The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-02-2006 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, February 2,2006 -7:30 PM Formal Meeting City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Election of Officers C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda D. Development Items: 1. SUB05-00032: Discussion of an application submitted by Dav-Ed Limited for a final plat of Galway Hills Part Four, a 24-lot, 10.41 acre residential subdivision located on Galway Drive. (45-day limitation period: February 27,2006) 2. SUB06-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Kevin Parrott for a final plat of Parrott Estate Addition, a 2-lot, 17.95 acre residential subdivision located on Conklin Lane. (45-day limitation period: February 27,2006) E. Other Items F. Consideration of the January 19, 2006 Meeting Minutes G. Adjournment Informal Formal 5T AFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Sunil Terdalkar Item: SUB05-00032 - Galway Hills Subdivision Part Four Date: February 2, 2005 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Dav-Ed Limited 18 Donegal Place Iowa City, IA 52245 (319) 337-4818 Contact Person: Scott Pottorff MMS Consultants, Inc. 1917 South Gilbert Street Iowa City IA 52241 Phone: (319) 351-8282 Requested Action: Subdivision Final Plat Purpose: Development of a 24-lot residential subdivision Location: South of Melrose Avenue on Galway Drive Size: Approximately 10.41 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: OPD-5 (pending approval) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential & undeveloped - OPD-1 & ID-RS South: Highway 218 & Park - P East: Galway Hills Subdivision Part II - RS-5 West: Highway 218 & undeveloped - ID-RS& P Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Single-Family Residential File Date: January 11, 2005 February 27, 2006 March 13, 2005 45-Day Limitation Period: 60-day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Dav-Ed Limited, is requesting approval of the final plat of Galway Hills Subdivision Part Four, a 24-lot residential development on approximately 10.41 acres of land. Recently the Commission recommended approval for a rezoning - from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Sensitive Areas Overlayl Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone - along with a preliminary plat for this property located south of Melrose Avenue and east of Highway 218. The rezoning and the preliminary plat are currently pending before the City Council. 2 ANAL YSIS: The final plat as submitted is, in general, consistent with the preliminary plat. With this subdivision, 24 single-family residential lots will be added to the overall development of Galway Hills. Construction plans have been approved by the City Engineer. Legal papers have also been submitted and are being reviewed by the City Attorney. In the proposed subdivision, two out-lots covering approximately 3.37 acres are reserved as private open space and contain most of the sensitive areas on this property. Outlot B will also be used as the storm water management basin. Existing wooded areas on this property provide a buffer for most of the proposed lots along the highway and Melrose Avenue, except lots 1-9 and lot 16. A landscape buffer for these lots will be created on a 30-foot wide easement shown on the plat. The responsibility for long term maintenance of out-lots, the landscaped buffer and the cul-de-sac median by a home owner's association should be addressed in the legal papers. At the time of development of previous phases of Galway Hills Subdivision, a dedication of park land in the southern part of the overall subdivision was agreed upon. No further open space dedication is required for this part of the development. The legal papers should address the water main extension fees (@ $395.00 per acre, a total of $4,111.95 for 10.41 acres) and sanitary sewer tap on fees (@$2,017.44 per acre, a total of $21,001.55 for 10.41 acres). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SUB05-00032, a final plat for Galway Hills Subdivision Part Four, a 24-lot, residential subdivision on approximately 10.41 acres of land located south of Melrose Avenue and east of Highway 218, subject to staff approval of legal papers prior to City Council consideration. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Final plat /' ~ - Approved by: ~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ppdadminlslfreplsub05-OO032 galwayhiilspartfour-final ~ ~ tj ~ ~ ~ ~ tj <&'~ ~~ cf ~ -I--- -C: cs D- C/) \:)) 0 Q) "- -C: $:::tt.> V) N M o o o I LO o m ::> CJ) V t:: as a.. ~ ~ .- J: ~ ~ (ij (!} Z o E= -< u o ~ ~ f-4 ..... rJ) - 1~~lDllnn~;lll;li ~~~nli II'I! l :II 5 a. ...J <( Z u: o .w ss 'u 'u sooz/sL/u 6M' (JJ Z 0::: p P"'-"ZOZ.SZ\IZO~.S~\"'OIl\\ '0 :jO:J . ~ ~ ~r~- __ z ~ I ~ J:~O ::l ~J j 'i ~~u. 8 , j I ~ ~ ~ 5~ ~ ~ g 5 ~ <(:J<(~~" t t ji~ Cl (/) a. QQ~ ! J f J } ~ ~ u < ;;: g ~ ............ 