HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-2006 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, April 6, 2006 -7:30 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
C. Rezoning Item:
REl06-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Johnson County Permanent
Supportive Housing LP for a rezoning from Public (P) zone to Public I Low Density Multi-
Family Residential (P/RM-12) zone for 2.83 acres of property located at 4435-4455 Melrose
Avenue. (The applicant has requested this item be deferred.)
(45-day limitation period: Waived)
D. Subdivision Items:
1. SUB06-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Dav-Ed Limited for a preliminary
plat of Galway Hills Parts 10 & 11, a 56-lot, 21.75 acre residential subdivision located at
Dublin Drive & Shannon Drive. (The applicant has requested this item be deferred.)
(45-day limitation period: April 6, 2006)
2. SUB06-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Douglas Schnoebelen for a
preliminary and final plat of Schnoebelen Subdivision, Resubdivision of Lot 2, Hoyles 151
Addition, a 4-lot, 2.61-acre residential subdivision located east of Hummingbird Lane.
(45-day limitation period: May 8,2006)
E. Vacation Item:
VAC06-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City to vacate the
Alley of Block 27, north of Benton Street between Clinton Street and Dubuque Street.
F. Other Items:
G. Consideration of the March 2, 2006 Meeting Minutes
H. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
June 12
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: SUB06-00004 Schnoebelen
Subdivision
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact Person:
Phone:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Neighborhood Open Space District
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
60 Day Limitation period
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
Public Utilities:
Public Services:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Sunil Terdalkar
Date: April 6, 2006
Douglas Schoebelen
2600 Court Street,
Iowa City, IA 52245
(319) 354-1634
MMS Consultants
1917 S Gilbert Street,
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319) 351-8282
Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat
Development of a 4-lot residential subdivision
Hummingbird Lane, south of Lower West branch
Road
Approximately 2.61 acres
RS-5
North: Residential - OPD-8
South: Residential - RS-5
East: Undeveloped Residential - OPD-5
West: Residential - RS-5
Low density residential
Upper Ralston Creek (NE3)
March 23, 2006
May 8, 2006
May 22, 2006
Sanitary Sewer can be extended from the
Lindemann property to the east.
The City will provide Police and Fire protection, and
2
refuse collection and recycling services. Transit
route Eastside Loop and Rochester serve this area
with the nearest stop located approximately half a
mile north-west on the intersection of Amhurst
Street and Lower West Branch Road.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Douglas Schnoebelen, is requesting approval for a 4-lot, single-family residential
subdivision, on approximately 2.61 acres of land located on Hummingbird Lane, south of Lower
West Branch Road. The land is part of a previously subdivided Hoyle's First Addition.
ANAL YSIS:
Comprehensive Plan:
The property is located within the Northeast Planning District. Although this particular property is
not discussed in detail in the Comprehensive Plan, most of the surrounding area is indicated as
appropriate for low density residential development. The proposed lot sizes meet the standards
for the minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet and minimum width of 60 feet for the RS-5 zone.
The proposed lot widths range from approximately 77.9 feet to 138.3 feet with lot areas ranging
from approximately 14,416 square feet to 41,934 square feet. In staffs view, the proposed
design is compatible with the surrounding low density single-family residential neighborhood.
Therefore the proposed subdivision is consistent with the district plan.
Traffic/Access:
The proposed subdivision will be accessible from Hummingbird Lane on the west and Lower West
Branch Road on the north. The Capital Improvement Plan indicates that the Lower West Branch
Road will be reconstructed in 2008. A 30-foot wide temporary construction easement along Lower
West Branch Road and a 25-foot wide temporary construction easement along Hummingbird
Lane are required.
The portion of Hummingbird Lane adjacent to the proposed subdivision is currently narrow and
consists of a chip seal surface with no curb and gutter or sidewalks. The right-of-way has already
been dedicated but the road requires improvements up to City street standards. The estimated
cost for improving Hummingbird Lane is $250.00 per linear foot. As the proposed development is
only on one side of Hummingbird Lane, this amount is divided by two and the resulting $125.00
per linear foot is applied to the Schnoebelen Subdivision. Since the property has 328.29 linear
feet abutting Hummingbird Lane, the total cost is $41,036.25 (328.29 x $125.00 per linear foot).
This amounts to $15,722.70 per acre for this 2.61-acre property. The legal papers should
specify that payments will be made at the time building permits are issued for each lot.
Neighborhood Parkland:
The property is part of the Upper Ralston Creek Neighborhood Open Space District (NE3).
Based on the Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance, a subdivision of this size is required to
dedicate 0.061 acres (2,671.47 square feet) of open space or pay fees in lieu of dedication. The
plat has been referred to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review. Given the location
and the size of the property, it is likely that the fees in lieu of the land dedication will be
recommended by the commission. The legal papers should address payment of fees in lieu of
open space dedication.
Infrastructure:
Sanitary sewer lines will need to be extended to this subdivision from the existing line located on
the Lindemann property to the east. The applicant is required to extend the sanitary sewer line to
the existing residential lot in the Hoyles First Subdivision. The applicant also is required to pay
ppdadminlstfreplsub06-00004 schnoebelen-prelim&final. doc
3
sanitary sewer tap-on fees of $1,038.26 per acre (a total of $2,709.86 for 2.61 acres) and water
main extension fees of $395.00 per acre (a total of $1,030.95 for 2.61 acres). Storm water
management is not required for subdivisions that are less than 3 acres in size.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends deferral of this item until the deficiencies and discrepancies listed below are
resolved.
Upon resolution of the deficiencies and discrepancies, staff recommends that SUB05-00028, a
preliminary and final plat for Schnoebelen Subdivision, a 4-lot residential subdivision, on
approximately 2.61 acres of land, located east of Hummingbird Lane, south of Lower Branch
Road, be approved subject to staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to
Council consideration.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
1. Show a 30-foot wide temporary construction easement along Lower West Branch Road and a
25-foot wide temporary construction easement along Hummingbird Lane.
2. Extend the sanitary sewer line to Lot #1 in Hoyles First Subdivision
A IT ACHMENTS:
3. Location Map
4. Preliminary plat
5. Final Plat
Approved by: 4~A- -
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
ppdadminlstfreplsub06-00004 schnoebelen-prelim&final. doc
. -
~
co 0
0
0
c 0
I
CD
D.. 0
CO
~ 0 :::J
(j)
~~
t:
t3
~
~i I
........, . I
\ '.
~:\';;:'
t:
t3 L_
Nl OtlI8~NII^H^Jr
, ,
. ,
I-- -
I i
\ \
I I I I
1__
U
/' (' \< ----
'"i~~! \;:l:T1:L---_'
~,j F ..J
/'/~ / -r-\ "\ --/~~_~~
///\/ \ '\ -n
,
, ,
,
, ,
en
0::
-'\:=:\
_ /A,C'-,\\
~\~\
/-"-\()\
\c--\
\\~!\
/ . ,,_J,.
1'""\
) ~ j ""
co
a.
c
o
.-t=
"t'J
"t'J
<(
of--'
CJ)
r-
CJ)
Q)
>-
o
I
C\1
of--'
o
....J
C
o
CJ)
.>
"t'J
.0
:J
CJ)
Q)
a:
z
o
~
~
~
U
o
~
~
~
~
'J)
~~~I~
25~~ ~
Cl:i~ ll.
