HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-17-2006 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, August 14, 2006 -7:30 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Lobby Conference Room
410 E. Washington Street
Thursday, August 17, 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. Development Items:
1. SUB06-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by Dial Corporation for a final plat of
Silvercrest Residential Community Part 3, a 7 -lot, 12.17 acre, residential subdivision located
south of American Legion Road and east of Scott Boulevard.
(45-day limitation period: September 1, 2006)
2. SUB06-00013/REZ06-00022: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington
Development for a rezoning from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) zone to
Planned Development Overlay / Low Density Single Family Residential (OPD/RS-5) and a
preliminary plat of Stone Bridge Estates Parts 5-9 and Re-subdivision of Outlot C of Part
Four, a 139-lot, 49.05 acre, residential subdivision located between Court Street and Lower
West Branch Road and west of Huntington Drive.
(45-day limitation period: August 14, 2006)
D. Comprehensive Plan Item:
Discussion of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan by amending the Near Southside
Design Plan to consider Central B!Jsiness (CB-10) zoning south of Burlington Street.
E. Rezoning Items:
1. REZ06-00015N AC06-00005: 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 and the
vacation of the east/west alley in block 102 to allow its relocation.
(45-day limitation period: August 17, 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 High Density Multi-
Family Residential (RM-44) 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 Central Business
Support (CB-5) 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)
F. Fringe Area Items:
1. Discussion of an application submitted to Johnson County by G.T. Karr for a conditional use
permit to operate a home business on approximately 3.30 acres of property located at 439~
Taft Avenue in Fringe Area B.
2. CZ06-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Bob Wolf for a rezoning from County
Residential (R) zone to County Manufactured Housing Residential (RMH) zone for
approximately .58 acres of property located adjacent to the south side of Lake Manor
Manufactured Home Park, west of Riverside Drive in Fringe Area C.
G. Consideration of the August 3, 2006 Meeting Minutes
H. Other Items
I. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
October 30
November 2
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Robert Miklo
Item: SUB06-00010
Silvercrest Residential Community -Part 3
Date: August 17,2006
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Dial Companies
11506 Nicholas St. #200
Omaha, NE 68154
Contact person:
Mark Hartin
402-493-2800
Requested action:
Final Plat
Purpose:
Seven lot residential subdivision
Location:
Southeast corner of Scott Boulevard and
American Legion Road
Size:
12.17 acres
Existing land use and zoning:
Elderly housing, OPDH-12
Surrounding land use and zoning:
North: Residential and agricultural, RS-5
and County RS
East: Religious Institution, County RS
South: Manufactured Housing Park, County
RMH
West: Residential, RS-5
Comprehensive Plan:
Intersections such as this are appropriate
locations for mixed uses and medium
density residential development. The Plan
encourages the creation of group living
facilities for seniors.
File date:
July 18, 2006
45-day limitation period:
60-day limitation period:
September 1,2006
September 16, 2006
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
An amended preliminary Planned Development Overlay (OPD-12) and preliminary plat for
Silvercrest Residential Community - Part 3 was approved in April. The OPD allows
one 57-unit apartment building (Lot 1); one 27-unit building (Lot 3) ; eight duplex style units
(Lots 4-7). There is an existing 24-unit building on Lot 2. The applicant is now requesting
approval of the final plat.
ANALYSIS:
The final plat is in general conformance with the approved preliminary plat and the subdivision
regulations. Construction plans have been submitted and are being reviewed by the City
Engineer. The City Attorney's Office is reviewing the legal papers. These plans and documents
should be approved by staff prior to City Council consideration of the final plat.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the final plat of Silvercrest
Residential Community Part 3, a 7 -lot, 12.17 -acre, residential subdivision located south of
American Legion Road and east of Scott Boulevard subject to staff approval of legal papers and
construction plans prior to City Council consideration.
A IT ACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Final Plat
Approved by:
Karin ranklin, Director
Department of Planning and
Community Development
ulbob/silvercrest..Q5
LO
en
c:
~
~
t3
~
~
~
~
t3
~~.
ci: '')
\
"(cno
Qlc::J()~
-Q (j...c::a.
() ::J (j
Q:--Jlr)
o
T"""
o
o
o
I
c.o
o
CO
::>
Cf)
(V)
t
CO
a..
>.
.t=
C
:J
E
E
o
o
co
:j::i
c
(])
"0
U)
(])
a:
+-'
U)
(])
lo....
()
lo....
(])
>
(f)
z
o
~
~
<
U
o
~
~
~
~
rJ)
@
6€6v-8€€-6I€ - I.\\O! ';lffiA{V.JO:' (Q
pIOIAIp!IOq OLSZ - l(
lJup;:llJ!Sw fA _
.LYW1VNId)mHm~
AOI'AJJ:) YIAOI !l ~ S
lMlIrmnllY.llHllV1GlVAmllIuro:J _ .. I II ~
E J.lIYl -.uJIlllIRX) '1YWIlIIIlilII JSlllD1IIIA 1Ili
N
~
'" 0
~ I
""t8~
< o~
....:l ug
~ :;!~s
....:l ~\::ffj
...... z u~
....... ~-<f-<
~ ~~ffj
rT ~ 9 ~
- ~ U
f-< ~
'" :>
~ d
u '"
~ tJ..
:> 0
d ~
'" ..J
~
W
~
-<
~~~
~~~
ii!1
~UUffj
~ >,,0" ~
~ ~:8~ ~
; ill! ~
;"'~~;!l
il~~
!;:;i
~~e
_ l
~~
.
~~ l'!
i~ ~
15~ ha
l: ~1>~
~~ ~i~
~~ ~~~
~id. d'"
~~~ 0 '"
~Q:;;Z: ~~~
~~~ ~g~
~~I ~:\~
~!::~ ~~e
ill~;j- ~~'"
~i.<J~ w~
IE: cglfj t~5
~ ~~~ ge2
I
l'lil
) Ij I
8 ~ ,:1; 'I' I
I;/. ~ dl. ~. I
I ~~ , ~~ :h~ i~lll
~" ~~ t:ill ~i I
g",~i~ iih~~ H:!i ~!!'
. h~~~ ::J~i3j~ ~.. ,....,...
O() .... :2:'5~S; "'_
~"':!lt5'" <3iSf<~~r--.,) ! I.~! A
~~: 0 CS~~8~gl!i .~!!A ~
0'" ~ ~"
$_0 z
~
)> -\ -<
i>< -?
Q "C.'.. I -,-
~ - ~~ ~ ~ ~.. W .
~ ..ill 5~C) !11
ti ;2:0 Q _./l"'-~- \ t I
It !;1 ~"'t lllB: ........ ~-"1~1 -0 ...--,
; ~ :i i~is :rJ~ ~ =f ~!,-.J
~ ~tj ~ ~ ililll~ 7" ~ ":Hi II
~~ ~~ ~i l~&,..:: Q ~ ~d>~g 1>
~~ l';! ~~~ U: .~ ~ ~ili:~: i
~ ~i ~; ~i~ ~I; ~!!! ~! I !
l'!
~ ~
l'!
'"
Cl
~
ino
a~
~Q
",c..
a.. 0
a..
""~
SO
a..lw
;J:.
'-'
8
ll.
I.
I;;~
~:ll
r'~
I~U
Cl~:!l~;;-
-<~=~~
~ -..... ~
~
~
:\
~
! ~ I
Ili'-, /
~- i .':~~'~,/";"''''';.-''I
,\L/)": ....r:'..f~-'~' ~\/
l I i,I1~ i~~~;.., .~"'_.I/ "",.
,-,-" ......,_.. -,.f,... .......
";'.:;~::-."j h' -;::;. ,
"/! '1'1." LIE'l/l! :Ii ~
t "".'..' l~> r:::;~ .'}I\il' l';-~
~
~ ~
~ <I ~
is ~
~
i 8 ~
~
,. 0 ~
-n
I f~
1 !\~
....... --~I-.... ......, .'n'" I ~ ..r~--..f!!- , 1
,h -, 1- - - ~ "".,...".."."...,,, ..I'
~!~ 'E l ~ ---------m:;7---rii...,.-.uvNWi~lQ~o-isj<iJil3^1is-------"k ' . J
~i~1~~c~ ~"'~,f:--=:~:~(j~lJ 'j : ~
: I 'I 'v' ~/ x~. 3=1:: X~.. h.: : "'I~~u I. ' !i:'" .... ,
8, ' I I ,.r,... 8, -'I~ ,~" E-< <7l 1 .... 1- 6:il " I
~i ih:: ii~ i,~~ i "'~ ~ ~~ i l! i 35~ I '\... ~3~ i~; :
, Ie;" ~'I- , 2 ~~"\. /' '- 'r" , <:>- I .~ o~~ 'i ~~~ I ~
I :U: ~. i: ~ 'l' l..i 'I ',,- /' /' '- '- , ; I I....' I i
1 ,'oil' -'i~'~\j,.\~,. B ,.t.P'-.2'~~""<'!!!..-, : I'S :~ ~'I '
I , j I >-Iu' \':' ..all ~ .,. i ~.~ I ~,
' I ;l' 1li I ,~ ,- .~....:~ '/ ........~: f . I ,... I~!,
: : ,: ~r-v: .~\~~~"';..-- ~ !i: ~ ,.roO l ~,: d : 't.'\,"\. l Pi ~~~, ..