0 . t-' s' O ~ ~ ef~ ~ ~~-~ ~ <I:; P-t ~ . I I~J ~ ii Vl lilt 1 ~i dl ~ ~ Ii ~ lIili' h~ liiglll U ~ ~ ~I;;: ~ ~I!~i\m~~,,!ll i g~dni ~ III I!! ,~ +.~~.il~ ~ 1-'-1< Z <t<<leo e I:, Il=lllll ~i:l= ~ w Ii 1!""1l l!l Ul91~~: ~ 1=11:1 i.~ !!l~S: I I" I I: ; i Ul ",st:. : \ .....:l ~8~ \ . , .....:l a!!l~' 1--1 ::c ~tj~ ~ !d~ <I:; ii~ ;s: 8lill3 .....:l !I,l~: <I:; :i ~ Sl o 1 III j II~ ~ I J .. .. t i I ; t 1 I ~ j . I f ~ I I ~ !i. n ~ \.1.1 \ -- - \J- / / ii! !, J ~i; I J J J ~ ~ in ,I . la~ t~i ,* ~ .2 Ii Iii .1;'... 0 ~ ~ ,ill , 8 I - I 1'1 I u ~ III 1* ! I I~ m ~~: I I 5T AFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Sunil Terdalkar Item: SUB06-00001 - Parrott Estate Date: February 2, 2005 Addition (Previously Lacy's Run Addition) GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Kevin Parrott 74 Golfview Court, North Liberty, IA 52317 (319) 665-3217 Contact Person: Susan Evers MMS Consultants 1917 S Gilbert Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: (319) 351-8282 Requested Action: Subdivision Final Plat Purpose: Development of a 2-lot residential subdivision Location: Conklin Lane - to the east of St. Joseph Cemetery Size: Approximately 17.94 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: . RS-8 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Undeveloped - RS-8 South: Park - P (Hickory Hill Park) East: Park - P (Hickory Hill Park) West: Cemetery - RM-12 Comprehensive Plan: North District Plan - Large LoU Rural Residential Neighborhood Open Space District: Hickory Hill January 12, 2005 February 27, 2006 March 13, 2005 File Date: 45-Day Limitation Period: 60-day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Kevin Parrot, is requesting approval of the final plat of Parrott Estate Addition, a two-lot residential development with a large out-lot, on approximately 17.94 acres of land. At their January 10 meeting the Council approved the preliminary plat for this subdivision. The preliminary plat was named as Lacy's Run Addition. The applicant has requested that name of the subdivision be changed to Parrott's Estate Addition. 2 ANAL YSIS: The final plat as submitted is, in general, consistent with the preliminary plat. With this subdivision, only one additional single-family residential lot will be added. Legal papers have been submitted and are being reviewed by the City Engineer and the City Attorney. A 50-foot wide right-of-way (R-O-W) dedication and a 10-foot wide temporary construction easement, required for future improvements to the Conklin Lane, are shown on the plat along the west boundary of the property. Due to an existing house on the property this R-O-W dedication is narrower by 2 feet in the north-west section of the property. The plat indicates a note that the additional 2 feet R-O-W and the temporary construction easement will be granted to the City when the house is removed from this location. This issue should be addressed in the legal papers. Neighborhood Open Space: Based on the Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance, a subdivision of this size is required to dedicate 0.70 acres of open space or pay fees in lieu of dedication. The applicant has shown this dedication in the south-east section of the Out-lot A. The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended approval for this dedication. Infrastructure Fees: Water main extension fee-$ 395 per acre (a total of $790 for two acres)-is required for lot 1 and 2. Outlot A will be subject to such infrastructure fees, when developed. Sanitary sewer service is currently not available in this area. Both, the existing and the proposed lots on this property will use septic tank system for sanitary sewer needs. The properties need to be connected to the sanitary sewer infrastructure in the future when Outlot A is developed. This should be noted in the legal papers for the final plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this application be deferred until the deficiencies and discrepancies noted below are resolved. Upon resolution of these items and subject to staff approval of legal papers prior to City Council consideration, staff recommends approval for SUB06-00001, a final plat for Parrott Estate Addition, a 17.94-acre, 2-lot single-family residential subdivision located on Conklin Lane. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES 1. Signature block for the utility providers 2. Dimensional, labeling errors, and other errors and discrepancies identified by the City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat ~I Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development pcd\staff reportslsub06-00001 parrottestate-final ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ , .() --- ~ ii \ f~~~ r'-"/~-'~'--/" 1""J;'~ ( all T"" UOls/o~\1 ~ ~ J I r I I /) / ~~ () tJ ~Q Nl NI1>lNOJ o Q) -\-... Q) E Q) G T'""' o o o o I CD o CO ::) en c o ? 1:J 1:J <( (J) +-I CO +-I Cf) W +-I +-I o lo- l0- CO a.. Z o ~ ~ < U o ~ ~ ~ ~ (J) 1~~lIJllnnll'lil ~ ~~z ~~~6! ~~:l.~~~ -: <O,~ J' . ~ ~O Z~~! i ~I I q hp ~ c..wt= ~~ l!s !:i , J I ! Ii -'1=- I;.