HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-19-2007 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, April 16, 2007 -7:30 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Lobby Conference Room
410 E. Washington Street
Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 7:30 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
C. Rezoning Items:
1. REZ07 -00004: Discussion of an application submitted by County Materials for a rezoning from Heavy
Industrial (1-2) zone (14.5-acres) to General Industrial (1-1) zone and Planned Development Overlay I
General Industrial (OPD/I-1) zone for a Sensitive Areas Development Plan to allow the filling and
mitigation of wetlands and the reduction of a wetland buffer on approximately 36.65 acres of property
located north of Izaak Walton Road, east of Oakcrest Hill Road.
(45-day limitation period: May 5, 2007)
2. REZ07-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by Ezebube Real Estate Investments LLC for a
rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) zone to Medium Density Multi-Family Residential
(RM-20) zone for approximately .40 acres of property located at 719 & 723 Michael Street.
(45-day limitation period: May 10, 2007)
D. Vacation Item:
VAC07-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Services LLC to
vacate a portion of Hollywood Boulevard located south of Highway 6, east of Broadway Street.
E. County Rezoning Item:
CZ07 -00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Tyler Rogers for a rezoning from County
Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R) zone for 3.0 acres of property located on the west side of
,Kansas Ave SW, approximately y.. mile south of IWV Rd SW and a nearby 3.0 acre property from
County Residential (R) zone to County Agriculture (A).
F. Consideration of the April 5, 2007 Meeting Minutes
G. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Item: REZ07 -00004
County Materials
(CMC-West Lucas LLP)
Date: April 19, 2007
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
CMC-West Lucas LLP
3705 1st Ave. SW
Cedar Rapids, IA 52405
Contact Person:
Merle Headington
County Materials Corporation
3705 1st Ave. SW
Cedar Rapids, IA 52405
Phone:
(319) 350-0325
Requested Action:
Rezoning from 1-2 and 1-1 to OPD/I-1 and a
Sensitive Areas Development Plan to allow the filling
and mitigation of a wetland and the reduction of a
required 100-foot wetland buffer.
Purpose:
To allow for the construction of a concrete pipe
manufacturing plant that will impact protected
wetlands.
Location:
270 Izaak Walton Road
Size:
36.645 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
1-1 & 1-2
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Undeveloped - County Agricultural
Undeveloped - County Agricultural
Recreational - County Agricultural
Residential - County Residential
Comprehensive Plan:
Open Space
March 13th, 2007
April 2ih, 2007
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The subject property is located at the far southern boundary of Iowa City's corporate city limits,
east of Old Highway 218 and north of Izaak Walton Road. The site is surrounded on three sides
by Johnson County land, which is zoned agricultural and residential, and the Izaak Walton League
- --_..__..._----_._.~-_.__._---_.---
2
Clubhouse and recreation area are located on the adjacent property to the east. The property was
previously owned by S&G Materials Company, and the eastern 15 acres of the site was mined for
sand and gravel for the past 15-20 years. More recently, the eastern portion of the site has been
used for gravel and fill material storage.
The eastern portion of the applicant's property (approximately 14.5 acres) is currently zoned
Heavy Industrial (1-2), and the western portion (approximately 22.5 acres) is zoned General
Industrial (1-1). The applicant plans to build a concrete pipe manufacturing plant with outdoor
storage within the area currently zoned 1-2, and locate a second outdoor storage yard in the area
zoned 1-1. The pipe manufacturing would be considered a principle use; the outdoor storage yards
would be considered an accessory use. A wetland survey conducted for the applicant indicates a
total of 3.24 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the western portion of the site. The U.S. Army Corp
of Engineers requires compensatory mitigation to offset any proposed impacts to wetlands.
The applicant is requesting to rezone the 1-2 area to 1-1 to bring the property into a single zoning
classification in order to conform to the zoning code requirement that accessory uses be located
on the same lot as the principle use, and that a property not be divided by a zoning boundary.
The applicant seeks a rezoning for a Planned Development Overlay/General Industrial (OPD/I-1)
zone and a Sensitive Areas Development Plan to allow the filling and mitigation of a wetland and
the reduction of the required 100 foot wetland buffer to 50 feet.
As stated above, the proposed concrete pipe manufacturing facility will include indoor
manufacturing and outdoor product storage. Development of site would take place in two phases:
Phase I includes the grading and construction of the manufacturing/curing plant on the
eastern portion of the property (the area currently zoned 1-2) as well as construction of the
outdoor pipe storage yard. The storage area would consist of paved drives, interspersed with
an extensive series of linear sand beds onwhich the concrete pipe product would be stacked.
Access to the manufacturing plant and employee parking would be provided from Izaak
Walton Road. There is very little wetland on this portion of the property (see the southwest
corner of the 1-2 zone) and no mitigation will take place in this area.
Phase II includes the creation of additional storage area and associated drives as well as the
access road from Oak Crest Hill Road. Development of this area requires filling of 1.96 acres
of wetland. To mitigate the proposed filling of wetland, phase II would include the creation of
3.92 acres of new wetlands within the 1-1 area as weill as establishment of the buffer area and
bio-retention basins.
The applicant has indicated that the phase II storage area will be used to store product such as
manhole sections, box culvert sections, intakes and similar product that can be placed on a
relative flat surface without danger of rolling or otherwise moving out of place. The applicant
has proposed to seed this area with native vegetation, which would stay in place until additional
outdoor storage is needed. The applicant has not indicated the maximum extent of the future
storage yard, nor the material for surfacing the storage area.
A revised site plan for the proposed development was submitted to staff on Thursday, April 12.
Some elements of the plan are still being reviewed.
ANAL YSIS:
Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is included in the South Central District of the
Comprehensive Plan. Because it is located within the 1 OO-year flood plain, includes jurisdictional
wetlands, and is difficult to service with City sanitary sewer, the future land use scenario for the
South Central District indicates this property as open space. The South Central District Plan also
3
states that "industrial zoning is most suitable for those properties in this area that have direct
access to the railways and Riverside Drive." Unless the property is purchased by the City or
another private entity that would set it aside as open space, the property owner has the right to
develop the property for uses permitted under the current zoning. However, the requested
wetland filling and buffer reduction are discretionary, and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan
should be considered when developing the Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan also raises aesthetic concerns with regard to development of industrial
type uses along the entrance way to the City. As discussed below, screening requirements in the
code are intended to mitigate the appearance of the proposed manufacturing use and storage
yard from adjacent right-of-ways.
