HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-01-2007 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, January 29,2007 -7:30 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
Thursday, February 1, 2007 - 7:30 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
C. Rezoning Items:
1. REZ06-00028: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for a rezoning from
Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for .91 acres of property
located at 1902 and 1906 Broadway Street. (45-day limitation period: February 11, 2007)
2. REZ07 -00001: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from
Community Commercial (CC2) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI1) zone for approximately 12 acres of
property located on Ruppert Road.
D. Comprehensive Plan Item:
Setting a public hearing for February 15 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the South Central
District Plan Land Use Map to depict intensive commercial use in the vicinity of Ruppert Road.
E. Development Item:
SUB04-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by John Oaks for a preliminary plat of Lyn-Den
Heights Part III, a 38-lot, 38.5 acre residential subdivision located on Rapid Creek Rd NE.
(45-day limitation period: Waived by applicant to February 1, 2007)
F. Other Items
G. Consideration of the January 18, 2007 Meeting Minutes
H. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM'
Date: February 1, 2007
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Drew E. Westberg, Planning Intern
RE: REZ06-00028, Broadway Street Rezoning
As discussed in the Staff Report dated January 18, 2007, staff is recommending approval of
the request to rezone this property form Commercial Office, CO-1, to Community Commercial,
CC-2, only if conditions are placed on the property to minimize the negative effects of
commercial development upon adjacent residential properties. The applicant has agreed to the
recommended conditions with the exception of a requirement for a 50-foot wide buffer along
the south side of the proposed CC-2 zone.
In lieu of the 50 foot buffer recommended by staff, the applicant is proposing an approximately
30 foot wide buffer, provided that the City vacate 6 feet of the street right-of-way adjacent to
Highway 6. Vacation of the right-of-way would allow the proposed development to be shifted 6
feet to the north. The City Engineer has determined that 6 feet is the maximum amount of
right-of-way that could be vacated due the presence of utilities, the Highway 6 trail location and
possible future improvements to Highway 6. Staff is concerned that the site layout even with
the 6 feet of additional land from the right-of-way does not provide for good vehicular circulation
between the office site and the drive-in restaurant site and we remain concerned about the
width of the buffer for the adjacent residential building. The applicants plan would require
traffic from the office development to intermingle with traffic from the drive-in. The concept plan
presented by the applicant provides poor visibility of the office site from Broadway Street.
In order to achieve a sufficient buffer and a good circulation route, staff prepared a concept
plan where the development is rotated to give an easVwest orientation. This maximizes the
space allowed for buffering between the proposed CC-2 use and the HACAP building. The
applicant has indicated that such an orientation would make it difficult to develop the remaining
CO-1 parcel to the east. The applicant contends that using the original north/south orientation
is the only economically feasible option, which would only provide a buffer of approximately 30
feet.
As previously noted, the applicant claims that the approximately 37,000 square foot CO-1
parcel, as proposed by the staff concept plan, would be too small to develop in an economically
feasible manner. However, there are several examples of CO-1 development in the area on
lots much smaller than what would be available for development based on staff's concept plan.
Examples include:
. 2048 Keokuk Street is a 4,600 square-foot commercial office building with
ground-floor commercial and second floor residential. The lot is 27, 087 square
feet (0.53 acres).
. 2040 Keokuk Street is a 2,756 square-foot institutional building on an 20,038
square foot (0.46-acre) lot
July 6, 2006
Page 2
. 2030 Keokuk Street is a one story, 2,020 square foot commercial building on a
22,216 square foot (0.51-acre) lot
. 1500 Sycamore Street is a 1,447 square-foot, one-story commercial building on a
13,068 square foot (0.30-acre) lot
These examples support Staffs view that the remaining approximately 37,000 square foot
(.86 acre) office parcel is developable. Staff has prepared a concept sketch showing that an
approximately 10,000 square foot office building could be constructed at this location while
still providing adequate parking and buffering. This concept also provides good visibility and
vehicular access to the office site from Broadway Street.
Staff continues to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning subject to the conditions
outlined in the January 18 staff report, including a requirement for a 50-foot wide buffer
adjacent to the south side of the proposed CC-2 zone. With out this buffer requirement
staff believes that the proposed commercial development will have a negative effect on the
adjacent residential properties and would not recommend approval.
Attachments:
1. Applicants concept plan with 30 foot wide buffer
2. Staff concept plan with 50 foot wide buffer
~.
~~
~'
'::
>~
',->
~
{
~
y
/
/
'-- ~
'--
~
g
'--
'--~ ~
'--
g~~
~~......
u
:a
Q..
-<
~""
-""
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- ~ ~2Jl::i.t.8
~ - .{~M(]""
, ~---- ~~--~- ~
~~O~ ~~_~
"'--'>~-,,-----,- , --~ - ------------
.", o.~o~ '
~~o~
~o~
'~'-------
~~
..~..~
..
Q.
Q)
(,)
c:
o
o
tI::
co
..
tJ)
/
/
co
~
~
<:
.~
J:'
/
/
/
m
;::
c
II)
'0
"ii)
II)
0::
m
;::
c
Q)
32
111
Q)
ex:
lee./l
S J{'e
'\t.oe
0./&
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Robert Miklo
Item: REZ07-00001 Aviation Commerce
Park - North
Date: February 1. 2007
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Phone: 356-5230
Property Owner:
City of Iowa City
Purpose:
To allow Intensive Commercial use.
Location:
Ruppert Road area, south of Highway 1,
north of the Iowa City Municipal Airport.
