neighborhoods. The project includes 30 one- and two-bedroom condominium units, as well as 9000 square feet of commercial space. The location in the development creates a town center. The clubhouse is located to the south and is the main location of community events. Green space is provided between the town center and the clubhouse, to accommodate outdoor events. The commercial space will serve and be accessible to all members of the community. Regarding traffic concerns, improvement of Highway 6 out to Scott Blvd is planned for 2006, to increase to five lanes. Traffic studies conducted recently have not indicated a need for a traffic signal. Infrastructure for traffic signals will be put in place during the improvement, and it will be studied again after the improvements are completed. The total unit count is 416 with this development. Secondary access has been approved and is in planning stages. Also, there is a small buffer between Bon Aire and the Saddlebrook development, essentially a drainage ditch that takes water out to Highway 6, so the development would not directly abut each other. Anciaux asked for confirmation that all residents can use the clubhouse. Gordon said yes. Anciaux asked whether the manufactured housing residents would object to the development. Gordon said he met with them three times, and the main concern is losing the green space, though the area has always been intended for use rather than as a park or other open space. Koppes asked if there are plans to change zoning for the area south of Paddock Circle. Gordon said there are no plans at this time. Miklo noted that a City-initiated rezoning to PDH-12 to replace the RFBH Zone would be coming before the commission soon. There was no public discussion. MOTION: Freerks moved to approve REZ05-00009, an application submitted by The Stables, LLC for a rezoning from Factory-Build Housing Residential (RFBH) zone to Planned Development Housing- Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 6, 2005 Page 14 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. subject to the plan including the items outlined in the staff recommendations, including uses and signs limited to neighborhood commercial zone and preservation of existing trees as possible. Miklo suggested that rather than making a CZA, those would be added as notations on the plan prior to going before council. Freerks asked if that was acceptable to the developer. Gordon said yes. Plahutnik seconded. Freerks said it is a good plan, especially the plan to save the trees. Koppes said she likes the development, though she is concerned with traffic. However, improvements to Highway 6 will take care of that. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. D. Subdivision Item SUB05-00009/V AC05-00005 Discussion of an application submitted by James Davis for vacation of a portion of unimproved aide 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. Miklo said staff recommends approval of both the vacatión and subdivision. Subdivision approval recommendation is subject to vacation. Construction plans and legal papers should be approved prior to council consideration. Freerks asked if the limitation period has passed. Miklo said the date should be July 26. Koppes asked whether aide Oak Lane was just annexed, and if so, why is vacation necessary. Miklo said there is a question of right-of-way, so Iowa City needs to vacate it. Behr said when county property is annexed, the right-of-way is inherited. There was no public discussion. MOTION: Koppes moved to approve SUB05-00009NAC05-00005, an application submitted by James Davis for vacation of a portion of unimproved aide 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, as outlined in staff report. Shannon seconded. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. E. Other Items None. F. Consideration of the June 16, 2005 Meeting Minutes. Smith submitted a correction to page one of the minutes. In the recommendation to the council for V AC05-00004, he abstained due to a conflict of interest. The vote therefore should have been 5-0. Koppes asked if the minutes could be approved with incomplete statements, as on page 19. Miklo said he thinks it was a question, and is correct as is. MOTION: Koppes moved to approve the minutes as typed and amended. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. MOTION: Smith moved to accept correspondence. Koppes seconded. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. G. Adjournment MOTION: Koppes made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 pm. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. s:/pcd/minuteslP&ZI2005/07 -06-05.doc = o ... ~ ~ ... s s o U"O ~... = 0 ... CJ = a¡ o~ N a¡ ~ ~ ~~ ="0 ... = = a¡ =...... ~...... -< ~ þ ... U ~ ~ o 1-01 If) o o M \C~~ , , · ~ , ~ ~ ~~ r:=: 0 · , · · :::;!:8~ , , !:8~ , ~ , ~ ~ ;¡¡¡O , · 0 , · ~~!:8 , , , ~ , ~ ~ ~~ ;¡¡¡ 0 , , , , ¡¡:¡~~ , , !:8~ , ~ , ~ ~ , , 0 · · .... , , , !::! ~~ , ~o~ , ~ , , , , .., , , , !:::: , ~!:8~ , , ~~ , . ~ , , , , .., , 0 . , ~!:8~ , , , , ~~~ , ~ , ;';0 , , , , , , ~ , ~ , ~ ~ 0 ~~~ , , f') , ð , , · to- , ~ · ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ , ð · , · N , , ~ , , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ , ~ , N , , , , -= , I !::! ~ ~ 0 ~ ~~ , ~ , , .... , , ~ ~!:8 , , ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ , , , .... 0 , · '" § 1: '0 0 ~ 00 II"> to- O 00 '0 ~ ~ ~ ~ - QS2 '8 ;;;, -.. ~ >< II"> II"> II"> II"> II"> II"> II"> or) ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 .:0: = .. ·š = ~ ~ = : i = '" - ... ... = =.c '" = .;¡ ... ., .c =- e t = '" '" .- Ë = .c '" ~ .c e -< =:I U "" == 5: rJJrJJ os ~ =i =i < ¡..¡ ~ ~¡.; z ..; C) z ¡:: w w :E ~ < :E 0::: o LA. - - f- f- f- f') , , ~ ~~ , ~ , ~ ~ ~~ , , \C , , !::! , ~ , ~~ , ~~ · . ~ , '" · ð , 0 , · . , QC , , , .... ~~ , ~ O~ , ~ · ..... , , · .., , , · ~ , ~ ~!:8 , , ~~ , , ~ , .., , ð 0 , , , , , ;; !:8~ , ð~ , , , ~ , ~ , , . , f') 0 · , , QC , ~ , !::! ~ ~ 0 ~ ~~ , ð · , · N , , .., , ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ , ð , . , N , , ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ I .... U U U U U U uu , , '" to- 00 '0 § 1: '0 0 '0 00 II"> 0 ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Q '8 -.. -.. ~&1 II"> or) II"> II"> II"> II"> or) or) II"> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 .:0: .. Š = = ~ ~ = ~ = '" - ... ... = =.c '" = .¡; ... ., .c = - e ... = '" '" .- Ë = .c ... '" ~ 5: .c e -< =:I U "" == rJJrJJ os ~ =i =i < ¡..¡ ~ ~¡.; z ..; C) z ¡:: w w :E ~ < :E 0::: o LA. ~ "0 ... '" 8 ~ >< ''¡:::: -ë ~ ~ ~æ~:E ....D.c 0 ~«<z .. II II II II >. ~~ ~~oðz MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 21, 2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL DRAFT MEMBERS PRESENT: Beth Koppes, Don Anciaux, Bob Brooks, Dean Shannon, Ann Freerks, Terry Smith MEMBERS EXCUSED: Wally Plahutnik STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr, Karen Howard OTHERS PRESENT: Charles Eastham, Nila Houg, Dennis Nowotny, Greg Rockow, Stephen Trefz, John Logan, A. Pagliai, Debby Harapat, Sally Jablonski, Richard Vest RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, SUB05-00011, a preliminary plat of Resubdivision of North Airport Development, a 40.79-acre, 11-lot commercial subdivision located north of the Iowa City Airport along Ruppert Road. Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, SUB05-00016, a final plat of Olde Town Village, a 49-lot, 33.3-acre residential subdivision located south of Rochester Avenue, east of Scott Boulevard and north of Lower West Branch Road subject to Staff approval of construction drawings and legal papers prior to Council consideration. Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, VAC05-00006, vacation of alleys in Peninsula Neighborhood First Addition. CALL TO ORDER: Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING ITEMS: Howard said a number of factors were considered by staff when trying to determine what would be the most appropriate zoning designations for the areas of the city currently zoned CB-2. In the proposed zoning code the CB-2 Zone is proposed to be eliminated which means that any areas currently zoned CB-2 will have to be rezoned to something else appropriate. The factors considered were: 1) the mix of land uses in that exist today in the CB-2 areas; 2) the zones and land uses that surround the CB-2 areas; 3) the intensity of development and mix of land uses allowed in each of the proposed zones; 4) the intensity of development in existence today and the mix and intensity of development that is envisioned in the future for these areas. Staff used the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan for guidance. The intent is to acknowledge the existing land uses in those areas today and try to establish appropriate zoning that would Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2005 Page 2 of 17 accommodate the desired uses of property over time in a manner that would be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. Howard said there are a number of zoning districts proposed in the rezoning applications; staff has met with a number of the property owners since the initial information meeting that was held several months ago to explain what the various zones mean for future development or redevelopment of property in these areas. Howard gave a brief explanation of each zoning district being considered: Central Business Support Zone (CB-5): allows for the orderly expansion of the downtown Central Business District. Accommodates a mix of commercial mixes at a slightly lower intensity than what would be allowed downtown. The zoning code includes special building and site design standards due to the intensity of development allowed and the intended pedestrian orientation of the zone. Residential uses are only allowed on the upper floors of buildings, commercial uses required to be built on the ground level. CN-1 Zone, Neiqhborhood Commercial Zone. Intended to promote small scale retail sales and personal service uses in a neighborhood shopping area conveniently located to nearby residential areas. Intended to promote pedestrian-oriented development at an intensity level that is compatible with residential uses. Uses allowed include retail office, restaurants, bars personal service uses, theatres, other small commercial recreational uses, daycares and schools. Mixed Use Zone (MU), which is renamed in the proposed code from Residential Office Zone. This zone has been revised in the proposed code to allow a wider variety of commercial uses and residential uses in a manner that is compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods. This zone can be used to provide a transition from commercial and employment centers to less intensive residential zones. It is unique in that it allows residential or commercial uses on the ground floor of buildings, so is truly a mixed use zone. With a few exceptions, the uses allowed are similar to the CN-1 Zone. Hiqh-Densitv Multi-Familv Zone (RM-44). Intended for high density apartments close to city services and employment centers. Planned Hiqh-Densitv Multi-Familv Zone (PRM). Intended for high density apartments in proximity to the downtown and the University. Allows slightly higher level of residential density than the RM-44 zone. REZ05-00014, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Mixed Use (MU) Zone, High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) Zone, and Public (P) for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Jefferson Street and east of Gilbert Street. Smith recused himself stating a potential conflict of interest through his employment. Howard used an overhead map and power point presentation to identify the proposed zones within the CB-2 East area and Staff's rationale for each proposed zoning designation. CB-5 zoned areas would be contiguous to downtown and higher density/intensity public uses, was along major arterial streets, zoning would acknowledge and keep conforming the existing larger office uses such as the bank and allow New Pioneer Coop to expand in the future. Gas stations would be allowed in CB-5 zone. Planning and Zoning Commission July 21,2005 Page 3 of 17 Mixed Use zoned areas would be contiguous to a lower intensity residential area close to College Green Park. Current uses in this area are lower intensity office, mixed residential and retail. M/U Zone would acknowledge existing uses and keep them conforming. Regarding the property along Burlington Street where Hanson's Auto Body currently has their business. None of the proposed zones would allow auto repair so Hanson's would become a non-conforming use. The proposal is to rezone this property RM-44 similar to the surrounding zoning. Hanson's would be grandfathered in as a legal nonconforming use, and could continue as auto repair indefinitely or could be sold in the future to continue as an auto-body repair shop or to be redeveloped as a use allowed in the RM-44 Zone. If the property were ever re- developed, staff felt RM-44 zoning would be the best fit for that particular property as it is currently surrounded by RM-44 zoning. Howard stated that a number of property owners had discussed and were concerned about the potential change in the allowed density of residential development between the proposed zoning and the current density allowed in the CB-2 Zone. Staff has given consideration to this issue and feel it would be appropriate to increase the residential density from what was currently proposed in the draft Code (1 dwelling unit per 2725-square feet) to 1 dwelling unit per 1800- square feet which would be equivalent to what is allowed in the Medium-Density Multi-Family Residential zone. Public discussion was opened. Charles Eastham, President of the Board of the Trustees of the Unitarian Universalist Society of Iowa City, asked if the proposed changes would take effect whether or not the proposed Code revisions were adopted by Councilor not? Miklo said Staff had contemplated them based on the CB-2 zone going away. In the event that the CB-2 zone was retained in the new code, Staff thought it would be on case-by-case basis that the Commission and Council would decide if some of the areas would be more appropriately zoned something else even if the CB-2 zone were not eliminated. Howard said these rezonings would be deferred until the draft of the Zoning Code was forwarded to the City Council, so they could be considered by Council at the same time. None of the rezonings would occur before the new Zoning Code was adopted. Eastham asked Staff to outline the effect of changing the zoning designation of the property at 10 South Gilbert Street from CB-2 to CB-5 if the Society were to decide to remodel or to rebuild on their current property. What would be the effect if the Society were to decide to sell their property. Howard said the CB-5 zone was a higher density zone and higher intensity commercial zone than a CB-2 zone. The CB-5 zone allowed religious institutions. The effect for their existing use would basically be the same as it was today. If the Society decided to sell their property the CB-5 zone would allow slightly more development. Factors such as the size of the property might constrain its value more than the zoning would. Miklo said given the