HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-16-2006 Planning and Zoning Commission
>>> Please note change of location for Formal Meeting <<<
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, November 13,2006 -7:30 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Lobby Conference Room
410 E. Washington Street
Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 7:30 PM
Formal Meeting
Robert A. Lee Community Recreation Center
Meeting Room B
220 S. Gilbert Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
C. Site Plan Item
Discussion of a site plan for Lots 40 and 41 Olde Towne Village and Auditor's Parcel No.
2006030, a 5-building commercial development located at the southeast corner of Scott
Boulevard and Rochester Avenue.
D. Rezoning Item
REZ06-00021: 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.
E. Development Code Item
Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow a minor modification in cases
where there are practical difficulties meeting the standards for structured parking facilities
when retrofitting such facilities within existing buildings.
F. Other Items
E. Consideration of the October 5,2006 and October 19,2006 Meeting Minutes
F. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
U comin
December 4
December 7
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 16, 2006
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Robert Miklo
Re: Site Plan Review - Olde Towne Village
Site plans are usually reviewed and approved administratively by staff for compliance with
City Code requirements, Conditional Zoning Agreements (CZA) and any special exceptions
that apply to a property. After submittal to the Department of Housing and Inspection
Services (HIS), site plans are routed to the Fire, Public Works and Planning Departments for
review and comment. Items needing correction are identified and sent to the applicant.
Upon final approval of the site plan a building permit may be issued and development
activity may commence.
When owners of 20% or more of the property within 200 feet of the boundaries of the
proposed development site submit a request, site plans are reviewed by the Planning and
Zoning Commission in lieu of staff (see section 18-2-3 Approval/Denial Process on page 4
and 5 of the attached Site Plan Review procedures). Owners of more than 20% of the
property located within 200 feet of Lots 40 and 41 Olde Towne Village and Auditors Parcel
No. 2006030 have submitted a request that the Planning and Zoning Commission review
the site plan for this development. These property owners are concerned that the plan
varies from the concept plan and the Conditional Zoning Agreements (CZA) that were
entered into by the property owners at the time these properties were rezoned to
Community Commercial (CC-2).
The attached CZA number 1 applies to Lots 40 and 41 of Olde Towne Village (it also applies
to other portions of Olde Towne Village that are not included in this site plan application).
CZA number 2 applies to Auditor's Parcel No. 2006030. The CZA requires that
development of the property conforms with the concept plan that will result in a Main Street
or Town Square style of commercial center.
Staff was in the process of reviewing the site plan when the request for Planning and Zoning
Commission review was submitted. An earlier site plan was not approved by staff due to a
number of deficiencies. The attached list compiled by the HIS notes deficiencies that are
still outstanding on the last site plan.
Attachments/enclosures:
1. Title 18: Site Plan Review procedures
2. Site Plan submittal
3. CZA Number 1
4. CZA Number 2
5. Staff site plan review comments
6. Petition requesting Planning and Zoning Commission review
Title 18: Site Plan Review
CHAPTER 1. INTENT AND APPLICABILITY
18-1-1 Purpose
It is the purpose of this Title to establish a procedure which will enable the City to review certain
proposed improvements of property within the City in order to ensure the orderly and harmonious
development of property in a manner that will:
( A. Promote the most beneficial relation between present and proposed uses of land;
B. Allow development of property commensurate with the present and foreseeable availability and
capacity of City facilities and services; The following factors shaH be considered in arriving at a
conclusion concerning proposed development of property:
1. The projected population of the proposed development or the proposed intensity of use and the
effect the proposal will have on the capacity of existing water and sanitary sewer lines to
avoid overloading existing systems;
2. Zoning regulations at the time of the proposal;
3. The City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and other specific community plans;
4. The City's plans for future construction and provision for public facilities and services; and
5. The existing and planned City facilities and services for the area which will be affected by the
proposed site use.
C. Ensure compliance with the City Code, as amended, including applicable zoning regulations,
approved subdivision plats, public works standards, and public safety standards;
D. Encourage adequate provision of surface and subsurface storm water drainage in order to assure that
future development and other properties in the City will not be adversely affected;
E. Provide screening of parking, truck loading, solid waste disposal and outdoor storage areas from
adjacent properties;
F. Provide for orderly, safe, and efficient circulation of traffic in the development and throughout the
City;
G. Minimize adverse environmental impacts on the developing property.
18-1-2 Applicability
A. Site Plan Review Required
1. The standards in this Title are in addition to those required by the Uniform Building Code, as
amended, and apply to commercial, industrial, and multi-unit residential development.
2. Site plans must be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the City according to the provisions
of this Title prior to the issuance of a building permit for any development on any lot, tract or
parcel ofland as those terms are defined in Title 14, Zoning Code, except as exempted below.
f
!
B. Exemptions
Site Plan Review is not required for the development of one single family dwelling or one two-
family dwelling or related accessory structures in any zoning district. However, such uses and
structures are not exempt from other applicable provisions of the City Code, including requirements
of the Uniform Building Code, as amended.
c. Major Site Plans
Major site plans are required for all of the following types of development:
1. Construction of over 12 units residential development and any additions or alterations to
existing development containing over 12 units residential; or
2. Over 10,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area.
D. Minor Site Plans
Minor site plans are required for all development that does not require a major site plan, except as
exempted in subsection B, Exemptions, above.
.
\
E. Sensitive Areas Development Plan
A Sensitive Areas Development Plan may be required for properties containing environmentally
sensitive features as set forth in Article 14-51 of the City Code, Sensitive Lands and Features. The
requirements and exemptions for regulated sensitive features are set forth in Article 14-51. Level I
Sensitive Areas Review shall be in accordance with the all procedures and approval processes set
forth in Chapter 2 of this Title, except for Section 18-2-2, Submittal Requirements. Submittal
requirements for Level I Sensitive Areas Review are set forth in Article 14-51, based on the type of
regulated feature(s) that exist on the subject property.
.,t
2
CHAPTER 2. PROCEDURES AND SUBMITTAL
REQUIREMENTS
18-2-1 General Procedures
An application for site plan approval for all development shall be submitted to the City and shall meet the
following requirements:
A. A minimum of two copies of minor site plans and four copies of major site plans containing all
required information.
B. The required review fee, as established by resolution of the City Council, shall accompany the
application for site plan approval.
C. Within twenty-four hours of submitting an application for major site plan approval, the applicant
shall post notice of intent to develop on the site. The notice to be posted will be provided by the City
and shall be posted as directed by the City.
18-2-2 Submittal Requirements
A. Minor Site Plan
Minor site plans submitted for approval must include information as specified below:
1. Date of preparation and north arrow.
2. A scale no smaller than one inch equals one hundred feet (1 " = 100')
3. Legal description or street address of the property.
4. Name and address of the owner of record of the property, the applicant and the person(s)
preparing the site plan, and the name and address of the applicant's attorney, if any. .
5. Property lines with dimensions to the nearest one-tenth of a foot (1/10') and total square
footage or acreage of the site.
6. Total number and types of dwelling units proposed, proposed uses for all building, total floor
area of each building and any other information which may be necessary to determine the
number of off-street parking and loading spaces required by Title 14, Zoning Code.
7. Location and exterior dimensions of all existing and proposed structures or additions,
including setback distance from property boundary lines and distance between structures.
8. Location, grade and dimension of all existing and proposed paved surfaces, including parking
and loading areas, entrance and exit drives, pedestrian walkways, bicycle storage areas,
dividers, curbs, islands and other similar permanent improvements.
9. Location of all existing and proposed outdoor recycling, trash, ~olid waste, and dumpster areas
and methods of screening such areas.
10. Location and type of all existing and proposed signs. Proposed signs may require a separate
sign permit (See Article 14-5B, Sign Regulations).
11. Plans and proposed methods for the prevention and control of soil erosion for the
development.
3
12. A landscaping plot plan is required indicating all existing trees eight inches or larger in
diameter measured at a point six inches above the ground level. In addition, the plot plan must
distinguish the existing or proposed trees or landscaping intended to satisfy tree requirements
or screening requirements of the City Code (See 14-5A-5I, Landscaping and Tree
Requirements within Parking Areas and 14-5E, Landscaping and Tree Standards, and any
other applicable screening required according to Title 14, Zoning Code.)
13. Location of the following features of the site:
a. Streams and other water bodies, including wetlands;
b. Areas subject to flooding from a IOO-year event;
14. Location, amount and type of proposed lighting, fences, walls or other screening.
15. A detailed lighting plan and photometrics layout which shows the location, type, height, and
intensity of all existing and proposed exterior lighting on the property. The photometries
layout must show the foot-candles generated by all lights on the property and provide the total
outdoor light output as measured in initial lumens from all bulbs used in outdoor light fixtures.
The lighting plan and photometrics layout must comply with the standards specified in Article
14-50, Outdoor Lighting Standards.
16. Location and specifications for any existing or proposed aboveground or below-ground
storage facilities for any chemical, salts, flammable materials or hazardous materials.
17. Other data and information as may be reasonably required by the Building Official.
B. Major Site Plans
Submittal information for major site plans must include all the information contained in subsection
A ofthis Section, plus the following additional information:
1. Existing and proposed contours at intervals not to exceed 5 feet provided at least 2 contours
are shown. Contours of neighboring properties must be provided when deemed necessary by
the City.
2. When deemed necessary by the City, a complete storm water runoff plan, including grades
and/or elevations of storm sewer systems, direction of surface flow, detention areas, outlet
control structures and devices and storm water calculations (See Article 15-30, Storm Water
Collection, Discharge, and Runoff).
3. Location and size of existing and proposed utilities, including water, sanitary sewer, storm
sewer, gas, electrical telephone, cable TV, plus all existing or proposed fire hydrants.
4. A typical cross section of all proposed streets, alleys and parking areas showing roadway
location, type of curb and gutter, paving and sidewalks to be installed.
5. A complete traffic circulation and parking plan.
:-
18-2-3 Approval/Denial Process
A. The City shall review and approve, review and approve with conditions, or review and deny all site
plans submitted under this Title within 21 working days after application, without requiring
submission of the plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
B. Upon submission of a major site plan, the Building Official shall promptly convey a copy of the
major site plan to the Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning and Community
Development for their review and comments. The Departments of Planning and Community
4
Development, Public Works and Housing and Inspection Services shall review the site plan to
determine if the design conforms to the standards set forth in this Article. The Departments of
Planning and Community Development and Public Works shall forward their recommendations to
the Department of Housing and Inspection Services within ten (10) working days after date of
submission of a major site plan to the City.
C. For major site plans, the Department of Housing and Inspection Services or those owners of20
percent or more of the property location within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of the proposed
development site may request a review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The request must
be in writing and must be filed with the Building Official within 20 days of submission of the
original application or within 20 days of the posting requirements set forth in Section 18-2-1, above,
whichever is later. When such a request is received, the Planning and Zoning Commission may
review and approve, review and approve with conditions, or review and deny said plan within 20
working days of receipt of the written request for Planning and Zoning Commission review. The
Commission's scope of review shall be the same as that ofthe Building Official and the Department
of Housing and Inspection Services.
D. Upon site plan approval by the Building Official or the Plan and Zoning Commission, a building
permit may be issued.
18-2-4 Effective Period of Plan Approval
The approval of any site plan shall remain valid for one year after the date of approval. The approved site
plan shall be null and void if a building permit has not been issued within one year of the site pan
approval or if actual construction has not commenced within eighteen (18) months of the site plan
approval. "Actual construction" shall mean that the permanent placement of construction materials has
started and is proceeding without undue delay.
18-2-5 Amendments to Approved Site Plans
Any approved site plan may be amended in accordance with the standards and procedures established
herein. However, the Building Official may waive such procedures and,fees in the event the Building
Official determines that the proposed amendment involves only a minor change in the approved site plan
and is in compliance with the site plan review standards. For the purposes of this Section minor changes
may include, but are not limited to the following:
A. A change to move building walls within the confines of the smallest rectangle that would have
enclosed each originally approved building, to relocate building entrances or exits or to shorten
building canopies.
B. A change to a more restrictive use, provided there is no change in the amount of off-street parking
as originally approved.
C. A change in angle of parking or a parking aisle width, provided there is no reduction in the amount
of off-street parking as originally approved.
D. A change in location of the ingress and egress drives of not more than 100 feet, provided such
change is approved by the City and is in compliance with the provisions of Article 14-5C, Access
Management Standards.
E. A substitution of plant species, provided the substituted species is similar in nature and in screening
effects and is otherwise in compliance with City Code requirements.