Property Size:
Approximately 12 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Undeveloped; CC-2
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Commercial; CC-2 and CI-1
South: Public Airport; P
East: Commercial; CC-2 and P
West: Undeveloped; CC-2
Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan identifies this
property as General Commercial. The South
Central District Plan identifies this property
as Community Commercial.
File date:
January 22, 2007
45-day limitation period:
Not applicable
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Aviation Commerce Park North (North Airport Development) was subdivided in 2000, and
infrastructure was constructed to allow for commercial development on property along the north
side of the Iowa City Municipal Airport. The area was zoned P/CI-1, Intensive Commercial. The
Intensive Commercial zoning was established because it was thought to be a zone that would
attract airport-related service and storage businesses, and other similar uses that do not require
visibility from Highway 1.
2
In 2005 the City entered into an agreement with Wal-Mart to buy a large portion of the
development and the entire subdivision was rezoned to CC-2. The Comprehensive Plan was
amended to change the land use designation in the South Central District Plan from Intensive
Commercial to Community Commercial and the text of the plan was changed to refer to the more
general term "commercial" rather than the specific Intensive Commercial or Community
Commercial.
The sale of the property was not completed and the property is now being marketed. The City
has received offers for some of the lots located in the eastern portion of the subdivision. The
potential buyers require Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zoning.
The City is proposing to amend the Comprehensive Plan and to rezone lots 1, 5,6 and 7 back to
CI-1.
ANALYSIS:
Comprehensive Plan
The South Central District Plan, adopted in 2000, had originally shown this property as being
appropriate for Intensive Commercial development. As noted above the plan was amended in
2005 to change the land use map to show this property as being appropriate for Community
Commercial.
One of the justifications for the 2005 amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning
from CI-1 to CC-2 was that the previously proposed large retail development would spur further
redevelopment and likely rezoning of the CI-1 zone located to the north along Highway 1. This
would support the goal of the South Central District Plan to encourage more retail development in
the highly visible area along the highway. In absence of a magnet retail development on Ruppert
Road, this scenario is unlikely to occur. With out a destination development to draw customers
from Highway 1 to Ruppert Road the development of the current CC-2 zone becomes less viable.
The original scenario contained in the South Central District Plan also encouraged the
redevelopment of the properties adjacent to Highway 1 for retail uses while the less visible
properties along Ruppert Road were seen as appropriate for CI-1 type uses. This scenario may
now be more viable. There is interest in CI-1 type uses for the eastern part of Ruppert Road and
therefore this rezoning is being requested.
Consideration may also be given to rezoning the entirety of Aviation Commerce Park to CI-1. But
before making that decision, the City is exploring other development scenarios. One possibility
would be the extension of Miller Avenue from its current terminus at Highway 1 to the south to
intersect with Ruppert Road. This would improve the street access and visibility of the western
portion of Aviation Commerce Park and make CC-2 type development more viable. This scenario
will require the cooperation of other property owners in the area and therefore may not be
successfully implemented. If it is not possible to implement such a plan, then the appropriate
zoning along Ruppert Road may be CI-1.
To assure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the South Central Land Use Map would
need to be amended to show Intensive Commercial land uses in lieu of Community Commercial
along Ruppert Road. The February 1 agenda includes setting a pubic hearing for February 15 for
consideration of such an amendment.
S:\PCD\Staff Reports\REZ07 -00001-north airport doc
3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends REZ07 -00001, a request for a rezoning of approximately 12 acres of land
located on Ruppert Road west of Riverside Drive from CC-2, Community Commercial to CI-1,
Intensive Commercial, be approved.
Approved by:
Kari Franklin, Director,
Department of Planning and Community Development
ATTACHMENT:
Location map
S:\PCDlStaff Reports\REl07-00001-north airport .doc
~
~
D
U)o ~
<iF~f--O .~ ~~
l0 \))1....1.... ~
~ <: I..-. I.... CJ
"l:""-2CllQ
S2 e:: c.. V) ~
-J
~~
Q
~~
-
S
3MJO 301Stl3^ltI HlnOS
~
t3
~
~
3^ 'V tl3111~
~ co
~ en N
0: 0
t3 0
"'0
co
0
a:
+-'
:lo....
(I)
Q.
Q.
:::J
a:
. .
,... Z
0
"""""
~
U
0
...:l
~
~
"""""
en
o
N
~
0:
--
C
c..
n
n
--~JI
elf!
a. I ,...
10.
~
o
o
o
o
I
r--..
o
N
w
a:
~
o
o
+-'
C\J
o
o
NON\;f:) - 8N3\IUAIP\\ '~^N 09T~: ~ ~ LOOG/9l/ ~ '6Mp'90-6u!uoZ\Z~d\a:)d\6u3\:S
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 1, 2007
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Robert Miklo
Re: SUB04-00011 Lyn-Den Heights - Part III
This item was deferred with the applicant's consent pending resolution of outstanding
deficiencies and discrepancies. A revised plat has been submitted and reviewed. The
Public Works Department remains concerned with the design of the proposed private
sanitary sewer treatment system given the proximity of Rapid Creek and recommends that
any approval be conditioned upon Iowa Department of Natural Resource (IDNR) approval of
the system. We have not yet received the required letter form the Solon Fire Department
regarding the approval of fire protection for the subdivision. This is a basic requirement of
the Fringe Area Agreement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that SUB04-00011 be deferred pending resolution of the deficiencies and
discrepancies.
