HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-06-2006 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, July 6,2006
Formal Meeting - 7:30 PM
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
C. Rezoning Item:
1. REZ06-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Johnson County Permanent Supportive
Housing LP for a rezoning of 2.83 acres of property located at 4435/4455 Melrose Avenue from
Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone to Neighborhood Public 1 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (P-
1/RM-12) zone.
2. REZ06-00016: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning of 2.32 acres
of property located at 2401 Scott Boulevard from General Industrial (1-1) zone to Neighborhood Public
1 Intensive Commercial (P-1/CI-1) ~one.
D. Zoning Code Item:
Discussion of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code, Subsection 4E-8C, Nonconforming Signs, to
allow for reconstruction of a nonconforming sign by special exception in cases where the sign is
generally recognized and associated with a longstanding business or institution and makes a
significant artistic, cultural, or nostalgic contribution to the community or neighborhood.
E. Subdivision Item:
SUB06-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by ST Enterprises LC for a final plat of
Hollywood Manor Part 9, a 12-lot, 4.84 acre residential subdivision located west of Russell Drive and
south of Burns Avenue.
(45-day limitation period: July 22,2006)
F. Conditional Use Permit:
Discussion of an application submitted by S&G Materials for a conditional use permit to allow the
expansion of a sand and gravel mining operation south of Izaak Walton League Road.
G. Other Items
H. Consideration of the June 1, 2006 and June 15, 2006 Meeting Minutes
I. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
June 30, 2006
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
Re: REZ06-00001 - Melrose Ridge development
At your March 2 meeting you considered an application submitted by Johnson County
Permanent Supportive Housing LP for a rezoning from Neighborhood Public (P-1) to
Neighborhood Public with an overlay zoning of Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) in
order to allow development of 18 affordable rental housing units for persons with disabilities on
property owned by Johnson County located at 4435-4455 Melrose Avenue.
At that time staff recommended approval of the rezoning pending resolution of vehicular access
issues, submittal of a landscaping plan to buffer the property from Highway 218, and completion
of a Phase I Archaeological Survey required by the State. The applicant requested deferral in
order to work through the vehicular access issues with the City and the Iowa State Department
of Transportation. As you may recall, the subject property does not currently have access to a
public street. Due to its location near the highway interchange of Melrose Avenue, an arterial
street, and State Highway 218, staff recommended that the best solution from a public safety
perspective was for the new development to share the existing access point with Chatham
Oakes. The applicant was not satisfied with this recommendation and requested deferral in
order to send an application to the IDOT requesting permission to cut the median leading to the
interchange with Highway 218 in order to get direct driveway access to the subject property.
Their request was denied by the State.
The applicant is now proposing to construct a driveway across the Chatham Oakes property to
connect up with the existing access point along Melrose Avenue. The driveway will be located
on the north side of the two properties as shown in the attached site plan. City traffic
engineering staff have reviewed this plan and agree that it is an acceptable solution.
In addition, in this intervening period of time the Phase I Archaeological Survey has been
completed and a release from the State has been received, so this condition has been removed
from staff recommendation.
Staff now recommends approval of REZ06-00001, a request to rezone 2.83 acres of land
located at 4435/4455 Melrose Avenue from Neighborhood Public (P1) to Neighborhood Public
with a Low Density Multi-Family Zone Overlay (P1/RM-12), provided that the following
conditions are met:
· Vehicular access to the property must be provided by way of a private drive extending
across the Chatham Oakes property utilizing the existing access point to Melrose
Avenue as illustrated on the attached site plan;
· Submission and approval of a landscaping plan for a vegetative buffer/screen that
includes a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs to be established along the
east property boundary prior to issuance of an occupancy permit.
Approved by: ~ ·
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
illl
i I! !~!!
!!! ! is dh
! il" I Ii I; ...~
I_bl ! ~~ I
I II ! I I I
<
!;l
; ,
,
\
\
\
.
1
(/)
I-
U
W
'=
:J:
U
0:::
<(
u)
I=!
<(
u
o
(/)
(/l
<(
8~
~ NZ
I:! @JO:::
VI Uffi
~ ~I-
:5 00:::
a:' !!=~
~ ~o
~
t:
t3
~
~
~
t:
t3
II .
co
C
a.
o
(J)
a:
I
c
(
)
(I
) \
~ l
/ ~"
I~
I
\
~
/
l
~
,...
a.
~
o
o
o
o
I
CO
o
N
W
a::
Q)
::J
C
Q)
~
Q)
en
o
lo-
Q)
~
LO
LO
~
~
06
LO
C")
~
~
z
o
~
~
-<
U
o
~
~
~
~
rJ)
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Drew E. Westberg, Planning Intern
Item: REZ06-00016
Date: July 6, 2006
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
City of Iowa City
410 E Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Contact Person:
Bob Miklo
410 E Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Phone:
(319) 356-5230
Requested Action:
Rezoning from 1-1 to P-1 with a CI-1 Overlay
Purpose:
To provide reference and notice of publicly
owned land anq allow for private CI-1 uses.
(Eastside Recycling Center)
location:
2401 Scott Boulevard
Size:
2.32 acres
Existing land Use and Zoning:
General Industrial (1-1)
Surrounding land Use and Zoning:
North:
South:
East:
West:
1-1
1-1
CI-1
1-1
Comprehensive Plan:
Serves a community wide goal of providing
space for industrial development
File Date:
June 23, 2006
45 Day limitation Period:
August 7,2006
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The applicant, City of Iowa City, is requesting a rezoning from General Industrial (1-1) to
Neighborhood Public (P-1) for recently acquired property located at 2401 Scott Boulevard. The
Iowa City Zoning Code requires that all publicly held property be zoned Public (P-1, P-2) to
provide reference and notice to surrounding landowners of public ownership.
The property was annexed into the city around 1970, zoned light industrial (M-1), and was
originally developed by the L L Pelling Company, Inc. T R Investments, Inc. purchased the
property in 1996 to operate a waste management firm. Recently, the City of Iowa City purchased
2
the property from T R Investments.
This newly acquired facility will be used to house the East Side Recycling Center and also two
non-profit building materials sales operations, Habitat ReStore and The Salvage Barn. The intent
behind this public investment is to reduce the amount of waste entering the landfill and to provide
community-wide services encouraging recycling.
ANAL YSIS
Zoning: The subject property is nearly surrounded by the BDllndustrial Research Park to the
west of Scott Boulevard, zoned 1-1. Properties immediately east of Scott Blvd are zoned
intensive commercial (CI-1).
The proposed Neighborhood Public Zone (P-1) is designed to provide reference and notice of
public ownership. The zone is for publicly owned purposes such as schools, parks, and other
civic uses owned by Johnson County, the City of Iowa City, or the Iowa City School District.
Section 14-2F-6 of the Iowa City Zoning Code states,
Before a leasehold interest in any land zoned Public is conveyed to anyone for a
use other than those allowed in the Public Zone and to anyone other than the
government of the United States, the State or a political subdivision thereof, the
land must be rezoned to an appropriate zone in which the use is allowed. The
use shall be subject to all requirements of the new zone. Further, the zone shall
be established as an overlay zone with the underlying zone retaining its original
Public Zone designation.
The appropriate overlay zone for the proposed non-public uses of Habitat ReStore and
The Salvage Barn is CI-1. This zone allows for low-traffic, sales-oriented retail such as
lumber stores and consignment shops. Therefore, as required by the Code, the
property should be rezoned to P-1 with a CI-1 overlay, which would regulate all future
private uses within the property.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is located within the Southeast
Planning District. The Comprehensive Plan describes the Southeast Planning District as
diverse in land use. However, the Plan also notes, ''The provision of space for industrial
development is a community-wide goal. The Southeast Planning District contains property
which is appropriate for meeting this goal."
In Staff's opinion, the proposed public and non-profit uses are compatible with the surrounding
industrial areas and the CI-1 zones located to the east of Scott Boulevard. Typical adverse
effects from industrial property such as increased traffic, noxious odors, and loud noise will not
impede the operations of the proposed recycling uses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that, REZ06-00016 an application for the rezoning of 2.32 acres of property
located at 2401 Scott Boulevard from General Industrial (1-1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1) with an
overlay of Intensive Commercial (CI-1) be approved.
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
~
,-
~
tj
~
~k.
~
~.
~
tj
,..
-
I..... Q)
() -
'"'-' -Q
(J ~ E
() \)
ct ~
/
(0
"y-
o
o
o
I
(0
o
N
W
ex:
.
~
OJ
:s::
o
o
(J)
"y-
O
V
C\J
z
o
~
u
o
~
~
f-4
.....