5
F. A change in type and design of lighting fixture, provided there will be no change in the intensity of
light at the property boundary and the proposed fixture is in compliance with the applicable
provisions of Article 14-60, Outdoor Lighting Standards.
G. A change to increase peripheral yards.
H. The replacement of paved areas with landscaping, provided adequate parking facilities are retained.
6
CHAPTER 3. SITE PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS
18-3-1 Compliance Required
All site plans submitted for City approval must comply with the following design standards. These
standards are the minimum standards necessary to safeguard the public health, safety, aesthetics and
general welfare of the City and are necessary to fulfill the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the
Comprehensive Plan as amended and other specific community plans.
18-3-2 Desi n Standards
A. Drainage
The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for surface and subsurface
drainage to limit the rate of increased runoff of surface water to adjacent and downstream property
SO that the proposed development will not substantially and materially increase the natural flow onto
adjacent downstream property.
B. Utility Connections
The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for connection to water,
sanitary sewer, storm sewer, electrical and other public utility lines within the capacity limits of
those utility lines.
C. Fire Safety
The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for fire protection and for
building placement, acceptable location of flammable materials and other measures to ensure fire
safety.
D. Erosion and Sedimentation Control
The design of the proposed development shall comply with the standards for erosion and
sedimentation control established in the City design standards in order to protect adjoining or
surrounding property. The development plan shall consider the topography and soils ofthe site to
achieve the lowest potential for erosion.
E. Landscape Preservation
So far as practical, the landscape shall be preserved in its natural state by minimizing tree and soil
removal and by topographic modifications which result in maximum harmony with adjacent areas.
Structures and other site improvements shall be located in such a manner that the maximum number
of trees are preserved on the site. The development plan shall identify existing trees to be preserved
and trees to be removed and shall specify measures to be utilized to protect trees during
construction. To the extent reasonably feasible, all wetlands shall be retained in their natural state
or consistent with their functions and values or be replaced with a wetland of equal or greater value.
F. Vehicle and Pedestrian Circulation
The design of vehicle and pedestrian circulation shall be provided for safe and convenient flow of
vehicles and movement of pedestrians and shall, to the greatest extent reasonably possible, prevent
hazards to adjacent streets or property. The City may limit entrances and exits upon adjacent streets
in order to prevent congestion on adjacent or surrounding streets and in order to provide for safe and
orderly vehicle movement. The City may limit street access according to the provisions of Article
14-5C, Access Management Standards.
7
G. Outdoor Dumpster Areas
Outdoor recycling, trash, solid waste, and dumpster areas shall be in compliance with the City's
solid waste regulations and in compliance with screening requirements contained in Title 14,
Zoning Code. (See 14-4C-2Q, Outdoor Dumpster Areas)
H. Exterior lighting
Exterior lighting shall relate to the scale and location of the development in order to maintain
adequate security while preventing a nuisance or hardship to adjacent properties or streets. All
exterior lighting must comply with the provisions of Article 14-5G of the City Code, Outdoor
Lighting Standards.
I. Screening of Equipment
All ground level mechanical and utility equipment shall be screened from public view according to
the provisions of Title 14, Zoning Code (See 14-4C-2N, Mechanical Structures).
J. Screening of Storage and Loading Areas
If allowed, all outdoor storage areas must be located and screened according to the applicable base
zone provisions of Title 14, Zoning Code. All outdoor storage areas and loading/unloading service
areas with delivery facilities, including bay doors or docks, which face or are visible from
residential district and the Iowa River shall be screened to a height of no less than 6 feet and must
meet all screening standards specified in Title 14, Zoning, for outdoor storage and loading areas.
K. Parking Areas
Any parking areas or vehicle storage area designed or intended for use by more than four (4)
vehicles located adjacent to any street shall be separated and screened from such street by a curbed,
planted area as specified in Title 14, Zoning.
L. Sensitive Areas
All sensitive areas development plans must comply with the applicable provisions of Article 14-51
of the City Code, Sensitive Lands and Features. '
M. Compliance with City, State, and Federal Regulations
Site plans shall comply with all applicable City, State, and Federal regulations.
8
CHAPTER 4. ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES
18-4-1 Development Activity
No person shall undertake or carry out any activity or use, including any building demolition, grading,
clearing, cutting and filling, excavating or tree removal, for which site plan approval is first required by
this Title, nor shall such activity proceed prior to obtaining the necessary permits, including local,
County, State and Federal permits. Any violation of this provision is subject to fines and penalties
described in this Title for each day of the violation, from the day of discovery of the incident until an
approved restoration plan or an approved site plan is granted.
18-4-2 Performance Guarantee
A. The purpose of the performance guarantee is to ensure completion of improvements connected with
a proposed use as required by this Title, including, but not limited to roadways, lighting, utilities,
sidewalks, drainage, fences, screens, wall and landscaping.
B. "Performance Guarantee" shall mean a cash deposit, certified check, or irrevocable standby letter of
credit in the amount of the estimated cost of the improvements, to be determined by the applicant
and verified by the City.
C. Upon issuance of a building permit, the City may require a performance guarantee.
D. When a performance guarantee is required, there shall also be provided a prescribed period of time
within which improvements must be completed.
E. Where a performance guarantee is not required upon issuance of a building permit and the
improvements cannot be completed prior to occupancy or commencement of a use, the Building
Official may issue a temporary certificate of occupancy and require the applicant to deposit a
performance guarantee as set forth above.
F. Upon satisfactory completion of the improvements for which the performance guarantee is required,
as determined by the City, the City shall return the performance guarantee to the applicant.
G. In the event that the applicant defaults in making the improvements for which a performance
guarantee is required or fails to complete the improvements within the time prescribed by the City,
the City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to use the performance guarantee deposited,
together with any interest earned thereon, to complete the improvements through contract or
otherwise. This includes the specific right to enter upon the subject property to make the
improvements. If the performance guarantee is not sufficient to allow the City to complete the
improvements for which the guarantee was posted, the applicant shall be required to pay the City
the amount by which the cost of completing the improvements exceeds the amount of the
performance guarantee deposited. Should the City use the performance guarantee or a portion
thereof to complete the required improvements, any amounts remaining after completion shall be
applied first to the City's administrative costs in completing the improvements, with any balance
remaining being refunded to the applicant. At the time the performance guarantee is deposited, the
applicant shall enter into a written agreement with the City, which incorporates the performance
guarantee requirements set forth above.
9
18-4-3 Penalties
Any violation of this Title shall be considered a simple misdemeanor or municipal infraction or
environmental infraction as provided for in Title 1, Chapter 4 of the City Code.
10
CZA Number 1
Prepared by: Bob Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5240
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City"), Plum Grove Acres, Inc. (hereinafter "Applicant").
WHEREAS, Applicant is owner and legal title holder of approximately 31.88 acres of property
located south of Rochester Avenue and east of Scott Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested rezoning of this property from Low Density Single
Family, RS-5, County Highway Commercial, CH, County Local Commercial, C-1, and County
Multi-Family, R3-A, to Community Commercial, CC-2 (10.88 acres) and Medium Density Single-
Family Residential, RS-8 (21 acres); and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions ensuring the development of the property in accordance with the neighborhood design
policies of the Northeast District Plan, and with provisions for street improvements, the proposed
rezoning is in conformance with the Northeast District Plan, which is part of the Comprehensive
Plan; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code Section 414.5 (2001) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to
ensure that the development of the property is in accordance with the neighborhood design
policies of the Northeast District Plan and to ensure that adequate streets are in place to serve the
property; and
Plum Grove Acres, Inc. G jitional Zoning Agreement
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Owners and Applicant have agreed to use this property in accordance with the
terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement to ensure that the above-referenced
Comprehensive Plan policies are addressed.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the Parties agree
as follows:
1. Plum Grove Acres, Inc. is the owner and legal title holder of the property legally described
as follows:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION fOR PROPOSED ZONING PARCEL CC-2
~.ot.tM Nortllwtltcomer. ~f..SeetIcn 7, T~ 79. North. ~ 5 West of the
Rfth PmelpOI Ueri<Ion, City. of IoWO CIty. Johnsen County, Ion; Thence SOO'3~ .1"W, oIqng
the troestb of the~ ~,~hald Seclb 7, ochtonce of 9$4.84 f6et:. TheiIct
N16"J2'52"t 309.25httt 1henct ~"~34.02 fittto opoilt Oft the IOVtherly ~t~-
Wfl't line of the Herbtrt Hoover tflPia)'~ond tho Poilt of Bc9Innk1g; Thence con\itl.ltng
SOO"35'42-w. along lQid$OUthedy ~t-of.owoy h. 28.24 feet; Thence N76'21'OS"E. Gong
sold ~y r91t-of-way 1m.. 248.04 ftet ~Nm.'51"E. along sold IOViberfy rijlt~-
MY 1i1e, 200.84 feet; 1ben~ tf1S'51'OS"E, along Ud toUlhedy right-of-M'y line, 162.16 feel:
Thence sot,g'S2"W, 2n.16 feet; lhMCO NSB".w'OO"W, 106.04 feet; ~ $Ot'19'52"W,
0404.00 feet; 1hcnee ScluthHsterfy. 203.93 feet, Gong ~ 0l'C of 0 780.00 foot rodbs ar'Ye,
concave Soutbeott~ wbote 203.35 foot c:bord been S8J'S0'48"W; Thence S76'21'24.W,
<W2.01 feet; 1htnce Southwesterl)'. 137.43 feet. along ~ en of 0 720.00 foot rodiu:s curw.
c.clC'tCCM "orIh~..mos. 137.22 foot ch<<d been 581'49'30"'1 to G poilt Oft tfIe eosttrfy
right-of-woy line of Scott Boulevard; Th<<lcc northwesterly, 256.51 feet dong sold
easterly ricIlt-of-woylile ond ~ ore of 0 1050.00 foot radius ane. tonCO't1e soutI1westefty
whose 255.87 foot chord been N10"4&'38"w, Thence N1T46'32'"W, oIong said easterly r9tt -
of-woy line., 339.36 feet to a point on the lOUtberfy ~t-of-woy line of Rochester Awwe;
TheMe nortbeost~ U5.69 feet cIcn9 toi6 tcutherly rijlt-of~ 1M and ~ ore of 05698.58
foot rocb Cl.IM, conccM southealterly. .mosc 115.69 foot chord bean N73'18'~.E: Thetlce
SOO"35'n 292.24 foet; Thenoe N76'32'st'E. 183.74 feet; Thence NOO'35'42"[, 297.99 feel
to 0 poPt on IOid souttletl, r9tt-of-woy 1M; 1benoe northeost.ty, 71.044 fMt along &old
southerly ri9at-of-woy ine and an ere of Q 5698.58 foot rod'us ant. QlflCOwe southecstert)',
whose 71." foot dIord Man N76W'4f'E: Thence N75.4I'02"E, aIon9 tQjd lCUtherty rigbt-of-
woy me. 54.42 feet to the Polnt of ~ ~ 1Q.88 acres ~ Is IlbJed to ~ts
and mttIctions of record.
LEGAl DESCRlPllON FOR PROPOSm 2<HNG PARca RS-S
Commencing at \be c.nt<< of Sedlon 7,. Township N Hd. Range 5 West of the fUUI ~
Meridian, Jchnton Cowlty. Iowa; 1hence NW.wWW. dong the ctnterfne of lower West
&GI\dI Rood SE. 1836.47 feet 1Mnct NOt'9'52"E, 33.02 r.et to a point Oft tile fl<<tNdy ~t-
of-woy line of lower West 9ronda Road SE and the Pdnt of ~Ing: thence N86"46't1"W,
aIongsdd notth<<ty ~t-of-woyh, .72.36 feet n.c. norihwesterty. 220.~ feet dong said
nortbel1y riqrt-of-woy line and on 0l'C of a 542.00 foot rodi.I8 arw. concove n~
those 219.34 foot dIord been N75'05'45-W to Q pont an the east lin, of Audilor'. Parcel
91040 os rtCCRSed ~ Plat Book 37 at Page 347 ~tf1e rec<<d:s of the ~ Cowlty Recorder;
Thenc:e NOO"35'42"E, GIon9 told east 1M, 489.17 foet; 1htnce N89"24't8"W, along the north
h of told 14Icitor'. PGrcel 97040, a chtonce of 250.00 feet, to G palRt an the eosterly ~t-of-
Wf h of Scott BouIMnt 1htnce NOO'35'42't dong taid ecmerty ri!i1t-oHioy 1M. 398.14
feet; Thence northwesterly. 80.15 feet, a1ang laid eostert1~t+WQ)' line and CI'l crc of 0
1060.00 foot rocAls ant. c:oncaveeoutflwostert" .. 80.13 fool chord boors N0135'32"W;
Thence northeasterly, 137.43 feet, GI<lftg on en of 0 720.00 foot rodkts CUM. concow
Mtthweat<<ly, whOM 137.22 foot d10rd bears N81'49'~ Thence N76'21'24"'[. 402.01 feet;
Thence northeasterly, 203.93 f.... along ClI'I en: of 0 780.00 foot rodiu. CUIW, concove
southeasterly, whose 203.35 foot chord been N83'50'48'E; Thence S88"4O'08"E. 225.47 Ittt,
to the Northwest comer of Lot 2 of Tegler SubdMalon, CIS recotded ~ PlGt Book 25
at P0ge 42. records of Johnaon County, Iowa; Thence S01'9'S2.W, Glong the
waterfy line of saki lot 2, 0 distGC'lc. of 1184.21 fttt to sold Point of Beginning.
oontolntng 21.00 oa'e8 ond lUbje<:t to eosemcnts and rnhietion8 of record.