Upon resolution of 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 located north of Rapid Creek Road, be approved, only if the subdivision meets or
is exempted from the Johnson County Road Performance standards, and subject to IDNR
approval of the waste water treatment system.
Preliminary
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 18, 2007 -7:30 P.M.
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER:
Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dean Shannon, Beth Koppes, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks,
Terry Smith, Bob Brooks, Wally Plahutnik
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr, Sarah Walz, Intern Drew Westberg
OTHERS PRESENT:
Glenn Siders (Southgate Development), Emily Bennett (Diana
Street), Winifred Holland (1105 Diana Street), Erick Clark (4 C
Sons), Julie Housman (1038 Diana Street), Cartland Berwald
(1035 Diana Street), Garry Klein (628 2nd Ave), Glen Meisner
(1917 S. Gilbert Street), Robert Downer (122 S. Linn Street), Larry
Kleinmyer (4633 Rapid Creek Road), Tom Bockenstedt (3266
Lyn-Den Heights), Mary Beth Hackenbarth (3104 Charles Drive
NE)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council action):
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, REZ06-00027 An application submitted by MVL
Properties for a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) to Commercial Office (CO-1)
zone for approximately 12,200 square feet of property located west of Diana Street, south of
Kirkwood Avenue.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, SUB06-00016 An application submitted by Arlington
Development Inc. for a final plat of Stone Bridge Estates Part Five, a 37-lot, 12.92 acre
residential subdivision located north of Court Street, east of Camden Road, subject to staff
approval of construction drawings and legal papers.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, SUB06-00021 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.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, an application submitted to Johnson County by Mary
Beth Hackbarth for a conditional use permit to operate a photo studio business on
approximately 40 acres of property located at 3104 Charles Drive NE in Fringe Area A.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, an amendment to Title 14, Chapter 5, Article J,
Flood Plain Management Standards, to adopt the re-formatted flood insurance rate map.
Public Discussion of Anv Item not on the Agenda
No discussion.
Rezoning/Development Item
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 2
REZ06-00027: Discussion of an application submitted by MVL Properties for a rezoning from
Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) to Commercial Office (CO-1) zone for approximately 12,200
square feet of property located west of Diana Street, south of Kirkwood Avenue.
Walz stated that MVL Properties (owner of the Lensing Funeral Home) is acquiring vacated
alley right of way-an unpaved area shown in the aerial view. They are also proposing a land
transaction whereby a portion the property at 1018 Diana Street, owned by MVL Properties,
would be added to 1016 Diana Street to make the lot conforming in terms of square footage. In
return, the 1016 Diana Street owners will give the rear 39 feet of their property to the Lensing
Funeral Home. In addition the rear 39 feet of the lot at 1018 Diana Street would be added to the
Lensing Funeral Home lot to square off the property. Last spring, the Commission denied a
proposed rezoning from RS-5 to CO-1 for a property adjacent (west) of the Funeral Home along
Kirkwood. The issue of commercial access to the alleyway connecting to Diana Street was one
of the concerns in denying the rezoning. When the Lensing property was rezoned to CO-1 in
1993, one of the conditions was that the alley was not to be open to commercial traffic coming
through to Diana. City staff does not support commercial traffic coming out of the alleyway.
Walz stated that with this particular rezoning there is some sense in making the zone a regular
shape and that staff is recommending approval subject to the alley remaining closed to
commercial traffic.
Brooks opened public discussion.
Applicant Michael Lensing (Lensing Funeral Homes) stated that all they would do with the new
land is to add parking. They will add trees to the border of the lots. Walz stated that S3
screening would be required under these circumstances. S3 screening is taller, vegetation 5-6
feet in height. Lensing hopes that they will have more luck keeping the trees alive in this area.
Lensing reaffirmed the traffic concerns of the neighborhood.
Eastham asked if Lensing was amendable to closing off the alley access. Walz stated that the
alley access is not a part of the application under consideration. Lensing said that he may ask
for alley access at some later point and have the City review the traffic problems in the
neighborhood.
Emily Bennett (Diana Street) lives nearby and would like to know if the residential lots were
being rezoned or only the back 39 feet or if any rezoned land would front on Diana Street. Walz
answered that the residential lots on Diana Street would remain RS-5 and that no CO-1 property
would front on Diana Street. Walz explained that only the rear 39 feet of those residential lots
would be added to the Lensing Funeral Home property and that would be part of the CO-1 zone.
Winifred Holland (1105 Diana Street) is concerned that more traffic will come to the
neighborhood with these changes. She is concerned that the parking will be removed from the
street and that lights will be put up. She said shoe would be okay with rezoning this small area
proposed by was concerned that the neighborhood residents should not have to keep coming
back to defend their neighborhood from commercial encroachment.
Freerks asked about the lighting standards and whether or not they would change with this
rezoning. Walz stated that any lighting would need to comply with the current standards in the
Zoning Code, which calls for downcast lighting.. '
Erick Clark (owner of Four C Sons Lawn Care) wanted to comment on Lensing's diligence in
making the property look nice. He feels that it would be an improvement on the property and on
their work on the property.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 3
Julie Housman (1038 Diana Street) has lived in the neighborhood for. 25 years. She is
concerned about the encroachment of the commercial development into the neighborhood and
about the increased traffic coming through the neighborhood. She says that the logical place for
the division is where the division is now, not where it shows to be on the map. She hopes that
this will be the end of the commercial zoning coming east to the residential zoning.