CI)
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
June 29, 2006
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
Re: Zoning Code amendment for nonconforming signs
The Dairy Queen located at 526 South Riverside Drive was destroyed by the April 13
tornado. The nonconforming sign located on the roof of the small building was also
destroyed. The Dairy Queen and its sign had remained largely unchanged since being
established on the property in the 1960's and as such were generally regarded fondly as
a type of community landmark (see the attached photos). In fact, the sign was older
than the building itself, because it was moved from an earlier Dairy Queen originally
located further north on Riverside Drive. The owners of the property, Tracy and Scott
McWane, are in the process of rebuilding the Dairy Queen and would like to install a
replica of the original sign. City staff have been working with the property owner to try
to find a way of allowing a reproduction of the iconic sign to be installed on the property
in compliance with the current sign regulations. However, a solution could not be found
that would allow the large Dairy Queen sign and the two smaller neon pole signs
originally located on the property.
There are provisions in the Zoning Code that allow alterations to existing nonconforming
signs if they are located on properties designated as Historic Landmarks, properties
registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or on properties located in a
Historic or Conservation District. In this case, the sign has been completely destroyed
and the Dairy Queen does not fall into any of the aforementioned historic categories, but
certainly in the minds of many the Dairy Queen and its sign have made a significant
cultural and nostalgic contribution to the community.
In the interests of preserving such "community landmarks," staff recommends that the
zoning code be amended to allow signs destroyed by fire or natural disaster to be
reconstructed to their original design if they are located on a historic property or are
deemed to be of significant artistic, cultural or nostalgic value to the community. Since
such cases are likely to be rare and unique, staff recommends that they be reviewed by
the Board of Adjustment as special exceptions.
Please review the attached recommended zoning code language, which, if approved,
would be inserted as a new paragraph into subsection 14-4E-8C, Nonconforming Signs.
Approved by: ~~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
Insert a new paragraph into subsection 14-4E-8C of the Zoning Code as follows:
5. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow repair or
reconstruction of a nonconforming sign that has been damaged or destroyed by fire,
explosion, act of God or by a public enemy if the following approval criteria are met:
a. In order to qualify for this exception, the sign must fall into at least one of the
following categories:
(1) The subject sign is an integral part of the historic identity of a property or
use designated as a Historic Landmark, a property registered on the
National Register of Historic Places, or of a property listed as a key or
contributing property in a Historic District or Conservation District
Overlay Zone; or
(2) The sign is an integral part of a property's historic identity such that it is
generally recognized and associated with a longstanding business or
institution and makes a significant artistic, cultural, or nostalgic
contribution to the community or neighborhood.
b. The sign must be reconstructed as nearly as possible to its historic design or to
the design that is generally recognized and associated with the longstanding
business or institution such that it continues to make a significant artistic,
cultural or nostalgic contribution to the community or neighborhood.
c. The sign must be reconstructed such that it is not a hazardous sign. The sign
must be located in a manner that complies with Article 14-5D, Intersection
Visibility Standards. The Board may require changes to the sign, to its structure
or mounting, or its location in order to improve public safety. If the sign is not
maintained according to the provisions of Article 14-5B, Sign Regulations, and
becomes hazardous, the City may request that the Board of Adjustment revoke
the special exception.
d. If the sign is located on a property designated as a Historic Landmark, a
property registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or a property
listed as a key or contributing property in a Historic District or Conservation
District Overlay Zone, the subject sign must be approved by the Historic
Preservation Commission and issued a certificate of appropriateness. If the
Board of Adjustment grants a special exception for the sign, any subsequent
changes to the sign do not have to be approved by the Board of Adjustment, but
do require a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation
Commission.
r
I
iP'!~f~1
...
II; ~J
~.,
f.~
.
n
i~
1"--
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: SUB06-00011
GENERAllNFORMA TION:
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:
SPECIAllNFORMA TION:
Public Utilities:
Public Services:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Karen Howard
Date: July 6,2006
ST Enterprises l.C.
2621 Catskill Court
Iowa City, IA 52245
MMS Consultants
1917 S. Gilbert St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319) 351-8282
Final Plat
Development of 12 single family homes
South of Burns Avenue, East of Wetherby Park,
West of Russell Drive
4.84 acres
Residential! RS-5
North: Residential! RS-5
South: Residential! RS-5
East: Residential! RS-5
West: Public parkland! P1
low Density Residential
Wetherby
June 8, 2006
July 23, 2006
August 7, 2006
Municipal water and sewer service is available to
serve the property. The property is subject to a
sanitary sewer tap-on fee, a water main extension
fee and a storm water management fee.
Police, fire protection,' and sanitation services will be
provided by the City.
2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The preliminary plat for Hollywood Manor, Part 9, was approved in June. A sensitive areas site
plan that provides for the protection of the groves of trees on this property has been approved by
staff. The applicant is now requesting approval of the final plat.
ANALYSIS:
The final plat as submitted is in general conformance with the approved preliminary plat.
Construction plans and legal papers are being reviewed by the City Engineering Division and
City Attorney's office. They must be approved by staff prior to Council consideration of the final
plat.
Sensitive areas - The sensitive areas site plan and preliminary plat included conservation areas
for the protection of the groves of trees. These are shown on the final plat. The legal papers
should specify the requirements for the long-term protection of these trees.
Neiqhborhood open space - Outlot A will be dedicated to the City to provide pedestrian access
to Wetherby Park and to partially fulfill requirements for neighborhood open space dedication.
According to the conditional zoning agreement the developer is responsible for constructing an
8-foot wide sidewalk within this 20-foot right-of-way at the same time as the abutting street is
constructed. Outlot A is approximately 2,587 square feet, leaving an obligation to pay an open
space fee based on the remaining open space obligation (2,367 square feet). These
requirements should be addressed in the legal papers.
Storm water manaqement - This property drains in three different directions. Stormwater
calculations indicate that the portion of the property that drains to the north will not cause an
increase in stormwater run-off from the pre-development flow, so stormwater management is not
required. The middle section of the property (2.02 acres) drains to the South Sycamore Drainage
Corridor. Stormwater fees of $2,775.68 per acre apply to this portion of the subdivision for a total
of $5,606.87. Drainage of the southernmost portion of the property is somewhat problematic.
1.67 acres of land in the southern portion of Hollywood Manor, Part 9 currently drains to the
southwest across a yet to be developed portion of the Brookwood Pointe subdivision. Brookwood
Pointe was preliminary platted without providing a means to connect this part of Hollywood Manor
into the storm sewer system. The developer is working with the neighboring property owner to
obtain a stormwater easement and an agreement that would allow connection into the storm
sewer system in Brookwood Pointe at such time as that subdivision is developed. Once those
issues are resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, staff recommends approval. A signed
easement agreement between the two property owners will be required prior to consideration by
City Council.
Water Main and Sanitary Sewer Fees: Development of this subdivision will result in water main
fees of $395 per acre for a total of $1,911.80. South Sycamore Sanitary Trunk Sewer tap-on fees
are required at $1796.50 per acre for a total of $8,695.06.
ppdadminlstfreplsub06-00011-hollywoodmanorpt9final.doc
3
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 SUB06-00011, a
final plat of Hollywood Manor, Part 9, a 4.84-acre, 12-lot residential subdivision located at the ends
of Wetherby Drive and Totting Circle, be approved.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
. Off-site stormwater easement must be illustrated on the final plat.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Location Map
2. Plat
Approved by: ~~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
ppdadminlstfreplsub06-00011-hollywoodmanorpt9final.doc
~
It)
en
a:
~
t3
~
~
~
~
t3
~
-a~
~ ~
ClJ CJ
=SQ
~
,...
D..
en
a:
I
c
-
T"""
T"""
o
o
o
J
CD
o
CO
::>
(j)
0)
t:
ctl
a..
l0-
a
c
ctl
~
"'0
a
a
~
>-
a
I
Z
o
~
~
<
U
o
~
~
~
~
r.n
iii ~! i i i
i iS~ i~
~ ~ in ,.