~ll.;:> '"
....QrIl""::i
~~~~I
:i~i
z:
""
...:~~ -a;
C/l!:jN C
li:"'~ ~
~~~ s
6~~~
.~_ C
~_ 8
~u f/)
~~ ~
Q ~
I~~IDI
o
w
,
--l
LL
, .
~~ . ~l ;RiJ IJtJtn.
, ): /' ill 3wn CIIrOI!!I~r!l!l1l1l Iii
I ../' .__-' ,uo VMOI JO All:) J.8 5.L~
i r-- __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ IN't'1 CRI80NlftPlnH
,',,91/ 'itf; 'it ~~ 'it i"'-'it ~-!.t------------------------
','l/ .'
. '1:,., /
., /'1
'.::1.
\'l,l/l .-/
..:1"
..:1"
(/)
~ I.&J
,8 I-
~,~ ~
O:a I~ 0
.~~ II"'~Z
. r-t VJ ~ ~ <
I :>1;; ~ ~o
w .r-t s.... ...t;t:: Z
VI ~ r;:: ~~~ I.&J
J ~ U ~-. C)
VI ro,..o en ttl gj S! I.&J I I
r
w
o
It
~ 8 - ~ ~~~ ~
It ,::: r-l OU ~8~Z
~ 's Q) N ~ 3a5 ~
~~Q):S: ~U(/)
> s..... 1'""'\ - e-
~ o...~ 0 . ~
~ Q) ~ lii t;~
I[ 0 ,8 a I ~
en ~ S!
<11! ~ .- .. .
v,$.t r-l~ ~ ~E
0:_-:=<::1 ~.o !::~
() .... !!IS!
LU VI ,.J
__.J >-1 U) ~
(~ i-t- P;::
" 01 <
(---
r- <.;(
Os
Q
.::r
:&::
0-
M
':'-..0
5a:5.-3:
ilo ~l.
-:og:i-g
&0: &~1 ~
".oC
~~Q,8tO
.0.1:.- ....
~i~~:j
l!."'"CD.g
~fi1~N'
-. bm1I-v
tgS~2 ~
os1- fii
.... o~ i Iii
:9~&:51
~
D:::
<
4:
<.,.Q
=
=
t:'.J
~I!C \Il:llwa'l\
-,------
0"''''
LU~~
~N'"
5LO~
C/l~~
~OCl
C/l-~
,..:cn!2.
C/lC
uC:
;;;~
ln~
c
w
u
!;;;:
--I
a..
~
<C
::z:
~
::::::i
w
c::::
a..
c';;~
O.l!
:~l
~~
~:g
co
'*~~
ilii
glc71
.s:: a_
u"'!!
en<iI:
e,j
~
~ j~ ~
~ ~ ~ }~
:z (\') 31 !l ~-
~ 0 1. ~
....J
::l lQ:<:< l:l
en ;;,..J 0 0 0
:z J) -'r'-12
8 1 A' j ~;!
~! .. ~ ~ }
::2 Il & Is ~ d:!,1
~
J!
~
~
Z
=>
o
~~
-0
UCJ)
<(z<(
s;::Cs;
000
-"">-
i
.!l
Il
'" C
w w
~~ ~ ~
?;~ ~ )0-(1)
... mWcn
~~ ~ tf) ~~~ f5
~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~
b-'>-J. ffiffi!<~~ ffi....
........<<:tVJ....t-...J<LaJ 2~
Jd~:I:~~~~Q.w~~C::f
>-u;J..O::::::iOvic.nCllJ!ic~
~~o<.:)o::<.:)~~bfCJ2~cn
lIJ~.!-~~~::i::;O~o~~
i3Za"'ZVl......i3!!!ZUa:
g:8~?3~~9gg:~~~a
II> i~~2i~
~ O~Eft-
a: iliI:!~O
w ~ ~ U~.I-
W ~ ~ ~~u.~;
e: I- ~ !::........O~lIJ
~ ~ ~~~~5
o - ... ::><i3ulX
~ ~ l:! 8t5g:g~
~ ~ 3!': cni= ZVl
o LrJ ..... ~~:Joc
~ ~ !i ~~:~~
~ ~ ~ a.oo~~
x x ill -'::Ez"'cn
w ...... ~ ~oo~~
2 ....1= 0
C5 aO~O~ .
<l. ~~g~<=c
Ii FDloJe~
. ~ ~c~'"
~ ~ g~~~~~
o 0... ill ffi a. ...
O c ~:5-'<;>",O
. \!!, a.::>wcn-'
~ ~(/)~mO~
III iIl~<::J"'~
~ w .....<wo.
~ i!:~~m~~
-'
~
a:
l!!
3;
I I I I I
a:
a:!i! a:
~bja:!i!
"'>-!i!lll
~ ~ >-~\.IJ .. LlJ
o 0 ~I-V)::I c.nCIJ .:::.~
~I- ~ I-z2~ ~~ ~...J
...... ..cz!5! c z~f5~VI::;:J z I::j
~~~:";i ~~~~c;;;c~~~cn::::i ~
~~!i~;> ~~~lillllilll~~~~ gs "
t-I-t-::r: IX Zm~l=Oi=OlXe:Q.....J 0 ~
~I~wl!! ;Ca:zVli3",i3l!!l;l'j", ~ '"
~3cn~ i ~a~~&:~g:~G:H~~ 8 ~
I I I I I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I I I
i ~1..)lI!.O 11lI j ·
! ~g ~ I 1 ~ ",0-"
i ~'.Oltio.'lH
IIII
I I
I I
i : II
,,~~ ~,
~ i~ii Io!w ~ ~ ~
~h Ii
e >.
.... in ~i
li! i:3
8:..r ~~I ~ll
=i ~
<c,so I~~ II;
j~:
a.. 0 II
~ ~ ~~~~i! ~ ~
a.. i:3 ;!K U I
i! ~n !~; i
.. 5U ~ili I
Ii Ii
'" ",Je ~ !W
,)
_/ ---
~,,/ ,"'-
IN JS~' ~ 0'01"
,/
ill
12
l:
u
<( I~~i~ ...:~~ Q) O(!j:g c Ji;- cj co .~ 8
I~~II (/)~N c: UJ..~ .~~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~
u; ~1O~ ~ I-NIO M i !
N ~~~~~ 5V)~ ~ >" z en J ~
lll~:ll J!l (/)~C1i :Co I- .....
::> I i
aQ~~ :=oCii' .0'" :z C') j i
(/)-~ ....J "'0 0 ~ 0 II ~
~QfI)""::i! CJi~c. 8 t-o=cntl ~ 0.. (J)..J U If
~~~II (/)0 ~ co ~z -'
~u en oK "*~ ::l Ul :::;: :::;: N
....J en n: 0
~~ ~ ;;;i::i -0 0 0 0
<( .0'" Uw :z r ..., ~ .0
r;;~ Cl).?: 0 ~~
Q ~ Z 0:8 ~z~ (.) " E ;
~ c' ~I~ !. ~....
0 ~ .c; en . ~ t~
"" UJ U. 00: 000 ::iE .ll . ~
0 (J)< -""')- ::iE ~ ~ ~
A~ ~.
0::11- ~
JI ~;~ .w JI JI ~
.!l ~1ll~ ;; II II
Q >. in ~~
!':! ....
