Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-15-2007 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, February 15, 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. Comprehensive Plan Item: Public hearing on an amen.dment of the Comprehensive Plan, South Central District Plan, to discuss commercial development scenarios for Ruppert Road. D. Rezoning Item: REZ07-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Community Commercial (CC2) zone to Intensive Commercial (C11) zone for approximately 12 acres of property located on Ruppert Road. E. Election of Officers F. Other Items G. Consideration of the February 1, 2007 Meeting Minutes H. Adjournment Informal Formal City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 15, 2007 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo Re: REZ07-0001 and Comprehensive Plan, South Central District, Amendment As discussed at the February 1 meeting, staff has prepared the following text for the South Central District Plan for Aviation Commerce Park North. The intent is to allow consideration of two land use scenarios for Ruppert Road, either retail commercial or intensive commercial, depending on street access and visibility. The text amendment would appear on page 24 where the plan discusses commercial development. The map showing the Future Land Use Scenario for the South Central District would also be amended to depict this change. The City has developed Aviation Commerce Park North on land that is no longer needed for the Municipal Airport. The property has street access from Ruppert Road with Highway 1 to the north and Riverside Drive to the east. Much of Aviation Commerce Park North is not visible from Highway 1 and therefore commercial land uses that do not require high visibility are appropriate. The western part of Aviation Commerce Park North is adjacent to Westport Plaza, an existing retail center. There may be the possibility of improving street access and visibility of the western part of Ruppert Road to allow commercial uses, such as retail, that rely on street visibility. In absence of improved visibility and access, commer:cial uses that do not require high visibility would be an appropriate alternative. South Central District Future Land Use Scenario Revised February 2007 Revised May 2005 [==:J Single-family Residential lIB Medium Density Residential .. Manufactured Housing ~ Small Apartments [:==J PubliliPrivate Open Space [==:J Vacant ~ Waterways 1101 uta FT. I I t N I .. Mixed Use Commercial [:J Office Park/Commercial .. Retail/Community Commercial .. Intensive or Highway Commercial .. Industrial/Manufacturing [==:J Airport ~ Public ServicesJInstitutional DEPARTMENT OF PlANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, CIlY OF IOWA CI1Y Preliminary MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1,2007 -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: Wally Plahutnik, Beth Koppes, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Terry Smith, Bob Brooks, Dean Shannon STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Glenn Siders (Southgate Development, P.O. Box 1907, Iowa City), Allan Axeen (HACAP Properties Housing Supervisor, 706 10th Avenue A, Coralville), Glen Meisner (1917 S. Gilbert Street), Larry Kleinmyer (4633 Rapid Creek Road) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council action): Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-2, of REZ06-00028: an application submitted by the 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 subject to a conditional zoning agreement addressing the need for a transition and buffer for the adjacent residential zone. Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, of SUB04-00011: 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 Road NE, subject to compliance with the Johnson County Road Standards. Public Discussion of Anv Item not on the Aqenda No discussion. Rezoninq/Development Item REZ06-00028: Discussion of an application submitted by the 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 said that normally, the staff would be hesitant to recommend a CC-2 zoning next to a residential zoning. Staff is recommending approval subject to several conditions. Their intention is to make this application have a positive effect on the neighborhood. Some of the concerns are lighting, intercom sound, and the visual appearance of a large paved area. Staff is also concerned that the remaining CO-1 property be visible and have good access to Broadway Street. Miklo said that staff prepared a concept plan which allows a 50 foot buffer along the south boundary of the proposed CC-2 property, which is a potential drive-thru site. The drive-thru would be a special exception to the CC-2 zoning which would have to be approved by the Board of Adjustment. The applicant is concerned that orientating the CC-2 zoning east to west to achieve the 50 foot buffer would not allow adequate space for development on the remaining office site. The staff feels that there is sufficient room for development; the plot is almost an acre in size, has good visibility, and has vehicular access to Broadway. Staff analyzed several other office spaces in the neighborhood and many were smaller in size than this proposal. Miklo said the applicant has submitted a new concept plan with a 35 foot buffer for the proposed CC-2 zone rather than the 50 foot buffer recommended by staff. He said the applicant's plan relies on a vacation of 6 feet of right of way