The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-07-2006 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, December 7, 2006 - 7:30 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda C. Development Item: SUB06-00016 Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development Inc for a final plat of Stone Bridge Estates Part Five, a 35-lot, 12.37 acre residential subdivision located on north of Court Street, east of Camden Road. SUB06-00018/SUB06-00019 Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for a preliminary and final plat of Pepperwood Plaza, an 11-lot, 23.33-acre commercial subdivision located west of Broadway Street and Hwy 6 West. D. Rezoning Items: REl06-00021 Discussion of an application submitted by James Davis for a rezoning of 17.75 acres of property located at Eagle View and Grace Drive from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone or Commercial Office (CO-1). E. Other Items F. Consideration of the November 16, 2006 Meeting Minutes G. Adjournment Informal Formal To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: SUB06-00016 Stone Bridge Estates - Part Five GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Phone: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: 60 Day Limitation Period: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Sunil Terdalkar Date: December 7,2006 Applicant: Arlington Development, Inc. 1486 S 1st Ave, Unit A, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 338-8058 Duane Musser MMS Consultants 1917 S Gilbert Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 338-8282 Subdivision Final Plat Development of a 35-lot residential subdivision North of Court Street, east of Camden Road and west of Huntington Drive Approximately 12.37 acres OPD-5 North: Undeveloped, Residential- RS-5, OPD-5 South: Residential - RS-5, OPD-8 East: Residential - RM-12 West: Residential-OPD/RM-12 Low Density Residential Lower West Branch November 30, 2006 January 15, 2006 January 30, 2006 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Arlington Development, Inc., is requesting approval for a 35-lot, single-family residential subdivision with two outlots, on approximately 12.37 acres of land located north of Court Street, east of Camden Road, and west of Huntington Drive. The property is part of the 49.05-acre area, which was recently rezoned from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Single-Family Residential (OPD-5) zone. The OPD zoning was required due to the disturbance of more than 35% of the critical slopes on the property. The City Council has also approved a preliminary plat for a 139-lot residential subdivision on this land. The final plat under consideration is the first phase of the approved preliminary plat. ANAL YSIS: The final plat as submitted is, in general, consistent with the preliminary plat. With this plat, 35 single-family lots will be added to the overall Stone Bridge Estates development. Construction plans and legal papers have been submitted and are being reviewed by the City Engineer and the City Attorney. As part of this subdivision four new streets will be installed. Arlington Drive provides primary access to the proposed subdivision and Whitechaple Drive will connect to the existing street network on the north. Three of the streets however will be stub streets until future phases of the development are completed. To facilitate better fire safety a temporary turnaround is required to be constructed at the end of such streets. Temporary turnarounds are required at the north end of Colchester Drive and Eversull Lane as part of the required improvements for the proposed subdivision. The applicant has agreed to build temporary turnaround on both the dead ends. When previous phase of Stone Bridge Estates was developed, a temporary turnaround was not built at the southern end of Eversull Lane. Considering the distance between the two dead-ends on Eversull Lane (approximately 170 feet) , the Fire Marshall has strongly recommended that Eversull Lane should be completed to improve better access and fire safety. The applicant is instead proposing to build another temporary turnaround on the southern end of the existing portion of Eversull Lane. A branch of the Ralston Creek runs though this property. Most of the area along the creek is to be set aside as private open space. This phase of the subdivision includes Outlot D, which extends from the Arlington drive on the east along Court Street to the west boundary on the subdivision. Outlot D is to be controlled by a homeowner's association. A 15-foot wide trail easement is located within Outlot D to allow the extension of the existing trail system. The trail is to be built by the applicanUowner with an easement to allow public access. The trail will follow the creek and will eventually connect to the wide sidewalk along Lower West Branch Road. Building of this trail will partially fulfill one of the conditions in the Conditional Zoning Agreement and the Northeast District Plan goals. The applicant is also responsible for installing a sidewalk along the southern boundary of the property. The portion of the sidewalk between Arlington Street and Huntington Drive should be a wide (a-foot) sidewalk, to connect the exiting trail network south of Court Street to the proposed trail along Ralston Creek. The City is responsible for the expense incurred to install the additional width of the sidewalk. The Comprehensive Plan and the subdivision regulations discourage double fronting lots and if PCDIStaff ReportslsubOO.00016 stonebridgapartS.final 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral of this item until the deficiencies and discrepancies listed below are resolved. Upon resolution of the deficiencies and discrepancies, staff recommends that SUB06-00018, a preliminary plat for Pepperwood Plaza and SUB06-00019, a final plat for Pepperwood Plaza, an 11-lot, 23.33-acre subdivision and, be approved subject to staff approval of legal papers prior to Council consideration. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: 1. Sanitary sewer and easement between lots 4 and 6 should be corrected per Braverman Center subdivision. 2. Conflict between storm sewer and sanitary manhole north of lot 5 should be corrected 3. Spelling should be corrected on note that appears east of lot 6 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Final Plat Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ~/?~ J CD ~ 11~ll 31 'v't.JOdt.JOJ A1IJ 'v'M I JO A1IJ 0 0 0 I CD en 0 ,... en a: z 3 ::> ~ I U Cf) C t: t3 ~ ~ ~ t: t3 ~u__ r-- ~..... w- ~--- ~ -- -D -~- Z - << -' '" w CD .'" ::> u ex> C D- O I I I I I I r- -i~f- : ~~t_ I ~T\ L-0: 1-1 f- -- .-'" > << f- '" ::> ---t:l LO C D- O ~ -' w J.n___ en a: I \ 1 I ". L() 1: crs a. (f) Q.) +-' crs +-' (f) W Q.) 0) "0 l.... en Q.) c o +-' Cf) . . Z o joooooj ~ < U o ~ ~ ~ joooooj rJ) Final Plat STONE BRIDGE ESTATES, PART FIVE Iowa City, Iowa PREPARED BY: lAMS CONSULTANTS INC. - 1917 S. GILBERT STREET - IQWA CITY, IOWA, 52240 - ,/J If , , ,/ ,'1 4', / , ///,/// ./ // / //:--- / :::s-. .~ PUT PRF.PARF.Tl RY . MUS CONSULTANTS lNC. 1917 S Gilbert St IOWA CITY. IOWA, 52240 QWHRR/~(mnMf)1r.R' ARLINGTON DEV. INC. 1486 S J'IRST AVE sum: A IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 ~tmnMnf.R's A'M'ORN'F.Y: WICHAEL PUGH 1 SOUTH GILBERT STREET IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 LEGEND AND NOTES ~ o - CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, FOUND - CONGRESSIONAL CORNER. fl[[STABUSHED - CONGRESSIONAL CORN[R, RECOIlDED LOC.l.11ON - PROPERTY CORHEl'(S), FOUND (a. not..,) - PROPERTY CORNERS SET (~~ ':'tllw(w:;), p1~lc LS Cop UN~ES - BY DEED -------- - EASEMEHTUNES, WIOlH "'PURPOSE NOTED ---------------- - EXISTING [....SEIlENT UHES, PURPOSE NOTED -RECORDED DIMENSIONS - MEASURED Dlt.lENSlONS - CUA\o€ SEGMENT NUMBER lIIlCSSNOTDlOlllERW!(,AIlDMJolSl(MMlttlrEETAIIlIUllR[J)'!MS ERROR OF a..OSURE IS LESS THAN 1 FOOT IN 20,000 fEET s)e',;,~:; 23J.8. o . I1UT1UTY ]00,70 ["'SENE") ~~s;;;;{~;./ EXIST BOX _ '" '1 /'f~"\ '\CI.~/ ~UlVEllT EASE ~ ~ /::;/::~:;::~~ -~-,~~ I 1 ~ e'<f842W /""--_--./ III II -__,1 @@agEiiV~ ~au- 1'1!lr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l~~~~_-:~~:>~ - ------ ~1~~~' "' '''' i iii ! ~~~~ (\ r-~' :---g;~~~:l'45"W -- I III I 1111 I I II I -_. I I I I certify that during thll mooth of Octablll", 2006, ot thll dlrlldion of Arlington Oevelopmlll"lt, Inc.,---__ __ ----~ i I : ~o~~~:~t wg~a~o;P~~:d a u~~:~o~~f~h:~~~t~'e::t oQ~~;:~~ offt~~es:~~~:II~s~~~~Z~ b~~h t~~ --- - - -- -- --1 ' Section 7, Townahip 79 Nortn, Range 5 Wellt, of the Fifth Prlnclpol Meridian, Iowa City I Johnson County, Iowa, the boundarlell of whIch ore mar. particularly dllllcrlbed all followlI: : BEGINNING at the South_t com.... of Windlor Rldgll - Part Flftelln, iowa City, Iowa, In occoraon~ with the Plat thereof Recorded In Book 41, ot Pc:""e 212, of the Records of the Johnson County Recora"'1 OffiCII; ThenCII NOO'29'10"W, along the EClat 11M of IlOId Wlnd.or Ridge - Port Fifteln, 691.97 f..t, to the Southw.st corn.r of Stons Brld'ile Elltatell, Part One, Iowa City, Iowa, In accordance with the Plot thlll"eot Recorded In Book 43, at Paljje 143, of the Recorde of the Johnson County Record....'. Office; ThllllCII Northeast&rly, 293.62 feet, along the Southerly !lne of said Stan. Brldg. Estates, Part One, and an arc of a 370.00 foot radius curve, concave NOfthwelterly, who.. 28~.97 fool chO!"d beore N54'39'oe"E; Thence S58'04'53"E, along laid 20_. Southerly Un., 125.00 feet, to 0 point on the West I1ne of Stone Bridge Eatates, 8165 ~r~o;~r;;" ~~~~e1:~~~r~olw~; ~hl o~~~~~n~:U~::hR:~;d~~~t o~~~~~oit,:nsc~o~~~~;~oj!~~kal~~ said Welt line, 27.89 fset, to the Southwellt comer thereof; Thenc. S44-40'40"W, 64.38 feet; Thence S62'5J'19"W, 44.40 feet Thence S4215'J8"E, 199.67 flet; Thence Southwestsrly, 28.90 feet, along on ore of a 670.00 foot rad!us curve, concave Northw..tllrly, WhOllIl 28.89 foat chord beorll S48'58'29"W; Thenc. S39'47'23"E, 130.07 feet; Thence N55'37'36"E, 26.19 feet; Thenc. S41'38'39"E, 122.07 f_t; Thenc. Northealterly, 22.54 f.st, alonljj an arc of a 924.77 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, who.e 22.54 foot chord bean N4r39'26"E; Thencs S43"02'28"E, 83.33 fset; Thenc. S76'48'42"E, 120.00 feet; Thenc. N66'07'SO-E, 3.5.78 f..t; Thence SS8i1'56"E, 189.00 feet; Thence S31-48'04"W, 27.01 fellt; Thsnce Southwesterly, 10.77 feet, olon<;l on arc of Q 175.00 foot rOdlu. curve, concave Northwellterly, whose 10.77 foot chord bear. SJ3'33'53"W; Thence S54'40'1S"E, 233.77 f_t, to 0 point on Ihe Westerly I1n. of Wlndeor t Twenty-One, Iowa City, Iowa, In occordonce with the Plat thereof Rlco~ded , at Page 93, of the Rllcords of ths Johnson County "W, C1long said Weste~ly Une, 79..33 f"et; Thence 141.13 feet, to the Southwest corner thereof; Thence Northerly Rignt-of-Wo)' line of Court Strsst, and an oat rodlu. curve, concove Northeosterl)', whose 139.56 foot chord bsore N7S'51'45"W; ThencII N7e'4B'42"W, olon<;l eald Northsrly Right-of-Way nne, 293.93 fset; Thlncl Northweltlfly, 601.06 feet. along laid Northerly Rloght-of-Way line, and on arc of 0 2926.05 foot rodlul curve, concove SouthweltllrlY, who.. 600.01 loot chord beo~ N82'41'47"W, to sold POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 12.37 acree, <Jt1d subject to llo,",ment. and rntrlctlO1u of record. J1' ~,,~~<!? fi;f~~ ,,'\ ~' ",,"5 @~ ~r!f ~ .11'46'10" R-2926.05' L-601.06' T_301.59'....... C-600.01' CB-N62'41'47"W I' \WOIlil@)~~~~~~~~!