Current Zoning: The 1-1 zone allows for most industrial uses and is regulated to protect
surrounding developments. The 1-2 zone is intended for intense industrial uses such as
manufacturing or fabrication facilities, particularly those uses whose daily operations create
significant negative externalities, especially noise and dust. Because the production process for
the proposed manufacturing operation is entirely indoors, and because the outdoor storage areas
will be designed and constructed to minimize dust, the use may be classified in the General
Manufacturing use category. The proposed outdoor product storage area is an accessory use to
the manufacturing component and must be located in the same zone as the manufacturing use.
Thus the applicant is requesting that the entire property be zoned 1-1.
Sensitive Areas Ordinance: The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) is to
implement the environmental policies of the Comprehensive Plan; permit and define the
reasonable use of properties that contain environmentally sensitive features and natural resources
while recognizing the importance of environmental resources and protecting such resources from
destruction; and provide for the mitigation of disturbances of environmentally sensitive features
and natural resources by requiring and implementing mitigation plans, as needed.
The SAO requires a rezoning to a Planned Development Overlay zone, a process which requires
the approval and recording of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan (SADP) prior to development
activity that disturb a wetland or associated buffer or for requests for modifications of the
standards. Any SADP containing a regulated wetland is required to submit a Wetland Mitigation
Plan that clearly delineates the extent to which existing wetlands are impacted. Additionally, the
Plan must address several issues pertaining to the quality, type, and diversity of the wetlands
being impacted as well as those being created.
The Wetland Mitioation Plan: The Wetland Mitigation Plan, submitted by Transition Ecology,
L.L.C. provides a clear delineation of the existing wetlands, including those that will be impacted
by development activity during Phase II of the project, which would require the disturbance or
elimination of approximately 1.96 acres of jurisdictional wetlands (1.50 acres of emergent wetland
+ 0.46 acres of wooded wetlands). The zoning code requires the replacement of wooded
wetlands at a ratio of at least two-to-one and emergent wetlands at a rate of one-to-one. The
applicant proposes to replace the 1.96 acres of filled wetland with 3.92 acres of new wetland.
These new wetland basins would contain 0.92 acres of wooded wetlands (meeting the 2:1 code
requirement) and 3.00 acres of emergent wetland (twice what is required by code).
The plan also proposes to surround both the 3.92 acres of new wetlands as well as the remaining
existing wetlands with a 50-foot buffer zone (2.77 acres). (A reduction is being requested from the
normally required 100 foot buffer as discussed below.) The proposed buffer area will be seeded
with native plant species as required by code. A portion of the proposed buffer is indicated by the
consultant as a bio-retention area and is intended to capture and filter storm water run-off from
average storms (5-year event storms) before flowing into the mitigated wetland area. The plan
4
indicates that the mitigated wetlands would store 1 OO-year storm events. In addition, the mitigation
plan indicates that 1.02 acres of retained (existing) emergent wetland will be enhanced-invasive
reed canary grass will be removed and the required native seeding will take place.
As currently planned, it appears water is being impounded by the berm structure rather than
being infiltrated and "treated". The Iowa Stormwater Management Manual chapter defines a
bioretention system as "shallow landscaped stormwater basin with an engineered soil
subgrade. The stormwater runoff collected in the upper layer of the system is filtered through
the surface vegetation, mulch layer, pervious soil layer, and then stored temporarily in a stone
aggregate base layer." From a water quality standpoint and for the health of the wetland this
type of "treatment," staff recommends that the bio-retention basins be designed in this manner.
Based on the plans submitted, if water were to reach the elevation of 637.5, it appears as if it
would back up during average storm events and be directed into the swale located at the south
of the site and leave the site via the culvert at elevation 632.7 rather than spilling into the
mitigated wetlands. If this observation is correct, much of the stormwater would leave the site
and not enter the wetland. Therefore, staff recommends that an additional berm be built up to
the 639 elevation to force the water to flow into the wetland area.
Buffer Reduction: The zoning code requires a 100-foot buffer separating development activity
from a regulated wetland. However, the code also permits a buffer reduction of up to 50 feet if it
can be demonstrated by a wetland specialist that the wetland is:
1. less than five acres in total area; and
2. does not contain species listed by the Federal or State government as endangered or
threatened, or critical or outstanding natural habitat for those species 1; and
3. does not contain diverse plant associations of infrequent occurrence or of regional
significance; and
4. is not located within a regulated stream corridor.
While the wetland survey submitted by the applicant indicates that each of these criteria has been
met, the City must also consider the following factors when determining whether or not to reduce
the required buffer:
1. The proposed land use of the property and its potential impact on the wetland; and
2. The design and layout of the proposed development in relation to the wetland; and
3. The physical characteristics of the site and wetland; and
4. Any other factor related to the short- or long-term environmental stability and health of
the wetland.
As explained above, the buffer areas appear to function as stormwater detention basins rather
than their identified use as bio-rention. The staff recommendations regarding infiltration and the
berm structure would create a more functional system that would help to justify the 50-foot
reduction in the buffer.
The current site shows the phase I outdoor storage areas as a combination of concrete paved
1 While the wetland area contains suitable habitat for the Indiana Bat (an endangered species), the consulting wetland
specialist has indicated that the habitat in this area is neither "critical nor outstanding" for the species. The report is
being review by the Fish and Wildlife Service to verify the quality of habitat.
5
surfaces, on which equipment and vehicles move around, interspersed with an extensive series of
sand beds for storage of the concrete pipes. The site plan indicates the maximum extent of paving
in the area (impermeable surface), although the sand beds may be rearranged depending on the
needs of the storage facility. The sand beds are intended to control for rolling or damage to the
pipe product but also have the potential benefit of reducing the amount of impermeable surface on
site and potentially allow infiltration of stormwater that is shed from the paved area. That is, rather
than draining all stormwater onto the detention basins, some water should have the opportunity to
infiltrate the soil on site via the sand beds. Staff recommends that the paved areas be designed to
shed water into the sand beds and that the applicant indicate a depth of sand adequate to absorb
water from an average rainfall.
Phase \I of the site development indicates proposed product storage space access drives and a
drive connection to Oak Crest Hill Road. The applicant proposes to fill and grade the northern half
(approximate) of the phase II site and to seed the entire area (excluding areas for paved drives)
until additional storage space is needed. The applicant's site plan shows the drives paved with
gravel, however the zoning code stipulates that all drives must be paved with a durable surface.