~ u aU I~
~,,~ ~il ~
:50
j"'- Ii IJ~
......
ll.. 0 ~;lil ~II
5 >. II I
.... ;;i ~II ~
ll.. U In ~~~ l5 i
i! I
" ~n ~:; A I
!I ;
U
L
"iH
ll~ t
~E'~
sll
.c..J
ia
E i
,g
... -
IE
h
iI"::
...&:
j::5li
.. -
:c~'UUJ
: ~ 5 ~
5;-10
~iI"'~:
=- Q.,S!
hil.
>.'015:5
f!til
~5l~
I
o
'"
s::
o
......
~.~
0:0 t;
I . ~ .D ~;
~ .~ ~ I~I~
Ul :> c;; ,,=-":
II: . ~ .~ ~! a
w ~~ ~:
5 ,..o.(J) e ~iiSl
o (I) ...
w -+-> ;:j >.,g a
~ o:cn ~ ~ II~i
o _;<;::: 01;;<
b. ....... ,.....l 0 u ~8~
o ro H [;It; .
~ !:: Q) N ~ ~.,a
.........~ ~~ C),g 88~:
>~ Q) .....:l N Sl
V >11: 0
..". 0 ,..0 0 e-.
cr- z::w . i
W,.~ Q) s:: t t;S:l
*...-18".'11. 0 0 ~ 1;:<
.' ). ...... 1i3"
- _ ,.....l .(J) SSl
,..~)) H .~ ~"';;E
C...I ,.....l '"C1 ....;u
'-<it ~.D s...:
09 C);:j u!s
o (J)
__ cn~
~ .~
~.~~i~
!!I to
"
...
Iii
o
'"
;;;
1
~
I~i S ~~
UJ nit i ~~ dl
~ ill~.!j h~ )i!1111 ~
~ iiil~lil ~i~i!~il i I !
o IUU~ ~hh~~lll!i ! ~
~ "'" "I'I"I':['''I!
o I: ~ ~
z ~.o I I: - W !!i
W · I I 1:~Bpl
8 III:!! ~
.J I: _ IS
..::r
..::r
..::r
::c
0-
M
~
III
[I
.t....-J
l ! 1
....._1
~
~
:H~:5_~ ':;-..0
2 ;... a 5 ~s~..:
iio:9P ~~'Ols}
lio-;,3 -.og:it
'OJ go} jii: .~~ ~
.r:l.gb :!:5I&=~
i3i;J= X..c_U!!_
Eth-= ~'i~~~~
! it >-=1 ~ ~:: P: l: ~:5
..oE;;.!! I;:c*~"'=
.Eo _.Dj ..g (; at...
.a~~~_ t.~m5]~
i~::I.o oH.E_,S5
:;w..bJ %o-aos.
~~-g~~ o.E-3.;ui
i!E..~ "'cilsll.~
~i !~j !~:~~ i
LL
IX:
ct:::(
x:
Y::>
=>
=
C"-I
I
~
I
I j
I '0
'0 .
i 0
I I~
I .c
I ~
;! ...
g
E "
j u
i
11 Ii
~
3.0..Lo.OO5"1 ~
,rrKL
T
@t:~
Sl ~'t~ @.~~
:~~ ~\
~ ~~,~ ~~
~ ~\\ t~
~~ ;iu\
~~
99
.Z6"LBI
tf.'}
,\?!fSJ
III III
C") ~ ~ ~...
l!I
on
~
I
I
I
IillJ] III ::
~ : ' ~
~ _:/c
d~~ --n ~I
~~~ lil ::...
~.. I' II;
---Mi\;~"'I--.JJ ,..
~~ !-1 I
~i ~ !: ~
~ ,~
(9)"' : ' 91
I
I
I
I
.
,
I
.-----------------
I
I
tf.'\
,\?!fSJ
_ 1!:ill'3SV3 AJ.!JY. O'Qi._
.6Z"BZt
8 "'.....d.(}{)gt ""'"
:ii iliolY10b"DlIllrlrlll1ll1D1I
~ : ,
q "
~O~lll !i
I :
----- --~.~-~
:mlro \Ilniis:: I
--r-h_~
I ~
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo
Item: VAC06-00001 Alley located Date: April 6, 2006
North of Benton west of Dubuque St.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Contact Person:
Robert Miklo
Phone:
319-356-5230
Requested Action:
Vacation of right-of-way
Purpose:
To allow alley to be acquired by Johnson County
Location:
Alley in Block 27 north of Benton Street between
Clinton and Dubuque Streets.
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Public alley
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North:
South:
East:
West:
University and commercial, P2 and CI-1
County Administration Building, P
Commercial and residential, C-1
Industrial and Commercial, 1-1 and CI-1
Comprehensive Plan:
Intensive Commercial
File Date:
February 6, 2006
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Johnson County has purchased or is in the process of purchasing all privately held property lying
between South Clinton and South Dubuque Streets to the north of Benton Street. The County
plans to build a Health and Human Services office building on this block. They are requesting that
the alley be vacated and conveyed to the County to allow the entire block to be developed as one
piece. The alley currently serves a number of commercial uses within this block.
ANAL YSIS:
Typically, vacating right-of-way can be recommended if, 1) it will not have a negative effect on
pedestrian or vehicular circulation, or planned circulation routes, 2) it will not be detrimental to
emergency vehicle or utility vehicle access to adjacent properties, and 3) it will not diminish
access to adjacent properties and is not needed for public or private utilities. This case is
unique in that the proposed vacation will facilitate the transfer of the property to another
governmental entity and no private property will be affected, assuming that the County
2
completes its plans to purchase all properties on this block. Neither of the properties which the
County has not yet acquired use the alley for access.
There is currently a sanitary sewer line located within this alley. A utility easement will need to
be retained over this line or the sewer will need to be rerouted to the Dubuque Street right-of-
way. There do not appear to be any private utility lines located within this alley.
As the County has acquired all of the properties within this block that currently have access to
this alley, there is no City interest in continuing to incur cost, staff-time and liability in
maintaining this right-of-way. It will no longer be needed for pUblic access. Vacation will
accommodate the County's development plans.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that VAC06-00001, an application to vacate the alley located in Block 27 north
of Benton Street between Clinton and Dubuque Streets be approved subject to retention of any
necessary utility easements.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Letter from County Attorney
Approved by:
Karin F anklin, Director,
Depa ent of Planning and Community Development
S:\PCD \staff reports.doc
/
J
r
I~
nl
\
\-
4J
A?
I u ~D N~UI~VtJ
~ D
o
T"""
o
~ 8
~ 0
I
<0
o
()
<(
>
I
~
ff,
// //
N /
~
/
p
rl1
Office of the
Johnson County Attorney
Criminal
Johnson County Courthouse · 417 South Clinton Street. P.O. Box 2450 . Iowa City, IA 52244-2450
Phone (319) 339-6100 · Fax (319) 339-6149
Anne M. Lahey
David V. Tiffany
Deborah Farmer Minot
Michael D. Brennan
M. Victoria Cole
Iris Frost
Meredith Rich-Chappell
Rachel Zimmermann Smith
J. Patrick White
County Attomey
Civil-Juvenile
January 17, 2006
Janet M. Lyness
Andrew B. Chappell
Elizabeth A. Beglin
Kristin L Parks
Child Support
Steve Atkins
City Manager
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Patricia A. Weir
1-(888) 229-9223
Rp-:
Alley acquisition
Dear Steve:
As you may recall, Johnson County is pursuing a plan which places
a new Health-Human Services facility on the block north of the County
Administration Building. The new facility will house the Department of
Public Health now on Gilbert Court and the Department of Human Services
offices now on North Governor and in Eastdale Plaza.
