Loading...
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