, .....,'T~ """""', '~', i "'I&i'u ,~..! r,\ '- J ,_ . ~! ;; 'I . ~ i,.
, : 1\ 't; \ ~ ,~o b 00 ~ ,~... B \ 1/-<'" -', "-~B ~~ I ~ II
: I \ <;;.~ \ "'~\ '.lid .... ;; Q: ~ ""I;:~ ~ /~)., ..."..", "'<, '_, .~ . '" ~I
I I \'..> "'~:, .... ,~ \ :;; ...: ~I c""o;. · "........ ...." " .... _--_ ~ ~~ ...... .~ .~ e: I
~I: ~' fs-,,--' ',_ I~: ;,! 1/ r</ ,~, '>; _I ','...... ~ -----.. ~... ~ I
~l I ~ '" " ~~l -- --- _e..... 1 /1;, /' h"'~ ....<, " Ql ..........~ ,N.' ...l~......":--... ;_.1 I
~ - .J___'--__"""*-__ 'z!~_.lI -"---.,--- ------~ }(,/ ~,</ .. ..... ,,' '....... ~ "':::-- ~:',_ I
_Ir"lll UI,..../lllII -- --~-- _______J .....__ _ .....~.,i '~"ii- 2j~::; I
1 -- --', ~-'"'' ",:;:;"." '.... i
. I', I ....."',lO.DOH .......... ~~~ '~. i
; I 1 "'..(~ t~'><.'o- ..c:"'!-I
! ~'oJ: I :';,;-\ ~f'~l :~;~: ~
nllll.;,d~ I I u..Ltl UJ u..~, ~
'~II..~~" I 1 "16tJ: lJ : "'16tJ ,: I"
a 0',,' ~ ""~' i>~ I " "'0'" <: I eJ I b ~ <: ,I L., S
il"'"l' ~~~~!s ....g....I"1 I ...."'~I..!
j'''' i i" ~~: i 1~~ ~\\~~ 1.,1 dl
I \... .tnu~-o..--L L~~-!' I~",
, I ~ -......,.-" ~-- " . h
,.., i I ~~. !i:~:: ~~t ,-
~.. ': I ~ ....160<: I , ;::jou " ,<
~~ J ~ "b.. r]i U I I 0 en <: ,I
,"\. '" L 'I 'q 3 '" ~: ~I~: .... ~!; :: ~ " ~
to,..., : I ~ ~!V.~ ;~: 'I' :X~ ~o ',:'Ib
: UJ ',~,.. , I ...~ 'I ,~~~
i ~ ,., ""'1 ~!i:'" ~"\. i I i '~:i~~~1
~ i ~ ',"\. I ~ &i'~ , - .E'~:';;'--*::,,~ ~.c.:, . I~~
;---.--. : ~ to,..., I ~~~ ~J------~~-:U~ !
: Vi I ~ """"""'_." .",~ I~ I
, I I ;, <,;....~i1 ' ".
i It. L __h_l__n...l~ :~~n_'::~"""______n.Ln____.._n _":;_h_"~I:_-:';"~:=___ J ii~
'j' ~~: ___h_h________._. ~I r\
, It~ ,1rU01 _ ---------i----4-~
~.!---------.--------------T''''''''''--:-n'''''.......=---a&'t1131n081I6:JS ----- - '" ;~~
~ ~.
--~_.
f ,: .
!\ J,
\:~~
H
I
f--
I
la
'6
I'"
.<:
I~
,Lu
I~
i~
'lw
I~
I
,
~.
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
i : I
, K
,
I
!
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
<MfA~J_ _J
~l""
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ06-00022 and SUB06-00013
Stone Bridge Estates Part Five-Nine and
Re-subdivision of Outlot C of Part Four
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact Person:
Phone:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Neighborhood Open Space District
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
Public Utilities:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Sunil Terdalkar
Date: August 17, 2006
Applicant:Arlington Development, Inc.
1486 S 1st Ave, Unit A,
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319) 338-8058
Duane Musser
MMS Consultants
1917 S Gilbert Street,
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319) 338-8282
Planned Development Overlay Rezoning and
Subdivision Preliminary Plat
Development of a 139-lot residential subdivision
South of Lower West Branch Road, north of Court
Street and west of Huntington Drive
Approximately 49.05 acres
RS-5
North: Undeveloped, County residential - R
South: Residential - RS-5, OPD-8
East: Undeveloped and Multi-family Residential -
ID-RS and RM-12
West: Residential- RS-5, OPD/RM-12
Low Density Residential
Lower West Branch
August 4,2006
September 8, 2006
Sanitary Sewer can be extended from neighboring
Iowa City subdivisions on the west and south.
2
Public Services:
The City will provide Police and Fire protection, and
refuse and recycling collection services. The transit
route Eastside Loop serves this area but currently
there is no bus stop that can serve the proposed
subdivision. With the proposed transit route
Eastside Express new bus stops will be created.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Arlington Development, Inc., is requesting approval for a 139-lot, single-family
residential subdivision with four outlots, on approximately 49.05 acres of land located south of
Lower West Branch Road, north of Court Street, and west of Huntington Drive. Because the
development will result in the disturbance more than 35% of the critical slopes on the property,
rezoning of the property from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Planned
Development Overlay-Low Density Single-Family Residential (OPD-5) zone is also required.
The City Council recently approved the rezoning of approximately 20.79-acre land from Interim
Development (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone, which is part of
this subdivision development.
ANAL YSIS:
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan:
The property is located within the Lindemann Hills Neighborhood of the Northeast Planning
District. The Northeast District Plan adopted in 1999 identifies this area as suitable for low
density residential development. The plan envisions a compact neighborhood with
interconnected streets and sidewalks that provides efficient vehicular traffic and safe and
pleasant pedestrian movement. The plan outlines Neighborhood Planning Principles to achieve
such development and emphasizes the importance of preserving the natural features,
pedestrian/bicyclist connections, neighborhood parks, open spaces and diverse housing. The
plan calls for green open spaces between the development and environmentally sensitive
features, treating such features as amenities, providing public access to the preserved natural
features; incorporating green elements such as small neighborhood greens, planting medians,
landscaping along streets; and providing single-loaded streets to open up scenic vistas. A
portion of this land immediately north of Court Street was previously reserved for the Iowa City
School District. As the school district has decided not to pursue the plan to develop a school,
the right to develop this land has reverted back to the applicant.
Zoning and Subdivision Design:
The property contains sensitive areas including a drainage-way-south branch of the Ralston
Creek, hydric soils, areas with steep and critical slopes, and remnants of an old stone railway
bridge. As part of the development the applicant proposes to re-grade most of the critical and
steep slopes. As per the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) a Levell! Sensitive Areas Review is
required if more than 35% of the critical slopes on a property are disturbed. The Levell! review
is considered as a planned development and therefore a Planned Development Overlay is
required for the property. The applicant has submitted a Sensitive Areas Development Plan
delineating the sensitive areas and a Grading and Erosion Control Plan. The applicant reports
that the areas steep and critical slopes are man-made slopes that were created to allow terrace
farming. The applicant is not proposing to disturb any other sensitive areas and is providing
erosion control measures and drainage for the areas with hydric soils as per requirements. The
Grading Plan is being reviewed by the City Engineer for compliance with the Grading
Ordinance.
The existing Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) Zone allows for a development with
PC DIStaff Reportslsub06-00013 slonebridgepart5-9-prelim
3
a maximum density of five dwelling units per acre and a minimum lot area of 8,000 square feet.
The applicant is proposing a subdivision with lot areas ranging from approximately 8,000 square
feet to 29,686 square feet. All the lots in the proposed subdivision meet the minimum standards
for lot size and lot frontage. The street and sidewalk network design proposed (discussed below in
following sections of the report) is generally consistent with the subdivision regulations. The
subdivision development is compatible with the zoning and development pattern of the land
adjacent to this property and in staff's view, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan vision.
