Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-01-2007 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, February 26,2007 -7:30 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Lobby Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street Thursday, March 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 Item: REZ07 -00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Martha Greer for a rezoning from Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone to Medium Density Single Family (RS8) zone for approximately 5.75 acres of property located on South Governor Street. D. Development Items: 1. SUB07 -00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Todd and Debra Hahn for a preliminary plat of Mount Prospect Addition Part IX, a 16-lot, 5.21 acre residential subdivision located on Lakeside Drive, west of Amber Lane. (45-day limitation period: March 26, 2007) 2. SUB07-00002/SUB07-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by American Bank & Trust for a preliminary plat and tinal plat of Olde Towne Village Part 2, a 3-lot, 1.82-acre commercial subdivision located south of Rochester Avenue and east of Scott Boulevard. (45-day limitation period: March 29, 2007) E. Election of Officers F. Other Items G. Consideration of the February 15, 2007 Meeting Minutes H. Adjournment Informal Formal 5T AFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Sarah Walz Item: REZ07-00002 S. Governor Date: March 1, 2007 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Martha Greer 530 S. Governor Suzanne Bentler 520 S. Governor Contact: Martha Greer, 319-338-9362 Requested Action: Rezoning from RNS-12 to RS-8 Purpose: Rezoning of a portion of S. Governor Street from RNS-12 to RS-8. Location: Both Sides of S. Governor Street south of 419 and 412 S. Governor and the adjacent portions of Bowery Street, including 817-922 Bowery Street. Size: Approximately 5.75 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Residential (RNS-12) North: Residential (RNS-20) South: Residential (RNS-8) East: Residential (RS-5) West: Residential (RNS-12) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: Residential File Date: January 27, 2007 March 12, 2007 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: A number of property owners are seeking to rezone an area along both sides of S. Governor Street, south of 416 and 419 S. Governor and up to and including adjacent properties on Bowery Street, from Neighborhood Residential Stabilization (RNS-12) to Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8). This area was previously part of the 2000 rezoning from RM-12 to RNS-12 (formerly RNC-12 under the old code), which included properties along S. Lucas and S. Governor Streets. Since that rezoning a number of properties in the area have been converted to single-family uses. Based on 2 the attached petition, the applicants for this rezoning have the support of a majority of the property owners in the area proposed for rezoning. The applicants are seeking to rezone this area in part to preserve the current balance of rental and owner-occupied housing by ensuring that additional duplex conversions do not take place. The applicants view the rezoning as a more appropriate progression from the RS-5 zone on Summit Street to the RNS-12 on Lucas Street. Most of the area south of Bowery, between Lucas and Summit, was re-zoned RS-8 in 2000. The applicants cite that RS-8 zoning as an important factor in stabilizing the neighborhood by drawing more owner-occupants of houses and encouraging more rehabilitation of existing houses south of Bowery (examples including 625, 647, and 652 S. Governor). ANAL YSIS: The purpose of the RNS-12 zone is "to stabilize certain existing residential neighborhoods by preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of these neighborhoods. Provisions in this zone prevent the conversion or redevelopment of single-family uses to multi- family uses. However, existing conforming multi-family uses retain their conforming status when rezoned to RNS-12." In addition to allowing single-family houses, the RNS-12 zone allows duplexes. As stated in the zoning ordinance, "The intent of the RS-8 zone is primarily to provide for the development of small lot single-family dwellings. The regulations are intended to create, maintain and promote livable neighborhoods. The regulations allow some flexibility of dwelling types to provide housing opportunities for a variety of household types. Special attention should be given to site design to ensure the development of quality neigh~orhoods." While the RNS-12 and RS-8 zones are very similar in that they are intended to be single-family in character, the RS-8 zone has more restrictive standards with regard to two-family and multi-family uses (see Table 1 below). While both zones allow two-family uses (duplexes)'as provisional uses, the RS-8 zone allows duplexes only on corner lots with a minimum lot width of 70 feet and a lot area of 8,700 square feet. In the RNS-12 zone duplexes are allowed on interior lots that are just 45 feet wide and with a lot area of 6,000 square fee (see Table 2 below)t. Attached single family dwellings and zero-lot line dwellings are allowed as provisional uses in RS-8 zones on corner lots, but the RNS-12 zone has no such provisions. Accessory apartments are allowed on owner- occupied, single-family properties in the RS-8, but are not allowed in the RNS-12. Both zones allow by special exception, daycare centers, education facilities, and religious/private group assembly uses. Table 1. Residential land uses allowed in the RNS-12 and RS-8 zones RNS-12 RS-8 Yes Yes No On corner lots onl No On corner lots onl Yes On corner lots onl Yes Yes No On owner-occu lots No* No "At the time property is rezoned to RNS-12, any uses that were conforming with regard to use and minimum lot area per unit requirements under the previous zoning designation shall be considered conforming with regard to use and minimum lot area per unit 3 requirements under the RNS-12 zone. In this rezoning, none of the existing multi-family properties are conforming in the RNS-12 and none would be conforming in the RS-8 zone. Table 2. Dimensional Requirements for Duplexes in the RNS-12 and RS-8 Zone Lot size Area/U n it Lot width provisions RS-8 8,700 4,350 70 corner lots only RNS-12 6,000 3,000 45 none With any rezoning, it is important to consider the number and types of nonconformities that would be created. If a rezoning would create a large number or proportion of non-co'nformities, it may be difficult to achieve compliance with the new zoning designation and may prevent property owners of nonconforming uses from expanding their buildings or uses. Thirty (30) properties are included in the area proposed for rezoning. Of these, twenty-four (24) are currently single-family units (15 owner-occupied and 9 rentals). According to the City's rental permit system, four (4) properties have duplex permits 1 and three (3) have multi-family permits. All of the existing duplexes within the area are located on interior lots and would therefore become nonconforming uses in the RS-8 zone. The nonconforming status for the properties would not prevent them from continuing to operate as they currently are (including occupancy numbers), but would preclude enlargement of the use and, in the case of destruction or damage to the extent of more than 75% of the assessed value of the structure, would prevent reconstruction of the nonconforming use. The property at 520 S. Governor belongs to one of the applicants, has already been converted to a single family unit and will allow its duplex permit to lapse, but will retain its right to rent an apartment attached to the garage. All of the property owners of the existing duplexes have indicated their support for the rezoning. Three properties within the area proposed for rezoning have multi-family rental permits. None of these properties were conforming at the time the area was rezoned to RNS-12 (due to the minimum lot area requirements per dwelling unit). The proposed RS-8 rezoning would not change their status nor their right to continue operating as a multi-family use. As the charts below suggest, the area proposed for rezoning is predominantly single-family in character, with a balance of rental to owner-occupied housing at 53% to 47% respectively. This would seem to allow for a variety of affordable housing (rental and owner-occupied), while preserving the single-family character. l\i\J~i-fanily 10% Land use by lot 1 The property at 520 S. Governor, which belongs to one of the applicants, currently has a duplex permit. The property is in the process of being renovated to a single-family use and will allow its permit to lapse. This property is counted in the above paragraph as one of the 23 single-family units. 