We have acquired the entire block except for RT's and YaYa's--and
are in the process of negotiating with those owners. We are also pending
a closing with Midwest Development on what is currently the Carquest
location.
This is our formal request for vacation by the City of the north-
south alley through Block 27 and conveyance of that alley to Johnson
County so we would have siting flexibility for the entire block.
I have enclosed a memo to me from one of our legal assistants and
copies of Plats which show the alley.
Naturally, should you or your staff have questions, we would be
happy to visit. Thank you for your consideration and assistance.
Sincerely,
Q~
Idre
Enclosure
Cy: Mike Sullivan
J. Patrick White
Johnson County Attorney
o
~
~~~O
_..1-_ -....:::
--...}
C)-<'
.......-..."
~;J .~~)
..... ....... ;............~
as]
::s:~
:ii;
'.'v
~
<:::.-;;:
;::;
\:.t)
,
0'\
)f
::::::::
I
f77
l-..,
'\J
~...
::Ji:
cs
'.
CJ1
-
o Printed on recycled paper with soy ink. ~
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
MARCH 2, 2006
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Dean Shannon, Don Anciaux, Ann Freerks, Wally Plahutnik, Beth Koppes, Bob
Brooks, Terry Smith
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sunil Terdalkar, Mitch Behr
OTHERS PRESENT: Larry McChesney, Lawrence Kent, Bob Burns, Steve Gordon, Greg Van
Dusseldorp. Larry Schnittjer, John Brehm
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, REZ05-00026/SUB05-00019, a rezoning to amend the
Planned Development Housing Overlay Plan (OPDH-12) and a preliminary plat of Silvercrest Part 3 to
allow the development of up to 116 multi-family residential units on 12.17 acres located at American
Legion Road and Scott Boulevard with a variance in the height limit of up to 47-feet to allow for the
underground parking.
Recommend approval, by a vote of 7-0, REZ06-00003, a rezoning of approximately 1.51-acres of
property from Interim Development Multi-family Residential (ID-RM) to Low Density Multi-Family
Residential (RM-12) located on Kountry Lane SE with substantial compliance with the concept plan
presented at the 3/2/06 Commission meeting and subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring a
minimum 35-foot building setback from the east property line with evergreen landscaping to provide a
buffer for the adjacent single-family home and a height limit of 2 ~ stories for building I.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0. REZ06-00004, a rezoning of approximately 1-acre of land
from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to Overlay Planned Development (OPD-5) with a
Sensitive Areas Development Plan located at Dubuque Road and North Dodge Street subject to Staff
approval of the landscaping plan prior to consideration by City Council.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, REZ06-00005, a rezoning of approximately 1.8-acres from
Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Community Commercial (CC-2) located at 1803/1835 Boyrum Street.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, SUB06-00002, a final plat of Windsor West Subdivision Part
One, a 37-lot, residential subdivision on approximately 26.04-acres of land located on American Legion
Road with fencing and landscaping conditions addressed in the legal papers.
CALL TO ORDER:
Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:33 pm.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM:
REZ05-00026/SUB05-00019, discussion of an application submitted by Dial Land Development
Corporation for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Housing Overlay Plan (OPDH-12) and a
preliminary plat of Silvercrest Part 3 to allow the development of up to 116 multi-family residential units on
12.17 -acres of land located at American Legion Road and Scott Boulevard.
Miklo provided Staff Report. The larger Silvercrest area was annexed into the City in 1998. Phase I
included 3 lots on the west which have been constructed; Phase II is the area subject to the amendment
to the development. The current planned development for this parcel would allow four 24-unit buildings
on 4-lots and a series of townhouse and duplex lots in the southwest corner of the property. Two
stormwater basins serve the development. The applicant had proposed to amend the development to
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2006
Page 2 of 12
replace two of the 24-unit independent living apartment buildings with one 57-unit apartment building.
The plan currently allowed 48-units, the new proposal would allow 57-units in the same area. The fourth
building would increase from 24-to 27-units; a sky-walk would connect the two buildings. A corridor was
also proposed which would connect the existing building with the larger building. The number of
townhouse and duplex style units would be reduced by 10-units, the end result would be 116-units
instead of 114-units on the property which would be within the maximum allowed by a planned
development for this property.
The applicant had indicated that the primary reason for making the amendment would be to allow the
larger building to contain communal services such as a large kitchen, dining area and recreation facility
including theater. The applicant wished to connect all the apartment buildings so that the residents would
have access to the facilities without having to go outside.
Miklo showed elevation plans for the proposed buildings. He said two sides of the buildings would
exceed the 35-foot height limit in order to allow the garage entry to go below grade. Staff recommended
approval of the waiver of the height limit in order to allow the underground parking. The east elevation
would be the most visible to the public, the applicant had included architectural variations to break-up the
visual appearance of the building's mass. The first floor of the building would be a brick veneer, the
upper stories would be cement board siding with balconies and bays and varied roof line.
The property to the east was currently a religious institution. It would be possible in the future that it
would be annexed into the city and possibly developed for residential purposes.
The subdivision of the property currently consisted of seven lots which were being reconfigured to allow
the joining of two buildings and adjustment of lot lines. The landscaping plan was similar to what had
been previously submitted.
Staff had received an e-mail from Don Sanders a neighboring property owner who owned property in the
Village Green subdivision. His main concern was the lighting of the facility. When Silvercrest had initially
opened Staff had received a number of complaints about the lighting and the glare. City Inspection
Department had worked with the applicant to correct that problem. At that time after a retro-fitting the
standard of no more than one-foot candle at the property line was met. Because of the design of the
fixtures the neighbors continued to complain about the glare. For the new development the lighting would
have to comply with the new standards which were somewhat stricter and should not result in the amount
of glare currently being complained about.
Miklo said Staff recommended approval of REZ05-00026/SUB05-00019, with a variance of the height
limit of up to 47-feet to allow for the underground parking.
Freerks asked what was the distance between the east elevation of the building and the church property
line. Miklo said 120-feet.
Brooks asked for more detail regarding the new lighting standards and what changes would improve the
light situation.
Miklo said the new standards had a provision which required that decorative lighting which had an
exposed light source, in this particular case a pole with an acorn shaped fixture on it, not be permitted as
the primary source of lighting for a sight. A shoebox type lighting fixture which 'downcast' the lighting
would be the primary lighting source. Howard said the Code now had two different ways to measure the
light at the property line.
Brooks said one thing that would also make a difference was whether the lens of the light was flat or
exposed which created a point source of the light which could be visually intrusive. A flat lens would not
produce all the little points of light and more clearly cast the light downward which prevented overlighting.
Public discussion was opened.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2006
Page 3 of 12
Larry McChesnev, TSP Architects and Engineers, Omaha, NE, said he was there representing the Dial
Companies.
Brooks said an interest of his as well as a concern that had been raised by a neighboring property owner
was light pollution. He asked what was going to be done or what changes might be done in the planning-
construction of the development to mitigate and tone down the lighting levels of the development. In the
areas that were already developed, probably nothing much could be done in those areas. Were fixtures
that were neighborhood friendly and that created less light pollution into the area being considered?
