HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-21-2006 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, September 18, 2006 -7:30 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Lobby Conference Room
410 E. Washington Street
Thursday, September 21,2006 - 7:30 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
C. Rezoning Items:
1. REl06-00023: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Services
LLC for a rezoning from Commercial Office (C01) and Interim Development-Office Research
Park (ID-ORP) zone to Research Development Park (RDP) zone for 37.92 acres of property
located on Northgate Drive.
(45-day limitation period: October 15, 2006)
2. REl06-00024: Discussion of an application submitted by Williamson LLC for a rezoning from
Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for approximately
9.93 acres of property located both north and south of Stevens Drive between S. Gilbert
Street and Waterfront Drive.
(45-day limitation period: October 15, 2006)
D. Rezoning/Development Item
REl05-00019/SUB05-00029: Discussion of an application from S & J Development LLP for
a rezoning from Rural Residential (RR-1), Interim Development Single-Family Residential
(ID-RS) zone and Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Planned
Development Overlay / Low Density Single-Family Residential (OPD5) zone and a
preliminary plat of Country Club Estates, Parts 3-8, a 154-lot, 82.30 acre residential
subdivision located north of Rohret Road and west of Phoenix Drive.
(45-day limitation period: October 9, 2006)
E. Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code
1. Addition of a provision allowing a waiver of the landscape screening standards where the
view from adjacent properties or the street is blocked by natural or human-made features
such that the screening standard is effectively met.
2. Correction of an obsolete procedure for applying bonus provisions in the CB-5 and CB-10
lones.
3. Deletion of redundant language in the description of the retail use category.
4. Clarification of the rules for separating aisles and drives within parking lots to allow more
flexibility to locate parking spaces along drives in situations where traffic safety will not be
compromised.
5. Correction of a typographical error regarding the maximum FAR in the CB-5 Zone, as stated
in a footnote to Table 2C-2(a), Dimensional Requirements for all Commercial Zones, except
the MU Zone.
6. Deletion of the list of examples of uses allowed within the Public Zone.
7. Amend regulations so that basic sign regulations will apply to publicly zone property.
8. Addition of a cross reference within the historic preservation regulations to clarify that
requests for new access drives for historic properties must be reviewed by the Historic
Preservation Commission.
9. Amend requirements for daycare uses to clarify standards for drop off / pick up areas and to
increase and clarify the parking requirements to ensure adequate on-site parking for these
uses.
10. Deletion of specific setback requirements for educational facilities in higher density zones
and addition of an option to seek a special exception to modify the special setback
requirements for educational facilities within single family residential zones.
11. Deletion of special setback requirements for religious/private group assembly uses in higher
density zones and addition of an option to seek a special exception to modify the special
setback requirements for religious/private group assembly uses within single family
residential zones.
12. Clarification that a building permit is required for retaining walls over 4 feet in height.
13. Clarification to correct ambiguous language regarding the side and rear setback
requirements for accessory buildings.
14. Clarification to correct ambiguous language regarding properties that are nonconforming with
regard to parking requirements, landscaping and screening requirements, and outdoor
lighting standards.
15. Correction of typos in the names of zones within Table 5B-1, Sign Specifications and
Provisions in Residential Zones and the ID and OPD Zones.
16. Clarification that the Iowa City Arterial Street Map is based on the JCCOG Arterial Street
Map.
17. Clarification that an exemption listed in the code applies to all tree requirements of Article 5E,
not just the street tree requirements.
18. Amend the light trespass standard so that it will not conflict with the Building Code standard
for required lighting at building exits.
19. Addition of an exemption from the total outdoor light output standards for properties where
the building coverage exceeds 80%.
20. Clarification regarding how standards for architectural style will be administered for new two-
family, multi-family and group living uses in the Central Planning District.
21. Clarification of the description of wholesale sales uses to distinguish these uses from retail
uses.
22. Amend the damage and destruction clauses for nonconforming uses and structures so that
calculations are based on assessed value of the property instead of replacement value.
23. Clarification of procedures for obtaining a fence permit.
24. Clarification of the definition of "cottage industry."
25. Amendment to the definition of floor area to make it clear that the area of garage is only
excluded from the calculation of floor area if it is a garage that is attached to the principal
building.
26. Clarification of the definition of "grade," deleting unnecessary language that may be
confusing.
27. Clarification of sensitive lands definitions to be consistent with recently adopted changes to
the sensitive areas regulations.
28. Correction within Table 2C-2(b), Dimensional Requirement for the Mixed Use Zone, to make
it clear that the front setback coverage standard does not apply to nonresidential uses.
29. Correction of maximum residential densities allowed in planned developments to match
maximum residential density in the base zones.
30. Amendments to building articulation standards within the code to clarify how the standards
apply to the "horizontal plane" versus "vertical plane" of a building.
31. To correct an inadvertent change to fee schedules with the new zoning code, amend general
cross reference to fees for penalties to reflect the more specific fee schedule for zoning
violations.
32. Clarify use classification of taxi and limo dispatch services to make it clear how dispatch
offices and the smaller number of associated vehicles for immediate hire are classified under
the zoning code as distinguished from larger storage lots for taxi, bus, and limousine fleets
that are classified as "warehouse and freight movement uses."
33. Clarify the definitions of front yard, rear yard, and side yard to address corner or double
fronting lots; add a definition of interior yard/courtyard to address lots with multiple buildings.
F. Zoning Items to be Deferred:
1. REl06-00017: 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.
(Applicant has requested indefinite deferral.)
2. REl06-00018: 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.
(Applicant has requested indefinite deferral.)
3. REl06-00019: 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.
(Applicant has requested indefinite deferral.)
4. REl06-00020: 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.
(Applicant has requested indefinite deferral.)
5. REl06-00021: Discussion of an application submitted by James Davis for a rezoning of
17.75 acres of property located at Eagle View and Grace Drive from Intensive Commercial
(CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone.
(Applicant has requested deferral until October 5, 2006.)
G. Other Items:
1. Discussion of amendments to the Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area Agreement.
2. Discussion of an amendment to the Saddlebrook subdivider's agreement to allow a
temporary increase in the number of permitted dwelling units allowed prior to the provision of
secondary street access.
H. Consideration of the September 7,2006 Meeting Minutes
I. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
Commission Meetin s:
October 30 November 13
November 2 November 16
December 4
December 7
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Drew E. Westberg, Planning Intern
Item: REZ06-00023
Date: September 21,2006
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Southgate Development Services, LLC
P,O. Box 1907
Iowa City, IA 52244-1907
Contact Person:
Glen Siders
Phone:
(319) 337-4195
Requested Action:
Rezoning from C01 and ID-ORP to RDP
Purpose:
To allow research development uses
Location:
Northgate Drive
Size:
37.92 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Commercial Office (CO-1) and Interim Development
Office Research Park (I D-ORP)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North:
South:
East:
West:
County Agriculture (A)
CO-1
ID-ORP
I D-ORP
Comprehensive Plan:
The area is designed for office research park
File Date:
August 30, 2006
45 Day Limitation Period:
October 14, 2006
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Southgate Development Services LLC, is requesting a rezoning from Commercial
Office (CO-1) and I nterim Development - Office Research Park (I D-ORP) to Research
Development Park (RDP) for property generally located northeast of the 1-80/Hwy 1 interchange
on Northgate Drive. The requested rezoning would allow a research development firm to locate
on land currently zoned CQ-1 and allow for the expansion of that firm, if necessary, onto land to
the north zoned ID-ORP. The CQ-1 parcel is a relatively small portion of the property in question,
3.68 acres, whereas the ID-ORP zoned land makes up the remaining 34.24 acres. In 2004, a
small part of the subject property was rezoned from Research Development Park (RDP) to CQ-1
at the request of the current applicant. Office uses permitted in CO-1 zone were seen as being
compatible with the future research park uses and existing highway commercial uses located in
this area.
2
ANAL YSIS:
Current Zoning: The property in question is zoned Commercial Office (CO-1) and Interim
Development - Office Research Park (ID-ORP). The CO-1 zone allows a mix of office and limited
retail uses. It is intended to provide specific areas for office functions, compatible businesses, and
has the potential for apartments on the second floor. Generally, there is no minimum lot size and
heights are restricted to 25 feet, however, a conditional zoning agreement entered into during the
2004 rezoning of the subject property, required that lots be a minimum of one acre as a means of
encouraging future office development to be compatible with the original office research park
concept for Northgate Drive.
Interim Development zones are intended to provide for areas of managed growth in which
agricultural and other non-urban uses of land may continue until such time as the City is able to
provide services and urban development can occur. The ID-ORP zone is an interim zone which
signifies Office Research Park as its intended future use. This area was zoned ID due to the lack
of sanitary sewer capacity. Upgrades in the lift station that serves this area now provide sufficient
capacity to serve this property, and therefore it is appropriate to zone the land for development.
Proposed Zoning: The applicant is requesting a rezoning to Research Development Park (RDP).
The RDP zone is intended to provide land to office, research, production, and/or assembly firms
seeking to expand or locate in the city. Lots located within this zone must be a minimum of one
acre with structures covering no more than 50% of the lot and no more than 45 feet in height.
RDP uses can be more intensive than the general office uses located in the CO-1 zone. Research
and development firms may employ high-technology research laboratories and can become
involved in light manufacturing production. The Press Citizen property is an example of RDP
development where there is both an office use (editorial offices) and production (printing plant).
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is located within the North
Corridor Planning District. The Comprehensive Plan states, "The property around the 1-80
interchange with Highway 1 is developed for office research park and highway commercial
uses. (p. 145)" Additionally the Plan states, "The 1-80 interchange with Highway 1 provides one
of the few opportunities for office research park development in Iowa City.. .Iand around this
interchange should continue to be preserved for office research park and research
development park opportunities. (p. 146)" The proposed RDP zoning is clearly in compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Traffic Issues: The area in question currently has access via Northgate Drive to Dodge Street
(Highway 1) where there is a signalized intersection. Development of the property will increase
traffic at this intersection during peak times such as the lunch hour and end of the weekday. Plans
for the area north of Northgate Corporate Park, include the extension of Northgate Drive to the
north, where it will intersect with an east/west arterial street, Oakdale Boulevard, providing a
second access to Highway 1. Once Oakdale Boulevard is connected to Highway 1, traffic will be
more dispersed.
In Staff's opinion, the proposed rezoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
compatible with CO-1 uses adjacent to the subject property. The RDP zone allows more
intensive uses than the CO-1 zone while still retaining the office park appearance. In the long-
term the construction of Oakdale Boulevard and the extension of Northgate Drive will complete
the street network in this area.
3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends REl06-00023, an application by Southgate Development Services LLC for a
rezoning from Commercial Office (CO-1) and Interim Development - Office Research Park (10-
ORP) zone to Research Development Park (RDP) for 37.92 acres of property located on
Northgate Drive, be approved.
