HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-21-2006 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, December 18, 2006 - 7:30 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Lobby Conference Room
410 E, Washington Street
Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 7:30 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
C. Rezoning/Development Item:
REZ05-00025/SUB06-00020: Discussion of an application submitted by the Peninsula Development
Company for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay and preliminary plat for the
Peninsula Neighborhood, a 118-lot, 35,5 acre residential subdivision located on Foster Road,
D. Development Items:
1, SUB04-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by John Oaks for a preliminary plat of Lyn-Den
Heights Part III, a 40-lot, 38,5 acre residential subdivision located on Rapid Creek Rd NE,
2, SUB06-00021: Discussion of an application submitted by First American Bank for a final plat of First
American Bank Addition, a 2-lot, 3,38 acre commercial subdivision located at 640 Highway 1 West.
E. Vacation Item:
VAC06-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Kevin O'Brien to vacate a portion of McLean
Street between Hutchinson Avenue and Lexington Avenue,
F. Other Items
Discussion of Planning and Zoning Work Program,
G. Consideration of the November 27 and December 7,2006 Meeting Minutes
H. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Robert Miklo
Item: REZ05-00025/SUB06-00020 Peninsula
Neighborhood, amended plat and
Planned Development Overlay (OPD plan)
Date: December 21,2006
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Peninsula Development Company
1089 Foster Road
Iowa City, IA 52245
Contact Person:
Kevin Marrow
319887 1000
Requested Action:
Approval of amendments to preliminary
plat and OPD plan.
Purpose:
118 residential lots
Location:
At the west end of Foster Road
Size:
Approximately 35.4 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Undeveloped and residential, OPD-5
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Residential, OPD-5
South: Golf course, P1
East: Golf course, ID-RS
West: Park, P1
Comprehensive Plan:
Residential 2-8 dwelling units per acre
File Date:
November 27, 2006
45 Day Limitation Period:
January 11, 2007
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The preliminary Planned Development Overlay (OPD) and plat for the Peninsula neighborhood
were approved in May 2001. The final plat for phases 1 and 2 were approved in 2003. The
applicant is now proposing amendments to the preliminary OPD and plat as discussed in detail
below.
ANAL YSIS
The most significant change proposed by the applicant is the removal of McCleary Lane in
Phase 3. In the original plan McCleary Lane was a pedestrian lane located between Canton
Street and Ball Street. It was to have 6 small bungalow lots on each side. Vehicular access
would have been from two alleys that would have run parallel to the lane (a copy of the original
plan is attached). The applicant is proposing to reconfigure the area to create 3 single-family
lots that would front on Canton Street and 6 town house units that would front on Ball Street.
ppdadmln/stfrep/rez05-00025 peninsula. doc
1
The applicant has indicated the reasons for the proposed change are the marketability of such
small lots and the limited off street parking for these lots. In staff's view the proposed change
in design is compatible with the lot configuration of the adjacent single-family land townhouse
lots.
The applicant is also proposing to amend the Peninsula Neighborhood Code to add
specifications for two more building types. The Peninsula Neighborhood Code (a document
that is part of the OPD) specifies height, and placement of buildings on the lots in lieu of
standard setbacks. Each of the eight building types currently contained in the Code includes an
illustration depicting typical zoning requirements. The applicant is proposing to add a
bungalow building type that would include an attached garage and driveway/parking pad behind
the garage (see attached illustrations). Because this building type would leave little unpaved
open space on the lot, it is proposed to generally be restricted to corner lots adjacent to alleys
where the open side yard helps create a sense of open space.
The original OPD plan proposed multi-unit buildings on Outlots U and 0 but did not contain
detailed building placement specifications. The applicant has drafted specifications to be
included in the Code to guide the construction of buildings on Outlots U and O. The Multiple-
Unit Building type is likely to contain underground parking rather than parking areas at the rear
of the lot as required for the Small Apartment Building type currently contained in the code.
Staff believes that the Multiple-Unit Building and Bungalow are appropriate additions to the
Peninsula building types. However, staff just received the proposed amendments to the
Building Placement Standards and has not had time to completely review them. We hope to
have them reviewed prior to the Commission meeting.
The applicant is proposing revisions to the phasing plan. Lots from phase 5 would be included
in phase 2a (phase 5 would be eliminated so that there would be only 4 phases). This change
will allow the larger lots on the northwest side of Walker Circle to be developed sooner rather
than waiting for development of phases 3 and 4. The applicant has indicated that there is
market interest in these larger lots.
In addition to these significant amendments the applicant is proposing a number of minor
changes to the preliminary plat and OPD. These include: Lot 68 in Phase 3 is now labeled with
4 live work units (the previous plan did not have a unit count for this lot); the shared driveway
between lots 54 and 55 would be eliminated due to topographic conditions; in Phase 1, lot 7a
would be eliminated and the lot area added to the adjacent lots; in phase 2a the Required
Street Building Line (similar to a set back) for lots 99-109 would increase from 7 feet to 12 feet;
and the building placement standards that would have applied to McCleary Lane would be
removed to reflect the elimination of McCleary Lane from the plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the amended preliminary OPD and plat of Peninsula Neighborhood
Addition be approved subject to staff review and approval of the revised Building Placement
Standards.
Attachments:
1 . Location map
2. Amended Preliminary qPD and Plat
3. Amended Building PI.,cement tandards
Approved by: .I' ' - .~ ~
Karin ranklin, Director, Department
of Planning and Community Development
ppdadmin/stfrep/rez05-00025 peninsula.doc
2
~1: C\I 0
"- tJ D.. C\J
UQ 0
0
0
I
Lt') CD
en 0
c: CO
:::>
CJ)
~ -...
L()
C\J
0
0
0
I
L()
0
N
W
a:
-----------,-- ---~..---
en
~ c:
I
C
tj
~
~ 1i Nl M3HSIM
li ""tJ Q)
0
i" ",\ c:: CI)
~ ~ I', ..2 '-
i ,I ~ ..:.: :::J
'- C)
tJu
,'- Q
'iD..
1';1
~ "
,., ~
~
:::J
tj C/)
C
.-
C
Q)
a..
Q)
..c
~
..
Z
0
~
1-1
<
U
0
~
~
~
~V~I ~
r.J)
W :; II e <-. il,:ltfl 11m
a: :i ~ i~"~ !~.~ ~~ i thllll !1/l1
= :: III ~ i.!~~ m~ iJ~i IIf'! II:,'II"I(!II
.... : ~ ~ ~~~ q~ i ~i tllll. I II
:: ~ :i~~~ ;],,~ ff. J Iflf'Hf tf'll
o : - U", ~ g.\ " ~u I 'II J I'
u ;; _ w i1~. I I. . .1
.:_2
o
....,~
o:.!
t'."
:! ~.~
!l!
!e.a.
..
gi.
-Eug
~:~ I 8
U'~ eU I~
.!~~I
i:....
.so,..
:~
(')
I .0
'm I !'_
Iii 0
-
, .0
I~ I~ I ~
.
i3
....
1 ~~.~
-e~H
o . ".1:
fefJ if~
'S ;: l:lC '0
;z ~l:;
.ll;:Os
H~~
~ =f~
'i~
'"
~
...
'1>
;.. ""JH
~~'~lI1'- -e-
g~~"3~ .8~
~::" h./j~~j.
t:l 0 ~ ~.- !lfI Z ._
1./j"Ji~~~~..<
~ !a i5 fi3 .c <i:;S !!i
. ]P.t'd~JL
<~u;~HjH~~f
~] If =.. ..il ~ ,~D
Q] 0 >2~~~.~ 6~~
. ".~ ~ .. . a .., . .. j
~ .~~.e.1~.: ~~;e
o ~ ~ t i [ ~ .; ~ ~ ,~
~].~H~~l~il'Ol
oH'sli(l~]~~~
- J; ~ ,~,~ ~ : ~ d i 1 ~
..-g5''''=1.8~
,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~
i='og~~~8 ~~~
~,~~~,] t~~
oUt: '~ ~ ~ ~ t#
"'.so';._c,!>
q~ ~"~ ~
"
~ 8
~ 'iJ~~ ';~ z .!l to
Q{ - 'iJ "'. ~ .J < 2 iii '~
0] ~U :S~ <..i ~ iii ~"O
~~ H~ -. ""0"2" o,g~
~ i h~! H L ~ g ~ H~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~
j~~H~ ~] ~~h z B ~:lJ~~~~!l5~
"'~hf.l h. 1i0i8~ ~ Ul ,'\!..!!~:I:g-g3~.2"
Q i 'l! .8 ~ ~ r!:.(.d~"... '" '" =.9 ;.c ~ 1I 0. to
8"1~~1 1~~jHi~'~ ~ Hld~~lH
~~ ~Vi ;..i j!~~ ~ ~g:
dH~l ~~ HH ~ ~~" " " " " " " " " "
~H~L ig ~:<N ~ !ii~
< .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ z fll 0 '" iOl
"" '~l;' $-. to 0"" ":I::I:,,:(
., ~ '" 'E~ ... ~ ~ to g: ad::; r: ::; '" ~ ~ '-'
[g~B ~~ U
~ ,g:8 n
...- :<
~~~~
~~<<
~;:~~
~~~~
<~<<
<
....NNM
tJJu.ltLlUJ
rJ')V')~tt:l
<<;il<
~6:~~
o
r- (".d..... \0 r--- N ~
~OO\O_lrlMr---
o
U , ,
f-< <( ~o
~ ~:::S2:f-<f-<
~~~BJgH;l3....l
~~~~~gg
o
i
'~~-~
. W~
. '
~
~
OJ)
. "'"""
Q)
~
OJ)
~
. "'"""
.........
. "'"""
r./J.
00
~
~
Q)
s
Q)
.......-4
~
CI"J.
Q)
CI"J.
~
Bungalow Sites
EAVE HEIGHT .
35 FT Max
9 FT Min
I Property Lines I
~.~RSB-=-'T'_. ._._._~--1~ .
I Common On
I MINIt.411M OPEN SIDE SET13A K or AlIll)/~
3 MAX
UNCOV.
PARKING
AREA
~ I
~ .
E I
T
I
RSBL
"1
I
'prc<p.'unesl:)
OPT. FRONT 25% MIN h
PORCH SHOULD .1... .
BE BElW. 5-12 FT 71'"":.....
DEEP & NO LESS ~ k-5-12 FT.
THAN 25% OF
BUILDING
V\J1DTH AT
FRONT
FENCE
30-40 in.
"f;.-'" ....
PARKING,
RESIDENTIAL,
ACC UNIT
WORKSHOP
The principal building shall be between 9 and 35 ft to its Eaves.