Cortland Borwald (1035 Diana Street) commented that he has no problem with Lensing as a
neighbor. He feels that the alley was not maintained well and that he feels Lensing will improve
the land.
Brooks closed public discussion.
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve REZ06-00027 subject to the condition that the alley
remain closed to commercial traffic. Koppes seconded.
Koppes commended Lensing for holding a neighborhood meeting. Plahutnik commented that it
was nice to have another conforming property.
Brooks asked what would happen to the rest of the alley south of this point. Miklo and Walz
responded that the City would maintain the right of way and that the entire alley was vacated at
the same time and is available to the adjacent property owners.
Motion carried unanimously.
REZ06-00028: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for a rezoning
from Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for .91 acres of
property located at 1902 and 1906 Broadway Street.
Miklo stated that the property under consideration is a portion of two lots. The northern lot
contains the Johnston law firm and the southern lot contains a portion of the Coronet Apartment
Building. Both lots are currently zoned Commercial Office. The law firm is a conforming use in
the office zone. The apartment building is a legal non conforming use - meaning that it could
not be built today in the office zone but is grandfather in.
Miklo said that he would like to point out that a portion of the parking lot for Coronet Apartments
is located to the east of the area under consideration for rezoning. It is in the eastern part of the
office zone and has vehicular access from Hollywood Boulevard. If the current request for
rezoning is approved - this area would remain zoned office and would be available for office
development but based on a previous zoning agreement with the City, the vehicular access on
to Hollywood Boulevard is limited to residential traffic - so any commercial traffic from this
development must be routed back to Broadway Street. He said that he was pointing this out
because it has bearing on the site configuration and vehicular circulation of the area requested
for rezoning. He said that he would discuss this in more detail latter in the report.
Miklo said that the applicant, Southgate Development Company, currently owns the Coronet
Apartments and as an agreement to purchase the law office. They plan to remove the existing
buildings and combine the properties. They would then sell the combined properties to a third
party which wishes to build a drive-in restaurant on the western portion leaving the eastern
portion available for office development. He said that restaurants with an occupancy of up to
100 persons are allowed in the office zone but drive-in restaurants are not and therefore the
applicant requested this rezoning to allow a drive-in restaurant on this property.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 4
Miklo said that when we first reviewed this application staff concluded that it should not be
recommended for approval because the current zoning pattern in the area makes Broadway a
clear boundary between the more intense commercial development to the west and the more
low key office and residential development to the east. He said that there is already an
abundance of Community Commercial zoning in the area (approximately 100 acres in the
South District compared to only 10 acres of office zoning) so there does not appear to be a
compelling need for this rezoning.
Miklo said that typically we try to create a buffer zone between residential uses and Community
Commercial zoning. At a minimum a buffer might include a street right-of-way or more ideally
an office zone that would result in a lower key commercial office development that is compatible
with residential development. That is the situation that currently exists with the office use being
a compatible use the residential in the surrounding area to the east as well as the south. He
said that it is true that in some locations we do have Community Commercial zoning directly up
against residential but that is not a desirable situation and the commercial uses often have
negative effects on the adjacent residential.
Miklo stated that Community Commercial uses typically generate more traffic and noise - have
more intense lighting and signage and have longer hours of operation than office uses. This
can have a negative affect on the quality of life of nearby residences. This is of particular
concern in this case given the orientation of the residential building currently located in the
residential zone to the south of the subject property. He said that even though the two areas
share a side lot line - the townhouse-style apartments look directly onto the proposed
community commercial zone.
The proposed drive-in restaurant use of this property if it is rezoned is perhaps the most intense
use allowed in the Community Commercial zone, so this only heightens the concern.
Miklo said that given these concerns, staff had discussed with the applicant what could be done
to allow rezoning and redevelopment of the site but still respect the adjacent residential
development. He said they had worked to identify conditions that would ameliorate the
negative affects of the proposed commercial use on the near by residences.
Miklo showed a site plan that he said illustrated conceptually how these conditions might apply
to this property. He pointed out that the driveway for the Coronet building and the HACAP
apartment to the south is a shared driveway and that there is an easement so the driveway will
remain to serve the HACAP building regardless of what happens to the Coronet building.
Miklo emphasized the conceptual nature of the site plan. He said that given that the stated
reason for the rezoning is to accommodate a drive-in restaurant staff used a layout for a drive-
in. He said that the Commission must remember if this rezoning is approved a drive through
restaurant may not go here, but there may be some other Community Commercial use that
would be allowed to develop on the site. He said that a convenience store or a drive-through
would perhaps be the most intense use, but given the potential negative effects on the
neighboring residences, we should plan for such a scenario.
Miklo said that to try to minimize negative effects on the quality of life of nearby residential
properties, recommended conditions include:
1. Providing a buffer strip between the proposed commercial zoning and the adjacent
residential property of no less than fifty feet wide with a minimum 5 foot tall masonry wall
located within the northern 10 feet of the buffer, and evergreen and deciduous over story
trees and shrub plantings to a minimum S3 standard.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 5
2. Closure of the Hollywood Boulevard access point to the Commercial Office property and
use of a shared access point for the two commercial lots. The shared access should utilize
the existing access for 1902 Broadway and extend to the office property but shall not
infringe upon the fifty-foot buffer. (The closure of the access to Hollywood is required by a
previous agreement).
3. A landscaped 20' setback from the property line along Broadway Street. Miklo said the
intent is to help development of the site be more in keeping with the low key nature of the
office and residential development that currently exists on the east side of Broadway.