ATTACHMENT:
Location Map
Approved by: ~~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
ppdadminlstfreplREZ06-00023 Southgate Development Research Park
~
Ul
\-
2
::J
w
\-
<{
~
t3
~
~
~
~
t3
~~
1t__
-..
~~
Q.
D:
o
I
C
Q.
D:
o
I
Q.
D:
o
Q.
D:
o
C
C')
C\J
o
o
o
I
CO
o
N
W
a:
Q)
.>
lo-
o
Q)
+-'
CO
0)
..c
+-'
l0-
a
z
. .
Z
o
~
~
<
U
o
~
~
~
~
rJ)
51 AFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ06-00024-Stevens Drive
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: September 21, 2006
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Williamson LLC
809 Highway One West
Iowa City, IA 52246
319-354-2550
Contact Person:
Douglas Ruppert
122 S. Linn Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Phone:
319-338-9220 ext. 124
Requested Action:
Rezoning from CI-1 to CC-2
Purpose:
To allow retail uses.
Location:
Commercial property along both sides of Stevens
Drive-east of Gilbert Street-and property along
Waterfront Drive north of Stevens Drive.
Size:
Approximately 9.3 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Commercial Intensive (CI-1), current uses include
office, retail, outdoor storage and display, and light
manufacturing.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Commercial (CC-2)
South: Undeveloped (CI-1)
East: Commercial (CC-2)
West: Commercial (CC-2)
Comprehensive Plan:
Commercial
File Date:
Aug ust 31, 2006
45 Day Limitation Period:
October 16, 2006
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 9.3 acres of land currently zoned for Intensive
Commercial (CI-1) to Community Commercial (CC-2). The applicant owns property on the south
side of Stevens Drive and wishes to have it rezoned to CC-2. To avoid leaving an island of CI-1
north of Stevens Drive, Staff recommended that the applicant seek the consent of the surrounding
properties along Stevens and Waterfront Drive to rezone their properties. The applicant has
2
indicated that he has received verbal consent from three of the five property owners within the
area proposed for rezoning. Staff has requested written consent form all five property owners.
Staff anticipates that written consent from all owners will be on record with the City by on or before
the October 5 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
ANAL YSIS:
The purpose of CI-1 zone is to provide areas for businesses whose operations are typically
characterized by outdoor storage and display of merchandize, by repair and sales of large
equipment or motor vehicles, or by activities or operations conducted in buildings that are not
entirely enclosed. In general, the CI-1 zone allows quasi-industrial uses that are not compatible
with residential and retail areas. The proposed CC-2 zone is characterized by businesses that
cater more broadly to the general public, including retail, office, and restaurant uses.
Currently the CI-1 zone extends from just south of Waterfront Drive to the Crandic Railroad Line
and South to Southgate Avenue. Properties along both sides of South Gilbert Street (south of
Waterfront Drive and North of Southgate Avenue) were recently re-zoned from CI-1 to CC-2.
Properties to the north and east, directly adjacent to Highway 6, are already zoned CC-2 and
include grocery (HyVee and Aldi), retail (Office Depot, Zephyr, Advance Auto Parts, etc.), and
restaurants (Los Portales and Carlos O'Kelly's). This CC-2 zone was recently extended to the
properties along the west side of Boyrum Street for the expansion of the HyVee grocery 'store.
All of the properties along Stevens Drive that are in active use contain uses that are allowed in
the CC-2 zone, including a number of office and retail uses and at least one "cottage industry"
manufacturing use (Bochner Chocolates), the latter being a provisional use allowed in the CC-2
zone. The area proposed for rezoning is now surrounded to the north, west, and east by CC-2
zone. In addition, the owner of property to the south along Southgate Avenue and the Crandic
Railroad has expressed interest in rezoning to CC-2, though no application has been filed.
The South District Plan identifies this area as part of the South Gilbert Street Commercial
Corridor and proposes various street enhancements and general commercial redevelopment in
this area. The South District Plan recognizes the CI-1 uses as "inconsistent" with the goal of
providing and attractive entrance into Iowa City, and encourages "general commercial"
development with careful attention to landscaping, site design, and other aesthetic
improvements. With residential development occurring further south, the area under
consideration has become more attractive for general commercial development and become a
more traveled entryway to the city.
Traffic implications
Overtime as properties in this area develop with retail uses, it can be expected that traffic
volumes will increase. The current configuration of Gilbert Street and Highway 6 will need to be
improved to accommodate more traffic. This intersection is the highest volume most poorly
functioning arterial street intersection in Iowa City at this time. The reconstruction of this
intersection is currently in the Capital Improvements Program for 2008. If this rezoning is
approved staff would recommend that these planned improvements not be delayed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ06-00024, a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Community
Commercial (CC-2) for approximately 9.3 acres of property along both sides of Stevens Drive-
east of Gilbert Street-and property along Waterfront Drive north of Stevens Drive, be approved.
ppdadminlstfreplrez06-00024 stevens drive
3
ATTACHMENTS:
Location map
Approved by: ~.
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
ppdadmin\stfrep\rez06-00024 stevens drive
~G
8lZ ^ \lMHClIH OlO
N
C\I
,...
en
a:
--
c
a..
o
':J
u
a:
U
o
o
o
30
z
o
~
,...
-
(J
(]
lr) 0 (f)
~ i-- 0 06> ~-r::
.} 0::: Vi I..... I..... C)
~~"".2~Q
() 0::: a.. lr)
_ h:
--...J
0:'lQ(j
:::J
Q
~
C\I
o
o
o
I
<0
o
N
W
a:
Q)
>
.~
o
en
c
Q)
>
Q)
+-'
(f)
Z
o
~
~
<
U
o
~
~
~
~
rJJ
I ~ i
-~= -~...
!~ai~~
~~.....,~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
September 21, 2006
The Planning and Zoning Commission
Sunil Terdalkar, Associate Planner
REZ05-00019/SUB05-00029 Country Club Estates - Parts 3-8
Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO): Buffer Averaging
The Commission has requested information about other properties with stream corridors, where
buffer averaging has been approved. Staff has identified one recent development project where
buffer averaging was approved for a wetland associated a stream corridor.
Cardinal Ridge - in this instance the wetlands are associated with a drainage way (a
tributary stream corridor of Clear Creek). The applicant requested approval for increased
buffer along all the portions of the wetland associated with the drainage way except for the
small 'fingerlike' portions where the buffer was reduced by up to 50%.
The buffer averaging request was determined to meet the criteria stated in the SAO and the
intent of the ordinance to protect the environmentally sensitive areas and to provide an
ecologically sound buffer between the development activity and the sensitive areas.
Sanitary Sewer - Lift Station Capacity:
The Commission asked whether small lift stations are preferred over a single lift station with the
capacity to serve a large area. The City engineer has expressed that the proposed lift station is
adequate for the development in the vicinity. Any future development to the west of this property
would require additional capacity, and a lift station would need to be built further west to replace
or expand the capacity of the proposed lift station.
Maintenance of Open Spaces:
The commission asked for additional information regarding the alternatives for the long-term
maintenance of the wetlands and the associated buffer areas. Our consultant Liz Mass, a
wetland specialist, will be attending the Commission's Informal Meeting and will discuss
recommendations for long term maintenance.
Safety Concerns about the earthen dam:
The City Engineer's office has asked the applicant's engineer to provide additional information
about the width of the overflowing water in the event of breach in the earthen dam on the
adjoining property on the east and the safety measures considered/proposed.
Traffic implications, Access and Street design:
Please refer to the memo attached.
~JCCOG
...~ m e m 0
(....
Date: September 15, 2006
To: Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Jeff Davidson, Transportation Planner ~
Re: Preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan for Country Club Estates, Third,
Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eight Additions
There have been concerns expressed from residents of Country Club Estates regarding the
proposed extension of Lake Shore Drive and Dunley Court to Slothower Road. This is the street
system that, along with Phoenix Drive, is intended to provide collector street connections
between the Hunter's Run, Wild Prairie Estates and Country Club Estates Subdivisions, and the
arterial streets of Melrose Avenue to the north and Rohret Road to the south. I believe this
collector street system has been designed to minimize cut through traffic from outside of the
subdivision and allow neighborhood residents to circulate north and south to the arterial street
system without having to use Morman Trek Boulevard as is currently the case.
We are also attempting to have Shannon Drive connect with Dublin Drive in the subdivisions
directly east of U.S. Highway 218 to provide a similar connection between Melrose Avenue and
Rohret Road. Because of the location of the County Home property it will be necessary for
residents west of U.S. Highway 218 to use the collector street system through Country Club
Estates. The County Home property is currently undeveloped and the long-range plan is for the
majority of that property to be used for a regional park which will not have streets extended
through it.
We believe the street system for the subdivisions west of U.S. Highway 218 is appropriate and
will not result in any streets exceeding the design traffic volume that is intended for local
residential streets and collector streets. These traffic volumes are not to exceed 500 vehicles
per day on a local residential street and 2500 vehicles per day on a collector street.
The indirect collector street network, lower speed limit on residential streets, and allowing on-
street parking on residential streets, are all design techniques that make residential streets
unattractive for cut-through traffic. If the street connections between Country Club Estates
Subdivision and Slothower Road result in truck traffic cutting through the neighborhood, this can
be addressed through a truck embargo on specific streets. This provision is currently used on
four streets in Iowa City and the police are trained in enforcing the truck embargo ordinance.
You should also be aware of the proposed extension of Highway 965 south of Highway 6 to
Melrose Avenue, and eventually further south to Iowa Highway 1 (see attachment). There is an
agreement in place between the cities of Coralville and Iowa City and Johnson County for the
location of this extension. Ultimately this will be the main arterial street corridor through this
area and will divert through traffic away from the neighborhoods.