Iii t.:> lill~
~5j
~!'- !I~ !h g
!!:: 0 ~
5 ~ I g ~II ~ I
0. t.:> h U~
i I
B W ~i~ I
, I ~h
OIolP".:Il'OOLt>L9\WOLvL9\OOL9\ :8
cj co
~ ~
f!? jg
~
...J
::l
en
z
o
<..1
en_
~ ~
~ii ! U
i~'i ~ ~~
III mi t ~~ !!~ ~
~ m~~!~ ~h ~;;!~I! ! ~
o ~flnff ~~i~h~~hi I ~
~ nIU~hUhm~m ~ i
~ "'" "iii'[ "'!;
~ <OJ,,,, 0 0 . I! I ":'"~ I ~
~ i III _VU ii
iSJ Yid ez :It:r 9ooz/ozZ/9
o~~ C)
Kl ~ fQ ~ i!l liin ~ ~n ~ Cl~ ~
0
III ?
w I~~IDI z
a: ~z~~~ lii1 Iii ~ Z~I- 0<( ::l
~ ~ <( :z: 00.. 0
~ ~ j [;! U lJ; ~~e I;jge 5w~ ~~ ~~
..; ~ j:l., g; ~ =oj ~o "~ d o..~~ -0
~ ~ i ~ I ~~ p~ u -,0 <..1en
<i!-....... -'Z <(Z~
CFJw
zz> 0<( ~50
u ~I d u::m~ J::::!: -...,-
~
~~
i
~ O~N".~~~~~o ~~~~~~~~~~~35~~;~~S~;~5gg~~5~
! ! a\ LL -- -I II \ ~GOO~~B\c5~G:GGG~GIGG \' I.! ~ \ ~ngi
i i!!E I: IlIfi) I@: ' Ii. '_~i'i~
T' u :: ,~~ I@ : I I \ I___nn_"_"______"_ ~~<.~
~ ~ ~ \ j ~I\ .\ :,~l<l~--Jn~mnlnl..:LS""/:=,:--"n)~'''l-~--..-''- ~-.~~.l ~nn:
~ 611~ L --~"--~-~ ~ 1-1------ --~-L-_-~~~~!'I11E --'.~----- ---:.1 ~~~!~~ ~
~ 1 _ ./___ ____ . . ~____ ______"___ \ ~~~~~~ ~
~ ~ - -~ - T; - . - _r- ~D- -j;~~[P{-~-"#~~~ ~ Ii II \ ~ ~~i~;~ i
F ------- \ 1~(Ul1'R'\ltbY~~lQJl!dJ ~ ~~_ATPNXI~ If \Q, , ~w~~~ ~ ~
=~ 1----"---"-- 1. I ~1flJ~ " "'''''''''''r'''Hf..:-;;" ~""""s""",, ~ : >-:: &~~5~~ 15
tQ)~ :~ \['000 < \..fIt' \ i I m LL ~F~~m4'F
6" ~ I ~ \~, i ~i r-<> ~ ' - ~ lei! ~ . ~~~~~~~~
~I +- """ i~.: 1": s\ Il ~ ~ IlIfi) 'iF' i~: Ii i ~,\ '~~:~~~~~~~
~. -.~--%-l ~lll~: Il@ !" I 'sl <~~b~@~:15
Ei ..-:~ I I,,~, -, ,~ ' '. ., !S'!;'zZ~<O~:5
." k I t-N':;;I \::::l '~Ol 1=0;::1.... :::'I lUo:
o ~ ,,~!~: ..,~: is,j ~'<~_ '"5offi~<\~F~
fA.. ..w I 1lIfi)~::' !B \ ' ~ I ~: ~~ ~"N
g ~ ~ 1 h : :2500' :::: '0 o' : o::?;~ IQil>
~ ~ ~ I (g) IE \ I ~~~ ..w
~~ \ IlIfi) i '/ i" it~~ooC\lIli
~ ;~ ~ :i\ \~I~\~n......~ .~~
J ~ & ~ __ 11;- ~
! e~ ~ ' "~'~-. 1;
g ~ ~-" -~ .{: ......~.. 1 ',..
o 2 , ,\ ......::; ~ 0 I ~
~ n . .~G \ _ ~~~ .
==!J! err ~ _ "'_ ," I ~
g n ~.o / Ii - ~ Ii '~i'.... !I~ 1 ~
" ==!J 'iF' ~--m--' c~~ 1:;" F _ ~< '",
15' ~ ~ \ ~>< / ~~ ." I o~ I
~ ~ ~ ~ .I ~;~ (i~ ~~ r;' "'\...I
<< ~" ) - < ~ I' u u . I ,,,.'" I
~ -~ '206.37" \ I I
~ 0 ~ L27 -:\ ..l2~.
1lI [!Jb!] ~ 19> 77-4.92
: ~; ~ oil
· llib~ ?
[}=< 1Qil>;_~ ~~ ~t~
(Qb :Mj ~~ ~-
~~ "$>
~ 1 ~J
@" @@ I ~i
~ II ,;<
,-\!W(J ~~
zOJ
<t;
O:~
E-<~
~~
~P-,
o
.....:i
ri.::i
:>
ri.::i
o <t;
en~~
<t;OO
~ ........
0:: f---::;;r "
<t;~>-<
~~t:
:> u
E=:~<t;
........ ~
en 0
~Q""""
en
00
ZO
<t;~
j~
o...~
.....:ir---=1
~O
........
~~
'"
...
p,;ut::gj
r-1...1::>'"
~ ~8~
OaJ......o
i>:'~]-_
r-1 i:' 2l ~
"',,-
dUU
o f.a.1...... <
gJ...~~
tZl en c\'d~
III .~
--t'~;i!
u~~
i3f;:gj
~r-1'"
o~~~
~;:;'-'g
'''-~~E
8~u
"'f!,J!::;~
~SS~Q
I
~
I j
..
.. "
.g o'l
I ~
~
.. S
~
~ ..
j .,;
~
1 r
~
~ ~ ~
i
1 i 'i
j 1
~ ]
~ ,.,. ~ N
~ S 08
E E i ~ ~
l E ~ If ~
~ l ~ l
fF'" H
~l~i ~ ";l)
j~~~~ 1-
..J.5~o Sii BI
ii.di~ aqj
l:~~~ l~
3~h5 ~li
8 ~ 0 :i~
~i,,~i 0-
~S~~ ~I
~ ~o!l ~]
~:<:I 8:'
:lI;!j:l ge
~~&~~ lab
~i~~il:J~
~~~~..;; ~~~
h'z~' 2~~
.iJi~lcJ ~o~
~~:~ij ~1~
~d~.o~ I'"~
>-i l:1l ".:I
sE~~H ~~
nt",i """0
rpli~" . ~o
~~~~zJl ]N2
H~_.~~ ~~i
~es~H "i~i
!rHh j~s ~i
, I
. ~~
<(~.
. F~
1-01?~l>>
"1\'
g"~m
k"
i'iU
O~~
~~
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 6, 2006
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Drew E. Westberg, Planning Intern
RE: CU06-0001 S&G Materials Conditional Use Application
S & G Materials, henceforth lithe applicant", has applied to Johnson County for a conditional
use permit for an additional approximate 17 -acre parcel and to expand current sand mining
operations within the previous permit. The subject property is located south of Iowa City near
Izaak Walton League Road and west of the Iowa River. The applicant's property is located in
Fringe Area C of the Fringe Area Policy Agreement but is outside of the Iowa City Growth
Boundary. The Agreement states, "[Developments] which are not within Iowa City's growth
area [but within the Fringe Area] which are zoned for non-farm development... may occur in
conformance with Johnson County's Zoning Ordinance and City Rural Design Standards."
The Johnson County Zoning Ordinance permits cities to review conditional use permits for
applications within their extra-territorial jurisdiction. Conditional use permits require a 4/5-
majority vote of the Board of Adjustment to approve a permit opposed by the City Council.
In 2000, the applicant applied for and was granted a conditional use permit for current
operations conditioned upon dust-free maintenance of Izaak Walton League Road.
Additionally, the applicant provided a restoration plan to mitigate adverse environmental
impacts.
The present conditional use permit application is for the expansion of four basins within the
applicant's parcel boundaries and the addition of an approximate 17 -acre parcel to the permit.
The additional parcel, required due to the expansion of Basin 1, is located at 4552 Oak Crest
Hill Rd SE at the northwest corner of the previous permit boundaries. The applicant is the
owner of the property.
Zoning Requirements: The Johnson County Zoning Ordinance specifically addresses
conditional use permits for mining operations.
1. The applicant shall obtain approval for withdrawal of water if required by the
Iowa Natural Resource Council.
The applicant will not be withdrawing water from the Iowa River and does not
need a permit for this purpose.
2. The applicant shall obtain approval for operation in a flood plain if required by
the Iowa Natural Resource Council.
The applicant has previous approval from Iowa Department of Agriculture and
Land Stewardship-Division of Mines and Minerals (IDALS) to operate within a
flood plain.
June 29, 2006
Page 2
3. The applicant shall obtain approval of a license to operate from the Iowa
Department of Soil Conservation-Division of Mines and Minerals.
The applicant has a valid license from the Iowa Department of Soil
Conservation-Division of Mines and Minerals for current operations.