~'iJ' 'TI'iWl~I1.\'Il~ i i ~,::O..NrY~'~(.:!'!'1 i: 51'" Signedbeforemethls_doyof_,20_. Notary Publlc, In ond for the State of Iowa. ~ l ~ ~ J .... [ '" ~ i ....l! '" ,g r ,.,g .... ~ " ~ W c ..., ;: " .. l ~ l ~ . ~ ~ [ .....Jio. " ~ - ~ ill G:\41 0\4'46243\414 24Jfd..g ;;:: ;;:: en () o z en c ,.... ~ ~ Z ;;:; s;J 6 Z Ol () /9/20l> 2:48:2JPMCST -t...- '1J m en 000 )> en -I ~~~ ::0 -I 0 ~() -I )> Z z~ ::!! ill m () <enOJ g m ~ z 0 :;l G') m p "TI Z )> r "U r )> -l ~ r ~ ~ ~ . ~ L ~ w.~ II> fl.'.'= "9-J 01025 liD " llIO GRAPHlCSCAIlDl"FEET 1'-100' tJ-3'31'3B- R"'175.00' L"'10.77' LOT NUMBER , 9 ,. " 16 17 18 " " E!.EVATlON 745.60 745.60 736.70 7J6.70 736.70 736.70 738.70 776.20 775.20 PLAT/PLAN APPROVED by the City 01 Iowa City elt Cl.rll: Date: UllUT"l'USEMENTS.AS~HEREON.MAYORMAYNOT, INa.lJDE SANITARY SE'toER WlES, AND/OR STORM ~ UNES, AHC/OR WATER UNE!;: SEE CONSTRUCTION PlANS FOR DUA.llS. UTIUTY E.<.SEMENTS. ,,"S SHOWN HEREON, ARE ADEQUATE FOR THE NSTAl.l.A'lION ANO WAlNTENANa: a: THE FAClUlIES REOUIR- EO BY THE rOLl.OWlNC ACENClES: .... Dab: .... ~ c ~!!J s:~ -.0 6", ~~i i~", ~~~ i2c !g; I~~~~ ~~~~~ I UI~~ I ~n~~8 ~~~~~ ~c:;l1Jl1Jl1Jl ;;; '" ... 1) " m en i 3 ~ 3 ,. L~ ~S~ ~ ~> or -f:! d~ STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: S UB06-00018/SUB06-00019 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Phone: Requested Action: Purpose: location: Size: Existing land Use and Zoning: Surrounding land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: 60 Day Limitation Period: SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: Public Services: Prepared by: Drew E. Westberg, Planning Intern Date: December 7,2006 Southgate Development Company, Inc 755 Mormon Trek Blvd PO Box 1907 Iowa City, IA 52244 Larry Schnittjer MMS Consultant Inc. 1917 S Gilbert Street Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)351-8282 Preliminary and Final Plat Approval To create an 11-lot, one outlot subdivision South of US Hwy 6, West of Broadway St. 23.33 Acres Community Commercial (CC-2) CC-2 General Commercial November 17, 2006 January 5, 2007 January 20, 2007 Adequate water and sewer services are available Police and fire protection are available. 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Southgate Development Company, is requesting approval of a preliminary and final plat for the re-subdivision of Pepperwood Plaza, located south of Highway 6, east of Keokuk Street, and west of Broadway Street. Pepperwood Plaza was established in 1986 as a large commercial center for the south side of Iowa City. In 2003, it was designated as a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District. ANAL YSIS: This is a relatively minor subdivision as all utilities are readily available, and no new streets will be constructed. The plats generally comply with the Subdivision Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan, which calls for the area to continue as general commercial. Lots 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 9 contain existing structures. Lots 3, 5, 8, and 10 are currently vacant or contain parking spaces. The applicant intends to develop these in the future. Zoning Requirements Pepperwood Plaza is zoned Community Commercial (CC-2). The CC-2 zone is designed to identify locations suitable for major commercial districts that will provide service to a significant segment of the total community population. These commercial districts are occupied by high traffic-generating commercial retail uses, which require a location along major arterials such as Highway 6. The proposed re-subdivision would not detract from the CC-2 nature of the current uses or the location of the plaza. No minimum lot requirements exist within the CC-2 zone. However, structures within the CC-2 zone must adhere to a ten foot setback from a public street. All lots to which the setback would apply satisfy this requirement. Parking Due to the plaza's sales-oriented make-up, the shared parking requirement is one vehicle parking space per 250 square feet of floor area. Most of the parking will be provided on Outlot A and shared by the adjacent lots. Outlot A is the largest lot at 10.15 total acres. It is to be commonly owned and used for vehicular access as well as parking. The outlot includes all access points to the plaza including Highway 6, Keokuk Street, Pepperwood Lane (a private drive), Cross Park Drive, and Broadway Street entrances. Legal papers will need to address access easements, utility easements, maintenance of Outlot A, and the common parking arrangement. Traffic implications As previously noted, no new streets will be constructed as part of this subdivision. In that regard, traffic implications are not a concern. Current access and street design standards are adequate for a CC-2 type node such as Pepperwood. The subdivision must also comply with commercial site development standards, which require new subdivisions to have pedestrian walkways connecting principal buildings. A pedestrian walkway system is identified on the preliminary plat. Upon site plan review, the applicant will need to address pedestrian access to lots 3 and 5. Storm water management Much of the development predates the Iowa City Stormwater Ordinance, however, stormwater run-off is still managed. Run-off is collected by a storm sewer that drains into the Highway 6 system which conveys the stormwater to the Iowa River. 