4 Under the current zoning code adopted in December 2006, both the RNS-12 and the RS-8 zone have the same occupancy standard, allowing a maximum of three (3) unrelated persons per dwelling unit. Eleven of the rental properties in the area proposed for rezoning have one or more units with a maximum occupancy of four (4) unrelated people, which was the occupancy limit allowed under the previous zoning code. All eleven properties currently have nonconforming residential occupancies in the RNS-12 zone. These properties would continue operating with their same nonconforming status in the RS-8 zone, retaining their legal nonconforming rights with regard to occupancy. The code provides that if any rental permit for such a property is "discontinued, abandoned, revoked, or cancelled" that dwelling unit must come into compliance with the current occupancy standards. Any properties that do not currently have rental permits will be subject to the new maximum of three unrelated persons under both the RNS-12 and the RS-8. Further, if any of these properties change their use-for example from a duplex to single family use-they must come into compliance with the current occupancy rate and may not revert to the former (higher) occupancy rate. Both zones have the same dimensional requirements for single-family residences: 5,000 square foot minimum lot area width a lot width of 45 feet. Currently 16 properties in the area do not meet the minimum lot width requirement for single-family uses. However, because vehicular access to all but a few of the properties is provided along a rear alley, a special provision for the RS-8 zone bonus density allows a reduction of the lot width requirement to 40 feet and the lot area requirement is reduced to 4,000 square feet. Under the RS-8 zone only 3 properties would be nonconforming with regard to lot width: two properties are narrower than 40 feet and one 40-foot lot lacks alley access. Information for each of the properties included in the proposed rezoning, including dimensional statistics, rental status, and alley access for all lots are included in table 3 (on'the following page). This information shows that the proposed RS-8 rezoning would increase the number of nonconforming uses by 2 (owners of all duplexes in this area support the rezoning) but would decrease the number of nonconforming lots by 9. 5 Table 3. Lot information for proposed RS-8 zone Lot Address Width Deoth Area Allev Units Permit RNS-12 RS-8 423 S. Governor ,,'ii, ,,' ;:7 40 150 6.000 ves 1 Rental 427 S. Governor 80 150 12,000 ves 1 Rental 431 S. Governor 40 150 6,000 ves 1 Nbnconformln "lot 433 S. Governor 40 150 6,000 ves 3 Rental 437 S. Governor 40 150 6,000 ves 2 Rental 441 S. Governor 40 150 6,000 ves 1 443 S. Governor 42 150 6,300 ves 1 ',ii,i,,'i 'i, Ilot' 517 S. Governor 38 150 5,700 yes 1 Rental "'. ,C,i lot, 521 S. Governor 60 150 9,000 yes 1 527 S. Governor 54 150 8,100 ves 2 Rental 529 S. Governor 50 160 8,000 yes 4 Rental 601 S. Governor 110 60 6,600 NO 1 615 S. Governor 72 150 10,800 ves 10 Rental 416 S. Governor 80 189 15,120 ves 1 Rental 426 S. Governor 42 189 7,938 ves 1 NonconformiMaloti' 428 S. Governor 39 189 7,371 ves 1 Rental Nonconforrnina .Iot Nonconformin lot 436 S. Governor 80 189 15,120 ves 2 Rental 506 S. Governor 40 189 7,560 ves 1 Nonconformlna lot ',. 510 S. Governor 80 189 15,120 ves 1 520 S. Governor 120 189 22,680 ves 2 Rental 528 S. Governor 42 189 7,938 ves 1 Nonconformina lot 530 S. Governor 42 189 7,938 ves 1 Nbr\86r\forminaJot 820 Bowerv 44 110 4,840 ves 1 Rental Nonconforminalot . Nonconforrning lot 822 Bowerv 80 110 8,800 yes 1 Rental 830 Bowerv 60 110 6,600 yes 1 Rental 904 Bowerv 60 110 6,600 yes 1 910 Bowerv 90 110 9,900 yes 1 922 Bowerv 72 110 7,920 yes 1 817 Bowerv 50 118 5,900 yes 1 Rental I 823 Bowerv 40 118 4,720 yes 1 Nonconformina lot In summary, if the proposed RS-8 zoning is approved, the three remaining duplexes within the area would become legally nonconforming. These properties could not be significantly altered in terms of new additions, which would increase their degree of nonconformity. All existing multi- family units that are currently nonconforming in the RNS-12 would remain nonconforming in the RS-8, and all would retain their nonconforming rights as described in the code. All eleven rental properties with maximum occupancies of four unrelated persons would continue to be nonconforming and would retain their legal, nonconforming rights for their maximum occupancy. Any new rental permits issued for property within the zone would comply with 'the new occupancy standards in the code, which are the same for RNS-12 and RS-8. Existing single family homes in the area could not be converted to duplexes but may be used as single-family rental properties. 6 Staff believes the requested rezoning is warranted for the following reasons: . The existing predominance of single-family uses (both rental 30% and owner occupied 47%) within the area; . Owners of the 3 remaining duplexes (property owners whose duplex use would be made non-conforming by the rezoning) have signed a petition in support of the rezoning; . There is no change .in status to the 3 multi-family properties in the area, which are already non-conforming in the RNS-12 zone; . The rezoning reduces the number of nonconforming lots due to the special bonus provisions in the RS-8 zone; . The Comprehensive Plan includes goals to preserve the integrity of existing neighborhoods and the historic nature of older neighborhoods, balancing housing types within older parts of the city. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the requested rezoning of approximately 5.75 acres located south of Burlington Street, including both sides of Governor Street beginning with those properties south of 419 and 412 Governor and adjacent portions of Bowery Street from RNS-12 to RS-8 be approved. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Statement from Applicant 3. Petition 4. Letters Approved by: ~~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ppdadminlstfrepltemplate. doc / . .-.'" .' ..... .' .' .' .' .' .' .' . ()' . . I r:- . . ".,..: / '. [I'" ::'. . .::.::.:: :. ::'.:. . ::': ::': ::': ::': ::': :.:: :~: :::. '::S':'::'. .~.'::::::::': . . . ':': . . . . . ....... .............. .~..().."3. .....~:. C\I 7 '. .',J---..- .................... ~.'.'.' ....... .... .'. ~..'" .........~..... G..... . :.::.,: ::'. .:: .:. C(1' . ::.:: ::::::::::.~:::::: '.:.Qj:':()':':'~ ". :...... . cJ::: 0 7 . .' .' .......... ...................... ......~:.~.:........ ......... a.il . . 0 .,L:... :.~:: :: .:. .:. w .....: .::.::.::.~. ':.' . .:. .:. '.:f::..::.:'w ........:. ..::: 0 . . . . r,' .' . ...oJ . . . . . . . .'. 'C])' . 01" .'. {/) . .' .' '. .' . 0 / . : . . :. . . CJ:i '. . : : .: 8-' '. : . :: ::.::.::.: . : : . :. ::'. . . :'(j' : :. . :. .: .: :., ......., 17 .... ...... . "'1- ...... ...................~...e..0l...... ..' ...... . .... I "'" 17 :.::.:. .::. :" ~'. /:: /:: : ~ :.:.:'..:.,-:'.:' ,::,::,:,:/,:,:/,:,::-::,:::,::,:::,::,:::'::':::,::1;/.:::::::.:::.::.:. .: :. '::'.:' .::.::. .: .:. :'. .::-:.: .: .:.::: .: 0 N I~." ::'. ::'. 'S' '::::::.'. .' .' . 'L'/ ~ /1/ / '/ . ': :f"::' ::'::., ..::.': ..:......:. W ~ !::=::.::.<::::..~ I~:: ~v:~~~~ I/V: ;;)/~;;r::%~t7 a: IZ:: .. . ... .... VI/ I/v/~/~v/1 ~~I/~ 1/ 1/ / /: I//: I{L ':"::"': .:: .:::::: .vv /1/ / / / '/ ~ ~// / y-/Qf~P/ 17"-..........:77/ 1/1/1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/1/1/ W %1/ 1/ I/V 1/1/ 'i/ ~..:..:..:.....:...~ /I/V//////V/ ~ L///V/I/ :.':.':':':': /1/ /V//V/~ /7/ .' .' .' :"':". // vv (L / / / J' .::.::. . .... .... . / ,- ):::::::.:: .:::.:.:.:. :::::; Z:.: <: ~~:: ::::::::. ~:::: :.:::::.::::.:.:.::: .....O......~..:...... '" .... '. .:: ::'::' ::.:: '.t'. : '.: .: '. : '. : :. :.1.' r.J '.: 'ls,:llitWn.s' :: : . : : . : : :: : :: : : :: : :: : : . : : . : : . t: .:.:.. .: ::.::::i :;) .:-::,.:.i:.\~ I. ::.:.: ..:.:..::..:.1 ::.. ::::::: .:..::::: I~:::.. .::::: :::::::: ..: :::: :/:...: :::::: :..:0:: :::::~::.::::.:::::::::: .::::. :::: ::::::. (j .:..:... / v/ ~1/1/ / / vl/VV ~ vv / /1/ ~VI/ ..,L:../V/V /[/1/ 17v~ ~i~r::v~VI/ , /;:v;<v;~ljG:~ ~ / / / / C/ /// //l !Ill ~ /lz' A'1 J1'ibj M /~ /~ III +-' 1/ i/ ~ M V /I/v - r/ Q) V 1/:~I/~/1 //v /v 1/ r~ Q) ~ l.... +-' V 1/ //1/ --- (f) I / 1/1/ / / ~ / V I/VV / l.... 7 '/ 1/ 1 ~v, ?;;jlllI/l/ ~ / /~ ~ I//VV/I/I/V / 0 t: 1/1/1/ p~fj~~~~v~ :~I/V~t/jV / / ~ V /~VI/I/I/r/,/ c l.... V / / / / vv / / V / / / / / L..L Q) 1/ / // / 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/1/ 1/1/ 1/ 1/ / 1/ 7 /lY;fI1"'J-1 /> fIIl~ > (j 0 [f / ~~jj~~j~j>::; j ~j~~~; j~~;j /~;j~ ~;~.. (!) .c 1_ / /1/ /1/ / / /// / / / //VI/ ///VV / // Vv / +-' :J C~ 0 ~ If (f) ~ , ,- I ~ .. ~' .... lS 3~OOO Z ~ ..... I I ~I.I ~l ~ I Q 0 lIII__ ~ ... r-Ul_ .. .~ ~ ~ 1::Jiiil: . '= ~ ~ II I < IJ~. is I-- - ., !II 4 u ,~_. _IT 1st 0 ~ lS NOSNHor - J ~ ... ~ III I I I I II I I I I III I I WtnH u - ~ ~ rJ') I Applicant's Statement Rezoning the parcels indicated will extend the RS-8 Zone north from the 600 block of South Governor Street providing continuity along South Governor. In addition, the change to RS-8 will provide a rational "stair-stepping" of zoning from east to west, from Summit Street to Governor Street to Lucas Street. For comparison, since being downzoned to RS-8 in 2000, the 600 block of South Governor Street has stabilized and is once again drawing owner-occupants who have rehabbed, or are rehabbing several key properties on the block* while maintaining a healthy diversity of owner-occupied and rental properties. This is helping preserve the historic, single-family character of the street. North of Bowery Street, South Governor Street includes many long term owner-occupied residences as well as rental properties. It offers a strong sense of neighborhood with close-in, affordable housing in an environment which has maintained much of its historic, single family tradition. In fact, this portion of South Governor Street has experienced a marked revitalization since the last rezoning approved by the City ofIowa City. RS-8 zoning is more in keeping with the area, and is also more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan for the Central Planning District, which is very much concerned with maintaining the integrity of the neighborhoods near downtown Iowa City. This is also a stated concern of the City Council. I have spoken personally with many of the residents on South Governor Street, both owners and tenants, and have been encouraged to proceed with this rezoning application. In addition, the neighborhood plans to host a neighborhood meeting to discuss the application within the next few weeks. * Examples include 625, 647, 652 South Governor Street. r".> Ul N 0'"\ February 2007 To: Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission City Hall 410 E. Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: The rezoning of S. Governor S1. and Bowery Street (see attached list of addresses and map) WE, THE RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORS OF THIS AREA, WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE SOUTH GOVERNOR STREET AREA CHANGED FROM RNS-12 TO RS-a TO PROTECT ITS PREVAILING CHARACTER OF SINGLE-FAMIL Y HOMES AND DUPLEXES. Name Address 520 S V {nor 510 s, G~ to (..,0 ~ 3'/2. 1- t(q~ s. S oveJUv;f<- S. Gtrvc-t:~ ~. 60 D [ 5'Z-~! ~ 5. V, 7 S- 0.75 I.S" 1((' 'I ;L- '5k \ <lVI ~ GdV~"npY'" 'It.. February 2007 To: Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission City Hall 410 E. Washington St Iowa City I IA 52240 Re: The rezoning of S. Governor St. and Bowery Street (see attached list of addresses and map) WE, THE RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORS OF THIS AREA, WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE SOUTH GOVERNOR STREET AREA CHANGED FROM RNS-12 TO RS-8 TO PROTECT ITS PREVAILING CHARACTER OF SlNGLE-FAMIL Y HOMES AND DUPLEXES. Name Address Years at this address I~ . ~ ..:L ~ ~ ) 13 S 'd--V oS ,,, /1 I, 5: () 5", 4()\kJt1A( Sf r .9 3.5"" a;"" 1.0 Gt February 2007 To: Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission City Hall 410 E. Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: The rezoning of S. Governor St. and Bowery Street (see attached list of addresses and map) WE, THE RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORS OF THIS AREA. WOULD UKE TO SEE THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE SOUTH GOVERNOR STREET AREA CHANGED FROII RNS-12 TO RS..a TO PROTECT ITS PREVAILING CHARACTER OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND DUPLEXES. Name Address Years at this address L{ 3/ St. 'f~ '5. ....... The Longfellow Neighborhood Association ":for no:w ana for tlie future In "t:a;:~:~::~:~:~":;i;;;::liIII!rii;::$-)&~,;&;;:::~Yliil:~:~::;;"ii'.::~::;B:~{i1iIiiii~:;B::~~:~;":~::~.iH~::-=:%.~:-=:~ February 16, 2007 Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission City Hall 410 E. Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Members: The Longfellow Neighporhood Association has rec~ntly voted to support a proposed rezoning application that would affect an area of Governor Street between Bowery and Burlington Streets. Many of LNA members remember how recently this area was at risk of becoming a blighted area of the community. We feared the blocks between our neighborhood and downtown would become row upon endless row of indifferently constructed apartment buildings. That city experiment--allowing whole blocks of densely occupied housing to indiscriminately sprawl into the surrounding community-has proven to bring many issues detrimental to our community. In the past few years, a group of property owners has seized upon the opportunity to recreate community out of a rundown part of town. Together, these residents have helped enforce the nuisance ordinance and encouraged their neighbors to become better citizens. Residents are again buying homes and raising families here, and continued down zoning of this area will support their efforts. The city government can and should help the efforts of our. resid~nt landowners in our community. One of the principal ways to do lend a hano is to provide underlying zoning that is consistent with family-oriented housing. Your coII1Ihission is key to making this a reality. The Longfellow Neighborhood Association supports efforts to create community within our neighborhood on the near southeast side of Iowa City. We endorse. efforts by local residents to improve the quality of life within our neighborhood, and we wpoleheartedly support the proposed rezoning of a portion of Governor Street from RNS-12 to RS-8 as indicateo by the applicants. ( Printed on 50% Posl-<;Onaumer ~/ed Paper Sarah: Hello. My name is Mark Russo. My wife, Diana, and I recently bought and renovated the old Mennonite Church at 614 Clark St., immediately east of the rezoning area. We would like to add our input to this discussion of Governor Street rezoning,since it impacts OU( own lives in a very real way. Please accept my apologies in advance for errors in this letter's format, as I am still figuring out basic computer skills. When we decided in 2002 to move from McGregor,la., we looked for a neighborhood that had stability. proximity to downtown, a pre-dominance of single-family dwellings. and some umbrella of zoning protection for the investment we intended to make. Diana had resided for many years in the Longfellow-Summit St.area; and wanted to find a place in that area. As luck would have it, this church was up for sale; we bought it and turned it into a very pleasant home. Our investment was considerable; but we knew the neighborhood could justify it, and are very nappy with our decision. I believe that the proposed rezoning of Governor St. to an RS-8 classification would be a great improvement both to that neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods, and to the city in general, in the sense that there seems to be only a few neighborhoods like ours close to downtown that enjoy some modicum of stability and protection from the seemingly pervasive and reckless development of student rental housing complexes, unjustified housing demolitions, and single-family house conversions into duplexes, tri-plexes, and beyond. I would not have made the investment we made in our property, had it been zoned differently. We certainly would not have purchased property on Governor St., given the risks that its current classification creates to a single-family dwelling owner, even though it is an attractive street with many of the features we sought in a neighborhood. I think that Governor St. deserves the same sort of zoning protection that the property owners of Summit St. and Clark St. enjoy. Property owners on both sides of S. Governor between Bowery and Burlington have demonstrated their commitment to both the neighborhood and the city by making serious investments of money, labor, and time to re-establish the single-family character of that area, at great risk in their efforts due to the instability factor an RNS-12 classification introduces. Did not the City of Iowa City create a development along Foster Road that seeks a similar, old-fashioned neighborhood atmosphere with all the associated traditional values? Here on Governor St. is a similar effort, but totally self-initiated, with no tax dollars, by earnest and hard-working property-owners. And so much closer to town, with such a greater possibility of a positive ripple effect. I have personally witnessed and been a part of many social and business-type activities in this neighborhood in the past few years.S .Governor St. is very similar to Clark St. in the sense that there is a strong sense of pride in the neighborhood, a common concern about keeping the properties looking good and sound, a common watchfulness or awareness of developments that might enhance or degrade the neighborhood, and a sort of old-fashioned democratic vision to keep the neighborhood available to families from all walks of life and backgrounds. The city should reward such vision and initiative and personal investment the applicants have made, and grant them the qualified protection from neighborhood deterioration that an RS-8 zoning classification affords. Such investments, made by the neighborhoods and the city into each other, will continue to set Iowa City apart as a forward-looking community Thank you. Mark Russo & Diana Russo 614 Clark St. February 22,2007 RE: Proposed rezoning of South Governor Street and South Bowery Street. I am writing in support of the proposed rezoning of South Governor Street and South Bowery Street. I have lived in my home at 530 South Governor Street for eight years. In that time I have witnessed and been a party to a transformation in our neighborhood. The home I purchased was on the market for six months-it was not a property attractive to landlords, and the neighborhood was not attractive to families. The first two years I lived on South Governor Street were difficult-my son and I were awoken regularly by intoxicated partiers on the street and most landlords were not responsive to neighborhood concerns. But with neighbors working together, the rezoning to RNS-12, and the adoption of the neighborhood ordinance making landlords accountable for their properties our neighborhood has become very livable for a truly diverse population. Residents of this area, owners and renters alike, now enjoy close-in housing in a true neighborhood. Many of us walk or take the free shuttle to work or school everyday. We host neighborhood gatherings--often impromptu gatherings on one another's front lawns or porches. Last Mother's Day many of us came together to replace a neighbor's birdbath-a fixture in her front garden that had been smashed in the street by vandals. In the summer we share landscaping plants and garden produce. In the fall several of us had branches in need of trimming--one neighbor fired up his chainsaw, another loaded the branches into his truck, and another hauled it out to her property in the country. This winter two neighbors have cleared each snowfall from sidewalks up and down the street. These are only a few examples from just the past year of the neighborhood environment we have worked hard to restore. Of course city planning and zoning decisions are not made solely on the basis of a neighborhood "feel". Rezoning this area to RS-8 will provide a logical stair-stepping of zoning moving west from Summit to Governor to Lucas Streets, and a logical northern extension of the current RS-8 zone south of Bowery. Iowa City residents looking for close-in quality housing will be more likely to invest time and money revitalizing housing in this area with the additional security offered by a lower density zoning. I believe that as more apartment buildings are built in the downtown area we have an opportunity to welcome Iowa City residents of all ages back to our historic neighborhoods. I encourage you to forward a positive recommendation of the proposed rezoning to the City