4. The applicant and his or her successors shall maintain a valid license from the
Division of Mines and Minerals. Failure to maintain said license shall constitute
abandonment.
5. The proposed site shall not be located within 1,000 feet of any property zoned
Agricultural Residential or Residential. This condition may be modified upon a
showing of good cause by the applicant but shall require a 4/5 vote by the
Board of Adjustment for approval.
The applicant is in excess of the 1,000 foot minimum. However, the applicant
has signed petitions by those property owners within the buffer indicating their
support. A 4/5 vote by the Johnson County Board of Adjustment will be
required to allow expansion within the buffer.
State Regulations: The Iowa Department of Land Stewardship does not allow topsoil to be
destroyed or buried. The applicant sells a portion of the removed topsoil and stores the
remainder onsite to sUbsequently be used during wetland restoration.
Federal Regulations: The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) requires that
wooded wetlands destroyed during operations be replaced. The previOUS basin boundaries did
not interfere with wooded wetlands and no replacement was required. However, expansions of
basins 2 and 4 impact adjacent wooded wetlands. The new restoration plan will adhere to
USACE requirements.
Description of Operation: A hydraulic dredge will be used to extract the sand. Sand and
water are pumped out of the pit, the sand is extracted, and the water is replaced. No net
loss of water occurs during this process. No blasting or noxious odor is associated with this
extraction technique. Moreover, extracted sand is wet and still damp when being
transported minimizing dust pollution.
Restoration Plan: The Wetland Mitigation Plan, prepared by Liz Maas of Red-Tail
Restoration, calls for a total of 55.55 acres of wetland mitigation to be created offsetting
permanent impacts to 55.45 acres of identified wetlands. Wetland mitigation construction is
already underway in Basin 1. Basins 2, 3, and 4 are scheduled to be mined and
reconstituted as wetlands between 2010 and 2020. The applicant will begin backfilling with
previously removed overburden once mining operations have concluded in each basin.
The USACE requires a five-year monitoring period with annual updates for each mitigation
phase of which the applicant will be financially responsible. Following the five-year interval,
the RiverBend Foundation Inc., a non-profit, will takeover maintenance, monitoring, and
development of the area.
The Deed of Permanent Conservation Easement granted to the RiverBend Foundation Inc.,
states the property is to remain in its "natural, scenic, and remediated condition" in
June 29, 2006
Page 3
perpetuity. The Easement "confine[s] the use of the Property to such activities, including,
without limitation, those involving public recreation, education, research, and restoration
implementation, as are consistent with this Easement."
Izaak Walton League Road: Access to the basins is via Izaak Walton League Road
(IWLR). The previous request for a conditional use permit was granted based on the
continued maintenance of IWLR road. The applicant will continue to maintain, dust-free, the
IWLR. However, the entrance onto IWLR has deteriorated to such a degree that
improvements are needed. It would be appropriate for the applicant to improve this portion
of the road, as a condition of permitting the conditional use.
The applicant understands that the County plans to require paving of IWLR. The applicant
intends to comply with this stipulation.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of
Adjustment, recommending that a conditional use permit be approved, subject to:
1. County requiring the implementation of the Wetland Mitigation Plan created
by Red-Tail Restoration.
2. County requiring improvements are made to the entrance onto Izaak Walton
League Road from Oak Crest Hill Road.
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
Attachments
Location Map
Signed Petition
.
\
,
....
--
....
....
,
\
,
'--------.f~~
a:
a:
~ -
~U\
:3"\ - ~ .~I-
~ y ,. , Ah~ 0 ~ 0
N a: ~" Q 0
, i ) e ~ 0.0.0051.
a: \ O.~O'O t::I
I oc::n
~;L
f
~ -=\
'"' 1l ~
a~ ~
\.1 i~ -A
t:
tJ
-
=
=
I
I
I
I
I
c>
~ h ,. ,.
~ I;~. U
~ )~-O
~ J\~~. ~~
~ d/JJ ~~ "
~ - \
tJ ~ ; n I
J
~
IJ,V dYQ:) AJO ....MOl JO ,I.,lO
.~~
~~~'
1 -'
. ~
11 ~
_ rr
rr
~' ~~
1KVJN."
~
/ /, , 'V'
-F-:\_iL
l I.J~~
I~fi(
\
'C-
I
I
07-
-
-~
-
~,-
'--
-----'
L ~~
fi;~
~~\ ~
~ ~\ ~n
~ "' ,,~~
_"""~~~"^W~ !A~
"" ~ ~~ "
S:;,,~~~~~ ~ ,,,,,,,,,,,' 0 "
\.."^~, ~ ""^,,^,,,. ~"'" ~
~""^",,,.~ c...~ s ",,' \:'
~ ~"""c...' " \..~~"""""""^"~
I ~ ~ ~~""""c..."'"''''''
~ "",~~::c...",~~"""c...""^,,,," I
"""'''^''^' "
,,,~,,~~~,,,,,,, ""
-
~jl
'~
-
L
l
~
II
/
T"""
o
o
o
o
I
CD
o
::>
()
~
a>
a.
o
l0-
a.
E
lo-
eel
U.
+-'
..c
0)
.-
l0-
CO
o
()
C/)
eel
l0-
a>
+-'
eel
~
(!}
06
C/)
Z
o
~
~
<
U
o
~
~
~
~
cr;
I support the recovery-reclaimation plan of' S&CJ
Materials and their donation to River Bend Foundation to insLlre:
there will be no future commercial Lise or development 01' this
property.
DATE:
'"
__~__~_::~'~ _ -'Z:/: ~~
_6~-~--=.u-b__
---<p--=-L.k>.:-:-.6 ..~
--6'-- m=L?~{!J0
. ~ 1
/ ..., .--.,1
y~..... L~",I
~td ~1 .
-.lL:;..L~ :::.~ L-
-__~j~cif2.f:
* Tom IHlliams
** Brett Neberqall
**--Tim >-Inyt
Dave IHlliams
Tim Ruth
Marv Ruth
* ~njoining prnp~rty owner
** Adjnining propprty owner
within 1000'
I support the recovery-reclailnation plan of S&G
Materials and their donation to River Bend Foundation to insure
there will be no future commercial use or development of this
property .
SIGNED:
DATE:
-r;;~ -1'"' (A ;[:()-
~.
. ,A I~~~~~, ;~Q f~D
1 1 I. ()-J
I' ,({',.,u I.-\.. (.M:/~
T'o,
!
.. l "1.( ~ '> ,I;:'
--.f ( ,', /
\ ' I.'~
... . ~
:;' " " "';:;', ,
'. ;' I ,,''-'''' ",
..-::- . .
__~_""_.~"-.L.:::_:~__,...____~
* Tamara Bl<'lir
* Stephanie Hnesh
* S. Hnesh
* Roy R. Walton
* M<'lry Wrllton
* Adioing property owner
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
JUNE 1, 2006
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks, Terry Smith, Wally Plahutnik, Dean Shannon, Charlie
Eastham, Beth Koppes
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Mitch Behr
OTHERS PRESENT: Florence Stockman, Noah Kemp
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, REZ05-00022, a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to
Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for 10.28-acres of property located along South Gilbert Street south of
Highway 6 and north of Southgate Avenue.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, REZ06-00013, a rezoning from Interim Development Single-Family
Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) zone for 20.78-acres of property located
on Lower West Branch Road west of Taft Avenue subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement specifying that
the applicant/owner would share in the proportional cost of improvement for Lower West Branch Road and that
future subdivisions would comply with the neighborhood design policies of the Northeast District Plan including
retention of the stone bridge being ensured in a manner that would provide public access to the feature.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, SUB05-00021/ VAC06-00004. a final plat of Aviation Commerce
Park North (a resubdivision of North Airport Development and North Airport Development - Part Two), an 11-
lot 57.13-acre commercial subdivision located north of the Iowa City Airport, along Ruppert Road, and the
vacation of a portion of Ruppert Road subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior
to Council consideration of the final plat.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, V AC06-00002, the vacation of Dane Road south of Highway 1.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0,VAC06-00003, the vacation of the southern 33 feet of the former
West Benton Street right-of-way along the length of the applicant's property be approved subject to retention
of any necessary utility easements.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, the amendments to Title 14. City of Iowa City Zoninq Code, as
listed in the Staff Report dated May 26, 2006.
CALL TO ORDER:
Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
REZONING ITEM:
REZ05-00022, discussion of an application submitted by Diane Schoenauer and Pat Kennedy for a rezoning
from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for 10.38 acres of property
located on S. Gilbert Street south of Highway 6 and north of Southgate Avenue.