Optional FRONT YARD FENCES should be between 30 and 40 inches
in height.
Optional FRONT PORCH floor elevation shall be between 24 and 60
inches above the average front property line elevation.
The first storey shall have at least 8 feet clear height for not less than 75
% of its area.
The principal building shall be built to within 2 feet of the REQUIRED
STREET BUILDING LINE (RSBL), as designated on the OPD
The minimum side Setback is 4 ft.
The OPD may designate a required PUBLIC BUILDINGS SIDE which
should be respected.
A garage may be attached to, or integral to, the principal building and
should be kept within the rear 50 Feet of the Buildable area. Uncovered
parking (autos, trailers, boats, etc.) should be limited to the rear 30 feet of
the Buildable area. (Enclosed, below grade parking is permitted adjacent
to the RSBL as well.)
Should an optional FRONT PORCH be constructed, it should be built
to within 2 feet of the front RSBL and be between 5 ft and 12 ft deep
with a width equal to no less than 25 % of the Building width at the
front (not to include any SIDE STREET Frontage.)
A PRIVACY FENCE, between 6 and 8 ft in height, may be constructed
to delineate between open space within the buildable area and rear and
COMMON LOT LINES (except within the FRONT YARD area which
may only have a FRONT YARD FENCE).
Residential, Bed and Breakfast Homestay, and Home Occupation
(by right subject to Iowa City Zoning Regulations Section
14-6M-1 [B][6]) uses are permitted.
Parking, occupant's workshop, Home Occupation, and
ACCESSORY UNIT uses are permitted in the buildable area at the
rear of the lot. (Enclosed, below grade parking is permitted
adjacent to the RSBL as well.)
THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD
SPECIFICATIONS: BUNGALOW SITES
HEIGHT SPECIFICA nONS:
Principal building height is measured from the highest REQUIRED STREET BUILDING LINE (RSBL) elevation (ALLEY or COMMON
ORNE frontage for accessory buildings) to the main eaves or other point specified on the BUILDING PLACEMENT STANDARD (BPS).
FENCE and GARDEN WALL heights are measured from adjacent sidewalk (within 5 feet); when not fronting a sidewalk, heights are
relative to the adjacent ground elevation. On EDGE LOTS, height for accessory buildings will be measured relative to the adjacent
ground elevation on the STREET side of the accessory building.
SITING SPECIFICATIONS:
1. The buildings shall occupy only the specified (hatched) area of the lot. No parts of the buildings (excepting overhanging
eaves, BAY WINDOWS (not more than 30"), steps (not more than 72") and chimneys (not more than 24") garden trellises
and other light and unroofed garden structures) shall occupy the remaining lot area.
2. No parts of any buildings shall encroach beyond 2 feet of the RSBL
3. The building or the FRONT PORCH, depending on which is foremost on the lot, shall be built to within two feet of the
specified RSBL for at least 20% of the RSBL width. That portion of the building shall be composed as a simple plane
(limited far;:ade jogs less than 24" and porches, and chimneys (not more than 24"), STOOPS, BAY WINDOWS, and balconies
are considered to be "a simple plane" within this requirement). For non-rectangular lots the 50% minimum shall be
measured against the narrowest lot width within the buildable area for the primary building (not to include the buildable
area for any SIDE WING or accessory building).
4. The SIDE STREET RSBL shall be built-to either by the building wall and/or PORCH for not less than 25% of its length. That
portion of the building wall shall be composed as a simple plane (limited jogs, as listed above in Siting Specifications, are
considered "a simple plane" within this requirement). When a wrap-around PORCH is used; the building wall may step
forward to the RSBL at the termination of the PORCH.
5. At least 10% of the lot area, including all required side setbacks, shall remain open and unpaved and not be built upon
(nor used for parking) except for overhanging eaves, cantilevered balconies, stoops, BAY WINDOWS (not more than 30"),
chimneys (not more than 30"), wood decks, and in the rear only, gazebos, green houses and steps except where otherwise
specified in the Code.
6. The Garage/parking setback shall be measured from the ALLEY ROW or the COMMON ORNE edge of pavement.
7. Lots where the RSBL is curved: the required FRONT PORCH shall be aligned on a tangent to the curve. Where the lot face is
convex to the porch the porch shall touch the RSBL at 2 points (where concave it shall touch at 1 point).
CORNER LOTS: The fence requirements additionally allow a PRIVACY FENCE along the SIDE STREET FRONTAGE as a substitute for the
required FRONT YARD FENCE. This PRN ACY FENCE shall begin no closer than 20 feet from the comer (ROW intersection) of the
frontage STREET
ELEMENTS SPECIFICA nONS:
1. All lots bordering an ALLEY shall use the ALLEY as the sole means of automobile access, unless otherwise approved by
the City.
2. Garage doors shall not face the front RSBL. They must be at an angle of not less than 90 degrees from the front RSBL.
Unenclosed parking areas shall not be located within 20 feet of the STREET unless hidden by a GARDEN WALL.
HOME OCCUPATIONS: Home occupations are permitted subject to Zoning Regulations Section 14-6M-l(B)(6).
ACCESSORY UNITS: ACCESSORY UNITS are permitted by right. Accessory units must be build within the buildable area of the lot. For
such units, the owner of the principal structure shall occupy at least one (1) of the units. Conversion of primary structure single-
family units for multiple family uses is prohibited.
.........
~
bfJ
. ......
Q)
=c
bfJ
~
. ......
........
. """'"
r./l
Multi-Unit Building Sites
EAVE HEIGHT
.4-0 FT !.lAX
18 FT /.tIN
--
PRIVACY FENCE
8 FT MAX
SlOE WING I
15 FT EAVE
MAX
y
~
E
T
00
......
~
Q)
S
Q)
~
~
~~
12 FTMAX DEPTH
ONE, TWO or THREE STOREY
Colonnade/Porch
OptIonal
'"
00
Q)
rJ:J
~
The principal building should be between 18 ft and 40 ft to its
Eaves. The accessory building should be no more than 18 ft to its
Eaves. Any SIDEWING should be no more than 15 ft to its Eaves.
The ground floor elevation should be between 3 and 60 inches
above the average adjacent sidewalk elevation
The first storey should have at least 9 feet clear height for no less
than 80% of its area. All intermediate stories should have at least 8
feet 8 inches clear height for no less than 80 % of their area. All top
stories should have at least 8 ft clear height with volume ceilings
per elevation.
The principal building should be Built-To the REQUIRED
STREET BUILDING LINE (RSBL ), as designated on the
REGULATING PLAN . Elements equal to less than 30% of unit
width may project either way of the RSBL.
SIDEWING AREA construction should be Built-To the PRIVACY
BUILDING LINE (PBL) (generally the North or East side).
The unit width should be between 16 ft and 60 ft. A maximum of 8
units should be contiguous as a single building. There should be a
minimum 10 ft gap between buildings where multiple MUB
buildings are built (except where otherwise designated on the
OPD).
The garage, vehicle parking (autos, trailers, boats, etc.) should be
kept within the sub-grade basement area or the designated Garage -
Parking area (and/or as designated on the REGULATING PLAN).
Where provided, any Colonnade/Porch/Balcony should be
between 6 ft and 10 ft deep with a minimum width of 25% of the
individual unit width and a minimum clear height of 8 feet and
aligned along the REQUIRED STREET BUILDING LINE
(RSBL).
Such Colonnade/Porch/Balcony may step forward of the RSBL
provided that such an encroachment does not exceed 30% of unit
width and does not extend over the Right of Way (ROW) or any
municipal easements.
Residential, Home Occupation, and Bed and Breakfast Homestay
uses are permitted on all floors.
Basement/ subgrade space may additionally include Parking uses
by right
Parking, occupant's workshop, Home Occupations, and Accessory
Unit (<650 Sq Ft) uses are permitted in the buildable area at the
rear of the lot.
THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD
SPECIFICATIONS: MULTI-UNIT BUILDING SITES
HEIGHT SPECIFICATIONS:
Principal building height is measured from the highest REQUIRED STREET BUILDING LINE (RSBL) elevation (ALLEY or COMMON DRIVE
frontage for accessory buildings) to the main eaves or other point specified in this BUILDING PLACEMENT STANDARD (BPS). FENCE
and GARDEN WALL heights are measured from adjacent sidewalk (within 5 feet); when not fronting a sidewalk, heights are relative to
the adjacent ground elevation. The ground storey finished floor elevation shall be between 3 and 18 inches above the average
adjacent sidewalk elevation and shall have a minimum 10 ft clear height.
SITING SPECIFICATIONS:
1. The buildings shall occupy only the specified (hatched) area of the lot. No part of any building (excepting overhanging eaves,
BA YWINDOWS , steps (not more than 72") and chimneys (not more than 24"), garden trellises and other light and unroofed
garden structures shall occupy the remaining lot area.) Building elements equal to less than 30% of the building width may pro-
ject either way of the RSBL.
2. Colonnades/porcheslbalconies with a minimum of 25% of the unit widths may project beyond the RSBL, provided that such
encroachment does not exceed 30% of the unit width and does not extend over the Right-Of-Way or any municipal easements.
3. Each unit of the main building structure shall be built to within 2 feet of the RSBL for at least 75% of the unit's RSBL frontage
width (measured on a per-unit basis). That portion of the building shall be composed as a simple plane (limited fa<;ade jogs less
than 24" and porches, BAY WINDOWS (not more than 30"), chimneys (not more than 24"), STOOPS, and balconies are considered
to be "a simple plane" within this requirement).
4. The SIDE STREET RSBL shall be built to within 2 feet either by the building wall and/or PORCH for not less than 60% of its length.
That portion of the building wall shall be composed as a simple plane (limited fa<;ade jogs as listed above in Siting
Specifications are considered to be "a simple plane" within this requirement) When a wrap-around PORCH is used; the building
wall may step forward to the RSBL at the termination of the PORCH.
5. NON-RECTANGULAR LOT MEASUREMENTS: the unit width parameters and PORCH minimums shall be measured at the mid-point of
the buildable area depth for the primary building (not to include the buildable area for any SIDE WING or accessory building).
6. At least 10% of the lot area, and all required side setbacks, shall remain open and not be built upon except for overhanging
eaves, cantilevered balconies, stoops, BAY WINDOWS (not more than 30"), chimneys (not more than 24"), wood or composite
decks and steps -- except where otherwise specified in the Code.
