The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-03-2006 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, July 31,2006 -7:30 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Lobby Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street Thursday, August 3, 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. Comprehensive Plan Item: Consider a motion setting a public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan by amending the Near Southside Design Plan to consider Central Business (CB-10) zoning south of Burlington Street. D. Rezoning Items: 1. REZ06-00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Hieronymus Square Associates for a rezoning of 1.12 acres of property located at 314 & 328 South Clinton Street from Central Business Support (CB-5) zone to Central Business (CB-10) zone. (45-day limitation period: August 3,2006) 2. REZ06-00017: Discussion of an application submitted by Pentacrest Garden Apartments for a rezoning of 3.41 acres of property located at 12 East Court Street from Central Business Support (CB-5) zone to Central Business (CB-10) zone. (45-day limitation period: August 21,2006) 3. REZ06-00018: Discussion of an application submitted by University View Partners for a rezoning of .08 acres of property located at 22 East Court Street from High Density Multi- Family Residential (RM-44) zone to Central Business (CB-10) zone. (45-day limitation period: August 21, 2006) 4. REZ06-00019: Discussion of an application submitted by University View Partners for a rezoning of .17 acres of property located at 335 South Clinton Street from Central Business Support (CB-5) zone to Central Business (CB-10) zone. (45-day limitation period: August 21, 2006) 5. REZ06-00020: Discussion of an application submitted by Center City Partners for a rezoning of .33 acres of property located at 336 South Clinton Street from Central Business Support (CB-5) zone to Central Business (CB-10) zone. (45-day limitation period: August 21, 2006) D. Rezoning/Development Item: REZ06-00010/SUB06-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Don Cochran for a rezoning from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low-Density Single-Family (RS-5) zone, and a preliminary plat and a final plat of McCollister Subdivision, a 2-lot, 9.53-acre residential subdivision located east of South Gilbert Street and west of Sandusky Drive. (45-day limitation period: August 16, 2006) E. Consideration of the July 20, 2006 Meeting Minutes F. Other Items G. Adjournment Informal Formal October 16 October 19 5T AFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Karen Howard Item: REZ06-00017 12 E. Court St. Date: August 3,2006 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Pentacrest Garden Apartments 414 E. Market St. Iowa City, Iowa 52245 319-631-1869 Contact Person: James A. Clark 414 E. Market St. Iowa City, Iowa 52245 319-631-1869 Requested Action: Rezoning from RM-44 to CB-10 Purpose: Development of a mixed-use residential/commercial building Location: Mid-block parcel extending between Burlington and Court Streets, west of Clinton Street Size: Approximately 148,540 sq. ft. (3.41 acres) Existing Land Use and Zoning: Multi-family residential - RM-44 ' Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: University of Iowa; public parking facilities; P-1, P-2 South: County and University uses - P-1, P-2 East: Commercial - CB-5 West: Vehicle Servicing; University uses- CB-5, P-2 Comprehensive Plan: Mixed commercial and residential, government center - Near Souths ide Plan Neighborhood Open Space District N/A File Date: July 7, 2006 45 Day Limitation Period: August 21, 2006 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Pentacrest Garden Apartments, is requesting to rezone an approximately 3.4 acre property from High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) to Central Business Zone (CB-10). The property extends from Burlington Street on the north to Court Street on the south and is midblock between Madison Street on the west and Clinton Street on the east. The Pentacrest 2 Garden Apartments consist of 96 apartments (198 bedrooms) resulting in a residential density of approximately 28 units per acre. This property is within the Near Southside Redevelopment Plan area. ANAL YSIS: Comprehensive Plan: As discussed with the Hieronymous Square rezoning application, the objective of the Near Southside Plan is to foster redevelopment of the Near Southside while maintaining an economically healthy core in the downtown. One of the goals of the redevelopment plan is to protect and enhance the shopping convenience and pedestrian accessibility of downtown Iowa City and encourage higher density residential development that will maintain a 24-hour economic vitality downtown. Based on the Commission's discussion of the Hieronymus Square property, it is clear that there is a consensus that a change in policy and zoning from CB-5 to CB-10 is supported for the area between Burlington and Court Street. However, the Pentacrest Garden Apartments are currently zoned RM-44 and are not as ideally located to provide a logical extension of downtown. The applicant has not submitted a development or concept plan, so it is difficult to assess the appropriateness of the redevelopment of this property. As such, staff feels that this rezoning request is premature, but make the following general observations. While rezoning the Hieronymous property to CB-10 would result in the extension of commercial development along Clinton Street, one of the main retail commercial corridors in the downtown area, the Pentacrest Garden Apartments are not so ideally located for such an extension. The street frontage along Burlington Street west of Clinton Street consists of a structured parking facility, University buildings, and gas and vehicle servicing establishments. None of these existing buildings are designed to encourage the type of pedestrian traffic that would make this area conducive to storefront commercial uses. In addition, the sloping topography may make it difficult to create street-level storefronts that are inviting to shoppers. Another consideration is whether extending the downtown further west along Burlington Street will dilute the economic viability of existing storefront retail in the downtown core. The Pentacrest Garden Apartments were already in existence at the time the Near Southside plan was developed, but are not inconsistent with the goal of encouraging high density housing near downtown. It should be noted that the existing density of 28 units per acre is considerably less than what could be developed under the present RM-44 zoning designation, particularly given the break in the amount of parking required on-site due to the Near Southside Parking Facility District ordinance. While staff is reluctant to recommend CB-10 zoning in this location for the reasons stated above, a higher density designation of Planned High Density Multi-Family (PRM) may be appropriate. A PRM designation would be consistent with other residential properties in the Near Southside and according to the new zoning code would allow personal service-oriented retail uses that could serve the residents in the area, while not directly competing with the sales-oriented retail concentrated downtown. Parking Issues: As discussed with the Hieronymus Square project, the amount, location and design of parking is a concern of the Comprehensive Plan and the Near Southside Plans. As discussed in the Comprehensive Plan, downtown business owners have been concerned that residential population burdens the parking system in the downtown district and is detrimental to business. The Near Southside Parking Impact District addresses this issue by requiring residential development to provide a certain percentage of the required parking on site and payment of fees for the remaining percentage of required parking. The fees are to contribute to the construction of centralized parking structures. Rezoning the property to CB-10 would exempt the developer from providing anyon-site parking or paying into the Near Southside parking facility fund. pcd\Staff Reportslrez06-00017 pantacresl.apts.doc 3 To assure that adequate parking is provided within the Near Southside and that developers in this area are treated equitably; staff recommends that some form of parking impact fee be applied if the requested rezoning is approved. The method of determining the amount of the fee should be the same as for Hieronymus Square. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ06-00017 an application submitted by Pentacrest Garden Apartments for a rezoning of 3.41 acres of property located at 12 E. Court Street from High Density Multi- Family Residential (RM-44) to Central Business (CB-10) zone be deferred pending submission of a concept plan indicating the types and mix of uses proposed for this property, the general building design, and parking and traffic circulation proposed. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Application materials Approved by: ~,. Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development pcd\Staff Reportslrez06-OO017 pentacrest.apts.doc \ \ ~ .S NNll -;; ~ tj" ~ ~ ~ ~ tj Ir ..,,,"" f.L...J _JI ,'-' IU 1\-1 _ ~ _~J! I "~"- I -"mm~:r-m" m~-"-'III!!!!!lt \1:1: ~ SIOVV'J / InV C\I - D.. III ~ ~ ~ --.-. ./ :1 NIT") tr ~ ,..~ D..[t - n: I, I ,,, .L ,'-' v ~ [ L.: \ _I ~, i i \t I I i ~ [ __ I," '\ ~.-===-- ~'."" .....~ ~_...~.-l_.._....~..L.m..........I' . \ ~--11 ~ +- ~:~:~~ ~ '- 1..) ._'- _'0 ~ Ii 01 i ifF ~I~, \\ 'I,ll: i . I", ~,~ \ ....J _JI IVI 101 1\-1 ~ f-"" '-== ~ 0.. r" - -=::, ~ I 1.- i ~ I ~ U.) nl - (1 -- ~N~ ~ ~~ 0 ~ Q(s ~ .," ."-,,, .L..J ,~V.LI'l1 Iv JI \ I~: ~ -+-.J \l) " ~_m ~~ rt ~ ~ " 0 0 ~G(j=t 't\I D.. IT [ ~ III ,,~ ~ :,-" ~ ,", ~~'~y. ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~~ ~'\~~ ~~'\; ~~ '" =-'r~Jr\ I II --= / IS lOlld\l:)- _ -=:;:: /! or I T7 ~m-:r[]TTO'Jm_._. I I ~ f- (f) ,L..m "" I lS NOSIOVV'J ! I ~ [- 0.... f- (f) f- er:: :J o U I J i ~ S.~ NO~~== c::::::;;;~' ~ f'.