Plum Grove Acres, Inc. t ~ditional Zoning Agreement
Page 3
2. Owners and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure appropriate commercial
and residential development that conforms to the neighborhood design policies contained
within the Northeast District Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code Section
414.5 (2001) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on
granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above the existing .regulations, in order
to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested change, including provisions for
adequate infrastructure necessary to support urban development. Therefore, Owners and
Applicant agree to certain conditions over and above City regulations as detailed below.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Applicant agrees that
development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning
chapter, as well as the following conditions:
a. Applicant agrees that preliminary and final plats and site plans for the. eventual
development of this property will demonstrate compliance with the neighborhood
design policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan, including the Northeast
District Plan, and that the City will take these policies into consideration during its
review of said plats and plans.
b. Applicant agrees that the CC-2 property shall develop in general conformance with
the concept plan attached hereto and incorporated herein. Any subdivision or site
plan shall generally conform to this concept plan and shall be designed to create a
Main Street or Town Square style commercial center. The commercial center shall be
designed with a pedestrian orientation incorporating such features as on-street
parking, parking lots behind buildings, minimal or no building setback from sidewalks
and upper floor residential uses.
c. Applicant agrees that prior to the development of the RS-8 property, the applicant or
future property owner shall submit and obtain approval of a Planned Development
Housing Overlay (OPDH), which will adhere to the neighborhood design policies of
the Comprehensive Plan, including the Northeast District Plan.
d. Prior to any plats or development being approved on the property with frontage on
Lower West Branch Road or within 500 feet of Lower West Branch Road, the
reconstruction of Lower West Branch Road must be in a funded year in Iowa City's
Capital Improvements program. Additionally, prior to any plats or development being
Plum Grove Acres, Inc. (; .ditional Zoning Agreement
Page 4
approved for the property with frontage on Lower West Branch Road or within 500
feet of Lower West Branch Road, the Applicant must contribute funds toward the
reconstruction of Lower West Branch Road to the City. The Applicant agrees that the
amount of funds to be contributed by Applicant to City toward the reconstruction of
Lower West Branch Road is $86,652.
e. Applicant agrees to dedicate to City 45 feet of right-of-way south of the centerline of
Rochester Avenue along Rochester Avenue.
f. Applicant agrees to dedicate to City 33 feet of right-of-way south of the centerline of
Lower West Branch Road along Lower West Branch Road.
g. Applicant agrees to install a curb and gutter along the edge of the existing pavement
and an 8-foot wide sidewalk on the south side of Rochester Avenue in conjunction
with the development of the CC-2 property. Applicant agrees that it shall bear all
expense for these improvements and said improvements shall be constructed in
accordance with the City's specifications.
h. Applicant agrees to provide an easement, without compensation, for a sewer main at
a location and along a route mutually acceptable to the Applicant and the City of Iowa
City to serve the Iowa City Care Facility property.
4. The Applicant acknowledges that the conditions contained herein are reasonable
conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code Section 414.5 (2001), and that said
conditions satisfy public needs which are directly caused by the requested zoning change.
5. The Applicant acknowledges that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold,
redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this
Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a
,
covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and
effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City.
The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind
all successors, representatives and assigns of the parties.
Plum Grove Acres, Inc. c.. ditional Zoning Agreement
Page 5
7. Applicant acknowledges that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be
construed to relieve the Owners or Applicant from complying with all applicable local, state
and federal regulations.
8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by
reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and
publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense.
Dated this ..ysr day of July, 2001.
PLUM GROVE ACRES, INC.
~ ./)
By. ...- //(/,/j,r{ (}~9i/r.;
rank Boyd, President and Se~
z;
B ~#~
Ernest W. Lehman, Mayor
Attest: ~~~ ~ ~~
Man n K. Karr, City Clerk
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this 31 st day of July, A.D. 2001, before me, the undersigned, a Notary P.ublic in and for the
State of Iowa, personally appeared Frank BQldt~ me personally known, who, being by me duly
sworn, did say that he is the President"Sf'5a'fa eorporation executing the within and foregoing
instrument to which this is attached, that no seal has been procured by the said corporation; that
said instrument was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors; and
that the said President as such officer acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the
voluntary act and deed of said corporation, by it and by him voluntarily executed.
i SALLY J DuCHARME
o f. Commission Number 704875
. . My Commission Exp/ru
Auaust 30 2003
sO~ 7.~U~
~otary P 4if and for said County and State
Plum Grove Acres, Inc., .1ditional Zoning Agreement
Page 6
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
COUNTY OF JOHNSON )
On this day of , 2001, before me,
, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally
appeared Ernest W. Lehman and Marian K. Karr, to me personally known, and, who, being by me
duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City,
Iowa; that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of the corporation, and
that the instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the corporation, by authority of its City
Council, as contained in (Ordinance) (Resolution) No. passed by the City Council,
on the day of , 2001, and that Ernest W. Lehman and
Marian K. Karr acknowledged the execution of the instrument to be their voluntary act and deed
and the voluntary act and deed of the corporation, by it voluntarily executed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
My commission expires:
ppdadmlagVcza-p1umgrove.doc
~
-T-\
I
Q.
o'
./
" ,
,.....~...._- ...'......
......
, \Q.
--\1\(:;
Co. ~
c--~
. ~.~.
. l1'l. .
I . ,,, --.\\
\ \rt' fU\
\ ." l1'l. \
'\'l1'l.,"v \
.. ,W CS'
',~ ~
. ,. .
. ", - ". ".
, '''"7'\
~,,,.
..;.< . . .
~' .
. ,,'.l1'l.'
" .--:(),..,,,."
, '.
0'-" . ~
", '3. '
, '''(\): --1'"
'~.~
~\-"\
6
t
-.'"''
" i'
n, I
\, \. " l
\.\': -', \
\~\ '\
;,
...'.,
,
\.
c-'....--.'.:;
'\. .
. ...",'.~\
')
I
I
............
.,.........,..
\ "
,--.,-
\
I
", '-
",
".: (;
",-
,(
-...... "":
\\,.. ...... '\
',~~)
f 8.,j---~'
~' i""
,.~ I !. "'.
-r:-0'-.--/'~ ' ~ -.p~
/ 0 c:::::;:::;::::~,. . .
, ! 0
,'@---... .. ""'-- .J r
o
,
,
(
I
I
\
{-............
1.::1
;
"....
/
,
'--~
i
, \
o
c__
, ll' ",
"', ,ilL,..... *."'~w.'"
ll' ll'",.~ ---
~ }:'6'C' '0 6:1
. ip"~ '1"1" 0 I .
ll'1l.' 0 i,\ t .n
· 0 -1~~~......_.
\ '.',.......<:::,0 '",'.;::~b/
~,...,.." .."
'.., /...."...
\Q.:)0 '" (. II< . If 0 \.
...... . h 0 11>' 0' ~
. 0\.:.:,,'\. ...,._~~/0
.... 0,....0 '" II>
.
\
\
o
",
"
\
, \.....
"0 ,Ii) 0 0)
o 0
I?! (i) f.'"
o
o
(:)
o
--,. .t.~~
',t.' '\
'~: '
'0
o
o
o
"
,~
. _.._.L_...._ u_'
CZA Number 2
Prepared by: Bob Miklo, Sr. Planner, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City,IA 52240 (319) 356-5240 (REZ05-00024)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter
"City"), Three Bulls, L.L.C. (hereinafter "Applicant").
WHEREAS, Applicant is owner and legal title holder of approximately 1.02 acres of property located south of
Rochester Avenue and east of Scott Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested rezoning of this property from Low Density Single Family, RS-5, to
Community Commercial, CC-2 ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions ensuring
the development of the property in accordance with the neighborhood design policies of the Northeast District
Plan, and with provisions for street improvements and control of vehicular access to Rochester Avenue, the
proposed rezoning is in conformance with the Northeast District Plan, which is part of the Comprehensive
Plan; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code Section 414.5 (2005) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy
public needs directly caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure
that the development of the property is in accordance with the neighborhood design policies of the Northeast
District Plan and to ensure that adequate streets are in place to serve the property; and
WHEREAS, the Owners and Applicant have agreed to use this property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement to ensure that the above-referenced Comprehensive Plan
policies are addressed.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Three Bulls, L.L.C. is the owner and legal title holder of the property legally described as follows:
Beginning with an iron pin in the center of public highway, said iron pin being the Northwest
corner of Section 7, Township 79 North, Range 5 West of the 5th P.M.; thence South along
the center of said highway and the West line of said Section 7, 994.6 feet to an iron pin,
being the intersection of the West line of said Section 7 and the South line of Iowa Highway
No.1; thence in a Northeasterly direction 34 feet to an iron pin and the place of beginning;
thence continuing in a Northeasterly direction along the South line of said Iowa Highway No.
ppdadmlagUcza-3 bulls.doc
Three Bulls, L.L.C. Conditional Zoning Agreement
Page 2
1, 149.73 feet to an iron pin; thence South 149.7 feet to an iron pin; thence in a
Southwesterly direction, parallel to the South line of above mentioned Iowa Highway No.1,
149.73 feet to an iron pin; thence North along lhe East line of public highway 149.7 feet to
the place of beginning
and
Commencing with an iron pin, said iron pin being the Northwest corner of Section 7,
Township 79 North, Range 5 West, also a point on the center line of County Highway;
thence South aong the West line of said Section 7 and the centerline of said County
Highway, 994.6 feet to the intersection of the Center line of said County Highway and the
South right of way line of the present State Highway Number 1; thence in a Northeasterly
direction, along the South right of way line of said State Highway Number 1, 34 feet to an
iron pin; thence South, parallel to the Center line of above mentioned County Highway.
149.7 feet to an iron pin and the place of beginning, thence continuing South, parallel to the
Center line of said County Highway, 149.7 feet to an iron pin, thence in a Northeasterly
direction, parallel to the South right of way line of above mentioned State Highway Number
1, 149.73 feet to an iron pin; thence North parallel to the Center line of above mentioned
County Highway, 149.7 feel to an iron pin; thence in Southwesterly direction, parallel to the
South right of way' line of above mentioned State Highway Number 1, 149.73 feet to an iron
pin and the place of beginning.
The total real estate consists of 1.02 acres.
2. Owners and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure appropriate commercial
development that conforms to the neighborhood design policies contained within the Northeast
District Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code Section 414.5 (2005) provides that the
City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over
and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested
change, including provisions for adequate infrastructure necessary to support urban development.
Therefore, Owners and Applicant agree to certain conditions over and above City regulations as
detailed below.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Applicant agrees that development of the
subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning chapter, as well as the following
conditions:
a. Applicant agrees that preliminary and final plats and site plans for the eventual development of
this property will demonstrate compliance with the neighborhood design policies contained
ppdadrntagtlcza-3 bulls.doc
Three Bulls, L.L.G. Conditional Zoning Agreement
Page 3
within the Comprehensive Plan, including the Northeast District Plan, and that the City will take
these policies into consideration during its review of said plats and plans.
b. Applicant agrees that the property shall develop in manner consistent with Olde Towne
Village site plans and will include features such as parking lots located behind the buildings
and buildings built at or near the sidewalks
c. Applicant agrees to dedicate to City 50 feet of right-of-way south of the centerline of Rochester
Avenue along Rochester Avenue, prior to approval of a building permit or site plan including
any portion of the subject property.
d. Applicant agrees to install a curb and gutter along the edge of the existing pavement and an 8-
foot wide sidewalk on the south side of Rochester Avenue in conjunction with the development
of the CC-2 property. Applicant agrees that it shall bear all expense for these improvements
and said improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's specifications.
e. Applicant agrees that vehicular access to this property will be from Westbury Drive. No curb
cuts will be permitted onto Rochester Avenue.