4. Limit of one free-standing sign located in the northwest corner of the property. No
building signs on the south and east sides facing the residential development. Other fascia
and monument signs permitted per the code.
5. S3 screening of the remaining office parcel along its southern and eastern property
boundaries or alternatively along the east boundary of the Community Commercial parcel.
Miklo said the reason for this screening is that the remaining office zone may be vacant for
some time exposing the residences to the east to the negative effects of, the Community
Commercial zone.
6. The building and canopy should be a quality of design appropriate for a transition to
residential zoning. Miklo said that when staff learned that the reason for this request was for
a drive-in restaurant they looked at several examples of architecture for such uses. They
do not think that a typical drive-in type use would add to the quality of this area and certainly
would not justify compromising the current buffer provided by the office zone. They did find
an example from Woodland California where rather than using the standard fast food
architecture a franchise had varied from the typical design and used stone piers and
standing seam metal roof and muted colors for the building and canopies. He said this
higher level of quality and design is an example of what would be appropriate in this
location.
Miklo stressed that in absence of such conditions staff would not recommend approval of the
proposed Community Commercial zoning. He said that staff had negotiated these conditions
with the applicant, but it appears that the potential buyer does not agree to these conditions and
the applicant would like to offer some alternatives. Miklo said again given the concerns raised
by this rezoning these are the minimum conditions that staff recommends.
Eastham said that in their analysis, staff had looked at the supply of Community Commercial
and Commercial Office zoning in the South District. He asked if staff had considered the supply
of multi-family zoning and if this rezoning would have a negative effect on the number of multi-
family homes in the district. Miklo responded that they had not. He said that the multi-family
apartment building on this property is currently non-conforming so this is not a rezoning from
multi-family to commercial. He said regardless of the decision on this rezoning application, the
Coronet Apartments could be remove and redeveloped without approval by the City. He said
that that are other area within the South District that are identified as being appropriate for multi-
family development.
Eastham also asked for other examples of CC-2 adjacent to residential. Miklo gave the
example of Paul's Discount Store which is back-to-back with residential properties. He said in
that case the commercial has less effect on the residential because the back of the building is
against the back yards of the residential lots so that the commercial activity, signs, parking and
lighting are all directed away from the residential. He said another example is the south and
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 6
east side of Pepperwood Plaza. He stated that in that situation, the street does provide some
buffer and transition and there is also a landscape buffer.
Koppes asked if the shared access point was on this property or not. Miklo stated that the
shared access point is between the Coronet and HACAP properties. He said it is within an
easement and it must remain to allow access to the parking spaces at HACAP.
Eastham asked what the rationale is for a 50 foot buffer. Miklo responded that 50 feet would
provide room for a masonry fence and room for evergreen trees and ov~r story trees. This
would help minimize the negative effects of the commercial development, by screening views,
dampening the noise from the potential intercom system, traffic and shield the lighting. He said
it would be both a spatial and physical buffer and was the minimum that staff felt was needed to
protect the residences which were two stories in height and would look directly onto this
property.
Brooks opened public discussion.
Glenn Siders (Southgate Development Services) stated that they are at 95% concurrence with
the staff on this proposal. The only thing that doesn't work with the conditions the staff has
recommended on the property is the 50 foot buffer. The problems are the reduction in the lot
size which limits the opportunities for development. This combined with the limitation of
commercial traffic on Hollywood Boulevard would make the office property difficult to develop
and market in the future. He said the access easement between the Coronet and HACAP
apartments is 12 'V:1 feet for each property. 12 'V:1 feet would be added to the 50 foot buffer so
the driveway would not be able to start for 62 'V:1 feet. The applicant is trying to work towards
transferring the 12 'V:1 feet of driveway to the HACAP property since the commercial lot is not
able to use this easement anyway. It is a liability to the property owner to have this 12 'V:1 feet.
Siders distributed two concept plans that showed either a 30-foot wide buffer or a 40 foot wide
buffer. He said the 30 foot buffer is possible if the City vacates 6 feet of street right-of-way to
the north to allow the commercial development to be pushed to the north. He said that the City
has no problems with this however there are restrictions because 15 feet north of the property
line is the City water main and a little farther north is the City sewer line. The City is not
agreeable to placing structure over these lines. The City is willing to vacate 6 feet of right of
way. Siders said that the second plan would allow a 40-foot buffer if 16 feet of right-of-way is
vacated. They are trying to negotiate 15-16 feet of right of way from the City. They are not
objecting to dense landscaping or building a masonry wall. Whatever addition width they can
get will be added to the buffer. The buffer width is the only problem they have with this
proposal. Miklo said that the vacation of right-of-way would have to be reviewed and approved
by ordinance.
Smith asked who the property is intended to be sold to. Siders stated that he could not name
the restaurant.
Eastham asked what the conditions were that were bringing problems. Siders stated that the
orientation of the restaurant and the width of the buffer were two problems. They cannot leave
the orientation of the restaurant and still have the buffer at the width recommended by staff.
Brooks asked about the entrance to the property. He asked if there was any reason why it
couldn't be at the southern end. Siders responded that the City would not allow this. The City
asked them to move the driveway north so that it intersected with the driveway at the other side
of Broadway. Moving it south runs it into the entrance to HACAP.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 7
Brooks asked about the grade difference on the property. Siders stated that HACAP is sitting
slightly higher than their property. Brooks asked if a grade differential could be used to help
create a buffer. Siders stated that they have not yet engineered the grading of the site.