- ,.... o o o I <0 o N W a: +-' Q) Q) lo.... +-' C/) t:: ::J o () w C\J ,.... . . Z o I--l ~ < U o ~ ~ ~ I--l if) Applicant's Statement The proposed zoning (CB-IO) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals of high density commercial and residential development in the downtown core of Iowa City. The surrounding uses and proposed developments are compatible with the proposed zoning. The area is largely occupied by Federal, State, and local government uses, especially to the South. Other commercial and residential exists in the area and other high density uses are proposed by other land owners in the area. The property has all infrastructure available, including streets and public and private utilities in design and construction adequate for uses allowed by the proposed zoning. The zoning change will allow redevelopment of the property in a manner which will serve the needs of the area. To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: REZ06-00018-20 335 and 336 S. Clinton Street and 22 E. Court Street GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: 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: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Robert Miklo Date: August 3,2006 University View Partners (22 Court and 335 S. Clinton) and Center City Partners (336 S. Clinton) 414 E. Market Street Iowa City, IA 52245 (319) 351-8370 Jim Clark Rezoning from CB-5 to CB-10 Development of mixed-use residential/commercial buildings Intersection of Clinton and Court Streets 22 Court Street - 3,500 square feet 335 S. Clinton Street - 7,400 square feet 336 S. Clinton Street - 14,400 square feet 22 Court Street - office building -CB-5 335 S. Clinton Street - tornado damaged building - CB-5 336 S. Clinton Street - vacant -CB-5 North: Commercial - CB-5 (proposed Hieronymus Square CB-10) South: County Court House and Federal Building - P1 and P2 East: Public/Commercial - P/CB-5 West: Residential -RM-44 General Commercial - Near Souths ide Plan N/A July 7, 2006 August 21, 2006 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicants, University View Partners (22 Court and 335 S. Clinton) and Center City Partners (336 S. Clinton) are requesting approval for rezoning these three properties from Central Business Support Zone (CB-5) to Central Business Zone (CB-10). The area generally located between Burlington Street and Court Street, including these three properties, was zoned CB-2 between 1983 and 1992. It was rezoned to CB-5 in 1992 to implement the Near Southside Redevelopment Plan. The property at 336 S Clinton contained Rebel Plaza, which was built as a motel and later converted to commercial space with apartments on the second floor, was severely damaged in the April 13 tornado. The applicant recently removed the remainder of the building. The Building at 335 S. Clinton Street was a historic house that had been converted to office space. It was also heavily damaged by the tornado and is now being torn down. The property at 22 Court Street contains a one-story office building that the applicant plans to remove to allow for a new building to be constructed on this and the adjacent lot at 335 S. Clinton. These properties are adjacent or near the proposed Hieronymus Square property that is currently the subject of a rezoning request. ANAL YSIS: Based on the Commission's discussion of the Hieronymus Square property, it is clear that there is a consensus that a change in policy and zoning from CB-5 to CB-10 is supported for the area between Burlington and Court Street. Providing additional CB-10 areas south of Burlington Street may help direct the market for high-rise development away from the historic downtown core to an area of underutilized land and encourage a diversity of housing types in the downtown. The requested CB-10 zoning at 22 Court Street and 335 and 336 S. Clinton Street would be appropriate given this change in policy. However as discussed below it may be appropriate to require a Conditional Zoning Agreement to address concerns raised by the change in zoning. Parking As discussed with the Hieronymus Square project, the amount, location and design of parking is a concern of the Comprehensive Plan and the Near Southside Plans. As discussed in the Comprehensive Plan, downtown business owners have been concerned that residential population burdens the parking system in the downtown district and is detrimental to business. The Near Southside Parking Impact District addresses this issue by requiring residential development within the CB-5 zone to provide 25% of the required parking on site and payment of fees for 75% of required parking. The fees are to contribute to the construction of centralized parking structures. Because the policy favors commercial development over residential; commercial uses are not required to provide parking or pay a parking impact fee. To assure that adequate parking is provided within the Near Southside and that developers in this area are treated equitably; staff recommends that some form or parking impact fee be applied if the requested rezonings at 22 Court Street and 335 and 336 S. Clinton Street are approved. The method of determining the amount of the fee should be the same as for Hieronymus Square. Project Concept The Hieronymus Square rezoning request is accompanied by a project concept that provides information about the proposed building form, uses, traffic circulation and general design. This may serve as the basis for a Conditional Zoning Agreement to assure that the project that is built generally conforms to the concepts that led the City to change the policies regarding the Near Southside. The applicants at this point have not submitted concept plans illustrating what they intend to build. pcd\Staff Reportslrez06-00018-20-clark 00-5 to cb-10 2.doc 3 Traffic Implications: In order to assess traffic implications of these proposals concept plans showing where parking and driveways are proposed is necessary to assess the traffic implications of these proposed rezonings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ06-00018, REZ06-00019 and REZ06-00020 applications submitted by University View Partners (22 Court and 335 S. Clinton) and Center City Partners (336 S. Clinton) rezoning 3,500 square feet of property located at 22 Court Street, and 7,400 square feet of property located at 335 S. Clinton Street and 14,400 square feet of property located at 336 S. Clinton Street from Central Business Support (CB-5) zone to Central Business (CB-10) zone be deferred pending submission of a concept plan indicating the types and mix of uses, general building design, and parking and traffic circulation proposed. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Maps 2. Application materials Approved by: Karin Franklin, Director Department of Planning and Community Development '#04d pcd\Staff Reportslrez06-00018-20-clark cb-5 to cb-1 0 2.doc \. co ,..... 0 0 0 f- I <0 ClJ (f) 0 --+-....J N \J z w Ci) 0 a: . ---- ~ ()~ (f) - Q(s n:::: n:::: <t ::r ~--+-....J ClJ ~ ~ Ci) ~ ,- :J :J c.. ~ () () t3 C)C)=t ~ ~ ~ a: 1D Q) '- +-' ~ (j) C. t ::J t3 0 () W C\J C\J ;IOV~ .. Z N f- 0 (f) ,...... ~ f- < D. n:::: u ~ 0 0 ~ u ~ ~ ,...... rJ) I I " _0> T- o 0 0 l- I CO Q) (f) 0 N U z w C;j 0 a: ~ () ~ (f) '+- - Q 0::::: Q 0::::: <( I ~--+--.-; Q) ~ ~ C;j ~ ,.- :J :J D- ~ () () tj GG=C ~ ~ +-' Q.) ~ Q.) a:: '- +-' (/) ~ I C 0 +-' D- c .- tj l) . (/) LO C'I) C'I) ; I 0 V'~ .. z N I- 0 (f) I-C ~ I- < D- O::::: u ~ .0 0 ~ U ~ ~ I-C crJ 0 C\J 0 0 0 I q CO \1 ~ W 0: ~ I I . t ~ I \ DU --!--J Q) (j Cf)'_ ~ ()~ Q(s tj ~ 1i5 Q) '- ...... ~ (f) c 0 ~ ...... c .- () ~ C/) CO tj Ct) Ct) . . f- Z VI 0 . rn NOSIOIJ ~ ~ U 9 C\I ~ .n. trJ .~ ....-----=-- .- .- Applicant's Statement The proposed zoning (CB-10) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals of high density commercial and residential development in the downtown core of Iowa City. The surrounding uses and propo~ed developments are compatible with the proposed zoning. The area is largely occupied by Federal, State, and local government uses, especially to the South. Other commercial and residential exists in the area and other high density uses are proposed by other land owners in the area. The property has all infrastructure available, including streets and public and private utilities in design and construction adequate for uses allowed by the proposed zoning. The zoning change will allow redevelopment of the property in a manner which will serve the needs of the area. The structure on the property was seriously damaged in the recent tornado, to the point where redevelopment of the site is the most desirable outcome. The proposed zoning (CB-IO) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals of high density commercial and residential development in the downtown core of Iowa City. The surrounding uses and proposed developments are compatible with the proposed zoning. The area is largely occupied by Federal, State, and local government uses, especially to the South. Other commercial and residential exists in the area and other high density uses are proposed by other land owners in the area. The property has all infrastructure available, including streets and public and private utilities in design and construction adequate for uses allowed by the proposed zoning. The zoning change will allow redevelopment of the property in a manner which will serve the needs of the area. . I ~ ! ~~5._IlIt... ~~(2SJ~~ ~~ ~IIII" --,_ J CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: To: July 28, 2006 From: Planning and Zoning Commission Robert Miklo, Senior Planner REZ06-00015 Hieronymus Square Re: The Commission has come to a consensus to recommend that CB-10 zoning be considered for the Hieronymus property south of Burlington Street. Justifications for this change in policy include the provision of additional CB-10 areas that may help direct the market for high-rise development away from the historic downtown core to an area of underutilized land and encourage a diversity of housing types in the downtown while at the same providing for areas of commercial growth on the lower floors of new buildings. This change in policy has implications for the core of downtown as well as the Near Southside and raises questions regarding appropriate floor area ratio (FAR), maximum building height, open space, urban design and parking. Rather than delay consideration of rezoning requests for individual properties while a detailed study is prepared for downtown and the downtown