which would require a separate application. Miklo said that with the applicant's plan, staff is concerned about access to the remaining office commercial office site in that there is no line of sight to Broadway and vehicular traffic would have to circulate around to the CC-2 site in order to get to the office. Planning and Zoning Commission February 1, 2007 Page 2 Miklo said staff recommends approval subject to the conditions designed to provide a transition and buffer for adjacent residential zone. The applicant has agreed to all the conditions except for the 50' buffer. Eastham confirmed that there is considerable CC-2 zoning to the west of the proposed lot. Eastham asked about the lighting regulations for CC-2 zoning. Miklo stated that there is a maximum foot candle at the property line and the lights must be downcast. If it's within 300 ft of residential property, the poles must be lower than 25 feet. Eastham asked about the signage regulations in CC-2 zoning. Miklo stated that as a condition to this approval, the applicant would be limited to one free standing sign on the corner nearest to the intersection. Brooks stated that the boundary line on the east was different between the applicant's map and the staff's map. Brooks asked how to determine where the boundary line is in terms of this application. Miklo responded that the concept plan that staff has proposed would extend the CC-2 zoning line 65 feet in order to get the east-west orientation. Brooks stated that if we approve the application, we are not approving enough to cover everything in the concept laid out in the staff's concept plan. Miklo stated rezoning would have to cover the larger area. Eastham asked what happens if the Commission does not approve this application. Miklo stated that the applicant could revise their plan to meet any recommended requirements or they could present their application to the City Council with a negative recommendation. Smith asked about the hashed area on the south side (which is a driveway and easement) and confirmed that the property line fell in the center of that area. Smith also confirmed that the width of the driveway is 25 feet. He stated that the setback from the property line was 48 % feet if you add the 12 % feet which represents half of the driveway to the applicant's proposed 36 foot setback. Eastham confirmed that 48 % feet is the total amount of distance between the property line and the north side of the buffer zone. Smith confirmed that the 50 foot buffer requested by staff is in addition to the 12 % feet that represents the applicant's half of the driveway. The 12 % feet of the driveway is land that the applicant cannot use. Smith stated that the letter Miklo passed out was in support of the application and asked if there was any written opposition. Miklo responded that there was not. Brooks asked if it was possible for the applicant, with the approval of the adjacent property owner, to access the back office parcel using this drive. Miklo responded that this would not be possible because of provisions in the code that would not allow commercial traffic to travel over residential property; this is something the staff would not recommend. Behr stated that it would be a zoning code violation in the sense that it would commercial use of the property to the south which is not zoned for it. Eastham stated that the Comprehensive Plan for the South District shows everything east of Broadway as apartment buildings. Eastham stated that staff had some discussion as to if the plot conforms to the comprehensive plan generally. Miklo stated that the Comprehensive Plan (and land use map) shows the area as multi-family, which was recognized as the general character of the area. The small size of the area may account for the fact that its commercial zoning was not specified. When there is a smaller space, sometimes the distinction is not shown. Also, office space is considered compatible with residential and that is perhaps why it was not indicated differently in the plan. Eastham stated that the plan calls for new development in the area, including providing a commercial development on Sycamore, south and east of this application. This would be an attractive way to include commercial zoning in the south district. There is language in the existing commercial zoning along Highway 6 may be adequate in its current state. Eastham does not read anything in the plan that calls for Planning and Zoning Commission February 1, 2007 Page 3 additional commercial development and CC-2 zoning along Highway 6. He feels that the plan calls for further commercial development along Sycamore. Smith stated that Sycamore has not been developed in this way and is mostly residential. Eastham stated that this plan is specified for an area that hasn't yet been developed. Glenn Siders, applicant with Southgate Development Services, wanted to address some comments that were made at the informal meeting. He stated that the 12 Y2 feet is an easement for use as a driveway by both properties. Their intention is to relocate the property line and give the 12 'Y2 feet to HACAP as it provides a liability for Southgate since they cannot use it. HACAP has indicated a willingness to take ownership. He said Southgate's concept plan would require obtaining a 6 foot right of way to the north from the City. There is an 8 foot trail that cuts diagonally through the property. Staff has assured them that, should the property redevelop, the