Council. ~~'~~ ~~~~/ 530 South Governor Street February 22, 2007 Regarding the proposed rezoning of portions of South Governor Street and South Bowery Street. I am writing in support of the proposed rezoning of South Governor and South Bowery Streets. I own a rental house at 517 South Governor Street which I just purchased this past year. My intent in purchasing the rental house is to provide close-in quality housing to Iowa City residents. As a landlord I see a need in this community for rental stock that provides a neighborhood environment for all ages, and the area of the proposed rezoning is a nice blend of owner-occupied and rental properties fitting for this neighborhood. The marked improvements on South Governor Street over the past several years have occurred through the efforts of tenants and owners alike. Not all residents in Iowa City can afford to buy a home, nor do all that can afford to buy choose to. But in our neighborhood one can find quality housing within walking distance to schools, campus, and work that also provides a livability this neighborhood has worked hard to achieve. The rezoning to RS-8 will help ensure that Iowa City remains a welcoming community to residents of all ages by providing a variety of housing options for both tenants and owners, including low density, close-in rental property. Many of us who own rental property in the neighborhood also live here. As a lifelong resident of Iowa City I chose to invest in this area because I see the potential of a revitalized close-in neighborhood. I encourage you to forward a positive recommendation of the proposed rezoning to the City Council. Thank you for your consideration. ~~ Owner-517 South Governor Street GROTIO BILL, LLC TINMAN, LLC SOS436,LLC IOWA CITY, IA 52240 February 22, 2007 Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission Attn: Sarah Walz 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Ms. Walz, We, as rental property owners in the South Governor Street area, are writing this letter in support of the South Governor Street and Bowery Street rezoning effort. We have owned property on South Governor Street for several years and are very much in support of this zoning change. We are happy to be able to provide affordable, safe, convenient and quiet residences for our tenants and we feel that this rezoning can only help to maintain the quality of living that we feel we provide in our rental properties. We are in support of this rezoning because we want to continue to foster the stabilization of this neighborhood. It truly is a model for a diverse housing environment where single family ownership and affordable rental opportunities can co-exist in a friendly and convenient neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration and support of this re-zoning proposal. Tin n, llC Owner of 527 & 527 V2 South Governor Street ~i~C ~zmorSt~ Owner of 436 South Governor Street February 21, 2007 Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission Attn: Sarah Walz 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission Members: We, at 520 South Governor Street, are writing this letter in support of the South Governor Street and Bowery Street rezoning effort. We have owned this property for nearly 5 years and have watched the neighborhood evolve. When we first moved to our current home, we lived in the apartment off of the garage while renting the main house as a duplex. We have since moved into the main house and have begun restoring the home back to a single-family dwelling. Our house was built in 1860 by Irving Weber's grandfather and his name is still etched in the limestone foundation. The park-like front yard is filled with 150 year old Oak trees and the back yard has a small church and grotto that was constructed in the 196Os. The neighborhood is diverse and we enjoy living dose to work, downtown Iowa City, the library and the farmers' market. It has been our surprise and joy to watch this area evolve into a fun and enjoyable neighborhood. When we first moved in, there were many more absentee landlords and we were often awakened by the tenants in the houses owned by such landlords. Over time, we have seen many people invest in our neighborhood and absentee landlords have become more scarce. Either through single-family home ownership or by neighbors investing in homes that can be rented affordably, we have seen the character of this area change. We consider ourselves lucky to have wonderful neighbors and we enjoy an annual neighborhood winter party and several summer gatherings attended by families, couples, singles, college students and friends. We are in support of this rezoning because we want to continue to foster the stabilization of this neighborhood. It truly is a model for a diverse housing environment where single family ownership and affordable rental opportunities can co-exist in a friendly and convenient neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration and support of this rezoning proposal. Si cerely,. . 't, li~\kM I uz ne Bentler & Steve LO~- 520 South Governor Street Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Subject: Rudolf Kuenzli [rudolf-kuenzli@uiowa.edu] Thursday, February 22,2007 10:03 PM Sarah Walz Governor St. down-zoning Dear Sarah, I am writing to express support for the proposed down-zoning of South Governor St. and parts of Bower ySt. for a number of reasons. To down-zone this area would make sense given that Summit St., one block away, is zoned RS-5. An RS-8 zoning would provide a smoother transition from Summit St. to Lucas St. which is zoned RSN-12. As I understand the process, based on earlier experience with the planning department, such graduated transitions are both logical and desirable . Furthermore the part of S. Governor that lies south of the proposed area is already zoned RS-8. Since the earlier effort to down-zone Governor St. which resulted in the RSN-12 designation, there has been evidence of a change for the better in the neighborhood. I am aware of at least two or three property owners who have said that they would have never had the courage to invest in property there without the earlier down-zoning. There is affordable housing in the area which people might be inclined to buy if the area were down-zoned to RS-8. Proper zoning is the critical ingredient in preserving neighborhoods. Please help the long-term residents of the area stabilize their neighborhood by adopting the proposed down-zoning. Sincerely, Cecile Kuenzli 705 S. Summit St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 1 To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: SUB07-00001 Mount Prospect Addition, Part IX GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Phone: Requested Action: Purpose: location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: Public Services: 5T AFF REPORT Prepared by: Sunil Terdalkar Date: March 1, 2007 Todd and Debra Hahn P. O. Box 266 Riverside, IA 52327 (319) 648-4246 J. Scott Ritter Hart-Frederick Consultants, P.C. 510 East State Street, P. O. Box 560 Tiffin, IA 523340-0560 (319) 545-7215 Subdivision Preliminary Plat Development of a 16-lot residential subdivision South of Lakeside Drive Approximately 5.21 acres Undeveloped, Residential - RS..:5 North: Residential - RS-5 South: Park - P (Sycamore Greenway) East: Residential - RS-5 West: Residential - RS-5 Institutional Grant Wood (S2) February 8, 2007 March 26, 2007 Water and Sanitary Sewer service are available to serve the property and can be extended from neighboring subdivisions. The City will provide Police and Fire protection, and refuse and recycling collection services. Transit routes Eastside loop and Lakeside serve this area..! 2 refuse and recycling collection services. Transit routes Eastside Loop and Lakeside serve this area, with the nearest bus stop located approximately two blocks east, at the intersection of Lakeside Drive and Miami Drive. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Todd and Debra Hahn, are requesting approval for a 16-lot, single-family residential subdivision with two outlots, on approximately 5.21 acres of land located south of Lakeside Drive, west of Amber Lane, and east of Stanwick Drive and Gable Street. This property was part of the previous phase (Part VIII) of the overall development of Mount Prospect Addition. It was set aside for religious institutional use, but as the plans to build the church have been abandoned, the land is proposed to be developed as a residential subdivision: ANALYSIS: Compliance with Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Code: The land is part of the Sycamore East Area Neighborhood of the South Planning District. Based on the neighborhood planning principles noted in the Comprehensive Plan, South District Plan outlines Neighborhood Planning Principles, which focus on "... creating a sense of community by ensuring that neighborhoods are designed to be accessible, compact, al')d pedestrian oriented...". The plan emphasizes the importance of preserving the natural features, pedestrian/bicyclist connections, neighborhood parks, open spaces and diverse housing. The plan calls for green open spaces between development and such sensitive features, treating such features as amenities, providing public access to the preserved natural features; incorporating green elements such as small neighborhood greens, planting medians, landscaping along streets; and providing single-loaded streets to open up scenic vistas. As mentioned above the land for the proposed subdivision was set aside for a church. In February 1997, the previous owner of the property was granted a special exception to permit a religious institution on the land zoned for residential use. Based on this fact, the South District Plan (adopted in December 1997) identifies this area as suitable for institutional use. The plan to build the church has since changed, the special exception has expired and the current property owners are proposing residential development. The proposed development of a low-density single-family residential subdivision is consistent with the existing zoning for this area-RS-5-and with the land uses on the surrounding properties-single-family residential. The proposed lot sizes meet the zoning standards for minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet and minimum lot frontage of 60 feet. The lot areas range from approximately 8,660 square feet to 14,291 square feet. In staff's view, this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan vision and compatible with the zoning and development pattern of the land adjacent to this property. Outlot B (approximately 0.27 acres) extends along the eastern boundary of the subdivision and contains a portion of the existing Sycamore Greenway Trail. Outlot A (approximately 1,200 square feet) is a narrow strip of extra land adjacent to the proposed street right-of-way for Aniston Street where it intersects with Lakeside Drive. The applicant is proposing to dedicate both outlots to the City. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The property is generally flat, but contains an area with fully hydric soils. If fully hydric soils exist pcdlstaff reportlsub07 _00001_mtprospect 3 on a property where development activity is proposed, the Code requires that the Sensitive Areas Development Plan include a report from a wetland specialist to verify whether wetlands exist on the site. At the time of the approval for Mount Prospect Addition Part VIII, the applicant submitted a wetland determination report, which identifies approximately 0.1-acre wetland along the east property line. A portion of this area is now part of the Sycamore Greenway trail. Given its small size, this area was determined not be a jurisdictional wetland and therefore is not regulated by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. As required by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, a drainable base and tiles are being provided for the portion of Aniston Street that is located over the hydric soils. Neighborhood parkland: At the time of the approval for Mount Prospect Addition Part VIII, it was agreed upon that the land dedication toward the Neighborhood Open Space or the fees in lieu of is to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for the subdivision, or land may be dedicated when the property under consideration would be developed. Based on the Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance, the dedication requirement is approximately 0.2 acres of land. As mentioned above, the applicant is proposing to dedicate Outlot B, containing approximately 0.27 acres. Outlot B provides a trail connection from Lakeside Drive to the Sycamore Greenway Trail. This fulfills the open space dedication requirement. . Traffic implications: Aniston Street via Lakeside Drive will serve the proposed subdivision. Aniston Street is a cul-de- sac street (centerline length-approximately 665 feet) and provides access to all the lots from Lakeside Drive. The proposed subdivision, with its 16 lots, will generate approximately 112 vehicle trips per day. The preliminary plat shows a four-foot sidewalk on both sides of the street. The plat also shows a sidewalk easement between lot 9 and lot 10 that will connect the sidewalks to the existing trail-way. Storm water management: Currently, the stormwater from adjoining subdivisions drains into a drainage ditch on the property. The plat shows stormwater infrastructure that extends the existing infrastructure such that the stormwater from the adjoining and proposed subdivision will be conveyed to the Sycamore Regional Stormwater system. Infrastructure fees: The sanitary sewer tap-on fee, water main extension fee and regional stormwater management facility were paid at the time of approval of Mount Prospect Addition Part VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this application be deferred until the deficiencies and discrepancies noted below are resolved. Upon the resolution of the deficiencies and discrepancies, staff recommends approval SUB07- 00001, a preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan for Mount Prospect Addition, Part IX, a 16-lot, approximately 5.21-acre residential subdivision locate south of Lakeside Drive, west of Amber Lane. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: 1) Show a 5 feet wide sidewalk between Lot 9 and Lot 10 2) Revise the cul-de-sac median and adjacent manhole location, as necessary pcdlstaff reportlsub07 _00001_mlprospect 4 3) Label outlot uses and accurate areas 4) Accurately identify and label the area with hydric soils 5) Accurately label the right-of-way line, setback line, and update the legends accordingly 6) Other minor corrections as noted by the City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary plat Approved by: ~~. Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development pcd\staff report\sub07 _00001_mtprospect 1/ JSJ[X -!).M' ~ I.. ~~_ ~~ _ - ~ b~t- t =1~F =- ~ IfE ~R ::::l _ \ ~~ t:::~== t: -~n( ),~ r /J \ t-- LT-:~ \\-II~JLrf-cr '- -~ r \ f----i -= - ---1 I ~ ~ :E a: ~- ~ '" f\ \ ~ t: ~ ~ ~W ~ ---., I'l-"'-- ~ I- I- ~ t: ~ :3^V VOV^:3N ~<v '?' <::;'?' ~'?' ~4.I -' S: ~ () l-g-.x .'- '- C3 Q) \) lJ...t:Q ,... D.. <II - I -+-"-aa c:: () () \)()-C:: G~u c.n - - _0 _ ----ft :: \-- ~~-gs --H -~ ~j----: - ~ _I-- 1--- 5 _ L-- L..- 1 _ '-- - OtlV8~Ol --I - -- '^'- _ _1-'.1 \.... T\ '- -VI 'tll:) tl1~l\l I ..-- i-- i-- - - - -I-- -1- -1- I~ [E ill ~~~L---- ~ t1 \ ~)10~ rmBc ram-~ t;: -en ~ = a: L..-- ~tlO 11:3SsnB r-- '" I--- u I--- \ Ci~ - ^ v'(). ^ V :31~V .J~ ID ~/ I-- I-- I-- .J.'- "" ex) en a: - N1 1V8 tI N1 tI:38~V ~/ f-- - - - ~ . " 6^ 1--11-- ~- - 1 :3 V8 - I= - - en - -..."..-.t ,..,. _ ;liITY ,tlV.:l ..... I-- gsl-- -~f-- f--~- -~- --(rl Sycamore ,... r--......D.. ~ o ",- ~- ~- << t/i- - - \~ It) en a: I C - .- 7(j "", 6,: ~'\\ ~~ --l~"'.~ = ~- 'N'\I- c-- '$ 1::1 ~ _gsLl :3 ~z- 6 ._CL.... c-- << Z L-'" W .---'" '" f--l=! U \ I ~-.:; l- I-- ---, II-- '---' ~ 1--1...---" \ ~ I-- __ .-----' -----\ ~ - -.--J \.-- <<_ __ , I-- -' _ --. f-- i=- t: -:::> [IT _W I W --l > _ <10 11:3SSmJ << = I-- I 11= ;C - ..--~- d - 1--:3- I ~ \----1 L--- I.---- J.- ' l--\ \-1 - ,..... o o o o I r-.... o OJ :J U) I - I~ /' / - . z <( ...J a.. ~x z- w~ :Eo:: 0..<( ga.. w > - wZ cO rni=<( <(-~ ~Oo <(0- ~<(~~ -~- !::Oo rnW<( za..~ mcnQ ~o ~o:: :3 a.. o..~ >z ~:J ~o !:E ...J W a: a.. i ttt ggg ~ ' oN ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ " g HI, , ~. N.o:IolWW 000. ~ .0"''''''' OW....'" '-<('><"tIl . . . ..~~~ nf-o::r:_ " 5~-'I>-lH JiI"'f-<1ol ",ZQCI " < ~"" ~Z~~ " ~p~ ~Jt)~ ~ Z~" H<...H.. f-oZ); ~ \. -1 o o :r:: u (/) o o o -S f-- Z <( cr: o H H !=' <-0 ~ '" Z' ::; ~ :3 -: <-0 0 "'- ~~ 00 "'H '" <-0>: 5~ 00 :>:-: .SO ...0 OH '" 0 <-0<-0 0 H "' ;; 0 z 5 ::; '" i E " "' ~ b ~ ~ . .. :5 ~g g ~ ~~ " . . ....~Ol lIloG :a 1IJ~ t't;.. . ~; tI_~.s;::: 1: o tJI 0...... 0::1 0 t;H~U~o~ :t >; . g Lf) +' I-l 1Il.j.ll- III Oq..l'H Q-.-tMCl=:UO I-IU .tl-rl1U ll< ...: 0 r::: -,...., III ~~]:B~-~ ;jH .tl C .j.I ~ _.~.j.I 3'3 ~ H ..... Ilfl-l ~H"C 0 l-l .j.J t-H II Q) III III O>"t1lPUOlU l"l I-IUI-iQll.l .j.J 0 -rl Or-! S~~~~~~ ~~ ~:E go~ <," ?5~ ~ I ~~ iii 60 iL :;:J:i f1 ~"Z ~~~ 0(8:3 ~5~ r..8~ 5;~ ~j~ ~~.~ j< <(:;o~ :2 ~~ 3~:~ ~~ g: 8~5~ ~~ ~~ i ! 1 i I ] I .! 1 If I 1 Ifl; ! W .....1iI Ii l!~ ~ t ~~c: aI ~!~ == j t i i. if hjiH ~i OtiH ~t~ffmo ~ I"ii~#:~i 0'- 0..0 ".!" ~~,.,r-N_ ~ts "'IL"" !::E! . 1 f. ij n , I H i' ]: ~t ~. l' l' ~. d Ii I f """...... /vo, ..2 L_ ~ ----------. / // ------.. / / '---i1 ~. ~ u ~~ ~~ ~ffi ~~ o " . .. 0::; . .. .">l-< ~ oJ ~~~.~ "'..."'''' ....... e~23~~] ~ ~~~ Z: ~ . ! j i i II B~! (111 ~ I! =~ =~\:J>- ii ill ~e ~~ ~i .~,!~~ ~ ~ !iHi~m~ iW~'".!i ~~ !i Vl~~ ~ ~ ~ _w~ ~ w ~ ~ z ~ ~~~ 5~= ~~~ 8~G ~g! ~ E5 i ~ ~ ~~~ 1::::: e lm!hl; ..., =-'" I '\ I ~ i! ~ ,~--"-" .. , " Q "" "./:lID _ ;;~~~ " ~ .0"'0:.. ::l 0"- ~:glll~;; 11 00... C '<f-olld('< . 0 " " , " o < m ]~:o ~. 0....... i,~~E~E~ ~ ~i~:~~ ~i!~m' ~~~:: z~Ill~1ll O~5lS~H5 HHHH ~~~~~ i~~~~ ~~~~~ .0 ~ ~g ~ . p.. I 0 :I:!;] tI'j~~~ ~~ ~ f;;~ ~~ ~ ,,0;- "" S~E ~~ ID en _ ~ :: z ~ ~ u ~B ~ 8 i ~ q~ ......"'... ~...;-.ri ~ ~~ Cl!J_ ~~E tt: s .. , ~. ~~] <~o.. ~~ "" ~ I .~ '- ~ ~ ~I //.- ~ ~+I / 9 ~- , ~ Q I '" \ n '~ , " 0; I -I o -I z ~ ... z w ..... 5~ ",-' ~~ ~~ _U) .... ~~ "'w > ;:: u; z ::J .. ~ ILO I 15 ~ Q ~ ~ j ~- :!; ~ .;; ... o o N '" ;:; 0> ! I ~ "i e ~ ." m j ~ 00 o o '" '" o ~ 8 c '" m '" " ~ 00 o o '" ;: ~" < ".. 