extension into the Near Southside, staff recommends that any rezoning to CB-10 be subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement and concept plan specifying the general design of the building, mix of uses, amount of parking to be provided on site, fees to be paid to the parking impact fund and any other issues pertinent to the project. This will provide the City some reassurance that the increase in development rights will be implemented in manner consistent with presented plans and the community's vision for downtown. Comprehensive Plan: Both the Near Southside Redevelopment Plan and the Near Souths ide Design Plan are elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Because the Near Souths ide Plan specifically indicates that the CB-5 zone is the appropriate zoning for the downtown extension, it is necessary to amend the document to provide for consideration of the CB-10 zone in the area prior to or in conjunction with the requested rezoning. Urban Design: The Near Southside Design Plan also has specific language regarding a vision for the downtown extension. The Plan states that, "Redevelopment efforts architecturally mirror the existing Downtown area. New structures in this district and along Burlington Street reflect the scale, proportion, facade repetition, setbacks, material, roof lines, color, signage, awnings, and equipment screening elements of the adjacent Downtown and initially the CB-5 design standards." The proposal appears to be quite different than the general character of most buildings located downtown in terms of scale, bulk and material. This is not necessarily a negative; the Plan was adopted 11 years ago and there have been some changes such as Plaza Towers, not contemplated in 1995. If the project is to be approved as submitted then language of the Near Southside Design plan regarding new projects "mirroring" the existing downtown should be amended. If the Commission is satisfied with the design concept as presented, then approval is appropriate. If the Commission has concerns about aspects of the design, those concerns should be clearly articulated to allow the applicant to respond. Although not necessarily a concern with Hieronymus Square, as the City reviews other requests for rezoning to CB-10, consideration should be given to protecting views sheds - such as the view of the Johnson County Court House and the Old Capitol. Parking: The Comprehensive Plan notes that some downtown merchants and business owners feel the residential population burdens the parking system in the district to the detriment of the businesses. The Plan discusses the need to establish a clear policy for housing, parking and redevelopment in the Downtown Planning District which encompasses the downtown core and the July 28, 2006 Page 2 Near Southside as well as adjacent areas. When the City completed its study of the redevelopment potential in the Near Southside, several measures were taken to balance the demand and supply of parking for new commercial and residential development in this area. The CB-5 zone parking regulations and the Near Southside Parking Facility District were created specifically to address these issues. With regard to parking for commercial uses, the CB-5 zone creates an incentive for new commercial development by eliminating the requirement for private, off-street parking for commercial uses and setting a maximum on the amount of private parking that can be placed on individual properties. The policy is that parking, particularly short term parking for visitors and customers of businesses in the area can and should be accommodated in centralized parking facilities, thus discouraging use of valuable downtown land for individual surface parking lots. The Near Southside Redevelopment Plan also anticipates new development of higher density housing in this area and acknowledges it as important to employment and business development downtown. However, residential parking demand is fundamentally different than the demand for short term commercial parking. Therefore, the policies and regulations were set up to make sure that any new residential development pays its fair share of demand on City parking facilities. The Near Southside Parking Facility District was created to ensure that new residential development bears a proportionate share of the cost of building the centralized city parking facilities necessary to accommodate the resulting increased demand for off-street parking created by new residential development located in the area bounded by Burlington Street on the north, Gilbert Street on the east, the Iowa Interstate Railway on the south and Madison Street on the west. The fee is based on the number of parking spaces required for residential uses. Every zoning district in the City contains parking requirements for residential uses, except the CB-10 zone. When the Near Southside Parking Facility District was established, CB-10 zoning was not anticipated in this area. CB-10 zoning was reserved for the already developed areas downtown that until recently have not experienced much residential development. Establishing CB-10 zoning in areas where there is the potential for large numbers of apartments to be built is likely to upset the balance created between parking for residents and parking for businesses. Residential development will essentially be given a free ride. No parking will be required, nor will any fees be paid to help pay for new city parking facilities, yet the demand for parking spaces for residents will not go away and will be in direct competition with short term parking demand for visitors and business customers. In fact, this loophole in the regulations may be so valuable as to create an incentive for developers to request CB-10 zoning merely to avoid constructing on-site parking or contributing fees toward construction of centralized parking facilities for new buildings that are largely residential. Until the impact of CB-10 zoning on the supply and demand for parking within the Near Southside can be fully examined and appropriate requirements established, staff recommends the following for any areas rezoned to CB-10 within the Near Souths ide Parking Facility District: 1) a parking requirement be imposed for residential uses equal to what is required in the CB-5 zone, 2) to satisfy this requirement, the developer provide parking in below grade parking facilities within the building and 3) for any parking spaces that cannot be provided on-site in below grade facilities, fees must be paid into the Parking Facility District Impact Fee Fund. A request was made for a copy of the Parking Impact Fee Annual Report. A copy is attached. Open Space: The Near Southside Redevelopment Plan notes that as areas redevelop pockets of passive open space and greenways will be considered in redevelopment plans. Hieronymus Square does include an interior court yard that may serve as open space for the building's tenants. Staff has asked the applicant to provide more detail on how this area will be developed and landscaped. A base level of open space improvement requirements could be included in the Conditional Zoning Agreement. July 28, 2006 Page 3 Traffic: Jeff Davidson, Transportation Planner, will attend the Commission's informal meeting on July 31 to discuss traffic issues. Conditional Zoning Agreement: Staff has had preliminary discussions with the applicant regarding conditions to be included in a CZA. These include: A requirement for a minimum of one floor of commercial development above the ground floor. A minimum of 100 residential parking spaces to be provided below grade. Payment of parking impact fees for residential units for which on-site parking is not provided based on the CB-5 residential parking requirements. A maximum of 200 residential units with a mix of 1, 2 and 3-beroom units. No more than 30% of the residential units shall contain 3 bedrooms. A plan for landscaping of the court yard and service area will be provided. This may include acceptable alternative concepts for the area. If there are design concerns these could also be addressed in the CZA. LO o o N LO - rJ) :J Cl :J <x: Gi 16 Q ..0 ...... N I) 00 I) ... , Vi ~ c: N o N ~V'l c: 0 C'\ ~~~~~ s: ...0..0 ~ ~?~~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ . '" C'\ C'\ :;: 0:;:__:;: :;;: ~ ~ ~ :;: - u.. o ~ u dl CJ C Cll ... .S: ~u.. CllO C ... Cll 0 ~t) ~~ GO en:>; C dl =~-a; g<:~ :J C- OdlO UJ::C ~ ~'> .- .::: dl U(/)~ o I- ~ ro C <x: - C dl E dl Cl Cll C Cll ~ rJ) .~ -' J:: Cl 'Q) -' .~ e u. x 0( Ll.. t:: o 0. ~ dl >. 'tJ C J:: .a ~ .Q -'tJdlt) C dl 'tJ dl .- ... .- (/) .s~~_ cEo . dl :J CJ rJ) E CJ dl ro o.c.a dl Odl_>- Q>crodl >:JJ::> dl C rJ) t;:: 'tJ 'ffi ~ dl 5E55:5 'tJ~E'O ~ -fi iO' 'tJ rJ) .- 0. C dl J:: dl dl rJ) 3: dl dl rJ)"'~J:: CllOt)_ rJ)'tJCll'O dldlo. ~'tJErJ) C ._ >. t) dl Cll Cll 0. <6 'tJ ~~~ ro .- -0 dl -g g>c:5~ ~~'O~ rocdlO o.~Ciioo ... - 'tJ..... .ECiidlc rJ):S:SE ~~Ej ECiie'tJ dl-..... dl ... rJ) rJ) > .- - ... 'Q) :J C Cll CJ g-dl~dl ... E ... Cl~ii)~ c: .- '-" I .- :J dl 'tJ 0" > en 5 ~ t;:: dl ..... ClCl:J ~ C .s: g- .- 3: ... -g-goc Clldl=dl 0.0;1:: ~ rJ) ~'i:; :J"'~3: :!:: Cll dl c: 'tJdl- c: >..!.2 &. ~~~ :J ~ t;:: E l!? rJ) <x: .s ~ dl .... 0 C:'tJdl_ :'::Ot::dl - 0 Cll > :J J:: :J dl "'"' o ... 0" 'tJ co ~Brorog ,J::'tJ:JC") "'" .2' c: 32 ~ ..... dl dl .2: 0) CZro'tJ . .Q dl CJ .s: 0 t)32 (I) oZ dlrJ)J::_ . rJ):5':::~'E dl::::lO.aO 'tJ (/)0 'tJ Cll . o c: 'tJ <x: CJ"'(I)C:O) ~m(l)~..t GZ:5........ ro ::::l c: c <x: dl dl u.. ~ 0. E Cl c: ~ ... Cll a.. Gi 0:: o"~ C")_ dl c: c: 0 :J'tJ ...., dl :J rJ) ... Cll . J::.a.s --c: (f; rJ) dl O)-gE ..... ::::l ~ >- ..... .- LLdl5- .s: ~ ~ c:5Cl o ..... c: :;::;0:0 o.dlC 8rJ)~ .s: ~ rJ) .s.E~ .- :J E~:J 0:.::..... ... 'tJ (I) .....Cllc: 'tJ (I) ._ c: 'tJ E :J ... ... LLCll.$ 'tJ ~ dl dl I 'tJ :2~.9 .btt:L- rJ) dl (I) 2J::'E LL.-o t) ~ .s: Cll Cii (I) 0.- _ ~B{g Clro 0 cCJ_ :g-o~ Cll dl Cll a..t)E dl ~ rJ) :58~ oc:jg Clal~ .S: .a ::::l cdlo. ::::l>'O o Cll CJ J:: C ~rJ)~ c: al ~ Cll'+'-:.:: rJ) - 0. dl Cll 0. 'tJJ::Cll .- 3: rJ) > rJ) (I) e3:~ o.OCll -J::E alrJ)'tJ J:: c: c: ~ ~ Cll. CllCll_ dlE.$ ... ... Cll g. .E 'tJ 'tJ .S: C dl rJ) dl J:: .- E CJ J:: >. :ml-Cll CllL.