7. The Garage/parking setback shall be measured from the ALLEY ROW or the COMMON DRNE edge of pavement.
8. CORNER LOTS: The fence requirements for CORNER LOTS additionally allow, where the OPEN SIDE of a lot fronts a SIDE STREET, a
PRN ACY FENCE along that FRONTAGE as a substitute for a FRONT YARD FENCE. This PRIVACY FENCE shall begin no closer than 20
feet from the corner (ROW intersection) of the frontage STREET. frontage STREET
ELEMENTS SPECIFICATIONS:
1. All lots bordering an alley or common drive shall use the ALLEY or COMMON DRIVE as the sole means of automobile access to
designated parking spaces, unless otherwise approved by the City.
2. Garage doors shall not face the front RSBL. They must be at an angle of not less than 90 degrees from the front RSBL. Unenclosed
parking areas shall not be located within 20 feet of the STREET unless hidden by a GARDEN WALL, or below the fronting RSBL
grade.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES: The following uses are permitted by right:
1. Retail or personal service establishments limited to the ground floor space within the existing structure.
2. Adult or child care homes.
3. Bed and Breakfast Homestays.
PARKING: Section 14-6N-l B2g restricting the number of parking spaces that may back onto an ALLEY, may be waived if the site
plan demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Building Official that parking spaces are configured so as not to impede traffic on the
ALLEY. Off-street parking spaces for Neighborhood Commercial Uses are not required for the first 1500 square feet of floor area.
Any Neighborhood Commercial Use that exceeds 1500 square feet of floor area shall be required to provide parking spaces
according to Section 14-6N-l J for the area in excess of 1500 square feet of floor area unless a reduction of required number of off-
street parking spaces is granted per Section 14-6V.
HOME OCCUPATIONS: Home occupations are permitted subject to Zoning Regulations Section l4-6M-l(B)(6).
ACCESSORY UNITS: ACCESSORY UNITS are permitted by right. Conversion of primary structure single-family units for multiple family
uses is prohibited
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Sunil Terdalkar
Item: SUB04-00011 Lyn-Den Heights-Part III
(formerly Falcon View)
Date: December 21,2006
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
John Oaks
4584 Rapid Creek Road NE
Iowa City, IA 52240
Applicant's Engineer:
MMS Consultants, Inc.
1917 South Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Phone: 351-8282
Requested Action:
Preliminary plat approval
Purpose:
A 40-lot single-family residential subdivision
Location:
North side of Rapid Creek Road,
approximately X mile east of Highway 1
Size:
Approximately 38.50 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Agricultural; County RS
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Agricultural; County A 1
Residential; County RS & A 1
Agricultural; County A 1
Residential; County RS & A 1
Comprehensive Plan:
The property is in Fringe Area A of the
Fringe Area Agreement between Iowa City
and Johnson County. The property is outside
the Iowa City growth area.
File Date:
November 21,2006
45 Day Limitation Period:
January 05, 2006
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant and property owner, John Oaks, has applied for a 40-lot single-family residential
subdivision on a 38.5-acre property located on the north side of Rapid Creek Road, approximately
X mile east of its intersection Highway 1. The property is zoned County RS, Suburban
Residential.
The application was first submitted in the April 2004 and subsequently the applicant requested
2
indefinite deferral because of the unresolved issues related to County Road Performance
Standards and certain other deficiencies related to waste water treatment and storm water
management facilities. The applicant has resubmitted the plat with a few minor changes to the
subdivision design. The proposed subdivision contains one lot less than the previous design. The
revised plat includes two outlots that are proposed to be set aside as 'Common Open Space'. The
plat delineates an area identified as 'Final Wastewater Treatment' within Outlot A. The application
contains number of deficiencies and discrepancies that are listed at the end of this report.
ANALYSIS:
Fringe Area Agreement
The property is located in the area governed by the Fringe Area Agreement between Iowa City
and Johnson County. There is a general provision in the fringe Area Agreement states,
"Properties zoned for a classification which is inconsistent with this Agreement, at the time this
Agreement is executed, shall retain their rights under that zoning, unless or until such zoning is
changed through due process." The Agreement further states that properties subdivided within the
City's Fringe Area must meet City Rural Design Standards, which contain design requirements for
streets, and water, sanitary, and storm water systems.
Rural Design Standards
The proposed streets, which are 24-foot wide asphalt streets within a 50-foot right-of-way, exceed
the rural design standards for 22-foot wide chip sealed streets. The proposed streets appear to
meet the maximum grade requirements enumerated in the Rural Design Standards.
The Rural Design Standards state that the well and wastewater treatment systems are required to
conform to the requirements of the Johnson County Health Department. The proposed
subdivision would result in higher density than that of a typical County subdivision and is being
proposed on a land with environmentally sensitive areas such as steep slopes and flood way. The
property is in close proximity of Rapid Creek and its tributary drainage ways. Therefore, staff
recommends that the applicant provide a letter from the Johnson County Health Department that
the proposed water and wastewater system is functional in concept, prior to the approval of the
preliminary plat.
Regarding storm water management, the Rural Design Standards state that the City storm water
management ordinance shall apply to all new developments within the City's area of extraterritorial
jurisdiction (except for the Old Man's Creek watershed). The plat as proposed contains no
provisions for storm water management. Given the size and density, staff recommends that such
provisions be required for the proposed subdivision.
Clustering
The applicant is taking advantage of the County's clustering provisions in order to create smaller
lot sizes than would normally be permitted in the County RS zone. The County subdivision
ordinance allows clustering and smaller lot sizes provided the subdivision design follows the
natural characteristics of the land, and creates usable open space, common ground and
recreational areas. Because (City) staff does not have experience is how the clustering provision
has been used across the County, staff defers to County Officials in determining whether this
subdivision meets the standards of a clustered subdivision.
Road Performance Standards
The County adopted an ordinance to establish Road Performance Standards for Subdivisions. As
3
stated in the ordinance, County subdivisions shall be approved only if they are in locations which
meet certain Road Performance Standards (RPS). The standards are based on the capacity of
the existing road infrastructure and the most recent traffic count.
The standards state that subdivisions on oiled chip sealed roads with a traffic volume of greater
than 700 vehicles per day shall have a development density not to exceed one lot for every 20
acres. Rapid Creek Road is currently an oiled chip sealed road and the most recent traffic count
(2002) on Rapid Creek Road is 940 vehicle trips per day. Because Rapid Creek Road exceeds
the 700-trips-per-day threshold, development on this property would be limited to approximately
six lots until a time that Rapid Creek Road is upgraded. The standards further state that
subdivisions shall not be approved on oiled chip seal roads where traffic exceeds 1,000 vehicles
per day until the road is upgraded. The subdivision as proposed would generate traffic that would
exceed 1000 vehicle trips per day.
In 2004, the applicant asked the Board of Supervisors for an exemption from the RPS. The Board
of Supervisors did not grant approval of the exemption. Although the RPS are not part of the
Fringe Area Agreement, staff recognizes that the proposed subdivision clearly violates an adopted
ordinance of the County. Therefore, staff recommends that approval for this subdivision should
only be approved if the County exempts the subdivision from the RPS.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that SUB04-00011 be deferred pending resolution of the deficiencies and
discrepancies noted below.
Upon resolution of these deficiencies and discrepancies, staff recommends SUB04-00011 a
preliminary plat of Lyn-Den Heights-Part III, an approximate 38.50 acre, 40-lot residential
subdivision, be approved, only if the subdivision meets or is exempted from the Johnson County
Road Performance standards.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
1. Provide an approval letter from the County Department of Health regarding the water and
wastewater treatment system.
2. Identify and label all the utility easements and exiting topographical features.
3. Identify the purpose of the pump in Outlot A. Show what it pumps and where it attaches.
4. Addresses for lots 1 and 2 under Lyn-Den Heights Subdivision do not match lot numbers.
5. Tract acreage shown on the plat does not match the acreage reported in the legal
description and the dimensions shown on the plat do not match those in the legal
description.
6. Barbary Court should be changed to Peregrine Drive, continuing that street through the cul-
de-sac. Barbary Court name should be changed as it will no longer be a "court" type street
and there is already a road in the county named Banbury Circle, this could be confusing for
the emergency services.
7. Discrepancy with 2% slope on West side of road labeled Peregrine Drive and topography of
land should be resolved.
8. Cross sections for steep slopes (11 %-12%) should be shown on the plat.
9. It does not appear that one well would be sufficient for all lots given the extreme range in
topography of the land. Show calculations and verify that additional wells or pump systems
are not needed, or show that they will be provided.
10. Service lines cannot be underneath cul-de-sac paving. Extend main to accommodate lots
17 and 18.
4
11. Extend East hydrant beyond lot 2 to avoid any driveway conflicts.
12. Calculate and show the fire rating.
13. Fire hydrant spacing shall be an average distance of 400 feet.
14. Approval is needed by the IDNR for this proposed water system.
15. Revise direction arrows that are pointing the wrong direction for the sanitary sewer lines.
16. Verify that sanitary sewer and/or force main can be located within the 200' well separation
limits shown on the plat.
17. Show calculations for gravity and force main lines.
18. If there will be any force mains, they should be shown where the pump will be located.
19. Sewer cannot snake around curves of road.
20. Sewer easements must be shown in Outlots.
21. Manhole spacing shall be at all intersections and distances not greater than 400 feet for
sewers 15 inches or less in diameter or distances not greater than 600 feet for sewers 18 to
30 inches in diameter.
22. Approval is required by the IDNR for this proposed sewer system.
23. Perform stormwater calculations and show stormwater management easements for areas
that drain to the Iowa City growth area.
24. As shown, stormwater for the West half of Outlot B will drain to the existing lot, Lot 1. This
should be changed to allow stormwater to be controlled in Outlot B.
25. Grading plan and permit are required since there are slopes of 25% or greater.
Approved by: ~
Robert Miklo, s~nior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
L- \ I.; I~
~~~,\y 2- - ,
~~ ~ 0 0: ~
~~~ ~ ~ ~
~"0 ~~:-
\~~~I I
~ "lr I I f-
~~(YICV'll\ f
0~ ==\\~ l!!
, ~
~~, ! I 1 _ ~
- ~ , L>--
~ i Li~
~ ~ .i
a~~
~
~
t: -
tj
~
~
~
-
t:
tj
-
'-
~
I
\
r----'
r-J \
I \
~ \
- '\
~
a:
q
9
Yr
/
D.
n~
-
-
N
~~
...
8L
I
~
~
- 8
~ 0
,
"'"
0
co
:;:)
~!! (j)
/
Ir
'J
'&
u;
w
z
.
"C
a:
~
(])
~
()
"C
.-
0-
ct1
a:
..