6 z z ~ ;; ::! STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Drew E. Westberg, Planning Intern Item: SUB07 -00002/00003 Olde Towne Village Subdivision Part 2 Date: March 1, 2007 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: American Bank & Trust 805 22nd Ave. Coralville, IA 52241 Contact Person: Nathan Koch American Bank & Trust 805 22nd Ave. Coralville, IA 52241 Phone: (319)358-3520 Requested Action: Preliminary and Final Plat Approval Purpose: To create a 3-lot commercial subdivision Location: Corner of Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue Size: 1.8 Acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Community Commercial (CC-2) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: South: East: West: Agricultural - (ID-RS) . Commercial under construction - (CC-2) Undeveloped - (CC-2) Residential - (RS-5) Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Commercial File Date: February 12, 2007 45 Day Limitation Period: March 29, 2007 60 Day Limitation Period: April 6, 2007 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, American Bank & Trust, is requesting preliminary and final plat approval for a 3-lot subdivision of Auditor's Parcel Number 2006030, located at the corner of Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. The development is part of the larger Olde Towne Village development - most of which was annexed into the city and zoned Community Commercial in 2001. In 2005 this property was added to Olde Towne Village and rezoned from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to Community Commercial (CC-2) subject to certain conditions outlined in a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The intent of these conditions was to assure that the area developed as a "main street" type commercial area and that adequate infrastructure was installed to serve commercial development. In 2006, the property was the subject of two special exception decisions. The first decision granted a special exception to reduce the principal building setbacks 2 along all interior streets from ten (10) feet to three (3) feet to allow buildings to be built close to the sidewalk and the second allowed for a drive-through facility for a financial facility. The property also received final site and landscaping plan approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission in November 2006. ANALYSIS: The plats generally comply with the Subdivision Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan, which calls for the area to develop as a "main street" type commercial district. Most issues related to parking, traffic circulation and access, and utilities were addressed in the previous subdivision and site plan reviews. Comprehensive Plan The property in question is located in the Northeast Planning District and designated for neighborhood commercial uses in a "main street" or "town square" configuration. The proposed subdivision is consistent with this designation as it simply provides for individual ownership of the three structures contemplated for the property. Zoning Requirements The subject property is zoned Community Commercial (CC-2). The CC-2 zone is designed to identify locations suitable for major commercial districts that will provide service to a significant segment of the total community population. These commercial districts are occupied by high traffic-generating commercial retail uses, which require a location along major arterials such as Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. Additionally, the CC-2 zone allows for the location of drive-through facilities via special exception. The proposed re-subdivision is in compliance with the CC-2 zoning requirements. Parking within the subdivision is being treated as common parking for a commercial shopping center. Conditional Zoning Agreement The CZA requires that improvements to Rochester Avenue be made in conjunction with the development of this property. These improvements should be and incorporated into the legal papers. Traffic The site is accessed by Westbury Drive, a private street that provides access to Scott Boulevard via Middlebury Drive and Rochester Avenue via Eastbury Drive. The proposed subdivision will not alter the flow of traffic nor add additional access points. The proposed subdivision provides a common access easement throughout to facilitate the flow of traffic. Sidewalks An eight foot sidewalk is required by the CZA within the Rochester Avenue right-of- way. Because this is a commercial development and to provide for snow removal by machine without damaging the adjacent sod, staff recommends that the sidewalk on Scott Boulevard also be built eight feet wide rather than the standard four feet. The City will pay for 4 feet of the paving. This should be shown on the plat and noted in the legal papers. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that SUB07-00002/00003, a preliminary and final plat for Olde Towne Village Part 2, a 3-lot, 1.8-acre commercial subdivision located east of Scott Boulevard and south of Rochester Avenue, be approved subject to staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Final Plat Approved bY:/~__ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development CI) 0 0 0 ~ I "" 0 CO ::> ,... C/) ............ 0 C\J 0 () 0 0 0 I CO "" 0 c CO c.. ::> C/) t: '0~.J... U t3 ~ ~ ~ C\J +-- ~ t: ctS 0- Q) t3 0) ctS en >- II: Q) C I ~ C 0 - I- Q) "0 0 . . z 0 ~ }-i < u 0 ......:l -- ~ }-i ~ If) ANYdWOO 9NIH33NI9N3 3Hn10OW 11.I ICIC = ..... (,) o :IE ~II~~ ~llj i~ =_oJl!!:! ;_w l.. =_:& :11;Ufl lJ!fl 1!1111 f .!11l1 II,! III !,'II"th f Ili111. ill\ J!I:U, 11'It II I!' M!t i ~ d~ u :; <C i ~ ~~~;i~~~~ ~!d!I~;~~ ~u~~~Q.h ~~~"u~I.~ u. il~U o. >>-ifml251 .Ii; ;Q~.~U ! ~3.ilir Ii! . ~ ; i ~g ~ o ~"8~ U i= w* ~i II.! ~ .! ~ m ~ ~ ~ is . .r~i I~~! ~t~ c:, !! I ... w.. I'" 0:: "w w," co( ...... 0... s: M ~~ " i~ o .. N N ~ oLo j~ "" z $ NORTH ~:: "0 i~ ~ 1& Io J I!WI~i ~ I~~~~~ g !!~SS ;.~ <~:r~;;:;n 0< ~ ~ 1- "" \'fo ~~~ "'c;:.%"7 ~ C\I ... m - Q. ... .. m Q. CD o ~ '" '" '70 O'7f-< .... "'< 8"'< e:, 0"- ~0:r:g:j~....1~""; . f,I.;l E-- f-i {/J -( ii:: IJ) ~~::E...Ze:,u~~ ooo~u"'o"'" ....lu~~O;Z;~_f-< ~~...~f-<~O-Z 22":~~"':,,-<2!:i5 <"'~<z:r:~ou "-S~::>9f-<o~z "'..: O'f-<V)-~o ~O~~f-<~rs>=,o"'~ :r:"''''_....f-< Zf-<f-<f-<~"'f-<ZU og~ril~[J[J5~~rJi E::~;;:~~f:l~~j[J~ ~O~o~~~O"-~~ US ~~23V)~s [;Cj ",_o~:r:0'~:r:-8,....; i!Jf-<0f-< oot:~ ::1>o<...~~-,S"''':~ "'a2!:i"-o~~:i' rs'" "'g;~~S~:r:'::;8'~~ ~~O~b~~~<"'f-< ~~~~~~~~~~8 o '5' ~ ~ u &:w< <F"'~ ~>-;: crooo ;:::- ~ :s u a. m .. m c .- ~.5 ~G) 15 .. iQ. :J - - .- ~ g 'i 5 " w " z '" :J o .. ~ > CD c ~ o I- CD 'C - o 8 " z ~ ~ w " => ~ u o " ~ -' o " o ~ u ::i z < ~ ~ o w " < ~ w " ~ ~ ;ll i" jO i~ o I: . " ii! ~ . i- ill il! .C? i" " i I: 0 ~ 0 z w (f) ;< es I f- a (f) ... g ... "' z " :J '" 0.. in <( L U ,L '" 0.. S <( ~ u "- "- '" '" .,' z ~ 0.. E 0 u - " f- "0 C 0 ~ c 0 al c 0 u .C E << " "' 0 a f: f- W cO ii' 0.. N a >- '" '" 0.. <( '" :J a z "- 0; 0 w '" 0 <( W 0.. >- W ~ '" (L '" >- :J w (f) > w '" f- :J <( <Jl 0 '" '" g~ .. ~ ~I~i~ ~ 8~ I ~ I -.JgeSo ,.., o ~ ~ zo::z ~ ~~~ "~5 ~~F ~~~ ~~~ 8du f5~~ r",,,, ~~~ m;~ ~~~ ~>-< z"'" ~ ~~!5. f5 V1..c'~ u iS~~~ ~ ~g:~ u g~~e ~ " ~ ~ iD ~ o w r u < ~ ~ < z ~ w w ~ '" :2 >- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~w tD~ ~ --. ~~ ~ ~ Iu.. U ~: ~ ~ ~;; Q ~ ~~ ~ 8 ~~ 5 : ~~ ~ ;~ eN g .... z, ~;: ~ (n ~e C'3 N ~~ ~ ~ 0< w Via.. CD t5 ~~ ~ ; g,~ VI iEQ ..t: ~ ~~e1b ~ ~5~g ~ :~II~ ~ : ~llj ~~ (.) = _ 0 ,g~ u ;_w :I::_::E " ., N ~ "'0 :L~ 13 Io ~~GS ~1!W f--lD5:r-..OO Zfr.:iW~ti. ~i~ ~ ~ - ta ta ~ 0: :: ~ > " - ~~" ca 0) ~ .5 c ~ u. :I ~ 0 I- 0) 'C - o ~ ~ " z Z ~ " ., ~ :3 " z ; ~ w ~ " u " Cl ~ ~ ~ u ~w<( <F~ ~>-~ (aJo ~ ~ :s u tl. en -' fil " ~ " z < ili :m ~~ i~ ~ I~ ";,1 !i;~ ~~ . illUlfl IIHI I!IIII f ~Iflj UfJ!lI!,'1 il'llI} ,11111. &1111 11{:n, II'" II r!1 M!l ANVdWOO ONIH33NION3 3Hn10:J1/\I ~I~ii~~~~ . .- ~ ~ ~ N ~ i~ jO "I IU.... i::; ~gd*il~; i o ~ I'" ~ - i- *~ ~ 0; g 8 ~ Wci!Ug ... u 0:: . ~ ft I: . 0 ~Uh~I"~~ ~~ .p- .... IU lip ~~iiil~iI!~ ~~ IUCO ~ i 00( .. I'- )-1 ~ 25 ..... I! ~ ; . I ...... g , i~ I~ IC? i!IH5.~f 0... 5= .Q, ~" lir 5~ 5 0 'I&. " ., z g ! ~ I~ - 5~~ ~~~ ~<(~ 5 -g.!F oN= ".:N.2: E~ ~ <mu '" ~'?-~ ~"'~ 'C;,.%"? ~ C'I - .. ta 0. 0) $ NORTH g 0\ a;23 0'7f-< r-- <<: ~"'::; e: Q'" ?:iQ~gj:r:._dij-- c:i~::Et~<<:;:;:;; ze>:oo~e:uo> ~8e>:e>:o~~g~f-o o~~~f-<_P2Q- e>:e>:~~r--",<25o ~l)gj<<:5:r:~QU ",~f-<&E=:!;;8~z e>: 0 u ~ -e>: 0 ogj25~~:r:~o~ zf-<f-<f-o~<nf-<zu:r: o@<;;:fil~l)l)i5~~cti E::~s:~~~~u<;;:l)~ j:l.,o~ of-<l'-l5s:<nu S2z:r:gz~~<nz&J< Uof-<o"'~t:;:>::;zoo&l - ~ O'-:r:,.. " 00<nf-<0 oo"'u- r-l>o<~f-<z,"",r;:~o ~a25,,:o~;;izS~25 ~~&J~5~~::;8'E=:~ ~~o:><:E=:t:f-<g<~f-< ~~uo~~~P2~oz ~<~U6~~~~t::::8 ,.: " '" ~" z~z ~~~ ""'z ~"" ~~g ~:~ ~~8 ~;~ ~~eJ ~~~ ~~~ I!!>-< ~~~ ~i~~ ~~~~ ~g:~ g~~e ~ &' 1"'" ~~~ ~~~ ~UJa::: <:f2 ~~~ ~~~ ~~i a;j~~ ~~d ",<~ ~zw ~~F ~j~ ~~o ?=~~ ~wo S~l::! '" z " ~ ~ " " 8 ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o <i. Z ~ 0. E o o o W f- a z W U1 3' '" W I f- a U1 U1 ':J z ::J w ~ Co "0 C o ~ c o CD c o ~ .~ ~ E ~ ~ 6 j ~ : ,. !L N j Zi >- w CL ~ >- 0:: ~ ~ 2 ::; en ::> ?' !L <( o "'- ,. ..~ ~ ~E3..E3 ~I~;~~ (OW W ~~ 1 ~ I 8.80 o W 0::: 0 <( W !L >- ~ ~ !L '" ::J U1 ~t-' .."- ~~ ~~ ..u ..z a:~ ,,- f- m B " W I U < f- f- < Z >- :!i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I: '!' (J ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ 5 f" ~ ~ o m f- " ~ ~ !!2 j N ! ~ ~ 5 < ~ ~~ 0 ~o 0 ANVdl/\lOO 9NIH33NI9N3 3Hnl0:J1/\I "'=1 IE MH,1 Ji!11 I .. <~ y ~ .. '- ~ I~;I~~~ ~ ~ ~! ~ N :!: :~ jO a::- 0 ~ ,~ IS I !~ ~~ I!illi t !IJlI ~U..fh '" fl ~ w... ; , ~ =~.~ ~~ ii! I'" i" "II ;: i, ~~12 *i i: 8~ 2 g I: . . . . 0 l'.~i lit!, I, !ill'>lll J ~!~;>r! :l~ i; O~ ! i i ~ ~ i ~~ "'w - .. .gt/{l "f;~ 11hll. illl eczii-i I~~ .1 i!l" c j" (.):: _c:; g!!] $ .. Ilf~n, 11'11 >ii~~I.~ .' I~ 6~ ~ . ii! . ~~ . = .~ m !l~ 0 ~ i~ I~ l~ <) :o_w , .~~.~S. I . 5' ., I I I!I M!t lib 2:_::E ~ 'iir Ii s ~ .... ~~Q~ ~~~ ~ s c ""'Ii ' ~~h~m CI) ~~ffiO o~ ~!J~~ ~ E ~~U~~ ~.~~ ~'"" ~~~ ~o< ~ >-9~ ~ e ~8 ~~. CI) !3!;;~8 ~o~ "'~~"~V ~~9."mO~~~ 3~i~~~ en ~~~~~~~~~ >[:j !3~f;j ~ ca ~~8@;!3 <C 8~N. 55b~ IJJ O~ZCl.l~,IIl,...l....l o .z~. ~ ~ ~~@~~tii:(C>i: ~i5o ~~ ~~~~~~~~~ 9~~!;(PCi CI) oZoo:!:~ .... ~O'\Q<;!!:::O,....l;Z ~"'....~z .- > e~~I~~.~5~ Sigffi~@ .c =<: u V~IlilOZ .- ~~< ~~~~o ~~<~ ~ .- ... oo~@ ~~~o ~O~~M.~ .c C ~I-<Qltll"i:"2 ~ !-<_Ul-<~ >< ~~~~S~~5~ ="':~~~:t :I:Z~ ll-. l-O~...lll..Ul-~:3 bQ_~I1J~ IJJ C ~gussl3~82< ~~~~~g 0 2;~~a~;..gci~ m~ u - !ii02S~>1-<8"'''''' =i?i.~~3 E ~ ~ ~Q ~:3 :;Jj ~ ~~~o~ .,-.,F:l!>: ~ E!Cl~<Il ",~~~~g~ E rl,!m: ~ g. ~pJ::: 9~I;;)Jg90<;;.~ e5.:s~~:l9o 0 ~o~~~o~m~~~ ~~:fl~o:~~ 0 2~tBj~~\O~~j ~ ~s~~!J~" l2ti~~~~~..,.g::~hl f2Ul~~~~~ ~<z"..oo~~;;j>> Cl<Z"",O_~ <' z o V N N ~ "'0 -" ..JE ~ t& :Co j lAm II ~~~~~~~~ <(""CJI~""'" <( $ NORTH ~t g~ u ..- .,' z ~ o E o u 8 f- a z w (f) 3 '" W J: f- a ~ o '" '" c o ~ c o CD Ii; ~'?-~ g, Ii;~ '<"C?%~ ~ c o u "<t .\: ..,. l' ~ '" ~ r-- :~8 . <( I- N ~ u ii1 Lri ::?: 3: 0... N a a >- ~ [j8:9if':"'\'-'\J ...... '::'gj~"~~ 3: 3:~::j ~" .. ~ '" w .. t'-:'_~~ ~ CD ~ ~ 8 ~15.... " 6 ~ ~ ~ EJ >- ~~~\! 01"-10 (f), g: ~ r0.~~.