trail could be rerouted at the cost of the applicant. The space would be used for infrastructure or parking. The applicant agrees that the orientation could be changed to be east-west but they feel that this would make the office lot unmarketable. Siders stated that the staff's concept plan showed a 10,000 square foot office building, except that it would only be 9,000 square foot due to restrictions on the number of parking stalls that would be able to be located in this lot. Applicant stated that they would not be able to make the 50 foot buffer work, but are offering 35-38 feet of buffer (as the lot is not square). The applicant does not see why residential housing is allowed on the second floor of commercial lots but not across the buffer. He feels that the wall would reflect light back up into the second floor housing. The City's concept plans have only one access point to Broadway Street, directly across from the driveway on the west. The applicant has agreed to do this, however nothing in the plan limits them to one driveway on the property. The City wants to share an access point with the property to the east. He doesn't feel that having two driveways is any less awkward than the plan that the City has presented. He thinks that signs would help to alleviate this awkwardness. The applicant stated that they have the right to put a second entrance to the east in but that they do not want to do this because the City is trying to limit them to one driveway. The Board of Adjustment might set other requirements for them. Siders stated that if the application was not approved, there may be three other options for development of the land. 1) The engineering department has stated that the lot could have two access points off Broadway, a minimum of 50 feet apart and a minimum of 6 feet off the property line. If both structures were raised and the property was level, there could be a 23,000 square foot, 143 parking stall facility that would be a CO-1 user. This is a higher parking ratio than the 1 per 300 parking ratio required but there is no maximum set. This does not show accessing the current joint HACAP/Cornet use. 2) Multiple buildings with 26,668 square feet (single story) with 120 parking spaces (1 per 200 ratio) and using the existing driveway. If the City does not allow use of the existing driveway, a third lane could be added for a maximum of 36 feet from the current 25 feet. The addition to the north of the driveway would allow the driveway to still be used. 3) This scenario shows a possible use for the lot under the current zoning restrictions if the law office were to stay in place. The applicant would place a 2-story structure, 27,500 square feet, 93 (1 per 300 ratio) parking stalls. The driveway to the south would probably have to be reconstructed or another access to Broadway could be constructed complying to the regulations of the City. The applicant is more than happy to stick with one access point to improve traffic but they cannot understand why their application is any more obtrusive than any other proposed use in the current zoning. Koppes asked if all three plans could be built on the property as it is zoned today. The applicant stated that all three of these options could be built under the current CO-1 zoning. Miklo stated that the City's access management standards would not allow these to be built as shown. He stated that the City would require that the access points line up and that there not be multiple access points. He also stated that second story residential use is not guaranteed in CC-2 zoning, but rather is granted by special exception. Through that process the Board of Adjustment examines the use on the ground floor to determine whether the quality of life would be acceptable. Miklo stated that the trail is also a storm water area with piping that the City purchased an easement for. He does not feel that it would be Planning and Zoning Commission February 1, 2007 Page 4 easy to relocate the trail Siders also stated that his three scenarios do not depict the 10 foot buffer that is required for all CO-1 zones. Eastham asked if Southgate reviewed the Comprehensive Plan before applying for this rezoning and determined that it was compatible. Siders answered that he had and stated that he does not think this application is incompatible with the current development. He doesn't think that it would .be a wise development to redevelop the area with more apartments considering the scattered housing task force's recent deliberations. Plahutnik stated that he does not see the disadvantage of building something on the lot that conforms with the current zoning since the applicant was able to present scenarios that would be compliant. The applicant responded that something needs to happen with the property after the apartment building is raised and that he was simply showing different alternatives. Shannon asked what would be the problem with taking the other 12 Y:z feet of the driveway to add to the buffer. Siders stated that they have an access agreement with HACAP at this point and that HACAP has the right to use it. It is also a liability to have the 12 Y:z feet and it works better for HACAP to use it. Smith confirmed that the buffer is just shy of 36 feet and in the staff's proposal the orientation is changed 90 degrees to gain an additional 14 feet of buffer. Staff's concept uses 65 feet of the property adjacent to the lot on the east. We would be losing 65 feet to gain 14 