I z
0
c 1-4
c 5
c
-
\Y\J
~ 0
~
Ifi IJJ
t::
C.f:J
iSJ rid Cil :9c;:Z 900Z/lr/OL :'JM{]'M3N-dlOO\969\lOOL9f:i9\0069\
VldOI 'J.lNfiOJ NOSNHOr
III ~"MV d S.I.H::::>laH N3a-N^- JMt IO'I!.'~
.Lv1d AHvNIWmllJd
(f) I~~P
~ . I oa s ~ ~I~ ~I
~~" ~ ~5~~"
S 5 ~~ " ; ~ ~iU~ ~ ~ s~
~!L 3:~"i.~ !~!! ~ o~ ~ s; ~~
<( i;i~ ~~~~h ini SS >" . ~i ~~@ J !~l ~i
" ~ "x "~ ~
~ .~;~.~~~ii~ >~~>~." ~~!~.53 I . .~~ ~ ~~! I"
t5 ~~~m d~<~~;~~>~~~~ ~ 5~~~ ~s~~. ~ ~
w ~~i\'6"I~ua2g~".'s~i1s"i"I~~~~ l;tgu~ . ~ ~ ~g, ~II
..J ~<Jii~'LJ9 ....~ ;:I "'O[~ .o...BtLB. <.II i ~~ F "Z 2 ~~h ~
, , " , 1111111111111 , , , m < ~:~~-
0 I II ill I: I ~ 'I ~ .~l
0: ~h~~~ ~ i nw
<( o ~~~~g:~~
0 I I
z I I I _ III ~ ~ i1~~.f- i~u~ ~~:
<( I I I :g~,o..It_I!11 PI .~~~:~~ t~ ,~8
f-
(f) ~ hh~ 0
~
~
~ .l g
~t::l
~.~~;! .- ~'I Vl~~~
~5~~~
~<~~~
j ~ ai~:?l~~
t;~ >'i~;~1I
H II <
r ~~~~~
.... cd ~~ ~~~~~
l:I ~ 8!le
........, I-< o ~"~t; ~~~~~
ro ~ I---< . ~il~ ~~~~~
......... ~ ~~~
0.., p., >., ~- ~~~~~
>., I/) ........, liJ~
~ ~ ~
.... " I i;
ro t.:l 8 ~~g
~ ....
~
'rl :r: ~~~
S z ~
.rl
......... ~ 0 (
Q) CI [f)
.... I ~ ~B=
0.., ~ ,.q ~~~
,.J 0 gilu
....." ~!O~
~g
~
""
,.
S2
~
....
z
;:>
o
u
z
o
(f)
Z
:I:
Q
'"
~
~~
m3
III .LHvd S.LHm:m N3G -NA1
.!! .s !
!
"i~
H!;
i~l
.~~
f.i
Ii!
~~~
i~l
S ~lj
m
'f
'I .':.!~HI'J1WI'
il dU/~.' 1..!~~,1
:' ~~:~l"~!l~~l~~~!
II ,j..~I~!j"~Jh,;
;' 'hI ,.I.~l.11'];
t WI~'jIJ;~I'J~!!l
It l~l!~. .a;,- ~~..,
!I ll'.I~ll~~I'i!dl'!
1j iia~~~!~I.'H;~f'
h li:~.I~j~df;jt~!1
Al IJI~~I~I~il "hill
If, ;!~d~liIt!lfll:jJi
I.llf~r.~I!jiI11 fiJI,'
II! !~HmH;IJ ~~ji
~ ~
i ;
i i
~ ~
iil U
t,ll ~
~!>~
~ .~
0. U
~
:::s
;3
o
rfJ
I
I
~', """"
~it~~
~~
II
II I~
;'1" ,~
. "~
~"
I
~
~
.-
~t~,
~~~
"'*
:v..llICll.l<Dijlo!-l<JaN~'
r;::;:: - - -
, ~~
/ ',!:""
...~').
I~ ,,~ "
I ~~~~
Ii'll " .~').
e"
.~~~~'~'
;:;h'~N
"{~, ~~\i., II
,<<"" ~':!o.""
.~'). ",.
r
d
,
,
,,'/ //
I ~~J/
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: SUB06-00021 First American
Bank, a Resubdivision of Lot 2 of
Ruppert Hills
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
Date: December 21,2006
First American Bank
MMS Consultants
1917 South Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319)351-8282
Subdivision Final Plat
Development of a 2-lot commercial subdivision
640 Highway 1 West
3.38 acres
Community Commercial (CC-2)
North:
South:
East:
West:
Undeveloped (RS-8)
Commercial (CI-1)
Commercial (CC-2)
Multi-family residential (OPD/RM-20)
General Commercial
November 30,2006
January 15, 2006
January 30, 2006
Utility services can be extended from existing
facilities servicing the Lodge.
Police and fire services are provided to the site.
Transit service is also provided by the Westport
Loop, with a stop located at the corner of Miller and
Highway 1 (westbound).
2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, First American Bank, is requesting approval for a 2-lot commercial subdivision
located at 640 Highway 1 West. The original subdivision of Ruppert Hills was approved in 2002.
The request would re-subdivide Ruppert Hills Lot 2 into two lots-First American Bank Addition
(FAB). The applicant plans to construct a bank building n the new Lot 2. FAB Lot 1 is intended
for Community Commercial (CC-2) development.
The subdivision regulations allow the City to waive the preliminary plat in cases of subdivisions
that do not require extensive public improvements. Staff feels that given the minor nature of this
re-subdivision, waiver of the preliminary plat is appropriate.
ANALYSIS:
With the exception of deficiencies noted at the end of this report, the final plat is in general
conformance with the approved preliminary plat of Ruppert Hills, the subdivision regulations and
the zoning code. Many of the considerations typically addressed in a preliminary plat were done
so for the original Ruppert Hills plat including access points, grading, sensitive areas, and
payment of infrastructure fees.
This re-subdivision of Ruppert Hills Lot 2 will not create any additional vehicular access points
to Highway 1. The only point of access to either property shall be on Hawk Ridge Drive, a
signalized intersection with Highway 1. An access easement is located along the southern
boundary of the new Lots 1 and 2.
The subdivision standards require the applicant install sidewalks along the right-of-way of
Highway 1, but in this area a future public project is planned that will result in the storm water
drainage ditch being filled and a storm water pipe being installed with a sidewalk over it. Rather
than have the applicant install a sidewalk at this time, staff recommends that a fee be paid for
the paving cost of the sidewalk (not including the cost of grading) to be applied to the future
sidewalk construction. This waiver of the sidewalk in lieu of a fee should be addressed in the
legal papers.
Due to sanitary sewer capacity issues it is necessary to provide sanitary sewer for Lot 3 of the
original Ruppert Hills subdivision through this property. The plat and construction drawings
should provide for and easement and sewer line to be installed along the property line between
lots 1 and 2.
Legal papers are under review by the City Attorney's office and must be approved by staff prior
to Council consideration of the final plat. These papers must make explicit that neither lot will
have direct vehicular access to Highway 1.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that this application be deferred pending resolution of deficiencies and
discrepancies noted below. Upon resolution of these items staff recommends that SUB06-00021,
a final plat of First American Bank Addition (a resubdivision of lot 2 of Ruppert Hills), a 3.38- acre,
2-lot commercial subdivision, be approved, subject to staff approval of legal papers and
construction drawings prior to City Council consideration.
3
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
1. Sanitary sewer and easements should be extended to Lot 3 of the original Ruppert Hills
subdivision.
2. An easement is necessary for storm sewer and drainage service for Lot 2.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat
Approved by: /2/~~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
ppdadminlstfrepltemplate. doc
~
tj
~ -f( +oJ
:Eo (J)
(])
~ a:C\I s
T""""
~ ~ 0 >-
co
I ~ ~
J N ..c
~ f- ~ :E 0)
Vi :E .-
I
z a: 0
tj 0
f- a: 'I;'j"
z CD
w
m ~o N01N38 . .
I I ............... Z
............ ~ I I <C 0
C~!I ~
f--4
a. II en <
\ \ U
o I: 0 0
~
~
f--4
~
\ r.J)
,
\
~
co
en
a:
---X
c: ~
() tJ
---l--JQ
c:
C]j=:::::
CO]:
T""""
C\J
o
o
o
I
CD
o
a:l
:J
(f)
..J
[g [g gq:; tij Iin I oil
~~ 1ft ~~~~~ In I~i
fi ~ D: ~ e; lil::e Iile
"" c..:J ~ '"" ...
~ =c:l~~r:i li~ !
.. --:~ ti j j ~ i I I
"'-'_ ('J '.... "-~ ~ s:
[" ~.~ := ::~~~ F:~ f:i
; l' 1_'":-
LJ_..: LJj
_J
~
a.
.J
<
Z
u:
[L~
c..:)
(Y)
"-, nj
\
=:-:;~D~:=~-U~~=~ - ~~~~-~~m-l --1
---z-=-=--=--=:hr--l r i I
o ~ fSlp \ . \ {~\\ \ I,
E=: g ~l.l I! \~\ f~ I
~ ~ jiili 1! \ \\\ \ .~ \ '
~ g:; ., I ~ ~i.il if L I I \
'J 0:: !ch "!~~I ~J1 --L- ---L
~ ~ <: . i>>e I!~!d '~ II !'
j ~ ~ ~ 1~iU i~lli I; \ \~\ !,' \
0.. E-< ~ ~eEe I.~di; ii I \\\\ '
.....:l z 9 ........ ::l~~1;; '~J1.:!i .N ~ ....,....... 27"" \
<: ~ u r::l...",[: h.l~.I!
~ U ~ ~ iUt~i' 5!
- 0 l~lii J(,
~ ~ ........ !~~ !n:'i~J !~!
~ If.l z~~ I!.J,J UJ
~ :;; ~I- sI5~J~ N~
~ 0 lu ~Uj!!!j !j1 ~
o:l ~...:>o ~
&; ~ ~n9 ~:t
0::: sa ';,';
~<: itA Ai,
i~;! ;. l
~-. ~
ii~ I --
82<>
~~~
",-~.:--
I
w
.
J
.
r
.
o
r
o
o
w
r
r
o
,
o
~
r
.
.
.
r
.
o
(
l
.
.
i
.
I
.\
i\~\
~\~\
"'tt
III _I
--+-'~:il
J
~~
'tlt
\~~
~\\
;~~ ~
I~~ ~
2: 8: t)
ICi2 ~z
~ tis ug
~"" ~~~
~ < 9 QQQ
~~m~~-
- i
~ 21 J i '
5 ~} ~ 60
~ ftf'!~
~a~!!t ..
j ~
. I
;;
1
.