Let me know if you have any comments or questions.
cc: Karin Franklin
Bob Miklo
jccogadmlmemosljd-miklo.doc
RUST ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE 501 SYCAMORE STREET WATERLOO, IOWA 50703 1-31g-232-6531
~.!(;;.L!jtri'%--~' ~..P~\~J\' l1~(~~~"~n~. 'n' '" v !. ,O~ ~J iJl~"
~;:, t'l":<'/I!((ri.rFt ,5l)I~/~ ---='=~'t~"\/~~~,,<~-,'J{1'(~ I to . rr.=; ,
.:,.< ,~ '\1 ;0; \ ~ ,I' ]!",-) l\, I t
~);(n \, ".. ':~ >. jlrj
~.t:~ \ '.' ~ '.\\ / ,.J))
.-~..~, \ ~",,~ '-;::;;} . ~ :", ", '..
r.~~:~ ,~~ :fJ. . ~ "" 0 I / k ~\c: i ,...: .=;"\ ~ \s
'. I'~ '~'!Il . ' .-'\\I~\,)\ 'fY) . , .: il :i
· ) ~.;.. ~ ~ "" = m · ~,~ ~\
, -'-'" ((. I/==V ~)~ /
i~';' { I \'<::~~ ..~:~.~ ~;. 7 int"T~ ~ 1.#_(fHJ~: ~
',.(ll2!! ~1 I:~ t\ \~ '_
- ,~ ()~\~:., : :r~~.~~'", .' 'F *1c';:' 0 14 ~~ \ ~,~.~
.. ,~.I! ,;;..., '.1> . ~-*-- -,-~r ~i ~ 8 ~ .J~~
''1 i' ~ ~ 'l/~C:' ~ 111/7 ~ .; &,1. ~)..KJ \'r~+
JV ~ ~~~, ,~'" i,s'p~n~:' 'It ~!i!i~ iloH ~ . II 0 ~~~ ~ .L I
~ '~~'~ y , . ~ ~" ~-J ,'-111>- [) u7iL Y:..,
~.: ~,~~ ~ ~:V~-~~~::~N f-J · ~..:. ~
-C\~(~~~> ~ ,r(~~~'~~ ~~ ><: I- I~~/,t;
W .~" '~t'{ PO ~ ~, ~ ~ 1 (
5 ~~J); / ~ .....i ".... '- \;:t'\ ~ "1-.'. i
I;c.~ .121 RE !< ,I ~~ ~~ ~!flJ! .'} 'il{::~'" ~\
~~ \'.... ~~'t.;M t=I ~1_;,tJ;;~~ ,,\ 1:
, ~ )I~~'~)}~'~J~'~~~
'Y~~, ~~ ._t ~~& ~
0/f F I~~~~ ~ ~ ~'~~ f~~..r('").\ ..... ~
1~' 0:'% 7 :fC--' ::il~~ ~
~~~. ~ - ~''?;i, J"'~<~JrZ"~
'?\..J \ ~~\ ri !~ :t) "'--}-Jo~# r-:-;:/J f~ IJ>'>
~\ (!l~ ~U- 0 ~J!~ ~ r. .. o~.;;ti
~ . >J'';0,c II I ~\'~ It .,~ f<I.\.~\ ~ ~ I .
~ (;1Jl' ( p ~' ~~(;:~; : r:~?;:0(
r;; I ~ f "" ". I 0 ~ . ~n 'V "
1~:&'P{f; ~.~,~ ( ~~ IO~ ~ " \1:?i1"'"::
t{p~~) 1 ?i - -:..' \~~\' ~ _ ~- : . l4~ ll\
W~)t~ ~ ~.II- ~. ~ ~I '--"' :o::.J\\' ~~ r)~ I
.~~ ii\, ~~ </ " ~.' ,~_/ SkP '~~
. '1 "r;;~ 1\0 ~~ ~
III ' =:211 (." r:.... I :' ...::. /:-, '-I ~ :U
~ ' ::']\1::; " ~ ~' ,~..J ,toz:: . :' 0 .~ ~ . ~ -----" ~
i3 ~: 1 '-'--~ 1I!!:.' ~'.~ ll!o '0 .-q'~' ~~!r ~.: . ~ (C((~ 0:,
(I -:!j)!o. ,.. ;:;. ~1:1.-, O~ !!~.,_. ~ '1(1' :-Il"-\ ~. \\ "\'~ Bl
~))'((!(n ~ 1m PI: -~~ '.'.:~ ~ !~~ ;\ h~t '~~<' , ~ ....~:: 'l~~~
~f ~~ ;':.'~, 7'; ~~~-7 ~- ~~f(-rr(,;~~~~
:~I J,\.'-S If, '\"v _..:. 2 AVff, I c:> :', /:~\IJ\r': ..~.~
!\.... ~ 0 ~ . ~~-:)~ ~)i /i~)~ ,,' ~'"~~~.
:;\',~ III . ~7c'~':7I: ::;::::JJ~,.. :(~ '-;{J)'~ .L'-%JfJ ,
~) ,\ ,'-,I~c;,,~ K\;3 ;~--..fi'; i<~ -~!I)~ -<
1"'!.1! "\ ~~ ~.-rr.;:. \~II ~ o.~ -:-0. 'J f-1 l.:7 :5\ 0 }~~\b:.~ 1JfiIj~(A ~ ~~~
~~ fr~~ ~,J( 8M ~ ~\t-.. .''f';Jt2i~ \\\~L;: v/ ~ ~ ~,~,~.
'l~~~ ~ v.r ,,>, I~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~(~~~ ~V' ~a ~ . ,~~.~ (~~
~~~~ ~ l~Jk~", v:Y~ ~ p;J :.~ ? _lJ. ~~~ ~ Wj \.,;vo. J ~ ~~=
~~); ~~~F~::::W '. \--../ - (1'!-7'1} ~.I ,..~ "'~I ~ ""::'"" ~~.t\ \<{~~. c~~~'~\J'~
~\(((~),1 ~ 'Jvr: c ~:;:;'o \'-- (~-'\ y.u (e ~ ~~...fJ/r\\'\ 'r','l.~~'\,=:-
.?\;g/j ~ ~~~ ~(. ~ 1'-' IJ..~'~ '--. .~ ~ J~d)! 1':-,',-~~4~
k~~~ .'. .~'~ _ '\~l\:~\.)~ (~~*,,'~~!:~2;~'7iJi;' L;Y~
~' 'Q, ~".Y;: ::)\~. ,;Wir'). I\~W.;:'~((
,J.,,,.... ~I'I\i(:, 'r::" ',' <0', lliJ' 'VZ~'. L..:.:.-."
" ,1\ " II \ " ! ,'( .' " '. ". ~ ", ." \
. ~.I" I H .' . I,] 1..:.',,.C1p' ),,o_~~':;':;'!1
'. '(...(-i:;()10.-;'~. 750 I. ..... imj~,: \'.n\~ :':",7~r--T-:'11 ~.~~:~ ....~...(>\.
",/^lr .'~.,,:-:.('..:.f'T)'" I(,\'.',nl' )!)ib"/:r-",~ r1.'~;:- ",," '.'\)1
. ,- 1.\ ... ;;:-:.\( i'......... "'" ,In-" S 1 F 1
;;; ~
;: u.~
l'1 ~
~!" &i
Ri
i~ & N
~
... -~
~
'"
~
PROPOSED IOWA HIGHWAY 965 EXTENSION
U.S. HIGHWAY 6 TO IOWA HIGHWAY 1
CORALVILLE AND IOWA CITY, IOWA
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
September 15, 2006
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
Re: Proposed amendments to the Zoning Code
Attached are three additional proposed amendments to the Zoning Code. Please add
these to the list of amendments forwarded to you prior to your last meeting. The
attached amendments include a correction of a cross reference to another section of the
City Code regarding the fee schedule for zoning violations, a clarification of how taxi
and limousine services would be classified under the zoning code, and revisions to the
definitions of "yards," to address corner and double fronting lots. The definitions for the
various yards are a bit difficult to figure out, so I have attached some illustrations.
These will also be inserted into the code.
Please note that only the underlined sections on the following pages represent
new language. The language shown with strikethrough is proposed to be
deleted. We have tried to provide enough of the surrounding code language to
give you some context within which to understand the changes proposed, but
everything that is not underlined or struck through is existing language in the
code and will remain the same.
Approved by: ~-'
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
Amendment #31 - Amend general cross reference to fees for penalties to reflect
the more specific fee schedule for zoning violations.
Amend 14-7C-5A, Penalties, as follows:
A. Penalties
1. The owner or manager of a building or premises in or upon which a violation
of any provision of this lltle has been committed or exists or the lessee or
tenant of a building or premises in or upon which violation has been
committed or exists or the agent, architect, building contractor or any other
person who commits, takes part or assists in any violation or who maintains
any building or premises in or upon which such violation exists or who
violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply with or who resists
the enforcement of any of the provisions of this Title may be found guilty of a
simple misdemeanor or municipal infraction or environmental infraction as
provided for in Title 1, Chapter 4 of the City Code and shall be subject to the
penalties provided therein specified in 1-4-2D, except for environmental
infractions, which shall be subject to the penalty for same as specified in 1-4-
26-2, as amended. Each day that a violation occurs and/or is permitted to
exist constitutes a separate offense, and civil and/or criminal penalties shall
be computed accordingly.
..
Amendment #32 - Clarify use classification of taxi and limo dispatch services to
make it clear that dispatch offices and the associated parking and stacking spaces are
classified under the zoning code as "surface passenger services." These should be
distinguished from the large storage lots used for vehicle fleets, which are classified as
"warehouse and freight movement uses."
Amend 14-4A-4/, Surface Passenger Services, as follows:
I. Surface Passenger Services
1. Characteristics
Passenger terminals for regional bus and passenger rail service; dispatch
facilities for local taxi and limousine service.
2. Examples
Regional bus and passenger rail depots; charter and rental bus services;
dispatch facilities for local taxi and limousine services
3. Accessory Uses
Offices; concessions; parking; maintenance and fueling facilities.
4. Exceptions
Bus stations and park-and-ride facilities for local mass transit are classified as
General Community Service Uses.
Amend 14-4A-5E, Warehouse and Freight Movement Uses, as follows:
E. Warehouse and Freight Movement Uses
1. Characteristics
Firms involved in the storage or movement of goods for themselves or other
firms. Goods are generally delivered to other firms or the final consumer,
except for some will-call pickups. There is little on-site sales activity with the
customer present.
2. Examples
Separate warehouses used by retail stores such as furniture and appliance
stores; household moving and general freight storage; cold storage plants,
including frozen food lockers; major wholesale distribution centers; truck and
air freight terminals; railroad switching yards; bus and railcar storage lots; tffift
fleet p;:lrking ;:lnd disp;:ltch; storage lots for large fleets of vehicles p;:lrking;
parcel services; major postal facilities; grain terminals; and the stockpiling of
sand, gravel, and other aggregate materials.
3. Accessory Uses
Offices; fleet parking and maintenance areas; rail spur or lead lines; docks;
and repackaging facilities.
4. Exceptions
a. Uses that involve the transfer or storage of solid or liquid wastes are
classified as Waste-Related Uses.
b. Mini-warehouses are classified as Self-Service Storage.
c. Dispatch facilities and accessory parking areas for taxi and limousine
services are classified as Surface Passenger Services.
Amendment #33 - Clarify the definitions of front yard, rear yard, and side yard to
address corner or double fronting lots; add a definition of interior yard/courtyard
to address lots with multiple buildings.