feet. Miklo confirmed that the other gain is clearer vehicular access and visibility from Broadway Street. The applicant stated that they would be willing to look at another access point if the current access point is not clearly accessible. AI Axeen with HACAP Properties stated that there was no discussion between Southgate and HACAP until after Southgate's first hearing with the Commission. He stated that the property has reached its usable life and that any other development will likely cost more than its worth. The HACAP property will likely only be able to be used for another 7-9 years. He has spoken with the tenants and they had no objections, and are generally pleased. He stated that most of his tenants do not have vehicles and he likes the possibility of his tenants being able to walk to work as transportation is an issue. Most of his tenants do not have any income at all. Their objective is to get their tenants into permanent housing within two years. He feels that the redevelopment of the area is a positive change for the tenants. Without the 12 Y:z feet from the driveway, it would be necessary to reconfigure the driveway to allow vehicles to be able to back out. He confirmed that the City of Iowa City still owns the property and HACAP is buying the property on contract. He was involved in the City government of Coralville for several years and looked at their current code. It stated that there could be up to 50 feet for these transitions. He feels that with the wall and the right type of foliage that 25 feet would be sufficient. He doesn't feel it would provide any greater noise and light than is currently provided from the highway. He says that the prospective user will be a great neighbor and that they have dealt with them before in Cedar Rapids and various other properties. Freerks asked if his statements were on behalf of HACAP or himself. He has cleared the non-objection with the HACAP Executive Director and speaks on behalf of both himself and HACAP. He believes strongly in affordable housing and having housing available for all types of people. Eastham asked if it mattered to him whether the employment opportunities were on the west side of Broadway instead of the east. Axeen stated it did not. Eastham asked if it mattered if the property was developed in another way that provided employment opportunities. Axeen stated that that would be agreeable to him as well. Brooks closed public discussion. Freerks made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditional zoning agreement which includes the six items stated in the staff report including: 1. Providing a buffer strip between the CC-2 property and RM-44 property of no less than fifty feet wide to include a minimum 5 foot tall masorJry wall located within the northern 10 feet of the buffer, and evergreen and deciduous over story trees and shrubs plantings to a minimum S3 standard. Planning and Zoning Commission February 1, 2007 Page 5 2. Closure of the Hollywood Boulevard access point to the CO-1 property and use of a shared access point. The shared access should utilize the existing access for 1902 Broadway and extend to the CO-1 property but shall not infringe on the 50 foot buffer. 3. A landscaped 20' setback from the property line along Broadway Street. 4. Limit of one free-standing sign located in the northwest corner of the property. No building signs on the south or east sides facing the residential development. Other fascia and monument signs permitted per the code. 5. S3 screening of the remaining CO-1 parcel along its southern and eastern property boundaries or alternatively along the east boundary of the CC-2 parcel. 6. The building and canopy should be of a quality of design appropriate for a transition to residential zoning, including features such as stone, standing seam metal roof and neutral colors. Shannon seconded. Behr confirmed that this motion is to rezone the .91 acres and the additional 65 feet from the other property. Freerks confirmed that this was the intention of her motion. Smith feels that he cannot support the motion because of the 50 foot buffer which goes against the applicant's wishes and the neighbor who would be affected by this is in support of the plan. Smith is a resident of this neighborhood and supports the applicant's proposal as is. Koppes feels that she cannot support the motion with the 50 foot buffer and feels that 35 feet is sufficient so there is no reason to force them to 50 feet. She is a resident of the neighborhood as well. Eastham feels that he cannot support the motion because he does not feel that extension of CC-2 zoning east of Broadway is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and the district plan in this area. He feels that there is adequate CC-2 zoning and has not heard anything that indicates that there is a compelling reason for increasing the amount of CC-2 zoning in the district. There are excellent planning principles that suppo~t separating residential and community commercial zoning at least by streets. There are only a few instances of residential and CC zoning being adjacent. He drove through the area and feels that establishing the proposed use will substantially change the potential enjoyment for residential properties on the east of Broadway. There will be much more traffic and lighting and the character of the corner will change. He feels that other development options would be much more compatible with the existing residential uses. He