~ i3:Q:;;-~~ >- V1 ~'",~ GW w""-W l" 'I W Z I Z I ~ l=! ~'" "-! ~8.8o~~~~ (f) (f) ~ Z :0 Preliminary MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2007 - 7:30 P.M. EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER: Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m., MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Terry Smith, Bob Brooks MEMBERS ABSENT: Wally Plahutnik, Beth Koppes, Dean Shannon STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (become effective on Iv after separate Council action): Recommended approval, by a vote of 4-0 (Plahutnik, Koppes and Shannon absent), for an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, South Central District Plan, to discuss commercial development scenarios for Ruppert Road. Recommended approval, by a vote of 4-0 (Plahutnik, Koppes and Shannon absent), 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. Public Discussion of Anv Item not on the AQenda No discussion. Comprehensive Plan Item Public hearing on an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, South Central District Plan, to discuss commercial development scenarios for Ruppert Road. Miklo stated that this property is included in the South Central District (the area south of Highway 6, west of the river, over to Highway 218). The comprehensive plan shows a mix of community commercial (CC- 2) and CI-1 zoning along Highway 6. The CI-1 zoning allows more intense commercial uses such as auto body shops, manufactured housing sales, and auto sales. Prior to the Wal-Mart proposal the district plan designated the area north of the airport for intense commercial uses. This would be an opportunity to develop land that was no longer needed for aviation purposes for commercial development. The idea would be to relocate the intensive commercial businesses along the highway that do not require visibility to move into this area. This would free up the land along the highway for retail uses. The City proposed an amendment to the plan about a year ago to rezone to CC-2 for Wal-Mart, which was considering purchasing about 20 acres in the area. It was thought that Wal-Mart would encourage redevelopment of the properties along the highway for more retail uses but that project did not go forward. Currently, the land is zoned CC-2, but without a magnet retailer, it will be hard to attract retailers to this area because there is little visibility from the highway. The City has been approached by several CI-1 businesses, including an auto parts warehouse and a construction company. In order to accommodate these changes in use, the City has proposed that the eastern part of Ruppert Road to be zoned CI-1. The City has prepared language for the comprehensive plan that would allow the land to be rezoned CC-2 or CI-1. There is also the possibility of extending Miller Avenue down to Ruppert Road, but until this is finalized, it is best to keep our options open for CI-1 zoning. Extending Miller Avenue would allow for better traffic flow and increased visibility to the area and may make the area appropriate for retail. The extension of the road would require the cooperation of a property owner whose property would have to be purchased for the road to go through. The Cub Foods building is also in flux at this point and could have some effects on the area. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2007 Page 2 Staff is recommending an amendment to the comprehensive plan land use map to show the area along the eastern portion of Ruppert Road as intensive commercial. The land use map which still showed the area on the western part as community commercial but the text would qualify this depending on the street configuration and visibility, stating that CI-1 would also be appropriate. Staff would also recommend that the 12 acres shown on the location map be rezoned from CC-2 to CI-1 to accommodate the sale of the land. The Commission received a letter from the adjacent property owner (The Alexis Park Inn & Suites) who is in the process of acquiring an adjacent lot which is currently a concrete company. The letter speaks to the problems that Alexis Park has had with the adjacent property in terms of outdoor storage and a lack of screening. The current outdoor storage would not be permitted under today's zoning code without a dense evergreen screen in combination with a solid wall in the CI-1 or CC-2 zone. ' Freerks asked if the property was in compliance with code. Miklo stated that this property is not in compliance with the previous code, which required some screening, or with the current code. He suspects that Alexis Park did not bring this to the attention of the inspection department. Outdoor storage could not be located on this land without S3 screening (a solid wall or fence plus evergreen or deciduous trees). Freerks asked what would happen if the purchase of the property by Alexis Park falls through. Miklo stated that there may be some enforcement action taken if this were the case. Miklo does not believe that this use is grandfathered in because there has always been a requirement for screening. Brooks asked about the history of this land's zoning. Everything that is zoned CC-2 up to the north boundary was airport property. When this area was offered for development by the airport (6-7 years ago), this area was rezoned CI-1. The intention was to support the airport by allowing them to give up the excess land for development. Wal-Mart approached the City for possible CC-2 development. Brooks asked if the Commission was being asked only to rezone only the properties that the City has serious buyers for. Miklo confirmed this. Brooks stated that he felt this rezoning may be a knee-jerk reaction to a possible buyer. He is concerned that this may be a short-sited decision. Brooks asked if the realtors are giving any indication that there might be more interest in CI-1 development. Miklo stated that after the Wal-Mart development fell through, the City's realtors investigated other possible large retailers. These retailers were concerned about the lack of visibility in the area. The current offers are from wholesale, warehouse, intensive commercial buyers, which is what the subdivision was intended for prior to the Wal-Mart proposal. He feels that it is more likely that the areas would be rezoned CI-1 but the realtors are counseling the City to keep the options open for the area. There are some changes occurring in the area with Wal-Mart looking for a new location and Cub Foods closing. Brooks is concerned about the City requesting rezoning based solely upon the existence of a buyer. He feels that this is something that the Commission is hesitant to grant rezoning from private parties under these same circumstances. Miklo stated that it depends on the location and the circumstances attendant with the land and that he feels this is a good scenario for rezoning. There have been many circumstances where the land has been zoned one way and a buyer comes in and wants to change the zoning and the City has gone along with this. Under other circumstances, they might not support a rezoning like this. As always, the Commission should look at surrounding land uses and infrastructure when considering a rezoning. Freerks stated that it is not practical to make decisions based on buyers but on circumstances. She asked when The Alexis Park Inn did their renovations. Miklo stated that the renovations have been in process for 3-5 years, well before the CC-2 zoning was established. . Eastham confirmed that there had been no input from the adjacent property owners with property along Highway 6. He suggested that a study be done to see what economic impact the changes would have on property values of adjacent property owners. He understands that this may be difficult because there may be few changes, there may be some speculation involved, and it might be hard to determine how the values would be affected. Miklo stated that when Wal-Mart was going to buy the land, property values escalated. If Wal-Mart had gone in, the properties along Highway 6 would have likely applied for rezoning Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2007 Page 3 to CC-2. The land would have been too valuable for retail and the CI-1 uses would have been outbid. Miklo stated that the property values are mostly based on their visibility from the highway. Brooks stated that it would be interesting to discuss in a work session the long range plan for this area. He thinks it would be prudent to prepare ourselves for some of the issues that may come up in the near future. Brooks closed public discussion. Freerks made a motion to amend the Comprehensive Plan, South Central District Plan, to discuss commercial development scenarios for Ruppert Road. Eastham seconded. Smith asked if Miklo could expand on the statement in the letter from Alexis Park that Mike Tharp, Iowa City Airport Specialist, and Janelle Rettig, Airport Commissioner, are on record as opposing this rezoning. Miklo stated that the Airport Commission is very interested in selling this property and its development. These revenues would help offset the operation of the airport. He is not aware of Mr. Tharp being on record in opposition. Miklo stated that neither of these parties has come before the Commission and that he was not aware of their opposition. Miklo stated that the City is working closely with the Airport Commission on the project. Behr stated that there was a discussion at the Airport Commission about removing the covenants and restrictions on the property. They were placed there by the Airport Commission when the land was platted initially. He is not sure, but he thinks that this issue might be being combined with the current zoning issue in this letter. Currently, the covenants and restrictions have not been removed. Brooks asked about the nature of the covenants and restrictions. Behr stated that he knew little about their specifics but that it has something to do with outdoor storage and what types of materials may be stored outdoors. The covenants and restrictions exist regardless of the zoning. Miklo clarified that the covenants are private and the discussion was to remove