~I m '" ~ '" 5 ~ It <(00 ~ g~g g- !>:Z:l:lc:z; I Ii t tl!":'~ ujj~E zo:::o I ~ u:~( c~M! i.Jili ~l ~ . J ;11i' J J J ~ <( I ~ il! .1 - I~! m I' ~ ~ l - I'. III I J''ij S J ~ B 'I. "I I I 5 III I,. mM I I I .{;r.,.~ .0 -'0.117 ~dll" "~~ __JI!2l!3!r.I_______~_. .....-- un.1d IUI: IIfi! !~Ia -m-=--- II! ~I~ I I ...," :zi g ~ 11\ ~< mm III; 1.11 \ - I":,: j-: 0:: P^;>O ~1'<<~;"~ I~I ;I.liSle ,,~C) w~~~~-o ~ ~ / ~ - 6~-.~~~~ Eo- ;<: t:"3~OZ~ 5i / :s 0 ~~O...lfll<O I Q.. ~ 5 ~Nel~~~~ .. / ~~t:~ &J~:~~~~ I <E.....oU" ~w~~:r~t;; ! :Z:I:"""'" ;! ~~~t:~ "iiJ .... "o","<it" II ~ rn ~ ~~l:l.~~:Z~ · rz:I ~ ~~~~~h . I C) ~~~w~~~ 111&;1 I 1 \ _ oo~g~~;:j III ~I .. E: ~i~~~!i e; II: \ ~o ;:&J",u~:l~ .:1 lin I. .~ it ~ I~ II ~; rj lie ~. II~ II; I.~ b h II! I:! \ Ir U ~ Ii.I ~ II t::ly7. I III .1 11'1 6 ~ II l i-.l:b IiI i~;I; ~\i · ~:I r-I ~d 9 z 1116 .e I.! ~ ! , mll!&! · ~~h i iill l! ____ i!.. '\ \ ceBI oli ~ ~ ~ l! S i \, " '" \, "ClOt '. 'i h II ~ < u CI) ~ Eo- ~' 0 c 'ls-, :z: 6 ~~. Q.. J:: \. ;j ll. ~,::> 0 + '..w _ I 5 ~ ..9 .-: . [[][ !II ! II III! i ii .11 ~ IIIIIII~ !111,I~nl! I ~ n~hl h!!lllb! i ~ '"'' "flTi '''I: o i! II _ ~ III Z _.0 .: i . ~d I ~ !!l1 It> ~ iii I II J I II I ! t J I i I I I ~ j f I f MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2006 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Terry Smith, Ann Freerks, Bob Brooks, Don Anciaux, Beth Koppes, Dean Shannon MEMBERS EXCUSED: Wally Plahutnik STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Walz, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Schnittjer RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommended approval by a vote of 6-0, (Plahutnik absent) REZ05-00023. a rezoning of 9.72-acres of land located west of Foster Road from Interim Development-Residential (ID-RS) to Planned Development Housing-Low Density Single-Family (OPD-5) with a Sensitive Areas Development Plan allowing the modification of the RS-5 requirements to allow 2 (two) 12-unit multi-family buildings with exterior building material consisting of brick, stone and fiber cement board siding, a building height of up to 47-feet and up to five parking spaces permitted in the area between the building and the street subject to resolution of the turning radius issue being resolved prior to consideration by City Council. Recommended approval by a vote of 6-0, (Plahutnik absent) ANN06-00001, the annexation of .35-acre of property located on Camp Cardinal Road CALL TO ORDER: Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:31 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING ITEM: REZ05-00023, discussion of an application submitted by Westcott Partners for a rezoning from Interim Development Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single-Family Residential (OPD-5) with a Sensitive Areas Development Plan for 9.72-acres of property located on the west side of Foster Road north of White Oak Place. Walz said the property, located in the North District, contained sensitive environmental features including regulated slopes, Iowa River Corridor floodway and woodlands. The applicant had requested a Planned Development Overlay zone to allow clustering of two (2) twelve-unit multi-family builidngs which would provide minimal impact on the slope and woodland features. The applicant had requested waivers to allow multi-family development in an RS-5 zone with additional waivers to allow buildings that exceeded the 35-foot limit in an RS-5 zone and to allow parking between the building and the street due to the grade of the sight. Due to a steep ravine that cut through the property, two-thirds of the site could not be developable or provided with sewer; Staff estimated that at most 8 or 10 single-family homes could be built on the remaining property. The applicant would be able to achieve a considerable density bonus through the use of a planned development overlay. Staff and the developer had worked closely to achieve a plan and building design that would be compatible with the surrounding mostly single-family neighborhood. The proposed buildings would be three stories high from the front and four stories high from the back. The prominent elevation of the site a Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2006 Page 2 top a knoll would make the buildings quite prominent along Foster Road. The buildings would be highly visible from the adjacent single-family lots in Oakmont Estates from late fall through early spring when there would not be leaves on the trees. The tree buffer that currently existed on the property would remain. The developer had submitted a building design that addressed concerns related to both the height and architectural compatibility and had used avariety of building materials including brick, stone and fiber cement siding to emphasize the horizontal aspects and minimize the vertical aspects of the buildings. This should help de-emphasize the height. The developer had wrapped the design features all the way