The proposed subdivision includes four outlots, primarily along the creek. Outlot B is to be
dedicated to the City to fulfill the neighborhood oprn space requirement. Outlots A, C and D have
been set aside as open spaces to be controlled by a homeowner's association. These open
spaces protect the sensitive areas-stream corridor and its associated buffers, the old stone
bridge-and if designed and developed with appropriate landscaping elements will provide the
neighborhood with passive and active recreational spaces.
A Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) was signed at the time of annexation and rezoning for
this property. The CZA requires that development of the property is planned in accordance with
the neighborhood design policies of the Northeast District Plan and retention of the stone bridge
is ensured in a manner that the provides public access to the feature. The Northeast District
Plan encourages providing recreational trails for recreational purposes and also to provide an
alterative to automobile travel and neighborhood connections. To fulfill the CZA conditions, and
district plan goals, an 8-foot wide trail extending from Court Street in the south up to the
proposed neighborhood open space in the north is shown along the creek. Eventually when the
adjacent property on the east is developed the trail will be extended up to Lower West Branch
Road. If it is structurally feasible, the old stone bridge can be used as a pedestrian bridge over
the creek. With the proposed trial the exiting Windsor Ridge Trails can be extended up to Lower
West Branch Road. The trail is to be built by the applicant/owner with an easement to allow
public access. The neighborhood street and sidewalk network of the proposed subdivision is
connected to the trail at Thames Drive. Staff recommends that a second connection between
the trail and the neighborhood streets and sidewalks should be built from the easement area
between lots 59 and 60.
As part of this development proposal the applicant is responsible for installing a sidewalk along
the Court Street (north side). As a continuation of the trail network and to facilitate convenient
pedestrian crossing staff recommends that a portion of this sidewalk between Arlington Street
and Huntington Drive should be 8 feet wide. The City is responsible for the expense incurred to
install the additional width of the sidewalk.
Some of the lots along Court Street (lots 9 to 16) and Lower West Branch Road (lots 131 to
136) are double fronting lots. Such lots are discouraged by the Comprehensive Plan and the
subdivision regulations. If the lots can not be reconfigured to eliminate double frontage, the
Comprehensive Plan states that dense landscape buffer or earthen berm should be provided
rather than installing a privacy fence. Outlot C extends along Court Street creating a buffer for lots
10 through 16. Additionally, a landscaped buffer with a mix of evergreen trees is shown on the plat
along Court Street and Lower West Branch Road. The trees are to be planted by the
applicant/owner prior to the issuance of any building permits for these lots. If any fences are
installed along the streets, they should be installed to the north side of the landscape buffer along
Court Street and to the south side along Lower West Branch Road. The final plat and legal papers
should specify the requirement regarding the fences and the landscape buffer.
Traffic implications:
Staff estimates that with 139 dwelling units this subdivision would generate approximately 1000
vehicle trips per day. The proposed subdivision can be accessed from Lower West Branch
Road, Court Street, and neighborhood streets-Chadwick Lane and Eversull Lane-from the
PCDIStaff Reportslsub06-OO013 stonebridgepart5-9-prelim
4
adjacent subdivision Stone Bridge Estates Part 3 and Part 4 on the west. The property has
close proximity to Taft Avenue, an arterial street on the east. The proposed subdivision will also
be served by Arlington Drive, Colchester Drive, Liverpool Lane, Norfolk Road, Thames Drive
and Whitechapel Drive.
Lower West Branch Road is currently a narrow chip-seal road and needs to be improved to City
Standards. Improvements to Lower West Branch Road are part of the Capital Improvement
Plan for the financial year 2007. The applicant/owner is required to dedicate land to the City as
public right-of-way for Lower West Branch Road and provide necessary utility and construction
easements as specified by the City Engineer. The applicant/owner will also be required to share
the proportional cost of improvement to Lower West Branch Road. Recently, when a portion of
the land (approximately 20.79 acres) along Lower West Road was rezoned it was agreed that
the applicant/owner will pay a total of $133,564.00.
Neighborhood Open Space:
Based on the Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance, a subdivision of this size is required to
dedicate 1.15 acres of open space or pay fees in lieu of dedication. At the time of approval for
the final plat of Windsor Ridge Part 21, it was agreed that the neighborhood open space
dedication requirement for Windsor Ridge Part 21 (0.60 acres) would be fulfilled upon the
development of the land currently under consideration for subdivision. Including both dedication
requirements approximately 1.75 acres in area is required to be dedicated as neighborhood
open space. In the north-east section of the subdivision Outlot B is reserved as open space to
be dedicated to fulfill the neighborhood open space requirement. This land is adjacent to the
remnant of the stone bridge and facilitates adequate public access to this historic structure.
Storm water management:
The applicant is providing onsite storm water sewer infrastructure to convey the storm water to the
creek which carries the 100-year detention to the public storm water management facility-Scott
Park Detention Areas on the south branch of the Ralston Creek. No separate storm water
management facility on the property is required.
Infrastructure fees:
The applicant/owner is required to pay a water main extension fee at a rate of $395 per acre for
this development. As noted above, fees will also be collected for the improvement of Lower West
Branch Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that this application be deferred until the deficiencies and discrepancies
noted below are resolved.
Upon the resolution of the deficiencies and discrepancies, staff recommends approval for
REZ06-00022, rezoning of approximately 49.05 acres of land located south of Lower West
Branch Road, north of Court Street, from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to
Planned Development Overlay-Low Density Single-Family Residential (OPD -5) zone and
SUB06-00013, a preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan for Stone Bridge
Estates Parts 5-9 and Re-subdivision of Outlot C of Part Four, a 139-lot, approximately 49.05-
acre residential subdivision.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
1) Revised subdivision boundaries, acreage and legal description including the area for
Outlot C of Part Four
2) Lot frontage on lots with curvilinear front lot line should appear on the plat
PCDlStaff Reportslsub06-00013 stonebridgepart5-9-prelim
5
3) The plat should illustrate an 8-foot wide sidewalk on the north side of Court Street between
Arlington Drive and Huntington Drive and on the south side of the Thames Drive up to the
east boundary of lot 67
4) Trail Connection between lot 59 and 60
5) Adjust southeast boundaries for lots 17 and 18 to exclude the stream corridor buffer
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan
Approved by: ~~'-
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
PCD\Staff Reports\sub06-00013 stonebridgepartS-9-prelim
~
~
t3
~
~
~
~
t3
11~ll 31vdOddOJ A1IJ '
C\I
,..
<Yo :E
tlio-<,
~~ ~
II -
__I
I I I
Ftl
Ci)
.,.-
o
o
o
I
CD
o
r:o
~
if)
(j)
I
L!)
C/)
t::
CO
D-
C/)
Q)
+oJ
CO
+oJ
C/)
W
Q)
0)
"0
lo-
r:o
Q)
c
o
+oJ
if)
. .
Z
o
~
~
~
U
o
~
~
~
~
CJ)
=-
-
~r .--
__- d_ _ ,,;1/ r~-----~ _
~-:-:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~leY ---:::-~r-------:;?~,~_:, -~ __
0- r:IIII];jBW@JWIIJIIJB@J"'-'~~ A:l ['1 /~' / -'" - --~
'-"'l ~~III, .:J:Ifr':"'" .~,;/( -;:(,/::8 (l:-/ - / /, <, / II'
:1_,,!f'''''1:r:::' .,~ ~I\\r ,::::r/,!,/""O O~";:: '_c:::_ ',k- ,,.;;.c
.,.,10 1.--./ \ ~\I I // _,/, ( ,.- "\ I '- c - ~ - "i ' ,,'J.
--
/' . ./ / I , ,', ' " EIIl!i!iI---
~' ,'\lIJmm~",B\1W&"'1l<1N / 1l3l'll'---
'/',' ,,~/ 11IIIIIIII'----
:: #n:~~~, ~:=:..:..
050 ~ira
~~~ !;j~M
~~ <1illl
g i~~
~ ~~I
III
~I~
i~
II
I
I
~~ II .I1~~~~
Ili~l!nUn~
1 ~ !
!~~~it
~ ~ga.'
-.:
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 11,2006
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Re: REZ06-00015 Hieronymus Square
Comprehensive Plan: The Near Southside Plan 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. 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. Staff recommends that page 23 of the Near Southside
Design Plan be amended to strike the sentence, "CB-5 would remain the preferred zoning is this
district." and replace it with, "CB-10 zoning is appropriate provided that adequate parking and
pedestrian connections to the portion of downtown located north of Burlington Street are
provided. Otherwise CB-5 or PRM zoning are appropriate in this district."
Parking: The Commission discussed the rationale for the parking impact fee as it applies to
this area. Please refer to the attached title page of the Parking Facility Impact Fee Ordinance.