Plahutnik asked if Siders was expecting a vote tonight since there were still more details to be
resolved. Siders responded that this project is time sensitive but he feels that they could still
make it work if this was deferred until the February 1 meeting.
Miklo said that he would like to comment on the alternative site plans submitted by the
applicant. He stated that if this rezoning is approved, the proposed drive-in will require approval
of a special exception from the Board of Adjustment. One of the criteria that the Board will
examine is the traffic plan and traffic flow. He said that the applicant's plan shows no separation
between the traffic that is going to the drive-thru and the traffic that is going back to the office
area. He said that this is a concern and the concept plan that staff presented addressed this by
providing a separate drive to the office area.
Smith asked if there were any other utilities that might be encroached upon. Siders responded
that he was not sure about any others. Power and gas lines are indicated on the map that was
distributed.
Eastham asked about the occupancy rate at Coronet Apartments. Siders responded that
Coronet is such poor condition that they will not lease the apartments to anyone. Currently
there are 7 units occupied out of 34 units and the occupancy has been less than 50% for the
last several years. The applicant has tried to market this property for well over a year and it is
not saleable in the current zoning.
Gary Klein, member of the Fair Organization, which has been following affordable housing
issues, stated that there is a shortage in Iowa City of certain kinds of affordable housing
particularly apartment units (2 bedroom and 1 bedroom) for people who are on Section 8
voucher lists. He said that 1600 people are waiting for units. He wondered why it was not
possible to rezone in a way that would create more multi-family homes. He is concerned about
the people in the neighborhood that are traveling on foot and wonders what safety measures
are in place for them. He also is concerned that he just found out about this request this
morning and feels that others who live in the neighborhood should be here to discuss this.
Koppes stated that there are signs posted for those who live in the neighborhood.
Miklo stated that the zoning code requires that commercial buildings have pedestrian access
either to a sidewalk or the trail along Highway 6. This would be addressed when the site plan
and any special exceptions area reviewed.
Brooks closed public discussion.
Motion: Koppes motioned to defer to the February 1 meeting to allow the ~pplicant to consider
the engineering issues that have not been resolved yet. Freerks seconded.
Smith stated that he is a member of the neighborhood. He lives at the end of Balsam Court. He
thinks that any redevelopment in the area would be welcome. The neighborhood is becoming
decrepit and he looks forward to any improvement.
Eastham stated that he is not opposed to this request or the rezoning. He doesn't think it is
necessary to preserve multi-family housing on this property. He does not have a strong opinion
on the buffer issue.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 8
Freerks thinks that redevelopment in this area would be welcome but has concerns about the
traffic flow and safety in the area. She is also concerned about the buffer but feels that there
are ways to make compromises.
Plahutnik stated that the developer stands to make money from this rezoning. But he wants to
know what the community members get out of this rezoning. He doesn't have a problem
eliminating Coronet Apartments but he has trouble placing the most intense use possible next to
the remaining housing.
Motion carried unanimously.
Development Item
SUB06-00016: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development Inc. for a final
plat of Stone Bridge Estates Part Five, a 37 -lot, 12.92 acre residential subdivision located north
of Court Street, east of Camden Road.
Miklo stated that this was voted on recently by the Commission but before it went onto the City
Council the applicant decided to make a change to the plat. In the previous version there were
two sections of Eversull Lane with a gap in between them. This gap would eventually be filled in
and the street completed with a future phase of the subdivision. The Fire Marshall was
concerned that this gap did not provide for good emergency access through the area. He had
requested that the complete Eversull Lane be included in the final plat. In lieu of platting all of
Eversull Lane, the applicant offered to build two temporary cul-de-sac bulbs where the two
sections of the street ended. Although this was not ideal, it was acceptable to the Fire Marshall.
The applicant has now rethought the situation and instead of adding temporary cul-de-sacs, the
applicant has agreed to connect the streets and include two lots in the final plat. Staff
recommends approval subject to approval of legal papers and construction drawings.
Brooks opened public discussion.
Applicant had no comment.
Brooks closed public discussion.
Motion: Smith motioned to approve subject to approval of legal papers and construction
drawings. Eastham seconded. The Commission stated that this plan is much better than
previously submitted.
Motion carried unanimously.
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.
Miklo pointed out a change in the subdivision, which is in the City's fringe area (within 2 miles of
the city limits). There are now 38 lots instead of 40 lots. This application was deferred from the
December meeting due to multiple deficiencies (engineering issues, storm water, sanitary
sewer, and water distribution systems). A new plat was submitted yesterday and there are still
deficiencies at this point so this application is not ready for approval. The application is now at
the end of the 45-day limitation period so the applicant would need to grant an extension to
February 1. In absence of an extension to allow correction of the plat it would not be in
conformance with basic subdivision and Fringe Area Agreement standards and would need to
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 9
be denied. There is also a major deficiency in that it does not comply with the County road
access requirements. According to County standards, the road is not adequate to serve the
amount of traffic anticipated. Given the condition of Rapid Creek Road, only two residential lots
could be added to the property. This issue must be resolved before the application is approved.
Once the other deficiencies are corrected, staff would recommend approval subject to resolution
of compliance with the County Road standards.
Smith asked what the other deficiencies were. Miklo stated that storm water management,
sanitary sewage treatment, review by the Solon Fire Department and a number of fairly minor
technical deficiencies.
Eastham asked about the final deficiency listed on the report under "Sanitary Sewer." He asked
how substantial this deficiency is. Miklo stated that water quality is a concern and it would need
to be approved by the DNR.