Miklo presented Staff Report. The properties involved are only those that actually front onto Gilbert Street, one
of which has a Southgate Avenue address. The initial application was filed in December 2005 by one property
owner to rezone only one lot. Staff had advised her that rezoning just one lot would constitute a spot zoning;
Staff suggested that she seek the support of the adjacent property owners to see if a larger area could be
rezoned. A meeting was held in February 2006 to which all property owners in the CI-1 zone had been invited.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
June 1, 2006
Page 2
At that time several property owners had expressed concern about the rezoning and were not enthusiastic
about having their properties rezoned from CI-1 to CC-2. The rezoning had been put on hold.
In April 2006, Pat Kennedy, who also owns property in the area, had approached the City regarding
reactivating the rezoning request. Mr. Kennedy had spoken with all the property owners in that particular area
of Gilbert Street and had submitted a petition showing 12 of 14 property owners would have a non-objection to
the rezoning.
A Intensive Commercial, CI-1 zone, was intended for businesses whose operations are typically characterized
by outdoor storage and display of merchandise, repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles or by
activities conducted in buildings that are not entirely enclosed such as contractor's yards. A Community
Commercial (CC-2) zone was intended to be more of a retail zone which would allow retail, office uses and
restaurants. It catered to a larger public and typically did not have the outdoor activities that a CI-1 zone did.
The Comprehensive Plan for this area recognized the possibility of rezoning properties along South Gilbert
Street to Community Commercial zone. The Plan discussed the residential development which was occurring
further to the south and east of Gilbert Street and recognized that as the population increased in that area
there would be more traffic from the residential neighborhoods using Gilbert Street. Therefore it might be
appropriate to upgrade the character of the commercial area along South Gilbert Street to create more of a
retail market area which would be allowed in a CC-2 zone.
Staff had some concerns about traffic in that general area. The intersection of Highway 6 and Gilbert Street
was one of the City's higher accident rate intersections. Plans to reconstruct the intersection were in the
Capital Improvement Plan for FY'08; as development occurred further south along the corridor there might be
a need for additional improvements to Gilbert Street. Closing or combining curb cuts so properties shared
them were possible future improvements. If the Commission chose to recommend the rezoning and the
Council approved it, Staff recommended that the planned public improvements to South Gilbert Street not be
delayed. Staff recommended approval of REZ05-00022, a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to
Community Commercial (CC-2) for approximately 10.38-acres of property along South Gilbert Street, south of
Waterfront Drive and north of Southgate Avenue.
Eastham said the Staff Report indicated that none of the existing properties would become non-confirming if
the rezoning were approved. Would the property at 122 Stevens Drive remain conforming?
Miklo said an auto repair business would be allowed in a CC-2 zone by Special Exception; in some cases such
as quick vehicle service it would not require a special exception. If a business was a use that would require a
special exception due to a rezoning, the business could continue as it was today, but if the business wished to
expand they would need to seek and receive approval on a special exception. Some uses currently in the area
that had residential on the upper floor would become a more conforming use in a CC-2 zone.
Plahutnik asked if there would be limits on curb cuts in a CC-2 zone. Miklo said for new development or re-
development the same standards would apply to CI-1 or CC-2 zones. As properties redeveloped and traffic
increased, both the City and the property owners would need to be cognizant of the implications.
Shannon asked what was the stance of the two dissenting property owners; did they oppose the rezoning or
were they indifferent?
Miklo said when the original zoning application had been submitted in December '05, Dave Clark had sent a
letter of objection to having his property rezoned. Staff had received a list of the persons Pat Kennedy had
contacted who'd indicated their support. All property owners in the area as well of those within 300-feet had
received a letter advising them of the rezoning application and the Commission's 6/1/06 meeting and signs
had been posted on South Gilbert Street.
Smith asked if all the parcels were currently developed so increase(s) or change(s) in traffic flow and patterns
would not be likely.
Miklo said there were one or two vacant parcels. Any change would not be significant over the short-term.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
June 1, 2006
Page 3
Eastham asked for a clarification regarding of the selection of the properties to be included in the application.
Miklo said Staff had advised the applicants that in order to not have a spot zoning, their property should
connect to an existing Community Commercial zone. Staff had discovered in February when researching for
the neighborhood meeting, that a number of the properties would become nonconforming in a CC-2 zone, so
Staff didn't advise rezoning those at this time. The applicant had an interest in rezoning additional properties in
an adjacent area to CC-2 as well; Staff had advised him that the City would want to see more support for a
larger rezoning in order to receive a positive Staff recommendation. There was support in the Comprehensive
Plan for Gilbert Street to be rezoned.
Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve REZ05-00022, a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to
Community Commercial (CC-2) for approximately 10.38-acres of property along South Gilbert Street, south of
Waterfront Drive and north of Southgate Avenue. Eastham seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
REZ06-00013, discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development, Inc. for a rezoning from
Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5)
zone for 20.78-acres of property located on Lower West Branch Road west of Taft Avenue.
Miklo said this area was annexed in to the City in the 1990's as part of a larger annexation. Stonebridge
Estates had started to develop on this land. At the time of annexation because of a lack of good street access
and other infrastructure, the area was zoned IDRS, a type of holding zone which would permit limited
development of the property. Since the annexation, Court Street had been extended to serve the general area
and there were plans in the Capital Improvements Program to upgrade Lower West Branch Road. With those
improvements, more of the necessary infrastructure would be in place to support development. The proposed
RS-5 zone would allow single family homes on lots of 8,000-square feet, a minimum of 60-foot frontage. The
rezoning would be compatible with the type of development identified for this area in the Comprehensive Plan
and what had already occurred in the neighborhood.
At the time the property was annexed, a Conditional Zoning Agreement had been established regarding
general adherence to the policies of the Northeast District Plan. One of the features of the Northeast District
Plan was the preservation and incorporation of an old stone railroad bridge as a part of the development. Staff
recommended that the conditions established as part of the original CZA be carried over with the requested
rezoning as part of a new CZA. Staff also recommended that the CZA specify that the applicant share in the
cost of upgrading Lower West Branch Road. Because a one-acre parcel of land not owned by the applicant
would be removed from the rezoning application, the cost of upgrading the frontage of that parcel of land
would be excluded from the CZA. The property size would actually be 20.78-acres and the applicant's share
for the improvement project would be approximately $130,000 instead of $160,078. Staff felt it would be
appropriate to leave the one-acre parcel as currently zoned; it was owned by a property owner who owned
adjacent property in the area. The current owner was not volunteering to be rezoned.
Staff recommended approval of REZ06-00013 subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement specifying that the
. applicant/owner share in the proportional cost of improvement for Lower West Branch Road and that future
subdivisions would comply with the neighborhood design policies of the Northeast District Plan including the
retention of the stone bridge be ensured in a manner that would provide public access to the feature.
Brooks asked if there was a reason for the irregular shape of the parcel. Miklo said there was a creek that ran
through the area. A previous assessment had determined that the number of lots that could be developed in
. that area would have sufficient secondary access but anything beyond that would need another means of
access to the subdivision which would occur when access was provided via Lower West Branch Road.
Shannon asked when the Court Street connection was projected to occur. Miklo said the existing section of
Court Street had been improved earlier this year. It could be connected when Taft was brought up to
standards but that would require the agreement of some of the other property owners in the area in terms of
grading their properties and they had not consented yet.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
June 1, 2006
Page 4
Brooks asked if any restrictions had been placed regarding development of the property prior to Lower West
Branch Road being upgraded. Miklo said no, improvements were included in the Capital Improvements Plan.
Brooks said he didn't want to see traffic forced through the adjoining neighborhood, that the connection to
Lower West Branch Road be one of the primary things done to alleviate the traffic flow.
Eastham asked if all access would be through Lower West Branch Road. Miklo said Staff anticipated that there
would be a collector street that traveled from Lower West Branch Road through the subdivision and back to
Court Street. Eventually there would be another collector street that traveled to the east and back to Taft
Avenue. There would also be connections within the subdivision that would provide alternative routes.
Public discussion was opened.
Florence Stockman, 132 Eversoll Lane, said she was there to speak for others in the neighborhood. They
were excited that Arlington Development was moving forward, their neighborhood had really grown, they were
glad that Staff/the developer was sensitive to more access to the development, Lower West Branch Road, as
getting onto Court Street was difficult. For her personally, preserving the stone bridge was why she'd moved to
that neighborhood. She was an Iowa City native, her grandfather had ridden on the Plug Railroad which had
gone over the stone bridge. She felt it was important to preserve the stone bridge and the developer had
committed to doing so. They would like to see as much green space as possible, one acre of green space next
to Lower West Branch Road seemed minimal; a walking trail near the stone bridge had also been mentioned.