The City will require that the drives be paved in asphalt or concrete. The applicant has not
indicated the extent (maximum) area to be used for outdoor storage on this portion of the site, nor
how the storage area would be surfaced.
The design and surfacing materials used for the outdoor storage are important in assessing the
potential impacts to the wetland. Without basic information on how the phase II outdoor storage
areas will be developed it is not possible for staff to accurately assess the impacts on the
wetlands. Therefore staff recommends that any rezoning be granted based on the following
conditions: No outdoor storage would be allowed on the phase \I site until a paved surface is
developed, and the extent (area and location) of said paving and paving material be approved by
staff. Staff has advised the applicant that a dust-free surface such as asphalt or concrete paving
will be acceptable in the storage area for phase II but will consider other dust-free alternative
materials proposed by the applicant. Without at a plan showing the extent of development in this
area it is not possible to determine the affects of reducing the wetland buffer. Staff recommends
that the required 100-foot buffer be retained until a proposal for the development of this area is
submitted.
At the time of this report, engineering staff have not completed their review of stormwater
management plan for the site, and thorough review of the erosion control plan is also not
complete, therefore Staff recommends that approval of the rezoning be subject to the approval of
the stormwater management and erosion control plans by the staff.
Woodlands: The property appears to contain woodland areas. The Sensitive Areas
Ordinance allows up to 90% of woodlands to be removed for development in industrial zones.
The Sensitive Areas plan should show the extent of the woodland areas to be removed.
Traffic/Access: The applicant proposes two points of access. The first access is the existing
drive from Izaak Walton Road, which lies south of the subject property this would be the main
entrance for all employee traffic as well as shipping and receiving of materials. Phase II proposes
to use the existing access from Oak Crest Hill Road, which would provide an additional access to
the site from the north, including fire and emergency access. The access drive will need to be
paved.
Izaak Walton Road is a gravel secondary road with a seal coat surface, which is under Johnson
County jurisdiction. As a requirement of a Conditional Use permit granted to S&G Materials,
which operates a quarry to the south and east of the subject property, the County has a
maintenance agreement with S&G to maintain the road.
6
Screening: Outdoor storage is allowed in the 1-1 zone as a provisional or accessory use.
However, the code requires screening standards in order to protect surrounding properties. The
code stipulates that outdoor storage be screened from public view to the extent possible. If not
screened by buildings, storage areas must be set back at least 20 feet from any public right-of-
way and screened from view to the S3 standard. If a fence is built around the storage area,
required screening must be provided between the fence and the right-of-way. The Building Official
may waive this requirement if the outdoor storage facilities would be blocked from view either due
to topography or existing vegetation.
The applicant has indicated that S3 landscape screening will provided along the entire 50-foot
easement adjacent to the Izaak Walton League property. Along the western portion of the
property, the applicant has indicated that a 40-foot wide by 900-foot long undisturbed area will be
left between the outdoor storage area and the railroad right-of-way. The next 350 feet, adjacent to
the right-of-way will be part of the wetland mitigation area being created as part of the project and
will be planted in accordance with the mitigation plan and does not require screening. The
remaining 250 feet adjacent to the railroad right-of-way is part of an existing wooded wetland area
that will be left undisturbed and will provide screening. The southern portion of the site, between
Izaak Walton Road and the phase I outdoor storage area does not show the appropriate S3
screening. Improved screening, which includes the use of evergreen species will be required in
this area. The northern portion of the site abuts land zoned for agricultural use, and thus no
screening is required in this area. Because the development is in the floodplain and because the
code includes a requirement that plant materials used on the site be species that do not pose the
potential to invade the wetland area, staff recommends that the landscape screening be approved
by the City Forester.
Parking: The applicant has applied for and was granted special exception to reduce the required
parking provided from 76 spaces to 38 spaces. Based on information provided by the applicant
regarding the automation of the factory and the limited number of staff required to run the plant,
staff has recommended approval of the special exception subject to compliance with all parking
design and screening standards for the industrial zone.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that this application be deferred until the deficiencies and discrepancies
noted below are resolved.
Upon resolution of these items staff recommends that REZ07-00004, an application submitted
by County Materials for a rezoning from Heavy Industrial (1-2) zone (14.5-acres) to General
Industrial (1-1) zone and Planned Development Overlay / General Industrial (OPD/I-1) zone for
a Sensitive Areas Development Plan to allow the filling and mitigation of wetlands and the
reduction of a wetland buffer on approximately 36.65 acres of property located north of Izaak
Walton Road, east of Oakcrest Hill Road be approved conditioned upon:
1. That the phase I outdoor storage area be developed as a system of concrete paved drives
and sand storage beds in general compliance with the site plan submitted.
2. The site plan will comply with all landscape and screening requirements in the code and
the final landscape plan will be approved by the City Forester.
3. That no outdoor storage be allowed outside of those areas designated and constructed for
outdoor storage as per the site plan submitted.
4. Prior to development, the phase II storage area must be delineated (area and location)
and submitted to staff and must be paved with a dust-free material such as concrete or
asphalt or with alternative materials to be approved by staff.
5. Approval of the stormwater management and erosion control plans by City Engineering
7
staff.
6. Wetland monitoring reports shall be submitted to the City on an annual basis for a period
of 10 years.
Staff recommends that the 50-foot reduction in the required wetland buffer be approved for phase
I of the site subject to:
1. The maximum paved area in the phase I outdoor storage be in compliance with the site
plan submitted and pavement be designed to shed water into the sand beds.
2. The bio-retention basins indicated in the mitigation plan be designed to comply with the
Iowa Stormwater Management Manual through the use of an engineered soil subgrade
to be approved by staff.
3. An additional berm be built up to the 639 elevation to force the water to flow into the
wetland area.
4. Substantial compliance with all other aspects of the mitigation and development plan as
submitted.