" ~
f
I J
!
J 1
I JI
j l
I I
"
II
'i~ It
J !iii i J J j
I ;! ;
@ ~ il! :!
I!i 191-
ll'e; III III 8 I
.. ... tOi :11 I
~ 5 I!; II ! I
J I. .;r I
m ~~:
~
Ad or;!
i~;i:l.! ~i
iI"~!!l ~~
~ ~i!ii ~~! !!~ I ~
b IIP~ -!jlh ~51!nl! ~
z I~~G Ift~~;;lb~iii ~ ~
IllitE t t!'~"oI. III 0 8
o 51~~IEUE5~~!!~!n~. ~
z ~ ~~"re r~ aSSw.5nft I :l!
<( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a:
III" ~
o : i ~ ~
z~. 0 I I : i ;;s-;!; II
W I I' ----::l" cl
G III:! i 15
WI: a15
..J Ii! !
1\-
\\\
1'\
, \~
\ \~
:, \
\
-'._~~"2"~!!!~lS11to\
r
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Drew E. Westberg, Planning Intern
Item: VAC06-00006
Date: December 21,2006
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Kevin O'Brien
351 Hutchinson Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52246
Phone:
(319)356-6066
Contact Person:
R. Bruce Haupert
222 South Linn Street
Iowa City, IA 52244-2447
Phone:
(319)338-7551
Requested Action:
Vacation of undeveloped portion of McLean Street
Purpose:
To allow purchase by adjacent property owners
Location:
McLean Street, between Hutchinson Ave. and
Lexington Ave.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Low density single-family residential (RS-5)
File Date:
November 17, 2006
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Kevin O'Brien, is requesting a vacation of the undeveloped McLean Street right-of-
way (ROW) between Hutchinson Avenue and Lexington Aavenue. Upon vacation, the property
would be purchased from the City and divided between four adjacent property owners, including
the applicant.
The portion of the McLean Street ROW in question is undeveloped, with maintenance performed
by the adjacent property owners. The adjacent properties are accessed from Lexington or
Hutchinson avenues, which are both accessed from the south via River Street and Park Road
from the north.
ANALYSIS:
Vacation of the ROW is not advisable if it would interfere with pedestrian or vehicular circulation,
limit access to private property, inhibit the access of emergency or utility vehicles, prevent the
location of necessary public or private utilities or if it is deemed desirable ROW for future
development by the City. In this case none of these conditions appear to apply.
As a consequence of a bisecting ravine, the ROW would not provide substantial benefits for
pedestrian or vehicular circulation if developed by the City, nor would emergency or utility vehicle
2
access to Lexington Avenue or Hutchinson Avenue be measurably improved. Access to private
property would not change based on vacating the property.
The property does not contain City water, sewer, or storm sewer systems. Private utilities have
been contacted and asked to identify any utilities currently on-site. If any exist, easements will
need to be retained for those utilities.
In staff's opinion, there appears to be no public benefit in retaining the property as public right-of-
way.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that VAC06-00006, a request to vacate McLean Street right-of-way between
Lexington Avenue and Hutchinson Avenue be approved subject to utility easements if necessary.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Arial Photograph
Approved by: ~~.
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
~ ----
t:
tj
~ L
:s; -. , -=-
~
t:
tj
~
CD
o
o
o
o
I
CD
o
o
<(
--- >
3^ V NOSNIHJlnH
__~_l~ -
f--
Ul
Z
<{-- --
W
~
U
2
3^ V N01~NIX3l
- ----- ~ -
.......
CD
CD
!o....
.......
(f)
c
a:s
CD
....J
o
~
..
Z
o
~
f-4
<
U
o
~
~
f-4
~
rJ')
fa
JI
~
. ... ,-
. . <
_" .I.:
I ..!.~
Q/
"
"
'"
0)
c
--
0..
0..
co
~
-
\.to-
Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission
Work Program
1. Subdivision regulations
2. Central Planning District
3. Review CB-2 standards
4. Southeast Planning District
5. Review Sign Ordinance
6. Investigate methods of protecting landmark trees.
7. Update Open Space Plan/Ordinance
Item to be added: Review of CB-10 zone requirements including setback from Burlington
Street and parking.
Preliminary
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
NOVEMBER 27,2006 - 6:30 P.M.
RECREATION CENTER - MEETING ROOM A
CALL TO ORDER:
Brooks called the meeting to order at 6:32pm.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Wally Plahutnik, Beth Koppes, Charlie Eastham, Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks, Dean
Shannon, Terry Smith
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr
OTHERS PRESENT: Matthew Schulz (67 Goldfinch Circle), Sarah Swartzendruber (One South Gilbert
Street), Bryan Alexander (60 Goldfinch Circle), Diedre Fleener (72 Goldfinch Circle), Dave Fleener (72
Goldfinch Circle), Michelle Jones (88 Heron Circle), Ben Logsdon (Coralville, IA), Swen Larson
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT 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 stated that the staff met with the applicant after the meeting last week and made suggestions to
them on what things could be done to make the site plan come closer to the concept plan, keeping in
mind the concerns from the last meeting to minimize the loss of parking spaces and maximize green
space. The concept plan shows 40 feet of landscaping on the north side of the building on Lot 41 and did
not include a driveway in that area. The site plan now includes a larger area since the Zajicek property
was added; therefore, the staff felt it was reasonable to allow a driveway which would increase circulation
between Lot 41 and the Zajicek property. The original plan showed 40 feet of open space between the
north of the property and the Zajicek property. The staff suggested 30 feet as a compromise that would
allow hard surface landscaping (benches, trees) in that area. They recommended that six parking spaces
be removed in favor of green space. The staff suggested a few more tree islands and the widening of
other islands as Miklo pointed out on the plan.
The applicant returned with the site plan Miklo passed out to the Commission and the public. They
followed some of the suggestions, but not all. Their plan shows 26 feet as opposed to the 30 feet
suggested by the staff and as opposed to the 40 feet in the original concept plan. The applicant widened
the sidewalks to 16 feet which accommodates two trees. The highlighting on the plan Miklo passed out
are the areas where they recommend more green space to come closer to the concept plan. One of the
areas where more green space is recommended is around the trash receptacle. Miklo said all technical
deficiencies have been met, with the exception of the tree islands. The island needs to be made larger.
The hedge on Scott Boulevard is required to be filled with deciduous and evergreen plants. The lighting
has been reduced and is now in compliance. The plan that Miklo passed out has 6 fewer parking spaces
than the applicant's plan and 500 sq ft less of building area in order to accommodate the 30 foot
landscape area. The City Forester has not been able to review this application yet; the staff recommends
that any approval be subject to the City Forrester's approval. The previous plan shows doorways opening
out into 6 feet sidewalks; staff recommended that the doorways be recessed for pedestrian safety.
Shannon confirmed that the green areas marked on the plan Miklo passed out are the area which they
recommend adding more green space. Miklo responded that decreasing the building size by 5 ft would
increase the green space by 30 feet.
Eastham asked what the origin of the concept plan included in the Conditional Zoning Agreement was.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 27,2006
Page 2
Miklo responded that the original application to annex the property included a Community Commercial
(CC-2) Zone. The Comprehensive Plan showed this area to be appropriate for Neighborhood
Commercial (CN-1). The P&Z Commission was not willing to recommend Community Commercial zoning
unless there was a concept plan showing how the property would be in line with Neighborhood
Commercial policy of the Comprehensive Plan. The concept plan was submitted as the applicant's
attempt to address this concern. This concept plan was approved by the P&Z Commission as part of the
CZA.
Plahutnik confirmed that the green highlighted copy was Miklo's suggestion, not what the Commission is
voting on tonight. Miklo affirmed and stated that the options are to approve the plan, approve the plan
with Forrester's approval, or approve the plan subject to staff alternative or applicant's alternative.
Eastham confirmed that the recommendation for the south side of building 3 is to increase its width by 5
ft. Miklo responded that they are not trying to reach 40 feet, but some compromise.
Shannon confirmed that the Forester would be reviewing on the basis of the species of trees not the
zoning concerns.
Plahutnik asked if the applicant needed to submit a second application if they decide to add more green
space. Miklo responded that the applicant does not need a second review unless the number of parking
spaces goes below the requirements (148 spaces). The current plan has 160 spaces.
Behr requested that the Commission be very specific with their conditions.
Brooks stated that in the revised landscape plan, it appears that the space between building 2 and
building 3 has increased but the buildings look to be the same size. Miklo responded that the buildings
are 5 ft. narrower than they were previously and that the space in between the buildings has increased
from 16 feet to 26 feet. He thought the square footage was a mistake on the plan.
Koppes asked what the setback requirements would be if the lot was still two separate lots. Miklo
responded that CC-2 setback requirements are 10 feet from the front lot line (in this case, Scott,
Middlebury and Westbury). A special exception was made for Westbury and Middlebury. The setback
requirement for these two sides is 3 ft as long as there is an 11 foot sidewalk. There is no side yard
setback requirement.
Brooks opened the floor for comments from the applicant.
Sarah Swartzendruber, attorney for the applicant, came forward on the applicant's behalf. The main
issue for the Commission's consideration is whether the application meets the condition zoning
agreement. She attempted to resolve some confusion from the last meeting:
. Which side of the building is the front and which is the back?: the front of the building is on
Westbury Drive, although the buildings can be entered from both sides. The CZA would not
permit a different front to the buildings.
. Pedestrian friendly aspect of the buildings: the applicant put the parking spaces behind the
buildings to make the site more pedestrian friendly.
. Too much linear parking along Scott Boulevard: there is more parking because the property has
doubled in size and the concept plan did not have enough parking to be approved.
. Reduced percentage of green space: the site plan has 30% more trees than the concept plan.
Incorporating both sides, the site plan has more than doubled the number from the concept plan.
. Concerns from the letter from neighbors:
o Parking (discussed above).
o Location of buildings. The buildings cannot be moved along Scott Boulevard because
that concept is prohibited by the conditional zoning agreement.
o Noise and light. The zoning issue has already been resolved and it has been determined
that this is an appropriate location for this development. The closest resident is about
180 feet away from the boundary line of the lot. The residents who signed the petition
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 27,2006
Page 3
live 300-500 feet away from that. She feels that the current noise of semis and traffic is
currently higher than what will be added.
. 0 Reduce parking or reduce the building size. The buildings are very similar to the
buildings approved for Lot 48. The development will not work financially if you reduce
parking or the building size.
Swartzendruber compared the concept plan to the City Center Square development in Coralville. The
focal point of this development is Westbury, not the main arterial road of Scott Boulevard.