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral of this item until the deficiencies and discrepancies listed below are resolved. Upon resolution of the deficiencies and discrepancies, staff recommends that SUB06-00018, a preliminary plat for Pepperwood Plaza and SUB06-00019, a final plat for Pepperwood Plaza, an 11-lot, 23.33-acre subdivision and, be approved subject to staff approval of legal papers prior to Council consideration. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: 1. Sanitary sewer and easement between lots 4 and 6 should be corrected per Braverman Center subdivision. 2. Conflict between storm sewer and sanitary manhole north of lot 5 should be corrected 3. Spelling should be corrected on note that appears east of lot 6 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Final Plat Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ~/?~ , II II \ I I I"n_'_~ji=-~':-==---~--- ~=~J I -'" -12,- -~ ~ - -~= --- - nn - -- ':-- g~ -" --. -- ~-- -.-' -- ~ ~-- ~ -- -0- z _II; ,... ~ .s g - __n-~_ ~' -- --2:-- - -'--- ~ a. ~ ~ ~ __- -:-- _ :r u_ -~ g -- f---~:=- b -"- ?___.___ ____n_' ____ _ ___ ~ arn]]J-1 '0{:~= ..... , ~lm-5~t~;7 t/1,~ 1S ]801~ I \. =rm rTTTm DlTlTll a: /~ ~LUlJJJ Lil.LLWlr.. ~ IIJ];DIIJ]] [[[[[[17~ w 7 ~ \E 1S AVMOVO~8 ~ ';i ~ (/ a: J]]]~DIIJ]];ITDJIJ ~~ DJJJJUDIIJ]]~ 8 ~~~i"")~ t ' , td8ffi~ --- ~~ JIHfti]s ^J~VI'i /;J.__. 5, Q" ~I ~ ij-iJ: -~ ~ t3 I ~ ~-~ '- - ------- :;; '~~ __ f---- _ _~ ';~tf-~ ~.~ :!: 1------ _ ~ ~~ @'D:I= ---=8:; - - - ~---, 1J z..... =_ i~1oI : = :=v~ w 01 L 5 ~ r-Tl--L \~ ,x- - ~ 1!; UI I ~ 1- ~ 1 '^~o'!-') ..... I--~ - j a:~:= ~- '-=, 1-::-- ....0/f1Y .l--' S)~8 7 1--_ W .J U '" U o o o " z o -l-;;;ii:ic~ ~ ' /.~ -C.._~-"--~ - J"~~, I ~8 1,,;-1 ~ o i .t: I~ ~ 1S ~n~o]~ ~ :::> -3' ...! ~ 1 & i- I I ~ -----,J I - t,... ---(;- -- --- ~ .. ~ '-- '" 5 Q! ~ ~ S rm~^08 \ -; / I / 1S l'in~ 8 l___L-c- w-- - >- -~- ~-- o' U1 . I -~ ~ o -- ,... - U--- --~ L..__ , ,I '--LJfl~)2 . IJo ,,:[[ tYir I+IJ r -.11lt1r ~O 1.JO~JNV8 J 1m ~ 111 1S s~vo .. .ffiEI J Icn -II I U: I I I ]^I~O ~OlAV 1 o C\I ,... en a: -- c a. o l Q') ~ o o o I c.o o CO :::> (j) >- v: >- '" '" u. :r '- co N CO CL l:J o o ~ 0) 0. 0. 0) CL . . z o ~ ~ ~ u o ~ ~ ~ ~ rJ) .J ~ I I ~ ~ Ul ~ ~~~ fil i3g ~::J ~~~ ~O) QQQ ~1~[1tt_ 1~!iWi l~,\.\.!; i'~1:71 80 ~ B!: wi ~.':.' Ik> ~ F lJ 'I,. . I '1111'1: ~ IIiIIllr I ~ n 111I r I I'~!! n~lt!~.nJn U fl.il! I! i Ill! I fl.....o ~ III' ,,1111 "i II I: 1'16 .', fJIl " , illll :11 t,._. 111: 0 ~!m ~ m II :z; e ~ i5 CD ~ :;:,;: !i: C/)o <- >- N~ ~j- 5i ll. u ::s < ' tl 00. .:.: ll.o9:::' liI= · 0:: . ~ ll. ll. ~ ll. i , I I l' i j j ! j ~ ! j j i i- ~ ! i '. i r &nnnH~ ~ i!~ I~~.nl nn!li~llii l1li:l1li:_' ~~ ~I l ~ . t)j~~~ cj:g~ -- ;1;;. i?; i 1 ... ~ ~! j ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ 5 ~ 8 E t!~18 lJ).lfli-~ $j~~6!l ~ ~z ~ a.. 0 z :l a.. 0- 0 000 U 0- ~z ..J ;:~ -0 j <{ 0::0 UlJ) Z ~co <(Z~ a..::> ~~o LL ~oo --..,- ~ i ~i~ ~I i i ~ !! i i oS . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n ~" ~ U Iii I~ ~Jl ~ li~ III ~.t': g ~ 0 i s ~ ill m ~ ~ ~ U\ I II " W ~i~ i Il t g~a / ' I ~ ~81l1i;~ n-U2~x~- .~ ~ ~ :. ~~l:;~~~ -----; - ~---..~. ~aWI~ __.... ______._ __._. _____ ... ---iB~& ------..- - ~ 133lUSA~ _ _ _ ('-" -'"-- . ---- - - g....... ....."-oos .znat / ~ cU ~ ~ I , --+-lll ~I! if ill .~~ I S !f / ~~ 1* ~ I" z o I--t U) I--t :> I--t ~ ~ ~ ~ o <:t:1--t ~ ~ .....:l~ P-.u ~ o o ~ ~ j:-J::l P-. P-. j:-J::l P-. .66~r AU.l:,et.005 ~~ ..;~ '" ... N ~!~ !E~~ tll .U &l"'< en",. Q~sa ,!:6'grr ..~t,u.oos ~~~ ~~. ;.: ~ cU ~ .~ ~ ,It"tK Lq ~... Jc; ,It'i.9$: ~.'"' ;"" ~ ~ I~~,.. 1 f~~~ 1 "'<I~ "''''.iQ] ~ 1 t "" ~~ I Sgl is Zw ~ r m ] ~ ~~ ~ i~ U U &II O~8: ~ I ~B~; ~ ~~ ~~i e (f) Lo..~l:;!B ~ >:J ~~ui ~ ~ z I 15"'ei" ~~;;: h 15i!'~~"i e t:! ~L W ;;!l!~-~lb Ii "'8 ~ r- g~csJ!5~ mt'l~ zt: ~~~~ ~ ~ 81 0 ~U~~;!:~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ : z ~~~~~~li<~i~~~~sd~~! ~ ,0 ~~~f~e~a~~1~993a~:Ea! ;; z 11111 IIIIIIII III~g ~ IIII i ! ~ o ,II Ill.., z ~.o ,,1'1 I gg~ I ~ ~ 111111: u i ~ ~ II I ffi co il~ ~ r' 0 :$...'" I--t &l~ ~Ii ~~.. ~~ ~~ ..."l< 3~~ -I. s~s: !<i "a~ ~o5 .I '-'en ~~~ .I ~g r- / (-"'; u: - UI J . r w o . o ~ ~i.. jh · i~ 1.~! if ' R - ~ ' t~ ;!i:~,. o ! ';llik:3;! !~il. Jf i~ ~1!hHlr!Hh~i~ll ~ I .I".!'~ 1~"1'1;i !lil~.111I51! iI,,~~..,,;, j ~ ~! 1:!J!!iti'i~!~!ii;i'm H~li~H~I:!~li!Ja ~- ~ 15 l!fiii,jil.i~fil~'il~!i!'i~"Pf~:;HJ~JIJ 1 :1 i!illil!llill!iiiillifilli!li!:l~li::i:i' : :1 i~ J~~hl!~!iil'l!flf'~iai=;iflhi~J~~i~!H ~ Iii ill~H!~~:~ml~!na~lm~jJ!~mj!!l~i '~I lidl~il'~~hH~~ifiH!aii!J,I~",ft~ ,'d~J ! !ij ~~~:,t:~ii !n~H J~~dJ:!I!;~lni~m~IIJ, Ie it '3 Ij~"'!t 'liil"'I"'!III'jiJ ~JI !If iilmi!fHm~~~JHm alhiiiU in I -..--.-----..----r----- i~~ I ~al~ illl!;~ l!;Nii! !zg~ ~~d) ~ j I ~ ~ \ . ~ 1 f ;; . " ~ ~ Preliminary MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2006 - 7:30 P.M. RECREATION CENTER - MEETING ROOM B CALL TO ORDER: Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:32pm. MEMBERS PRESENT:Wally Plahutnik, Beth Koppes, Charlie Eastham, Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks,Terry Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: Dean Shannon STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Matthew Schulz (67 Goldfinch Circle), Sarah Swartzendruber (One South Gilbert Street), Ben Longstand, Bryan Alexander (60 Goldfinch Circle), Diedre Fleener (72 Goldfinch Circle), Dave Fleener (72 Goldfinch Circle), Michelle Jones (88 Heron Circle), Brad McCuska (94 Heron Circle), David Gosse (57 Goldfinch Circle), Dave Larsen (Kalona), Dan Tiedt (526 Woodridge Ave 11) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council action): Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent) 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. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONINGIDEVELOPMENT ITEM: Discussion of a site plan for Lots 40 and 41 Olde Town Village and Auditor's Parcel No. 2006030, a 5-building commercial development located at the southeast corner of Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. Miklo pointed out the documents before the commission: · Revised site plan from the applicants - the plan had arrived at 4;30 and staff has not had the chance to review it yet. · The Commission had requested meeting minutes from the previous meetings at which this property had been discussed. The minutes indicate that in 2000, there was a request to annex the property into the city and zone the property CC-2. The Commission recommended approval contingent on zoning the property interim development until the applicant could bring a concept plan showing how the property would fit in with the comprehensive plan. The applicant came forward a year later with another rezoning request for CC-2, accompanying by the concept plan shown on the overhead. The Commission was of the opinion that the plan fit the general concept of the Comprehensive Plan even though it did ton follow the Northeast District Plan exactly. · An enlarged, more detailed concept plan Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2006 Page 2 . A site plan for Lot 48 which is in the NE corner of the property (this plan was approved). Even though the concept plan showed a convenience store on this lot, staff had approved retail/office buildings in this location because the building designs and locations met the principles outlined in the Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) including builds adjacent to the sidewalk and parking being located behind. Miklo reviewed the reason why this site plan is before the Commission. The site plan must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission if owners of more than 20% of the property within 200 feet of the property included in the site plan, sign a petition. There were a number of deficiencies in the site plan but many of them may have been corrected in the plan that was submitted at 4:30 this afternoon. To give the Commission and staff time to review the revised plan, Miklo recommended that a meeting be called next week to discuss further. In addition to the technical requirements The Commission must also determine whether the site plan meets the concept plan that was included in the CZA. Brooks asked if there were any questions for staff. There were no questions for the staff. Brooks opened the floor for comments from the applicant. Sarah Swartzendruber, attorney for the applicant, expressed the excitement of many of the residents in the area about the development and the businesses and restaurant that it will bring to the area. She said many of them wanted to come to support the project but she advised them not to because Commission should stay focused on the site plan and not some of the issues like traffic that some of the other neighbors might bring up. Swartzendruber stated that the site plan is very technical and is usually handled administratively. The site plan is required to be approved if it complies with the underlying zoning classifications (the conditional zoning agreement). The numerous technical difficulties that were present have dwindled to minor landscaping revisions, approval of A TM special exception considerations, and a lighting plan. Swartzendruber stressed that the site plan is not required to mirror the concept plan exactly. She requested that the Commission approve the plan subject to the three minor deficiencies being corrected. Plahutnik refereed to CZA #2, subsection 3, subsection 2 and asked which side of the buildings was the front and which was the back. Swartzendruber answered that the buildings can be accessed from both sides, it has two fronts, making it pedestrian-friendly. Eastham said that since the CZA has a concept plan attached, it is important to make sure that the site plan matches the concept plan. Eastham thinks there is more variance than is usually seen between a concept plan and a site plan. Also, the concept plan shows that linear space of the parking adjacent to Scott Boulevard is approximately 1/3 of the space between Middlebury and the corner of Scott. Eastham feels that this does not correspond with the concept plan in this regard. Swartzendruber said the concept plan was there to give guidance to those who are reviewing the site plans. When the Zaijicek site was rezoned and incorporated into this development, there were discussions that they did not want to submit a concept plan because it is difficult to know what you will do with a site until you have a user. When the bank made the application, they thought it would be a good way to bring the two properties together (Lots 40 and 41 and the Auditor's Parcel-Zaijcek). Eastham said his concern is the linear nature of the parking and the lack of landscaping as opposed to the original concept plan. Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2006 Page 3 Swartzendruber said that if the original linear nature was followed as proposed, you would have a sea of parking along Scott Boulevard so they amended their plans to take this into account as well as comply with the CZA and zoning requirements. Ben Longstand with Build to Suit stated that his company originally came forward with a plan to only develop lots 40 and 41. They then decided to submit the plan for all 5 buildings as requested by staff. The parking has changed because in order to get enough spots for commercial use you would have ended up with a sea of parking between the bank and Rochester. The concept is that there are two front doors to the buildings and it is very pedestrian friendly. The developer is talking to several local businesses who are interested in moving or expanding to the east side. Public Discussion was opened. Matthew Schulz (67 Goldfinch Circle) said he went around to various houses last night and got signatures from 20 households as compared to only 7 households that signed the required petition. Schulz is not trying to inhibit the plan but has concerns about the circled site which is zoned neighborhood commercial in the Comprehensive Plan. The site only succeeded in being rezoned to CC-2 when it was attached to a CZA which referenced back to the district and Comprehensive Plan. He thinks there is much more to consider than technical questions. Schulz pointed out CZAs that were of concern to him as much more than technical questions. This is why Schulz would like P&Z to review this application instead of staff. Schulz is also concerned that the site plan differs substantially from the Comprehensive Plan and conditional zoning arrangements for the site. Schulz stated that many of the people who signed his petition do not have homes facing Scott Blvd but are concerned by the difference between the concept plan and the site plan. Schulz discussed the difference between the number of parking spaces in the concept plan and site plan. Schulz also brought forward concerns from the residential neighbors that they will be exposed to additional light and noise due to increased traffic. Requested that some if not many of the parking spaces on Scott be replaced with landscaping. Bryan Alexander (60 Goldfinch Circle) said his major concern is noise, especially early in the morning. He claims that only two people have come in to support the project but they have multiple signatures that do not support. He is also concerned with the size of the signs and the aesthetics of the buildings. He wishes that they would look more like houses with pitched roofs such as the Iowa State Bank on 1 sl Avenue. He is also concerned about the odors that may come from restaurants and thinks it unfair that the developers don't have to live in the area that they develop and that the residents will not profit from the new businesses. Diedre Fleener (72 Goldfinch Circle) passed out a site plan that she had prepared that showed the parking on the interior of the buildings instead of the exterior. She is concerned because she feels that the developer has not been forthright enough about the process and she wishes that they would not have gone to some of the petitioners to try and change their minds. She stated that the original plan called for a City Center Square in Coralville type of set-up where the parking was on the interior but then when the plan came out, the parking was on the exterior. Dave Fleener (72 Goldfinch Circle) was excited about the concept plan when it was approved a few years ago as part of the conditional zoning agreement, but doesn't feel that the site plan corresponds with the original concept plan. Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2006 Page 4 Michelle Jones (88 Heron Circle) feels that Diedre Fleener's new plan would be much more practical and aesthetically appealing. She hopes that the developers can go back to the original concept plan. Brad McCuska (94 Heron Circle) reiterates Jones' comments and voices his concern about the noise level. He is also in favor of going back to the original plan. Swartzendruber restated that the concerns brought forward today are zoning concerns (sound, signs, lights, etc.) that have already been decided. She reminded the Commission that tonight's discussion is not about zoning but about site plan approval. Public Discussion was closed. Behr mentioned that the governing law for us is the CZA and general conformance with the concept plan. Brooks opened for discussion among the Commission as to whether to approve, approve with conditions, deny, or defer until another date. Brooks reiterated that a decision must be made by November 27 unless all parties agree to push the date back. Smith posed the questions 1) does this comply with the CZA? 2) does it comply with the technical considerations of the ordinance? Smith has heard that they want contained parking, minimal or no set-back, upper floor residential, and pedestrian friendly walkways. Smith sees variances between what is proposed and what is before us now (driven mostly by the new lot that has been included in this new site plan). Smith believes that it does comply with the concept plan and complies with most of the technical deficiencies at first glance. Assuming that the technical concerns can be fixed, he approves. Freerks does not believe the site plan is in general conformance with the concept plan. She thinks there is too much of a difference in the way that pedestrians are taken into consideration and that it will set a bad precedent to approve this plan. She does not think it complies enough with the CZA to merit her approval but she thinks that it would be possible to get to the point where it does. She is supportive of the project with changes. Eastham agrees with Smith's comments that the wording of the CZA and the site plan seem to be compatible. However, he has a problem, looking at the concept plan and the visual site plan, with the linear