Amend the definitions of front yard, rear yard, and side yard within Article 14-9A,
General Definitions, as follows:
YARD, FRONT: The area on a lot from one side lot line to ;:mother side lot line
afl€i between the fFoot-street-side lot IineW and a line drawn parallel to and
flush with the plane of the front QITLbuilding fa~ade of g tRe principal building
on ~ lot that faces a street-side lot line of the princip~1 building on ~ lot. On
lots with multiple buildings, there is no front yard adjacent to buildings that
are behind or surrounded by other buildings, such that there is no fac;ade
directly facing the street.
YARD/COURTYARD, INTERIOR: An open area on a lot. which is bounded on at
least three sides by the exterior walls of one or more buildings and is not
open toward a street-side lot line. An interior courtyard is not a side vard.
YARD, REAR: On an interior lot. the rear yard is the area extending from one side
lot line to another side lot line and between the rear lot line and a line drawn
parallel to and flush with the plane of the rear building fa~ade(s) of the
principal building(s) on a lot. On a corner lot. the rear yard is the area
extending from the side lot line to the front yard line that is opposite the side
lot line and between the rear lot line and a line drawn parallel to and flush
with the plane of any building fac;ade(s) of the principal building(s) that face a
rear lot line. On a double fronting lot there is no rear yard.
YARD, SIDE: The area on a lot bounded by the side any fa~ade of the principal
building that faces a side lot line on ~ lot and the that same side lot line and
excluding any area that is bet:'Neen the front yard, ~nd the rear yard, or
interior courtyard.
STREET
Side yard
Interior Lot
STREET
Front lot line
Comer Lot
Front Yard Line
I
Street Side
Lot Line
I-
W
W
0::
I-
en
STREET
Front Lot Line
)
Side yard
STREET
Double-Frontage Lot
STREET
Front Lot Line
\ .
Rear lot Ime
Interior Court Yard
,~ 1
-,...= -~
!~ai!:'t
~ ~mn~
~~ ~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date:
September 15, 2006
To:
Planning and Zoning Commission
From:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Re:
Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area Agreement
The Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area Agreement governs development within the two
mile fringe area of the Iowa City Corporate boundary. The most recent version of the agreement
was adopted in the year 2000. A committee with members of the Iowa City City Council,
Johnson County Board of Supervisors, and staff has been discussing amendments requested
by the County. The proposed amendments are shown in bold print in the attached agreement.
In general, the proposed amendments provide more restrictions on residential development
outside of the city's growth area and the county's north corridor to favor rural and agricultural
uses over residential development as proposed in the Johnson County Land Use Plan. The
amendments also provide for a shift to the west of an existing commercial area at the
interchange of 1-80 and Herbert Hoover Highway; and city site review standards would apply in
this area when they are more restrictive than the county standards.
Staff recommends the approval of the proposed amendments to the Fringe Area Policy
Agreement.
ATTACHMENT:
Fringe Area Agreement between Johnson County and Iowa City
Approved by:
~~~
Karin F anklin, Director
Depa ment of Planning and Community Development
ppdadm/mem/bmiklo. fringeagree.doc
Appendix C
FRINGE AREA POLICY AGREEMENT
BETWEEN JOHNSON COUNTY AND IOWA CITY
WHEREAS, Chapter 354, Code of Iowa (2005) allows the City of Iowa City to establish an
extraterritorial area, known as the fringe area, within two miles of the city boundaries for the purpose
of reviewing and approving subdivisions; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 354 further grants the City the authority to require that subdivisions within the
fringe area adhere to the City's subdivision standards and conditions, unless the City establishes
alternative standards and conditions for review and approval of subdivisions via a 28E agreement
between the City and the County; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 28E of the Code of Iowa (2005) enables two or more local governments to
enter into agreements to cooperate for their mutual advantage; and
WHEREAS, the Johnson County Land Use Plan adopted December 31, 1998 calls for the
preparation and adoption of development plans and agreements between the County and the City
regarding the municipality and its environment; and
WHEREAS, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan Update adopted in December, 1997 outlines the
extent of urban development expected within the next 20 years; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of Johnson County (the "County") and the City of Iowa City (the "City")
to establish policies for the orderly growth and development within the City's fringe area; and
WHEREAS, Johnson County and the City of Iowa City mutually agree that such policies are
necessary to more effectively and economically provide services for future growth and development
and to protect and preserve the fringe area's natural resources and its environmentally sensitive
features.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. FRINGE AREA DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
The parties accept and agree to the following development policies regarding annexation, zoning,
and subdivision review for the Iowa City fringe area as authorized by Chapter 354, Code of Iowa
(2005).
Purpose:
The Fringe Area Policy Agreement is intended to provide for orderly and efficient development
patterns appropriate to a non-urbanized area, protect and preserve the fringe area's natural
resources and environmentally sensitive features, direct development to areas with physical
characteristics which can accommodate development, and effectively and economically provide
services for future growth and development.
In light of these objectives, the City and the County examined the development capabilities of the
Iowa City fringe area and determined that development within this fringe area is to occur in
accordance with a) the Land Use Plan attached to this Agreement, b) development standards
contained in Section B of this agreement, and c) the fringe area development policies contained in
Section C of this Agreement. The development policies of this Agreement are intended to be
consistent with the policies of the adopted Johnson County Land Use Plan and the Iowa City
Comprehensive Plan.
- 2 -
A. Land Use Plan
The Land Use Plan, attached to this Agreement as Attachment 1, illustrates the land use patterns for
the fringe area.
B. Development Standards
The following general standards apply to unincorporated development in the fringe area.
1. Discourage development in areas which conflict with the Johnson County Land Use Plan
which considers CSR (Corn Suitability Rating), high water table, wetlands, floodplain,
non-erodible soil, and road suitability.
2. Protect the public health by requiring developers to meet or exceed minimum standards
for water and wastewater systems in all developments within the Iowa City Fringe Area
pursuant to Johnson County Public Health Department Regulations.
3. Encourage cluster development which preserves large tracts of open space including
environmentally sensitive areas and farm land, results in compact development which
requires less infrastructure, and is more efficient for provision of services.
C. Frinqe Area Development Policies
The parties agree to apply the following fringe area development policies.
FRINGE AREA A
1. Land within Iowa City's Growth Area. Land in Area A which is presently zoned for
residential development, and 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 contained in Title 14, Chapter 7 of the City Code
of Iowa City, including but not limited to City specifications for streets and roads, sanitary
sewer lines, stormwater management facilities and water lines. Developments which are
approved prior to annexation shall be required to be served by a package sanitary
sewage treatment plant and common wells, with sanitary sewer and water collection and
distribution systems which are constructed to City standards and can be connected to
municipal systems upon annexation.
Subdivisions and development projects which are approved prior to annexation shall be
required to be cluster developments with a minimum of 50% of the development
designated as an outlot for open space, agriculture, or future development upon
annexation.
Prior to annexation, any zoning changes in Iowa City's projected growth area shall be
consistent with the City's adopted land use plan.
2. Land outside Iowa City's Growth Area but in the County's North Corridor. Residential
uses are the preferred use in this area. Any re-zonings in this area will be considered
on the basis of conformity with the Johnson County Land Use Plan and other related
policies. On a case-by-case basis, proposals to rezone land in this area to RS-3 (one
dwelling unit per three acres of lot area) may be considered. RS zoning will be
considered if the application to rezone includes a concept plan showing a minimum of
50% of the property designated as an outlot for open space or agriculture. Development
must comply with City Rural Design standards contained in Appendix A. On the balance
of land outside the North Corridor, agricultural uses are preferred.
- 3 -
3. Any development on property governed by the Iowa City/Coralville Agreement Providing
for Future Annexations and Extraterritorial Review of Subdivision Plats (Sept. 1999) shall
be consistent with said agreement. Such agreement shall take precedence over this
Fringe Area Policy Agreement.
4. If land is annexed within Fringe Area A, the City agrees that it will not automatically
extend its fringe area authority to review and approve all subdivisions, which it exercises
pursuant to Iowa Code 9354.9 and Title 14, Chapter 7 of the City Code of the City of Iowa
City, Iowa. The City will review the extension of its fringe area as a result of annexation
on a case-by-case basis in consultation with Johnson County.
FRINGE AREA B
As set forth in Iowa City's adopted growth policy, the City will likely annex land within one mile
of Iowa City to the east and within two miles of Iowa City to the south in the short-range. It is
therefore consistent with the purpose of this agreement that rural subdivisions within these
areas of high annexation potential be required to meet City Urban Design Standards contained
in Appendix A.
1. Land within Iowa City's Growth Area. As applications are received to develop land
contiguous to and within the growth limits of the city, the City will give favorable
consideration to the voluntary annexation of this land and its development at an urban
density in conformance with the City's adopted land use plan.
Prior to annexation, any zoning changes in Iowa City's projected growth area shall also
be consistent with the City's adopted land use plan.
Subdivisions and development projects within Iowa City's projected growth area shall
conform to City Urban Design Standards contained in Title 14, Chapter 7 of the City Code
of Iowa City, including but not limited to City specifications for streets and roads, sanitary
sewer lines, stormwater management facilities and water lines. Developments which are
approved prior to annexation shall be required to be served by a package sanitary
sewage treatment plant and common wells with sanitary sewer and water collection and
distribution systems which are constructed to City standards and can be connected to
municipal systems upon annexation.
Subdivisions and development projects which are approved prior to annexation shall be
required to be cluster developments with a minimum of 50% of the development
designated as an outlot for open space, agriculture, or future development upon
annexation.
2. Land outside Iowa City's Growth Area. On the balance of land in Area B that lies outside
Iowa City's projected growth area, agricultural uses are preferred. Until otherwise
changed by amending this agreement, this area shall be restricted to those uses
consistent with a Rural/Agricultural area as indicated in the Johnson County Land
Use Plan, and as designated for a Rural/Agricultural area in chapter 8:1.6. Class A
District of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance as amended.
Farmstead splits are permitted per Chapter 8:1.6.1.4.c of the Johnson County
Unified Development Ordinance.
Given the existence of commercially zoned property and the demand for commercial
uses at the 1-80/Herbert Hoover Highway interchange, rezonings to County CH-Highway
Commercial District of property abutting the interchange, as shown on the attached
fringe area map, will be considered. However, the only uses that will be allowed will
-4-
be: Auto and truck oriented uses, Hotels, motels, and convention facilities, Office
buildings and studios, restaurants, and any accessory use normally associated
with the permitted principal use. All existing commercially zoned property and any
properties rezoned to CH-Highway Commercial shall be subject to the City's and the
County's Site Plan Review Requirements with the most restrictive standards applying
in instances where the two standards differ.
3. Upon annexation of land within Fringe Area S, the City agrees that it will not automatically
extend its fringe area authority to review and approve all subdivisions, which it exercises
pursuant to Iowa Code 9354.9 and Title 14, Chapter 7 of the City
Code of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. The City will review the extension of its fringe area
as a result of annexation on a case-by-case basis in consultation with Johnson County.