around each building so there would be architectural treatment to all sides of the building. The rear of the buildings would be visible from the single-family lots on White Oak Place. The developer had agreed to dedicate a considerable portion of the slope to the City as park land which would potentially allow for the development of a low impact trail which would follow the contours of the slope. The Parks and Recreation Commission had reviewed the proposed dedication and voted to accept it. The amount of land to be dedicated would exceed the required .23-acres of land, would preserve the valuable environmental feature of the woodland and slopes and would provide public access to a historically significant scenic view of the Iowa River. Walz said the proposal to cluster the multi-family buildings in accordance with the Sensitive Areas Regulation was desirable in this location as was the issue of neighborhood compatibility in regards to scale and the design ofthe proposed buildings. The applicant had addressed those issues through the use of design and building materials that minimized the visual impact of the height of the buildings and the architectural detail on the side and rear elevations of the buildings. All deficiencies noted in the Staff Report had been resolved with the exception of the ability of the Fire Department to get a fire engine in to the front circular drive of the proposed development. Walz said Staff recommended approval of REZ05-00023, a rezoning of 9.72-acres of land from ID-RS to OPD-5 with a Sensitive Areas Development Plan allowing the modification of the RS-5 requirements to allow two (2) 12- unit multi-family buildings with exterior building material consisting of brick, stone and fiber cement board siding, a building height of up to 47-feet and up to five parking spaces permitted in the area between the building and the street subject to resolution of the turning radius issue being resolved prior to consideration by City Council. Miklo said the applicant, City Engineer, Fire Marshall and Staff planned to meet to try to resolve the turning radius issue. It might be possible to achieve without adjusting the design of the driveway or an adjustment for the driveway might be needed. Koppes asked what was the distance between the rear of the proposed building and the back yards in White Oak neighborhood. Schnittjer said it was 59-feet on one side and 153-feet to the south. Brooks asked if the two adjoining subdivisions had dedicated any land to public open space. Miklo said in Oakmont Estates to the south, Outlot A would be dedicated to the City. The area to the north, Mackinaw Village, had chosen not to dedicate the area adjacent to the river, it would still be private open space. Brooks asked if Mackinaw Village anticipated any type of trail along the river? Miklo said the goal was to get a trail along the river although it would take some cooperation from the Mackinaw Village property owners. Miklo indicated on the overhead map where the public lands would be; where potential access to/from Foster Road to the parcel would be; and where the rock outcropping with a scenic view was located. He said the area would be pretty rugged, Staff didn't anticipate a paved trail but a hiking trail. Brooks said he liked the proposed style and that the trees along the street would help mitigate some of the feeling of the building's height and location on top of the knoll. Koppes asked if there was any concern regarding priva9Y with the proposed number of windows on the side of the buildings that faced the houses. Miklo said given the distance there was not. Walz said there had been more of a concern of avoiding a blank fayade on the sides of the buildings. Miklo said the original plan had had very few windows and detail on the side. Even though the front of the buildings were Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2006 Page 3 quite elaborate and had a lot of detail, Staff had requested the windows on the sides. Driving up Foster Road, the sides of the buildings would be much more visible than the front. Freerks said she thought the windows helped, especially in the four-story area. She said the use of the brick, stone and fiber cement board siding would give the building a quality appearance and help minimize the perception of height. Brooks said he liked the combination of the materials as well, it would help the buildings to blend in with what was in the area. Public discussion was opened. Larry Schnittier, MMS Consultants, said he was there to answer any questions the Commission had. The developer requested a vote during the meeting if possible. They'd been working with the Engineering Department and intended to work with the Fire Marshall to resolve the turning radius issue as well. Freerks asked how many bedrooms the units would have. Schnittjer said there would be two (2) two- bedroom units and two (2) three-bedroom units on each floor. There was more than adequate parking. They'd requested the additional five parking spaces for visitors in front to allow convenient drop-off and deliveries. They would be condominium units. It was planned to commence construction on the south building this year and complete the second building next year. Schnittjer said the buildings would not be quite as high as the knoll was, they planned to remove a portion of the knoll to try to lower it otherwise the loop drive would be too steep. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Smith made a motion to approve REZ05-00023, a rezoning of 9.72-acres of land from ID-RS to OPD-5 with a Sensitive Areas Development Plan allowing the modification of the RS-5 requirements to allow two (2) 12-unit multi-family buildings with exterior building material consisting of brick, stone and fiber cement board siding, a building height of up to 47-feet and up to five parking spaces permitted in the area between the building and the street subject to resolution of the turning radius issue being resolved prior to consideration by City Council. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 (Plahutnik absent). ANNEXATION ITEM: ANN06-00001, discussion of a City initiated application to annex .35-acres of land located on Camp Cardinal Road adjacent to Cardinal Ridge Subdivision. Miklo said in 2005 the City had severed approximately 194-acres of property in the northwest corner. The area gravity flowed into Coralville so it would not be easily sewered by Iowa City sewer system. As part of that annexation a small portion of Camp Cardinal Road had been de-annexed. Coralville was in the process of de-annexing that section and Iowa City was proposing to annex it. The property would be zoned OSA-5 consistent with the remainder of the Cardinal Ridge Subdivision. Staff recommended approval of ANN06-00001, an annexation of .35-acres of property located on Camp Cardinal Road. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve ANN06-00001. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 (Plahutnik absent). OTHER ITEMS: Shannon requested Staff to investigate the current status of a house located at the northwest corner of Lewis Place and Foster Road, the Bud Lewis home. An arrangement had been made to allow the drive to Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2006 Page 4 the Lewis property to remain open until such time as Mr. Lewis no longer lived there. Recently Mr. Lewis had passed away but the drive remained open. Would now be the appropriate time to resolve that the driveway remained open onto the arterial street? Miklo said he would check the file and report back to the Commission. Commission Work Program: Miklo said Staff would like to discuss the priority of the items on the Commission's work program. He said currently the work program includes: 1.) Subdivision Regulations, 2.) Central Planning District, 3.) Southeast Planning District, 4.) CB-2 standards, 5.) Review of Sign Ordinance, 6.) Investigate methods of protecting landmark trees and 7.) Update Open Space Plan/Ordinance. Staff hoped to have a draft of the Subdivision Regulations to the Commission in the spring and then staff would proceed on one of the district plans. There had been some interest expressed by the Council to pass over the Central District and go to the Southeast District. Currently the Central Planning District, which basically includes the neighborhoods surrounding downtown, had been on the work list for quite some time. Miklo suggested that when the Commission reviewed the District they might want to break it down into smaller sub areas. There were some organized neighborhood groups in the district. There were different issues that would be important for different areas. The same had been done with the Southwest District. He said the Southeast District (Court Street on the north, Highway 6 on the south, First Avenue on the west) included issues associated with the industrial park areas and residential development. The area contained railroad access which was important for some industries. It had been the City's policy to reserve the area north of the railroad for future industrial development. There was interest for additional residential development in the area south of American Legion Road so it would be a key issue to determine how to get a transition or a buffer between those two areas. Capital improvements would be required to bring sewer and arterial street access into that area. Miklo said that the existing mobile home parks might resist annexation into the city, but if the city were to grow to the east they would have to be annexed in at some point. In response to a question from the Commission about staff time, Miklo said that it took anywhere from one to two years to complete a District Plan depending on the complexity of the neighborhoods. Staff collected data, had meetings with property owners, interest groups in the neighborhood and community- wide meetings before they even started a draft of the Plan. He said the number of