McChesney said he was unable to respond as he had been unaware that there would be discussion
regarding lighting. The lighting consultant had already submitted a lighting plan. His understanding was
that they would continue with the same decorative fixture because it was a senior community and the
developer desired the development to feel like home. McChesney said for the developer he could commit
to looking at the criteria with the consultant for this project phase, they would meet the new criteria.
Brooks said he'd personally like to encourage the developer to review the situation to see what
modifications could be done to take away that irritant point.
McChesney said this particular developer also did retail work and he'd worked with him on retail projects.
He agreed that site lighting and parking lot lighting were important to surrounding neighborhoods,
depending on the type of fixture used lighting could be different. Miklo had provided him with a copy of
the e-mail concern. McChesney said it was their preference to take care of issues now rather than later.
Freerks said when this project had first been developed there had been a lot of discussion regarding
lighting, she encouraged the developer to review the proposed lighting for this development phase.
Plahutnik asked if any screening was proposed for the road in the north-east corner that abutted the
church property. McChesney said the topography made it very advantageous, it was proposed to be a
lower driveway than the natural lay of the land and the retaining wall would pick up most of the light.
Miklo said a landscaping plan had been received late Friday which indicated a row of evergreen trees that
eventually would provide further screening.
Lawrence Kent, resident of Modern Manor development, said his concern was also lighting on the rear
side of the proposed duplexes. He lived right next to the fence line and would be one of the first persons
that offended by the lighting. He had no concerns with the buildings, just with the lighting and that it not
be over abundant in that area.
Brooks said it was his assumption that it would be a very residential environment with mainly street
lighting and the typical lighting on the back of the house if someone wished to turn it on.
Kent said it was his understanding that it would be an exposed basement on the rear side of the duplexes
on the south side. His concern was the lighting.
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve REZ05-00026/SUB05-00019, a rezoning to amend the
Planned Development Housing Overlay Plan (OPDH-12) and a preliminary plat of Silvercrest Part 3 to
allow the development of up to 116 multi-family residential units on 12.17 acres located at American
Legion Road and Scott Boulevard with a variance of the height limit of up to 47-feet to allow for the
underground parking. Freerks seconded the motion.
Freerks said she thought it was a very large building but had been designed very well and would probably
fit into the neighborhood as well as any structure that size could.
Brooks requested Staff to convey to Mr. Sanders that his concerns had been noted and discussed and to
bring it to the attention of the developer making sure that they were in compliance.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2,2006
Page 4 of 12
Miklo said at the time of building permit the final site plan would be reviewed. The City's Housing and
Inspection Department would pay particular attention to the lighting plan to make sure it met the new
standards. The developer would be required to provide a photometric reading.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
REZONING ITEMS:
REZ06-00001, discussion of an application submitted by Johnson County Permanent Supportive Housing
LP for a rezoning from Public (P) zone to Public (P) I Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) zone
for 2.83-acres of property located at 4435-4455 Melrose Avenue.
Howard said the property was owned by Johnson County. The City required that whenever a publicly
owned property was being leased to a private entity, a rezoning occur with an overlay zone. The
proposal was for 18 privately owned affordable rental units for persons with disabilities so the appropriate
zone would be Low Density Multi-Family. The proposed rezoning would be P/RM-12.
The property was located on the old County Poor Farm property. Johnson County had recently
completed a planning study for this property, at about the same time the City had conducted its
Southwest District planning process. There had been a lot of planning, effort and public input put into
those two plans; there was a lot of information available about the County Poor Farm property. Citizens
were concerned about the history of the property and preserving portions of the Poor Farm. Chatham
Oaks, a privately owned facility for persons with mental illness was also located on the Poor Farm
property directly west of the property proposed for rezoning. In their Plan, the County had indicated an
interest in leasing or using some of the property for more residential uses. This proposed rezoning is
consistent with those goals of the plan.
For new developments that abut multi-lane highways, such as Hwy 218, the City recommends buffering
of highway noise and elements of the highway. Since this property abuts the highway, Staff recommends
a buffer of trees and landscaping along the east property line.
A challenge to developing this site will be providing safe vehicular access to Melrose Avenue, an arterial
street, which bounds the property on the North. Melrose Avenue contains a median that extends along
the entire frontage of the subject property. The median is located to indicate to motorists that this is an
approach to a major interchange and the number and configuration of travel lanes is changing. The City
advised the developer last fall that the City would prefer that this property share the existing driveway
access with Chatham Oaks and extend a private drive to the property from the west rather than establish
a new access point on Melrose Avenue, which would necessitate a cut in the median and approval from
the State Department of Transportation. The City had also indicated that if the applicant adamantly
wished some access directly to Melrose Avenue, the City would not oppose a right-in/right-out only
driveway but it would have to be in addition to a shared access through the existing Chatham Oaks
driveway. With strictly a right-in/right-out only driveway, the only means of access to the site for
westbound travelers would be to turn around in the Chatham Oaks driveway or make an illegal u-turn
around the median, which would be unacceptable from a safety standpoint.
Howard displayed a site map on which the Armory's plan for the development on the North side of Melose
had been superimposed and which illustrated their intent to align their access point with the existing
Chatham Oaks access drive and beyond the extent of the median.
Howard also stated that because of the historic nature of the old Poor Farm property, the State would
require a Phase 1 Archaeological Survey. Staff recommends that the rezoning be conditioned on
compliance with any conditions placed on the site by the State due to findings of this survey.
Howard stated that staff recommends approval, provided the following conditions are met,
. Primary vehicular access to the property must be provided by way of a private drive extending behind
Chatham Oaks facility utilizing the existing access drive from Melrose Avenue;
. Completion of a Phase 1 Archaeological Survey and compliance with any conditions placed on the
use or development of the site by the State;
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2006
Page 5 of 12
. Submission and approval of a landscaping plan for a vegetative buffer/screen to be established along
the east property boundary prior to issuance of an occupancy permit
Shannon asked if the City or the State would be agreeable to having a small segment of the median
island cut so that a legal left turn could be made through the median.
Howard said because access was jointly controlled by the State, the applicant would have to negotiate
any cut of the median with the State DOT. Any median cut would have to constructed to state standards
and include a turn lane and appropriate length taper.
Brooks asked if the concern about the right-in/right-out entrance to the site was being generated from the
City Engineer's Office. Howard said the City's letter to the applicant regarding access, dated October
2005, was included in the Commission's information packet. The City always encourages shared access
to arterial streets which helped control traffic flow along arterial streets and prevented accidents. In this
case there was an existing good access point; the new Zoning Code requires cross access easements
whenever possible.
Smith asked if the access issues could be put off to a later point. Miklo said it was unlikely that there
would be a subdivision connected to this item; this would be the best opportunity to take those issues into
account. Howard said the applicant would need to have a safe access to that property. There would be
no other possible access except cutting the median or utilizing the existing Chatham Oaks access. A
right-in/right-out only access would not be acceptable due to safety issues. If there was no other way to
get to the property it would require vehicles to make an illegal u-turn around the median.
Public discussion was opened.
Bob Burns, representing the applicant. The limited partnership was made up of two entities; the general
partner was Chatham Oaks, a local non-profit organization with a local board of directors that operated
the county care facility for the Board of Supervisors. The other entity was NAMI of Johnson County,
National Association for the Mentally III. Burns said he was there as an architect and developer.