5. Subject to approval by the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
1. S3 screening of the outdoor storage areas from Izaak Walton Road
2. The sensitive areas plan should include information about woodland retention.
3. The proposed driveways in phase /I should be paved.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Sensitive Areas Development Plan
Approved by: ~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
~
t3
~ 1'"
~
~
~
t3
JfiJOJ.J;) MOII.#I
!:
~ ----
.__.~--- /. -
------
~~--
~-------c./--~.-l
-~l---
k-=-t-
---------------==;- -.-----
I
I
~'::_'"_T----
lrl L_~
~
~>-~
~~~
~8~
=r
\
I
\,
T-
)
\"
i
i
-,,,./
~
c ~
0"
~ 0
~~
'"
o
///. - -
L _
1__
~
o
o
o
o
I
'"
o
N
w
a:
S
en
\J
eel
o
a:
c
o
+-'
eel
S
~
eel
eel
N
z
o
~
~
<
u
o
~
~
~
~
If)
I ~ ~ IIJll~ ~ ~ t; ~ 1~~~I~a; I o~co I
~z>--t:.:J.....J I--NN c: !JJ'l:tCO
2:z~!:::::: ll::"'''I'.ei eN';;
~j~~~ 1ll<1ii c: iil~~
~o..:::><cn :::!~~Jl! 5;~~
. ....<o"'''':;;"! C)-:~ ill cnQ~
>zo~"" uj~~ c: t-='''' C
uj~g~ ~t5 ~ cn~~ .~
""S2~ ~< E Ul!. ~
:3fg ~ E; ie~ ~
~ I - ~ "'~
'" 31 fil I 2
u I 8,
-
I
I
as
~
E
~
~
II
~
Z
:J
o
~~
-0
OC/)
~z<t:
06S:
-,0
c.i ......
~!;2~ g ~~
en ~ u JI
!z ~s "~~
~ ~ ~ t Ii
...J u:,)\ ~
::::l ll::
~ -' ~ ~I ~
o k'-' -, ~ ~
(.) ,," 15'- ~6
en" ~ B' "2 .w~
::E 2 I~ i ~ ~
~ 18 ~ ~ 15 Itu
~ ~
\
\ j::l
~
7'[~ 7. ~
-, \~
,~~
, ; \ ~
)
~
~.:.
-:c
6
I-.
.' I
~
z
~j
o:~
~o
r:L1Z
~I--I
~~
>-=i:=><r:
r:L1 ~
:> E--1 0
r:L1Uc---<
Ci <J:; ~-
r:L1~~
t;~u
UJ '-::;;7
~ <r:
UJ .....,., >-
<r: ~~I ~
,~,...,....., 0
>-"-i~C---<
~
<r:
~
~~
c---< f--I
t;~
UJ
Z
r:L1~
UJ~
r:::i:l
.ry2'
!-Y
C)
11~~1II11 iQiQ ~i~ ~n
000 ~~~
",.. ~ii
j~ "~"
""i;i ~~
A
j~
1:111I
1'1
! U~
. il!
dll
.::.;;(ji c.';l
I C!J 0
<'i
z " ~
0:0 z z
::J 0 ::>
l- e; 0
u '" "
it ~5g
::J ~"'z'"
Z
~ ~~Q~
i5~~
~~~
u:.~i!:
~~~
~5=
"'~~
~8~
tm ~~D
;;~
o!~c i~; j
~Bgl ~ ~ ~ ~~
~!:! !~~ ~d
i@g~ ~~~ n;
~;n Hi ~~~
~~
c8
g~~
i"
;!~~j il;
~~:i~ ~~~
ji;ij ~!:
"~N~;: ,3ffiB
Wl~m
L..:c-=!
~
1--1
en
o
i~
Ii;
~~ ~
!I! :!
~!l il
;;l:'~ '"I:'
ii,l. if
__ ... ~ti
~d ~ ~~
i 1111! II
~ ~;2
;; "~"~S
1i~ ~ ....:
.~ ~ ~3a~
~~ . '.~'
~; ~ !~~~
~~~~~~~;]~~
'~.~~.."F
.g~.. d;c~
~'i!
dl~~i~
"':~
7[r='~ _ i
I : ~~~ :
[1//'/-1
. .
, .
. .
. ,
. .
. .
. .
. .
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Karen Howard
Item: REZ07-00005
719 & 723 Michael Street
Date: April 19, 2007
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Ezebube Real Estate Investments, LLC
1555 Otter Lane
North Liberty, Iowa 52317
319-621-6857
Contact Person:
Kevin J. Hochstedler
580 Madison Ave.
North Liberty, IA 52317
Phone:
(319)631-0346 or (319)665-9200
Requested Action:
Rezoning from Medium Density Single Family
Residential (RS-8) to Medium Density Multi-family
Residential (RM-20)
Purpose:
Redevelopment of the property for multi-family
housing
Location:
719 & 723 Michael Street
Size:
17,425 sq. ft. (approximately 0.40 acres)
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
triplex and single family / RS-8
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: multi-family / RM-20
South: single family / RS-8
East: single family / RS-8 & RM-20
West: multi-family / RM-20
Comprehensive Plan:
Single family / duplex residential
File Date:
March 26, 2007
45 Day Limitation Period:
May 10, 2007
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant is requesting a rezoning from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) to
Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-20) in order to redevelop the properties at 719 and
723 Michael Street into multi-family dwellings. The intention is to tear down the existing single
family structures and construct an 8-unit multi-family building.
The existing buildings on these properties were constructed as small single family homes in the
2
mid-1950's. The house at 719 Michael Street was at some time in the past divided into three small
apartments, making it a nonconforming use in the RS-8 zone. The current rental permit lists that
property as containing two, 2-bedroom apartments and one efficiency apartment with a maximum
occupancy of 8 persons. The building at 723 Michael Street remains a single family home and is
currently a rental property with a maximum occupancy of a family or up to 3 unrelated persons.
There are currently seven multi-family buildings located at the north end of Michael Street
containing a total of 82 apartments. One of these buildings is located behind and to the west of
the subject single family structures with the remainder located to the north. A parking lot for one
of the apartment buildings is located across the street from 723 Michael Street.
The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and
have not had discussions with neighborhood representatives.
ANAL YSIS:
Current Zoning: The subject properties are currently zoned RS-8, which is intended to provide
opportunities for more affordable single family neighborhoods by allowing single family homes on
smaller lots with duplexes allowed on corner properties.
Proposed Zoning: The RM-20 Zone is intended to provide an opportunity for multi-family housing
in areas with good access to City services and facilities.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Southwest District Plan, which was adopted in
2002, indicates that this area is intended for single family and duplex residential. In the plan, the
subject properties are located within the Miller-Orchard Neighborhood in the Roosevelt sub-
area. The plan states that this neighborhood "has many assets, but a number of challenges.
Affordability of housing, the proximity to the University, downtown Iowa City, Roosevelt School,
and the new park, all make this area a potentially attractive location for a variety of households.