Swartzendruber showed the original concept plans and explained that those plans do not meet the
parking requirements. The concept plan is not intended to be a site plan or to be compliant with the
requirements that the site plan is subject to. She explained that the developers are residents of the east
side of Iowa City and want to do what is best for the community. They cannot do this unless it is
financially feasible.
Eastham stated that the developer might have had the opportunity to ask for a rezoning to propose a
different concept plan. Swartzendruber responded that the buildings need to look nice from all four sides;
a rezoning would not have been necessary since they have met all the requirements of the conditional
zoning agreement. The developers have exceeded the concept plan in terms of landscaping.
Freerks stated that many people disagree with her opinion and feel that the site plans do not meet the
conditional zoning agreement. Swartzendruber responded that the suggestions of the neighbors are not
feasible and have not been taken into consideration because the plan could not be approved if they were.
Freerks asked Miklo to comment on Swartzendruber's statements that the suggestions of the neighbors
to move the buildings are not permitted by the conditional zoning agreement. Miklo agreed with
Swartzendruber because the concept plan shows specific building locations and if they were up against
Scott Boulevard, it would not conform to the concept plan. Swartzendruber commented that moving the
building takes away from the pedestrian-friendly aspects of the plan. Freerks commented that there is
housing on the other side of the street as opposed to the lack of residential development across from City
Center Square in Coralville. Freerks suggested that more trees be added at the expense of a few parking
spaces. She does not feel that the changes that have been made are not adequate to satisfy her.
Swartzendruber responded that she thinks there are only 3 or 4 houses that are directly affected. Freerks
commented that there is completely different zoning across the street and that the development is
significant to those 3 or 4 houses. Swartzendruber commented that these concerns are more appropriate
for the zoning questions. She said that some of the same members of the public who are in attendance
tonight came to the zoning meetings and since they were unsuccessful, they have come here to work
toward a compromise. She thinks this is an inappropriate consideration at this time. The developers are
agreeable to Forrester approval. Swartzendruber stated that she could not imagine any circumstances
where the line of trees along the road would be removed.
Brooks asked whether by saying that there were 30% more trees, Swartzendruber meant that there was
30% more green space. Swartzendruber responded that she did not mean that but only meant that there
are 30% more trees, measured by hard number of trees.
Brooks says that the buildings match up with the concept plan but parking and landscaping don't. He
stated that the buildings seem to be paramount and the parking and landscaping are afterthoughts.
Swartzendruber feels that most of the features are included in the concept plan. One of the most
important features is nice building facades along the pedestrian walkway. Swartzendruber feels that the
concept plan and the site plan are very similar because they both meet the condition zoning agreements.
Freerks asked Swartzendruber and the developers how the concept plan became the site plan, since they
are very different, especially in terms of green space. Swartzendruber responded that Lots 40 and 41
should not affect the development of any other lots and that the changes made were necessary to make
the development work. She feels that this plan sets a good precedent for developments to come.
Ben Logsdon with developer/applicant: the applicant has incorporated the suggestions of the community
from the last meeting into the revised site plan. The applicant began working on this plan in April or May.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 27,2006
Page 4
The applicant shifted the building to create more green space, decreased the parking in the center area
and added parking to the front of the building. This should reduce the headlight traffic on Scott
Boulevard. The original concept plan had 22% green space. The current site plan has removed the
buffer between the junkyard (which is no longer there) and has 19% green space. The green space was
reduced from the original plan because of the buffer that was taken out. In place of this green space are
now a pedestrian walkway and a driveway. The middle two buildings have been reduced in size to make
room for a pedestrian walkway. The developers chose to go with 26 feet as opposed to the 40 foot
recommendation from the city in order to preserve the square footage of the buildings. They have lost
between 500 and 600 square feet between the buildings by reducing them for the pedestrian walkway.
Freerks feels that it would be a good compromise to add more green space. Logsdon responded that he
would rather take away one parking spot (9-9.5 ft) and add 3 ft to each of the islands. He would stretch
the islands out instead of adding more islands. This may be better for snow removal and functionality.
Logsdon said that the developer was asked to submit the plan For Lot 40/41 and the Zajicek property as
one plan, which they did. They do not own the Zajicek parcel but will probably be the contractors who
build on that parcel. He cannot say that he will reduce the size of their buildings without first talking to the
owner. Freerks said the suggested plan reduces the square footage of the buildings by 500 sq ft. Miklo
confirmed this. Freerks is concerned about how the site will all come together since there are multiple
owners and plots are bought and sold. Logsdon said that the site plan would look more like the site plan
if it were not for the additional corner plot (Zajicek). Freerks is concerned by the removal of green space
and she would like to compromise to add more of that green space back.
Shannon stated that the islands were drawn with two trees but the Forester reported that the space itself
is not big enough for two trees. No one would like to see one tree per island. Logsdon responded that
you could fit one large tree or two ornamental trees. Freerks thinks that adding more trees would come
more toward compromise.
Public Discussion was opened.
Matthew Schulz (67 Goldfinch Circle) said that if the 40 feet of green space is extrapolated, there would
be 80 feet of green space between the buildings to the reduction to 26 feet, once extrapolated, would be
very significant. He discussed some suggestions from the neighbors: move the building (the developers
did not want to move it because it complied with the concept plan). The concept plan was for office/retail,
but there are over 6000 sq ft of restaurant space. The developers have added more square footage and
different uses than the concept plan. He responded to comments from the last meeting: the current site
plan dates to July, 2006, although the conversations about this site started in 2000. The sign was posted
in September, 2005 requesting comments but the neighbors did not receive a letter regarding the
variance until October, 2006. The site plan that was submitted in July did not comply with the green
space requirements. He does not think that the neighbors can rely on the good will of the developer to do
the right thing. The CZA was a result of the neighborhood involvement, when the developers should have
involved the neighbors earlier. The neighbors do not want the Commission to be rushed because this
decision sets a precedent for the east side and the rest of this site. Schulz does not feel that the staff is
pushing conformance to the concept plan enough. Schulz suggested a brick or kingstone wall against the
parking lot or along Scott Boulevard which would prevent headlights from hitting the homes across the
street. The developer's response is that they do not want to separate the development from the rest of
the community. Schulz stated that they would like the signs to be small and not give off a lot of light.
Miklo responded that signage requirements are stricter when they are within 100 feet of a residential
area. Only monument signs and signs on the buildings will be allowed. The zoning requirements provide
extra protection to the neighborhood. Schulz asked if the developer would be willing to agree with them
on the signs in the areas that are not regulated by the zoning requirements. Schulz asked why the
developers did not factor in the neighborhood concerns into their business and profit calculations. He
feels that the developer misjudged the situation and has not worked well with the City or the
neighborhood. Schulz also asked why the developer waited so long to submit a site plan, and why the
site plan did not comply with the CC-2 zoning. He also asked why the developer waited until October,
more than 20 days after the site plan was submitted and the notice was posted, to mail a letter to the
neighbors requesting a zoning variance. He asked why the developer waited until the neighbors filed a
petition to approach the neighbors. He asked why the developer allowed the city to make assumptions as
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 27,2006
Page 5
to the number of children that would be using the child care center. The number of parking spaces
changes when more realistic estimates are used. He asked why the site plan did not include office
space, upper floor residential space, and public space. He wonders what the rest of the site will be used
for and what the developer would do with the space if they get by with the current site plan.
Oiedre Fleener (72 Goldfinch Circle) stated that she is concerned that the Commission does not rush into
a decision in this matter. Schulz was the only neighbor to receive a site plan, although the neighbors did
receive letters about this meeting. She talked with Julie Tallman with the City who told her that CC-2
zoning had to comply with S3 landscaping codes and the standard would be a 5-6 foot screen along Scott
Boulevard, 50% of which would have to remain green year-round. The current site plan only shows 35%
green year-round. She still believes there is minimal landscaping in the center and worries about water
run-off for the neighbors to the south. She is concerned about the drastic increase in parking spaces.
She feels that the developer does a "bait and switch" by showing a nice plan and then changing the plan
with the rationale that it doesn't comply with code. The neighbors have repeatedly expressed that they do
not want a lot of parking. In the center, the number of spaces increased from 30 to 65. In reviewing the
P&Z minutes from January 5, 2006, the developer had chosen to seek a CC-2 zoning but had agreed to a
CZA which would create a neighborhood feel rather than a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. The
site plan looks more like a strip mall to Fleener. Scott Kugler, in those same minutes, stated that the
comprehensive plan for this site calls for integrated development with a good mix of retail, office, and
residential uses. Fleener feels that the plan they've seen plans is mostly retail. She feels that the
developer makes no efforts to comply with the CZA until they are forced to. She feels that the change
from 32% green space to 19% is not a minimal change as the developers claim. When the Zajicek
property with the junkyard was across the street, there were mature trees blocking the sound and light.
Fleener said that the applicant removed all of the trees and several years ago the owner of this property
took down the trees in the wetland.
Freerks asked for Miklo's confirmation that 50% year round green is required? Miklo believed that this
was true, but would check the code to confirm.
Freerks asked Miklo to confirm that the trees that were removed were protected by wetland. Miklo
hesitated to comment because it was regarding another site than up for consideration here.
Michelle Jones (88 Heron Circle) commented that she also feels the developer is using the "bait and
switch" tactic because when they could have talked about the lighting and other concerns, they were
working off the concept plan and they were told by the developers not to worry about those concerns at
this time. She asked Miklo to confirm that there are 6 less parking spaces in the projected plan tonight
than what was proposed two weeks ago. She doesn't feel this is much of a compromise. She feels that
more than 4 neighbors are affected by this because of the water retention areas which cause the property
lines to end a ways back from Scott Boulevard, even though they are on Scott. She estimates that 10 or
12 houses face Scott on Heron Circle and Goldfinch Circle.
Bryan Alexander (60 Goldfinch Circle) still does not understand why the building cannot be moved back
35 feet from Scott. If the drive-thru was eliminated, you could add parking spaces, eliminate trees, and
the building could block the light. He wonders if the developers have done wind analysis on the property.
He feels that the wind coming down across the road will be hazardous to the pedestrians walking. If the
building is moved, this would shelter pedestrians from the wind. He has calculated that the residents will
pay over $1 million dollars in the next 10 years for the privilege of living there. He feels that this fact
means that the neighbors deserve something more aesthetically appealing and something to block them
from the unpleasant aspects of this development. He cannot understand why all the neighbors and the
developers cannot get in the same room to work this out and discuss options.