4. The Applicant acknowle:lges that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to
impose on the land under Iowa Code Section 414.5 (2005), and that saidconditions satisfy public
needs which are directly caused by the requested zoning change.
5. The Applicant acknowledges that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped,
or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant
running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant
with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City. The parties further acknowledge
that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives and assigns
of the parties.
7. Applicant acknowledges that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to
relieve the Owners or Applicant from complying with all applicable local, state and federal
regulations.
8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the
ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance,
this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's
expense.
Dated this 711t
day of M,..rz.C4/
,2006
ppdadm'agVcza-3 bulls.doc
Three Bulls, L.L.C. Conditional Zoning Agreement
Page 4
Approved by:
~ z./qfd,(L)
'City Attorneys ~
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this g.t day of r, A.D. 20 a.o ,before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for. the State of Iowa, personallyap eared 9M:n T. Larson and Casey Boyd, to me personally known, who
being by me u y sworn, did say that the person is Mana'3e.r;", (title)
and . . . (title) of te...8u.IlS,LLC. ,
and that said Instrume was signed on behalf of the said lim' ed liabilit comp'any by authority of its
manag.ers and ~he: said Swen T. Larson and So(. acknowledged the
execution of said Instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said limite liability company by it voluntarily
executed.
~., "".. Sarab E. SWlrtzeldnlber
; ~ Com.nIIIIon tunber 712284
. ;, . My 0aI...1IIIIo.1 &plres
. tow AuguIt 30, 'lJIi1
My commission expires:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
COUNTY OF JOHNSON)
On this 71::!- day of MAR.CJ4 , 2006, before me, ~.DJV..E..
Fn~ , a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared
Ross Wilburn and Marian K. Karr, to me personally known, and, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that
they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City, Iowa; that the seal affixed to the
foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of the corporation, and that the instrument was signed and sealed
on behalf of the corporation, by authority of its City Council, as contained in (Ordinance) (Rei9Iution) No.
Ob- 41 '1'7 passed by the City Council, on the 7J:!t- day of /'I\Al!(J.j , 2006, and
that Ross Wilburn and Marian K. Karr acknowledged the execution of the instrument to be their voluntary act
and deed and the voluntary act and deed of the corporation, by it voluntarily executed.
~ SONDRAEFORT
o \. Commission Number 159791
. . My Commission ExpIres
ow - '1- 0
~ re't""b
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
My commission expires: 77/c) 9
ppdadm'agVcza-3 bulls.doc
~':M.....
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FAX
TO: Adam Bohr, Michael Cloos, McClure Engineering Company 319/626-9095
FROM: Julie Tallman
DATE: 9 November 2006
RE: Site plan Lots 40, 41 & AP2006030 Olde Towne Village PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
Denny Gannon asked that I send his marked-up plans to you so you can compare them to the
following list. We are not in the office tomorrow, and if I get the plans in the mail now, you should
get them tomorrow. Here is a summary of Public Works comments that are still at issue with this
site plan:
11/9
1. Sheet SP-02 - move monument sign out of easement.
2. Sheet UP-01 - existing wye is 60' from manhole (correct location on plan view); show detail of
fire hydrant assembly; change "Sanitary Sewer" to "Sewer Service"; change labeling on all sewer
service connections.
3. Sheet UP-02:
a. Show the gas service.
b. Show the 4" water service.
c. Electrical service runs under 537 Westbury - is this a conflict?
d. Include detail for hydrant assembly.
e. Spec out R&R beehive grate with Neenah R-2500G grate.
f. Change labeling of sewer services.
g. Move play area notes away from storm sewer notes.
4. Sheet PA-01
a. Monument sign at s.w. corner: where is it?
b. Call out 4' distance between arrows (s.w. corner).
c. Clarify 16 locations on plan view where notes are obscured.
5. Sheet PA-02
a. Clarify four locations on plan view where noted.
b. Where is monument sign in n.w. corner?
c. Rotate words and numbers that are not facing a consistent direction.
6. Sheet LA-01
a. Trees along east lot line are restricting the sidewalk.
b. Why do existing trees have to be removed? Has Terry Robinson approved this?
7. Sheet LA-02
1. Trees appear to be blocking sidewalk; provide detail and move if necessary. Move monument
out of easement
8. Sheet EC-01: clarify note about temporary construction entrance.
9. Sheet EC-01 (cont'd): clarify note re: temporary construction ricked entrance and clarify all
notes.
10. Sheet L1-02: can't read! Please make information from lighting catalogue more redeemable.
11. Sheet DE-02: remove the infrmation of Sanitary Seer Pipe. It is shown on Sheet AA.
12. Sheet DE-03: Change stormsewer so it reads "this is now a Neenah R-2500G Grate.
13. Sheet SA-01
a. Submit a sanitary sewer easement.
b. There is 5 feet of 8" PVC truss @ 0.50% stubbed out of this manhole. Note to remove this
pipe.
c. Enlarge sanitary sewer detail so it's legible.
d. Provide lengths of wye locations for buildings 3, 4, and 5. Include this information on the sewer
profile.
e. According to as-builts, the IE in = 779.86 and IE out is 779.84.
f. Construction note #3 repeats itself.
~M.-
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FAX
TO: Adam Bohr, Michael Cloos, McClure Engineering Company 319/626-9095
FROM: Julie Tallman
DATE: 8 November 2006
RE: Site plan Lots 40, 41 & AP2006030 aide Towne Village
Here is a summary of HIS comments that are still at issue with this site plan:
1. Need to make corrections to lot lines on Sheet SP-02; north dimensions and bearings are
not complete.
2. Building heights need to be confirmed at no more than 22'.
3. Stairs are shown from Scott Boulevard public sidewalk; this is not an accessible route. An
accessible route into the site is required from all public sidewalks.
4. S3 screening between parking area and Scott is not adequate; species must form a
continuous screen or hedge at least 5 to 6 feet in height. Proposed screening includes
burning bush which only grows to 4' in height. Need taller species.
5. BOA required that the A TM enclosure and building elevations be submitted to staff for
review; we still need those.
6. Using shopping mall criteria of one space for every 250 square feet, plus daycare at 6
spaces (based on maximum number of staff at anyone time), total required parking is
131. 172 spaces are proposed. Is this acceptable?
7. Tree coverage is still inadequate in parking lot, near s.w. corner of building #3.
8. Need detail for bike racks.
9. Total initial lumen output exceeds maximum of 440,000; needs to be reduced from
448,000.
10. Need cut sheets for KIM Roadway and KIM Roadway Twin.
11. Need to use larger symbols on Sheet L1-01; I'm not confident I'm interpreting them
correctly.
12. All light fixtures are within 300 feet of an R zone and may not be mounted higher than 25'.
Reduce height by 10 feet.
13. Illumination along property boundary at Scott and Rochester is too bright: there are many
locations where footcandles exceed 0.5.
14. Stairs are shown from Rochester Avenue sidewalk; this needs to be an accessible route.
15. Director of HIS has already denied placement of dumpster between building #1 and Scott
Blvd., yet it's still shown there. Designer proposes to screen the dumpster with S3
screening and a retaining wall. Dumpster by building #5 has been approved in its location
due to the six-foot drop from sidewalk to floor of parking area but designer had earlier
said they would provide evergreen landscaping, which is not shown on LA-02.
16. Parking area adjacent to Rochester is across the street from an R zone so S3 screening
is required there, as well. Designer indicated they'd added it but more is needed across
the east 2/3 of the frontage.
17. Expand on details for dumpster enclosure; when you call out masonry block are you
intending to use some kind of textured masonry? That's what we would like to see. See
Sheet DE-02.
18. Provide detail for planting areas. The minimum planting area for large trees is 256 square
feet. The minimum planting area for small trees is 120 square feet. Minimum spacing
between large trees and a curb is four feet; minimum spacing between small trees and a
curb is four feet. Same spacing applies to sidewalks.
~.~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FAX
TO: Adam Bohr, Michael Cloos, McClure Engineering Company 319/626-9095
FROM: Julie Tallman
DATE: 9 November 2006
RE: Site plan Lots 40,41 & AP2006030 Olde Towne Village PLANNING COMMENTS
11/9
1. Need elevation drawings of the buildings with location of entrances.
2. Need design of drive-through ATM per special exception. ATM needs to be screened from
Scott and Rochester
3. Bicycle parking needs 6 feet clear on both sides, but may not block pedestrian routes. Current
locations are not workable.
4. Need street trees every 60 linear feet along Scott and Rochester. Must choose from Foresters
approved list. Arborvitae does not count as a street tree.
5. Need detail of tree wells to be used along Westbury Drive and Westbury Road. Must be
approved by City Forester. If more space is needed extend planting area and reduce abutting
parking space to compact space.
6. Do we need vision triangles for drive to parking area? It isn't a requirement. Suggest street
trees here or low level S1 plantings. Not just mulch.
7. Where there are sidewalk crossing locations where there is not enough room for plantings or
when it is within the vision triangle, then pave the whole area or plant with sod or low level S1
plantings that do not exceed 2 ft. in height. A list is provided in the code. For example, the NW
and NE sidewalk crossing at the corner of Westbury Drive and Westbury Road. If corner paving
area is large, suggest decorative paving.
8. Need alternative paving material to distinguish pedestrian route to Scott Blvd. across the
western parking lot drive.
9. Planting islands are too narrow in many places. If the islands contain trees, they must be at
least 9 feet wide; for large trees minimum of 256 sq. ft; for small trees minimum of 120 sq. ft. If
the islands do not contain trees, they must be at least 5 feet wide.
10. Need to keep wide sidewalk / pedestrian plaza area along the Middlebury Road frontage. This
has changed from previous versions of the plan. Suggest moving the street trees between the
sidewalk and the street and paving area near the building to provide space for plaza / outdoor
seating area.
11. Lighting: Maximum of 0.5 horizontal footcandles at property boundaries. Particularly important
to reduce potential glare and spillover along street frontages across from residential. Check to
make sure all fixtures are downcast and fully shielded. Check specs to make sure they are listed
as full cut-off. See definition in code.
12. Number of parking spaces meets the standard. The required parking ratio is listed incorrectly
on the site plan. Minimum retail ratio is 1/300 sq. ft., so 84 parking spaces are required.
Restaurants = 40 required. Daycare = 6 for a total of 130. May also use the shopping center ratio
of 1/250 sq. ft. for both retail and restaurant uses. With the current proposed mix of uses, the
resulting requirement is the same at 130 spaces.
13. A loading zone is illustrated near daycare, but blocks drive leading to bank drive-through. In
this case, given the number of parking spaces in the vicinity of the daycare, a separate loading
zone may not be needed.
r
----------.---. _.__..__._-~...-
r -r-=')' \') ; (~ II ;-:; i I j ----~-=-~--,
! ,- / --~_-=:..~,j ! i i
, I -----------11: I
,I OCT 3 0 2006 I i j I
I , ~i' ,J
L t-_____J ,,_,__,~
& i!\'SPECTiOf\J S~-T: \
1(')\i:: t~ <.~~~ 'f\/ !f',;<.}I!..\
City of Iowa City
Planning and Zoning Commission
410 Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
October 30, 2006
To whom it may concern:
The enclosed petition includes the signature of Doug Paul, owner of the property North
of Rochester within 200 feet of the property on the SE comer of Scott and Rochester,
whose site plan was the subject of an appeal sent to you on October 18, 2006. With the
signature of Mr. Paul, the signers of the petition collectively own 20% of the property
within 200 feet of the perimeter of the site plan, as shown by the enclosed map.
Please contact me as soon as a hearing concerning the site plan can be arranged.
Sincerely,
.'?; vJ\ <2 j~ _
E.Matthew Schulz ~
67 Goldfinch Cir.
Iowa City, IA 52245
Ph 358-0712 (home)
400-1408 (cell)
Zoning Variation Appeal
We, the undersigned are owners of private property within 200 feet of Lots 40 and 4 J , Olde Towne
Village (SL corner ofSeott Blvd and Rochester Ave). We appeal the Zoning Variation for commcrcial
site development of this propeJ1y on the grounds that the site plan differs from the concept plan in \\a) s
that adversely affect the enjoyment and value of our property. Specifically, the concept plan did not
include a parking Jot along Scott Blvd.