size of the property it would be difficulty to achieve the maximum allowed by either the CB-2 or CB-5. Nila HauQ, 517 E. Washington Street, owner properties in the 500 block of Washington Street. Houg said she was counting on selling her properties for her retirement after she was finished residing there. She had had a market analysis of the properties done, based on the present zoning and the potential use of the properties they were valued in excess of 2 million dollars. If the density of the units and the number of people allowed per unit was reduced per the proposed new zoning code, it would decrease the value of her properties by more than one-half. Haug said she felt that was unfair and it appeared to her that someone was trying to artificially control the supply and demand of available units in the downtown area for the benefit of a Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2005 Page 4 of 17 wealthy developer at the expense of smaller people who would like to develop their properties. She did not like to have the possibilities taken away by the proposed rezoning. Howard said residential density was controlled not only by the densities in the Zoning Code but also by the size of the property and how much room there was for parking. There were a lot of factors that went into how much density could actually be achieved on a piece of property. Haug said she was within 300-feet of a parking ramp so her parking requirements could be reduced by one-half according to the current zoning code. Miklo said that would be possible only if it were approved by the Board of Adjustment, it was not a given. Dennis Novotnv. 511 Washington Street, said he was taken aback by the staff memorandum regarding the allowed residential density in the MU zone. It appeared that Staff was attempting to look at some of the issues with respect to the lower density that they were proposing. He felt the densities should be looked at. Novotny said he felt there was a disjointed discussion in the memorandum between paragraph 3 compared to paragraph 4 with respect to the zones and allowed density in each zone. It would be a drastic reduction in density dropping the CB-2 properties to M/U and from the allowed 5 persons per unit to 3 persons per unit. He felt it should be at least as dense as the eastern half (RNC-20 zone) of Iowa City was, not 3 persons per unit. He felt the proposed graph of allowed densities was a disjointed curve and not a smooth transition and it needed to be straightened out more. Miklo said the density in the RNC-20 and RM-20 was the same as was being proposed for the Mixed Use zone of multi-family of one unit per 1800-square feet. For comparison, the RM-12 Zone was one unit per 2,725-square feet. Greq Rockow, said he drove these streets every day. When he had moved to Iowa City in 1975, downtown Iowa City had been Iowa Avenue on the north, Clinton Avenue on the west, Gilbert Street on the east and Burlington Street on the south. The proposed Zoning Code was grandfathering in certain uses and acknowledging uses. Rockow asked if anyone had ever considered just expanding the downtown all the way to Governor Street from Market Street and letting the people that had the money develop it. There were already existing properties with bedrooms above the commercial and offices uses there now. Expand the downtown. Rockow said he felt they would again be in the same situation in 3 or 4 years because someone wanted a different zoning or wanted to put commercial in a residential zone. Rockow asked if anyone had given any serious consideration to letting the town grow, to letting the central business district (CBD) grow. There were tons of people who wanted to get into the CBD in some way, shape or form. It was very restricted as to what could be done with a little piece of zoning here and a little piece of different zoning there. He suggested opening it up and letting the people with money come in and buy it up. Rockow said it would not happen overnight, it would be a long process. No one had ever talked about expanding. The discussions had always been about going piece by piece, lot by lot, block by block. Miklo said a number of years ago the Comprehensive Plan had included a study of the downtown and what was appropriate with regard to expanding the central business district. The area south of Burlington Street was studied as a suitable area for the expansion of the downtown in the future. The areas to the east and north were designated for more controlled growth because of the historic districts in those areas and the mix of existing residential in those areas. Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2005 Page 5 of 17 Stephen Trefz, representing three properties owners in the area of College and Van Buren Streets; also the Executive Director of the Community Mental Health Center (CMHC), a not-for - profit agency that owns 4 buildings on the corner of College and Van Buren Streets. Trefz read a letter from Mark Holtkamp, co-owner of a property at 506 E. College Street. In his letter Holtkamp said · He felt the rezoning would decrease the value of their property by limiting any possible redevelopment due to allowable density of the new code designation. · He did not understand the criteria used to determine which properties were selected to be "up zoned" to CB-5 instead of Mixed Use. · He requested the Commission to keep the CB-2 zone and consider rezoning areas further from downtown Mixed Use. · Alternatively, he requested to have their property rezoned to CB-5. Trefz also read a letter he had written. Main points of his letter included: . the CMHC opposed the rezoning as a property owner for a number of reasons · the CMHC was confused by the implementation of the new rezoning . felt they would be book-ended by properties proposed to be rezoned to CB-5 · the CMHC preferred to keep their properties zoned as CB-2, but if the change was to be made, to have all the properties along Van Buren rezoned to CB-5 zone Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to defer REZ05-00014, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Mixed Use (MU) Zone, High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) Zone, and Public (P) for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Jefferson Street and east of Gilbert Street. Koppes seconded the motion. Anciaux said he thought the citizens who had spoken were voicing their preference to be rezoned to CB-5. He requested Staff to provide some reasons why areas had been designated for rezoning to M/U instead of CB-5. Freerks said she felt it was pretty complicated. They were looking at transition, the neighbors all the way down the block had to be looked at as well as the historic properties which sometimes complicated matters in terms of redevelopment. She felt the Commission needed to look carefully at the rezonings. She agreed it was in pieces and parts, but did not feel that the rezoning could be done on a big scale. She didn't feel rezoning everything to CB-5 would fit with the Comprehensive Plan and what the Commission had in mind for the community. The Community had looked at the Comprehensive Plan carefully in creating it the current zoning. Brooks said he felt there had been some good input and rather broad statements. He was troubled by Holtcamp's statement regarding the number of allowed occupants would be decreased and therefore rental permits would become non-compliant after passing of the proposed Code. Howard said in the proposed zoning code, all existing rental permit occupancies would be grandfathered; the occupancy would be allowed that was on the rental permit now; no existing rental units would be affected by the decrease in the allowed occupancy in the new code. Brooks said he'd like to see the Commission take all the comments and put forth good detailed answers so there would be a good clear understanding of what was going on and why it was being proposed. Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2005 Page 6 of 17 Shannon said he'd like the see the Commission work through the proposed rezoning(s) because he did not want to see the property owners lose their equity in their property. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZ05-00015, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) Zone and Mixed Use (MU) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Davenport Street and north of Jefferson Street. Howard used an overhead map and power point presentation to identify the proposed zones within the North CB-2 area referred to in the Comprehensive Plan as the North Market Place and Staff's rationale for each proposed zoning designation. This area is a fairly well established small commercial area that contained a variety of restaurants, small retail shops, gift and antique shops, offices, a City public parking lot, and grocery store. Staff had proposed the CN-1 zoning because the area was currently functioning as a successful neighborhood commercial area. The CN-1 zone would allow all uses that were currently in existence to remain as conforming uses and would allow properties to redevelop in the future and change uses over time to a variety of commercial. The CN-1 zone would also allow residential above commercial uses. Howard again referred to the memo regarding allowed residential density and stated that staff feels it would be appropriate to change the allowed density in the proposed Zoning Code back to 1 unit per 1800-square feet in the CN- 1 Zone. Howard stated that there has been some consternation on the part of property owners when they compared the maximum allowed intensity in the CB-2 Zone, with its 100-foot height limit and maximum residential density of 1 dwelling unit per 875 square feet, to the proposed rezoning to CN-1 or MU. She pointed out that these areas have been zoned CB-2 for many, many years. The constraining factor in many areas close to downtown was not necessarily the zoning but the nature of the properties themselves. The properties were platted and developed at a time before there were parking requirements in the Code, very few of the properties had any off-street parking, so they were grandfathered in at their current intensity of commercial use without any off-street parking provided. However, if someone were to tear down a building in the current CB-2 area, they would be required to put in the parking that was required. It would be the same parking that was required in all the commercial areas except the downtown area because the City provided the majority of short-term parking downtown. New buildings would have to have commercial on the ground floor with residential above with parking for both the commercial and residential uses. In other words the amount of parking required prevents a property owner from achieving the maximum density allowed in the CB-2 Zone. There are no 100-foot tall buildings in the CB-2 Zone even though the zoning allows it. The scale of the existing development, size of the buildings, and the mix of uses more closely matches what is allowed in the CN-1 Zone. The Mixed Use zone is similar to the CN-1 zoning in that it allowed similar types of uses. In addition, the M/U zone allows residential uses on the ground floor of buildings. The M/U zone would make the existing auto repair / gasoline station nonconforming, but it would be allowed to continue legally for as long as the property owner wished to operate the business. Smith asked if the auto repair / gasoline station was conforming under the current CB-2 zoning. Howard said she was not sure with regard to all the requirements that the City had for gasoline stations and fire codes, etc. because it had been developed so long ago. If the current owner Planning and Zoning Commission July 21,2005 Page 7 of 17 decided to make some changes to his property, he would have to meet all those codes as well. As far as zoning, the CB-2 zone does allow auto repair shops and gas stations. A CN-1 zone would allow gasoline stations but not auto-repair shops. A CB-5 zone would allow gas stations in the proposed code but it does not allow them under the current code. The M/U zone acknowledges the existing residential uses while the CN-1 zone would only allow residential uses above commercial uses. With regard to a question about existing residential uses and whether they would become conforming with a rezoning to MU, Howard responded that it depends on the current number of apartments on the property. Because properties in the older parts of town have been rezoned a number of times over the years, there are a large number of properties that have more apartments in them than would be allowed under: current zoning designations. These properties are legally nonconforming with regard to density and would remain so if rezoned to MU. Miklo said the M/U zoning also gives a property owner the option of redeveloping or building new residential on the ground floor. Howard explained that the properties proposed for CB-5 zoning at the corner of Dubuque Street and Market have a number of uses and are located at the corner of two major arterial streets. They are adjacent to a PRM zone, the City's highest density multi-family zone and to the south adjacent to an existing CB-5 zone. Staff felt that rezoning to CB-5 would keep the uses conforming, allow some redevelopment in the future even beyond what was there now provided that the required parking could be provided and would also acknowledge and keep conforming the existing uses. The existing office building located on Market Street is larger than what would be allowed in a neighborhood commercial zone, so CB-5 zoning would be more appropriate. These properties are also contiguous to an existing CB-5 zone so it would not be a spot zoning. Two multi-family buildings that are currently non-conforming due to density and to having residential on the first floor would remain legally non-conforming if rezoned to M/U, but would be closer to conformance because the M/U zoning allows residential uses on the ground level. As a public use, the City parking lot needs to be rezoned to P, public. Public discussion was opened. John Loqan, owner of gas station located at 305 N. Gilbert Street. Logan said his concern was that if his property was zoned M/U, per Table 2C-1, permitted uses included detached single family dwellings, general office, medical/dental, the rest would be provisional or special exception. It had been said that the existing restaurant, gas station, etc would be grandfathered in, but the gas station had been there for over 60-years, Pagliai's Pizza had been there for over 30-years, the parking lot which prohibited commercial parking was also located there. He felt mixed use would throw the neighborhood mix off. His gas station would be non-conforming no matter what. Logan said to him, at the least, it would make more sense to rezone the area to CN-1 which would still be consistent with Staffs reasoning. Logan said he had a second concern in that he had a commitment to the community to perform services. Logan said under the M/U zoning he was worried about property values if someday he wished to do something different. Under M/U zoning he could not expand, upgrade his pumps, move things around, change the exterior of the building or square it off so it was not so