recommends a review of the comprehensive plan to see if there is some overall reason for adding CC-2 zoning in this general location. He doesn't feel it is a good idea to rezone on this ad hoc basis. Plahutnik cannot support the motion because he feels that it is zoned CO-1 because it is transitional into residential. He doesn't feel that it is a zoning principle to grant zoning simply because there is a buyer that requests a certain type of zoning. Especially for the most intensive use allowed in the CC-2 zone. If rezoning was appropriate, he has no problem with the plan that has been submitted. He agrees that 35 feet is sufficient and feels that the applicant has made a substantial effort to increase it and create as few problems for the residents as possible. He said that he would consider rezoning if the RM-44 becomes unusable but not at this time. Behr said perhaps it would be best to vote on this motion and follow-up with an alternative motion if it fails. Freerks feels that this application does not require a change to the Comprehensive Plan and that the plan currently supports this. She feels that the buffer should be as large as we can make it to minimize the effects on the residential properties. She supports the rezoning but is concerned about the transition to the RM-44, the visibility of the remaining office lot, and the viability of the CO-1 to the east. Motion failed 1-6, Freerks voting in favor. Smith made a motion to approve the application as submitted subject to the same six conditional zoning agreement items in the previous motion except for a change in the first point regarding the buffer requirement to a 35 foot minimum instead of 50 feet. Koppes seconded. Planning and Zoning Commission February 1 , 2007 Page 6 Smith stated that he agrees with Eastham that redeveloping with apartments would be favorable if it were not for the heavy traffic of Highway 6. We want to move the community commercial zoning to along the Highway 1 and Highway 6 corridors. In this specific site, he can see value in the application as submitted. Freerks feels that this will be a good development. She would like to see a larger buffer but feels that employment opportunities are important. She hopes the redevelopment is done well and is good for the area. Koppes thanked Southgate for working with HACAP Properties in this effort. Brooks sympathizes with the staff's efforts in getting to this point but he feels that there are other buffers that are substantial enough (masonry wall, foliage, and highway traffic). He prefers that this lot remain office but that it seems reasonable to have commercial on both sides of the highway. He hopes that the access points can be worked out to make the remaining office plot viable. Eastham stated that he does not disagree with having commercial along an access road, but he feels that the plan as it exists does not intend that in this area. It would be necessary to look at a plan revision if warranted. He still will not support the motion. Motion carried 5-2, Eastham and Plahutnik voting no. Koppes would like to add discussion of a revision of the comprehensive plan to the work schedule so it is not forgotten. She feels that it will have to be addressed at some point since the apartment buildings will not be viable for many more years. Brooks stated that it would not be a high priority, but could be added to the work program. REZ07-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 12 acres of property located on Ruppert Road. Miklo stated that this issue area was rezoned recently. The Comprehensive Plan was amended to change the area from Intensive Commercial to Community Commercial zone. The original plan had identified the area to the north which is currently zoned Intensive Commercial as appropriate for more retail uses. The thought was that they might be able to move to the south to the CI-1 zone and that the CI-1 zone might be used for development of uses associated with the airport. This did not occur. Wal-Mart approached the City to buy the property. It was thought that bringing in a major anchor retailer would spur development throughout the entire area along the highway. Wal-Mart did not purchase the land. There is now a question if Ruppert Road is viable as a CC-2 use. There is interest in CI-1 wholesale warehouse type users in the area. This will require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is also looking at improving the area to the west by changing the streets to improve visibility to spur redevelopment. Another item on the agenda is to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that the eastern area of 12 acres be rezoned CI-1. It is suggested that this is not voted on tonight until the Comprehensive Plan is addressed. Smith confirmed that the road rerouting that Wal-Mart had proposed is not on the table at this point. Miklo said that is correct. Freerks stated that there was discussion at the informal meeting about rezoning the entire area. Miklo stated that this is not on the table at this point but may be a possibility at some future point. He suggested the Comprehensive Plan explain options in this area. CC-2 may be appropriate and viable if it is possible to have better access to the area. Planning and Zoning Commission February 1 , 2007 Page 7 Koppes stated that Miklo said at the informal meeting that the road would not be a long term fix and confirmed that we would want to zone CI-1 now. She stated that we would not want to put