Narue
Address
Phone
/ , / .7. /L---r /' t;f r; ~ 11,/. t.... -55...../ It r-(
-':-"_nir--k_,L~~~___. -- :< ('.-e ",/ IA(',. Ll__JL<;=:__LC__.=-_'_'L,:;._J
/~/'11 , C,,/ I \ ') ') / ~~-'~.~ -"7-',' ~ I \-' --7
.' , 1/ Vj' J d ,--.---,--' / I 6-.;. } '; . '1 ~ ~ ) ~ J - / J 1 '.
~'~~~ll: '-_-14,(. 9Jiw-d r1L~=- .. 351j~-~;~~--
:..:,,,,... ." ~._,.. 9 ....~t, ~
l ,h ,,/.1, - /'I~ / - .... .. /
_tJ.~!. L:I:~.'~~:~-- __n"]' 7._ ~--r'!~r:-'~"-~-7 . / .L~/:_r--~~/6
-~~U~tV~ - tt, L~: ~:~:: ~0:~_ ~ ~~ :~JI:-
------3 4-=;:::w-
~tC~. (5.C'L- g-2 IlUU'Yl (/lZ 3Sg.<1 2-0 k
~~~~ ~~-H;~n~-~;~31
A /1,'J_i'._~_t''''' ~---Wv l 5'rJ nd-4L!(-?J~ ~________.____
Pa4r1/q,fJ~-/fO ax ;('1'13/;Ie
(J -. (/ ~50 5c.~tl B/v~t)
a-n! 3/e'6 I<.oclje.i!er-)
S;Z:2 LJ1
3/7' 33/ Y// j>
I r=I-~-)-':)\ i~~-l\'~I~;;,r~'-I.:"-~\Vl~;--- i-~I',~\, ,l
\ 1_-' __J ,__~ l. '- I I I , I
l._ ,1----------.----....".-''''1 :. ! ;1'
-< i: . I
: \,-) \,'1' orT 3 0 2006 1;:)1 I
I ~ I! v Ii t,j
: J 1:,: iL__
" -- t ...____,1
I L' '-I' ''-i''~ '<" ""<;"!--,'r-::c"'''POI\I sr:\:::(\/lCF,r6
(ij\...):....c"\ '.l',"~'"", ~" .... ';'''..c' __ ....'. ~ - , ~,.~- .. .. ,- -
, "'"''1'1'-'\''' I
'" ' ..; ,,- ~ " .. 0 " ~" t.. Il., ,"
," r \' .; . _', . .. , , ~,) ....' l~"
__,~,_,,~,'_'__"_'..," .___u _.____.. ....._.....___
\
KEY
~ 200' area surrounding relevant
~ lots in OIde Towne Village
~ Portion of petitioning properties
within said 200' area, comprising
20.050/0 of entire said 200' area
<(
>
W
---1
~
o
m
l-
t--
o
U
(/)
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
November 16,2006
To:
Planning and Zoning Commission
From:
Robert Miklo
Re:
REZ06-00021 East of Mormon Trek Boulevard, Eagle View and Grace Drive
During the October 5 public discussion of this rezoning request Dave Larson, the applicant's
representative, stated that his intent was to build an office park in the area east of Mormon
Trek Boulevard. The South Central Planning District component of the Comprehensive Plan
does indicate that in addition to intensive commercial development, commercial office uses
and zoning would be appropriate east of Mormon Trek Boulevard and would be compatible
with the Iowa City Airport and the planned industrial area to the east. In fact prior to
annexation the Comprehensive Plan indicated that this area was most appropriate for
commercial office uses given its topography and relationship to the proposed industrial area
to the east. At the applicant's request the Comprehensive Plan was amended in 2003 to
add intensive commercial uses to this area in addition to the commercial office designation.
Therefore rezoning all or a portion of the land included with the applicant's rezoning request
to CO-1 would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. In staff's view rezoning this
area to CO-1 would be more appropriate than rezoning this property to CC-2 and opening
up another area for retail development that is not contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan.
CO-1 zoning does not tend to lead to strip commercial development and would be less likely
to result in requests to convert the planned industrial park along Mormon Trek Boulevard.
A rezoning to CO-1 would also be preferable to amending the CI-1 zone to include medical
offices. The CI-1 zone is intended for intensive commercial and quasi-industrial uses that
have the potential to generate some negative effects. The zone is also intended to provide
areas for commercial uses that require large amounts of land or outdoor storage of
equipment, machinery or merchandise and therefore are not able to afford land in more
expensive retail districts. Examples of typical CI-1 uses include vehicle and machinery
repair and sales, welding shops, contractor's shops, towing and vehicle storage, warehouse
and mini-storage facilities. Possible negative effects from such uses include noise, traffic of
heavy vehicles and outdoor storage yards. One of the reasons for the CI-1 zone is to
provide areas in the community where these types of business can operate without
disturbing adjacent properties and businesses. The typical character of the CI-1 zone is not
appropriate for medical offices that function similar to retail uses that generate visits from the
general public and have an expectation for a higher level of aesthetic quality.
Staff has discussed the alternative of rezoning all or portions of the originally requested
rezoning area to CO-1 rather than CC-2 with the applicant. The applicant is considering this
alternative and may have a response at the November 16 meeting.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 9, 2006
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planne
RE: Zoning Code requirements for structured parking entrances/exits
Frantz Construction Co, Inc. recently submitted concept plans to the City for a proposed
conversion of the former Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity at 724 Dubuque Street into 3
condominium units. Similar to many properties in the older parts of Iowa City, there is
very little space for off-street parking. To remedy this problem, Frantz is proposing to
construct parking garages for the three units in the basement of the existing building
(see attached drawing) with driveway access from Brown Street.
The zoning code includes standards for the number of garage entrances/exits allowed
for structured parking facilities. These standards are intended to ensure that structured
parking located within multi-family and commercial buildings is designed to minimize
traffic congestion by limiting the number of driveways, to prevent hazards to pedestrians
and to preserve street frontages for active buildings uses. The zoning code states in
relevant part:
If the structured parking is intended for residents or tenants of a building
and not the general public, there may be no more than one double-wide or
two single-wide garage openings per building.
Staff feels that this is a workable standard for the vast majority of buildings, particularly
for new construction. However, for existing buildings, where space on the site for
parking is limited and where there may be structural constraints within the building, the
standard may be difficult to meet. This is the case for the existing structure at 724
Dubuque Street. Due to the location of bearing walls and other structural elements within
the basement of the building, there is only enough space for vehicles to drive straight
into parking spaces. In order to provide covered garage space for three condominiums,
three garage entrances are needed.
Staff would like the Commission to consider revising the code to allow the option for
applicants to request a minor modification in cases where it is impossible to meet this
standard for existing buildings. Please review the attached proposal to amend the
zoning code language. The underlined language is new language. Strike-through
marks indicate language to be deleted. Other language remains the same and is
provided to give context to the proposed changes.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed zoning code language
2. Building illustration
. #~/~J/b~."
Approved by: ~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
Amend paragraph 14-5A-5F-5, Garage Entrances/Exits, as follows:
s. Garage Entrances/Exits.
a. Vehicular access to parking within buildings should be located and
designed to minimize traffic congestion and hazards to pedestrians and
to preserve street frontages for active building uses.
b. Garage entrances/exits should be located along a building wall that does
not face a public street and accessed from a private drive. private rear
lane or public alley. In the CB-2, CB-5, and MU zones, alley or rear lane
access is preferred. If aHey the Building Official in consultation with the
Director of Planning and Community Development determines that such
access is not feasible due to topographical limitations or other unique
circumstances, or if allowing direct access from a street will better meet
the objectives as stated in subparagraph a.. above, garage openings
may face a street, but must be designed in a manner that will best meet
the objectives listed in subparagraph a, above, and must meet the
standards listed in sub-subparagraphs (1). (2). and (3). below.
(1) If the structured parking is intended for residents or tenants of a
building and not the general public, there may be no more than one
double-wide or two Single-wide garage openings per building.
Double-wide openings may not exceed 18 feet in width; single-wide
openings may not exceed 9 feet in width. For existing buildings
where it is not possible to meet this standard due to structural
constraints of the building. the Building Official may adjust this
provision to allow one additional garage entrance/exit that faces a
street. provided that the minor modification approval criteria are
met and the garage opening is designed to minimize its effect on
the streetscape and minimize hazards to pedestrians.
(2) For structured parking intended for use by the general public,
garage openings should be limited in width and number to only
what is necessary to provide adequate access for the types and
numbers of vehicles using the parking facility.
(3) Except in the CN-1, CB-2, MU and CB-5 Zones, the opening(s) must
occupy no more than 50% of the length of the street-facing
building wall. On corner lots, only one street-facing garage wall
must meet this standard. In the CN-1, CB-2, MU and CB-5 Zones,
garage opening(s) along the primary street frontage are not
permitted if access is feasible from another local or collector street
or from a rear alley, private street or private rear lane. If there is
no feasible alternative, garage opening(s) may be allowed along the
primary street frontage, provided that they occupy no more than 35
percent of the length of the primary street frontage of the lot and
provided that all provisions of Article 14-5C, Access Management
are met.
Add a paragraph 17. to subsection 14-4B-1A, Applicability, as follows:
17. One additional garage entrance/exist to structured parking may be granted
according to the provisions of paragraph 14-5A-5F-5, Garage Entrances/Exits.
The Building Official must obtain approval from the Director of Planning and
Community Development prior to granting any such modification.
I:
r
~ i
Ii
"
"
ii
:,
ii
i ~
11
:'
!'
i\
H
,.
'1
I:
'I
"
li
r
,:
it
n
!!
fl
i:
:,
l'
.'
d
11
'J
.,
~ ;
!:
,;
L
"
II
n
i ~
..
i:
~ ~l
. ell/
f. 1-.
~' /,
F/ / ~
t/ ,/ l'
1'1" I / I
I,? / ;
I? ,.----,
~. / ,"-_.' ,
~'/',' -- ,
.fi .;"; !.
'.J='- ""/",1;i --~
l' ,'~'-'_"-'f/JrTt-'---'-'" ,
'j:.:\Ui :: r.t~:jti~C ' L~
I 'l!' " 'I"\:~' ,., ~ I
;.- ....~--~~~~..- --=...--!..
~'" \ I ;
, '-;j' I
'.'.. ' -==-"f
, r---t,
,I
i \
I ~
,II r::-:-- -,~.:.~
l:
;; __',_' r
;.; II =:r I~~-=~='" ,
I lo ~ II I : ~ '
: U II~ ;f:f.-;. ' '
Ji! \1 \d~l ' .
iW i H:-', i
Wi ! ,~~~L)L_~,_,,:;
In! k .L;!
t~L.;.L.) . - -- _.'~U ~ . -:;--
'0
---
:~C?
" .i
~~-~~ --<..
-., c.')
.--<. r--
_ rT:
c5 :JJ
""'-/.....
<:
)>
.....
-,
. .:.....:......_...-:--~...--:.--.~. .
_' __;' -.......i-"_..".....
,
..~~
..r'
,/
j1~l:n' n_...~r,,~
,
!
n-.....r=-_.,'-
!:.'
!y.'.
I" '
I~!:_j .:
'".'- -.-~"'""""'"-" -: ",..-" ....
,- ,.",,' "1,
i r:~"'''''':'''~''''~,=.:::::Jl ~ ;;
. '
ro.-:..:.::..:.,:...............,.....,..!
I :.' .
! .
t~Ifl~r~\
!\
i,
:l
j;
"
,.
:i
;;
:\
. ,;;0::,'1'1
.....___..Ilt '. .
.. ~....
:
i
I
I
I
c---~
I
::/
/. ~
,!)
,nil
-.-JUj,
-..rl"
LL"
oli
~I"\}
:;fli::',
~-\. 1,\
~\!i'-S:\
.....).I(i~<
l!.1,!;.:;
r'"
:J: 1\ t
l--::Ii~
a., .
')'1
~I
'-f
~
~
~.
~.
,
~
)
,"'
'I'
~;'
:'
r'.,
~::.:~)
c.::,,)
C--'
o
("'J
-J
:If
r-'_
,
-0
:11:'
iT!
;-,
'-.-i
+:-
'H' '-','" ""'~~ ,::="..z-....',',' .~-.,~-.~~."",.~...~".....~,:,........,-",~". C'. 'cc.' = ".,c."",~,
Preliminary
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 5. 2006 - 7:30 P.M.