FRINGE AREA C
1. Land within Iowa City's Growth Area. Land in Area C, which is presently zoned for
residential development and 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 contained in Title 14, Chapter 7 of the City Code of Iowa
City, including but not limited to City specifications for streets and roads, sanitary sewer
lines, stormwater management facilities and water lines. Developments which are
approved prior to annexation shall be required to be served by a package sanitary
sewage treatment plant and common wells with sanitary sewer and water collection and
distribution systems which are constructed to City standards and can be connected to
municipal systems upon annexation.
Subdivisions and development projects which are approved prior to annexation shall be
required to be cluster developments with a minimum of 50% of the development
designated as an outlot for open space, agriculture, or future development upon
annexation.
Upon annexation to Iowa City, commercial and/or industrial development is encouraged
south and southwest of the Iowa City Municipal Airport as shown on the attached Land
Use Plan and in the portion of Section 20 of West Lucas Township that is located in the
east and south quadrants of the Highway 1 and Highway 218 interchange. It is
consistent with the purpose of this agreement not to approve commercial and/or industrial
developments within this area prior to annexation. As stated in the Johnson County Land
Use Plan, commercial and/or industrial development will be encouraged to locate in the
interchanges of paved roads. Commercial and/or industrial development will be
discouraged in all other areas of Fringe Area C.
As applications are received to develop land contiguous to Iowa City and within this
portion of the City's growth area, the City will give favorable consideration to the voluntary
annexation of this land and its development for uses consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Land outside Iowa City's Growth Area. In the portions of Area C which are not within Iowa
City's growth area and which are zoned for non-farm development, development may
occur in conformance with Johnson County's Unified Development Ordinance and City
Rural Design Standards. Until otherwise changed by amending this agreement, this
area shall be restricted to those uses consistent with a Rural/Agricultural area as
indicated in the Johnson County Land Use Plan, and as designated for a Rural/
Agricultural area in Chapter 8:1.6 Class A District of the Johnson County Unified
Development Ordinance as amended. Farmstead splits are permitted per Chapter
8:1.6.1.4.c of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance.
- 5-
3. Upon annexation of land within Fringe Area C, the City agrees that it will not automatically
extend its fringe area authority to review and approve all subdivisions, which it exercises
pursuant to Iowa Code 9354.9 and Title 14, Chapter 7 of the City
Code of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. The City will review the extension of its fringe area
as a result of annexation on a case-by-case basis in consultation with Johnson County.
SECTION II. PROTECTING AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS
Any regulations in the Fringe Area Agreement will not interfere with the Right to Farm, as contained
in the Code of Iowa Chapter 335.2, Farms Exempt; and as noted in the Johnson County Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 8.2, Protecting Agricultural Operations.
SECTION III. ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES
As a rule, zoning regulation is the county's prerogative if a county has adopted a zoning ordinance.
The City, however, exercises authority over subdivision regulation in a city's fringe area. Annexation
is also primarily under exclusive rule of cities. Each of these activities, however, affects both
jurisdictions and produces a clear need for coordination and joint administration. To that end, the
City of Iowa City and Johnson County agree to the following procedures for administration of land
use regulations.
A. Zoninq Requlation:
1. Zoning regulation for all unincorporated territory will remain under the authority of the
Johnson County Zoning Ordinance and the provisions of Chapter 335, Code of Iowa
(2005), the enabling legislation for the County's zoning powers.
2. Pursuant to Section 8:1.23 of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance, any
person may request a variance to the lot area regulations of the zoning ordinance or
appeal the decision of any officer of the County as that decision relates to enforcement of
the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The County will forward each request for rezoning of property within the Fringe Areas
specified in this Agreement to the City for review and comment prior to the public hearing
before the County Planning and Zoning Commission. Any zoning change will conform
with the policies identified for the Area in which the property is located.
4. Properties zoned for a classification which is inconsistent with this Agreement, at the time
this Agreement is executed, shall retain the rights under that zoning, unless and until
such zoning is changed through due process.
B. Subdivision Requlation:
1. Subdivision of land within Iowa City's fringe area will be required to conform to either City
Rural Design Standards or the City Urban Design Standards in accordance with the
policies specified in this Agreement.
2. Persons wishing to subdivide land within the fringe area specified in this Agreement shall
be required to simultaneously file a subdivision application with both the City and
the County. The City and the County shall coordinate the processing of the application to
ensure concurrent review by both the City Planning and Zoning Commission and the
County Planning and Zoning Commission.
3. Subdivisions of land into fewer than three lots will continue to be regulated by the County.
- 6 -
C. Development proiects not reQuirinq subdivision:
Any development projects larger than 2 acres within the City's growth area shall be subject to
review by both the City and the County in accordance with the procedural requirements of each
jurisdiction.
D. Annexation:
1. Iowa City will annex territory only in accordance with the policy statements specified in
this Agreement.
2. The City will, upon receipt, forward applications requesting annexation or severance (de-
annexation) of property within the fringe area specified in this Agreement to the County
for review and comment prior to consideration by the Iowa City Planning and Zoning
Commission.
3. As appropriate and necessary, the City may extend the two-mile extraterritorial
subdivision plat review area. Prior to any such extension, the City will forward to the
County a proposal which includes the extension of the City's plat review authority for any
distance up to the two mile limit provided by State law. The County will have a specified
time within which to respond in affirmative agreement, negatively or with an alternative
proposal. The City will take the County's response under advisement when determining
the extension of extraterritorial review.
E. Conflict Resolution:
If the City and County are in conflict over a proposed subdivision, rezoning application, or
annexation that may violate this agreement, a review committee, comprised of members of the
City Council, Board of Supervisors and staff, shall be established to negotiate a resolution prior
to final action being taken by either body to subdivide, rezone, or annex property.
SECTION IV. AGREEMENT REVIEW
At any time during the term of this Agreement, either the Chair of the Johnson County Board of
Supervisors or the Mayor of the City of Iowa City may initiate review of the policies of this Agreement
by contacting the other party to this Agreement. Both parties to this Agreement shall consider
modifications of this Agreement, as appropriate.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE PERIOD
This Agreement shall become effective upon acceptance and execution by the parties, and shall be
in effect for five (5) years after the date of execution of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be
automatically renewed unless the County or the City objects to such renewal prior to the renewal
date.
SECTION VI. RECORDATION
This Agreement shall be filed with the Secretary of the State of Iowa, and with the Johnson County
Recorder in compliance with Chapter 28E, Code of Iowa (2005).
day of
,2006.
Dated this
- 7 -
JOHNSON COUNTY
By:
Chairperson, Board of Supervisors
Approved by:
County Attorney's Office
Attest:
County Auditor
Dated this
day of
CITY OF IOWA CITY
By:
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Land Use Map for the Iowa City Fringe Area.
2. Appendix A: Definition of Standards
,2006
j ~ 1
~~~_u.2...
~~W~~
~~ ~1rn~
-.. -
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 15, 2006
To: Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Jeff Davidson, Assistant Director, Department of Planning and Community Development --;-q
Re: Proposed Amendment to Subdivider's Agreement; Saddlebrook Addition Part 2
Over the past 13 years Saddlebrook Subdivision has been developing with a single access point on US
Hwy 6 at Heinz Rd. Based on our secondary access guidelines, the City negotiated a maximum of 416
dwelling units that could be constructed in the subdivision before a secondary means of access would be
required. The developer is now preparing to provide secondary access via an extension of Pinto Lane to
Whispering Meadows Drive. However, the developer has requested that they be allowed to develop up to
27 additional dwelling units prior to secondary access being constructed.
The developer has asked to be allowed to complete the additional 27 dwelling units because all of the
necessary infrastructure is in place for construction of these units. The developer controls all of the
property necessary for the extension of Pinto Lane which will provide secondary access to Saddlebrook
Subdivision, and has indicated they are committed to completing the construction of this street. They
would like to take advantage of being able to construct 27 dwelling units for which all necessary
infrastructure is in place, prior to the completion of Pinto Lane to Whispering Meadows Drive.
We have discussed this issue with the developer and determined that we would be willing to allow the
additional units to be constructed under the provision of our secondary access guidelines which allows a
single means of access to be permitted as a temporary condition. A temporary condition is defined in our
guidelines as one where there is a written assurance that the road which will provide secondary access
will be constructed within three years.
The developer has agreed to an amendment to the Subdivider's Agreement for Saddlebrook Addition Part
2 that will allow the additional 27 units before secondary access is provided, and will require secondary
access to be constructed within three years of the issuance of the initial building permit or within 6 months
of the issuance of the last occupancy permit, whichever occurs sooner. The subdivider is also required to
submit a letter of credit to the City which would provide 110% of the estimated expense to construct the
Pinto Lane extension to Whispering Meadows Drive. The City would be able to use these funds to
construct the street in the event that the developer did not have it constructed within the specified time
frame.
We believe that it has been appropriate to allow a relatively high number of dwelling units to be allowed
on a single means of access for Saddlebrook Subdivision under the provisions of our secondary access
guidelines which states that these issues should be determined on a case by case basis. Saddlebrook
Subdivision does not include the physical features, institutional uses, or special populations that cause us
concern when considering secondary access issues. However, we believe we are at the point where the
City needs an assurance that secondary access to Saddlebrook Subdivision will be provided within a
specific time frame and we believe the proposed amendment to the Subdivider's Agreement
accomplishes that.
cc: Karin Franklin
Bob Miklo
Jccogadm/memos/jd .saddlebrook2.citymemo
Prepared by Mitchel T. Behr, Asst. City Attorney, 410 East Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240: (3]9) 356-5030
AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVIDER'S AGREEMENT
SADDLEBROOK ADDITION PART 2
(including a resubdivision of Lot 4 of Saddlebrook Addition, Part 1)
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City ("City") and The Paddock, L.L.C.
(collectively "Subdivider") entered into a Subdivider's Agreement for the above-
referenced subdivision, dated February 6, 2001, which is recorded at Book
3037, Page 322, et seq., of the records of the Johnson County Recorder
("Agreement");
WHEREAS, Section 10-A of the Agreement limits to 416 the number of
units that can be constructed in the subdivision until such time that secondary
access is provided;
WHEREAS, the City and Subdivider have now agreed to different terms
and conditions upon which Subdivider shall be required to provide secondary
access;
FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, IT IS AGREED that the
parties' Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
Section 10-A of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:
A. limitation on Units and Construction of Secondary Access
The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that adequate
secondary access to Saddlebrook Addition Part One and Saddlebrook
Addition Part.T'vVo. ~~.C!l-'I. ~~. c;onstr:u.~t~~vvithil1.3 years()fth~ iSl)LJCinc;eof.a...
building permitf()rBuil~in.g,l\()rE3LJild.i.ng_B_o.n L()t.~.or.f()r Building 6-,J-,.~,
or 9 on Lot 4 Saddlebrook Addition Part.T'vVo()r \/IIithin6rnonthl) ()fth~
issuance of the last occupancy permit for all of the above described units
on Lots 4 & 5 Saddlebrook Addition, Part Two"whic;hever occ;ur~.soonE;r.