However, short-term tenancy, traffic circulation patterns, an unattractive interface between the
commercial and residential area, and a lack of pedestrian links both within and between this
neighborhood and surrounding destinations have all contributed to some disinvestment in the
area."
Both the comprehensive plan map and the Southwest District Plan map indicate that properties
in this area should remain single family or duplex residential. If the subject properties are
rezoned and redeveloped, only one single family home would remain on Michael Street directly
across from the new multi-family building. Additional multi-family development in this area may
cause a domino effect, resulting in future requests for multi-family redevelopment of the single
family homes along Benton Street.
During the Southwest District planning process, citizens expressed a concern about future loss
of the smaller, more affordable single family homes in this neighborhood to redevelopment
pressures. The plan supports efforts to stabilize and revitalize the Miller-Orchard neighborhood
by encouraging rehabilitation of the existing housing stock in the area to maintain a balance
between rental and owner-occupied housing. Given that there is a concentration of 82
apartment units already in this area, staff finds that additional multi-family development would
be counter to efforts to retain and revitalize the existing single family housing stock in this
neighborhood.
The justification provided by the applicant for the rezoning is that these properties are
surrounded on three sides by RM-20 zoned property. Staff does not find this to be a compelling
reason to rezone these properties. Given the topography, most of the multi-family buildings are
generally not within direct view from these single family homes. Five of the seven multi-family
3
buildings are located beyond the crest of the hill at the end of Michael Street. The view across
the street from these properties is of the single family home at 720 Michael Street and a small
parking lot for one of the multi-family buildings. There is one apartment building behind the
subject properties, but the properties include generous rear yards that provide a buffer.
Staff also notes that since this rezoning is counter to what is indicated in the comprehensive
plan and the comprehensive plan map, an amendment to the comprehensive plan would be
necessary prior to any approval of a rezoning to RM-20.
Traffic and pedestrian facilities: Rezoning the subject property would potentially result in an
increase in population from a maximum of 11 persons to 32 persons (8 apartments at a
maximum of 4 persons per apartment). The City typically estimates approximately 7 vehicle
trips per day per multi-family unit, so a rezoning could potentially double the trips from
approximately 28 trips to 56 trips. The City typically discourages new multi-family development
in areas where the resulting traffic would be routed through lower density single family areas.
Despite that fact that this street is home to a high concentration of residents, it is substandard
with regard to pedestrian facilities. The apartment buildings at the north end of the street have
been developed without sidewalks or a pedestrian circulation system and there are no
sidewalks along either side of Michael Street.
The lack of adequate pedestrian facilities and potential for increased traffic are additional
reasons that staff recommends against further upzoning in this area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ07 -00005, an application for a rezoning from Medium Density Single
Family Residential (RS-8) to Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-20) for approximately
0.40 acres of property located at 719 and 723 Michael Street, be denied.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Southwest District plan map
Approved by: ~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
ppdadminlsttrepltemplate. doc
I I _1_-JlJ ~UJJ-J
__________J- _L~J-J~[J]] ..
_--==~~~~~-~----u 01
--------------i-- if) _._~
i if)
<C
-- -..J
__ -- ---- -- C)
::::)
_~__~'---.- 0 _
o
o
--1
l1t
Nll81~
l~
l3iiHJIV'J
~ --
~
(J
~
~
~ --=-
~
~f
tj 0t
&
a:
._ 3AV~r~
,..
D..
--J...-..;
--
C]j--
::::::. 0
C]j 0
UJ-C:
o (j
oCr)
Q:
--.-.---- ---'-- -.-
c
--LlrL- ltl
3^ii ~
-=1 r-\T--i-
.\ -j -t-~ t
___ \ \ I[ \
_~__ ___ L...~_-L- -.~- --
3^ii ~
c:-C=
o CJ
--J...-..;Q
c:
C]j--
QJ::::::
1:
_n- J
LO
o
o
o
o
I
f'..
o
N
w
a:
+-'
Q)
Q)
10-
+-'
C/)
Q)
ctS
.c
u
~
C0
C\I
f'..
\J
c
ctS
0>
,..-
f'..
. .
z
o
1-4
~
U
o
~
~
f-l
1-4
rJ)
1..S !flNOINIl:)i= ~- lBO()O~~ J//
rJD"~iftHJU;bjlJ':~ ~I~=- · 0 o2~ili ,
'-JO bJI1ll [-~ fllIill ---, '."'''"\ /' di,'/---"::. - -::-=~,
L []]]:J3 c=J [JI]J] J //\ ~~=-~ fC> ~~~ ~~
LS ~10'l>'l /' II ~ '~ ~ ~~=
-~d~Blll--- , ~
I;;; iN0<JJ ~~ ___---r.
; ~ : _ ;. ~'"~"~]'~~r\~
R -- / \ \
\; ,
~\
J\
\;(WlJ
I---l
~
"'I
~ :::II I "
'''" 11113M.31.
II
,-------J
f-------
f----
f---
-
-
-=n="
<
o
---
QTlT1TlT
h=~d I
H"::'(
8? I~J
/
n
Id ..pl~hll V,J
II /
~":l~ ,,,<<-"
~
A
~~
,0
(:j
c......,
""'H
A
~~
~
<;~. .
."':
/;
~
1111 I I ~
[Tlll{
t:::llllllll ~
~.'\\ ~~.~, ~~ ~~, ~
\..illL,.J" II~~ 1= 1-1 I=rYm T..\\\ 'J tkIJJ1~~
'-- ~ ~ 4 -~ 0( l: ti]If.---r\l ~ ~
~ ~ ~ .,~t=i I- lS" ~$~~ r\ ~ I I~!i!J...:::' ·
~ ~l=~ ~ H \~ ,~,T.~-\ .
~ =~ I- W T TN 7li T~
- - I 1III~\Brn' II m H- == t '-- ""''' p
I t:: rr, IN: .',.",,":;;Q ~~ H- -, = -.., "f--
rr, Eo-< ~ .-1trHttBt;;-U~~ . =f- ~ i ~
---'. \ "'-l I' C- - l-
I ~ d e--- ,,'r+-' ]0'"0" ~_ H~ I()y):-" - I =~L-~' '__....'-
;> - I- II I I I I B~I- ~"w-n ~ / 'iTT' ~ -~r=f(\ L-
_ ~ br 0 ~ I I I I I I <\1- ~ , I I I I I I I I -II II I I L- -
I s Jlfj~7 nl1lmB t: ~8 P'tfffiffEBJffi ~k-LJ-q5Hj~-
.. - I)----,~ IS ",SO, ~~ f-D JA"a ~."" ~~:J{~Z:Ht- /
I---
1
'"
~
~ !