Brooks opened public discussion.
Glen Meisner (MMS Consultants) spoke on behalf of the applicant John Oaks. They feel that
they have resolved all deficiencies even though the staff has not had a chance to review the
revised plat yet. The deficiencies that have not been addressed are the letter from the Solon
Volunteer Fire Department (they have not had a chance to respond yet) and the storm water
calculations which staff has not reviewed yet. The City and the County do encourage this kind
of cluster development and the applicant is working hard to comply with their wishes. The
clusters feature lots which are closer together with some open areas, which Johnson County
encoyrages. They would like to move the preliminary plat forward and resolving the outstanding
issues prior to going to the City Council. He said if they have to have this deferred that was ok
but not the applicant's preference.
Miklo confirmed that the applicant is willing to defer to the February 1 meeting. Meisner stated
that he would prefer to move this forward at this time but would be willing to defer.
Smith asked if the applicant was planning major improvements to the Rapid Creek Road to
account for the deficiencies that are present. Meisner responded that the plan was created
before the County passed this requirement and stated that at the time this was rezoned, the
County recognized the land as suitable for residential development. They are at the same level
of density as the County zoning ordinance permitted prior to the adoption of the road standards.
The applicant's attorney will work with the Board of Supervisors to resolve this. He cannot
commit tonight to building a new road. Koppes confirmed that there is no grandfathering in of
the density requirements. Behr confirmed that this is an issue for the County, and not for our
review. Behr feels that it is an appropriate condition to require that the issue be resolved as part
of preliminary plat approval. The County must be satisfied with the condition for the application
to move forward. The Commission would put this stipulation in the recommendation.
Bob Downer, attorney for the applicant, stated that the issue concerning the condition of the
road is what distance of Rapid Creek Road would have to be brought to the higher standard.
County staff had taken the position that the road going east would have to be brought up in
addition to the road leading to Highway 1. This would include over 5 miles of road which would
be impractical. This standard has not been enforced on subdivisions on Prairie Du Chein Road.
This is something that has to be resolved on the County level, after all other impediments have
been resolved on the City level. They would like some documentation that all deficiencies have
been met once the standards have been reached.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 10
Larry Kleinmyer (4633 Rapid Creek Road) owns property right across the road from the
development. Everything about the division is more dense than it needs to be. The nearest fire
hydrant is at the interstate, which would require the Solon Fire Department to get help from Iowa
City Fire Department to bring water into the neighborhood. The sewer system is within 400 feet
of a creek as well. The sewer system empties into the Rapid Creek S which eventually goes
into the Iowa River. He is also concerned about the traffic. He is concerned that if the road is
brought up to code, it would infringe on his land and raise his taxes. He does not have a
problem with the development, just its density. He doesn't feel that a development of this
density would benefit the community. Because of the small size of the lots, it's more of a city
setting, instead of a rural setting. He is concerned about the steep slope and storm water run
off. He currently has a well system within the 1000 foot buffer that is 137 feet deep and has
good water. He doesn't want to lose this. His understanding is that because of the proximity of
his well to the sewer system he has to sing-off on the system. He has done so. His
recommendation is not to let this go forward without at least downsizing it. He feels that money
is a poor excuse to let this go forward and eat up the natural resources.
Plahutnik asked if he was in Lyn-Den Heights or an acreage on Rapid Creek Road. Kleinmyer
stated that he has a 22-acre acreage.
Tom Bockenstedt lives south of the proposed development. As a builder, Bockenstedt is
concerned about the density of the development. In his experience, people always want more
land in favor of less. He is also concerned about public safety. He finds it interesting that the
applicant is seeking approval from the City before the County. Koppes responded, and
confirmed with Miklo, that the City must approve the application before the County can approve.
Bockenstedt confirmed with Miklo that the applicant is doing both applications simultaneously.
Freerks asked about the density requirement. Miklo responded that the County requires one
acre per lot and that there is a clustering bonus if the applicant sets aside a certain amount of
open space. The County would determine if the plan meets the County's clustering criteria.
Bockenstedt asked about the proposed size of the lots now. Miklo responded that the smallest
size is 13,500 and they range to 20,000. The typical lot in this subdivision is proposed to be
14,000 square feet. This is comparable to a typical RS-5 lot in the city.
Brooks closed public discussion.
Motion: Plahutnik moved to defer to the February 1, 2007 meeting so deficiencies and
discrepancies can be addressed before the Commission votes. Eastham seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
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. '
Westberg stated that this item was deferred to address discrepancies and deficiencies in the
application. These have since been addressed and approved by staff. Staff has recommended
approval subject to approval of legal papers and construction drawings.
Brooks opened and closed public discussion.
Motion: Smith motioned to approve subject to legal papers and construction drawings approval.
Koppes seconded.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 11
Motion carried unanimously.
Conditional Use Item
Discussion of an application submitted to Johnson County by Mary Beth Hackbarth for a
conditional use permit to operate a photo studio business on approximately 40 acres of property
located at 3104 Charles Drive NE in Fringe Area A.
Westberg stated that the applicant has indicated that it would only be in use for a few hours a
day and otherwise business would take place off-site. The Johnson County Unified
Development Ordinance asked the City to make a recommendation on anything inside the
Fringe Area. The property is well outside the City's long-term growth occupancy. As a home
occupation, it would be allowed as an accessory use if the property were in the city. Staff
recommends a letter to the Johnson County Board of Adjustment recommending approval.