The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that prior to the issuance of.
building permits for Building A or B on Lot 5 or Buildings 6, 7, 8, or 9 on
Lot 4 Saddlebrook Addition Part..Tw(), Subdivider shall submit a.letterof .
credit acceptable to City which provides for an automatic draw on funds
sufficient to cover the costs, plus 10%, of the construction of adequate
secondary access from the Saddlebrook Additions via an extension of
Pinto Lane to Whispering Meadows Drive.. .
. . ~Ieted: 2
"~Ieted: 416
Deleted: s
Deleted: One and Saddlebrook
Addition Part
.... Deleted: the Belmont and
Clubhouse units (?????)
'., Deleted: 417
"" Deleted: One and Saddlebrook Part
Deleted: 2
~eleted: .
CITY OF IOWA CITY
By: Ross Wilburn, Mayor
By: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
THE PADDOCK, L.L.C.
By:
By:
STATE OF IOWA
)
)ss:
)
JOHNSON COUNTY
On this _ day of , 20_, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared Ross
Wilburn and Marian K. Karr, to me personally known, who being by me duly
sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of said
municipal corporation executing the within and foregoing instrument; that the seal
affixed thereto is the seal of said municipal corporation; that said instrument was
signed and sealed on behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of City
Council of said municipal corporation; and that the said Ross Wilburn and Marian
K. Karr acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and
deed and said municipal corporation, by it and by them voluntarily executed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
COUNTY OF JOHNSON )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this
20_ by
as Manager(s) of The Paddock, L.L.C.
day of
and
Notary Public in and for said State
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
SEPTEMBER 7, 2006
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Wally Plahutnik, Beth Koppes, Charlie Eastham, Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks, Terry
Smith
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dean Shannon
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sunil Terdalkar, Karen Howard, Mitch Behr
OTHERS PRESENT: Craig Willis, Ron , Mike Spear, Robert Hegeman, Sarah Jewell, Nancy Hitchon,
Chester Schulte, Mark Sandler
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent), SUB06-00014, a final plat for Windsor Ridge
Part Twenty B, a 2-lot residential planned development on approximately 2.7-acres of land located south of
Lower West Branch Road and north of York Place, subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction
drawings prior to consideration by City 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.
REZOINNGIDEVELOPMENT ITEM:
REZ05-00019/SUB05-00029, discussion of an application submitted by S&J Development LLP for a rezoning
from Rural Residential (RR-1), Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone and Low Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Single-Family Residen-
tial (OPD5) and a preliminary plat of Country Club Estates, Parts 3-8, a 154-lot, 82.30-acre residential
subdivision located north of Rohret Road and west of Phoenix Drive.
Terdalkar said the applicant was requesting 44.29-acres currently zoned RR-1 and 18.58-acres currently
zoned ID-RS be rezoned to Low Density Single-Family Residential zone (RS-5); approval for a 154-lot, 82.3-
acre residential subdivision with four out-lots and that the entire subdivision be rezoned to Planned
Development Overlay/Low Density Single-Family Residential (OPD-5) zone to allow modification of the
wetlands and the required buffers.
When reviewing this application, Staff had considered the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and of the
Southwest District Plan, compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods and land uses, compliance with the
Zoning and Subdivision regulations, traffic implications, street design, infrastructure improvements and access
to/from the subdivision.
The site contained sensitive areas including a drainage way, wetlands associated with the drainage way and
regulated slopes. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) allows reasonable development of the property
provided measures are taken to protect the natural resources from destruction, provision of an ecologically
sound transition between the development and the protected sensitive areas, and urban design that would
preserve the open spaces and minimize the disturbance of sensitive areas. The SAO encouraged avoiding
wetlands, minimizing the impact on the wetlands and considering alternative design for development activity.
The SAO required a 100-foot natural buffer between any development activity and a regulated wetland. The
applicant had requested modifications of SAO regulated wetlands including wetland buffer averaging;
elimination of the wetlands within the proposed Lakeshore Drive right-of-way and in lots 30-32, and the
narrowing of the 1 OO-foot wetland buffer to 25-feet located to the east of lots 3-8.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 7, 2006
Page 2 of 9
Staff felt the applicant's request for the elimination of wetlands in order to install essential infrastructure and
the wetlands along the south-east boundary would be reasonable and permitted provided that all the other
requirements listed in the SAO were fulfilled. Staff did not feel that the applicant's request for buffer averaging
met Code requirements. The Code provided for buffer averaging where it was deemed that an increased
buffer would provide additional protection to the wetlands or other sensitive areas of high value or high
diversity by reducing the buffer for an area where a reduced buffer may be sufficient. Staff felt that the
applicant's proposal did not demonstrate why there was an additional need for any portion of the wetland to be
increased/reduced or the buffer averaged. It appeared that in the areas in Outlot 0, the areas proposed for
increased buffer depths was excess land that was not otherwise developable. Staff had consulted with Liz
Maas, a wetland specialist who concurred with Staff's assessment that there were no sensitive features on the
western portion of Outlot 0 which needed additional protection, that the added buffer areas in Outlot 0 would
not have been developable anyway due to difficult topography and that all portions of the wetlands within and
adjacent to the drainage way needed equal protection to ensure the health of the wetland.
Additional deficiencies included not providing a buffer around newly created wetlands, no information had
been provided regarding the degree of disturbance to the regulated slopes located on the site and construction
limit lines had not been delineated on the drawings submitted to Staff.
Concerns had been raised by adjoining property owners on the east regarding providing a transition between
the existing lower density residential development and the proposed RS-5 density development. Maintaining
the full wetland buffer would help provide such a transition and fulfill the Southwest District Plan goal of
providing a transition. In addition the district plan proposed large RS-5 lots on the eastern boundary of the
proposed subdivision.
Terdalkar said additional issues discussed at length in the Staff report included dedication of open space,
infrastructure improvements including right-of-way dedication for the improvement of Rohret Road and
Slothower Road, the restriction of any further development until those improvements had been made or
planned for, the cost-sharing of said improvements, and stormwater management.
Terdalkar said it was Staff's recommendation that the application be deferred to allow the applicant time to
revise the design of the subdivision and to resolve the deficiencies/discrepancies. In the event that a revised
plat which complied with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance was not submitted, Staff recommended that the
application be denied.
Eastham asked Staff to further discuss their suggestions/concerns regarding the transitioning from the existing
larger sized residential lots to the proposed RS-5 density development
. Terdalkar said Staff felt that if the subdivision were to be redesigned, the possibility existed of relocating
Lakeshore Drive to facilitate proper connections with Rohret Road and minimizing the impact to the
wetlands. There was a distinction between two of the smaller wetlands versus the larger wetland; the larger
wetland was associated with the stream corridor or drainage way. The SAO provided stricter requirements
for such a wetland and did not allow for consideration of reducing the buffer which was being proposed by
the applicant, or the removal and mitigation of the wetlands which was being proposed for certain areas.
The SAO would allow for the consideration of mitigation in other areas provided that certain criteria were
considered and/or met. Staff felt the applicant's request for mitigation in certain areas did meet the intent of
the SAO and that it could be considered for those particular areas.
. Staff didn't feel that it was absolutely necessary to move Lakeshore Drive, it was in a good position to line up
with the existing road. Miklo said Staff was not suggesting that that area had to be radically redesigned.
. Transition between existing and proposed developments. Miklo said Staff had had an in-depth discussion
regarding that issue. When that area had been platted, it had been the City's policy that that area of the city
would be very low density, the lots would be one-acre in size or greater. There had also been some sewer
constraints which had resulted in the large lots. A later policy shift by City Council had provided for the
possibility of sanitary sewer in that area and the possibility of more typical RS-5 development. The District
plan specifically stated that there should be a transition and that the lots should be fairly large RS-5 lots.
Staff felt that maintaining the entire buffer for the corridor and portion of the development would be the best
way to provide some open space and transition for the lots to the east. Staff felt that some of the lots could
be larger in size to help with the transition.
Eastham asked if there would be any disadvantage if this development were to depend upon a lift station
located within the development to serve the smaller area as CJPposed to a larger lift station that could serve
more houses and possibly be more economical. Miklo said the concern about having a larger lift station was
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 7,2006
Page 3 of 9
to minimize the number of lift stations. The more lift stations, the increased possibility of having a problem with
them and the more maintenance required by the City. The City encouraged larger and fewer lift stations. It
was a fairly unique situation that this did not flow into a water shed normally served by the sewer plants.
Eastham said he didn't see any connections for neighborhood trails nor plans for including a local trail access
to the wetland area for the local neighborhood. Terdalkar said the adjacent land was currently owned by the
County Poor Farm which would continue to be an open space. A dedication of approximately 4.5-acres of
open space would connect to the existing open space and eventually connect to the sidewalk network in the
neighborhood; there was no proposal to connect to the Hunter's Run trail nor to the existing developments to
the east. An 8-foot sidewalk on the north side of the Rohret Road would be extended.
Eastham asked if it was Staffs position that improvement of Rohret Road all the way down to the terminus
would be enough arterial street to support the proposed subdivision. Terdalkar said two portions of the
property would be developed at a later date. The new section of Lakeshore Drive would connect to the
existing Lakeshore Drive, the lots along Lakeshore Drive would be developed. If the proposed development
were to be approved by the Commission, Staff would recommend that a condition of a CZA require that the
applicant improve the portion of Rohret Road that is adjacent to the proposed lots in the first phase of the
development. Development of lots 78 to 154 should not occur until the improvement of the remainder of
Rohret Road was in the Capital Improvement Plan. Staff would also recommend that the southern portion of
Slothower Road be vacated to address the eleven double fronting lots along Prescott Lane.
Public discussion was opened.
Craiq Willis, said the project team, which included himself; Mike Spear, Principle of S&J Development; Larry
Schnittjer and Ron Amalon, MMS Consultants, disagreed with Staff's determination that buffer averaging was
not appropriate in this particular situation. The development had originally been proposed and put forth
approximately one year ago. Since that time there had been six iterations of the plan and two mitigations
plans developed - the point being that they were willing to work with staff get it right. "To get it right not only
for us, but for their neighbors, buyers and anyone else in the area." Willis said to the east of the proposed
development were larger sized RR-1 lots, to the west was the County, to the north was the County Home
Farm and Parts I and II of their development along with the semi-public recreation area.