Stockman showed the Commission a color photo of the stone bridge.
Brooks asked who would eventually own the stone bridge. Miklo said the Comprehensive Plan indicated that
there should be public access to the stone bridge. In the negotiations for the subdivision, it was the City's goal
to have that as part of the parkland dedication for the development. Most, but not all, of the stone bridge was
on property owned by the applicant. When that neighboring area was developed, it would be the City's goal to
continue to acquire and to preserve the stone bridge in a public park.
Brooks asked if there were plans for connecting trails through the area. Miklo said the Comprehensive Plan
showed a trail following the creek; through subdivision negotiations Staff would seek to have that feature
included in the plans. Staff had done some rough calculations, the minimum amount of open space required to
be dedicated would be 1.33 to 1.5 acres. Fees had been paid for open space in the adjoining development; it
might be possible that those fees would be used to purchase additional open space to enlarge the park.
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Freerks made a motion to approve REZ06-00013 a rezoning of approximately 20.78-acres from ID-
RS to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement specifying that
the applicant/owner would share in the proportional cost of improvement for Lower West Branch Road and that
future subdivisions would comply with the neighborhood design policies of the Northeast District Plan including
retention of the stone bridge being ensured in a manner that would provide public access to the feature. Smith
seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
DEVELOPMENT ITEM:
SUB05-00021/ VAC06-00004, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a final plat of
Aviation Commerce Park North (a resubdivision of North Airport Development and North Airport Development
- Part Two), an 11-lot 57.13-acre commercial subdivision located north of the Iowa City Airport along Ruppert
Road and the vacation of a portion of Ruppert Road.
Miklo said Aviation Commerce Park had recently been rezoned from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to
Community Commercial (CC-2) to accommodate the development of a Wal-Mart. The City had a purchase
agreement with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. that they would carry through with the replatting of the property to
accommodate that development. As shown on the approved preliminary plat, part of Ruppert Road would be
vacated In the revised plat, the area that connected with Hwy 1 would stay in place, a portion of the east-west
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
June 1, 2006
Page 5
section would be vacated, another portion would remain in place but would be renamed to Spitz Court.
Westport Drive would replace Ruppert Road as the east-west street which would result in one large tract of
land which was the proposed Wal-Mart site. The City planned to market several smaller tracts of land for retail
development.
A minor difference between the preliminary plat approved in 2005 and the final plat was the lot line between
lots 1 and lots 3 and 11 would be moved approximately 43 feet to the east to allow more room for development
on lot 1. Staff requested that the access easement which had been shown on the preliminary plat between lot
3 and 4 be moved to lot 1 which would also allow the access to occur through the Wal-Mart site which Staff felt
would be a better design. The preliminary plat had a drainage easement along lot 11; the reduced width of lot
11 would make that lot more difficult to develop so the easement had been moved to the west so it would
occur on lot 1. Wal-Mart had since redesigned their drainage facilities so that easement would no longer be
necessary. The drainage easement would go away, a 15-foot utility easement would remain along the lot line
of lot 11.
Staff recommended approval of the final plat and the vacation of a portion of Ruppert Road to allow Aviation
Commerce Park North, which technically would be a resubdivision of North Airport Development and North
Airport Development Part 2 subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to City
Council consideration of the final plat.
Smith said lots 3-7 appeared to have frontage and curb-cuts on both sides, which side would be the frontage.
Miklo said in terms of the Zoning Ordinance, both sides would be considered the street and would have to
comply with the requirements.
Eastham said the proposed plans for the Wal-Mart store's construction were to elevate the store so it would
not be in the 1 OO-year flood plain. Would that change the flood plain boundaries for the rest of the area? Miklo
said there would be no change in boundaries for the remainder of the area to be developed.
Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve SUB05-00021 I VAC06-00004, a final plat of Aviation Commerce
Park North (a resubdivision of North Airport Development and North Airport Development - Part Two), an 11-
lot 57.13-acre commercial subdivision located north of the Iowa City Airport along Ruppert Road and the
vacation of a portion of Ruppert Road subject to approval of legal papers by Staff prior to consideration by City
Council. Koppes seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
VACATION ITEMS:
VAC06-00002, discussion of an application submitted by the Iowa City Airport Commission to vacate Dane
Road south of Highway 1.
Miklo said the vacation would allow for the expansion of the airport and ru'nway. Dane Road was no longer
needed for access to the properties on either side of it as they'd been acquired by the airport. Access to the
Dane property would be via a private drive from the south. The utilities that had formerly been located in the
street were either being relocated or abandoned, there would be no easements necessary. The proposal met
the City's criteria for approval of a vacation request.
Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve VAC06-00002. Plahutnik seconded.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
VAC06-00003, discussion of an application submitted by Professional Muffler, Inc. to vacate a portion of old
West Benton Street.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
June 1, 2006
Page 6
Miklo said this parcel was a remnant right-of-way when the Benton Street bridge of many years ago had been
replaced. The right-of-way had been retained. The applicant owned the Professional Muffler building which
had been heavily damaged during the April 13 tornados. The applicant hoped to rebuild and to expand their
ownership. Given the tight confines of the lot and that the previous development had not conformed to zoning
requirements in terms of parking and access, the applicant was requesting the vacation of a portion of unused
old Benton Street. The applicant had also proposed to purchase from the City the gravel parking lot located to
the east of his property in order to extend his current property approximately 60-feet further east.
Staff had also had discussions regarding the vacation of the unused area of Benton Street which provided
access to the Ned Ashton Park which was a trail head for the Iowa River corridor trail. Staff felt it was very
important for the City to retain that as a pUblic access to the park and trail head, that portion of Benton Street
would not be vacated. Both Linder Tire and Professional Muffler would be able to continue using the 20-foot
section that the City was retaining to provide access to their properties.
A 33-foot wide section of old Benton Street would be vacated for the length of the applicant's current property
and for the length of the property that the applicant was requesting to purchase from the City. A sanitary sewer
easement crossed the property which would need to be accommodated during the reconstruction of the site
and an easement retained by the City. Staff recommended approval of VAC06-00003.
Public discussion was opened.
Noah Kemo, 2140 Hwy 22, Kalona, IA. Kemp said it was unbelievable how quickly one's life could be
disrupted by a tornado. He thanked the Commission for considering his application for the vacation. Kemp said
he also wished to thank the City Staff as they had been very helpful during the process. His building had been
an old one and had not met current City codes. With his current proposal, he hoped to be able to rebuild and
to meet City Codes again.
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve VAC06-0003, the vacation of the southern 33-feet of the former
West Benton Street right-of-way along the length of the applicant's property be approved subject to retention
of any necessary utility easements. Koppes seconded the motion.
Plahutnik said at some point in the future he hoped that the City would reconsider the look of that particular
riverfront area. This property was the beginning of the riverfront area, he was glad to see it being brought up to
Code. Miklo said the revised Code had landscaping standards in it which would help to beautify the area as it
was being redeveloped.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 14. CITY OF IOWA CITY ZONING CODE:
Howard presented the Staff Report. After Staff had the opportunity to use the revised Code, a few things that
needed tweaking had arisen. This would be the first of two packages of proposed revisions Staff would submit
for consideration.
· Clarification of regulations for drives external to a parking lot versus drives internal to a parking lot.
A distinction needed to be made for certain circumstances such as a drive that provided circulation for a
large area, Le. a Wal Mart, which had traffic circulation around the exterior edge of the parking lot.
Screening requirements required that parking lots be set back 10-feet from the right-of-way to provide
room for street trees and the parking lot whereas drives that were external to a property and which
provided access to that property had a different standard for setback from the property line. A single-drive
had to be set-back 3-feet. Staff wished to make the distinction between drives which would be internal to
a parking lot [larger areas/larger paved areas] would need to have the same setback standard as a
parking lot. Language had been added to various parts of the Code and some illustrations had been re-
drawn to make the clarification.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
June 1, 2006
Page 7
Koppes asked how this would work in a large commercial area, such as a Wal Mart which would have multiple
curb cuts to both sides of a lot and the building set at the front.
Howard clarified: Staff had made the distinction for commercial zones but had not considered that sometimes
multi-family dwellings also had large parking lots. Staff wanted to make the language parallel to make the
distinction. Language similar to existing language in the Code had been used. Some clarification of
definitions had also been necessary, those were listed on page 7.
Freerks asked if there were still no screening requirements for a remnant which contained a large paved area.
Howard said the standard allowed driveways within 3-feet of the property line or it could be on the property line
if it was shared drive and drained properly; the City didn't wish to discourage people from sharing driveways.