The project had begun in the early 1990's. Yesterday he'd been at the Iowa Finance Authority in Des
Moines and knew for a fact that all of the funds had been committed to build this project. The proposed
project would remain in the ownership and the direction of Chatham Oaks for the lease period. Staff
report had said that the County 'intended' to lease the subject property, but actually the County had
already leased the property to the limited partnership. The lease was in place and waiting for
implementation. It would run for fifty years from the date that a certificate of occupancy for the building
was issued. At the end of the fifty years/lease term, all of the improvements including the building would
revert to the ownership of the County. The County would never lose control of the land.
Burns said the whole goal was to provide independent apartments for the chronically mentally ill so they
could live in an independent setting in their own apartment away from an institutional environment. One
of the key elements of the whole project was the independent identity of this project; it was called Melrose
Ridge, not Chatham Oaks. It was their hope that the name Chatham Oaks only surfaced in terms of the
ownership because they were there to be the guiding force. Melrose Ridge would become a reality if one
problem could be resolved. They had no issue with the Phase 1 Archaeological Survey and they had no
issue with the landscaping plan. The only issue they had was with Staffs recommendation regarding the
access point. Burns said the Commission would be in control of whether the project went ahead or died.
Burns said they understood why Staff recommended a shared access but they did not agree with it. By
sharing the existing access point, would require the construction of over 1,000 feet of new street into the
property and would bring the driveway through the Chatham Oaks property which no one involved in the
project wanted to do. They wanted a separate identity for this project; they wanted the identity to be their
own access drive off Melrose Avenue. They felt that was key and would be the only solution that would
work. Burns said they'd submitted a site plan which had shown an access drive with a cut in the median.
They'd been in contact with the DOT, County and City on this issue. Burns said they would have to
convince the DOT, but the DOT had said that the jurisdiction would also lie with the City so they'd have to
get the City's support as well as the DOT's support. Burns said he felt they could meet all the design and
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2006
Page 6 of 12
safety standards of distances between driveways and distances away from the access point onto Hwy
218.
Burns said he was there to request the Commission recommend the access point as requested by the
applicant and not the access point as recommended by Staff. The main reason for their request came
frpm their source of financing. The final source of financing had come from the Iowa Finance Authority
under a program known as Section 42 Low Income Housing Tax Credit. The Iowa Finance Authority
adopted rules which the Johnson County Permanent Supportive Housing L.P. had to follow in order to
comply with the source of funding. [Burns distributed a copy of the key rule/issue.] Burns referenced the
sentence in Section 5.4.2.7 of the 2006 Qualified Allocation Plan for the Low Income Housing Cash Credit
rules which an applicant was required to follow to have a qualified project. "All sites proposed must have
direct contiguous access from the project site to an existing paved publicly dedicated right-of-ways".
Burns said the applicant had represented to the Iowa Finance Authority that that access would be directly
from the site to Melrose Avenue. There was an existing farm access into the field at that point. Burns
said they felt that a letter written to the L.P. from Karen Franklin dated 10/11/2005 gave them guidance to
propose the access as a right-in/right-out driveway and they'd relied on that when they'd submitted their
application. Burns said they had discussed this issue with the City before they'd submitted their
application. Franklin's letter was dated 10/11/05; they had submitted their application in November 2005.
Burns quoted from Franklin's letter, "If you are adamant about a separate access point to your proposed
project, we would be able to support this location as a right-in/right-out access only, in addition to the
existing Chatham Oaks driveway."
Howard said as a point of clarification, if the access were to go through the Chatham Oaks driveway, the
City would support that position. They could have the right-in/right-out but they would also have to
provide access to this property through the Chatham Oaks driveway as stated in Karin Franklin's letter.
For a person traveling from the east, there would be no way to get to the proposed property if there were
no cut in the median and if the only access point were the right-in/right-out access as proposed by the
applicant. There would be no legal way to access the site; it was posted 'No U Turn." Fire department
and emergency service vehicles would have to have a safe access to that property, a sole right-in/right-
out access would not permit legal access to the property. Howard said she'd made numerous telephone
calls to Burns' office during the past two weeks to try to clarify this issue with him but he had never
returned any of her calls. It had been unclear to Staff from Ms. Falcomata's letter to the City what their
proposal actually was. Staff had immediately contacted Falcomata but had been unable to reach Burns
so it remained unclear to Staff what was the applicant's solution regarding safe access to the property.
Burns said he felt the way to resolve it would be a cut in the median. He'd been unable to speak to his
client and had been unable to get back to City Staff until tonight.
Miklo said Franklin's October, 2005 letter had also addressed making a cut in the median. The concept
plan submitted by the applicant had not shown a cut in the median, if that was something that the
applicant wished to pursue Miklo recommended deferring this item until that issue could be resolved.
Howard said she'd had conversations with the County as well. They'd indicated that they were ok with
having a driveway across the Chatham Oaks property.
Shannon asked Burns if he'd been in contact with the DOT about making a cut across the median. He
agreed with Franklin and Howard that it would be a huge mistake to have the only access be a right-
in/right-out only access, someone could get killed having the access in that location.
Burns said he had contacted the DOT. The applicant was not in favor of having a right-in/right-out only
access. To have a cut across the median would be a lot less expensive than building a 1000 foot street
around the building.
Shannon suggested if Burns could obtain something in writing from the State on their position, that would
help clear his thinking regarding if the State had a problem or not.
Freerks said there would be a lot of steps that would have to occur. Brooks said his reading of Franklin's
letter was that the cut in the median would not necessarily be a State issue. The project was an excellent
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2006
Page 7 of 12
project but for Burns to imply that the Commission would somehow throw the project into a tailspin
because of the access issue not being resolved was something that he didn't like to hear. However, he
was also concerned about receiving a proposal from an applicant that had not fully addressed all the
issues that had been raised; an unaddressed issue was the safe access to the site. When the
Commission received a plan that showed that the issue had been negotiated and was acceptable to all
parties involved, then at that time the Commission could take action on it. Brooks said to imply that the
Commission's action that evening determined whether this project would live or die was unfair. When the
Commission was put in the position of having to act on a proposal which did not even address a very
basic concern, safe access to the property for users, vehicles and emergency service vehicles, it put the
Commission in a difficult position.
Burns said he heard what was being said, but the applicants wanted to emphasize to the Commission
that the Staff recommendation regarding access was not acceptable. The reason was it would be too
expensive and it didn't meet the criteria of the Iowa Finance Authority. They had thought that in her letter,
Franklin was telling them no cut in the median and a right-in/right-out access at that point. If they'd
misinterpreted her, then they'd have to have someone else look at the letter. Burns said they had not
realized 'this' until two weeks ago, they'd been waiting and waiting for the funding, then this issue had
come up. The issue had to be resolved. If the Commission wished to defer it until the next meeting, that
was fine. Burns said they didn't want to be in a hurry, they wanted to get it right.
Plahutnik asked, with respect to precedence had there been curb cuts, median cuts or turning lanes
installed for the car dealerships that were along other arterial streets or had they been required to have
access through other streets.
Howard said Staff had not analyzed the median cut option or compared it with other situations because
Staff had received a letter from Burns' office that had said they would pursue a right-in/right-out access
only. Miklo said it was decided on a case-by-case basis; on Mormon Trek there were businesses that
shared curb cuts versus having a median cut.
Smith asked Behr for counsel regarding a DOT review and approval of a median cut. Behr said having
seen the statement about it being outside the area where the DOT had purchased access rights, with that
qualification it would be subject to DOT approval. The DOT liked to work with a city and played heavily
on the city's desires when it was so close to (a) town.