these covenants to make the land more conducive for CI-1 uses. However, the discussion, given the neighbor's concern, was to leave them in place for the lot adjacent to them to prohibit outdoor storage. Miklo said that once the land is sold the City has no control over the covenants. Brooks asked who put on the covenants. Behr stated that the City Council did. Freerks confirmed that the City Council would be the one to add or remove the covenants and restrictions. Brooks stated that he thinks it would be wise to inform Alexis Park that this Commission has no control over the covenants and restrictions. Freerks suggested that the Commission tell the owners of Alexis Park how they would go about lobbying for these changes. Miklo stated that this discussion has taken place and that they are aware of the process. Smith said that he struggled with the change for the same reasons as Brooks. He wants to make sure that they are following the same rules and criteria when the City is the applicant as when any private party is the applicant. He wants to make sure that this request is thoroughly evaluated, based on the location of the property, how it was originally zoned, and what the long term plan is for the area. He doesn't have a problem with CI-1 in this area next to an airport. He thinks it makes sense for the whole area to be zoned CI-1 like it was originally. He recognizes that this is not part of the proposal. He doesn't want to end up with spot CI-1 zoning with CC-2 surrounding it. He doesn't feel this is good long term planning. Miklo stated that spot zoning is picking out one property to give it special zoning. This request is 12 acres, which makes it larger than a spot zone. The proximity to the highway makes this circumstance one that is conducive to CC-2 zoning along the Highway with CI-1 zoning further back. He doesn't consider this application a spot zone. Smith said that he would be more comfortable with rezoning the whole area but not the smaller portion because he doesn't see the long term justification for it. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2007 Page 4 Freerks stated that she would agree with Smith and Brooks that she would be opposed to this if the area was smaller, such as an acre. She feels that 12 acres is substantial enough to spur some positive growth and redevelopment. She does think that this can work, especially based on the opportunities for flexibility that are in the comprehensive plan amendment language. Eastham asked if Smith felt that there would be enough options and flexibility going forward for rational development and zoning changes that are not simply in the best interest of the current property owner or if the Commission is being asked to do something that restricts the options for the future. Smith doesn't feel that the proposed change would restrict the options. He feels that more property will be zoned to CI-1 in the future. He doesn't feel that this rezoning is contrary to the future plans for the area. He doesn't feel that this should be pushed forward without the physical presence of the neighbor who has a conflict and could not be here tonight. He would like to meet with them to allow them to voice their concerns and allow the Commission to ask any questions they have of them. Miklo stated that the neighbors were notified by letter prior to the January 18 meeting and could have come to that meeting to raise their objection. From conversations with the neighbors, they would prefer CC-2 zoning because it would make their property more valuable but the City doesn't feel that without a magnet retailer, CC-2 zoning does not make sense here. The neighbors will also have an opportunity to voice their opinions at Council. Eastham stated that there are a number of instances of CC-2 and CI-1 zoning being adjacent. He doesn't find anything unusual in this request. He feels that the letter from Alexis Park Inn raises the question about the use of the property adjacent to their motel. He feels that this is not a zoning issue but a zoning enforcement issue. Miklo says that this is being resolved because the owners of Alexis Park Inn are buying the property, but are concerned about the property to the west. Eastham responded that the screening and buffering requirements that are in the code are there to address this issue and allow CC-2 zoning and CI-1 zoning to do well next to each other. Smith confirmed that the screening is only required if there is outdoor storage. Smith asked about the time frame for this decision. Behr stated that this is a contingency in the purchase contract which is scheduled to close on May 9. The application must be run by City Council before that time as well. There is no time frame on the rezoning, just a contingency that the property be rezoned. Freerks stated that she doubts that the Commission would gather any new information before meeting again but that she feels that the Alexis Park Inn owners have written a thorough letter and deserve to be heard. Smith agrees with this because the owners at least had the intent to be here tonight. Brooks confirmed that the comprehensive plan change and rezoning are separate ,,:otes. Smith asked what happened if the changes were made to the comprehensive plan but the rezoning was not approved. Miklo stated that if the Comprehensive Plan called for a type of use and zoning and if the rezoning was turned down, this action could be considered arbitrary. Brooks stated that he supports this reluctantly. He would like to see rezoning done as part of a comprehensive plan and future thoughts on the area and not just to rezone based on possible buyers. He doesn't want to be in this position again in a few months and be continuously carving away at this area. His preference would be to rezone the entire area back to CI-1, but that this possibility is not before the Commission at this time. Eastham stated in another area that the land use scenario map shows industrial uses for what is currently occupied by two trailer parks, just east of Highway 1. This is the same land use scenario designation that currently exists on the South Central District Plan. He would like to know if the comprehensive plan has the best treatment of this use in mind in its present form. His vote for this request to change the comprehensive plan is not a reflection that he agrees with the industrial classification for the manufactured housing park. Smith will reluctantly support this request and see where the area goes. Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2007 Page 5 . Freerks thinks that before any further zoning is addressed, they would need to address the issue of the Miller Avenue being connected through. She will support this with some reluctance as well. Motion carried 4-0 (Plahutnik, Koppes and Shannon absent). Rezoninq/Development Item 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. ' Brooks closed public discussion. Smith made a motion to approve. Eastham seconded. Smith asked if the current contractor were to fall through, would the rezoning be on hold or go forward? Behr said that it hasn't been discussed but it would likely go forward on the current contract. Miklo said that there are two parties interested in two different lots. Motion carried 4-0 (Plahutnik, Koppes and Shannon absent). Election of Officers Freerks made a motion to defer until all members of the Commission are present. Smith seconded. Motion carried 4-0 (Plahutnik, Koppes and Shannon absent). Other Items Miklo stated that a memo was presented to the Commission informing them of what the staff is doing with the Central planning district. There were two good workshops providing information about the North Market Place area. They are hearing from business owners and property owners that they like the current scale of the area and there is some concern about parking in the future as development occurs. They do not want the character of the area to change. They like the uniqueness of the neighborhood and do not want a campus town feel in this area. Brooks asked how many apartments were in the new unit going up Market Street. He was wondering about parking and the potential impacts on retail parking. Freerks stated that this is,a metered area that is ticketed aggressively. Miklo stated that the new building will have an underground parking facility. The apartments in this building are 1-3 bedrooms so the parking ratio is higher than on the 4-5 bedroom apartment buildings. There may be some tenants that don't have vehicles and some that don't have assigned spots, so hopefully it will even out. Freerks stated that she had read an article that Wal-Mart is trying to adjust their business, both inside and out, to the community that they are located in. Consideration of the February 1, 2007 Meetinq Minutes Eastham made a motion to approve. Smith seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Adiournment Meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m. Minutes submitted by Megan Weiler. s/pcd/minutes/p&z/2-15-07.doc C ,S! 1/1 1/1 'E E o o'E 0)0 C (.) .- Q) go:: NQ).... ~(.)g CN 0)"' c"C .- C C Q) C= .!!< c. ~ o "' ~ .S! In UJ UJ .... >< >< >< -- 0 0 >< -- 0 N .... 0 >< >< >< >< >< >< >< -- N 00 >< >< >< >< >< >< .... >< -- .... (/) CO I"- 0 CO ..- E ~ 0 ..- ..- ..- 0 0 ..- o ..- li3'~ -- - - - - -- L{) L{) L{) L{) L{) L{) L{) I-w 0 0 0 0 0 00 E ~ C ~ ~ III '2 0 III Q) .... c Q) .c Q. ::s c .c E 0 .... Q) Q. .c III .... 0 III e 'E III ... III 0 .!!.c z lXl w u.. ~ Q.en en C) z i= w w :!: ..J < :!: 0:: o LL Q) W N >< >< >< >< >< 0 >< - .... (/) o ..- co I"- 0 co ..- E ~ ..- ..- 0 0 ..- 0 ..- li3'~ -- - - - - - L{)L{) L{) L{) L{) L{) L{) I-w 00 0 0 0 0 0 E ~ C 1/1 1/1 1/1 C 0 ,:,e. "' ~~ - C .c :::s .c 0 - .c C - Q) e 1/1 "' 'E "' ~ 0 "' .c Em w LL~ a:: (/) (/) m , cJ ciu.i ~ c:i ...: zm C) z i= w w :!: ..J < :!: 0:: o LL Z '0 Q) (/) :::::I U X W --~ Cc:C: Q) Q) Q) (/) (/) (/) ~.o.o 0..<(<( .. II II 'II >. W Q) - :::s:::><oo