Koppes asked if the permit goes with the person if she moves, or stays with the property. Miklo
does not know how the County deals with this but feels that this is irrelevant because if the area
was annexed, this type of activity could be done without a permit.
Mary Beth Hackbarth stated that this is a hobby of hers outside of her teaching at the West
Branch Elementary School and she asks for approval so she can make a little money with her
hobby.
Brooks opened and closed public discussion.
Motion: Smith motion to approve. Eastham seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Zonino Code Amendment
Discussion of an amendment to Title 14, Chapter 5, Article J, Flood Plain Management
Standards, to adopt the re-formatted flood insurance rate map.
Miklo stated that this is a housekeeping matter. The City is required to refer to this map in the
local code and this amendment would do this.
Brooks opened and closed public discussion.
Motion: Eastham motioned to approve. Koppes seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Other Items
Discussion of Planning and Zoning Work Program.
The Commission agree to set the work program as follows: 1) subdivision regulations,
2) Central Planning District, 3) review the CB-2 standards, 4) CB-10 standards 5) Southeast
Planning District, 5) review of sign ordinance, 6) land mark trees and 7) update open space
plan/ordinance.
Consideration of the December 21, 2006 Meetino Minutes
Motion: Smith motioned to approve. Eastham seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 12
Adiournment
Motion: Smith motioned to approve. Eastham seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Minutes submitted by Megan Weiler.
C
o
'iij
.!!!
E
E
o
u'E
0)0 In
CCJ 0)
.- (I) C
ga: ~
N(I)<D (I)
06g8 ::i
O)evN ev
c"C E
.- C
C (I) ...
C ~ 0
..!!<( u..
a..
>-
~
U
;
.2
.e
~<D W W W W w
E!: >< >< "- >< >< >< >< >< >< "- "- >< >< >< >< "- >< "- >< >< >< >< ><
tJ)1l) 0 0 0 0 0
,0
I-
C
0
Cco
Co >< >< >< w >< >< w >< >< >< >< >< >< w 0 >< >< >< 0 >< >< >< ><
ev- "- "- "-
.ell) 0 0 0
tJ)0
c
~
'2
~
:::JO W W W W
.e..:- >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
ev- "- "- "- "-
_Il) 0 0 0 0
a.. 0
;:
c:
0
+-
ro
L-
'0. In
>< (I)
w c.,....
E c.o w >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< w >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
0- "- "-
L- ~:g 0 0
Q)
I::: u.i
Q)
E
ro
Z
In
~
"'co
(1)0 >< >< >< >< >< w >< >< >< w >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
(1)_ "- "-
"'Il) 0 0
u..o
<i.
E
ev
.e..:-
~ ..:- I I I I I I I >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
In-
evil) I I I I I I I
WO
U
In
~
00 W
0..:- >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
...- "-
m:g 0
a:i
<0 <0 <0 <0 <0
<0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 0 0 0 0 0 <0 <0
<0 0 <0 0 <0 <0 0 0 <0 0 <0 0 <0 0 <0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N ~ N N 0 0 0
0 N 0 N 0 0 N ~ 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N ~ "- -- "- -- N 0 N
Q) ~ "- N "- N ~ "- ~ "- N "- N "- N -- 0> <0 I'- I'- ..... -- C\I "-
...... 0> "- <0 "- 0 co L{) "- 0 "- I'- "- ..... L{) ..... ..... C\I 0 C\I co -- L{)
ro L{) ..... ~ ..... C\I ~ C\I ..... ..... ..... ~ C\I (\') ..... t:: C\I "- "- "- "- "- "- ..... ..... .....
0 "- -- "- -- "- "- "- "- "- "- -- "- 0 0 ..... ..... C\I C\I "- "- "-
..... ..... C\I C\I (\') V V L{) <0 <0 I'- I'- co co 0> 0> ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... C\I C\I
c
o
'Vi
,!a
E
E
o
()
0')
.S:
Cr--
00
No
"ON
C -
rooo
g>~.q-
'c ro ';;;
C:::lO')
ro C ro
a:~a.
I/)
C)
C
;l
CI)
CI)
:E
iij
E
...
.e
C
J::
~c.o W w
ES2 >< >< >< - >< >< >< - >< >< ><
cnU') 0 0
,0
I-
C
0
Coo W W W
Co 0 >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
ns- - - -
J::U') 0 0 0
cnO
ci
~
'C
-
::::10 W W W
J::~ >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
ns- - - -
_U') 0 0 0
0..0
;:
c
0
..
ro
....
'Q. I/)
X CI)
W c......
E C.O >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
0-
.... ~:g
Q)
t: u.i
Q)
E
ro
Z
I/)
~
"'00
C1)0 >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
C1)_
...U')
1.1.0
<
E
ns
J::~
-~ I I I >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
1/)-
nsU') I I I
WO
()
I/)
~
00
O~ >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< 0
...-
m:g
cO
<0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
Q) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N 0 0
..... ~ N N ~ N N ~ N N - - N N
ro - - - - - - ('I) to - -
0 ('I) ..... ..... 1.0 ..... ..... "'It to N ..... ..... m N
..... N ..... ..... ..... ('I) ..... ..... - N .....
0 - -
- - - - - - - - ..... N - -
N N "'It 1.0 ..... ..... to m ..... ..... ..... ..... N
"'C
Q)
(J)
::J
U
X
W
..........~
c c c
Q) Q) Q)
(J) (J) (J)
~.o.o
a..<(<(
.. II II II
>- W
Q) -
~><OO