Burns said they were there to cooperate with the City. For the record and in consultation with their
attorney who was further investigating the matter, they did not feel that they should have to be before the
Commission. The reason: they could not find anywhere in the Zoning Ordinance where there was a
P1/RM-12 district. For the record, they didn't concede that a rezoning was required. They were there to
cooperate and to try to work out some of the issues.
Behr said he would review that issue. He thought it had specifically been discussed that the current Code
required that if it was not a use permitted in a public zone, the overlay zoning was required.
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Smith made a motion to defer REZ06-00001 while the issues of 1) access; 2) provision of
acceptable design and plan to all parties; 3) clarification of need for rezoning. Shannon seconded.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
REZ06-00003, discussion of an application submitted by Sycamore Apartments for a rezoning of
approximately 1.51-acres of property from Interim Development Multi-family Residential (IDRM) to Low
Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) located on Kountry Lane SE.
Terdalkar said Staff had received a letter from the applicant's representative indicating that the developer
had tried to address the issues raised at the previous Commission meeting. The developer had also
provided a revised concept plan which showed a landscape buffer on the berm. Building I would be
moved to the south and to the west so there would be 40-feet between the building and the property line.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2006
Page 8 of 12
The developer had proposed a trail connection to the trails in the Sycamore Greenway from the
development and had agreed to a CZA condition stipulating a 2% story above ground building limit on
Building I. Terdalkar said Staff recommended approval of REZ06-00003.
Steve Gordon, A&M Management, said they had been able to move Building I back to the south to make
it parallel with currently existing Buildings A and B and they'd moved Building I approximately 5 feet
further to the west so it was now 40-feet from the lot line. From the GIS map on the Assessor's website,
Gordon determined that the existing farm house was 87 -feet from the lot line which would make Building I
127-feet from the adjacent house. They had been able to create a connection from both the current
sidewalk in the existing development and the proposed sidewalk in the new development to hook into the
City's trail system. A landscape plan which included an evergreen scaped berm and plantings had been
provided to Staff; if it was approved by Staff that would become the landscaping plan for the proposed
development. A fence, not as a screen but to separate the two properties, had been shown as a split rail
fence to be installed along the north to south property line by the developer.
The land directly to the north of the project was county land, to the northeast on the south side of the
stormwater trail system was ground zoned RS-8, to the east was over 100-acres of land in a conservation
easement that had been set aside with wetlands and trails and could not be developed, to the southeast
the storm water basins and trail systems continued, directly to the south was approximately 30 acres
which was zoned ID-RM.
Freerks asked if the developer was agreeable to the CZA condition regarding height of Building I. Gordon
said that was correct, a small retaining wall would have to be installed on the west side of the building.
Plahutnik asked if there had been any requests from Van Dusseldorp that the developer had not been
able to meet. Gordon said they'd visited after the meeting. It was Gordon's understanding that Van
Dusseldorp would rather have a 2-story than a 3-story building, but cost issues made the middle story
important for a 3-story unit. That was the only request that he was aware of that had been unmet.
Greg Van Dusseldorp, 4387 Kountry Lane SE, said he'd spoken to the developer but was naturally still
opposed to the additional development of more apartments. His list for the City to consider included
green space, the amount of dogs and persons who resided in the existing apartments, future
development of green space and park space in that area. Low density housing sounded fine but there
was a lot of persons already residing there who were a transient society who really didn't care about the
value of his property or about the adjoining wetlands. Van Dusseldorp said if the City was going to
continue to build this type of housing or projects they needed to consider, to develop sensitive areas even
if they were EPA mandated, that the increased density would have an impact on a pond or wetland. He
suggested that the City conduct a study and talk with Lon Drake to get a comprehensive understanding of
the impact of building such high density dwellings beside a sensitive area. The areas were very sensitive
and should be treated as such.
Van Dusseldorp said he'd spoken with Gordon but realized his preferences would not matter a whole lot.
He didn't feel that simply putting in more trees and landscaping was hardly a justification for it, it was a
poor way to justify a project. The trees that would be put in as a buffer needed to be more mature, he
didn't think he should have to wait 15 years for something to grow. It was not fair to him or to his children
or to anyone who would end up on his property. Van Dusseldorp said he'd spoken again with a realtor
who'd said his property would not increase like it should, it would not decrease but not increase either.
Light pollution was another issue. When he'd first moved to his property he'd had the farm light removed
because he didn't like it shining in his windows. Now there was more light that should also be addressed.
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Freerks made a motion to approve REZ06-00003, a rezoning of approximately 1.51-acres of
property from Interim Development Multi-family Residential (IDRM) to Low Density Multi-Family
Residential (RM-12) located on Kountry Lane SE with substantial compliance with the concept plan
presented at the 3/2/06 Commission meeting and subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring a
minimum 35-foot building setback from the east property line with evergreen landscaping to provide a
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2006
Page 9 of 12
buffer for the adjacent single-family home and a 2 % story height limit for building I. Smith seconded the
motion.
Miklo indicated where Sycamore Greenway was located on the site map. It was a constructed wetland
that handled drainage in the area and was also trail; there was a 100-plus-acre conservation easement
which contained wetland as well. Miklo said because of the wetland complex there was a considerable
amount of open space in that part of the city. The South District plan indicated that the ID-RM zoned area
to the south should contain a mix of housing and probably would not be just multi-family. It would require
a rezoning before development and also a mitigation plan which would show that any stormwater run off
or dominant activity would not harm the adjacent wetland. Miklo said as the western portion of Sycamore
Farms developed, a park in the western area was also anticipated.
Brooks said the Parks and Recreation Department was just beginning to update their Master Plan, which
should take into account the need for park and open space in that area as development occurred.
Plahutnik said for clarification purposes, he thought Van Dusseldorp had been referring to open green
space within the development itself in which children could play on the property and people could walk
their dogs and take care of their pet's refuse on the property rather than exporting it out into the public
green space.
Freerks said at Monday's work session they'd discussed that as well as the trash issue. It appeared to be
more of a problem with the way that the residents dealt with their trash rather than the containers or the
area around them. She hoped that one day Van Dusseldorp would feel that his input and communication
with the developer really had helped the project, there had been compromises on both sides.
The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0.
REZ06-00004, discussion of an application submitted by Three Bulls LLC for a rezoning from Low
Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Overlay Planned Development (OPD-5) zone for 1-acre
of property located at Dubuque Road and North Dodge Street.
Terdalkar said the proposal was for a planned development of a 5-unit condominium/townhouse project
on one-acre of property. The sensitive areas existing on the property were regulated slopes and wooded
areas. The clustered structure would be located near the east boundary of the property near the street to
minimize the disturbance to the sensitive areas. There would be only one access to the property. Staff
felt that the proposed design for the structure was compatible with the existing residential area. The
traffic that would be generated from the development would be about 35-trips per day. The current
improvements to Dodge Street would involve some improvements to Dubuque Road, Staff recommended
that the developer be responsible for sharing the cost of the improvements to the remainder of Dubuque
Road in front of this property [80-feet] and for the cost of sidewalks to be installed along Dubuque Road.
The developer would be required to extend the sanitary sewer line to the north boundary line of the
property, water main extension fees would be paid by the developer. Staff recommended approval of
REZ06-00004.