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER:
Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dean Shannon. Wally Plahutnik. Beth Koppes, Charlie Eastham, Bob
Brooks, Ann Freerks. Terry Smith
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Bob Miklo. Mitch Behr
Dave Larson, Dan Tiedt. Casey Cook, Harry Wolf
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (become effective on Iv after separate Council action):
None
Consideration of the September 21. 2006 Meetina Minutes
MOTION: Freerks moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Eastham seconded, and the motion
carried on a vote of 7-0
Public Discussion of Anv Item not on the Aaenda
No discussion.
REZ06-00021: 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.
Miklo reported that the request for rezoning is for an area southeast of Highway 1. to change from CI-1 to
CC-2. The economic development and land use policies of the comprehensive plan do not support the
rezoning of this land to Community Commercial. The City extended Mormon Trek Blvd with the intent to
open up the area for industrial and intensive commercial uses. The City is extending Mormon Trek past
the intersection with Highway 1, to connect to Riverside Drive south of the airport.
Miklo said that prior to deciding to invest in the road extension project. the City approached the current
property owners, the applicants for this rezoning request. The City discussed annexation and appropriate
zoning of the property. The owner's interest was not in industrial development, so there were negotiations
that led to an agreement to have the area adjacent to 218 zoned as Highway Commercial. That zone
allows a variety of uses, but is intended primarily to serve motorists traveling along major highways.
Intensive Commercial zoning between Mormon Trek and the future industrial park east of the former
Dane Road was agreed upon for the other area. The Intensive Commercial zone with its light industrial
nature was seen as compatible with plans for the industrial park and made a good transition between the
Highway Commercial zone and the industrial park. Community Commercial zoning was not considered.
as it was viewed as an impediment to industrial development and counter to efforts to develop and
rejuvenate other areas for retail development, such as the area around Sycamore Mall.
Miklo said the Economic Development Policy recognizes a shortage of land available for light industrial
and manufacturing uses. The policy also identifies the area south and west of the airport as one of only
two areas that are suitable for future industrial growth because of access to the highways and separation
from residential development. The city is running short of land for industrial use. and invested capital
improvement funds into the Mormon Trek extension to open up the area for intensive commercial and
industrial uses.
Land zoned Intensive Commercial and Industrial development sells for less per acre and takes longer to
develop than land zoned Community Commercial. There is often pressure to rezone to Community
Commercial so that owners may realize a more immediate profit. The Intensive Commercial zoning is
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 5, 2006
Page 2
intended for quasi-industrial and land-intensive businesses such as car dealerships, which need a lot of
land but are not compatible with retail. Auto body repair shops, warehousing and contractors shops would
be other examples of permitted uses.
Miklo said that the value of the land for this area derives from street access provided by the City.
Otherwise the area would be farmland. The City's investment in Mormon Trek was to help provide an
area for Intensive Commercial and Industrial development. It is therefore inappropriate to rezone the area
to Community Commercial, especially since the uses proposed by the applicant can be located on land
nearby that is already zone for those uses.
Miklo said the Comprehensive Plan states that new commercial development should be targeted to
existing core areas or neighborhood commercial centers. The plan discourages proliferation of new
commercial areas, and strip retail development, with a goal of not saturating the market with too many
areas of retail. One reason for the policy of concentrating retail development in existing areas, is so that
new areas on the edge of the community do not dilute the existing market and create more retail areas
than the market can absorb. A proliferation could also lead to a lack of reinvestment in current areas.
Another policy of the plan is to locate retail close to residential population that it will serve. There is limited
potential for residential development in the area, due to the airport and the planned industrial park.
However, other areas that the Comprehensive Plan identifies as appropriate for retail commercial types of
zoning are close to existing or proposed residential areas, such as what is detailed in the Camp Cardinal
master plan.
Miklo said there are also compatibility considerations with the zoning. The current Intensive Commercial
zone provides a transition from the highly visible Highway Commercial zone and the planned industrial
uses in the low-lying eastern area. The Community Commercial zone is less compatible with the industrial
area. Staff is concerned that the rezoning here would lead to additional rezoning requests that result in
strip commercial development along Mormon Trek rather than industrial envisioned by the
Comprehensive Plan.
Miklo noted that if the area is rezoned to Community Commercial, PIP Printing currently under
construction would become a non-conforming use. PIP is classified as light manufacturing, and recently
received a special exception to allow up to 12,000 square 'feet of light industrial use. If rezoned, PIP
would not be able to expand, and would not be allowed to rebuild if their facility was substantially
damaged.
The applicant has indicated one reason for the rezoning request was because medical offices and
restaurants were removed from the Intensive Commercial zone when the new zoning code was adopted
in 2005. At the time the zoning code was rewritten, all uses in the various zoning districts were examined.
The Commission at the time was interested in reforming the Intensive Commercial zone to return it to its
original intent, which was to provide locations for land-consumptive and quasi-industrial commercial uses.
The zone had been amended over the years, and some uses were added that were of concern in terms
of diluting the original intent of the zone. At the time, no medical offices and only a few restaurants were
located in Intensive Commercial zones. There were some general offices, but they tended to be non-retail
in nature, such as MCI on Boyrum, or office which had little or no retail traffic.
Miklo said that the study resulted in the removal of a few uses that were determined to be incompatible
with the original intent of the zone. The uses that were removed included medical offices, restaurants,
residential, grocery stores, clubs, and meeting halls. Apart from that, the Intensive Commercial zone is
essentially the same as when it was established on the applicant's property. Miklo said that staff does not
agree that removal of those few types of uses from the CI-1 zone is adequate reason for rezoning. The
applicant owns additional land west of Mormon Trek and also west of 218 that allows those uses. Staff
would not recommend approval of the application, due to the fact that it does not align with the economic
development or land use policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
Eastham asked what negative effects the CC-2 would have on the proposed industrial uses to the east.
Miklo said one reason that the city tries not to put industrial and retail uses close together is a desire to
avoid having traffic from industrial and retail areas mixed. There also might be complaints about noise
and odors from industrial areas. CC-2 zoning does allow residential on upper floors as well, which is not
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 5, 2006
Page 3
compatible with an industrial zone. Another concern is that CC-2 zoning has a tendency to spread, and
could potentially displace the proposed industrial zoning and original intent in investing in Mormon Trek.
Miklo said the decision to invest in Mormon Trek was based on the Comprehensive Plan policies of trying
to promote job growth, as well as an industrial and intensive commercial tax base.
Plahutnik asked how long the applicant owned the land before the new zoning code went into effect.
Miklo said the land was annexed in 2004, and the new code went into effect in December 2005.
Brooks asked for comments from the applicant.
Dave Larson. 277 Hickory Street. Kalona, said he represents the current owners. He said that this land
has a great view, and is also an entrance to the city. The owners were told many times by staff that the
city would like to have something nice put into that area, so the owner has put several restrictive
covenants in place to help control what kinds of buildings will go there and that they are of high quality.
Larson said the property under discussion is right in the corner between Highways 218 and 1. One part
was intended to be an office park commercial area, which would carry past Dane Road to the flat area.
He noted that there is a physical barrier in the area that facilitates the divisions in zone. The flat and low
land near the airport is suited for industrial uses, while the hilly area nearer to the highway is a good place
for offices. The owners still have a home in the hilly area, as well, and that will remain for a while yet.
Larson said they began developing before the airport runway and Mormon Trek extensions. The Highway
Commercial provides for development along expressways and main arterial roadways, and there has long
been a desire to provide lodging in the area. In approximately 1999 or 2000, when discussion of the plan
for the area with Karin Franklin began, offices could be located in both CH-1 and CI-1 zones. This was
considered a perfect location for a variety of offices.
Larson said he spoke to Karin Franklin about how to zone the land when it was annexed, and she
suggested talking to the owners to find out what would be best. As the discussion progressed, she told
him it could be all highway commercial, or a mix. He said though the developers were not sure what mix
they wanted, it is important to note that offices could be put into both zones at the time of that
conversation. He added that industrial zoning was never a part of that discussion. The extension of
Mormon Trek was intended to increase the commercial tax base, but that changed.
Larson said his group decided on CH-1 and CI-1, but after January they learned from people with
Menard's that the zone had changed. They later learned that no medical offices could be put into the
zone. He said since Iowa City is a major medical community, it is becoming a popular place to retire,
because of the medical facilities it offers. They feel the arrangement they had made with the City had
been changed without notice, and the money his group has spent to develop the land as they had
planned is now in jeopardy because they cannot go forward. They have a doctor's clinic that wants to
build in the zone, and a dentist was interested in part of the PIP building. They had interest from a 60,000
square foot extended care facility as well, though that project was put on hold because of a lack of permit,
and another dentist has shown interest in building an office there.
Larson said this area would not have rentals and no metal buildings. The covenants only allow attractive
buildings. He noted that the 17 acres is owned by several parties, and the area under discussion about
offices is only own about 10. The discussion is about small, individual spaces for small groups. He added
that PIP does do retail business in their building, and possibly could still fit into CC-2.
Larson said the property is not industrial, and was never intended to serve industrial uses. The main
focus has been offices first, and then commercial second. He said his group did not agree to this CI-1
zone. They agreed to something totally different. They have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to get
to this point, and there is more to do to complete the project, but they cannot move forward because of
the change. What they are looking for now is the highest and best use, and not having medical offices
severely affects their plans. They are at the meeting to discuss the possibilities, if CC-2 is not right for this
area. He suggested one option would be to leave it as CI-1 and allow medical offices, instead of rezoning
to CC-2. He said they would like to solve their problem, and would like dialogue with the Commission on
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 5, 2006
Page 4
ways to do that. Ultimately, his group would like the zone to be restored back to as it was in the original
agreement.
Plahutnik asked if there was mention of a desire for CI-1 or industrial zones from staff during the
discussions when the land was being annexed and zoned. Larson said they were given a choice to come
up with a plan. They wanted the commercial divided in half, since both zones allowed offices. There were
no disagreements with that plan at the time.
Eastham confirmed that CI-1 allows office uses, just not medical offices. Larson said yes, but as this is a
highly medical oriented community, and they have over a half dozen prospects for medical offices, though
none will commit without a resolution of the zoning issue. Eastham confirmed that the land use map
distributed by Larson had been revised in May 2005. The revised map shows industrial uses. Larson said
the map he distributed shows what they had planned and agreed to prior to the changes in the land use
maps in 2005. He was not able to obtain an updated one prior to the meeting.
Miklo said the map Larson distributed was the comprehensive plan prior to annexation, and office uses
would have been acceptable. The City's interest was to open up the larger area to be for industrial
development. When they discussed this with the applicant, the applicant felt that the office zone was too
limited and also wanted commercial, so the comprehensive plan was amended at the applicant's request
to replace the office with CI-1. So the change from office to CI-1 was to work with the applicant. Freerks
asked when that was done. Miklo said at the time of annexation in 2004. Larson said the word at the time
of that discussion was commercial, not industrial. Miklo said CI-1 is intensive commercial with light
industrial, while CC-2 is limited and does not allow for wholesale or light manufacturing.
Freerks asked if all lots in the CH-1 zone are sold yet. Larson said some projects are in progress, but they
want to coordinate with the airport when moving the dirt. Freerks asked for confirmation that there is no
more land available for use. Larson said there are six acres with five lots, and some have not been sold
yet. Brooks said Naples Drive was rezoned last year to CC-2, and asked if that had all been sold. Larson
said no.
Brooks confirmed that the applicant owns property in a CC-2 zone nearby that would accommodate office
uses. Larson said yes. What they ultimately would like is to regain the ability to put medical offices in
those zones. Brooks noted that the application before the Commission is for a rezoning, and would need
to be addressed. Larson said the applicant's interest is to start a conversation about how to resolve this
problem.
Smith confirmed that the goal of the rezoning is to allow inclusion of medical offices: Brooks asked for
confirmation that the offices cannot be located on Naples in the existing CC-2 zone. Larson said that area
is intended for restaurants. Freeks noted the offices could be located there, however. Larson said they
are small lots, so there is no space for a 60,000 square foot building on Naples for example. He said the
other site would be more suited to the office use because it is a great location with a beautiful view.
Freerks asked whether a 60,000 square foot building could be located in CI-1. Miklo said it depends on
the site of the lot. He said there is also an area zoned for office/commercial at the end of Naples Drive
that is available to them. Freerks confirmed that the site of the rezoning application does allow for offices,
just not medical offices. Larson said yes.