Willis said it was important what they called the "wetland", he would call it a swale. There was some debate as
to what it [the wetland] really was and to the strict application of how the ordinances and federal regulations
should apply to this area. Willis said the term, wetland, covered a large variety of things such as an open
stream, a swamp with standing water or a number of things. This particular area was between plowed ground
and farmland, it was covered over with dirt and did not display running water very much at all. It was covered
with reed canary grass, a monoculture non-native invasive species.
Willis distributed a package of documentation to the Commissioners. He said a lot of the regulation rising out
of the ordinance was triggered by definition. Willis quoted from Exhibit One, Item XIV, 5-1-2b, "something is a
river, stream or drainage way shown in blue in the most recent CGA quadrangle maps". He said the area in
question was shown as a blue line on the most recent maps, but that was wrong in the applicant's team's
contention. It was possible for the federal government to be wrong in assessing the area. Willis said Exhibit
Two was a reaction by the Corps of Engineers to this area being treated as a blue line. He said the area was
not a blue line, it did not have the characteristics. Willis quoted from the first page of the "Constance E-Mail"
which he said suggested a case-by-case look at blue lines on a topographical map. Willis read the second
paragraph of a message from Conroy of the US-CGS, but stated that he did not agree with the over-broadness
of that message. In his memorandum, Conroy said "his problem was with the laws, not with the maps. If the
people who passed the laws understood the limitations of maps and different revision procedures, perhaps
they would not write laws that were so restrictive. It was time sensitive and might be not reflective of what it
was." Willis read a portion of a message from Gene Walsh of the USGS, "While one drainage way was
defined as a blue line stream on the topography map, it lacks the typical physical features of a stream channel,
defined bed and bank, ordinary high water mark, shelving, sediment transport, etc to be classified as an
intermittent stream. However the Corp will regulate as an emergent wetland." Willis said a similar opinion had
been articulated by Professor Lon Drake who had made the same conclusion - what ever the USGS said
about it, it was not really a stream.
Willis said if it was not a stream, then was it a drainage way? Drainage way was not a defined term in the
Zoning Ordinance. Willis said in his opinion, it was not; but Staff said that it was. He felt that in this situation
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 7, 2006
Page 4 of 9
neither party should to try to define the undefined terms but look to what the purpose of the regulation was.
Willis referred to Exhibit 4, an except from the Zoning Ordinance which listed what the goals of the regulations
were. Improving water quality was one. Willis said he felt that the idea of the blue line and the enumeration in
the Ordinance of river, stream or drainage way was to get at those areas which had open water. It was a very
different water quality problem when there was open water for a significant amount of time. Drainage way
would be interpreted as an area that ran water intermittently, which would be analogous to how the originally
contrived blue line system of the federal government was - permanent and intermittent stream.
Willis said his point and the argument was that clearly some of 'this' didn't squarely apply however they didn't
want to make that argument or stand legally on that principle. The applicant contended that when looking at
the equitable posture of the parties involved and at what was trying to be done, that should be taken into
consideration. Willis said the buffer reduction as proposed made some sense. He referred to Exhibit 5, two
important rules regarding the 100-foot buffer and buffer averaging. Item E-I was the 100-foot rule which
referenced regulated wetland. Willis said they were not arguing that there was regulated wetland. The
applicant was going to treat them as if they were regulated wetlands. Item #2, "Buffer Averaging may be
permitted or required where an increased buffer is deemed necessary or desirable to provide additional
protection to one area of the wetland for aesthetic or environmental reasons." Willis said Staff had made the
argument that the mitigation plan did not contain an argument. Willis said he wanted to make the argument
why it was an important and considerable environmental interest to allow buffer averaging. The proposed area
to the west would sometimes include open water. It currently did not now. Willis said the applicant's proposed
improvement of a low grade wetland into a high grade wetland was environmental reason enough to allow the
averaging. That was the justification. When the developed had completed the quality of wetland that they
wanted to, it made sense to buffer it and to put the impact areas on that end of it.
Willis said the Staff Report had said that Lot 29 did not display the minimum required 50-feet. There was an
exhibit in the packet that showed that it did. If the issue needed to be addressed with reference to the new
wetland they would address it.
Ron Amalon, MMS Consultants, distributed a photo of the current wetland site with reed canary grass, a photo
of an exiting mitigation site that they'd created in North Liberty which would be similar to what the applicant
was proposing, and a colored drawing of the proposed mitigation plan.
Amalon said the goal of the wetland mitigation plan was to improve the water quality and to provide a diverse
wetland plant community. The existing plant community was reed canary grass, a non-native invasive species
which The Corps of Engineers required to be removed from mitigation sites. The proposed plan had a plant
community of over 20 species which was also expected to increase the wildlife use of the area. To achieve
the goal of improving the water quality there would be sediment traps and filter socks at the head of the storm
sewers. Two rock check dams would be installed at the upstream end of the mitigation site to help slow the
run off into the site and improve the water quality. A berm would be placed upstream of the main wetland area
to maximize the retention time of the water as it flowed from one cell to another which would maximize the
quality of the water which would enter the main mitigation cell.
Amalon said the applicant felt buffer averaging was appropriate for this site; it would be consistent with the
idea of providing a staged mitigation site to maximize the water quality entering the main cell. Buffer average-
ing would allow for an increased buffer around the main cell while trying to achieve the highest water quality.
Eastham asked if the applicant had actually considered a development design which would comply with Staffs
recommendations. Amalon said they had looked at how many lots would be impacted to maintain a 100-foot
wide corridor and felt that it was a significant impact so they'd tried to come up with a plan that met the
requirements of the SAO which included the request for 50-foot buffer reduction in certain areas for buffer
averaging. They felt that it suited the site because it would allow for a wider buffer around the higher quality
portion of the wetland.
Eastham asked what the applicant's proposed goal was. He said looking at the Staff's map(s), he counted a
maximum of 12 lots that would be in the 100-foot buffer range, only % of the lot areas were in the range so
why didn't the applicant take the buffer ranges proposed by the Staff and reconfigure the design to see how
many lots they actually came up with. Amalon said they'd looked at a concept drawing and thought that they'd
lose close to 12-lots which was a significant loss so they preferred to propose buffer averaging instead.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 7, 2006
Page 5 of 9
Miklo said the Staff Report had suggested the possibility of clustering smaller lots or using attached units so
that the required buffer could be maintained. Eastham said that was what he was suggesting, had the
developer considered that option. Amalon deferred to Spear.
Mike Spear, S&J Development, said the blue line had been discovered late in the process. Originally they'd
had a concept plan which had shown basically what they currently were proposing. They had redesigned and
lost some lots already to come up with the 50-foot buffer.
Spear said he had a problem with a Zoning Ordinance which relied on maps where the field work had not been
done in six decades; what was shown on the map as a stream corridor was not there. From the photograph it
could be seen there was no stream corridor there. Spear invited the Commission to go to the property to see
that there was no stream corridor there. Spear said a stream corridor was what required the additional buffer.
The response received from the USGS indicated that they did not feel that it was appropriate that their maps
be tied to a zoning ordinance. The maps were done from aerial photographs, there was no field work done.
Spear said a representative from the Corps of Engineers had visited the site and had said there was no stream
corridor there.
Spear said he felt that what they were proposing even with the mitigation plan was 100% larger than what they
should have to do. Buffer averaging was nothing new or unprecedented, it had recently been done for the new
Mennards site.
Miklo said with respect to the question of stream corridor and its relationship to wetlands - they were starting
from the Ordinance's requirement of a 100-foot buffer for wetlands, it is a requirement. Whether there was a
stream corridor present or not the 100-foot buffer was required. Because there was a stream corridor present,
the City was not able to consider buffer reduction. The City was able to consider buffer reduction for the two
fingers to the south which were not associated with the stream corridor. Staff acknowledged that it had not
been a running stream in recent years, but it was clearly a drainage way which provided drainage for several
acres. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance and the Wetlands Regulations regulated wetlands associated with a
stream corridor including a drainage way, whether or not there was running water. There was a higher level of
scrutiny given to a wetland associated with a stream corridor even if it was just a drainage way and there was
not a running stream present.
Miklo said the correspondence was from one person at the USGS, in whose opinion some localities over
regulated based on the map. That was only one person's opinion at the USGS. Because the applicant would
be using the wetland area for stormwater management, the wetland improvements being spoken of would
have to occur regardless of whether or not the buffer was reduced. The City's consultant felt that if there was
going to be a successful wetland on that site, the greater the buffer the better. Staff's recommendation was a
deferral. The City's consultant would be able to attend the informal meeting to discuss the wetland issues.
Brooks asked how a developer would know about the blue line. Miklo said it was shown on the USGS map.
In the late 1990's when Staff had first received a concept plan for this property, it had been from a different
consultant. Staff had advised them in writing that there was a blue line shown on the property and they would
need to consult the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. In the interim, Spear had hired at least one other consultant;
when he'd hired MMS Consultants they were the ones who'd discovered that there was not only a stream
corridor but also a wetland.
Miklo said there were also some neighborhood design issues that warranted the 100-foot buffer which
included the fact that the proposed development was directly to the west of some fairly large lots and that
those neighbors had purchased their lots with at) anticipation of an open space corridor separating the lots.
Spear said he'd misspoken, the wetland had been discovered late in the process, not the blue line.
Spear said he lived in the area and was trying to make everyone happy. From the meetings that he'd had with
the neighbors they did not want clustered development or a medium density townhouse development.
Eastham said that type of development was allowed by the Comprehensive Plan.
Spear said Staff had suggested that he try to get the USGS to change the map however the USGS wouldn't
do that, they only reviewed the maps approximately every 10 years. He'd submitted a request but the USGS
said that they didn't have the funding to do the field work so the likelihood of it changing was little. Spear
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 7, 2006
Page 6 of 9
distributed photographs of a housing development including recreation area that he'd built giving a brief history
of the developed neighborhood that he'd grown up in Davenport.
Willis said if the applicant was turned down on their buffering they would become interested in the
circumstances under which averaging had been allowed and the principles that went with it. He said that the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance had no part in it that allowed consideration for either density buffers with adjacent
areas or clustering options. It was an environmental regulation.
Robert Heqeman, said he lived upstream in the water shed area. A waterway was determined primarily by
topography and annual rainfall, those didn't change over decades. The blue line determination could be
calculated by knowing elevations and average annual rainfall, the drainage areas could be calculated that
went through a system. Only average annual rainfall changed. Therefore, he didn't feel that consideration
should be given to changing the blue line.
Hegeman said he had two relevant issues which he wished to bring to the Commission's attention, both of
which had been caused by S&J's predecessor and interest, Frank Eicher, who'd owned the whole property.
Eicher had built a dam upstream which held approximately % an acre of water and held several acre-feet of
water which drained through an 8-inch pipe into a cistern. The cistern went down to another 8-inch pipe which
ran the entire traverse of S&J's land and dumped west of Slothower Road. Accordingly, looking at the surface
it could be said there was no stream there, but underneath there was 8 inches of water moving through a pipe.