()~ dl 0 Cll J::Oc: I-Nt;:: cD E :;::; rJ) E - - Cll rJ) - C dl E ~ 'S 0" ~ Cl C :0 c: (I) 0. rJ) o C (I) ... Cll ~ (I) J:: I- LO o o N o C") (I) C :Jx...., :J ... J:: - LO ~ o 0) ..... ;i Efl .~ (I) CJ C Cll ro .a 'tJ C :J LL 'tJ (I) t) 'i:; - rJ) dl 0::: t) Cll 0. E Cl C ~ ... Cll a.. dl J:: I- rJ) c: o :;::; rJ) dl ::::l 0" >. c: Cll dl > Cll J:: ::::l g, ~ ~ c: ~ dl E ~ dl rJ) Cll dl c: .S: ~ s... L... CdlJ:: Cll ~ dl !.toco c:LLJ:: 'i:; dl ~ Cll 0 .- ~....,~ (j CJ "Clot) CO ::::sO u..C'\I.! "CO:J s~~ (.) C C'O E:J~ CI)'" I &!2~ .c .- u-LL. ca CI) CD Q. "0 .c EC: - :J 0 C) LL. :> C .... ;=- :;: 0 .!!! ...CD> ca CI) C CL.:J_ C" o l!l =:s :!!i ;:: :J :J G) !:TO; ~ C -... ::t: E e .2 ..... al/) " .- G) G)G)...~ ~ ~ .a ... G)...:gE .cEc>' _0G)'Qj I/) ... Q, ni E e =.~ CI:I I/) Q, " G) .!!! e o >._ Q, 0G)Q,Q, .c>Q,CI:I OI;:CI:ICl ~ Clc S .5 01.- ;:: ! .- ~ CI:I .... ~ .2 E .!!l ~o.2~ :2'tcG) I/) .....- E .c .! 01 G) :; ni .5 .~ o .- ~ :J (/)"i.2i "'E-... mE.2Cl z .- G) C ... .c .- G)G)I-"g ;t:: G) cCI:I,.JQ, 6- 1 I/) ~G)=-~ c.ciDG) G)-...:r- E'O C C>> Q, G)> 0"=1;: 'Qj i .~ .!!l ~G)~.c - "c ; S := >.Q,G) o.c:Jc "im~'E I/) ... G) ... I/)CI:IQ,G) G) 01) I/).go;;;" 1/)._ ... CI:I I/) ~ .2 1;-0... G):J_G) LL.~CI:I'E ~...-60 u CI:I'- C ~ G) .~ .- EZ"g~ -G).-C Cl.c 0 G) c--E .- C G) >. .:.::.- - CI:I ~liQ, Q.;::"G) <C=s.! ~~,&).2 <......." Q)ClG)c ..t .5 ~ :J c~lLL. .2 ~ G) "i 'tClj..":tS ii 0 G) .~ I/) c E- G) 0 CI:I 1 -g .- ~ D:: (.)tSG)~ :J E U ~~.- !!! __ V# ... .... (.)cl/)E C1:18:C- ~ ... ~ g> o 0._. -;:;:;;-8 :. ~ 'i ~ in l!! ::J - '6 c 8- ~ in 15. 'i ~ ~ s o o o lo ~ Roo'S 0:>01o0:> cDo<""i<ri ......ocoo:> lOl{)C')CO -> ~'- ~ i ,2:::0. III ~ Ql e 1ij_za. '0 Dl 0 :9 lin~ g '5. ~g;~<3 O/l <C O/l ' -5t:!i3~ o::~o::u; "" 0> j:::: ~ ~~~bi ~o-r-o i':0i~~ 0000 OSONt::'~.O <'IOOO>cooo <""i~r-:<""iooo ...q-->e:;t~,......--o -r- ---,..... 0 -- ri ~ o ~ .-- ~ Q; Q; Q; ,g "'0"'0"'0 888~ &&&ollllll.... ~~~2e>e>~ 555.!!1~~.:: OOo(!)UU uuuc:QlQl~ CCCQlCCCIlQl OOOlllOOa::: lIlllllll.o~~ .2.2.28~~~ ~~~~~~.2 ........................0:>0>0> ~~~~~~~ ~~~~;a;~~ 00.--.--000 o o o o o cD M .-- 000.... 00010 00 0 <""i 888~ cxiN"cxiN" .... .N ON o lo ON o 0:> 0...... cxici .... o o o o o cD M .... 000....0...... 000100('1) 00 0 <""io..t 888~8~ cxiN"cxiN"cxiN" .... N N 0:> 0> 2> ~ o como..-..-..- ~~~~~Q ~~~~~~ 00000 ('I) ~ !;2 0:> o M~-.~~~~ ~W....C;;N2> ~~~~~a 00000.... ~ ('I)~ o~ N 0 ~.... C c~ III gU)g2 c: .~ C '~ :::i ~ I~Ien 'E lIlO> cO>""" l;:QlClli5....:c........ ~$~:s~~~~ ~~~i~~~~ U) IU:i:Oi:i: ~ ts lll'~ :e "- Qla. o.Ql 0= ... Ql a. co M '0 ~ lo CX! ~ N" .... M o cD o co Ili o ~ c; 01 01 ... 0- C') Gl C ::J ., 2 .c - 1Il l!! ::J - '6 c 8- ~ ~ C') o cD o co Ili o ('II c; 01 01 ... 0- C') Gl C ::J ., .c Cl ::J e .c - III ::J Gl ::J C ~ ~ m o u:i 0:> ...... cxi N .... ~ c: ::J 8c ~:i ~ :1ii ... :J I- 8' ~<C m-g a::: CIl ~d- .2 0> 0> 05 ~ o 10 CX! ~ o N" .... 1O0 ......0 cxSo ;b8 u:i'cxi "" ......N ('I) .... ..to N...... ~~ N"" 10 CX! ~ o N" .... 100......1O ......0('1)...... cxsg~~ ~~~u:i' "" N"" ..... !;2 ..... ('I) N ....NNM ~a~~ ~a1~~ ...-o"'C""'"o co 0> 2> .... 2> .... CO............ 0:> ~~~~ ~~~~ ..-0.....0 ~ ~ C C :::i en ...... .... ~ l "'0 i: OJ ~ C') US e o ~ Gl ~ C CIl ro al ~ ~ ~ g :e a. ~ '5. <3~M<3 00-0 0('1)00 CO~N<O l5 l5 -; c 'U 'E :5 :B .sClluj.s III I III cO>......c 8~~8 Q)=d:Q) 0l~~0l "8:2:2"8 I::':::::'::: I N "': .... 01 C') ;t e C:i o o ('II 0- C') Gl C ::J ., 2 .c - 1Il l!! ::J - :s c 8- ~ ~ M <0 cxS ...... C") u:i' ('II "': ... 01 C') ;t C') C") '0 .,.. Q) Dl CI:I Q. C:i o ~ o C') Gl C ::J ., .c Cl ::J e .s::. - III ::J Gl ::J C j -cll) cg ~ ~.! -co:J Q)MO:: t)CD; .- C A'- J:;:J):. U)' I &2~ .c .- t)_LL C'lS U) CD Q. 'tJ .c EC: -:Jo tJ) LL ~ .5 '0 CD JI: .- _CD> C'lSU)c.. 0..:::)- iIi I!! ::l - :a c & d1 t 'Qj u Q) D:: 0' o N en co ~ 0' o <.0 C") en ~ u5 :g '5. l'tl o en '<t o 10 @ X ~ ci. e c.. o o o ...., :g '5. l'tl o en o ~ @) X l'tl I- ci.C e g c.. 'E o~ ~,... ~O/l o ~ .... m o o e .... ~ .... C"'l co cO ,... C"'l lI'i C"'l co cO ,... C"'l lI'i C"'l e .... C"'l M o co ~ .... ~ o ~ s::!- "5 .l!I '5. l'tl o o o co ...... Q) Ol '0 o ::c C:i ~ ~ E e ... B c III iV !Xl 10 .... ,...: 10 o. ,... C"'l m ; N 10 <.0 o Il:!. . 10 ~ C") Ci5 o ~ o Ci5 o ~ .... ~ ~ III U E 7 c c :::i en en o 10 11! Q) € III c.. C") C") co N .... oi .... N ~ aSc 000 .fci.f en....,... NC")CO es~ .... o o N o C') Q) C ::l .., 2 .c - III I!! ::l - :a c & d1 ~ wen .; .ssw '5. '5. a .lll l'tl '" ~ ~ 'E U)U)l'tl '<to::C :5~"" @@)@ x x X l'tl III ra 1-1-1- ci.ci.ci. e e e c..c..c.. 000 000 000 ...., ...., ...., .... .... .... 55~~ .... .... .... mm05 000 N .... oi .... N o ~ 10 .... ,...: 10 q 10 .... ,...: 10 q . 10 o o ~ o co ~ C"'l o Ci5 o .... o o N o C') Q) C ::l .., .c Ol ::l e .c - .... 7 c c :::i en en o 10 11! Q) € ra c.. C") C") co 31 ::l Q) ::l C ~ &! .... o a ~ ~ Q) u C III iV !Xl C") 10 '" o co r--:- .... 10 co ci N N lI'i co C") .f N co N N C") e M N .... co ~ .... ...... .... .... M ~ c c :::i en ,... ~ ..!. ~ '0 52 N .... ,...: Cll "t ~ 080 000 ciciN .....'<!'C") 101O1'-- ~t:.i: N o o N o C') Q) C ::l .., 2 .c - u5U5 osui '5. '5. c 88g en en '~ ~~::c 1010"" @)@)@) X X x ra'ra ra 1-1-1- ci.ci.ci. e e e c..c..c.. 888 000 ...., ...., ...., ~ ::l - :a c & d1 iV ~ NNN OQQ lOLOLO .... .... .... m05o> 000 C") ~ N co c5 .... N .... ,...: ~ lli ~ o o N co ,... cD C") 10 '" o co r--:- .... C"'l e .... C") N .... co ~ C"'l .... -- ...... .... N o o N o C') Q) C ::l .., .c l:Il ::l e .c - M ~ c c :::i en I'-- ~ ..!. ~ '0 52 N o a ~ E e ... B c III iV !Xl 31 ::l !l c ~ Q) D:: N .... oi ,... N M' 10 e ;.; o o N o C') Q) C ::l .., ::l ... .c - III I!! ::l - :a c & d1 iV ~ N .... oi ,... N M' II) C') ;.; o o N o' C') Q) C ::l .., .c Cl ::l e .c - 31 ::l Q) ::l C ~ Q) D:: SSSo 0000 ci.f.fci '<!'eneno ,...101'--0 M~~c5 ---0 ~ u5Ci5 .ssCi) '5. '5. c 88fil en en '~ ~~::c~ 10 10 I'--en @)@)@~ xxx'll: ~~~Q: ci.ci.ci.o eee.s c..c..c..~ 888~ o 0 0 ~ ....,....,....,1- C")C"'lC"'l'<t ~~~a ~~a;~ 0000 C"'l ~ ..... N co c5 ..... ~t'!~~~ ",cO <.0 <.0 cO ~(Z~~~ NlI'i N N'<t co C"'l ~ N co c5 .... ~t'!~~~ ",cO <.0 <.0 cO N(Zooen ~lI'ill:!.ll:!.~ N'<t co C"'l e ~ ...... '<!''<troro~ QQoQQQ .... 000 ~~~~~ 00000 co en M .... -- .... ...... enenenoo ~~~~~ ~~~~~ 00000 M ~ c c :::i en I'-- ~ ~ '0 52 i-; !2 o ~ E o .t: B c III iV !Xl ~~ ~ N C"'l C"'l~~ M~~ ~l'tlra :guu '5. E E J77~ M022~ ~g:::i::JJ!i .;Cenen-2' U),genen cOoot:: O,SIO"?5 g>",I1!l!!O ,_CQ)Q)~ ~8€€,~ lDQ)rara~ ~ Ol c.. c.. C ra'8C"'lC"'ll!! U::C~~<!> OIOOCO 1O(,,)1O'<t NcONm (")en(")1O en'<!'enen r--:-Nr--:-M' co '<t 010 0 '<t 10(")10(") NcONcO C"'lCll(")en en'<!'en'<t r--:-Nr--:-N co co '" ... << .. ,...,...,...,... ~~Q~ C')(")MC') NmNm 0....0 Q"'C""'".....N QQQO LO..-.....CS 2:~~~ .....OT'""O g ~ ~~~~ .J!!~.J!!(") u~u~ ~ ui ~ l!i ~~~-2' ~5~5 ~8~8 ~ ~ ~ ~ Q) 'S: Q) 'S: liP -g liP-g = ~ = l!! 8e>8<!> N .... ,...: ~ o co ~ ~ o N o C') III C ::l .., ::l .... .c - III I!! ::l - :a c & d1 ~ I- co co cO C") 10 cO C') N .... ...,; ~ o co co CO') '0 N at Q l'G Q. ~ o N o C') III C ::l .., .c l:Il ::l e .c - lB ::l ! c III > ! ~It) cQ ~Q LL ~~ ~Q::I j2(l1)D:: U Q) :0 'c C Q) 1;)';>;- ~ 2 ~ .c .- u....,u. ca en Q) Q. "0 .c EC: -::10 C)u. ~ c .... ::::- .- 0 G) ~Q)> ca en C c..:::>>_ in l!! :s - '6 c 8- ~ ! 'ij u ~ 0'080 0000 ~~~g OllOt--O ~.~~;o -----0 ..- U5U5 .s.su5 '5. '5. c ~~lil u) u) '~ ;g;~:I:g lOlOt--Ol @)@)@)~ X X x'*" CIl CIl CIl a.. ~~~C3 eee.8 a..a..a..... 0'* <..) c 'l!! ~f- 88 o 0 ..., ..., ..,...,...,.lO ~~~a ~~~~ 0000 c;;~~ NO""": (") 0 lO ..- co N, as";..- N N co co oci C') It) <xi C') ~~~18 NMo~' ~~~~ r-:N..,.M NN..- ~ cO (") lO as (") 0..... CO <0 CO <0 lOlO..,.lO..,.lO NMo""":o""": ~~a6~~~ r-:N.,;.......,...- NNNNN ~ o o (") m o F....&, !:2e ~c:; .....(:;; ~~ ~~ c c N ~ ~ o N(")(")..,...,.lO e~e~~~ g.....N ..... oNo ;:: ~o.- 0 ~:!:: ..... ..... 0..- c;) e .l!i a. <( 1:: :J 8 ~ ';; '0 C l!! (!) ~ (W') ia E ~ CD U C l'CI '16 In c;) e ~ Mc;)M'"M' III ;::;::NN ~M-:--;-;-:-- ~eU5U)U5Ci) .e U5 ~ ~ ~ ~ IIlcgggg a..o.Q.Q.Q.Q ~0~6666 'E==== ': .a :J :J :J :J -....0000 5I'~(/)(/)(/)(/) -8- CIl 0 NON C3~~~~ N ..... r--: N co ,.: co t::. E I/) .g~ ~ E ro >. ~~ Q) Q) ~~ 0)0 c:- '~ ~ g:a. o a. ~ ro "C c: Q) Q) Q)~ .0 I/) E ro :JJ:: C) 0) ~ ,~ C:"C :J c: c: ro 'co ii) E Q) ~-g :J I/) :c I- ,;.; o o N <:5 C') CD c :s ., :s ... .c - f/l l!! :s - '6 c CD Cl. ~ '16 ~ It) Q) d Q) .... i, J:: C) :c ~ I/) "C C:(ij .2 c: y::: 't6"C J:: .... - 0 g>~ ,- Q) ~J:: C)- Q) 0) a.c: 1/)1:: C:{~ ~ .~ '<:t ..... C"') '0 C"') CD t>> ca 11. N .... r--: N co t--' co t-- t-- o oci .... co, .... N co i:j) c: B:a :.J c: C) :J Q)'Q) CJ) .... '0.9 ~O , ro .~~ :J.o~ O):JCO c:I/)N roQ)OO a;.oO J:: . c: - : 0 "C'E"C Q) Q) "CQ)c: C:EO) Q) >..- E ro I/) ro a. I/) COQ)g! OQ):> CO-Q) MOC) ~ ~ffi ~ E .~ Q) .- "C .o(ij.... E c: 0 :J t;:: Q) C:Q)= Q) J:: .... C)-Q) c:'O~ ro ro c:Q)"C :a't6,$ .... "C ro OQ)E ... =.