a restaurant back in an area which it was not zoned for. Freerks stated that the Commission should be outlined in the Comprehensive Plan would be the long term intentions for the lot and that they should rezone depending on what happens with the Comprehensive Plan. . Miklo stated that the staff recommends that the area to the west stay CC-2 until the road situation is addressed, which could be within the next few years. If that did happen, the area would have to be rezoned back to CC-2 and this would take away any stability in the zoning. Koppes stated that she did not want to see someone buy land and build something compliant with CC-2, and then change it in the future to CI-1. Miklo stated that the City controls the area and the sales and that they will know what is going to be viable based on larger interest. Miklo stated that he doesn't anticipate that the land would be bought by anyone using a CC-2 zoning because of the poor access. Plahutnik asked if it would be possible to resubmit the zoning with a more long term vision. Miklo stated that because of the current offer staff would recommend the CI-1 zone for the eastern area and that in the long term the western area along Ruppert Road be studied for the most appropriate zone. Smith confirmed that CC-2 exists all along Ruppert Road and out to Highway 218 and north to Highway 1. Miklo responded that this was true with the exception of the school district. Smith asked if this would create a spot zoning situation. This would create 3 contiguous CC-2 zones whereas before there was one large CC-2 zone. Miklo stated that because the area is over 12 acres that it would not be a spot zoning. The plan intends large retailer development along the highway due to the increased visibility of these properties. Smith confirmed that this motion should be tabled until the Comprehensive Plan is discussed. Behr confirmed that at the next meeting, the Commission would not be able to rezone more to CI-1 than is being contemplated tonight. Behr also stated that when the purchase agreements are negotiated, the buyer conditions the sale on the land being rezoned. Council then approves the purchase agreement but does not authorize the zoning. The rezoning must go through the normal process. Brooks closed public discussion. Smith made a motion to defer to the February 15 meeting. Plahutnik seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Comprehensive Plan Item Setting a public hearing for February 15 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the South Central District Plan to discuss commercial development scenarios for Ruppert Road. Smith made a motion to approve. Plahutnik seconded. Motion carried unanimously. 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 Road NE. Miklo stated that a revision plat was received and reviewed by the City engineers. They have approved the plan subject to approval of the waste water treatment system by the DNR. A letter has been received by the Solon Fire Department stating that they would serve the area. The only outstanding issue is that this application does not comply with the County road requirements but this is not a consideration for the City to make. Staff recommends approval subject to DNR approval of the waste water treatment system Planning and Zoning Commission February 1, 2007 Page 8 and resolution of the County road requirements (either having the requirements waived or the applicant complying with them). Smith confirmed that the Solon Fire Department has stated that they can serve the area but would need the support of the Iowa City Fire Department because there are no hydrants nearby. Brooks opened public discussion. Glen Meisner, on behalf of the applicant, stated that they have no further comments except to say that they have worked with the City to remove any problems with their application. Larry Kleinmyer stated that he has come up with some numbers to give the Commission an idea of the scope of this development. The daily usage of water goes up to a maximum of 45,000 gallons per day. On an aqua system, this water would be drawn from under the aquifer that Kleinmyer is currently drawing from at 135 feet. He questions how long the systems can handle this kind of demand. His well is within the 1000 feet boundary of their proposed well. He is afraid that his well will dry up so that" this development can have water. He is also concerned with where the run-off will go--over 11,000 gallons of sewer per day. The original proposal was a two mound system which would be on the lot closest to Rapid Creek, directly across from his well, which he feels was insensitive. Now they are proposed a larger, single mound system. Kleinmyer has doubts that a single mound system can handle 11 ,000 gallons per day and be in compliance this close to the creek and an open pit quarry. He feels that the development could be scaled back to make it more user-friendly for everyone involved. He was not able to get the traffic count from 2005 but he is aware that as of now, the traffic flow is over 1000 cars per day. This new development would likely add 200-300 cars per day. He feels that replacing the road would be a tax burden to him but that he would not see any benefit. He is asking the Commission to reconsider this application. Land value has increased significantly since this plan started in 1996. At the time, 1-3 acres per house was adequate. He still supports this. He feels that the total revenue that Mr. Oaks can