rezoning, subdivision and Board of Adjustment cases affected the amount of time staff could devote to the district planning process, because the same staff members were responsible for long term and current planning. Before Staff had started the Zoning Code review, the Central District and the Southeast District had already been identified in that order of priority. The Northwest District and the North Corridor District were the only other areas where a district plan had not been completed. They were less of a priority because the Northwest District included the area covered by the Cardinal Ridge Master Plan or was owned by the University. The North Corridor located north of Interstate 80 would require some major sewer upgrades and annexation. Smith said based on the current development of the Central District, potential issues over the next few years seemed to lie more with the Southeast District so the Commission should try to address those first. Freerks said she could see both sides of the coin, but there were issues with the Central District as had been evidenced when they'd tried to eliminate the CB-2 zone and the issues that had arisen with Pagliais' Pizza and their potential for future development. There were issues regarding potential redevelopment and neighborhood preservation and improvement within the Central District and it would be easy to temporarily step over them. She remembered when they'd passed over the Central District to do the Southwest District and it had been put aside again when the Commission had done the Zoning Code review. There were neighborhood groups who were poised and ready, they had been told that the Central District would be reviewed next. It would be more than just particular neighborhood issues but they would need to consider redevelopment of some areas. However, for areas that needed planning and didn't have anything there currently, such as the Southeast District, it would be an easier area to make a plan and not Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2006 Page 5 to have to deal with the more complex issues of redevelopment. Freerks said that she did not want to loose tract of a comprehensive approach to the whole city. She said that we should remember that growth in the outlyi,ng districts also affects the Central District as much of the traffic generated by new development is directed into the Central District. Freerks said she hated to put aside the Central District again. Brooks said he felt before the Commission reviewed the Central District, they would need to review the CB-2 zone. Koppes and Freerks said the items overlapped each other and should be done at the same time. Brooks said he was concerned about the potential for conflicts between the industrial and residential development in the Southeast District and not allowing the situation to perpetuate itself as had happened with Village Green and the issues of the neighborhood, the noise and inadequate buffer between residential and industrial. He did not wish to see a situation occur in which the City would not be able to react quickly enough to prevent that same type of situation. It was concerning with the area south of the railroad tracks being industrial and to the north was residential with expectations of a nice quiet residential environment. Freerks asked Miklo if the Southeast District Plan might take less time than some of the other districts. Miklo said that was hard to say but there did seem to be a limited number of issues to be addressed in the area. There would be the industrial/residential juxtaposition and some possible issues around the Sycamore Mall area but he didn't see any other significant issues at this point. Freerks said she envisioned the Central District taking a tremendous amount of time and effort which she felt would be necessary given the complexity and diversity of the area. She was very hesitant to say 'skip over' the Central District again because she wanted the Council to be aware that there currently were and would be a lot of issues. If the Commission agreed to delay reviewing the Central District Plan once more, then the Commission really needed to commit to reviewing it very soon. She was willing to agree to reviewing the Southeast District first because it should take less time and there would be some opportunities to iron problems out before they occurred. Brooks said he realized that it was a budgetary issue that limited Staff to a certain level of commitment which created part of the problem of priorities and Staff availability for the Commission. Potentially they were looking at 2+ years before being able to finish the Central District Plan. Freerks said she felt they'd regret their decision if it took that long to finish, she hoped it would take less time. Brooks said he felt the Central Planning District would be a rather protracted project, he envisioned that 18- or even 24-months was not being unrealistic. Before they even tackled the Southeast District it could