Staff believes that the ordinance provides a clear rationale for applying the parking impact fee to
residential development located in the Near Southside regardless whether property is zoned
CB-5 or CB-10.
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 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 Near Southside Parking Facility District was created specifically to address these issues.
The Near Souths ide Redevelopment Plan 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.
At the time the parking impact fee was developed, CB-10 zoning was not contemplated south of
Burlington Street. Given the increase in residential density that can be achieved in the CB-10
zone when compared to the existing CB-5 zone, the parking impact fee is even more necessary
to help address the increased demand for parking.
August 11, 2006
Page 2
The City is planning a second parking facility for construction in the Near Southside so it is likely
that any fees collected will be expended in the next 5 years.
Vacation: The east/west alley located within Block 102 will need to be relocated to the north to
accommodate the construction of Hieronymus Square. This will require the vacation of the
alley and the dedication of replacement right-of-way. An agreement to allow private use of the
space above the alley for portions of the building and space underneath the alley for portions of
the parking facility will also be required.
Setback: The CB-5 and CB-1 0 zone both require that the ground floor of buildings be set back
10 feet from the Burlington Street property line. Above the ground floor buildings are permitted
to cantilever out to the property line. Because there is approximately only 9 to 10 feet of right-
of-way between the curb and the property line adjacent to the Hieronymus property, there is
insufficient room for street trees along Burlington Street even when the first floor of the building
is set back 10 feet. In most parts of downtown, especially where buildings are taller than 2
stories, the area between the curb and the building is at least 20 feet. If the character of
downtown is to be extended south of the Burlington Street as envisioned by the Comprehensive
Plan, staff believes that approximately a 20-foot space between the curb and the building wall is
necessary even above the ground floor. Therefore as a condition of rezoning, staff
recommends that a 10 foot set back be required for the entire building. Consideration could be
given to allowing lighter building features such as balconies to protrude into the set back above
the tree line (approximately 45 feet or 4 floors). When revisions are made to the CB-10 zone
this setback requirement should be included to provide a uniform streetscape along Burlington
Street.
Open Space: Staff had asked the applicant to provide a concept plan for the how the court
yard and service area will be developed and landscaped. The applicant has not yet provided
such a plan. In absence of a plan, staff recommends that a base level of open space
improvement requirements be included in the Conditional Zoning Agreement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Near Southside Design Plan, an element of the Comprehensive
Plan, be amended by striking the sentence on page 23, "CB-5 would remain the preferred
zoning is this district." and replacing it with, "CB-10 zoning is appropriate provided that
adequate parking and pedestrian connections to the portion of downtown located north of
Burlington Street are provided. Otherwise CB-5 or PRM zoning are appropriate in this district."
Staff Recommends that REZ06-00015NAC06-00005 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 and the
vacation of the east/west alley in block 102 to be approved subject to a Conditional Zoning
Agreement addressing following conditions:
A requirement for a minimum of one floor of commercial development above the ground
floor.
A minimum of 80 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.
The property shall contain 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.
August 11,2006
Page 3
The building shall be a minimum height of 7 stories.
There shall be a 10-foot building setback from the Burlington Street right-of-way.
Right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City to provide public alley circulation through
Block 102 as determined adequate by the City.
A plan for landscaping of the court yard area will be prepared by the applicant and
approved by the design review committee. The plan shall include a central feature such
as a fountain, reflecting pool or a public art element, public seating areas, landscaping
beds or large planters. A minimum of 50 percent of the paving surface shall consist of
decorative materials such as clay, concrete or stone pavers. The court yard shall be
screened from the service area.
The Design Review Committee approval will be required for the final design of the
building based on the following:
. The plane of the building at the street-level must be broken into horizontal
modules that give the appearance of smaller, individual storefronts reflective
of the pattern and character found in downtown Iowa City. The applicant
must demonstrate how the proposed street-level fa~ade meets this
standard.
. Each module must be no greater than 50 feet and no less than 20 feet in
width and must be distinguished from the abutting module(s) by a significant
and visible change in building materials and a variation in the wall plane of at
least 16 inches. Changes in material colors and textures and other
architectural detailing should be used to enhance this effect.
. To create a human-scaled environment that is comfortable and attractive to
pedestrians, awnings and/or canopies must be used to enhance the
storefront modules.
. Pedestrian entrances must be attractive and inviting features along the
street-level and must be architecturally emphasized in a manner that is
reflective of the pattern and character found in downtown Iowa City.
ATTACHMENT:
Title Page of the Parking Facility Impact Fee Ordinance
(
Approved by:
~'1'~~
Karin ranklin, Director
Department of Planning and
Community Development
, '.
ORDiNANCe NO. ~3522
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 32.1. IOWA crrv COOE
OF ORDINANCES. 'TAXATION AND REVENUES' BY ADDING
ARTICLE VI, PARKING FAClUlY IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, the CIty has adopted the N.... SouthaIde Neigh-
borhoOd redevelopment plan to guide the d8YeIopmenlln the
Nell Southslde NeighborhOOd; end
WHEREAS, the parking facility Impact fee ordinance win assIat
In the Implementation d the plan. and guide the use and
development d land so as to assure that new residential
development In the Nell Southslde Nelghbort1ood bears a
proportionate share of the cost d capital expenditures neces-
sary to prOYlde parking In the NIII Southslde Nelghbort1ood of
Iowa CIly.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUN.
ClL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CI1Y, IOWk
SECTION I. AMENDMENT. That Chapter 31.2 of the Iowa CIty
COde of Ordinances Is amended by the adoption of the
following new article:
Article VI. Parking Facility Impact Fee Ordinance
Section 32.1-110. Leaislatlve Flndlnas.
The CIly Council of Iowa City, Iowa, finds, determines and
decllles that:
A. Residential development and redevelopment In the
Near Southside Neighborhood without the provi-
sion of adequate vehicular parking spaces is
contrary to the public Interest.
B. It Is undesirable to devote significant portions d
development sites to parking In the Near Southslde
Neighborhood, since it is in the public Interest to
develop land now available In the Neighborhood
for more intensive residential and commercial uses.
C. The City n~ds to expand its parking facility system
to accommodate new development In order to
ensure. adequate parking, and the City Council
recognizes such expansion is necessary to pro-
mote and protect the public health, safety and
welfare.
O. CIty involvement in the expansion d the parking
facility system is appropriate due to the scale and
cost d such facilities, and Is necessary due to the
anticipated high level of use d such a parking
facility by the general public.
E. The Imposition d impact fees Is one of the pre-
ferred methods of ensuring that new development
bears a proportionate share of the cost of parking
facilities necessary to accommodate such develop-
ment.
F. New residential development in the Near Southside
Neighborhood will create demand for the construc-
tion of parking facilities.
G. The fee established in Section 32. 1-114 hereof is
derived from, baSed upon, and does not exceed
the cost of providing additional parking facilities
necessitated by the new residential development
for which the fee is to be charged.
H. The fee established by this ordinance does not
constitute a tax.
Section 32.1-111. Title. Authoc1tv and Applicability.
A. This ordinance shall be known and may be cited
as the 'Near Southslde Neighborhood Parking
Facility Impact Fee Ordinance.'
PC.D.
';'
,~ l
-....= -lit....
~~w~~
~ ~..,
~~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date:
August 11,2006
To:
From:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Re:
REZ06-00017, REZ06-00018, REZ06-00019, REZ06-00020
We have not received concept plans for these properties. Staff recommends that these items be
deferred.
The Commission requested the history of the urban renewal project for Penta crest Garden
Apartments. The files for this project are in long term storage and not easily accessible. Doug
Boothroy, Director of Housing and Inspection Services, was on the planning staff at the time and
recalls that the City acquired several properties that were located between Clinton Street and
Madison Street south of Burlington Street as part of the urban renewal project for downtown.
Most of the properties were developed with single-family homes that had been converted to
rooming houses or apartment buildings. The properties were cleared and sold for private
development. This included the bank buildings on Clinton Street and the Pentacrest Garden
Apartments. South Capitol Street was vacated between Burlington Street and Court Street and
became part of the property for Pentacrest Garden Apartments. If the Commission would like
further details staff will attempt to retrieve the urban renewal file.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 17, 2006
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Drew E. Westberg, Planning Intern
RE: CU06-0002 GT Karr, Sueppel's Vinyl Siding L.C.
The applicant, GT Karr, is requesting a conditional use permit for 3.3 acres of land, located at
4396 Taft Avenue. In 2003, the applicant was granted a five-year conditional use permit to locate
a home based business on the property. The business is a home improvement business that
includes an office, the storage of building materials within sheds and the parking of commercial
vehicles on the property. The applicant is now requesting a permit renewal to allow the continued
operation of a home business and expansion of the home for both personal and office use.