make now is at least as much, if not more, than he could make then. He does not feel that Mr. Oaks would have to put down 38 houses just to make a profit. A development like this puts a burden on natural resources and jeopardizes his livelihood. Freerks asked about having to sign off on the mound system. Kleinmyer stated that he must sign off on this system because it is within 1000 feet of his well system. The DNR can override his denial. He has consulted with MMS and has told them that there was nothing to discuss because their plans were unacceptable to him. If the development was scaled back, each home could have individual sewer systems. He feels that the Commission's input has an effect on how the County treats this application. He understands that clustering is the preferred development method in Johnson County but he feels that this area is too small to merit this size of a development. Kleinmyer asked that this motion be denied so that the applicant can make this development more user-friendly. Smith asked if Kleinmyer had talked to the DNR about their requirements. Kleinmyer stated that he called Ames but they did not have the 2005 traffic count on Rapid Creek Road but in 2002 it was 940 and has increased significantly. Kleinmyer stated that he understands that the property is zoned residential and he is not trying to stop the development process, but felt it should be at a density appropriate for the site. Brooks closed public discussion. Brooks asked Behr about the Commission authority and responsibility in this application. Brooks is concerned about the sanitary sewer system's effect on the area and the environment. He would like to make it clear when the application is sent forward that this is an important consideration that should be handled properly. Behr stated that the scope of review is the Fringe Area Review which does not get into the details and relies on the County. Miklo stated that an area that is already zoned and meets the requirements for a subdivision an application should be approved. There is no question that the road Planning and Zoning Commission February 1, 2007 Page 9 requirements are not met. They must improve Rapid Creek Road or get an exemption from the County. The other concern is waste water treatment, which is why the staff recommends DNR approval be a condition to this application. Plahutnik asked if a vote was required tonight before the application goes is approved by the DNR. Miklo stated that the application deadline expires tonight. Plahutnik does not like the idea of putting in a condition that is not met before the Commission approves it. The Commission asked Meisner about the status of the DNR permit. Meisner responded that a preliminary plat is a planning tool to allow you to go on to the next step of design. The DNR would not give them a permit unless they completed the entire design. He feels that this is an unfair requirement at this stage. This is a tool to help them to move forward. The cost of designing a system like this is significant because it takes a lot of time and skill. They have qualified staff that has designed many septic systems in the past. When the final plat comes back, the whole system will be permitted and installed to those standards. There will be a monitoring system to meet DNR regulations of testing, monitoring, and maintaining. Eastham asked if there were other developments in the area that were generating similar amounts of waste that were using this same system. Miklo stated that he could not answer that question with any expertise. Brooks stated that the technical requirements of the Fringe Area Agreement have been met with the exception of the waste water treatment and road standards. Behr agreed and feels that it is reasonable to put the DNR approval. Smith confirmed that the final plat would come before the City of Iowa City again because it falls under the Fringe Area Agreement. Smith made a motion to approve subject to approval by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources concerning the waste water disposal system and the application meeting or being exempted from the road standards of the County. Eastham seconded. Freerks suggested that Kleinmyer should contact the DNR and write letters with neighbors to get this issue heard. Smith shares those concerns. He thinks that the application should go forward to the next stage to see what the technical specifications are and that this approval by no means suggests that the final application would be approved. Eastham stated that he would be more confident if the City's interests were being considered and protected by the DNR. Because the sewer water would drain into Rapid Creek which eventually goes to the Iowa River about the City's water treatment plant. Plahutnik thinks that this development is something that the County should not consider because the residents of the county have chosen to live there because it is a rural and relatively undeveloped area. This development significantly changes the county. He understands that this is under the purview of the County but does not like the fact that all he can do is confirm that the applicant has checked off all the necessary items. Motion carried 7-0. Other Items Consideration of the Januarv 18. 2007 Meetinq Minutes Smith made a motion to approve as amended. Eastham seconded. Adiournment Meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Minutes submitted by Megan Weiler. s/pcd/minutes/p&z/2-1-07.doc