Koppes said the plan did not show a sidewalk to the front doors, would there be one. Miklo said the plan
didn't show a sidewalk but it was a Code requirement.
Miklo said the most recent elevation plan for the building showed a cultured stone building front for the
first floor, the second floor was cement board. Staff had communicated the Commission's concerns
regarding landscaping, having trees planted in the berm, having the landscaping wrap around the south
side further and the placement of evergreen trees along Dodge Street to the applicant who had not
responded yet.
Larry Schnittier, MMS Consultants, said he was not involved directly in this project but would work with
Staff to reach an agreeable landscaping plan.
Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2006
Page 10 of 12
Motion: Freerks made a motion to approve REZ06-00004, a rezoning of approximately 1-acre of land
from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to Overlay Planned Development (OPD-5) with a
Sensitive Areas Development Plan located at Dubuque Road and North Dodge Street subject to Staff
approval of the landscaping plan prior to consideration by City Council. Koppes seconded the motion.
Freerks said she thought it was a very nice looking structure and would fit in well with the surrounding
single-family nature of the neighborhood. She appreciated the developer's commitment to use quality
building material. Brooks agreed.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
REZ06-00005, discussion of an application submitted by Hy-Vee Food Stores Inc., for a rezoning from
Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for 1.80-acres of property
located at 1803/1835 Boyrum Street.
Miklo said the property contained the former Goodwill Store and a restaurant. The property to the west
which contained the current Hy-Vee Store was formerly zoned CI-I, Intensive Commercial, and had been
rezoned in 1994 to accommodate the Hy-Vee building. This had left the remnant piece of CI-1 zoned
property adjacent to Boyrum Road. The applicant was requesting a rezoning to CC-2 to allow an
expansion of the existing Hy-Vee store. Staff felt that the rezoning would be compatible with the adjacent
properties which were zoned CC-2 commercial, a more retail oriented zone. The actual site plan would
be reviewed and approved by Staff at an administrative level. Staff felt the redevelopment would improve
the situation in that several driveways would be closed, leaving only two driveways in the vicinity which
would relieve overall congestion in the area. Staff recommended approval of REZ06-00005.
Brooks asked if the City had any concerns regarding the staggered driveways along Boyrum Street.
Miklo said Staff generally attempted to have driveways line-up with those across the street. The
proposed plan would be such an improvement in terms of closing a number of driveways that the City's
Transportation Planner felt it would be acceptable.
Public discussion was opened.
John Brehm, Hy-Vee Engineering and David Bailev, Hy-Vee. Brehm said they'd held a neighborhood
meeting on Tuesday evening. All comments had been positive, the neighbors were anxious for the
project to begin to help improve the area.
Brooks said the Commission had indicated that the access along Boyrum Street for exiting traffic had
been problematic in the past. Would it be possible as the final site plan was developed to try to
emphasize the new entrance near the front of the store as the main entrance in an effort to direct as
much traffic out and in that way as possible? Anything that could be done would be helpful.
Brehm said he felt most motorists would naturally be inclined to go to that route, the current one was fairly
convoluted. If there was a problem they could consider placing signage there. The landscape buffer
there would be increased with additional plantings which would make the curb cut there more evident.
Koppes said she hoped they would also consider the placement of a right-turn lane there, people turning
left often times blocked the view of the persons wishing to turn right. Brehm said they would consider it.
Public discussion was closed.
Smith said for public disclosure, he served on the Board of Directors for Goodwill Industries which had
formerly occupied the vacant building and his wife was an employee of Hy-Vee. Staff legal counsel had
determined that there was no conflict of interest.
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve REZ06-00005, a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to
Community Commercial (CC-2) for 1.8-acres of property located at 1803/1835 Boyrum Street. Koppes
seconded the motion.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2006
Page 11 of 12
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
SUBDIVISION ITEMS:
SUB06-00002, discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development, Inc. for a final plat of
Windsor West Part 1, a 37 -lot 26.04-acre residential subdivision located at 4670 American Legion Rd SE.
Terdalkar said the deficiencies noted in the Staff Report had been resolved. Because of a change in the
estimates for the project in the CIP, a change in the CZA condition regarding costs for improvements to
American Legion Road were reflected in the Staff Report. A landscape buffer along American Legion
Road for lots 6, 7 and 8 and temporary construction easement for the improvement of American Legion
Road be addressed in the legal papers. If fences were installed they should be installed north of the
easement and behind the landscape buffer. Staff recommended approval of SUB06-00002.
Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Plahutnik made a motion to approve SUB06-00002, a final plat of Windsor West Part 1, a 37 -lot
26.04-acre residential subdivision located at 4670 American Legion Rd SE with fencing and landscaping
conditions addressed in the legal papers. Koppes seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
SUB06-00003, discussion of an application submitted by Dav-Ed Limited for a preliminary plat of Galway
Hills Parts 10 & 100, a 56-lot, 21.75-acre residential subdivision located at Dublin Drive & Shannon Drive.
Terdalkar said Staff recommended this item be deferred pending resolution of issues recently discovered
during review of the plat by the City Engineer.
Motion: Smith made a motion to defer SUB06-00003. Anciaux seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
CONSIDERATION OF 2/16/06 MEETING MINUTES:
Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Koppes seconded.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
OTHER ITEMS:
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: Smith made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:13 pm. Koppes seconded the motion.
The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary
Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill
s:/pcd/minutes/p&zl2006103-Q2-06.doc
C
o
';
III
'E
E
o
o'E
c)o
C (,)
,- Q)
Co::
o
NQ)~
....(,)0
-CN
C)ns
c'C
,- C
C Q)
C:::
.!!c(
Q.
~
(3
ns
~
.2
N >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
M
CD UJ UJ ><
~ a >< >< >< >< a
N
~ >< >< >< >< >< >< UJ
a
en UJ
~ >< >< >< >< a >< ><
-
~
~ >< >< >< UJ >< >< ><
~ a
1Il (() 0 co "- 0 co (()
E ~ 0 ..... 0 0 ..... 0 0
'A - i:O - - - - -
0) x Ll) Ll) Ll) Ll) Ll) Ll)
I-UJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ C
x ~ ~ III 'c 0
~ i ... C
ns ~ .c
'(j 0 Q) .c C ...
e ns 'E
0) C l! 0 ns .c
E c( m u.. :ll::: D: t/) t/)
<1l ci ai c( u.i ~ ci t-=
z
C)
z
i=
w
w
::E
..J
c(
::E
0::
o
u..
....
s::! >< >< >< >< >< 0 ><
N
M UJ
~ >< >< >< >< >< a ><
N
1Il (() 0 co
E ~ "- 0 co (()
0 ..... e 0 ..... 0 e
Q)'~ - - i:O - -
Ll) Ll) Ll) Ll) Ll) Ll)
I-UJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ C
>< III III III 'c 0
~ ~ ~ 8 ... c
ns 0 ~ C .c
'(j Q) .c ...
e l! ns 'E
0) C ~ ns .c
E c( m u.. D: t/) t/)
<1l ci ai c( u.i ~ ci ...=
z
C)
z
i=
w
w
::E
..J
c(
::E
0::
o
u..
~
"'C
0)
1Il
::J
Uc>
X c:
UJ+:;
-_:+:>O)
c: c: c: 0)
0)0)0)00:::
1Il1ll1ll':=
~.o.oo
c..<(<(z
" II II II II
>- UJ~
0) -_
~><OOz