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 County Board of Adjustment to approve a permit opposed by the City Council.
Zoning Requirements: The Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance allows home
businesses in the A, AR, and R zones subject to a conditional use permit. The permit requires
that any materials, supplies, or products be confined to the dwelling or the permitted accessory
building or buildings located on the premises.
In general, the County grants conditional use permits as long as the proposed action will not be
detrimental to surrounding properties. The subject property is surrounded by row crops and the
proposed addition-an attached garage including office space-should not be injurious to the
use of adjoining property.
Fringe Area Policy Agreement: The Fringe Area Policy Agreement is designed to guide land
use development in ways that are beneficial to both the City and County. The subject property
is located within the two-mile fringe area and is subject to Fringe Area B guidelines for property
located outside the growth boundary. The Agreement states that agricultural uses are
preferred in the area; however, single family uses are acceptable at the RS-10 density.
This property is located near the far edge of the fringe area and is not within the city's growth
area. It is not anticipated that the city will grow to include this property within the foreseeable
future. Because this type of business is more intense than what would be allowed as a home
occupation by the City's zoning code, the previous conditional use permit was granted for 5
years to allow the City and County to assess its impact on the surrounding area and its
potential impact on the growth of the city in this area. This business has not had any apparent
negative consequences on the surrounding area. To assure that the City has an opportunity
to assess the compatibility of this use if the area is ever annexed into the city: staff
recommends that the conditional use permit be granted for as long as the applicant owns the
property. If the applicant sells the property the home based business would have to cease or
receive a new conditional use permit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
July 6, 2006
Page 2
Staff recommends that Council forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of Adjustment
recommending that the application by GT Karr, for a conditional use permit to allow a home
improvement business, be approved subject to the term of the permit being tied to the ownership
of the property by the applicant.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Application
Approved by: ~ ~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
~
~
t3
~
~
~
~
t3
.
3A~ nos
---~
~--- ~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
\
\
,
'...
...
;-",
"'", ""
~"'~
""''iP'\
)
(J
· Sll1'ill' 31~~ d~O:J 11:J ~MOI ,0 Ali:J
...-----
-......
...,
,
~
,
,
/,-1\,
/ '-----1 \--____
/
~---------
-----~-
a:
a:
w
C/)
.
<D
>
<(
4=
CO
I-
<0
(j)
CI)
~
z
o
~
f-l
<
U
o
~
~
f-l
~
V)
sVs
Sueppel's Vinyl Siding, L.C.
4396 Taft Avenue SE
Iowa City, IA 52240
To: Johnson County Board of Adjustment
Re: Application for Conditional Use Permit for 4396 Taft Avenue
July 20, 2006
My name is G. T. Karr and I am part owner of Sueppel's Vinyl Siding L.C., a siding company located in
Iowa City. I have been part owner of the business along with my father-in-law since 2002 and will be purchasing
the remainder of the business this year. My wife and I purchased the 3 acre property located at4396 Taft A venue in
2002 and have steadily made improvements as we can afford them. The property currently has a small house, a
barn, a shed, and a small grain bin. We were granted a conditional use permit in 2003 to use the shed as a shop and
the spare bedroom in the house for a home office. The current conditional use permit expires July 31, 2008 and we
would like to renew the existing permit before we invest in additional improvements to the property.
My father-in-law, Paul Suepppel, started Sueppel's Vinyl Siding in 1995 after his retirement from the Iowa
City Police Department. Since its inception Sueppel's Vinyl Siding has been a home based business and has
operated without any complaints. The office has been located in my house for the past three years and is used
exclusively for bookkeeping and bidding purposes. All materials and equipment are stored on the jobsite and all
employees report directly to the jobsite on a daily basis. All sales transactions take place in the customer's home, so
parking and traffic related to customers has never been an issue. Any leftover materials and equipment that are not
in use are stored in our shop.
Currently our business has three full time employees that are with us year round and one part time
employee that works with us during the summer months. Two of our employees drive company vehicles and the
other two are responsible for their own transportation to and from the jobsite. Our normal work hours are 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday. We require our employees to report to the jobsite each morning by 8:00 a.m. and
allow them to take company vehicles home with them nightly and on the weekends which eliminates the need for
additional parking spaces at our shop. The company owns a 16' covered trailer that is stored on the jobsite, and a
small dump truck that may be parked on the gravel area in front of the shop. The property has two functioning wells
that feed the house and the barn respectively. The only restroom facilities are in the house and are accessible to our
employees if they are at the shop.
During the past three years our family has grown as well as our need for space (we are expecting twins in
January and already have a 2 year old daughter). There are three bedrooms in the house now, one for my daughter,
one for my wife and me, and a spare bedroom that is currently a very crowded office. We have already put a
significant amount of money into the house and outbuildings and don't want to spend anymore if our conditional use
permit will not be renewed in two years. Our hope is to get approval for a conditional use permit that does not
expire, so we can build on to the house or add a detached garage. The new structure would be used for a small
office and a garage for our personal vehicles and in the process free up an additional bedroom which we most
certainly will need. The day to day business operations of Sueppel's Vinyl Siding will not change and there will not
be any increased traffic. We feel that it would not make financial sense for us to put thousands of dollars into a
property that we may have to sell in two years if the conditional use permit is not renewed.
I hope that the above information will give you a better idea of how we plan to use the property at 4396
Taft A venue. If you have any questions feel free to contact me or to. stop out and see the property in person, I can be
reached anytime at (631-4342). Thank you for your time and consideration ofthis matter.
Thanks,
/;'1 ~
G.T. Karr
~ . .
S1-1"t ({Ill{
8Af{tJ
SII tf) f l'g~ P05 E P
I '" / I J ,f-.. >HDf'
; f '/.'~flli~ 0
In I I V(j r~~K'~(1 A~l4
(Co.vtl?e'n:: ""~..t
I~ I / l/~eePE"
/ '
Aele$~ 10
iA~t
~KRV€l.
. ---
D(?III€
~ ___OtRRlrI
. ~l?IN
:) .
r'(~e'n"cl
/
") c. C"',9 -(
Hal,/~€
N
r
Ci,ty of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 17, 2006
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Drew E. Westberg, Planning Intern
RE: CZ06-0002 Robert Wolf, Lake Ridge Manufactured Housing Park
The applicant, Robert Wolf, is requesting that 0.58 acres of land generally located west of
Riverside Drive and south of the Iowa City Airport, be rezoned from Residential (R) to
Manufactured Residential Housing (RMH). The subject parcel is south of the intersection of
Sundown Ridge and Spring Ridge Drive in Lake Ridge Manufactured Housing Park. The
applicant intends to construct a storm shelter on the rezoned property is approved by the
Johnson County Board of Supervisors. This property is within two miles of the City's
Corporate Limits and is therefore, subject to the Fringe Area Policy Agreement, which
requires that the City comment on rezonings within its extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Under the Johnson County Unified Development Code (JCUDO), the current Residential (R)
zone allows single family homes. Manufactured homes and associated uses, such as storm
shelters, are not allowed in the Residential zone and therefore the rezoning is required to
allow the proposed shelter. The Manufactured Residential Housing zone (RMH) requires the
provision of storm shelters in newer manufactured park construction. Lake Ridge currently is
non-conforming in that it does not provide adequate storm shelter per the County code. The
applicant, though not required to do so because of the legal non-conforming status of the park,
wishes to construct a second shelter. Any storm shelter constructed after 2004 must adhere
to the current County code regulations:
1. The size of the storm shelter shall be larger than the equivalent of seven square feet
for each manufactured or mobile home space in the manufactured home community or
mobile home park.
Lake Ridge has less than 450 spaces designated as lease lots. To meet County
requirements, the total square footage of the existing shelter and the proposed shelter would
have to be approximately 3,200 square feet.
2. The storm shelter shall include a restroom if the shelter is used exclusively as a
storm shelter.
As this is intended to be a storm shelter, a restroom should be required.
3. The storm shelter shall exceed the construction specifications approved by a
licensed professional engineer and presented by the owner of the manufactured home
community or mobile home park.
This would need to be enforced by the County Building Official.
4. The shelter shall be located no farther than one thousand three hundred twenty
(1,320) feet from any manufactured or mobile home in the manufactured home
community or mobile home park.
July 6, 2006
Page 2
This requirement is designed to maintain full and fair access to safe shelter. Currently, a
storm shelter exists along the park entrance on the eastern edge of the development. This
shelter accommodates a significant portion of the eastern half of the park. The proposed
shelter would provide service to much of the western half of the park. However, other
locations in the park are possible which would provide more access to the shelter.