Eastham asked if any other uses had been considered for the area besides medical offices. Larson said
some other offices, but they would be limited because the covenants limit the types of buildings that can
be put there. Smith asked for confirmation that there is no interest in putting hotels or restaurants on this
site. Larson said they have other sites that were intended for those uses.
Freerks asked for confirmation that the applicant understands that the PIP building would become non-
conforming if the zone is changed. Larson said the PIP building could be classified a number of ways, so
possibly could fit in. Freerks asked for staff comment on that. Miklo said in both the old and new zoning
codes, it would require CI-1. PIP is considered a printing plant and copy/duplication service. A
comparison would be to Zephyr, which has retail trade coming in on a regular basis for self-serve copies
and other services. PIP is a much larger operation, and is therefore classified as light industrial. Freerks
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 5, 2006
Page 5
asked what the square footage of the building is. Miklo said it is over 20,000 square feet, but PIP intends
to use only around 5K. The current plan is to have the same size as their current printing plant, but they
have received a special exception to expand up to 12,000 square feet.
Larson agreed that the question of where PIP will fit in is one aspect that will need to be dealt with. Smith
asked if there are any alternatives for exceptions or waivers to allow non-conforming uses of the area
other than rezoning. Miklo said no, they would not be eligible for a special exception or variance. Freerks
said part of the issue is the big investment in the property to allow CI-1, so the conversation should
continue in order to find a solution.
Eastham asked whether CH-1 would work for this zone. Miklo said PIP would not fit into the area under
CH-1, either. The other possibility under the comprehensive plan would be office zoning, which also
would not accommodate PIP. Light manufacturing requires CI-1. Freerks said the presence of the PIP
building indicates that the plan is working, since that is the type of business intended under the zone.
Brooks opened up public comment.
Dan Tiedt. 526 Woodridae Ave., introduced himself as the owner of PIP Printing. He purchased the
property while it was CI-1, approximately 2 years ago. They purchased it for their printing plant, but were
also planning to put a coffee shop restaurant and a medical office into part of the building. The change ih
the zoning code cut out both of those types of operations before they could get a permit. The City told
them if they had had a lease signed, it would have worked. He said they are not so worried about the
restaurant as the medical offices. Tiedt said they paid a premium price for the land, and one of the
primary reasons for the purchase was for the medical office, since this is a medical community.
Tiedt said PIP could fit into both CI-1 and CC-2. CI-1 is printing and publishing, and they are light
manufacturing. CC-2 is quick printing, which they also do. They are currently listed as a quick-print
franchise in the government's NAICS code, though he is not sure wh,ether the federal definition is the
same as the City's definition.
Tiedt said PIP purchased the land under CI-1, which included medical at the time. They are fine with the
CI-1 zone, if medical could be included again. However, they do not want to become non-conforming with
a change to CC-2. However, the changes to the code might not be for the best. It might be better to
reconsider what is included under CI-1. With the covenants that are in place on the land restricting the
types of buildings that can go up, it will likely be hard to fill the land.
Tiedt said ultimately they just want to fit their business into the community, and have medical offices
allowed back in the zone. PIP could possibly fit into either zone since they could be classified as light
manufacturing, as well as a quick printer.
Eastham asked for elaboration on the importance of medical offices versus other types. Tiedt said they
have had two requests for dental offices, and some interest in a medical research office. He said the
medical office does not have to be a practice, but could be a research lab. It is a good location with good
access and an entrance to the city, with some nice looking buildings.
Freerks asked Miklo to find out if medical research offices would be allowed in the zone. Miklo said he
thinks a research lab would be allowed. Tiedt said that they want to work out the issue, do not want to be
non-conforming, and would like to have medical offices allowed in the zone again.
Casey Cook, introduced himself as part owner of a lot zoned CI-1 on Escort Lane, which is a large lot at
approximately 150,000 square feet. The change to the zone to disallow medical offices, restaurants, and
small retail has decreased the value of the land by $3 per square foot. In comparison, when Wal-Mart
went into the area by the airport, the land was rezoned to CC-2 and generated the kind of traffic that
increased the value of the land $3 per square foot. The zoning code was presented as a simplification of
the current code, not a change. Removing those uses should be classified as a change, and the owners
should have been informed about such a change in the code.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 5,2006
Page 6
Cook said whenever a property is rezoned, as a matter of due process, notification is posted to inform
neighbors and others of the proposed rezoning. Presenting the new code as a simplification and holding a
series of meetings before reducing the value of the land by such a sizeable amount does not sit well. He
said he understands the concern about making land available for industrial use, which is about jobs and
tax base.
Cook said the cost of the land constitutes approximately 15 percent of the total cost of development. For
every 40,000 square feet, this reduction would make a $500,000 building instead of a $1 million dollar
building. The potential value for tax base has been cut in half, and is a huge issue with the area in
question.
Cook said the issue comes down to a question of highest and best use, as well as exposure and access.
That parcel has exposure and access to approximately 15-20 thousand cars per day. Zoning should
recognize the impact of arterials around it, and commercial lots should take advantage of traffic flow. He
said that restaurants, small retail, and medical offices should not be arbitrarily taken out of that zone.
Cook said the biggest distinction in CI-1 zone is outdoor storage. Menard's, for example, is surrounded by
CC-2. The car dealerships nearby are all in CI-1 zoning. As a practical matter, that does not make sense.
A large retail store, such as Wal-Mart, has cars in the parking lot the same as the car dealerships. The
only distinction is that they are all located with visibility, and access to large traffic flow. He does not
understand what is so terrible about outdoor storage if it involves something like nurseries, which are also
in CI-1 zoning. A professional or medical office building would be happy to be located next to a nursery.
Cook said that it sometimes seems like the City follows different rules than its citizens are expected to.
For example, when Wal-Mart wanted to build its store, suddenly that was made a CC-2 zone even though
it had no visibility from the highway. From a practical standpoint, it makes sense because of the increased
traffic flow. It also makes sense for the nearby properties to take advantage of that traffic flow.
Cook said he does not understand why restaurants are allowed in CI-1 zones, but not hotels. Also why
hotels and restaurants are allowed in CC-2, but not in CI-1 as long as it is beside a major arterial road. In
summary, from a practical standpoint, removing those uses from the zone with such high traffic is taking
without just compensation. It is simply not fair to take those uses away from the property owners, not just
for the current owners who are being affected in this area, but in a comprehensive way. It also should not
be snuck through without due process.
Eastham asked for expansion on the concerns about the uses along this area that would affect industrial
uses. Cook said there is a big distinction between industrial and commercial. CI-1 is a kind of hybrid zone,
and includes things like furniture stores and car dealerships. He has tried to market his ground, but it is
not big enough for a furniture store or similar use. A small CI-1 property is not suited to those kinds of
uses. There is a good area for industrial use in the lower area away from the highway visibility with little
exposure to traffic. People would not pay very much for that land because of those issues.
Eastham said there are concerns that industrial traffic and commercial traffic could have conflicts. Cook
said trucks go all the way up Scott Boulevard to the Interstate, and that is residential almost all the way.
He said he does not see that as a major project stopper or justification for a major change to the zone.
Plahutnik said that the zoning code was changed according to due process, and all the members of the
Commission at the time listened to and incorporated suggestions and feedback from the public whenever
possible. If property owners chose not to be involved in the process and give feedback, that does not
mean the process was not followed. Cook said he knows from being on the Commission that engaging
citizen involvement can be frustrating. He said typically only a few people show up at a public hearing.
However, property owners were not specifically informed that certain uses were being removed from the
zone, even though if a citizen wants to change zoning they have to inform people about it. Freerks said a
great deal of public information was put out at the time of the changes.
Harrv Wolf, said he is currently marketing properties in the area, and has 25 years of experience in
commercial real estate. He said this is a significant change, and agreed there was public input regarding
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 5, 2006
Page 7
the zoning code changes. However, there might be things in the new zone that are broken and need to be
fixed, though he does not know what process to follow for that.
Wolf asked how much discussion there was about the CI-1 zone. Miklo said there was a lot of discussion
about commercial in the CI-1 zone. Freerks agreed. Koppes said the Commission had a stack of petitions
for changes to the CI-1 zone. Smith said the Commission realized with such a sweeping change that
there were things that would need to be revisited. It sounds like that is what is being said at this meeting,
that this needs to be reconsidered.
Freerks said this is a piece of land for which a plan has been created that appears to be working, so she
wants to look at the issue very carefully before making any further changes. Wolf said no property owners
were informed about the specific proposed changes, apart from the community notifications. Freerks said
the key question is what is desired for this zone.
Brooks said the discussion is segueing into a broader topic than the application for rezoning, and the
broader topic has city-wide implications. He noted that the rezoning application currently in front of the
Commission needs to be addressed first. He said he does not want to be caught up in the broader
discussion during this meeting, but he takes exception to the implication that changes were snuck through
or made arbitrarily. The zoning code changes did follow a process, and it was a long and arduous
process that occurred over three years. Though something might need to be reviewed again, additional
changes will have a ripple effect, and the Commission cannot do anything about the current zone without
having a broader discussion.
Smith asked Wolf for feedback on the application for rezoning to CC-2 and its potential conflict for the
city's need and desire for land available for industrial use. Wolf said he is surprised the community would
want to use the site for industrial. He thinks both commercial and industrial can coexist, but it is unusual
to put industrial in such a visible and busy area. Koppes noted that the current zone is Intensive
Commercial, not Industrial.
Freerks said the road was put there with the zone in place. Wolf said the zone was different at the time,
though. He said he developed the property along Southgate Avenue in CI-1. That zone barely worked
with those uses still in it, so he does not know whether it would work with those uses taken out.
Larson said the applicant is prepared and open to waiting on a decision on the current application, in
order to work out the larger issue. He said maybe the changes were too much, and need to be reduced a
bit. The changes are affecting the City as well, and they are prepared to work with the City to resolve this.
Brooks said the limitation period on the application had already been extended. He asked if it could be
extended again. Larson said yes, a lot of work needs to be done out on the site yet.
Eastham asked if there are any uses that were not in the CI-1 zone previously that they want in there, or
whether the applicant is only interested in how it was before. Cook said they would like hotels to be
included. Brooks said that is more appropriate for a later discussion.
Freerks asked if anything new had been added to the zone. Miklo he would have to check though retail
was very limited. Larson said that use was another reason for choosing CI-1 instead of CH, so a
convenience store gas station could be included. Miklo said the convenience store or gas station is allows
in both the CI-1 and CH zone. Miklo said that earlier there was reference to retail uses being taken out of
the CI-1 zone. He said that retail uses have always been very limited in the CI-1 zone and that did not
change with the new code.
Koppes asked what Schnoebeln Farms plans to do with their land. Larson said it is on hold, but currently
on board to do whatever is determined best for the area. Two or three hotels are interested in the site.
Brooks closed public discussion.
MOTION: Smith moved to defer application REZ06-00021 to the next meeting. Koppes seconded.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 5, 2006
Page 8
Miklo suggested deferring to November 16. Smith asked if the applicant is agreeable to deferring to
November 16. Larson said yes.
Smith amended his motion to defer application REZ06-00021 to the November 16 meeting. Koppes
seconded the amendment.
Smith said he does not want to make PIP non-conforming, so does not feel that CC-2 is not a good
option. Additional uses for the zone might be possible to make a workable solution.
Freerks said a lot of discussion about potential changes will be needed. Behr noted that the current
request is for a rezoning. Any changes to the CI-1 zone are a completely different issue and process.
Koppes asked whether the applicant could withdraw their application if the decision is to change the zone.
Behr said the applicant is always free to decide whether or not to proceed.
VOTE: The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
Other Items
Miklo distributed notices regarding a meeting to begin the Central District planning process. The
Commission members are not obligated to attend, but it is a good opportunity to observe the process.
Since it is the same week that the Commission is scheduled to meet with Council regarding inclusionary
zoning, the next planning and zoning meeting might be canceled. He said he would inform the members if
the meeting were canceled.
Miklo distributed notices of the Iowa American Planning Association Conference, which will be held in
Iowa City on November 2 and 3. If anyone is interested in attending, the city will pay registration and
expenses. It would be a good opportunity to meet planning commissioners from other communities.
Brooks said the Citizen Planning Workshop would be of interest to students, when the planning process
for the Central District will begin. It is a large and diverse area, so will take a lot of time and discussion.
The meeting is on October 18 at City High, begi'nning at 7:00 p.m.
Adiournment
MOTION: Smith moved to adjourn. Eastham seconded, and the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
s/pcd/mins/p&z12006/PZC10-05-06
c
o
'0
.!/!