be 24-months and then 6 additional months of time. Freerks said it had been six-years since they'd talked about the Central Planning District. Brooks said to him it was a staffing problem as the same staff that did long range planning also had to deal with current protects, he was well aware of the length of time that the Central District review had been waiting. He felt the other pending tasks such as the sign ordinance would not be easy and would take a considerable amount of Staffs time. Freerks asked if it would be possible to notify the neighborhood associations and interest groups as to the Commission's work proram; she was aware that there were people who'd been told and were expecting that the Central Planning District would be reviewed next. She said that it was an issue when the Northside Historic District was defeated. Occasionally they'd received inquiries as to "when". Freerks said if they reviewed the Southeast District before the Central District, she didn't want to see anything else come before it again, there were too many important issues. The CB-2 zone should be done at the same time as the Central District. Koppes and Brooks agreed that the Central District and the CB-2 zone were interlocked issues. Schnittjer said he appreciated the opportunity to listen to the Commission's discussion. He wished to share that the Industrial Park in the Southeast district was filling up rapidly. They were currently working Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2006 Page 6 on plans for more warehouses in that area, but once it was full where was the City going to go? The City needed that industrial tax base. Regarding the remainder of the priorities, Koppes said she'd prefer to have a review of the landmark trees undertaken prior to a review of the sign ordinance. Freerks said she'd be willing to have a review of the landmark trees undertaken first as well. Brooks said he felt the sign ordinance would present itself again and become an issue. The Commission agreed that their work program priorities would be: 1) Subdivision Regulations, 2) Southeast Planning District and 3) Central Planning District coupled wI review of CB-2 Standards. The priority of the remaining items on the list would be revisited next year. Miklo said that it was a good idea to review the status of the work program annually and to adjust it as necessary. Brooks said to summarize their discussion, the Commission realized that because of the limitations on Staffs time and availability that the above listed items potentially could take the Commission into 2008 and that the Commission didn't feel that that was the most ideal situation for encouraging and promoting economic development and growth within the community. Perhaps there needed to be more attention given to providing staffing levels and availability that would allow the Commission to move ahead in a more expeditious and timely manner to get the Commission's identified priorities completed. Brooks said an excellent point had been made in that if the industrial area filled up there would be a real pressure to do something. If the Commission was not poised to give some guidance they would be reacting instead of leading the process. Freerks agreed that those points should be clearly made to the Council. Brooks agreed to attend the meeting when the Council discusses the Commission's work program priorities. Miklo distributed the list of upcoming rotations for attending City Council meetings. CONSIDERATION OF 1/5/06 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Smith made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Anciaux seconded. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0, (Plahutnik absent). ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Freerks made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Koppes seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0, (Plahutnik absent). The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 pm. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill s:/pcd/minutes/p&z12006/01-19-06.doc c o 'en en 'E E o O'E mo c (,,) ,- CI) aD:: NCI)~ oago C)C'GN C" ,- C C CI) c::: .!!<c D. ~ (3 C'G ~ en W 't"" >< >< >< >< 0 >< >< - 't"" ~ >< >< >< W >< >< >< 't"" 0 lJ) <0 0 co E ~ I"- 0 co <0 ~ .-- 0 e .-- 0 e 'R- Ln - - - Q) >< It) It) It) It) It) I-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ c >< en .fJ en 'c 0 ;:, ~ i - c C'G 0 .. ;:, c .: 'u CI) .: - e C'G 'E Q) c e 0 C'G .: E <C lD LL. ~ it w w co c:i ai < w 3= c:i ...: z C) z i= w w :lIE ...J <C :lIE D:: o LL. lJ) <0 0 co I"- 0 co <0 E ~ e .-- 0 0 .-- ~ e 'R- - - - - ~>< It) It) It) It) It) It) w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ c >< .fJ en en 'c 0 ;:, ~ i - c C'G .. ;:, .: 'u 0 CI) .: c - e C'G 'E Q) c e 0 C'G .: E <C lD LL. ~ it w w co c:i ai < w 3= c:i ...: z C) z i= w w :lIE ...J <C :Ii D:: o LL. ~ "'C Q) lJ) :J ue> >< C w:;J ..........:+:>Q) cccQ) Q)Q)Q)O:::: lJ)lJ)lJ)'::::' ~.o.oo a.<(<(z .. II II II II >- W:E Q) -- ~><OOz