Casey Boyd (one of the developers) feels that the neighbors are missing the fact that the individual
building owners have the opportunity to buy 2000 sq ft of building space. The developers feel that this
will drive a long-term thriving commercial development. He appreciates the neighbor's comments. He
doesn't feel that the process ends tonight. They ask for approval tonight, but they are still willing to listen
to the neighbor's comments if they are approved. Freerks asked if the developers would be willing to
defer this in order to spend a couple weeks to work towards something that is agreeable to everyone.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 27,2006
Page 6
Boyd responded that the P&Z Commission is here to make a yes or no decision but that he would be
open to small contingencies, as recommended by Bob. He is trying to do the right thing by both the
developer and the neighborhood. He would prefer not to defer. Freerks asked about the possibility of
adding more green space. Boyd responded that the neighbors would not be satisfied by adding more
green space and eliminating 6 parking spaces because their desires are farther apart than that. Freerks
says that she is not seeing compromise tonight. Boyd responded again that the small compromise would
not satisfy the neighbors. He also said that he did not intentionally leave anyone out of the process.
Koppes asked who was entitled to defer until a later time, the developer or the neighbors. Behr said that
either was entitled to suggest this but both parties have to be in agreement in order for it to be deferred.
Dave Fleener (72 Goldfinch Circle) commented that the neighbors have had to work hard to keep the
door open for conversation and suggestions. He was offended by the comment that the concern of the
neighbors is not an appropriate consideration at this time. He feels that the developer is talking out both
side of their mouths. He asks that the P&Z Commission takes all of these comments into consideration.
Ben Logsdon stated that the process started in May but they had many things to work through with staff
before they could submit a site plan. He stated that their intention is to use S3 standard for landscaping.
He thought the plan they submitted was at the level of S3. If it is not, they will fix that so it is at the S3
level. Storm water is collected on site and then goes to the regional detention pond, as required by the
City. There is some office and retail space in the plan (an insurance agent, possibility dentists, etc.). He
also reminded the audience that the current developers are not the developers who submitted the original
concept plan. He stated that the lighting was not in compliance because they were .16 foot candle over
the limit near the bank. They have shifted the poles in the parking lot to come into compliance. This is
even lower than for most because of their location near the residential areas. Since no childcare center
has committed to leasing space, they could only make estimates; the City made the parking projections
on their own. He feels they did the best job they could with the information they had.
Swen Larson said that the Lot 48 was created under the same architectural influence as the lots in
question tonight. It was important to the developer to make the buildings consistent. Lot 48 has two
buildings in the same character as the developer's site and those buildings have occupancy as of
December 27. These plans were approved with speed and efficiency by the City. Once the real-world
functionality is applied to the concept plan, it has to change in order to be feasible, functional, and
serviceable. He responded to the comments that the concept plan showed office/retail by saying that Lot
48 showed convenience store but is being occupied for other purposes. Larson says that the developers
are not trying to "bait and switch" the neighbors or hide anything. They took a concept that showed a junk
yard and used their imagination to create this concept plan. They tried to continue the feeling of Lot 48.
They are dealing with 11 feet of elevation difference between the two sides of the development. In order
for an applicant to be accepted, they will have to be approved by the City and the developers. One of the
building is mirroring the concept plan but the others are adjusted for serviceability, etc. These concerns
have always induced their changes to the plan.
Swartzendruber requested that any criteria that the Commission specifies as being required for staff
review be very specific so the developers know what is expected of them. They intend to meet lighting
requirements and are willing to add more landscaping on certain islands. She also mentioned that they
are allowed, under plan amendments to decide to add more landscaping. They are not willing to change
the footprints of the buildings or reduce the square footage but they are willing to come to agreements on
minor landscaping issues.
Schulz said the neighbors would be willing to defer the issue and to work with the developer to come to a
compromise. He is concerned that the developers seem to be willing to work with the City on minor
compromises but not the neighbors. The neighbors do not ask that the design be changed. They are
concerned about the lighting, the lack of any wall separating them from the development, and signage.
Diedre Fleener confirmed that Casey Boyd bought the land from his grandfather so there may have been
some discussion between them about the plan for this site.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 27,2006
Page 7
Public Discussion was closed.
Behr reminded the Commission that their scope of review is general conformance of the concept plan.
The Commission's options are to approve, approve subject to conditions, and deny. He would
recommend discussion on the conditions to make them as specific as possible to guide the staff, the
Commission, and the developers. The Commission does not have to know if the developer is in
agreement with the conditions or not.
Brooks reviewed the options as approval, approval subject to conditions, and denial. Deferral is an option
but the developers are not willing to defer and both parties must agree for this to be a possibility. He
reiterated that any conditions that are set forth must be very specific. He and then opened for discussion
among the staff.
Smith would like to clarify which parts of the CZA are being questioned. He understands that most of the
discussion is around general conformance with the CZA and would like to set out specifics. He sees on-
street parking, pedestrian friendly walkways, parking behind the buildings, and minimum or no setbacks
as the main issues and asked the Commission for any more suggestions. Freerks said that she feels
landscaping and green space is also an issue and that she feels that the issues Shannon set forth are
dependant on how you interpret them. Shannon clarified that the landscaping is part of the pedestrian
friendly requirement.
Brooks said that the issues outlined above are specific language from the CZA but that the CZA also says
that it will be developed in general conformance with the concept plan. Brooks feels that this is difficult to
interpret and that he has looked at conformance in general terms of percentages. The developer feels
that the building sizes cannot be changed and all other things must be changed to fit this criterion.
Brooks feels that the landscaping should be more of a priority because it is just as important as the
buildings. He feels that all the give and take has been to the sacrifice of the green space. The
developers claim that the buildings cannot be modified because of economic reasons. Brooks has
reservations about what the final development will look like in terms of proportions of buildings and open
space. He feels that if it doesn't work in this case, how will it work it the middle lot? He is frustrated by
the process and the fact that the concept plan doesn't seem to mean anything.
Eastham reiterated the primary concerns of the neighbors as lighting, signage, and berms. Freerks feels
that there are additional concerns that are not in this list. Brooks feels that the lighting and signage
issues are technical requirements that could be left to the staff. Behr commented that these are zoning
concerns that should have been addressed during the zoning discussions. Freerks has no problems with
the lighting and signage as long as they meet the requirements for the zoning established.
Eastham has reviewed the minutes, examined the site, and reviewed both the concept and site plans. He
feels that the words in the CZA are both specific and vague. He feels that the front of the buildings is on
Westbury Drive and Middlebury Road and not on Scott Boulevard. He feels that the concept plan
indicates that parking will be behind the commercial buildings so putting parking behind buildings 1-3 is
supported by the concept plan. He feels that the amount of parking was not calculated carefully when the
concept plan was construed. And he feels that the parking generally conforms to the concept plan. He
thinks that the landscaping plan is an improvement and is close to adequate. He believes that the
suggestions from the staff regarding increasing the size of the three center parking islands along Scott
Boulevard and adding additional green space at the SW corner of the site plan and expanding the
landscape area to the east of building 3 are strong recommendations. He feels that the site plan
generally conforms to the concept plan and the language of the CZA. He thought that the Commission
should be specific about their desires for the islands: two large island big enough for two big tress? Or
multiple islands only big enough for ornamental trees? Freerks added that the signage code is well
defined and that having larger trees helps to break up the view. Eastham said that his purpose in
suggesting bigger trees was to add to the pedestrian friendliness and not necessarily thinking in terms of
extra screening. Miklo added that parking spaces can be no further than 60 feet from a tree, so the tree
islands could not all be eliminated in exchange for larger ones.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 27, 2006
Page 8
Koppes listed conditions as Forester approval, recessed doorways for the 6 foot sidewalks, and site
standards for the S3 landscaping in addition to what Eastham mentioned.
Smith added to the list that the square footage be corrected which were not updated in this version.
Brooks agreed with Eastham that the islands need to be enlarged and would request that the Forrester
come up with a plan that would allow at least one over-story tree in each one. He likes the idea of the
under-story on the east side but he think it's important to have more over-story trees on the island if it is
added on the NW corner of building 1. He would also like to see over-story trees added on the SW corner
of building 3. He proposes more over-story trees on Middlebury Drive to encourage the neighborhood
feel. This would replace some of the lower flowering crabapple trees. Freerks agreed with these
suggestions and thought they would bring unity to the front and back of the building.
Smith listed the conditions that the Commission was considering:
Forester review (conformance of species).
Correct the site plan with square footage adjustments previously made to building 2.
Recessed doors on the west side of building 2.
Conformance to the S-3 site plan landscaping standard.
Three islands to accommodate at least one over story and one under story tree.
Compliance with the site standards.
Koppes added the addition of landscaping close to the trash enclosure.
Miklo pointed out on the plan where the Commission was suggesting more landscaping.
Brooks and Koppes would want to see the landscaping around the trash enclosure by building 1 before
an over-story tree on the other side. Brooks would also like to see more than the minimum required on
the year-round evergreen screening. He doesn't feel that the wall is appropriate but does feel that more
evergreens would be better. He feels that doing the bare minimum is not sending the right message in a
situation where the neighborhood is not enamored with your plans. He suggests that they request 75%
year-round screening, but it cannot be required because 50% is the minimum and they are meeting that.
To compensate the decrease in green space, they should be willing to add more shrubbery screening.
Behr suggested that this request be couched in terms of the CZA standards for green space instead of
requiring them to be held to a higher standard of screening. This idea was not supported by four
Commission members and was therefore not discussed further.
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve subject to five amendment: (1) compliance with the site plan
standards (including lighting, screening, etc.), (2) Forrester review and approval for plant species defined
in the site plan, (3) correction of the square footage as previously adjusted on the plan, (4) recessed
doorways on the west side of building 2, (5) adjustment to the landscaping plan and parking lot layout
with three islands to accommodate one over-story tree on the west side and one under-story tree on the
east side and for an addition of a landscaped area on the SW corner by the trash enclosure for low
shrubbery. Plahutnik seconded.
Shannon thinks that the plan would be a great addition on the east side of Iowa City. He would
recommend, based on his experience, that the developers get together with the neighbors and clarify
their plans. He thinks it is unfortunate that the neighbors are uninformed and that the developers should
have communicated better with the neighbors.
Freerks agreed with Shannon and added that the developers might have thought that they met
satisfactorily with the neighbors when the CZA was passed in 2000. She feels that the development is
needed and will be a good one for the area but is concerned about its effects and how the final
development will turn out.
Plahutnik feels that the site plan generally conforms to the concept plan. He also feels that the developer
should have gotten in earlier to make everyone satisfied and encourage a smoother process. He feels
that the concept plan and the site plan do not have to be identical and that he sees general conformance.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 27,2006
Page 9
Smith feels that everyone should go away from this meeting a little unhappy because they cannot and
should not side fully with either the neighbors to the total discontent of the developers or to side fully with
the developers to the total discount of the neighbors.