E
E
o
o'E
mo
c CJ
.- Q)
c~
o
NQ)CD
~gg
mCllN
c'O
,- C
C Q)
c=
.!!!<C
a.
~
(3
ClI
~
.2
an
- >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
0
....
.... W
N >< >< >< >< >< >< 0
-
en
t:: >< >< >< >< >< 0 ><
en
"" W
.... >< >< >< >< >< 0 ><
-
ClQ
~ >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
ClQ
0 W
~ >< >< >< >< - >< ><
"" 0
CD >< >< >< w w >< w
- 0 0 0
""
an w w w
.... 0 >< 0 >< >< >< 0
-
CD
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
CD
ClQ
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
an
0 I W
N >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
~ I
I
CD >< I w >< >< >< ><
- I 0
~ I
N I
>< I >< >< >< >< ><
- I
CO? I
CD I W
.... >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
N I
I
N I W
>< I >< >< >< ><
N I 0
I
en I w
.... >< I >< >< 0 >< ><
- I
.... I
an I W
>< I >< >< >< ><
- I 0
.... I
11l 0 00 "" 0 <0
E ~ ..... 00
.... .- ..... ..... 0 0 ..... 0 0
Q)a. - - - - - - -
ll) ll) ll) ll) ll) ll) ll)
I-X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w
E ~ C
Ul Ul Ul '2 0
~ ClI ~ g .... C
0 .c ... ::::l C .c
.... Q) .c ....
Q) 0 Ul e ClI ClI 'E
... ClI 0 .c
E a:l W LL ~ ii: en en
co m cJ <i. u.i 3: ci ~
z
C)
z
i=
w
w
::IE
..J
<C
::IE
~
o
LL
<i.
~ >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
0
....
ClQ W
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< 0
-
en
~ W W
.... >< >< >< >< - 0 ><
- 0
ClQ
.... W
~ >< >< >< >< 0 >< ><
""
"" w
.... >< >< >< >< 0 >< ><
-
""
an w
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< 0
-
an
"" I W
.... >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
~ I
I
"" I
N >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
- I
N I
CO? I W
.... >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
- I
N I
11l "" 0 <0
E ~ 0 ..... 00 00
..... ..... 0 0 ..... 0 0
li>'~ - - - - - - -
ll) ll) ll) ll) ll) ll) ll)
I-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E ~ C
~ Ul Ul '2 0
ClI ~ ~ .... C
0 .c ... ::::l C .c
.... Q) .c ....
e Ul ClI 'E
Q) ClI e ~ ClI .c
E a:l W LL ii: en en
co m cJ <i. u.i 3: ci ~
z
C)
z
i=
w
w
::IE
..J
<C
::IE
~
o
LL
~
m
"'C
Q)
11l
::l
<.>
x
W
--~
c: c: c:
Q) Q) Q)
11l 11l 11l
~..o..o
0..<(<(
.. II II II
>- W
Q) -
~><OO
Preliminary
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 19, 2006 -7:30 P.M.
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER:
Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:29pm.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Wally Plahutnik, Beth Koppes, Charlie Eastham, Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks, Dean
Shannon
MEMBERS ABSENT: Terry Smith
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr
OTHERS PRESENT: Patrick Kennedy
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council action):
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Smith absent), SUB 06-00009, a final plat for Kennedy's
Waterfront Addition Park Four, a 4.91-acre, 4-lot commercial subdivision located east of South Gilbert
Street on Southgate Avenue, subject to Staff approval of legal papers.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM:
SUB06-00009. discussion of an application submitted by Kennedy Development, Inc. for a final plat of
Kennedy's Waterfront Addition Part Four, a 4.91-acre, 4-lot commercial subdivision located east of South
Gilbert Street on Southgate Avenue.
Miklo said the applicant submitted a preliminary plat for the subdivision earlier this year. The property is
on the east side of Gilbert Street and the north side of Southgate Avenue. Originally, the preliminary plat
called for five lots, whereas this final plat includes four lots and one outlot for future development. The
developer may request that the outlot be further subdivided. A portion of lot one of the preliminary plat
has been added to lot two.
The plat includes a stormwater management area with easements leading to that area. There was
previously an issue with some fill of the floodplain, and a permit has now been issued for it, with a
covenant requiring a soil study for any construction activity to occur in the area. This will ensure that the
fill is done adequately to support a foundation or whatever else may be built on the land. There are
infrastructure fees of $395/acre, or about $2000, for water main extensions. There is also a dedication of
right-of-way for Southgate Avenue to accommodate a future potential turning lane.
Miklo said that Staff is recommending approval.
Plahutnik asked if there would be any difficulty in putting a CI-1 subdivision into an area where the City
recently rezoned adjacent property to CC-2. Miklo did not see it as being incompatible. The applicant
mentioned that they may seek CC-2 zoning in the future.
Freerks wondered where on the lot there was grading without a permit and whether the issue had been
resolved. Miklo said that the grading had occurred on outlot B and had been resolved and the covenant
was entered into to assure the fill would be tested before construction.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 19,2006
Page 2
Pat Kennedv, Project Manager, said he requested to have all four lots on Southgate Avenue given the
same zoning distinction in case a customer comes along to buy more than one lot. He said that since the
area surrounding his property may be rezoned to CC-2, his lots should be included in that rezoning if it
occurs.
Miklo clarified that rezoning of this property would be a separate action.
Public Discussion was closed.
Motion: Freerks moved to approve SUB06-00009, a final plat for Kennedy's Waterfront Addition Part
Four, a 4.91-acre, 4-lot commercial subdivision located east of South Gilbert Street on Southgate
Avenue, pending Staff approval of legal papers. Plahutnik seconded.
Reviewinq Staff Work List
Miklo said that the Planning Department is currently working on subdivision regulations with the Public
Works, Fire, Parks and Recreation Departments and the City Attorney's office. They are also making
progress on the Central Planning District, and held the first public meeting on October 18. The Central
Planning District project will be an ongoing process for a year or more. One thing they will be doing is
looking at the CB-2 zone standards mostly in the Northside market area, such as height standards,
parking locations, and other CB-2 zoning issues that became controversial during the adoption of the new
code.
The next district plan will be the Southeast Planning District. Miklo anticipates that there will be some
issues there with the industrial park expansion, Kirkwood Community College, and the Sycamore Mall
area. This plan will not be started until after the completion of the Central District Plan.
After the Central District Plan and the Southeast District Plan, there will be the Northwest District Plan,
which is not a real concern because most of the land included in the district is either owned by the
University or is located within the Camp Cardinal Land Use Plan boundaries. Also, Staff will look at
creating the North Corridor District Plan. Most of the land included in the North Corridor Plan is outside of
the city limits. However, the land is in the growth area, so Staff anticipates that there may be some
controversial annexation issues in the future. Another issue that is not on the Staff Work List is looking at
the CB-10 zone. From staffs perspective, there may be more of a sense of urgency regarding this issue,
given that there may be some development pressures downtown.
Miklo said that the Commission is not required to take any action on the Staff Work List at present.
Commission members can take some time to look over the list and move items around to suit their
preferred order.
Brooks felt it would be appropriate to reaffirm the list in the order that the Commission deems suitable,
then send it to the council. He thinks that they should mention that they have some concerns about
whether the department is funded and staffed in a way to accommodate all of these issues. He is
concerned about the Southeast District. Brooks mentioned that more staffing capability would allow the
department to handle more than one district plan at a time.
Freerks wondered what the climate would be to add Staff to work on the inclusionary zoning issue. Miklo
said that the climate to add Staff is not good. He said that the issue of inclusionary zoning first required a
housing study and that is an issue that could be tackled by a consulting firm.
Eastham wondered if creating and revising district plans would be an appropriate use of a consulting firm.
Miklo mentioned that he felt the degree of local knowledge and citizen participation required for a district
plan did not make them good candidates for a consulting firm. Eastham asked if there were other items
on the work program that could be done by a consultant. Miklo said that there may be, but in the past the
department had mixed results when it hired consultants.
Shannon wants to readdress the sign ordinance. He doesn't think it will be a lengthy thing to tackle.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 3
Koppes would like to see more district planning done before we go back and revisit the other districts.
Brooks thought that this list should be discussed at the next working session. Freerks agrees and thinks
that a more comprehensive list and a realistic timeline would be appropriate so that the Council can have
an idea of the timeframe required to complete the list.
OTHER:
Miklo wanted to know if anyone is interested in attending the Iowa APA conference. If so, they should call
Janet, the Planning Department Secretary, by October 20 to let her know.
Miklo said that Central Planning District meeting went well. There were concerns with the maintenance of
the housing stock, nuisance issues, and lack of sidewalks and trail connections within the district.
Brooks mentioned that there is a deficit of open space in the Central Planning District, especially if
Hickory Hill Park is taken out. Understanding how the cooperative use of school property meets some of
that need is important..
Eastham wondered if it is true that north wastewater treatment plant will be closed. Miklo said that would
be a few decades out. Eastham thought it would be appropriate to use that space in the future for an
expanded and improved corridor. Miklo said that Staff would be meeting with area property and business
owners in that area as part of the Central Planning District.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: Plahtunik made a motion to adjourn. Koppes seconded. Motion carried on a vote of 6-0 (Smith
absent).
The meeting was adjourned at 8:08pm.
Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary
Minutes submitted by Abby Attoun
s/pcd/mins/2006/10-19-06.doc
C
o
'in
,le
E
E
o
o'E
ClO
C U
.- CI)
Co:::
o
NCI)~
~go
ClIllN
c'c
,- C
C CI)
C-
.!!<e
D..
~
(3
III
~
.2
t:)
z
i=
w
w
:E
...J
<
::E
0:::
o
u..
en UJ
'l"" >< >< >< >< >< ><
- .0
0
'l""
II)
- >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
0
'l""
'l"" UJ
~ >< >< >< >< >< >< 0
en
t:: >< >< >< >< >< 0 ><
en
.... UJ
'l"" >< >< >< >< >< 0 ><
-
co
!:! >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
co
0 UJ
~ >< >< >< >< - >< ><
.... 0
CD >< >< >< UJ UJ >< UJ
- - 0 0
.... 0
II) UJ UJ UJ
'l"" 0 >< 0 >< >< >< 0
-
CD
'l"" >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
CD
CO
'l"" >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
II)
0 I UJ
N >< I >< >< >< - ><
~ I 0
I
CD I UJ
>< I >< >< >< ><
~ I -
I 0
N I
>< I >< >< >< >< ><
- I
CO? I
CD I UJ
'l"" >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
- I
N I
N I UJ
>< I >< >< >< ><
- I -
N I 0
en I UJ
'l"" >< I >< >< 0 >< ><
- I
'l"" I
II) >< I >< UJ >< >< ><
- I 0
'l"" I
lJ) 0 CO .... 0 CO <0
E.~ ....
.... .... 0 0 .... 0 0
Q)Q. - - - - it> - -
LO LO LO LO LO LO
1->< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UJ
E ~ c
en en en c 0
~ III ~ & - c
.c ... ~ .c
0 - CI) .c c -
Q) e en f g III III 'E
III .c
E m w u.. ~ ii: V> V>
ell ai 0 <i. u.i ~ ci ...:
z
<i.
t:)
z
i=
w
w
::E
...J
<
::E
0:::
o
u..
~
ai
~ >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
0
'l""
CO UJ
'l"" >< >< >< >< >< >< -
- 0
en
"It UJ UJ
'l"" >< >< >< >< - - ><
- 0 0
CO
'l"" UJ
CO? >< >< >< >< - >< ><
t::: 0
.... UJ
'l"" >< >< >< >< 0 >< ><
t:::
II) UJ
'l"" >< >< >< >< >< >< 0
in
.... I UJ
'l"" >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
~ I
I
.... I
~ >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
I
I
CO? I UJ
'l"" >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
- I
N I
lJ) 0 CO "- 0 CO <0
E ~ ....
.... .... 0 0 .... 0 0
Q;'~ - - - - - - -
LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
I-UJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E ~ c
en en en c 0
~ III ~ 8 - c
0 .c ... ~ c .c
- CI) .c -
Q) e en f III III 'E
III 0 .c
E m w u.. ~ ii: V> V>
ell ai 0 <i. u.i ~ ci ...:
z
-c
Q)
lJ)
:J
U
><
UJ
--+:>
c: c: c:
Q) Q) Q)
lJ) lJ) lJ)
~.o.o
0.<<
.. II II II
>. UJ
Q) -
~><oo