The desire was to have the parking lot behind multi-family building so that it could fit into a single-family
residential area. The parking lot itself had to be screened from the neighboring properties and set back 10
feet. This applied to any parking lot over 8 spaces.
· Clarification of regulations for exterior stairways, exterior corridors, balconies and lifts.
To clarify Stairway not Stairwell. A stairway went above grade, a stairwell went below grade. Language
from the site planning portion of the Zoning Code had been copied and inserted. All the words that had
said stairwell had been changed to stairway. Staff also wished to clarify that exterior stairways did not
refer to stoops, exterior corridors did not refer to exterior arcades at the street level. A fire escape would
not be considered an exterior stairway.
· Clarification of minor modification procedures for site development standards in the Multi-Family Zone
Article and addition of a similar minor modification option for site development standards in the
Commercial, Industrial and research zones articles of the Code.
The flexible provision had been added due to the large amount of regulations which had been added. It
was always difficult to tell when an individual property would have difficulties due to unique site conditions
that some of the standards could not be met on certain lots. This procedure was already included in the
multi-family zones for site development standards because they were more extensive as design
standards. Staff had made some additions to commercial and industrial zones, the additions had not been
as extensive. These processes had proven useful to provide flexibility in the Code, if there were unique
circumstances they provided a process through which someone could apply to receive some relief from
the provisions that they could not comply with.
Freerks asked what had been the impetus for removing the joint review. Howard said it had been a request to
make it clear that 'all these officials' did not have to be present at the minor modifications meeting. The
Building Official would still consult with all the listed departments.
Smith asked by striking the words 'are waived' was its Staff's intention to eliminate Commission's or City
Council's authority. Howard said a minor modification was a Staff level adjustment; it was felt that it should not
be up to Staff discretion to waive an entire regulation - that would be too much discretion for an administrative
review. The request had been made by the Building Official so a situation would not arise where a person
might request a complete waiver. Minor modifications were intended to be minor; more major changes
needed to go through the Board of Adjustment and have a public review. An applicant might be getting
permission to do something that no other property owner would get to do.
· Amend to the building material requirements for large retail uses to make allowance for stamped concrete
panels. Big box standards had been inserted into the Zoning Code later in the Code review process. After
Staff had reviewed the Menards site, the Building Department had brought it to Staffs attention that there
were a lot of materials on the market being used which simulated brick and stone quite well. Those
materials were frequently used in big box retail structures, for malls and large structures.
Freerks asked if Staff had been able to work through this change during the Menards review - how would it
affect applicants that were currently in process. Miklo said this would provide more flexibility. Menards's had
requested to use a panel that had the appearance of brick which was stamped and had a dye in it. This would
be a higher grade product than just a foundation which was stamped and looked somewhat fake. It would be
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
June 1, 2006
Page 8
possible to see the stamped foundations in a residential area, but the public would not necessarily want to see
a whole wall 'stamped' in that manner.
· Clarification of regulations that relate to the ground-level floor height of storefront commercial buildings.
The current standard in the Code for underground parking stated that the underground parking could not
push the ground level/floor level up more than one foot above grade or the level of the adjacent sidewalk.
The intent was to have storefronts at street level to make them more conducive to commercial. With the
high demand for multi-family housing in Iowa City, frequently the residential above the commercial drove a
project. There was less experience and less interest in making the commercial store fronts conducive to
use over time. Buildings such as the one on Gilbert Street (combination commercial/residential across
from the Recreation Center) had an underground parking access which pushed the first level store front
entrances way above grade, which then became almost non-conducive to pedestrian traffic. It was also
very difficult to make those types of buildings accessible - they required a lot of ramping and/or steps
which made them unattractive for retail commercial and/or window shopping.
Staff had realized that the wording in the Code had not provided flexibility for sites that were sloping. This
mechanism would provide room for some change from the one-foot standard. Staff felt that some portion
of the building along the frontage should be at or no more than one foot above grade which would allow
the entrance of the storefront to be at grade. As the grade sloped down, the floor could be one foot but no
more than three foot above grade. The Code currently contained a requirement for storefronts to have a
break-up of the fayade every 50-foot. For a long building, traditionally each retail bay had been stepped
down which would allow the retail floor level to be stepped down and to be at grade.
Howard said amendments had been inserted into the neighborhood commercial zone, downtown zones,
mixed use zones; areas where underground parking might be seen.
Miklo said a good example of this type of structure was the building that Taknami was located in; at one
end it was almost at grade but at the severest point it was no more than 3-feet above grade. The parking
had been dug deeper.
Brooks asked how it would apply to a building such as the one on Linn and Court Streets. On the Linn Street
side the building was pretty much at grade, but on the Court Street side the land began to slope down. There
was no commercial space accessible from the street. Miklo said the lower level would have had to have some
commercial space in it and there was enough grade to have done so.
Brooks said at some point in the future they'd need to address the issue of arcade width. If an arcade area
was very narrow and a tight walkway to the entrances to a building, it would not invite anyone to walk through
the arcade. Howard said there currently were not regulations which would allow or address an arcade going
over the public right of way.
Eastham asked Staff to discuss what the evidence was that suggested that having entrances to stores at
grade levels was economically more feasible or made more difference to the success of the business. Howard
said she could pull a lot of research regarding; if persons were interested in retail they would build it at grade.
Any city which had large retail districts had the storefronts at grade, the public would not walk in if they couldn't
see in the window or what was happening on the other side of the door. Chicago was doing things to floor
levels to make sure that the store fronts were places where people could see and invite them in. Iowa City
had a different type of market - a higher market for multi-family and student housing which tended to drive the
project rather than the commercial side.
Brooks asked if there would be any benefit in tying this in to ADA access. The potential situation being that at
grade was required only at one end of a building, a person coming from the direction of the exposed garage
would have to go the full length of the building to get ADA access to go down to the other end of the building.
Would it be possible to require ADA access every 50-feet which would require the builder to do stair stepping
which would allow more access points. They were talking about 150-feet of building with only one access
point at the far end of the building. However, developers might feel that this would make their parking more
expensive and they would lose some parking.
Brooks said it was his preference to see more ADA access sites in situations of % block long buildings.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
June 1, 2006
Page 9
Howard said currently unless a building had underground parking there were no standards about how high the
level of the store front had to be. Staff had added a standard about having entrances to store fronts no more
than one foot above the level of the sidewalk. It would make it more of a level playing field between buildings
which did and did not have underground parking. They should all be ADA accessible and have the storefronts
at grade level.
Staff had also made a modification to garage entrances and exits for buildings in the CB-5 zone. In the
previous Code and the revised Code, the requirement had been that if there was an alley, access had to be
from the alley. No driveway had even been allowed from the street. Staff had eased the requirement by
stating that if access to/from the alley was not feasible, access could be provided from a driveway to the street.
A current situation was a building which was on a corner lot and had done everything possible to have
storefronts on all sides and had alley access to the majority of the parking, which was underground. The
applicant wished to have access to a smaller parking area behind the storefronts via a driveway. Because of
the topography, the way the building sat and the underground parking, the best access would come from the
street. To require the site to have all parking access from the alley would prohibit the storefront along the
street - it would become too narrow to be usable space. Staff felt it would be better to have a little flexibility
which would also make the project better. Flexibility to adjust things would allow Staff to better meet the intent
of the Code. Language had been added to make it clear what the purpose was for requiring the kinds of
access that were required in the downtown area as well as adding a little flexibility to adjust things based on
the particular site.
The motion passed on a vote of7-0.
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve the amendments to Title 14, City of Iowa City Zoning Code.
Eastham seconded.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
CONSIDERATION OF 5/18/06 MEETING MINUTES:
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Eastham seconded.
The motion passed on a vote of7-0.
OTHER ITEMS:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: Smith made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:01 pm. Eastham seconded.
The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary
Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill
s:lpcd/minutes/P&ZI2006106-Q1-06.doc
e
o
'0
II)
's
E
o
o'E
mo
e c.>
,- Q)
go::
NQ)~
oac.>o
eN
mIlS
e"
,- e
e Q)
e~
.!!<C
Q.