'j!
~ ,.. '"
OIl ~
1 .S l
.il .] e
~ '"' ~
I
'ii
l .~
'" ;;
.. "i :5
! .. i:
0 ~ ~
:l ~ E
: .f g
.C ~ U
~ '" f
.:!
:is :is ~
.. .. ~
ll- ~
I
] ...
==
;; Il
:5 ~ rf
:s
" ~ -;;
~ ;;
~ ~
~ 's ~
II ..
~ "
;;. ~
.. "ii ....
~ ~ .tI'
~ ::::
's t 3
rf .. Il
.. ~
0 ..
';, ~ i
.Il
~ '" oJ :;
DD
;j
t)
-
=:
E-i
CJ')
-
~
c;.:l
Z
-
Z
~ ~
~ elS
E-i,Q
CJ')=
~i ~
;;JfIl
~~
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Drew E. Westberg, Planning Intern
Item: VAC07-00001 Date: April 19, 2007
Hollywood Boulevard adjacent to Highway 6
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
SouthGate Development Services, LLC
P.O. Box 1907
Iowa City, IA 52244-1907
Phone:
(319) 337-4195
Contact Person:
Glenn Siders
Requested Action:
Vacation of Right-of-Way
Purpose:
To allow for proposed commercial development
Location:
South of Highway 6, east of Broadway Street
File Date:
North: Residential (RS-5)
South: Commercial (CC-2)
East: Undeveloped (CO-1)
West: Commercial (CC-2)
March 29th, 2007
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
BACKGROUND I NFORMA TION:
The applicant, SouthGate Development Services LLC, is requesting the vacation of a portion of
the Hollywood Boulevard right-of-way adjacent to Highway 6 east of Broadway Street. If vacated,
the property would be acquired from the City and would be added to the property that was
recently rezoned and granted a special exception for Sonic Burger drive-in/drive-through
restaurant.
Hollywood Boulevard was originally intended to serve as a frontage road adjacent to Highway 6.
The City no longer uses frontage roads due to the traffic conflicts that they create at intersections.
ANAL YSIS:
Vacation of a right-of-way is an action whereby the public access over a street or alley is removed,
usually in anticipation of an applicant purchasing the property. Vacation of right-of-way is not
advisable if it would interfere with pedestrian or vehicular circulation, limit access to private
property, inhibit the access of emergency or utility vehicles, prevent the location or operation of
necessary public or private utilities or if it is deemed desirable right-of-way for future development.
The applicant intends to use the property to fulfill setback, landscaping and buffering requirements
for the adjacent CC-2 property. As noted this right-of-way was initially intended for a frontage
road adjacent to Highway 6 that is no longer contemplated. The larger right-of-way does contain
2
private and public utilities and the Highway 6 pedestrian trail. It also may be needed for future
improvements to Highway 6. These functions can be preserved if the vacation is limited to the 6
feet requested by the applicant.
Private utilities have been contacted and asked to identify any utilities currently on-site. If the
right-of-way is vacated, easements will need to be granted for any such utilities or alternatively the
said utilities would need to be relocated. To date, the City has received notice from MidAmerican
Energy Company that they currently have utilities within the area requested for vacation and will
require an easement.
The applicant should contact the City Attorney's Office regarding the acquisition of the vacated
right-of-way.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that VAC07-00001, a request to vacate the southern 6 feet of right-of-way
located south of Highway 6 east of Broadway Street, be approved subject to the retention of utility
easements and acquisition of the property by the adjacent property owner.
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
Approved by: ~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
/
-----------
---------------------
~
-------~
----------------- ----1'
~
a:~
N
o
o
l_
J
~-
-~
~~
~
o
o
o
o
I
l'-
o
()
or::(
>
"0
lo....
CO
>
Q)
:J
o
CO
"0
o
o
~
o
I
. .
z
o
~
~
u
o
~
~
~
~
rJ)
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 19, 2007
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Drew E. Westberg, Planning Intern
RE: CZ07-00001 Kansas Avenue
The applicant, Tyler Rogers, is requesting that 3 acres of County Agricultural (A) land be
rezoned to County Residential (R) concurrent with the rezoning of 3 acres of nearby property
from R to A. The subject properties are located west of Kansas Avenue SW, approximately ~
miles south of IWV Road SW in Union Township. This area is within two miles of the City's
Corporate Limits and is therefore, subject to the Fringe Area Policy Agreement, which
requires that the City comment on rezonings within its extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Both areas included in this rezoning request are currently used for pasture. The residential
zoning for the southern 3 acres was approved by the County in 1972. If the rezoning is
approved, the applicant intends to subdivide the northern area into three (3) one-acre lots.
The applicant has indicated that the northern property where he is seeking residential zoning
has better topography to build a street to provide access the proposed lots.
Fringe Area Policy Agreement: The Fringe Area Policy Agreement Between Johnson
County and Iowa City, is designed to guide land use development in ways that are beneficial
to both the City and County. The subject property is situated within Fringe Area C of the
Fringe Area Land Use Plan but is not within the City's Long-Rage Growth Boundary. The
property is subject to Fringe Area C guidelines which state, "In the portions of Area C which
are not within Iowa City's growth area and which are zoned for non-farm development,
development may occur in conformance with Johnson County's Unified Development
Ordinance and City Rural Design Standards. Until otherwise changed by amending this
agreement this area shall be restricted to those uses consistent with a Rural/Agricultural
area....." This statement indicates a preference to maintain agricultural property and limit
residential development within this area. In this case the applicant is requesting to transfer
development rights from an area where they were previously approved, to a near by area
that has better road access. The previously zoned residential area would be rezoned to the
County's agricultural designation. Johnson County staff does not believe that approval of
this rezoning would set a precedent for retiring agricultural land within the fringe area as
there will be no net loss of agriculturally zoned land.
In Staff's opinion, the requested rezoning is in keeping with the spirit of the Fringe Area Policy
Agreement. The requested action takes place well beyond the City's projected growth
boundary. Approval of the application will not result in the loss of agriculturally zoned land.
July 6, 2006
Page 2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors
recommending approval of an application submitted by Tyler Rogers to rezone 3 acres of
property located on the west side of Kansas Avenue from County Agricultural (A) to County
Residential (R) and the rezoning of 3 acres nearby property from R to A.