~ f/l $ II.. 1:$ l'CI Cl. .5 01 C ~ l'CI ~,;.; Eo ~~ ~~ c CD ~ 3 !., '16 2 ~:5 From: Wilson, Larry T Sent: Thursday, July 27,20069:19 AM To: Karin Franklin Cc: Bob Miklo Subject: Hieronymus Building Proposed at Burlington and Clinton Hi Karin-- At the last Business Exchange meeting, you had asked if anyone had comments about the new Hieronymus building at the SE corner of Burlington and Clinton streets. At the time, I had not seen a rendering of the building. Apparently it was in the Press-Citizen while I was on vacation when I had stopped the paper. I normally would not comment on development in that area, but this building relates strongly to the Burlington streetscape about which I had sent a letter to you and the City Council in June advocating expanding the Burlington median project to include the rest of the streetscape. By the way, I never did hear if the letter was received or not, but I presume it was. I don't have a picture of the Hieronymus building in front of me, but my comments are not as much about its architecture as it is about the community impact. I do not object to having some higher rise buildings along Burlington because I think that will give it some streetscape consistency on both sides. For me, the natural visual break, or step-down in building height, would be in the future buildings behind those fronting on Burlington, which I think would appropriately be at the lower CB-5 zoning height (about 45 ft, I think). Having said that, I don't think Burlington should be lined entirely on both sides with 13 or so story buildings either--I don't think this amount of building massing entirely along both sides of Burlington is Iowa City--in other more densely developed cities I wouldn't mind it at all. My view is that if the zoning is changed for the taller Hieronymus building, changes should be required for the community streetscape benefit (separate from responsibility for providing parking). The building should be required to have additional setback. First, it should be set back enough to allow for street tree planting--although some street trees are implied in the rendering, there doesn't seem to be adequate space for reasonable longevity of the trees (this should apply to any new buildings along Burlington). An entrance streetscape plaza would also greatly contribute to the Burlington streetscape by providing a break in the streetscape linearity and a pedestrian oriented space. In addition, the building should be set back further to compensate for its additional mass, by setting the entire building back further or by setting back at least that portion above the CB-5 height. That would make the additional height acceptable and more in character with Iowa City in my view. I refer to the Moen building (Hotel Vetro) on Linn St. Although it is also in the 13-story height realm, it does not have an overpowering affect on the Linn streetscape/viewscape because the upper floors are set back from the street. I think these setback techniques should be applied to at least some of the future buildings along Burlington. In addition, the City should require contribution to open space along Burlington (not developed parcels) that would provide periodic breaks in the building mass, much like on the north side of Iowa Avenue at the Biology courtyard and in front of Van Allen. Also, the cylindrical form on the NW corner of the Hieronymus building would jut into the streetscape of Burlington and interject its presence way too much on the viewshed of the street, especially as viewed from further west along Burlington. While I am sure this is a feature the developers would want, It should be pulled back from the street and street viewshed for the community benefit. Anyway, that is my take. Larry I ~ ! -~= -....11: ,......-- -... ~~~!!i ~~-_., .... - CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: August 3, 2006 To: The Planning and Zoning Commission From: Sunil Terdalkar, Associate Planner Re: REZ06-00010/SUB06-00008 McCollister Subdivision Because the application did not meet the requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, it was deferred at the July 20 meeting of the Commission. The applicant has not submitted revised drawings with the required information regarding the sensitive areas. Staff recommends deferral until the requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance are met and deficiencies and discrepancies noted in the Staff Report (dated July 20, 2006) are resolved. The 45-day-limitation period for this plat ends on August 16,2006. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL JULY 20, 2006 PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Bob Brooks, Beth Koppes, Terry Smith, Dean Shannon MEMBERS EXCUSED: Wally Plahutnik STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sunil Terdalkar, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: John Hieronymus, Cal Lewis, Kevin Digmann, Pam Michaud RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Plahutnik absent), 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 subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to consideration by Council. 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 ITEM: REZ06-00015, discussion of an application submitted by Hieronymus Square Associates for a rezoning of 1.12-acres of property located at 314 & 328 South Clinton Street from Central Business Support (CB-5) zone to Central Business (CB-10) zone. Miklo said in 1992 the area generally between Burlington and Court Street was designated for redevelopment and expansion of the downtown in the Near Southside Plan. The Near Southside Plan and 1995 Near Southside Design Plan are part of the Comprehensive Plan. They were adopted to guide development south of Burlington Street. The plans emphasize commercial development between Burlington and Court Streets, and residential development between Court Street and the railroad track. The plan acknowledges that given the market there would be some residential development between Court and Burlington Streets. The plans also address the issues of parking, open space, pedestrian access, traffic circulation, historic preservation and amenities. The plans encourage that the character of the downtown be transferred south of Burlington Street and recognize that improvements to Burlington Street will be necessary in order to bridge the two sides of the street. Miklo said in a related matter, the City Council is currently considering a median landscaping improvement plan to Burlington Street. In 1992 the City adopted two new zoning districts to apply to the Near Southside Neighborhood area, the Central Business Support zone (CB-5) and the Planned Residential Multi-Family zone (PRM). The relationship between the CB-10 zone north of Burlington Street and the CB-5 zone south of Burlington Street was intended to create a hierarchy of taller buildings and more intense development in the downtown core with a step-down to the CB-5 south of Burlington Street. The CB-10 zone allows for a floor area ratio (FAR) of 10; there is no building height limit in the CB-10 zone. The airport overlay restricts most of the downtown buildings to between 12 and 14 stories. The CB-5 zone allows a base FAR of 3 and a height maximum of 75-feet in the commercial zone which would allow for six-floors of commercial development with the potential for some residential development. The CB-5 zone also contains a bonus provision allowing for increase in FAR for projects that contain public amenities or benefit such as affordable housing and open space. The applicant's proposal was to rezone the area at the intersection of Clinton and Burlington Streets to CB-10. The transfer of the CB-10 zone to the south side of Burlington Street would be in conflict with the current policy of having the step down and the transition in intensity and building height. The City would consciously need to Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 20, 2006 Page 2 change the existing policy to allow this zoning to occur. Staff felt there was some merit to re-examining this policy which was adopted 14-years ago. Considerations included: . Are there public interest considerations that would support a change in policy and therefore a change in zoning? Staff examined the CB-10 area closely in the downtown and noted that the current FAR of 10 had not been achieved anywhere in the downtown area. Most downtown properties had a FAR of 2 or less. Exceptions included the Iowa State Bank Building & the Sheraton Hotel (FAR of approximately 5); Jefferson Building (FAR of approximately 6), Vogal House, Whiteway Building (FAR of approximately 6) and the Plaza Towers (FAR of approximately 4.75). Staff felt that raised the question as to whether a FAR of 10, twice the size of most of the largest buildings currently in downtown, would be appropriate. Staff felt it might not be appropriate as the downtown area contained a collection of both historic and contemporary buildings and a streetscape that the City and private sector had worked hard to maintain. The introduction of such large buildings would change the character and ambiance of the downtown area. . Would it be appropriate to consider zoning areas south of Burlington Street CB-1 O? The area between Burlington and Court Street and further south of Court Street did not display the same character as the core of downtown in terms of streetscape and scale of buildings. There was quite of bit of under- and undeveloped properties, empty areas and parking lot areas south of Burlington Street. Staff felt it might be appropriate to encourage the market for higher density properties to develop along Burlington Street on both the north and south side. That change could have the potential to relieve or to shift the market for future high-rise development into that area instead of in the downtown core area. Staff felt it might be appropriate to consider overlays or other controls in the CB-10 zone so that it would not develop at such a high intensity. Such a change would take considerable study. In the interim staff felt that CB-10 zoning on the south side of Burlington Street would provide a relief or another alternative location for that intensity of development. . If the policy was changed, which areas south of Burlington St. should be considered for rezoning to CB-10? The City had already received additional requests for CB-10 zoning south of Burlington Street. It was Staffs feeling that there needed to be a logical extension with parameters. Instead of the City rezoning the entire area it would be an option to wait for property owners to make a request for rezoning and make a case-by- case determination in relationship to any new policy that might be adopted. . Are there conditions that should be applied to any areas rezoned to CB-10 to address the parking and urban design issues identified by the Near Souths ide Plan and Near Southside Design Plan? The Near Southside Plan discussed parking at length; to address the concern of the potential for parking for housing to displace or compete with commercial development the City had implemented the Near Southside Parking Facility District. The District allowed properties in the CB-5 to provide residential parking on site but they were also required to pay a fee for 75% of the required parking spaces for residential units. The thought was that Council had utilized the 75% requirement to act as a disincentive for residential development and encourage commercial development. Staff felt that if the CB-10 zone were expanded, the parking impact fee should be applied in some form. Miklo said some credence should be given to the Near Southside Design plan which discussed the character of downtown in terms of scale, building material, signage, color, etc. to provide guidance for the development south of Burlington Street and to ensure that the new development would be in character with the downtown. Staff felt there might be some conditions that the Commission might wish to consider in terms of design of the developments as they came through the process. A review of the Commission's role had been requested at the informal meeting. Currently the CB-10 zone did not automatically require a design review through the Staff Design Review Committee; it was only required if an applicant applied for tax abatement or TIF. There were some zoning code requirements in terms of articulation of the building that the Building Official would review as part of the building permit. If a majority of the Commission were concerned about larger issues referred to in the Near Southside Plan, those concerns could be addressed in a Conditional Zoning Agreement. . Traffic Implications The Traffic Planners had looked at the proposed design very closely and felt that the proposed circulation system was appropriate. Jeff Davidson would be in attendance at the next informal meeting to address the Commission's concerns regarding proposed improvements to Burlington & Clinton Streets and Court Street. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 20, 2006 Page 3 . Infrastructure Needs Sanitary sewer capacity would need to be looked at in the City's Capital Improvement Plan. Regardless of whether this project went forward, Staff felt sewer upgrades needed to be looked at given the City's policy of encouraging development in the downtown area. Summary: The rezoning proposal was not necessarily consistent with the current policy as adopted in the Near Souths ide Plan. Staff felt there was some merit to considering higher intensity south of Burlington Street in order to take some of the development pressure away from the downtown core and to help preserve the existing character of the core. Those objectives could be met by rezoning additional land to CB-10 zone on the south side of Burlington Street and/or looking at further regulations in the core of downtown itself to prevent over intensity of development, which could be done independently of this application. Staff recommended deferral of the application until the issue of policy change be resolved. Eastham asked if Staff were suggesting that the Commission could look at this particular rezoning request independently and not rezone large parts of the area south of Burlington Street. Miklo said that was correct, the City would not see this as a spot zoning as the area had a very clear relationship to the area just north of Burlington Street. In the near future the Commission would have additional rezoning requests for the general area being discussed. Public discussion was opened. John Hieronymus, Managing Partner of Hieronymi Partners; Kevin Digmann, Hodge Construction; Cal Lewis, architect; Dwight Doverstein, Neumann Monson. Hieronymus said his mother, Frieda, had been a key figure in the development of downtown. Her vision for Iowa City had always been that it would always be more than just a campus town for the University. When urban renewal had become stalled, Frieda had stepped forward and put together some local investment groups to try to salvage the stale environment for the rebuilding of downtown. Her biggest undertakings had been Plaza Centre One on the Ped Mall; the development of Old Capitol Mall; and Capitol House - a 5-story low income elderly housing endeavor. He was trying to follow in his mother's viewpoint in what could be done for the community and for downtown. Over a long period of time, Frieda had amassed several small parcels of land which when put together comprised much of the block being discussed. The City had taken a large portion of it for the parking ramp, but his family was left with 2/3 of one-half of the block to develop. His mother had also always felt that Iowa City lacked quality office space. At Staffs request his project team had put together a PowerPoint to provide a complete picture of the building, the vision for this particular area and why they were requesting the rezoning. Cal Lewis, said the project team had been working together for the past year and also with City Staff to make sure their efforts were consistent with Staffs ideas for the evolution of Iowa City. In 1993, Frieda had involved him in the current project for the first time. At that time she had been 80+ years old and had told him of her concerns for the future of Iowa City. Her inspiration had stuck with him for the last 13-years that he'd been involved with the project. PowerPoint presentation Lewis said in the initial analysis phase the team had considered: the community itself including its architectural heritage, its diversity, the connection of the UI to downtown Iowa City. Traffic - Historically Burlington Street had been seen as a barrier to be jumped over. The project team felt that Staff was correct in viewing Burlington as a connector, a place to focus new development, high-density, commercial. Creating a safe environment for oedestrians & encouraaina foot traffic in the downtown area. This had started with the evolution of the Ped Mall. The connection between the campus and the city strongly encouraged that type of interaction. They wanted to maintain that connection. Parkina Structures - Three structures within one block was a positive feature. They were interested in creating streetscape interaction rather than what was generated by a parking garage. Scale - The CB-10 zoning and the increased density allowed by the FAR would be compatible with the existing high vertical expression buildings. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 20, 2006 Page 4 ExistinQ buffer - The court house and post office were fixed; a stable environment so that the developers could be assured that the area was going to remain that way. It created a safe edge and a buffer to any other kinds of scale developments that might want to occur south of Burlington Street. Lewis said they'd provided a visual pre-view. The number one question for the Commission to consider was did they think this project would be an asset to Iowa City? Would CB-10 zoning on this site help to facilitate this project or a similar project? If Burlington was seen as the gathering place of new development rather than a barrier, this site became a natural and appropriate place for this project to occur. This development was not taking away things or changing the scale of the urban downtown fabric or pushing into lower scale residential areas. It was filling a need in a very concentrated area. What needed to be done to take advantage of this very unique site and this very special window of opportunity? Lewis said there was a team of developers willing to invest $40 million of their money into this project, right now. That $40 million was only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the benefits both economic and cultural, getting the quality of people that would be attracted to come and live in this place and all the resources that they could help share with the City and create the quality of lifestyle that Iowa City aspired to. They would be a very positive, reinforcing group to help that process occur. Kevin DiQmann, Hodge Construction, said they'd been working on this project for a year. They'd analyzed what was south of Burlington and what was available in the short run that could potentially be developed. They were all very anxious to get going on this project, they'd heard a lot of support from the community for the project, it would be a good thing for downtown. He understood that the zoning needed to be looked at but looking at their project and what surrounded it, it would not affect anyone in the short term. Miklo said it was Staff's opinion that this application could go ahead independently, but the policy for the larger area needed to be looked at. If the decision was made that CB-10 zoning was appropriate south of Burlington, then the Commission could go forward with the rezoning without waiting on looking at the other areas. Eastham asked Hieronymus if he wished that they were on the other side of Burlington Street. Hieronymus said no; his mother had started putting together property approximately 30 years ago. At that point, she'd always seen that the City had to grow to the south. It was enclosed in a nine-block area primarily by the University and by City buildings. If the City were to grow at all, which it needed to do to stay vibrant, it would have to grow to the south of Burlington Street. She'd put together this parcel of land because she'd believed that it was the most appropriate place to have it done. Smith asked what was the time frame Hieronymus was working under and what was the criticality of getting some direction from the Commission. Hieronymus said they'd been working with this particular developer for a year. The project had been at the point of construction drawings in 1995. They'd removed smaller structures that had been in the way then. Hodge Construction and Hieronymi Partnership had formed a joint venture which had had a life of 18 months to investigate this idea and to see if they could come up with a project that they believed would fit the vision of what Hieronymi Partnership wanted and would be a doable and reasonable project for Hodge Construction to become involved with. They'd since discussed extending the project another 6-months. One year of that time had now passed, this was the first critical step in getting the project done. If the zoning didn't change, they would not be able to build this building. After this step came several others before they could even begin to market and see if they could get the type of commitments that were financially necessary to build this building. That would also be critical as to whether or not they could achieve this project. Smith asked Hieronymus if he would be willing to extend the 45-day limitation period past the 7/31/06 date. Hieronymus said Staff had asked them if they'd be wiling to grant an extension. If the Commission saw this as an independent project and would go ahead and vote on it, they could move forward. If the Commission didn't feel that they could do that, then perhaps they could extend until the Commission's next formal meeting. The project team was already on a time crunch in connecting their partnership to see if this project could even be done. They had one year to get it to the point of being ready to break ground. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 20, 2006 Page 5 Freerks said she appreciated their desire to move forward quickly but the Commission had just received their information packets that week-end. She felt the Commission owed it to the community and to the project team to spend more time and consideration on the application. She hoped that they'd be willing to extend the limitation period, it would be to everyone's benefit not to speed through it. Digmann said at the informal meeting they'd looked at how they could shift the building on the site and other modifications. They'd not spent a year planning without looking at many designs/options in order to get the best of both worlds. They'd tried to locate the building on the site so it would maximize views for everyone and to create the lower level to be as pedestrian friendly as possible. Eastham asked if they'd calculated the FAR and the number of residential units. Hieronymus said the FAR was right at 5. Lewis said approximately 150 residential units with approximately 250 bedrooms, there would be some variability depending on exactly which mix they ended up with. Koppes asked what were the 100 parking spots within the building designated for? Digmann said it was planned for residential; however until they knew they had the go ahead they were not set on the mid-rise condo units. They wanted to keep those floors flexible, they might end up commercial or something else. Eastham asked if they were planning on changing the design depending on what the market analysis showed. Digmann said if they were successful with the CB-10 rezoning they would continue with this design on the outside. If they had a retail tenant that needed different square footage, they would "bump up" the first level to accommodate. They wanted to keep it as flexible as possible. They didn't anticipate changing the footprint very dramatically for any particular user at this point. They'd tried to be flexible enough in design to accommodate any tenant. Lewis said one of the things they'd focused on was a design base that had enough flexibility that it could accommodate different use types. It was very systemic so it could be efficient to build. There was a module that dealt with housing, a model for office, etc. They didn't want to reorganize the building, but within the basic frame work they'd tried to build in some flexibility of use which one had to do as an intelligent developer when you couldn't go out and market until you knew you had a project. Flexible intelligent planning. In consideration of all their investments to date, they didn't want to have to redesign the building. Pam Michaud, 109 S. Johnson Street, said she'd lived in Iowa City for 33 years including downtown near College Green Park on Johnson Street for 16 years. Her concern was that the applicant was asking for more than double density. Had they built in any sustainable or "green" features in the building with either recycled materials or reused content or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) recommendations that would be appropriate for this site. She'd done research on incorporating sustainable materials in to the building, solar heated water, things that wouldn't put an additional drain on city resources. She thought the design was very innovative and liked a lot of the building's elements which had been very carefully considered. Normal, Illinois, on its website homepage had a statement regarding all new construction involving green features being incorporated. Michaud distributed a definition/ informational handout to the Commission. Public discussion was closed. Cal Lewis said these types of issues had been considered at the initial stage of the project. Issues of the environment, energy and sustainability were very critical; it was an integral part of the way he thought about architecture. Specificity of LBED and LBED requirements was a whole layer of effectiveness. Big picture issues had been addressed from the beginning. Miklo asked the applicant to clarify if they were waiving the 45-day limitation period to August 3, 2006. Hieronymus said they'd like to wait and hear what the Commission was willing to do, if they'd go ahead and vote the project team would appreciate that opportunity. If the Commission felt they couldn't vote, the team didn't want the project to die at this point because they couldn't get the zoning changed. Smith asked if the building as proposed was within the CB-10 zoning requirement(s). Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 20, 2006 Page 6 Miklo said there was some question if the ground level met the store fronts requirements. Staff had been working with the applicant, they were almost there, but there were still some things in question. In terms of height and FAR, it was compliant. Smith said given the fact that the proposal was not consistent with Plans that were 14-years old, was it correct that the existing Plans were a part of policy but not necessarily a part of City Code? Was there a legal obligation for the Commission to move forward with modification of the Plans prior to moving forward with the rezoning or did the Commission have the latitude to consider one ahead of the other or both in parallel? Behr said he thought the Comprehensive Plan would need to be amended. If the Commission wished to recommend the rezoning, they could do both at the same time. Technically the Comprehensive Plan amendment would precede it, but both could go through the Commission at the same time. Koppes said a public hearing would be required which would have to be announced so they could not decide both items at the current meeting. Behr said if the Commission wished to vote yet that evening, they could 'catch up' with it. It could be held at the Council level and the Commission could follow with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Miklo said Staff would not advise voting on the zoning until the policy decision had been answered. He was not sure if an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be necessary or not. They first needed to decide if they were changing the policy, then decide if an actual amendment was needed, then they'd have to go through a formal amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Brooks said one of the applicants had said that they'd spent the last year developing their plans. To expect the Commission to take this, contemplate it in a short period and make the decision to change something that was fairly significant to the future growth and functionality of the downtown was not feasible. There were a lot of issues that needed to be discussed and ironed out. Regardless of whether the rezoning went forward, there was a whole policy discussion that needed to take place including the Parking Impact Fee District. He felt that the Commission had a lot of homework ahead of them before he would feel comfortable voting on a rezoning. Freerks said she agreed. The Commission needed to give some direction regarding the whole concept of moving the zoning south of Burlington and how the Commission felt about items identified for consideration by Staff. Also discussion about the building on its own space as well. She felt there was a lot of merit to moving the CB-10 zoning across Burlington Street and in terms of protecting the wonderful features that were already in place in downtown. They needed to discuss a FAR of 10 or if they wanted to cut it back down a little to something more realistic. No development had even come close to reaching that scale. They also needed to discuss, if they were to recommend a rezoning would it be piece-by-piece or an overall rezoning. Freerks said the applicant had done a good job of not putting a building on the entire block, of not filling in the entire block. However, who was to say that the next applicant wouldn't want to do so. They needed to consider all the scenarios that could come forward. She appreciated that the applicant had addressed some of the concerns that she'd voiced at the informal meeting. With respect to the glass and ambiance created by the building, as a pedestrian who might never enter the facility, she wanted to consider how pedestrians would feel walking under the glassed area. She'd heard of glass sky-scrapers in other cities creating 'ghost towns' of areas where there was very little street life. Freerks said it was very important to her to make sure that people would feel invited into the open space. She felt that the applicant understood what she meant, but a CZA would be a tool to help the Commission feel more comfortable in specifying conditions in the City's best interest associated with this project. Trees: The trees were shown to grow up against the building's overhang. How would that work in terms of future growth for the trees. Miklo said the trees would be in the right-of-way, it would have to be a careful choice of trees in consultation with the City Forrester Courtyard and Service Area: After seeing the visual presentation and from comments made by the architect, that area seemed to be more vehicular oriented. People living in the building would have pets, where would they go with their pets? She asked if there could be more green space, an area to be really enjoyed by people. She wanted to see the open space be a real asset and hadn't noted too much green space in the visuals. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 20, 2006 Page 7 StreetscaDe and Courtvard: It would be very important for them to invite people in. She wanted the area to be the best that it could be. Then hopefully everyone else who built a development in the future could do something as wonderful as their project. Eastham said Staff had requested the Commission to consider extending higher density multi-level development across Burlington Street. From what he'd heard so far, he saw a number of reasons to support the change. If there was a majority of the Commission who felt the same, he thought the decision could be made relatively speedily but not that evening. The question remained, did this particular proposal meet design criteria. His interest was not to confuse the developer or himself; he personally preferred that they adhere to the existing design criteria and processes that were in the Zoning Code. Smith said it looked like a good project. He applauded the team, their time, effort and expense that they'd already put into the project. There were some policy decisions that needed to be made. There seemed to be some consensus that the project was heading in the right direction. He didn't feel there was a reason to penalize the team or this project based on the fact that the Commission needed to make policy decisions. Motion: Smith made a motion to approve REZ06-00015, a rezoning of 1.12-acres of property located at 314 & 328 South Clinton Street from Central Business Support (CB-5) zone to Central Business (CB-10) zone. Shannon seconded the motion. Smith said the Commission should challenge themselves to move forward with the appropriate policy changes. Koppes said she would prefer that the Commission defer their vote in order to discuss parking issues and the Parking District Fee. It seemed that the general consensus was that CB-10 zoning would be appropriate. Miklo said for a CB-5 zone south of Burlington Street, developers were required to pay a fee for 75% of the required parking spaces for residential units. A CB-10 zone required no residential parking and the fee would not apply to this property unless it was made a condition of the rezoning. Staff had a concern for the equity issue of the other property owners in that same parking impact district that had been paying into that fund and for future developments. Staff didn't feel the parking had been adequately addressed and suggested a deferral in order to allow time for the discussion to occur. Eastham said Smith's was a good motion, however he wished to suggest tabling the motion until the next meeting in order to allow Staff time to prepare a set of recommendations in terms of the Comprehensive Plan and the provisions which would apply to this project. He was in agreement to move forward as quickly as possible, but yet that evening was not necessary. He felt it would be advisable to have as many members of the Commission present as possible. Miklo said a probable time schedule would be at the next meeting to identify and come to terms regarding any conditions such as parking, traffic, mix of uses in the building, green space in the courtyard. Staff would need to decide if an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be needed and a public hearing set for August 17. Then they could vote on both the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the rezoning and send both on to Council. Freerks said she did not feel comfortable making these types of decisions in such a rushed manner; it would set a precedent for others looking for a rezoning. There were way too may unanswered questions; she wanted to be sure that everything was in line with what other people were allowed and required to do. Brooks said his intent was not to vote down the application but to give the Commission another two weeks or what ever time was required to iron out the unresolved issues so he could feel comfortable voting on it. He wanted to be sure that the Commission was not setting any precedents or sending any messages to others who would ask for comparable zoning changes in the future. It would be nice if the Commission could have a year to understand and develop this scenario, but they didn't. Miklo said typically the Commission took two meetings to discuss and consider major rezoning requests. The applicant had met the deadline to have their application on the previous agenda but given the significance of the requested rezoning, the magnitude of the project, potential impact on the community and the change in policy, Staff had taken an extra two weeks to prepare the staff report. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 20, 2006 Page 8 Eastham requested Smith and Shannon to withdraw their motion. Brooks said he sensed that everyone was excited about the project but it was more a process question and the need to feel comfortable that all issues had been clarified before they voted on it. He personally wanted to make sure that they were not agreeing to something that would later come back to bite the Commission. He was not ready to make that commitment yet. Freerks agreed. Smith said he did not want to see the project fail, in the interest of preserving the project he would withdraw his motion. Shannon said he would withdraw his second. He wanted the Commission to do this correctly but didn't want to see the discussion get bogged down and talked to death as had occurred in the past. The big items and political decisions would be made at the Council level. The project would be an asset to the community. Brooks asked the developer if they could anticipate an extension until August 17 at the latest. There appeared to be general support for the project; the Commission had had only a few days to think about the project while the project team had had years to think about the project. The Commission represented the citizens and the interests of the community. They needed to be able to provide a well prepared and thoughtful position and policy to the Council. Digmann said they'd been visiting with the City for 6-months regarding this project. To hear that the Commission had just heard about it two days ago was a surprise to him. They'd already invested a lot of time and money, they wanted to go through the steps and get the project done. Digmann said if given any extension, the Commission would take that long to make a decision. He'd agree to August 3rd and then revisit the issue. Hieronymus said they'd be willing to defer to August 3rd. If it went beyond August 3rd they'd have to consider if it would be better to go to the Council without a recommendation from the Commission. They saw theirs as an independent request and they couldn't move forward until they'd gone through the whole process. Smith made a motion to defer REZ06-00015 until August 3,2006. Eastham seconded. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 (Plahutnik absent). REZONING / DEVELOPMENT ITEM: REZ06-00010/SUB06-00008, discussion of an application submitted by Don Cochran for a rezoning from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low-Density Single-Family (RS-5) zone and a preliminary plat and a final plat of McCollister Subdivision, a 2-lot, 9.53-acre residential subdivision located east of South Gilbert Street and west of Sandusky Drive. Terdalkar said the property was an Iowa City landmark and listed in the National Register of Historic Places. There was no new construction proposed on the property at this time, just a subdivision in to two residential lots. The parcel contained woodlands, groves, isolated large trees, sensitive, and protected slopes. The plat did not delineate the construction areas nor the specific development area on lot two. The extent of the sensitive areas that would be disturbed was unknown. The applicant had been informed of the deficiencies and had indicated that they would submit new drawings but had not done so yet. Staff recommended deferring the application. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Koppes made a motion to defer REZ06-00010/SUB06-00008 until 8/3/06. Smith seconded. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 (Plahutnik absent). 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. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 20, 2006 Page 9 Miklo said the plat was in order. Staff recommended approval of the plat subject to approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to consideration by Council. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Freerks made a motion to approve SUB06-00011, a final plat of Hollywood Manor Part 9, a 12-lot, 4.84-acre residential subdivision located at the ends of Wetherby Drive and Totting Circle subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to consideration by Council. Eastham seconded. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 (Plahutnik absent). OTHER ITEMS: There were none. CONSIDERATION OF 7/6/06 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Eastham made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Koppes seconded. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 (Plahutnik absent). ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Smith made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:24 pm. Eastham seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0 (Plahutnik absent). Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill s:/pcd/minuteslP&ZJ2006/07 -20-06.doc e o 'iij III 'e E o 0'2 c)o e fJ ,- CI) en:: o NCI)U) olSg8 C)ClSN e't' .- e e CI) e= .!!c:e l1. ~ <3 ClS ~ .2 C) W N >< >< >< >< a >< >< - r--. !:e >< >< >< w w >< w - a a r--. 0 It) W W W .... a >< a >< >< >< a - U) .... >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - U) CQ .... >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - It) C) I W N >< >< >< a >< ~ I I ~ >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - I CO? I U) I W .... >< >< >< - >< N I 0 I N I W >< >< >< >< N I a I Q') I W .... >< >< a >< >< - I .... It) I W >< >< >< >< - I a .... I l/) 0 00 0 00 (0 E ~ ...- r-- .... .- ...- ...- 0 0 ...- 0 0 Q)a. - - - - - - - It") It") It") It") It") It") It") I-X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w E ~ e ~ ~ III .5 0 ClS 18 e .c ::s .c 0 - CI) ig: .c e - Q) e III l!! ClS ClS 'e ClS .c E a:l W u. ~ 0: en en to ai cj tti. W 3: ci ...= z <.9 z t= w w :! ...J <( :! c::: o \J.. r--. W .... >< >< >< >< a >< >< - r--. It) W .... >< >< >< >< >< >< - in 0 r--. I w .... >< >< >< a >< ~ I I r--. I N >< >< >< 0 >< N I I CO? I W .... >< >< >< a >< - I N I l/) 0 00 r-- 0 00 (0 E ~ ...- ...- ...- 0 0 ...- 0 Q 'p, - - - - - - Q) X It") It") It") It") It") It") It") I-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E ~ e ~ ~ III '2 0 ClS g - e 0 .c ::s e .c - CI) .c - e III ClS 'e Q) ClS l!! 0 ClS .c E a:l W u. ~ 0: en en to ai cj tti. W 3: ci ...= z <.9 z t= w w :! ...J <( :! c::: o \J.. Z "0 Q) l/) :J o X W --:;:. c: c: c: Q)Q)Q) l/) l/) l/) ~.o.o 0..<(<( .. II II II >- W ~><oa