The northwest portion of the park has many lots which are not leased. These spaces are large
enough to allow construction of an adequate storm shelter. Although Staff does not object to
the proposed location, a more appropriate shelter site would be in the northwest portion of the
park as it would serve more park residents and would not require a rezoning.
Fringe Area Policy Agreement: The City of Iowa City and Johnson County have an
agreement regarding property within two miles of the Iowa City Municipal Limits. This
agreement, the Fringe Area Policy Agreement, is designed to guide land use development
in ways that are beneficial to both the City and County.
The subject property is located within this two-mile fringe area and is within the City's growth
boundary. Subsequently, the property is subject to Fringe Area C guidelines which state,
"Land in Area C, which is presently zoned for residential development within Iowa City's
growth area, may develop in conformance with existing zoning, provided subdivisions and
development projects shall conform to City Urban Design Standards." This statement is
intended to allow areas that are currently zoned to be developed but discourage an increase
in density for land that is within the city's growth area. Although this would be a change in
the existing zoning, no new manufactured housing development is proposed. The rezoning
request is solely for the construction of a storm shelter to service park residents. The
application does not propose constructing any additional lease lots as a consequence of the
rezoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors
recommending that the application by Robert Wolf, to rezone 0.58 acres of property from
Residential (R) to Manufactured Residential Housing (RMH), be approved subject to the
property be used only for a storm shelter, associated parking, and open space.
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
Approved by: ~~ ~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
~
?
~
,...
a.
I
I I
I
I 1\
I I
I I
I \
\ I
I I
\ \
I ~
I \,,\
\ /
I /
\//
.. /'
\ .
.~
~....~..
t:
t3
~
~
~
t:
t3
~
Q..
,... 0::
() 0
u
- >-
C f-
a. u
0 <l:
:s:
,... g
() lL.
0
,y /
f l
~..---~~
C\l
o
o
o
o
I
c:o
o
N
()
,...
V)
~
25>-.0
V)f--~
~S~
~8L:':
o
M
M
~
()
:;:::
t=
tTl
Z
Q
Z
tTl
tTl
c;
t""'
~
CI
CJ)
c::
~
tTl
-<
o
'"
CJ)
t""'
~
CI
"C:I
~
tTl
'"
CJ)
t""'
~
1;;1
CJ)
()
?;
tTl
>-
fS
:r:
::J
tTl
()
-l
CJ)
tTl
Z
<:
~
~
~
-l
~
en
"C:I
tTl
()
~
r;;;
-l
en
MMS CONkSULTANTS" INC.
I
IOWA CITY IOWA
OFFICE: 319-351-8282
CEDAR RAPIDS lOW A
OFFICE: 319-841-5188
July 18, 2006
Mr. RJ Moore
Johnson County Planning and Zoning Office
913 S Dubuque Street
Iowa City, IA 52244
Re: Letter of intent for Lake Ridge Modular Home Park
Dear RJ:
Bob Wolf on behalf of JEBB, LC desires to rezone 0.58 acre from R-Residential to RMH-
Manufactured Housing Residential. The purpose is to provide a storm shelter on the Westerly
side of the existing Lake Ridge Modular Home Park.
Existing private water and septic systems are available for the storm shelter. The existing street
system will provide access to this parcel.
The recent tornadoes that hit Iowa City in April is a definite reminder of the need for an
additional storm shelter.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
JdL-Y. ~
Glen D. Meisner, PE/LS
T:\1000\0120049Ll.DOC
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
EMMAJ. HARVAT HALL
AUGUST 3, 2006
Preliminary
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Brooks, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Beth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Dean
Shannon, Terry Smith
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Mitch Behr, Bob Miklo
OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Clark, Kevin Digmann, Dwight Dobberstein, John Hieronymus, Larry
Schnittjer
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
Recommend approval, by a vote of 7-0, of REZ06-00010/SUB06-00008, 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,
subject to staff approval of legal documents and construction papers prior to City Council consideration.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM:
Consideration of 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.
Motion: Eastham moved to set 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 for
the Commission's August 17, 2006 meeting. Smith seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote
of 7-0.
REZONING ITEMS:
REZ06-00015. Discussion of an application submitted by Hieronymus Square Associates for a rezoning
of 1.12 acres of property located at 314 and 328 South Clinton Street from Central Business Support (CB-
5) zone to Central Business (CB-10) zone.
Miklo said that based on the Commission's previous meeting, there appears to be a clear consensus to
recommend that CB-10 zoning be considered for some of the properties in the area between Burlington
and Court Streets. He said that one justification for this would be to provide an alternative for the high
rise housing market that is developing in the downtown area that would be away from the historic core of
downtown itself. Miklo said another reason for the rezoning would be to encourage a diversity of housing
and a mix of uses downtown, similar to other recent projects downtown.
Miklo said that in examining the CB-10 zone and expanding it south of Burlington Street, staff also looked
at the existing CB-10 zone, which does allow a floor area ratio of ten. He said the CB-10 zone has no
height limits, but the airport overlay zone would limit the height to roughly to 12 or 14 stories. Given that
intensity of development and that it really has not occurred to date downtown, Miklo said staff felt it should
be reexamined. He said that issues such as parking for new residential development downtown should
Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August3,2006
Page 2
also be examined. Miklo said that rather than hold up individual rezonings while staff and the
Commission look at those bigger policy questions, staff felt applications for rezonings should be reviewed
with a concept plan, and a Conditional Zoning Agreement could be spelled out, specifying under what
conditions the City would grant that zoning.
Miklo stated that, as noted, the Comprehensive Plan currently indicates that CB-5 zoning is appropriate
for the area south of Burlington Street, and so the Commission will consider an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan at the next meeting to allow consideration of CB-10 zoning.
Miklo said there are also some urban design issues staff feels are important as there is CB-10 expansion
downtown to the south of Burlington Street. He said there is some pretty specific language in the Near
Southside Design Plan about the areas south of Burlington Street mirroring the scale, proportion, fa<;ade
repetition, materials, rooflines, color, etc. of the downtown area. Miklo said that with the Comprehensive
Plan amendment, the Commission should look at those items to see if that is still applicable - if new
development should still be expected to mirror downtown. He added that it may not be appropriate in
terms of scale, especially in trying to achieve CB-10 scale buildings in that area.
Miklo said that another concern is parking. He said that when CB-10 was developed, there were no
parking requirements, and at the time, there was very little residential development occurring in the
downtown area. Miklo said it was the policy of the City to provide parking in public parking facilities, and
in this manner, the City could control its location and therefore traffic as well as encourage efficient land
use. He said that with recent, fairly high density residential development, there is a concern about the
demand for residential parking competing with the commercial parking, which the City has been
providing. Miklo said staff believes there is a need to examine parking in the downtown area, both north
and south of Burlington, and how zoning should respond to that.
Miklo said there was some discussion at the informal meeting about whether a parking impact fee should
continue south of Burlington Street, given that the parking system is currently generating a surplus. He
said he discussed this with Karin Franklin and Jeff Davidson, who pointed out that the current surplus
from parking funds is generated by the on-street parking meters and not the structures themselves. Miklo
said the structures themselves do not generate enough to pay for their upkeep, maintenance, and
staffing. He said staff therefore feels the parking impact fee should be continued and should be
considered for additional residential development in the area. Miklo said that a memo from Davidson
gives more detail into that issue.
Miklo said that to address the parking issue, staff is recommending that some parking be required for new
CB-10 development south of Burlington Street. He said that staff would basically be recommending that
whatever can be provided below grade on a site be provided, and what is not provided would be paid for
or paid into the parking impact fund to help the City build future public parking in the area.
Miklo said the Comprehensive Plan also calls for open space in the south of Burlington Street area, and
staff believes there is an opportunity to provide open space with this Hieronymus Square project. He said
the plan shows a courtyard and service area, and staff will be working with the applicant for either a
concept plan or some criteria that could be applied in a Conditional Zoning Agreement as to how the
space will be developed to ensure that it is usable open space for the tenants of the building.
Miklo said staff also discussed traffic and said that Davidson had informed the Commission of some of
the improvements planned for the area.
Miklo said staff recommends that this particular rezoning be continued until the next meeting, when the
Commission considers the Comprehensive Plan amendment and possibly acts on it at that time and
possibly also acts on this rezoning with conditions. He said the conditions discussed to date include a
requirement for a minimum of one floor of commercial space above the ground floor, ground floor
commercial which is already required in both the CB-10 and CB-5 zones; that there be a minimum
number of parking space established on site below grade; that parking impact fees are paid for those
spaces not provided on site, based on the CB-5 residential parking requirements; that there be a
maximum of 200 residential units on this site; that there be a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units,
Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August3,2006
Page 3
with no more than 30% of the residential units being three-bedroom units; and a landscaping plan or
criteria for the courtyard.