ATTACHMENT:
Location Map
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
/~/
~
~
tj
~
~
~
~
tj
~ d~OJ Al18 'tMOI .olO Al18
- - _..,._----~_._------"--~---_.~--_._--
) "---"
a: /
en
a:
C
I ,I -1'_
t~~~~ j- ~- I-~
'I
I
i
~---
I
.
IS
1 m__
.- r
I
.-.--...j...-.
. ---
------- - - -
--. -+
[
I I
[ I
--~- - -lL -- - - - - J -,- - - - -+--.
I . " , I
I' i
,
,
I
L__
on..
r--
I
,
0:
.1---
~
C"
~
~
c
Cl
~
Q
<C'--
00
...... ......
en 0:
CD
t5 E
roo
l....
~----
-I"
......
<(
E
o
l....
-
en
I~-~..
I~' ,
~ I
~---t
,..-
o
o
o
o
I
t"'-
O
N
()
CD
::::::l
C
CD
>
<(
en
ro
en
c
ro
~
. .
Z
o
~
~
U
o
~
~
~
~
rJ)
M'_"__"_'_O_~~_~__._.,_,,_____________~______~.___._.__
Preliminary
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 5, 2007 - 7:30 P.M.
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Terry Smith, Wally Plahutnik, Beth
Koppes, Dean Shannon
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Bob Brooks
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Miklo; Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT:
Cindy Parker, Marsha Grady, Dan Broffitt, Kim McDonald, Chris
Stephan, Mark McCallum (811 E. College)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (become effective only after separate Council action):
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Brooks absent), of REZ07-00003: an application submitted by
Alpha Chi Omega Sorority for a rezoning from Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone to
Planned Development Overlay / Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (OPD/RNS-20) zone and a
Sensitive Areas Development Plan to the allow grading of regulated slopes on approximately. 77 acres of
property located at 828 E. Washington Street.
Public Discussion of Any Item not on the Aqenda
No discussion.
Rezoninq Item
REZ07-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Alpha Chi Omeqa Sorority for a rezoninq from
Neiqhborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone to Planned Development Overlay I Neiqhborhood
Stabilization Residential (OPD/RNS-20) zone and a Sensitive Areas Development Plan to the allow
qradinq of requlated slopes on approximately .77 acres of property located at 828 E. Washinqton Street.
This property is located at the corner of Washington and Governor Streets. The current zoning (RNS 20)
allows for fraternity and sorority houses. This particular project is within the requirements for density and
setbacks. The property has some steep slopes that are regulated by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
There are three levels of slopes: steep slopes (18-25%), critical slopes (grading 25-39%), and protected
slopes (grading 40% or greater). If more than 35% of the critical slopes on the property are to be graded,
the ordinance requires the development plan to be approved by Planning & Zoning and the City Council.
That is the proposal in this case.
The ordinance also requires that if protected slopes that were previously altered are going to be further
graded, th,is must also be approved, The reason for that is that such steep slopes are usually found in
environmentally sensitive areas, such as wooded ravines or larger wildlife habitats. In this particular
case, this is more of an urbanized area and these slopes don't serve as part of a natural ravine system.
However, for slopes this steep, the grading must be done very carefully to avoid erosion that might affect
the property and neighboring property. An engineer or geologist must submit a plan for such grading.
This has been done and reviewed by the City Engineer who found that the proposed grading is
acceptable and is likely to be more stable than the current slopes.
The plan calls for the construction of a 2 Y2 story house, near the east and south portions of the property,
which will appear to be 4 story from the back due to the grading. There will also be a two-level parking
garage. The lower level will be entered off Washington and have 18 spaces; the upper level will be
entered off Governor and have 17 spaces. A similar example is the deck at the corner of Market and
Dodge which serves Mercy Hospital. Most of the garage will be concealed by the house itself. The view
from Governor will be similar to a surface parking lot and the view from Washington will be a two-level
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2007
Page 2
deck garage. The garage will be faced with a stone veneer, similar to that of the house. The design will
be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission.
The plan is in order and staff recommends approval.
The current plan shows a shared driveway with 17 S. Governor, the adjacent property. Staff would
approve, subject to DOT approval, an alternative location for the driveway so there would be two
driveways as opposed to a shared driveway. Although we usually like to minimize the number of
driveways on arterial streets, in this case two drives may be preferable given the grade in this area.
Freerks asked about storm water drainage. Miklo stated that a low point on the site provides for drainage
to this point and the water would be piped underground to an existing intake in the alleyway that runs
through the center of the western portion of the block. City engineers have reviewed this and it meets
their specifications.
Eastham asked if the storm water eventually drained to Ralston Creek. Miklo confirmed that this is
correct.
Smith asked if this zoning item had any affect on the density of the house. Miklo responded that it did not
since the current use is well within the zoning requirements. They actually have zoning for more density
but likely would not be able to house the requisite number of parking spaces for a higher number of
residents.
Smith confirmed that the primary reason for this application is the grading concerns for the slopes.
Freerks asked about the Historic Preservation Committee review. Miklo stated that the Planning and
Zoning Commission has jurisdiction over the layout and its job is to approve the grading and the site plan.
The Historic Preservation Committee approves the exterior design, setbacks, and placement of the
building on the property. Their meeting is set for next Thursday, April 12. If this plan was not approved
by the HPC, a revised plan would come back before this Commission. Staff is preparing a report for the
HPC which will be mailed tomorrow. If anything, the HPC would deny in favor of a smaller footprint. Only
if the footprint was made larger would the plan have to come back before the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Freerks asked if the S-2 screening had been met on the north and east. Miklo responded that it had and
showed the areas where screening was provided. Freerks also confirmed that there were evergreens to
screen the lights of the parking garage from Governor Street.
Koppes asked if the retaining wall along the driveway was tall enough to screen light from the neighbors.
Miklo stated that you would still see the garage because you would be looking down on the property. The
garage door faces the west, and not the street. It meets the guidelines for structured parking in a
neighborhood setting.
Smith asked about the height of the building and any related issues. Miklo stated that the western side of
the building exceeds the 35 foot maximum, but the average of the height of the house is within the
required limits. A turret is proposed which exceeds the limit and is approximately 38 feet. The applicant
has applied for a minor modification for a height increase, and the Director of Housing Authority has the
authority to grant within 10% of the height requirement.