obviously a mid-1960's vintage gas station so it would look more historical in the area. Logan said he had done a remediation last year and had taken out a lot of contaminated soil from 50-years ago. He didn't have to do that, but opted to do it to be a good member of the community. Planning and Zoning Commission July 21,2005 Page 8 of 17 Freerks asked Howard to discuss what were allowed versus provisional uses and how the approval process worked. Howard said permitted uses and provisional uses were allowed by right as long as the applicant met the provisions of the Code. Provisional uses and permitted uses were very similar. Provisional uses had some extra provisions that had to be cross- referenced in a different part of the Code for ease of use of the Code. A provisional use does not require a special approval process or a public hearing. Special exceptions would require going to the Board of Adjustment, existing uses that were there now would not have to go to the Board of Adjustment. They would be grandfathered in as an existing use. In the future if they would expand or wish to do something different, the property owner might have to go to the Board of Adjustment for approval of an expansion. Koppes said if a property owner wished to remodel a building that was non-conforming could it be done if the footprint was not changed? Howard said yes, remodeling, interior remodeling, exterior cosmetic changes, changes to signs, updating the exterior appearance of a building would all be allowed. What was not allowed with a non-conforming use would be to expand the area of the non-conforming use. Koppes asked if a business owner wanted to square off a building, then they could not do so. Howard said if building area would increase the occupancy load of a building then "squaring it off' would not be allowed. If the desired changes did not increase the occupancy load of the building, then the changes might be allowed. Marvin Pagliai, owner of A&A Pagliai's Pizza and the parking lot immediately across the street. Pagliai said he felt the rezoning would handicap what they had been saving and working for for the last 30-years by going from CB-2 to a new zoning and altering the allowable square footages. Their future plans had been to build a restaurant with apartments above. He knew they would have to provide the parking, it would be expensive but feasible to place parking underground. Pagliai said he'd been paying on the lot for 35-years and $12,000 annually for property taxes. Before he even got the chance to develop it the City was going to take away approximately Y:z of the area he could put apartments on. Dennis Nowotny, said he had an interest in a property that was adjacent to the west CB-5 area. He asked to have the logic explained. He felt those properties should be upzoned but it was adjacent to an RNC-12 area that he was in. Nowotny said the logic should be apparent someway or another. Why was it all of a sudden the City could upzone adjacent to a residential single-family zone area and then in other areas you could not. He would like to see some conformity and some logic as to why you could upzone in one area right next to an essentially low density area and why you could not at least maintain in another area such as the CB-2 area that had been discussed earlier. Nowotny said a second issue was the public parking lot area. He felt some issues were clouding other issues and that the public parking area should make some of the M/U areas as a CB-2 area conforming to some extent. Since they were within 300 feet of the M/U area, they should be able to take some credit for some of the parking requirements. Miklo said the reference to being within 300 feet of a city parking facility would guarantee some waiver of the parking requirements had been mentioned several times. There was a special exception that would allow that to be considered however it was based on whether there was capacity in those lots or not. At this point there was not capacity in those city facilities (the city parking lot in the area contains only 50 spaces) and it is in an area where there were parking problems and parking issues. Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2005 Page 9 of 17 Anciaux asked if there was excess capacity in a lot, could a land owner rent spaces? He thought James Clark had rented space in the Burlington Street ramp to make up his parking deficit in that area. Miklo said they could apply for a special exception and the space had to be available. Howard said it depended on the parking ramp, the location and what those parking spaces had been allotted for. It was a case-by-case basis. Each property owner would need to talk with the City Parking Manager to find out what the capacity was and whether there was space available to meet part of their parking requirement. Howard said the parking facilities were metered lots, the user would pay the fee to use the parking facility. Smith asked what the zoning of the area immediately to the north of the area they were discussing. Howard said it was RNC-12, a single-family residential zone. The area had been up-zoned and subsequently down-zoned over the years so there is currently quite a mix of lower scale residential in that area. Freerks asked if the M/U zoning would not create as many non-conformities in terms of the residential structures that the other zones would have the potential to create. Howard said it would have to be examined on a property-by-property basis looking at the rental permits to see how many units were are currently granfathered on the property. Many of the properties have not redeveloped over the years because they have already developed at a level higher than what the current zoning would allow. There was no incentive to redevelop. Howard said the point raised by Mr. Logan was true. There was some transition going on in this area, Mercy Hospital had already purchased one of the properties and the owner of an existing single family property had submitted a letter stating that his preference would be a rezoning to CN-1 or CB-5. If persons in this area had existing residential properties and wished to speculate on CN-1 redevelopment over time rather than the MU Zone, staff felt that would be reasonable to consider. What Staff had looked at was bringing the properties closer to conformance, but if property owners were not concerned about that, it could be the case that CN-1 could be acceptable in the north part of this rezoning area along Bloomington Street as well. Howard said with respect to the question raised by Mr. Pagliai and the idea of provisional versus permitted, the provisions for a restaurant in a CN-1, M/U and the CO-1 zone allow restaurants - the provision was the occupancy load could not exceed 100. Miklo said the Board of Adjustment could approve a higher occupancy, up to 125 by special exception. The biggest factor again is whether a property has enough land to provide space for the required parking if it was expanded. Restaurants generate a high demand for parking and therefore have a higher parking requirements than many other uses. Pagliai compared his property to the three lots combined that contained the law office, the Laundromat, the Dairy Queen and the Handi-Mart that were proposed for CB-5 Zoning. He has a large undeveloped lot proposed for M/U. He felt the rezoning would have the biggest effect on his property rather than any other property in the area that was already developed. The law offices were located on an arterial street and proposed to be rezoned to CB-5. When he compared the size of his lot to that lot, he felt they were being handicapped on what they could put above a potential future restaurant. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to defer REZ05-00015, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) Zone and Mixed Use (MU) Zone for all Planning and Zoning Commission July 21,2005 Page100f17 property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Davenport Street and north of Jefferson Street. Freerks seconded the motion. Anciaux said as Staff and the Commission discussed each proposed rezoning, he was sure that previously un-raised questions were being brought up to the members of the public in attendance. He encouraged the citizens to talk to City Staff and to bring any concerns to them and to establish good communications with them. Anciaux suggested also having discussions with their neighbors regarding what zoning they wanted as well as persons way down the block. Freerks said it was important for the citizens to thoroughly understand the changes. Sometimes there was misinformation floating around; she encouraged everyone to talk with Staff and to look carefully over the information that they had. Sometimes what it appeared to a property owner that they could do and what could actually be done were very different. Smith requested Staff to provide a tool which contrasted what existed in the Code today with the current CB-2 zoning versus the 3 new proposed zones with all the specifics laid out so all the impacts or change would be. Howard said the biggest controlling factor would be the parking and how much space would be needed for required parking. Brooks said he felt parking and density issues would be the two key issues which would influence the future of said properties. Also what people had invested in them and what they were expecting. Koppes said she would also like to see the occupancy for the restaurant - what they currently could do and what they do in each of the 3 proposed zones. Howard said there was no limit in the CB-2 other than the constraints of the site with regard to the ability to provide the required parking. CB-5 also has no limit on the size of a restaurant. In the CB-2 Zone, for a restaurant one parking space was required for every 150-square feet of floor area. The motion to defer was passed on a vote of 6-0. REZ05-00016, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone and Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) Zone for all property currently zoned CB- 2 located south of Burlington Street and west of Linn Street. Howard used an overhead map and power point presentation to identify the proposed zones within the South CB-2 area and Staff's rationale for each proposed zoning designation. These are remnant pieces of CB-2 zoning located in the area south of downtown. There have been a number of rezonings over the last few years mainly to multi-family residential, primarily to PRM zoning. These properties represented the left-over remaining CB-2 zoned properties in the area. The Comprehensive Plan addresses this area extensively. This area is intended to be for the expansion of the downtown to provide areas for high density multi-family to support the University in the downtown area. There were also a number of government properties and City owned property in the area. The gasoline station at the corner of Madison and Burlington would remain conforming with CB- 5 zoning; the auto repair shop would become non-conforming but would be grandfathered as a legal use. A PRM zone for properties along Capitol and Clinton Streets would allow additional redevelopment in the future for higher density multi-family as specified in the Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2005 Page 11 of 17 Plan. The CB-5 zoning for the property on S. Dubuque Street would acknowledge a fairly new office building that would become non-conforming if it were rezoned to something else. Public discussion was opened. Debbv Harapat, 316 S. Madison Street, asked why the Kum & Go store on the corner of Madison and Burlington Streets would remain conforming and their auto repair service would become non-confirming. A gasoline station and an auto repair service were basically the same. Harapat asked if their business wished to expand such as putting an area out front for an office, would that require a special exception but if the Kum & Go store wished to build on they could do so because they were a conforming use. Howard said any expansion would have to meet the requirements of the Code. If a use was non-conforming there would be some restrictions in the Code as to what changes could be made. Harapat asked why the decision had been made that the Kum & Go store was conforming and their business was not. The businesses were almost located right beside each other. Howard and Miklo said there was a distinction in the Zoning Code between auto repair shops and gasoline stations. Gas stations were considered quick vehicle servicing in that vehicles came and went very quickly, they did not remain on the site. An auto repair shop tended to need more parking and vehicle storage areas, more outdoor work areas. Smith asked if auto repair was a conforming use in a CB-2 zone today. Howard said yes. Novotny said he'd like to continue the discussion as to why two businesses, one where the cars stopped for repair for a length of time and the others didn't stop long enough so that the uses were considered conforming or non-conforming. Gas stations in the past used to be repair shops. Novotny said there was way too much control over a minuscule aspect of whether or not one business was one type of stopping or not or whether vehicles were there long enough or not. They were retail businesses, they should be considered the same with no type of distinction between the two. It was cutting hairs. Novotny urged the Commission to consider those types of hair splitting instances which seemed to be occurring in all sorts of places. Novotny said they were all local residents and wished to have their businesses treated equally and fairly. They didn't like to see hair splitting decisions made here, there and everywhere. He'd heard of instances when a business had been out of business for 6 months and then they had to get a re-use permit. Novotny said he didn't like to see those types of things being spouted by persons who were supposed making policy decisions. It was not the type of thing they should have to be guarding their backs against all the time, wondering if you were going to be stabbed in the back by the City. That was not the sort of thing property and business owners wanted to hear from their city. Mikl.o said auto service, such as purchasing gasoline, was a fairly quick process. Auto repair could be mechanical repair or auto body repair where there was a need for storage on the site, possibly noise associated with the activity of auto body repair and the need for storage for tires and/or damaged vehicles. There was a difference in appearance and how it might relate to the surrounding neighborhood. That was why there was a distinction in the zoning code. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to defer REZ05-00016, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone and Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) Zone for all Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2005 Page 12 of 17 property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Burlington Street and west of Linn Street. Freerks seconded the motion. Koppes asked what would a gas station that had a repair shop attached to it be classified as. Miklo said auto repair. Howard said a use such as Mr. Logan's would be considered two different uses on the site. The requirements for both would have to be met. For example, a gas station that had a convenience store, auto repair and gasoline station on the site - each would have their own impact on the site and the surrounding properties and may have different requirements depending on the zone and the location of the property. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. REZ05-00017, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-12) for all properties currently zoned RFBH, including Saddlebrook, Bon-Aire, Hilltop, Baculis, Forrest View, Michael F Camp Properties and Thatcher Mobile Home Parks. Miklo said there was a mistake on the map that had been included in the information packet. The property on Prairie Du Chien Road was not owned by Michael F. Camp, it was owned by someone else. Miklo said currently the Zoning Ordinance required that manufactured housing parks be zoned RFBH. It also required that any development in that zone submit a site plan for approval by the Commission and the Council similar to a subdivision plan. The density would be approximately the same as an RS-12 zone, high density single-family zone. Staff had been asked to eliminate redundant zones in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff felt the RFBH zone could be eliminated as it was very similar in density to the RS-12 zone and very similar in process to the OPDH, the overlay planned development housing zone. Combining the planned development housing with the RS-12 zone and applying it to the existing RFBH zones, would treat them similar to what they were under the existing RFBH zone. Miklo said Staff saw this as a lateral move as it would not affect the existing mobile home parks in any great way. If an addition or additional land was proposed to be added to these manu- factured housing parks it would require an OPDH rezoning. To reconfigure the lots in a great way and more units would also require a review by the Commission and the Council. Currently other than some vacant land associated with Saddlebrook Mobile Home Park, any of the others parks would also require rezoning to expand. They were pretty much fully developed. Anciaux asked if a property owner could currently take an OPDH-12 zoned property and construct a manufactured home park there. Miklo said no, in order to do that there would have to be an approved OPDH-12 plan showing manufactured housing. Koppes asked if a person wished to construct condominiums on a currently zoned OPDH-12 parcel that had been approved for manufactured homes, would there also have to be a Commission and Council approved OPDH-12 plan. Miklo said that was correct. Public discussion was opened. Rockow asked for a clarification regarding if a new mobile home park was proposed would each lot have to be delineated as if it were a condominium unit? He thought the Code had compared leased lots to condominiums. Condominium units had air rights and through the association also had vested rights in the land. Miklo said the Code had indicated that it was a similar Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2005 Page 13 of 17 process in that a development would be broken down into smaller units. In the case of a manufactured home park they could be either condominium lots or leased lots. Rockow said the Code said in this zone the size of the lots could be reduced if the home had access to an alley. He couldn't imagine a manufactured home lot, especially with double wide units having alleys in it. He also said that the Code requires a common parking area for Manufactured Housing Parks, and he did not think that was a good idea. Miklo said there was no reference to alleys in the manufactured home section. In terms of parking, 2 spaces would be required for each unit, one had to be on the leased lot and for the other the developer had the option of providing a common lot somewhere else within the park. Both parking spaces could also be located on the leased lot. Howard said the Planned Development was a process. In the new planned development chapter there was a number of things a person could go through a planned development to achieve. One of those things was to achieve a manufactured housing park. To achieve a manufactured housing park you'd go through the planned development process. In a manufactured housing park today the density was similar to a single family zone that would allow 12-units per acre. Motion: Koppes made a motion to defer REZ05-00017, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-12) for all properties currently zoned RFBH, including Saddlebrook, Bon-Aire, Hilltop, Baculis, Forrest View, Michael F Camp Properties and Thatcher Mobile Home Parks. Anciaux seconded the motion. Koppes asked if there were any current RFBH's that were more than the RS-12 type density. Miklo said he was not sure, some of the older ones might be and were grandfathered in. Koppes asked if a lot renter could pull their old manufactured home out and replace it with a new one. Miklo said that would be permissible. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Chairperson Brooks, on behalf of the Commission, requested to have Staff Report and Public Comment on items REZ05-00010 through REZ05- 00013 combined. REZ05-00010, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Longfellow Place within the Longfellow Manor Subdivision. Miklo said currently the RS-8 zone was a medium density single-family residential zone that allowed single-family homes and duplexes on lots that were 8700-square feet or larger. The proposed amendment to the Code would allow duplexes on corner lots in the RS-8 zone but not on interior lots. A few recent subdivisions had been approved that were designed for zero-lot lines or duplexes on some of the interior lots. These proposals were to rezone those areas to RS-12 so that the few vacant lots within those subdivisions could continue to be developed with duplexes. For the Longfellow Manor area the lots were configured with one unit facing the public street and one unit facing the alley, the change to RS-12 would still not accommodate duplexes on those remaining lots. Therefore Staff recommended that those lots be zoned OPDH-8 which would allow that configuration to occur. In the Longfellow Manor area it would be a lateral move, it would not change what was built there in terms of density or configuration. There were also several southern lots that could potentially be joined together and slightly increase the Planning and Zoning Commission July 21,2005 Page 14 of 17 density by building townhouses which were allowed in the RS-12 zone. The OPDH-8 designation would restrict the ability to increase the density with a townhouse development without going back before the Commission. REZ05-00011, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Dodge Street Court within the Jacob Ricord's Subdivision. This area, developed in the early 1990's, had a total of seven lots. All except two had been developed with duplexes. Staff proposed rezoning to RS-12 to allow development with duplexes. REZ05-00012, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for a property located on Catskill Court within the East Hill Subdivision. This area was platted in the early to mid 1990's with 36 lots. All but two of them had been developed with duplexes. In order to allow the last two vacant lots to be developed with duplexes Staff proposed to rezone the East Hill Subdivision to RS-12, a high-density single family zone. The properties directly to the east on Dover Street were already zoned RS-12 so this would be compatible with adjacent existing zoning. REZ05-00013, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located