~
C3
IlS
~
.2
...- I
- I >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
CD I
I
CIC) I
...- >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
- I
II) I
0 I W
N 0 >< I >< >< >< - ><
;a: I 0
~ I W
>< >< I >< >< >< ><
I 0
I
N I
>< >< I >< >< >< >< ><
- I
C'? I
CD W I W
...- - >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
- 0 I
N I
N I W
>< >< I >< >< >< ><
N I 0
en I W
...- >< >< >< >< 0 >< ><
- I
...- I
II) I W
>< >< I >< >< >< ><
- I 0
...- I
lJ) 0 co ..... co CD
E ~ CD ..... 0
0 ..... ..... e 0 ..... 0 0
~'~ - - - - - - -
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
I-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E ~ e
>< II) .fJ II) 'c 0
~ ~ IlS i - e
IlS .c .. ~ .c
'u 0 - Q) .c e -
Q) e II) e IlS IlS 's
e IlS 0 .c
E <C a:l W u.. :lI::: a: en en
ro c:i ai 0 <i. W ~ c:i ~
z
CD
z
i=
w
w
~
....J
4:
~
a:::
o
LL.
II) I W
...- I >< >< >< >< >< >< -
- I 0
II)
,... I W
...- 0 >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
- I
'lit
,... I
N >< >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
N I
I
C'? I W
...- >< >< >< >< >< 0 ><
- I
N I
lJ) CD 0 co ..... 0 co CD
E ~ .....
0 ..... ..... 0 0 ..... 0 e
'A - - - in - - -
Q) X 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
I-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E ~ e
>< .fJ II) ~ 'c 0
~ IlS ~ - e
IlS .c .. ~ .c
'u 0 - Q) .c e -
Q) e II) e IlS IlS 's
e IlS 0 .c
E <C a:l W LL. :lI::: a: en en
ro c:i ai 0 <i. W s= c:i ~
z
CD
z
i=
w
w
~
....J
4:
~
a:::
o
LL.
Z
"0
Q)
lJ)
::J
U
X
W
..........:;:,
c: c: c:
Q) Q) Q)
lJ) lJ) lJ)
Q)oOoO
0::4:4:
.. II II II
>- W
Q) -
~><oo
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
JUNE 15, 2006
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beth Koppes, Dean Shannon, Charlie Eastham, Wally Plahutnik
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Terry Smith, Ann Freerks, Bob Brooks
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Drew Westberg, Mitch Behr
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
Recommended approval, by a vote of 4-0, REZ06-00014 a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone
to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for approximately 1.39-acres of property located at 1820 Boyrum
Street subject to a conditional zoning agreement with the following conditions:
. the applicant will provide a sidewalk to accommodate increased pedestrian traffic
. the applicant will abide by CC-2 site development standards including outdoor storage and display
regulations.
CALL TO ORDER:
Koppes called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
REZONING ITEM:
REZ06-00014, discussion of an application submitted by Brian DeCoster for a rezoning from Intensive
Commercial (CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for approximately 1.39-acres of property
located at 1820 Boyrum Street.
Miklo said the applicant had requested the rezoning in order to allow for the construction of a restaurant in the
northern part of the building. The general area surrounding the applicant's property was originally zoned M-1
or light industrial. When a new zoning code and map were adopted in 1983, the area had been rezoned to
Intensive Commercial (CI-1). In 1994 a large property to west had been rezoned to Community Commercial
(CC-2) to allow for construction of the Hy-Vee store. In March, 2006, at Hy-Vee's request, the City had
rezoned the remaining CI-1 area west of Boyrum Street to CC-2.
The Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone is a quasi-industrial zone, intended for land intensive businesses but
does not allow for eating or drinking establishments. The Community Commercial (CC-2) zone is designed for
high-traffic sales-oriented retail. Adjacent properties to the north, east and west are currently zoned CC-2.
The South District Plan showed the subject property as CI-1, surrounded by General Commercial. The
Comprehensive Plan notes "'minor redevelopment' of the commercial areas surrounding Hwy 6 should occur
to better serve the needs of current and emerging residential neighborhoods to the south." In Staff's opinion,
the rezoning of the subject property from CI-1 to CC-2 would be a minor redevelopment. Because it is such a
small area and because most of the surrounding properties are zoned CC-2 it could be viewed as being
generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not require an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan.
If approved, the rezoning would have the potential to increase pedestrian and vehicular traffic on Boyrum
Street, a collector street. Increased pedestrian traffic was a concern of the City as the subject property did not
have a sidewalk. Staff recommended that as a condition of the rezoning, the applicant be required to install a
sidewalk in order to provide a safe environment for pedestrian traffic.
Staff had also discussed with the applicant that the current unscreened outdoor storage and display on their
property would be non-conforming in a CC-2 zone. The applicant had indicated some concern regarding the
expense of installing landscaping or screening to become Code compliant. At minimum, a low-growing hedge
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
June 15, 2006
Page 2
would be required as screening for display of items in front of the building and more intensive landscaping is
required for outdoor storage. Staff recommended that as a condition of the rezoning the applicant be required
to abide by CC-2 site development standards including outdoor storage and display regulations.
Miklo said Staff recommended approval of REZ06-00014, a rezoning of approximately 1.39-acres of property
located at 1820 Boyrum Street be approved subject to:
. The applicant providing a sidewalk to accommodate increased pedestrian traffic
. The applicant abiding by CC-2 site development standards including outdoor storage and display
regulations.
Eastham asked if the sidewalk and site development standards would be required if the proposed restaurant
did not develop. Miklo said they would be required regardless, in the future the site might change ownership
and the property's use could transition to another use allowed in the CC-2.
Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Shannon made a motion to approve REZ06-00014, a rezoning of approximately 1.39-acres of
property located at 1820 Boyrum Street subject to:
. Applicant providing a sidewalk to accommodate increased pedestrian traffic
. Applicant abiding by CC-2 site development standards including outdoor storage and display regulations.
Plahutnik seconded.
The motion passed on a vote of 4-0 (Brooks, Freerks, Smith absent).
CONSIDERATION OF 6/1/06 MEETING MINUTES:
Miklo said the minutes were still being prepared at this time. They would be included on the next agenda.
Motion: Plahutnik made a motion to defer consideration of the minutes. Eastham seconded.
The motion passed on a vote of 4-0 (Brooks, Freerks, Smith absent).
OTHER ITEMS:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: Eastham made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:42 pm. Shannon seconded.
The motion carried on a vote of 4-0.
Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary
Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill
s:lpcd/minulesJP&Zl2006/06-15-06.doc
C
o
'ii)
II)
'E
E
o
u'E
c)o
C U
,- CI)
CD::
o
NCI)~
oaUo
CN
C)ns
c'C
,- C
C CI)
C:::
~<C
Q.
~
<3
ns
~
.2
II) I UJ UJ UJ
... 0 >< - >< >< >< 0
- I 0
U) I
... I
0 >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
- 0
U) I
ClC) I
... I >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
- I
II) 0
0 I UJ
N 0 >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
~ I
U) I UJ
>< >< I >< >< >< ><
~ I -
I 0
N >< >< I >< >< >< >< ><
- I
C") I
U) UJ I UJ
... 0 >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
N 0
0
N 0 UJ
>< >< 0 >< >< >< ><
- I 0
N I
en I UJ
... >< >< >< >< 0 >< ><
- I
...
II) >< >< I >< UJ >< >< ><
- 0 0
... 0
rJ) 0 00
E l!! CO ..... 00 I"'- 0 CO
!:2 ..... ..... 0 0 ..... 0 0
"q - - - - - - -
Q) X It) It) It) It) It) It) It) It)
I-UJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E ~ C
>< ~ ~ II) 'c 0
~ ns 8 - C
ns 0 ~ ... ~ C .c
'u CI) .c -
e ns 'E
Q) C ns e ~ ns .c
E <C m w LL. a:: 0 0
ro c:i a:i 0 <i. u.i ~ c:i ~
z
(9
Z
~
UJ
UJ
:E
....J
~
:E
D::
o
u.
II) 0 UJ
... 0 >< >< >< >< >< >< 0
in I
.... I UJ
... 0 >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
~ I
I
.... 0
N >< >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
N 0
I
C") 0 UJ
... >< >< 0 >< >< >< 0 ><
N I
rJ) CO 0 00 I"'- 0 00 CO
E l!! .....
!:2 ..... ..... 0 !:2 ..... 0 0
Q)"~ - - - - - -
It) It) It) It) It) It) It) It)
I-UJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E ~ C
>< ~ II) II) 'c 0
~ ns ~ I - C
ns .c ~ .c
'u 0 - CI) .c C -
e II) e ns ns 'E
Q) C ns ~ .c
E <C m w u.. a:: 0 0
ro c:i a:i 0 <i. u.i ~ c:i ~
z
(9
Z
~
UJ
UJ
:E
....J
~
:E
D::
o
u.
Z
"'C
Q)
rJ)
;:,
o
X
UJ
-_:t:>
c: c: c:
Q) Q) Q)
rJ) rJ) rJ)
l!!.o.o
c..~~
"" II II II
>- UJ
Q) -
~><OO