Hegeman said all that was required for that to become surface water instead of sub terrain water was to put a
plastic sheet over the cistern. It was a wetland area, so he would suggest adhering to the USGS map.
Hegeman said the dam upstream was important. It was a fairly large wetland area, it had an established
habitat as it had been there since the late 1970's. It was about 3-acre feet of water. Twice in the past 13-
years it had overflowed through a causeway where the outflow was no longer controlled. The dam acted as a
buffer, if there was a lot of rainfall the water in the pond rose and fell but at some point the capacity of the dam
to buffer the lower system was exceeded. In 1993 it had virtually been a river. S&J's predecessor had built
the dam, profited by the sale of it and now wanted to restrict the area downstream that was endangered by an
earthen dam. It was a safety issue, much more than a wetland issue. An earthen dam was holding back at
least 3-acre feet of water, which was approximately 8,000 cubic yards or 6,800 tons of water. Should it be
breached by muskrats or some other creature, it would be a huge volume of water moving down through an
area barely 100-feet wide. Hegeman encouraged the Commission not to decrease the wetland buffer for
safety purposes.
Sarah Jewell, 53 Tuscon Place, said she and her husband had visited with the property owners in the
neighborhood to get a general feeling from their neighbors. They had submitted a letter now signed by 23
property owners who were within 200 feet of the property. No one agreed with the proposed development.
Their big concerns included the waterway, the layout of the streets, if Lakeshore Drive was developed before
Slothower Road was developed Lakeshore would become a throughway in the neighborhood connecting to
Melrose Avenue. Increased traffic would come from vehicles going to the landfill, West High School traffic,
cut-through traffic to Coralville and farmers bringing their equipment through the middle of a residential
development with small children. Jewell said a neighborhood should be a destination point and not just a cut
through to get from one place to another.
Jewell said she'd lived in her house for 5-years and there had been running water on their property in years
past. She was concerned about the proposed buffering. At times they were unable to even get a mower
through the rear of her property near the gulley. If additional houses were built, it would raise the water table
and there would be more water which ran through the area.
Jewell said the developer may have had conversations with particular neighbors in the neighborhood but in
general the homeowners were not in favor of the proposed development, they didn't know what the proposed
plan was, they hadn't been consulted nor their opinion solicited. All the neighbors would very much appreciate
the opportunity to be included as it was their homes. The neighbors would also like to see the park moved to a
more central location so that everyone could enjoy it and not just the northern homes.
Nancy Hitchon, Lot #8, said she lived on over a one-acre lot. Her expectation was that when she did have
neighbors it was not going to be very high density. She would like to have it be more like RR-1, a lower
density. Spears, was a neighbor of larger lots, not the high density that was being proposed. The Country
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 7, 2006
Page 7 of 9
Club Estates development was not something that all persons in the neighborhood who were affected were
members of or participated in.
Chester Schulte, 1812 Rohret Court SW, said he opposed the rezoning of Country Club Estates having lived in
his home for over 23 years. The rezoning would impact the tranquil neighborhood, safety, traffic, wildlife,
aesthetics and the continuation of the present environment. Land valuations, crime, vandalism were all
arguable concerns. The developer would reap economic gain from the rezoning, maximize his profits, impact
lives and then leave. Schulte said he would be left to live with the change starting with the view outside of his
kitchen window. The development of the land seemed inevitable; the small lot size and density of homes was
what he most strongly objected to. When the subdivision was built, the headlights of all the vehicles exiting
the development would flash across his picture window. He'd prefer to see fewer houses built for less impact.
Eastham said the previous speaker had mentioned the possibility of increased vandalism and crime for the
area. As a Planning and Zoning Commission member, it was his perspective and he assumed that everyone
who would move into a new development would be as good a citizen as he was, no matter what the
development was. Everyone in the audience had the right to express their opinions but some of the opinions
would have less value to him than others.
Mark Sandler, 41 Tucson Place, said he and his wife were both opposed to the rezoning for reasons that had
already been mentioned. He said the applicant had invited the Commissioner's to go out and take a look at
the property, but he would encourage them to wait until it rained to do so. He'd lived there almost 15 years, he
could remember times when the neighborhood kids had tubed down the area and had actually been able to
swim at the bottom of the hill on a couple of occasions.
Sarah Jewell, said the existing County Club Estates subdivision were beautiful homes, many of them with 3-
car garages. She'd envisioned that type of development would potentially continue with connecting trail ways,
tennis courts, etc. What was actually being proposed were lot sizes so small that it was not consistent with
what had originally been proposed or what was there now. That was also a concern to the existing home-
owners. She was in favor of clustering to try to make it consistent with the rest of the neighborhood and to not
make it look like cookie cutter club crackers.
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Plahutnick made a motion to defer REZ05-00019/SUB05-00029, an application for a rezoning from
Rural Residential (RR-1), Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone and Low Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Single-Family Residen-
tial (OPD5) and a preliminary plat of Country Club Estates, Parts 3-8, a 154-lot, 82.30-acre residential
subdivision located north of Rohret Road and west of Phoenix Drive. Smith seconded.
Eastham requested Staff to provide information and their opinion regarding 1) how this area was similar or not
similar to other streams that were dry part of the time and 2) the criteria used to determine when buffer
averaging would be allowed.
Brooks requested input from Public Engineering/City Engineer regarding the issues that had been raised about
the dam, what the implications were to the area with a private dam of that size upstream, what control and
mechanisms were there to ensure that the structure was and remained safe for any development that took
place downstream.
Plahutnik asked for information regarding the disposition of the 8-inch pipe full of running water at the wetlands
and surface water.
Freerks said there was a notation regarding long term maintenance of the stormwater basin which needed to
be addressed, now was a good time to further discuss those issues.
Freerks requested that the applicant provide their information to Staff for distribution to the Commission in a
more timely manner rather than bombard them with it during the meeting.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 7,2006
Page 8 of 9
Smith requested that the applicant's development team provide a clarification via correspondence regarding
the issue of stream corridor. The applicant's lawyer had argued that it was not a stream area by definition, yet
the drawings provided by the applicant's engineer designated the area as "inside the stream corridor and
outside the stream corridor".
The motion to defer passed on a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent).
Development Item:
SUB06-00014, discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development Inc. for a final plat for
Windsor Ridge Part Twenty B, a 2-lot residential planned development on approximately 2.7-acres of land
located south of Lower West Branch Road and north of York Place.
Terdalkar said the final plat was in compliance. Staff recommended approval of SUB06-00014 subject to Staff
approval of construction drawings and legal papers prior to consideration by City Council.
Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Eastham made a motion to approve SUB06-00014 subject to Staff approval of construction drawings
and legal papers prior to consideration by Council. Smith seconded. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 14, ZONING CODE:
Brooks said the Commission was in agreement regarding deferring this item because there had been no
informal work session in which to discuss the proposed revisions. Dan Smith, the only member of the public
present, agreed. Brooks request a deferral of the item to allow discussion of proposed amendments at the
next informal meeting.
Motion to defer by Smith. Eastham seconded. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent.)
CONSIDERATION OF 8/17/06 MEETING MINUTES:
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Eastham seconded. Motion
passed on a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent).
OTHER:
Miklo said in follow up to the Stonebridge Estates item which had been voted on by the Commission at the
previous meeting, some lots had not met the required 60-foot lot width. Staff and the developer had agreed to
borrow area from some of the larger corner lots and 8-feet from the open space to make up the deficit. The
plat that would be sent to City Council for their consideration would be slightly different that the plat previously
approved by the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: Smith made a motion to adjourn. Koppes seconded. Motion carried on a vote of 6-0 (Shannon
absent).
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm.
Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary
Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill
s:::
,2
1II
1II
'E
E
o
u'E
c)o
s::: C.)
,- G>
SO::
NG>CD
~gg
C)C'ClN
s:::'tl
.- s:::
s::: G>
S:::'"
~<
D-
~
U
C'Cl
~
.!2
.... >< >< >< >< >< 0 ><
--
en
.... UJ
.... >< >< >< >< >< 0 ><
--
CX)
M >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
--
CX)
0 UJ
N >< >< >< >< 0 >< ><
--
....
CD >< >< >< UJ UJ >< UJ
-- 0 0 --
.... 0
II) UJ UJ UJ
.... 0 >< 0 >< >< >< 0
--
CD
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
--
CD
CX)
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
--
II)
0 I UJ
N >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
-- I
oq- I
CD I UJ
-- >< I 0 >< >< >< ><
oq- I
I
N I
>< I >< >< >< >< ><
-- I
M I
CD I UJ
.... >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
-- I
N I
N I UJ
>< I >< >< >< ><
-- I 0
N I
en I UJ
.... >< I >< >< 0 >< ><
-- I
.... I
II) I UJ
>< I >< >< >< ><
-- I 0
.... I
l/)
E ~ 0 ..- co I"- 0 co co
.... .- ..- ..- 0 0 ..- 0 0
Q)e.. -- -- -- -- -- -- --
U') U') U') U') U') U') U')
I-X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UJ
E .:.: s:::
1II 1II 1II s::: 0
.:.: C'Cl .:.: G> ... s:::
0 J: ... C. ::l s::: J:
... G> J: ...
e l/) c. C'Cl 'E
Q) C'Cl G> 0 ~ J:
...
E a:l w u.. x: D- C/) C/)
co ai 0 <i 3: ~
z w 0
<.9
z
i=
UJ
UJ
~
-I
<(
~
0::
o
u..
oq- UJ UJ
.... >< >< >< >< 0 0 ><
--
CX)
.... UJ
M >< >< >< >< 0 >< ><
--
....
.... UJ
.... >< >< >< >< 0 >< ><
--
....
II) UJ
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< 0
--
II)
.... I UJ
.... >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
-- I
oq- I
.... I
N >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
-- I
N I
M I UJ
.... >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
-- I
N I
l/)
E ~ 0 ..- OJ I"- 0 co co
.... .- ..- ..- 0 0 ..- 0 0
Q)e.. -- -- -- -- -- -- --
U') U') U') U') U') U') U')
I- x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UJ
E ~ s:::
1II 1II 1II s::: 0
.:.: III .:.: ~ ... s:::
0 J: ... ::l s::: J:
... G> J: ;t:
0 1II C. C'Cl
Q) ... C'Cl G> 0 ~ J: E
...
E a:l W u.. x: D- C/) C/)
co <i u.i 3: c:i ~
z m U
<.9
z
I-
UJ
UJ
~
-I
<(
~
0::
o
u..
Z
"0
Q)
l/)
:::l
t)
X
UJ
............:;:,
c:: c:: c::
Q) Q) Q)
l/) l/) l/)
~.o.o
0....<(<(
.. II II II
>. UJ
Q) --
~><oo