Eastham feels that he benefits from the thoughts that are brought forward at the meetings. He will vote to
approve but he feels that it is difficult for the neighborhood to participate in development plans. He feels
that the current plan is the best that can be done to compromise.
Koppes will vote to approve. She appreciates the neighbors attending the meetings and suggests getting
involved as early as possible. She understands the concerns of the neighbors but feels that a
compromise is necessary and that the current site plan is that compromise.
Brooks will vote to deny because he doesn't feel that the site plan represents the concept plan that they
approved. He feels that we have lost a considerable amount of green space and that a top quality
building was possible at this key intersection but was not presented. He is frustrated with the process
and how the Commission came to this point. He does not like the fact that the process allows a concept
plan to be submitted that does not comply with requirements. He also feels that by putting the buildings
at top priority, they have given up the possibility for a top-quality development, even though this one is
quality. He feels that the process needs to be changed. He is fearful for what will happen with the
balance of the development.
Motion: Smith, Plahutnik, Shannon, Eastham, Koppes voted to approve. Brooks and Freerks voted to
deny. Motion was carried on a 5-2 vote.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: Smith made a motion to adjourn. Plahutnik seconded. Motion carried on a unanimous vote of 7-
O.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20pm.
Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary
Minutes submitted by Megan Weiler
s/pcd/mins/2006/11-27 -06.doc
I::
o
'iij
III
E
E
o
u"'C
...
010
I:: C.)
,- Q)
go:::
NQ)<O
~C.)g
I::N
01 III
I::"'C
.- I::
I:: Q)
1::-
~<C
ll.
>.
:!:
U
III
~
.S!
N
.....
r--
N
.....
r--
~ X X X X X X X
.....
.....
<0 ill
..... X X X X X
- 0 X
.....
.....
Ol ill
..... X X X X X X
- 0
0
.....
~
(3 X X X X X X X
.....
..... ill
N X X X X X X 0
0;
r-- X X X X X 0 X
-
Ol
r-- ill
..... X X X X X 0 X
-
co
M X X X X X X X
Ci5
0 ill
N X X X X 0 X X
j.:::
CD X X X ill ill X ill
j.::: 0 0 0
~ ill ill ill
..... 0 X 0 X X X 0
~
..... X X X X X X X
~
co
..... X X X X X X X
it;
0 : ill
N X X X X 0 X
~ :
CD I ill
X I X X X X
~ , 0
I
N I
X I X X X xX
M I
I
CD I ill
..... X I X X X 0 X
N :
N I X!!!
X I X X X
N I 0
I
Ol I ill
:!: X I X X 0 XX
I
..... I
~ X I ill XX
I X 0 X
..... :
E ~ I::
III III III C 0
.ll: III .ll: Q) - C..c:
OJ ..c: ... a. :::l
E 0 - Q) a. ..c: C_
O VI l!! III III .-
(\J ... III 0 ..c: E
z [C W LL ~ c:: rnrn
C)
z
i=
w
w
:!:
...J
oCt
:!:
0:::
o
LL
M
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
....
....
N
- >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
0
....
CO llJ
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< 0
-
0)
~ llJ llJ
.... >< >< >< >< 0 0 ><
-
CO
.... llJ
M >< >< >< >< 0 >< ><
-
l"-
I"- llJ
.... >< >< >< >< 0 >< ><
-
l"-
ll) llJ
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< 0
-
Il)
l"- I llJ
.... >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
- I
~ I
l"- I
N >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
- I
N I
M I llJ
.... >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
N I
I
en 0
E ~ 0 ....... ea I"- ea to
..- ..- 0 0 ..- 0 0
Q) .~ -- -- - - -- -- --
l.() l.() l.() l.() l.() l.() l.()
f-llJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E .:.:: I::
III III III I:: 0
.:.:: III .:.:: ~ - I::
J: ... :::J J:
0 - Q) J: I:: :!:
0 III Q. III
Q) III Q) 0 III .r::: E
E ... ... c::
al W LL ::s:: C/) C/)
ro ai <i. ~ ci ....:
z u w
C)
z
i=
w
w
:!:
...J
oCt
:!:
0:::
o
LL
Z
"0
Q)
en
:J
(,,)
><
llJ
--:;:,
I:: I:: C
Q) Q) Q)
en en en
Q)..a..a
0:<(<(
.. II II II
>. llJ
Q) -
:::s:::><OO
Preliminary
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
DECEMBER 7, 2006 - 7:30 P.M.
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER:
Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:30pm.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Wally Plahutnik, Beth Koppes, Charlie Eastham, Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks, Dean
Shannon, Terry Smith
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr
OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Amlong (MMS Consultants); Dan Tiedt (Pip Printing)
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
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 north of Court Street,
east of Camden Road.
Miklo stated that the rezoning and the preliminary plat were approved earlier this year. This application is
for an extension of the Stone Bridge Estates subdivision. The final plat is in compliance with the zoning
requirements. The staff recommends approval subject to staff approval of legal papers and construction
documents prior to City Council consideration.
Miklo responded to Eastham's question regarding the fire marshal's request for an emergency vehicle
turn around. The fire marshal would prefer a connection between the two parts of Eversull Avenue but is
agreeable to the two turn arounds that the applicant has agreed to.
Freerks asked at what point the trail system and sidewalks would be installed. Miklo responded that they
would have to be installed before the public improvements are accepted by the City.
Ron Amlong (MMS Consultants) with the applicant asked for any questions from the commission. There
were none.
Brooks opened the floor for public discussion. There was none. Brooks closed public discussion.
Shannon motioned to approve subject to staff approval of legal papers and construction documents.
Eastham seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
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.
Miklo stated that the development is already in place and is now being divided into smaller parcels. Lots
10, 8, 5, and 3 have the potential for further development. Outlot A would be shared between the
developments and used for parking. Preliminary and final plats meet zoning and subdivision code
requirements. Staff recommends approval subject to legal papers being approved prior to City Council
consideration of the final plat.
There were no questions for staff.
Brooks opened the floor for public discussion
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 2
Eastham motioned to approve subject to approval of legal papers. Shannon seconded. The motion
carried unanimously.
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 or Commercial Office (CO-1).
Miklo said that the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel received information from PIP Printing and has
determined that it could be classified as personal service and could be zoned CO-1. There is some
concern that if for some reason the rezoning to CO-1 is not finalized that PIP Printing would not be in
conformance with the current CI-1 intensive commercial zoning.
Miklo said that he had received written confirmation from the applicant that they would like the entire area
rezoned to CO-1 rather than leaving some of the lots zoned CI-1. Miklo reiterated that either the CO-1 or
CI-1 zone would comply with the comprehensive plan and that staff recommended approval. Applicant
was not present for comment.
Brooks opened the floor for public discussion.
Dan Tiedt (owner of PIP Printing) would like a CO-1 zoning and thinks it would be good for the applicant.
Brooks closed the floor for public discussion.
Freerks motioned to approve. Koppes seconded. Freerks said that she felt this was a good compromise
and solution. She said that she is glad they took the time to work this out and thanked Tiedt for his
cooperation. The motion carried unanimously.
OTHER ITEMS
There were none.
CONSIDERATION OF THE NOVEMBER 16, 2006 MEETING MINUTES
Shannon motioned to approve the minutes. Eastham seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: Shannon made a motion to adjourn. Eastham seconded. Motion carried on a unanimous vote of
7-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:46pm.
Minutes submitted by Megan Weiler
s/pcd/mins/2DD6/12-D7 -D6.doc
c
o
'en
III
'E
E
o
u'O
...
mo
c u
,- Q)
go::
NQ)<D
~gg
meaN
c'O
,- C""
C Q)
C-
J!~
Q.
~
(3
ea
~
..2
-.:
N
....
t:: XX XX XX X
N
....
.....
N XX XX XX X
-
....
....
ID xl:!:!
.... XX XX X
-
.... 0
....
en W
.... XX XX X X
- 0
0
....
It)
- X X XX X X X
0
....
.... W
N X X XX X X 0
-
en
t:: X X X X X 0 X
en
..... W
.... X X X X X 0 X
iiO
M X X X X X X X
-
CX)
0 W
N X X X X 0 X X
-
.....
ID X X X w w X w
- 0 0 0
.....
It) w UJ w
.... 0 X 0 X X X 0
-
ID
.... X X X X X X X
-
ID
CX)
.... X X X X X X X
in
0 0 UJ
N X I X X X 0 X
~ I
0
~ 0 w
X 0 0 X X X X
~ 0
0
N 0
- X 0 X X X X X
M 0
0
ID 0 l:!:!x
.... X 0 X X X
- 0 0
N 0
N 0 xl:!:!
X 0 X X X
N 0
I 0
en , UJ
.... X I X X 0 XX
- :
....
It) I W
X I X X XX
- I 0
.... 0
E JlI: I:
III III !~ '2 0
JlI: III ~ ..... 1:.=
Q) .= ::l
E 0 ..... Q) .= 1:.....
0 III f III III ,-
111 ... III 0 ii: .= E
z lD W u.. ~ (/)(/)
"
z
i=
w
w
::E
..J
<
::E
0::
o
LL
M
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
....
....
~ >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
0
....
co W
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< 0
-
m
'lit W W
.... >< >< >< >< - 0 ><
- 0
co
.... W
M >< >< >< >< 0 >< ><
-
....
.... w
.... >< >< >< >< 0 >< ><
-
....
II) w
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< 0
-
II)
.... 0 w
.... >< 0 >< >< >< 0 ><
~ 0
0
.... 0
N >< 0 >< >< >< 0 ><
- 0
N 0
M 0 W
.... >< 0 >< >< >< 0 ><
- 0
N 0
III 0
E ~ T""" 00 I'-- 0 00 to
T""" T""" 0 0 T""" 0 0
Qq~ - - - - - - -
It) It) It) It) It) It) It)
f-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E ~ C
III III III C 0
~ ea ~ 8 - C
0 .c ... = C .c
- Q) .c -
(J) 0 III e ea ea 'E
... ea 0 .c
E m w LL ~ 0: CJ) CJ)
co ai cJ <i. u.i ~ c:i ...:
z
"
z
i=
w
w
::E
..J
<
::E
0::
o
LL
~
-0
(J)
(/)
:::J
t)
X
W
-_:0::>
c: c: c:
(J) (J) (J)
(/) (/) (/)
~.o.o
0..<(<(
.. II II II
>. W
(J) -
~><oo