parking along Scott Blvd. He thinks that the proportion of parking and landscaping on Scott to the other areas is very different between the concept and site plans. He thinks the northern half of the development is okay (more open space). Plahutnik said he is anti-development and doesn't like sprawl. This site was approved as having the main streeVtown center concept. He hears from the residents that if they turned the buildings around to have a blank face toward Scott Blvd that they would be happy. Half the group is saying that Scott is the main street and half are saying that Middlebury is the main street (which is supported by the driveways and curb brakes). The proposed roof lines are much like the ones downtown on Clinton, Dubuque, and Washington. They fit in with the classic building concept. The buildings fit the requirements even though they don't match the concept plan exactly. He suggested that the developers get rid of some parking spaces and replace them with trees. Koppes sees the concept plan extended by the CZAs to the Zaijicek prorty. She feels that the concept plan is in general conformance if there are more trees added. Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2006 Page 5 Brooks said he differs from the feeling that this complies with the concept plan. He doesn't see the open spaces, the pedestrian walkways, etc. that he saw in the concept plan. According to his calculations, the amount of green space has been significantly diminished (from 29% to 14%). He doesn't feel that it conforms for that reason. He feels that the Commission sets a tone with what they approve. Brooks feels thaUhis sets a tone for the remainder of Olde Towne Village and other development on the east side of Iowa City and this needs to be at a higher level of conformance to the concept plan before he will approve. He is a little disappointed in the architecture and thinks the developer could have done more with the "Olde Towne" or historic theme, but that was insignificant in his decision. His main concern is the lack green space and landscaping. Miklo said that it appears that there would be one or two Commissioners who would vote to approve the site plan subject to conformance with technical requirements, one or two who would approve it with the addition of more trees in lieu of parking and 3 who find that the site plan does not comply with the CZA concept plan and that more work is needed. He said at best there may be a 3-3 vote, a tie vote will fail the site plan altogether so he recommends having another meeting before November 27. This would give the parties involved time to work toward meeting the concerns regarding additional landscaping. Brooks feels that the commission should not rush the process and should see if they can come to an agreement to move the decision to December but Smith feels that the commission is in a position to make difficult decisions and that they need to make those decisions according to their obligations. Motion: Smith moved to approve lots 40 and 41 on the condition that it corrects all technical deficiencies. Motion died without a second. Koppes moved to defer until a November 27 meeting. Plahutnick seconded. Motion carried unanimously. 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 said the Comprehensive plan supports either CI-1 or CC-2so staff feels it might be appropriate to rezone either some or all to commercial office or leave some CI-1, especially the area to the east away from Mormon Trek Boulevard. There is some question as to whether PIP Printing would be a conforming use with the CO-1 zone. There was a staff meeting earlier today to determine this and there was not consensus among staff. The question may be reviewed by the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel. The property owner would consent to CO-1 zoning if it is determined that PIP is a quick printer or copy service and thus allowed in the zone. If it is determined to be a printing plant and therefore a nonconforming use in the proposed CO- 1 zone, it was his understanding that the property owner would object to his property being rezoned. He reiterated staff's recommendation to not approve the original request to rezone this area to CC-2 or putting medical offices back in the CI-1 zones. Staff recommendation is to defer this to the December 7 meeting as the applicant chooses which lots he would like to request be zoned CO-1 and which lots if any he would like to remain CI-1. Brooks said the application before the commission is requesting a rezone to CC-2, but the Commission is hearing that this might be changed to a different type of zoning. Would the original application have to be denied? Miklo said the application could be amended. A whole new application would not be necessary. Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2006 Page 6 Brooks asked if consent would be required of the other property owners in the area? Miklo said the applicant has indicated that he has their consent, we can get it in writing before the next meeting. Floor opened for applicant's comments. Dave Larsen said all the parties involved have been contacted and he requests the commission's input on what is likely to result from the zoning consideration. Along Highway 1 (lot 2, lot 1 - office) (lot 3, 4 - office) (lot 2, 4, 3 of plat 4 - remain CI-1 along with Sneblen Farm). Could we stairstep into the office rezoning and change more lots to office in 6-12 months? Koppes asked does Sneblen Farms want to go to CC-2 or stay at CI-1? Larsen said Sneblen has agreed to do what's best for the whole. They said to try to keep the CI-1 but if necessary to change to CC-2 they would be agreeable to that as well. Everything west of Mormon Trek is zoned CH. Smith's concern is with PIP printing. He wants to avoid spot zoning and wants to make the rezoning comprehensive - rezoning the 1, 2, 1, 3, 4 strip is substantial enough not to be considered spot zoning. Smith would support limit rezoning portion at this time. Brooks opens the floor for public discussion. Dan Tiedt with PIP Printing said he would like a change to CO-1 if his business is determined to be quick printing and therefore a permitted use in the CO-1 zone. Medical was allowed when they bought the property and he would prefer to allow medical back in. Tiedt gave Miklo a letter from the PIP franchise that says that they are a quick printer which is acceptable for CQ-1. He would like the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel to determine if his business qualifies as a quick printer. Tiedt would not support pocket zoning leaving him as the only CI-1 property or rezoning his property so that his business has a non-conforming status. Brooks closed public discussion. Brooks wants to settle what the zoning is going to be for planning purposes. Planning projects the future and determines what best suits an area and not what best suits the short term market. Brooks supports CQ-1 because it will enhance visitors' view of the city. Eastham supports more flexibility and thinks rezoning presents a challenge to the zoning code as it is written now. Eastham would like to reserve some options for the future, but doesn't know that he'll be on the Commission to exercise those options in the future. Brooks supports rezoning to CQ-1. There was discussion among the Commission about the visual appeal of CQ-1 as opposed to CI-1. Brooks confirmed Larsen's intentions that lots 1, 2, of part one and 1, 3, 4 of part two to CQ-1; lots 2, 4, 3 and Sneblen stay CI-1, or move to CQ-1. Miklo suggested that the same zoning be on opposite sides of the street. Brooks and Smith indicated that although they see that point, they felt that it is important that the lots that are visible from Highway 1 be zoned CQ-1. Planning and Zoning Commission November 16,2006 Page 7 Dave Larsen wants 1, 2, 1 to stay the same and 2, 4, 3 to be office. Will try to decide by the Dec 7 which lots they want to be zoned which way. Miklo: regarding the classification of Tiedt's business, the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel, consisting of Building Official (Director of Housing Inspection Services), Director of Planning, City Attorney's Office representative) will meet next week. The City Manager will decide if there is not a unanimous decision. Smith motioned to defer to December 7. Plahutnik second. 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. Miklo said this amendment is being brought forward to accommodate an existing building that someone is trying to renovate to include parking stalls under the building. The current language would prevent this as it was written for new construction and did not contemplate a situation where an existing building would be modified. The staff recommends approval of this as a minor modification. Brooks asked for questions for the staff. There were none. Brooks opened and closed public discussion. Motion: Freerks made a motion to approve. Smith seconded. Carried unanimous. Consideration of 10/5 and 10/19 minutes Motion: Smith made a motion to approve. Eastham seconded. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Smith made a motion to adjourn. Plahutnik seconded. Motion carried on a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent). The meeting was adjourned at 9:28pm. Minutes submitted by Megan Weiler s/pcd/mins/2006/11-16-06.doc e o '0 1/1 'E E o o'E 0)0 e u .- CI) go= NCI)~ ......uo -eN C)ft1 e"O .- e e CI) e- ..!!< D.. ~ (3 ftI ~ .2 CD W ..... >< >< >< >< >< >< - 0 ..... ..... en W ..... >< >< >< >< >< >< - 0 0 ..... II) - >< >< >< >< >< >< >< 0 ..... ..... W N >< >< >< >< >< >< 0 - en t::: >< >< >< >< >< 0 >< en ,... w ..... >< >< >< >< >< - >< - 0 co M >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - co 0 W N >< >< >< >< 0 >< >< - ,... CD >< >< >< w w >< w - 0 - 0 ,... 0 II) w w w ..... - >< 0 >< >< >< 0 - 0 CD ..... >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - CD co ..... >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - II) 0 I W N >< >< >< - >< ~ I 0 I CD I W >< >< >< >< - I 0 ~ I N I >< >< >< >< >< - I M I CD I W ..... >< >< >< 0 >< - I N I N I W >< >< >< >< - I 0 N I en I W ..... >< >< 0 >< >< - I ..... I II) I W >< >< >< >< - I 0 ..... I II) 0 co '" 0 co co E ~ ..... ..... ..... 0 Q ..... 0 0 .... .- - - - - - - Q)Q. 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1->< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w E ~ e 1/1 1/1 1/1 '2 0 ~ ftI ~ i - e 0 .c ... = e .c - CI) .c - Q) 0 1/1 f ftI ftI 'E ... ftI 0 .c E m w u. ~ 0: en en ro a:i 0 < >< >< >< >< >< >< - ..... ..... ~ >< >< >< >< >< >< >< 0 ..... co W ..... >< >< >< >< >< >< 0 - en ~ w w ..... >< >< >< >< 0 0 >< - co ..... W M >< >< >< >< 0 >< >< - ,... ,... w ..... >< >< >< >< - >< >< t:: 0 II) w ..... >< >< >< >< >< >< - - 0 II) ,... I W ..... >< >< >< - >< ~ I 0 I ,... I N >< >< >< 0 >< N I I M I W ..... >< >< >< 0 >< N I I II) 0 co '" 0 co co E ~ ..... ..... ..... 0 ~ ..... 0 0 Q) .~ - - - - - - 10 10 10 10 10 10 I-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E ~ e 1/1 1/1 1/1 '2 0 ~ ftI ~ i - e 0 .c ... = e .c - CI) .c - Q) e 1/1 f ftI ftI 'E ftI 0 .c E m w u. ~ 0: en en ro a:i 0 < W --+:> c c c Q)Q)Q) II) II) II) ~.o.o 0..<(<( .. II II II >- W Q) - ~><OO