south and east of Whispering Meadows Drive within the Whispering Meadows Subdivision. This area had been platted for zero-lot lines where the dwelling units would be joined at the lot line. The proposed RS-12 zoning would acknowledge those vacant lots and allow them to be developed with zero-lot line units. Koppes asked if they had all been developed under RS-8 originally and why would they not be rezoned to OPDH-8. Miklo said that would be a possibility but the OPDH zone generally required a specific plan. These areas were already mostly developed areas. Public discussion was opened. Charles Eastham, president of the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship. The Fellowship owned approximately 10 lots in the Longfellow Manor. Eastham said during staff report the one apartment-type building located on Longfellow Place had not been mentioned. Miklo said it had been approved by special exception. By arrangement, if all the occupants were older than age 55 they could live as a community with more units than typical. Eastham said there were some vacant lots interspersed with existing housing that was still vacant, but they were owned both by the Housing Fellowship and the Housing Authority. Miklo said if there was one lot intervening they would propose zoning it to OPDH-8. Sallv Jablonski, owned the middle lot of the 5 lots, there were 4 undeveloped lots left. She asked if the zoning were changed, would it be correct that still nothing could be built there but zero-lot line duplex structures. Miklo said that was correct. Jablonski asked if it could be an apartment building. Miklo said it could not. Public discussion was closed. Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2005 Page 15 of 17 Motion: Freerks made a motion to defer items: REZ05-00010, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Longfellow Place within the Longfellow Manor Subdivision. REZ05-00011, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Dodge Street Court within the Jacob Ricord's Subdivision. REZ05-00012, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for a property located on Catskill Court within the East Hill Subdivision. REZ05-00013, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located south and east of Whispering Meadows Drive within the Whispering Meadows Subdivision. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: SUB05-00011, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a preliminary plat of Resubdivision of North Airport Development and North Airport Development Part Two, a 40.79 acre, 11-lot commercial subdivision located north of the Iowa City Airport. Miklo said Staff recommended approval of this preliminary plat. He distributed a copy of the site plan for Wal-Mart which was still subject to change. Public discussion was opened. Richard Vest, 2050 Holiday Road, asked if the property was part of the city. Miklo said that was correct. Vest asked what were the building height restrictions for that area. Miklo said FAA restrictions would apply but he believed it was 35-feet. Vest asked which lots were proposed for WalMart. Miklo said lots 1 and 2; the road would be removed from lot 1. For the remainder of Ruppert Road, which would be renamed to Westport, there was an option of leaving it as a cul- de-sac or having it go to the north. There was also a possibility that one or two owners would purchase a grouping of lots and then the road could be abandoned. Vest asked if the remaining lots would still be owned by the Airport. Miklo said that was correct, but that they were for sale. Brooks asked for updates on a traffic study or changes that might take place along Riverside Drive. Miklo said there was a considerable amount of work associated with the adjacent streets. Behr said most of the attention right now was on the Ruppert Road / Highway intersection. There was discussion regarding Riverside Drive, but that was not considered imminent yet. A traffic study was being done, 'they' had committed to doing a turn lane at that intersection, to contributing $100,000 toward what ever off-site improvements were deemed necessary and to paying for the reconstruction of Ruppert Road. Public hearing was closed. Motion: Koppes made a motion or approve SUB05-00011. Smith seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2005 Page 16 of 17 The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. SUB05-00016, discussion of an application submitted by Three Bulls, LLC, for a final plat of Olde Towne Village, a 49-lot, 33.3-acre residential subdivision located south of Rochester Avenue, east of Scott Boulevard and north of Lower West Branch Road. Miklo said the plat was in order, Staff recommended approval of the final plat subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration. A copy of the concept plan for the commercial development was distributed. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux moved to approve SUB05-00016. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. VACATION ITEM: Smith recused himself stating a possible conflict of interest through his employment. V AC05-00006, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for vacation of alleys in Peninsula Neighborhood First Addition. Miklo said Staff recommended approval of the vacation. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve V AC05-00006. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 27.2005 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Smith made a motion to approve the Minutes as typed and corrected. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. OTHER ITEMS: Anciuax said he would be absent from the August 4, 2005 meeting. It was noted that Plahutnik would also be absent ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Freerks made a motion to adjourn. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Planning and Zoning Commission July 21,2005 Page 17 of 17 The meeting was adjourned at 9:41 pm. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill sIpcd/minutes/p&z/2005/0 7-21-05. doc = Q .... ~ ~ .... s S Q U"CS 1:)1)- = Q .... CJ = ~ Q~ N~'I'ì ~~g I:)1)~N ="CS .... = = ~ =.... ~.... -< ~ ~ .... U ~ ~ Q ~ - , , ~ ~X x , x 0 x Ô XX 0 0 r-- 0 0 ~X f::! , 0 , X , X XXX 0 0 , 0 0 r--~ , , xf::!x N ~ X , X , X ~O , , , , 0 \Ø ~ , , ~X Ô , x , x XXX , , \Ø , , ~X , f::!x x , x XX , 0 0 0 0 - , 0 , ~X x , x OX , X , I , 0 .., , 0 ~X , f::!x , 0 X , X , X 0 , , , 0 0 , , !::f::! 0 , I X 0 X XX , x MO 0 0 , 0 0 , ~X 0 ~ , XO x XX 0 , 0 Ô 0 0 0 r-- , ~ , ~X XX X XX 0 Ô , N I ¡;:¡X 0 0 XX XX X 0 X 0 , 0 , 0 Q , 0 s>< XO XXX , X 0 , 0 , , ~><: ~ 0 , XX XX Ô , X , I , , '" §.~ \00 \0 00 '" I"- 000 \0 e~ Qe ee -0 !;:: ~ ~ ~ >< '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" ~ 00 00 00 00 0 ..:.c >< '- C = Zi... Zi c ~ .s ! .. .. .. = = .c '¡¡ = .- ~ ~ .c .. ... Ë ~ e~ .. .. ~ .!.c 'ë =v '"'= ¡:¡'r;n r;n .. . == <..; ¡..¡ ~¡:¡ ¡..; Z~ C) z ¡:: w w :æ .J « :æ 0:: o u. '-" ,-- - f- f- r- - QC - t::: f') 0 , ~xx 0 X , XX XX 0 0 \Ø 0 0 ~xx 0 f::! 0 f::!x 0 , 0 X 0 , 0 , , 0 , 0 , QC I , ~xx xox X , 0 I .., 0 ~xx I f::!xf::! , X , 0 0 , 0 o 0 0 0 ~f::!x , xðx , 0 , X MO 0 I , 0 0 QC 0 ~ I ~X XO XXX 0 0 Ô . N 0 0 .., If::! . ~X XX XXX , , 0 I , ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ I -U UU UU UU U 0 0 § ~ ;ßS \0 00 '" 1"-0 00 \0 '13 ~ ~ ee !;:: e~ !;:: !;:: ~&1 '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 00 00 0 00 0 0 ..:.c >< .- = = Zi... Zi = i s = .. t ~ = = .c .¡¡ = .- .c .. ... .., = e~ .. .. ~ .!.c 'ë E< =v '"'= ¡:¡.r;n r;n "" . == <..; ¡..¡ ~¡:¡ ¡..; Z~ C) Z ¡:: W w :æ .J « :æ 0:: o u. ~ 'E '" a gf >< .~ -cf& ~ ~g¡~:E ~.c ..0 0 ¡¡:;<C<Z .. II II II II » ~~ ~XOÔZ