Miklo said the Commission has also discussed the possibility of a setback from Burlington Street, in
addition to what is required by the CB-10 zone. He said that currently there is approximately nine feet
between the curb and property line here, for sidewalk or other pedestrian amenities, and a buffer between
the sidewalk and the private property. Miklo said the concept proposal shows the first floor of the building
being set back ten feet, which would allow 19 feet for pedestrian use. He said the ten-foot setback for the
first floor is required by Code.
Miklo said that above 15 feet, the building would cantilever out ten feet so that above 15 feet, there would
only be nine feet of clear space. He said that the City Forester examined that issue, and he is concerned
that it would not be possible to plant trees in that nine feet. Miklo said the forester feels that 20 feet of air
space would be necessary to plant street trees in the area.
Miklo stated that staff also looked at the sidewalk situations downtown. He said that in most cases there
is 20 feet, although some areas have 12 to 15 feet, but that tends to be in front of one and two-story
buildings. Miklo said there are some places where there is 30 and even 40 feet of space between the
curb and the buildings downtown. Given that, he said staff would like to work with the applicant to see if it
is possible to have the setback be ten feet, not only at ground level, but on the upper stories as well.
Miklo said if that is the case, it may not be necessary to have the additional ten feet on the ground level,
and staff would like to explore that as well.
Miklo said that the Commission discussed a design review requirement, either at Commission or staff
level, to ensure that whatever is proposed, in terms of the concept of the building, be executed. He said
staff with therefore work on some language to likely recommend that staffs Design Review Committee
approve the final design of the building when the site plan is done. Miklo said that there may be a desire
to add some criteria, such as a requirement for a variety of building materials, at least on the lower level,
to follow the spirit of the Near Southside Design Plan and the idea of encouraging the downtown
storefront atmosphere into this extension area.
Miklo said that staff will continue to work with the applicant to iron out the conditions and recommends
deferral at this point.
Dwiqht Dobberstein stated that he is with Neumann Munson Architects. He formally asked for an
extension of this application to the August.1 th meeting.
Dobberstein said he has listened with interest to the Commission's comments, and the applicant has
agreed with some and disagreed with some. Dobberstein said the applicant is willing to work further with
staff to resolve some of these issues. He said that the work done with staff so far has only made the
project better. Dobberstein said everyone agrees this could be better yet, and therefore discussions will
continue to see if these issues can be resolved.
Eastham said he is still interested in the parking impact fee. He asked if the developer has anything to
suggest or recommend in terms of applying the fee as recommended by staff and for the developer's
thoughts on how to handle the demand for parking that this project and other projects that may use CB-10
zoning will produce.
Kevin Diamann said that what he has heard so far is sort of a compromise between the current situation
and what the applicant is proposing. He said that CB-10 does not require any parking, but the applicant
plans to put parking under the building, although it is unlikely that the 200 needed spaces could all go
under the building. Digmann said the applicant agrees it is reasonable that there needs to be some way
to provide parking or pay for parking so that there is not a negative impact on the area. He said the
applicant is working with staff to find a reasonable solution and feels the Commission should continue to
look at that and apply that same standard to future development in the area.
Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August 3, 2006
Page 4
Smith asked if the parking impact fee, as proposed, would be approximately $6,200.00 per space. Miklo
confirmed this. Smith said that with potentially 100 spaces, the developer would be making a significant
contribution that would ultimately be passed on to the tenants.
Smith said that in Davidson's memorandum, it appears that, at least for the ramp nearest this location,
70% of the spaces are allocated to permit parking that is already sold out. Smith asked if this scenario
would require the developer to pay the parking impact fee, but yet there would be no availability for the
developer to secure spaces.
Miklo stated that the point of the parking impact fee is for another parking structure in the area. He said
the fees are collected and applied to future parking structures. Freerks said that Davidson had also
referred to spaces opening up through attrition. Miklo said that there have already been discussions with
the parking manager, who feels that by the time this ,building is constructed, the 100 permits requested
will become available as other permits expire.
Brooks said the parking issue does concern him somewhat - the fact that the 70% of the new ramp
dedicated to permit parking is already sold out. He pointed out that the University is taking over space in
the Old Capitol Mall, so that the demand for permit parking in this area will only escalate over the next five
years. Brooks said this development would potentially need 100 spaces for residential parking, not taking
into account any other potential developments in this area. He said there suddenly seems to be a real
deficiency and asked if there is a plan to address this in a timely manner.
Miklo said the permit spaces outlined in Davidson's report, the 70%, include those that have already been
set aside for office tenants of Old Capitol Mall. He said the City has, for a long time, been looking at the
possibility of an additional ramp near the courthouse/federal building and has actually acquired some
property toward that end.
John Hieronvmus said that the fee is pretty substantial. He said that from preliminary discussions with the
parking staff, they have set aside 100 spaces, knowing that this will be here. Hieronymus said that clearly
he would like to know, if he is going to pay that kind of money, that those spaces will be reserved long-
term for the building.
Freeks asked if there are then contracts provided to ensure that the people who put the parking impact
fee into place can be accommodated, even if it's not immediately but eventually. Behr said he thought
that could even be put into the Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) - that certain spaces in a ramp be
set aside. Miklo said he was not sure that this should be in a CZA. He said the City has several
agreements, for example the Vogel House and the Sheraton Hotel, in which it has made arrangements
for permit parking for certain uses. He said that it has been managed quite well, even though there is
fairly high utilization of the parking ramps and facilities. Miklo said he would defer to the parking
manager's expertise for those details.
Eastham said it seems that Hieronymus is contemplating having 100 spaces reserved in the Court Street
ramp in exchange for paying the parking impact fee. Hieronymus said he discussed reserving them,
. knowing that they could not all be provided on site. He said he has worked with City staff for a long time
on this and expects to need about 100 spaces. Hieronymus said he was hoping to at least get a verbal
commitment that this is going to happen, and that was done. He said he has yet to really negotiate but
expects to work directly with the City in putting it into the developer's agreement or the Conditional Zoning
Agreement. Hieronymus said he just wanted to go on record as saying that as part of that fee, the
applicant should get something in return.
Eastham asked Hieronymus if he then would not charge the tenants a parking fee. Hieronymus said that
the City would own the ramp so that the tenants would still have to pay the parking fees to the City.
Eastham said that one of the problems he has with a parking impact fee is trying to keep it confined to its
original purpose. He said that to him, asking a developer to pay the fee in exchange for reserving space,
is expanding its original purpose.
Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August 3, 2006
Page 5
Miklo said that the intent of the fee isn't toward existing parking; it's towards future parking. Eastham said
that he understood that point. Miklo said that the Commission and staff would want to have a discussion
with the parking system manager before committing spaces to one project or another through a
Conditional Zoning Agreement. The parking manager might be hesitant to do that.
Digmann said that the applicant has been working with the City and the Design Review Committee
informally for quite some time, to make sure the project addresses all the concerns of the Commission
and City staff. He said the applicant will continue to work so that this building is an asset to Iowa City and
fits in the nature of Iowa City.
Digmann added that the interior courtyard would not be a private courtyard. He said that it would be a
public amenity; the applicant plans to provide a large section of the lot, both with an additional setback on
Clinton Street and an interior courtyard, for public use. Digmann said the applicant obviously wants to
draw people into the courtyard and into the retail spaces and businesses so that this is a successful
project.
Smith said the applicant has heard the Commission's discussions that the consideration to rezone this
property would be predicated on the concept plan being proposed. He said that while there seems to be
a consensus that supports that direction, there is also a question of, if things fall apart and after the
rezoning is done, how can a Conditional Zoning Agreement be drafted to assure that future development
is in the spirit of what the Commission has proposed.
Hieronymus said the applicant has agreed to go through design review no matter what happens. He said
that if the standards are not met, the project will not go through, and he has made that commitment.
Public discussion:
There was none.
Public discussion closed.
Motion: Freerks moved to defer consideration of REZ06-00015, an application submitted by Hieronymus
Square Associates for a rezoning of 1.12 acres of property located at 314 and 328 South Clinton Street
from Central Business Support (CB-5) zone to Central Business (CB-10) zone, based on the applicant's
agreement to defer this item, until the Commission's August 17, 2006 meeting. Shannon seconded the
motion.
Freerks said that she is excited about the direction this is going and thinks it will come together nicely.
Plahutnik said he thinks the Commission members want to see this through to the end and appreciate the
applicant being willing to work on this. He said it is a rezoning, so the Commission wants to ensure that
what winds up there in the end works for the City.
Smith asked if there is a consensus as to what the components of the Conditional Zoning Agreement
would be, based on the list that staff has provided. He said that he is still kind of mixed on the parking
issue, in that CB-10 doesn't have a fee associated with it, and this proposal is to rezone to CB-10. Smith
said that a building in the CB-10 zone across the street would not have to pay those fees. He said it
sometimes sounds like the Commission is committing the applicant to a significant expenditure, with no
guarantee that there would be availability of those spots.
Smith asked Miklo if the Commission could have someone educate it more about those costs and the
history of the parking fee and the rationale and justification for it. Smith said the Commission needs to
ensure that it will be consistent in viewing this or any proposals, because while the fees are applicable to
a CB-5 zone, he did not know if the RM-44 zone would fall within the current fee requirements. Miklo
stated that any development south of Burlington Street falls within those requirements.
Eastham said that the parking impact fee is the only issue that he is still struggling with. He said that the
proceeds of the fee have to be expended within five years after it is collected on a parking facility that is
Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August 3, 2006
Page 6
located in the Near Southside District. Eastham said he would like to have some discussion about what
the likelihood of using the fees from this project within that time frame would be.
Brooks said that he is interested in the parking for residential purposes in CB-10 and whether, whatever
the Commission might do in this case, the Commission might want to look at the issue for all of CB-10.
He said he was concerned about the increased amount of residential development. Brooks said it is
beneficial, but it can strain the City's ability to provide necessary parking unless it takes a proactive long-
range look at that.
The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
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 High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-
44) zone to Central Business (CB-10) zone.
Miklo said that this property is located between Burlington and Court Streets, where Capitol Street used
to run through before it was vacated for these projects during urban renewal. He said the applicant has
requested that this be rezoned from RM-44 to CB-lO. Miklo said that staff believes there is some merit to
considering CB-10 south of Burlington Street; however, there are issues regarding parking and design
that need to be explored further. He said that staff is therefore recommending that any rezonings in this
area, until those issues are ironed out and addressed in the Code, be contemplated only with a
Conditional Zoning Agreement tied to a concept plan.
Regarding this particular rezoning, Miklo said staff has some concerns about whether CB-10 zoning is
appropriate in this location, given that it is somewhat removed from the core of downtown and from
pedestrian access in terms of the north/south streets. He pointed out that the adjacent properties are
generally University or public properties. He said that without a concept plan, it's hard to envision what
staff would recommend here, although staff feels the Planned Residential Multi-Family (PRM) zone may
be more appropriate here.
Miklo said that at this point, staff is reluctant to recommend CB-10 here and is encouraging the applicant
to put together a concept plan for the proposal. He said that staff is asking that this be deferred until that
time. Miklo said that it will not be necessary for the applicant to request deferral until August 21St, when
the 45-day limitation period runs out.
Jim Clark said that he is okay with deferring this until August 1 ih, because he has not yet submitted a
concept plan. He said he will have a plan by that date.
Public discussion:
There was none.
Public discussion closed.
Motion: Smith moved to defer consideration of REZ06-00017, an application submitted by Pentacrest
Garden Apartments for a rezoning of 3.41 acres of property located at 12 East Court Street from High
Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) zone to Central Business (CB-10) zone, to the Commission's
August 1 ih meeting. Eastham seconded the motion.
Koppes asked Miklo if he could provide the Commission with a little of the history of the urban renewal
project involved in this property at the next meeting.
The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
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 Central Business Support (CB-5) zone to Central
Business (CB-10) zone.
Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August3,2006
Page 7
Miklo stated that this property is located on the north side of Court Street, north of the County
Courthouse. He said that staff feels there is some merit to considering CB-10 zoning here. Miklo said
that staff received a letter from Patrick White regarding concerns about the Court House and how this
might affect that. He said that is more of a reason for a concept plan to show how this development
would be built, and staff recommends deferral.
Public discussion:
There was none.
Public discussion closed.
Motion: Smith moved to defer consideration of REZ06-00018, an application submitted by University
View Partners for a rezoning of .08 acres of property located at 22 East Court Street from Central
Business Support (CB-5) zone to Central Business (CB-10) zone, to the Commission's August 1ih
meeting. Eastham seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
REZ06-00019 and REZ06-00020. 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 and 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.
Miklo said staff recommends deferral of these two items, as staff is waiting for concept plans.
Public discussion:
There was none.
Public discussion closed.
Motion: Smith moved to defer consideration of REZ06-00019 and REZ06-00020, 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 and 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 to the
Commission's August 1ih meeting. Plahutnik seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
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.
Miklo stated that the staff report for this was presented at the last meeting. He said that staff has now
received a revised plan that clearly delineates the construction limits for Lot 2, the lot that will be further
developed. He pointed out an area that would allow for construction of a private driveway into the site and
an area that could accommodate a residential structure.
Miklo said that the house that would be on Lot 1 is protected by the landmark ordinance. He said that the
property to the south, which contains a Native American burial ground, is now public open space.
Miklo said that with the revised plan, staff recommends approval, subject to staff approval of legal papers
and construction drawings prior to City Council consideration.
Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August3,2006
Page 8
Freerks asked if this now meets the Sensitive Areas Ordinance requirements. Miklo said it does with the
corrections.
Koppes asked if there is to be any Lot 1 construction. Miklo said that nothing is shown on the plan for
that site. Miklo pointed out that the Sensitive Areas Ordinance does have some allowance for additions to
a single-family residence under certain parameters. He said that there may be some activity, such as
building a garage or small addition to the house, that would be allowed by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance
without review by the Planning and Zoning Commission, although any building permit for this lot would
require review by the Historic Preservation Commission.
Larrv Schnittier said that he represented the applicant and would answer any questions the Commission
might have. He stated that he has not been made aware of any plans for activity on Lot 1.
Public discussion:
There was none.
Public discussion closed.
Motion: Freerks moved to approve REZ06-00010/SUB06-00008, 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, subject to
staff approval of legal documents and construction papers prior to City Council consideration. Koppes
seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
CONSIDERATON OF THE JULY 20,2006 MEETING MINUTES:
Motion: Smith moved to approve the minutes of the July 20, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting, as written. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
OTHER ITEMS:
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m.
Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
s/pcd/minutes/p&z108-03-06. doc
C
o
'iij
III
'E
E
o
o'E
c)o
C CJ
,- Q)
CD:
o
NQ)co
~gg
C)IVN
C"
.- C
C Q)
C-
.!!ee
CL.
~
(j
IV
~
.2
M >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
CO
C) W
N >< >< >< >< 0 >< ><
-
I'-
co >< >< >< w w >< w
- 0 - -
I'- 0 0
II) w w W
"I"" _. >< 0 >< >< >< -
- 0 0
co
"I"" >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
co
CO
"I"" >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
II)
C) I W
N >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
;; I
I
~ I W
>< I >< >< >< ><
I 0
I
N I
>< I >< >< >< >< ><
- I
M I
co I W
"I"" >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
N I
N I W
>< I >< >< >< ><
- I 0
N I
en I W
"I"" >< I >< >< 0 >< ><
- I
"I"" I
!:e >< I >< W >< >< ><
"I"" I 0
VI 0 CO t-- 0 CO to
E,~ ..-
..- ..- 0 0 ..- 0 0
Q)00 - - - - - - -
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
I-X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w
E ~ C
~ III III 'c 0
IV ~ I - C
.c .. ::s .c
0 1ii Q) .c C -
e IV 'E
Q) IV e 0 IV .c
E In W LL llI:: a: tn tn
ro ai cJ <. u.i ~ ci ...=
z
C>
z
i=
w
w
~
....J
<(
~
0:::
o
u.
"I"" W
~ >< >< >< >< 0 >< ><
I'-
I'- W
"I"" >< >< >< >< 0 >< ><
t:::
II) W
"I"" >< >< >< >< >< >< 0
-
II)
I'- I W
"I"" >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
;; I
I
I'- I
~ >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
I
I
M I W
"I"" >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
- I
N I
VI 0 t-- 0 to
E ~ ..- CO CO
..- ..- 0 0 ..- e 0
'p. - i:O - - - -
Q) X 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
I-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E ~ C
III ~ III 'c 0
~ IV I - C
.c .. ::s .c
0 - Q) .c C -
Q) e III e IV IV 'E
IV 0 .c
E In W LL llI:: a: tn tn
ro ai cJ <. u.i ~ ci ...=
z
C>
z
i=
w
w
~
....J
<(
~
0:::
o
u.
Z
"0
Q)
VI
::s
o
X
w
--:;:.
c: c: c:
Q) Q) Q)
VI VI VI
~.c.c
0..<(<(
., II II II
>- W
~><OO