Cindy Parker (President ofAXO House Rebuilding Board) & Marsha Grady (Rebuilding Project Manager
for the AXO House Rebuilding Board). Clarified that the previous house had an occupancy of 49 and the
current proposal has an occupancy of 47.
Parker gave some background on the sorority. AXO Sigma chapter is almost 100 years old and has
resided at this property for over 80 years. The property is owned by a nonprofit corporation consisting of
alumni members of the chapter and its Board of Directors is a volunteer organization. They feel that they
have been good neighbors for these 80 years. They keep the property well maintained with a full
occupancy. They are a financially stable property owner that has been able to maintain it within the
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2007
Page 3
requirements of the Historic Conservation District. It has been a difficult year for them since the tornado
with insurance settlements and the demolition of the old house. They thanked the City staff for guiding
them through this process and hopes that they have been responsive to their inputs. They want to be
good neighbors and citizens and comply whenever they possibly can. The slopes on the lot are
historically significant and they would not have chosen to grade them if not for the tornado's damage
which made them unable to leave them as they are. They ask for expedient approval of the application
since they are working under unique timelines based on the academic calendar in order to gain
occupancy by August, 2008. They cannot afford to be in temporary rental housing for another year.
Smith asked about the additional on-site parking. Parker said previously, the lot had eight spaces. Most
of the collegiate members were parking on the street. As landlords, they feel that the parking situation
will provide more safety for their residents as the area will be off the street and well lit. This seems to be
a win-win situation because parking is taken off the street and loosens up congestion with on-street
parking and also provides more safety for their residents.
Dan Broffitt and Kim McDonald (architects) stated that the building height does exceed the requirement
with the turret. They feel that they can work around the height requirement if necessary because the
turret is mostly aesthetic. They feel they have a good case for the 10% approval because the previous
house was 41 feet tall.
The current storm water system is bare bones and there is a good chance that the applicant will pursue
on-site retention. They hope to have the project LEED certified.
Eastham asked if the water would be stored on the site. Sroffitt responded that they could likely use the
re-graded area between the house and the driveway. They may also pursue a system which would allow
the water to be reused for landscaping purposes. Somewhere down the line, they hope to get the system
worked out to be used for flushing, but they're not there yet.
McDonald stated that a solution that would be a compromise and would meet the intentions of the
Historical Preservation Committee. The plan may require the 10% minor modification but they may leave
room to pursue a variance to allow an increased height. This would be a three-month process and is
something that could occur after construction starts. Freerks confirmed that this plan would not throw off
their current construction schedule.
Broffitt reiterated the importance of their tight schedule. He would appreciate our approval tonight subject
to the Historic Preservation Commission approval.
McDonald stated that they would like to be in the house by July, 2008 and that the construction project is
scheduled to take one year.
Chris Stephan (MMS) stated that part of the intent of the double deck parking garage was to minimize the
footprint and preserve the historic nature of the neighborhood. He stated that the exposed level of the
parking garage will look fairly close to what you can see now if you drive by on Governor Street. The
approach off Washington will go down into the lower level, over a sidewalk and around a curve.
Shannon asked if there was anywhere to expand the number of spaces in the future. Stephan responded
that there was not at this point, but he was not sure if it had been discussed.
Mark McCallum (owner of 811 College St.) stated that he was on the Historic Preservation Commission
several years ago when the language of the Conservation Zone was put in place. He stated that he was
responsible for some relief from the language that would have restricted new construction or rebuilds to
no more than the size of 1200 feet in a Conservation Zone. He was a member of a Greek house and
owns a building that has a larger than 1200 foot fac;:ade on College Street. Therefore, he noted that this
district is different and contains many large, old buildings, such as Summit Street Apartments. He worked
hard to get language into the plan that would make the victim of a tornado or a fire whole again.
He stated that the Conservation Zone language does include a grandfather clause that would allow the
current applicant to rebuild an equal sized house if theirs was destroyed. He didn't think about the
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2007
Page 4
implication of parking. It was his intention not to increase parking requirements but to allow people to
rebuild their structures as they used to be. He stated that AXO has a unique situation because they own
a very large lot and they are able to add parking.
He appreciates the parking garage because it will alleviate parking pressure on the lot. He is concerned
because Pi Phi house and the Summit Street Apartments would not be able to be rebuilt as they currently
are due to the parking requirements.
He is concerned because other properties would not be able to rebuild if their structures had been
damaged to the extent that the AXO house had been. The parking requirements prohibit them from
rebuilding. He encourages the Commission to look at the language so that other property owners can
rebuild on their lots.
The intent wasn't to inhibit existing property owners from rebuilding: it was to prevent developers from
coming in, buying multiple parcels, and developing the land.
Miklo pointed out that the code preservation guidelines limit single-family and duplexes to 1200 square
feet fayade but this does not apply to multiple family buildings. McCallum asked if this meant that
developers could come in, buy multiple lots and build a large structure. Miklo responded that they could if
they had the underlying zoning for it but that there were other safeguards that would prevent this from
happening in the Conservation District, such as prevention of demolition of a historic building if one was
already there.
Freerks closed public discussion.
Smith made a motion to approve an application submitted by Alpha Chi Omega Sorority for a rezoning
from Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone to Planned Development Overlay I
Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (OPD/RNS-20) zone and a Sensitive Areas Development Plan to
the allow grading of regulated slopes on approximately .77 acres of property located at 828 E.
Washington Street, subject to approval of the building and parking structures by the Historic Preservation
Commission. Koppes seconded. Eastham clarified that the address of the lot is 828 Washington.
Koppes asked if minor building modification for height needed to be added to the motion as a stipulation.
Miklo responded that it did not because in any case the building height requirement must be met before
they can build.
Plahutnik is happy to see a new, large, beautiful building coming back on that corner.
Shannon thought the building was beautiful before and was sad to see it go. He feels that this is a good
use of the property.
Freerks thinks that the applicant has met the requirements for a plan such as this. She is happy to see
this being built again.
Motion carried 6-0 (Brooks absent).
Miklo stated that Bob Brooks, who was absent, had chosen to recuse himself from this case because he
owns property in the area.
Other Items
Complete Streets Policy presentation.
Yapp said that on Tuesday night the City Council approved a Complete Streets Policy for the City of Iowa
City.
Miklo stated that the he had asked Yapp to make this presentation because the Commission often deals
with street designs during their subdivision review.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2007
Page 5
Yapp said that Complete Streets are streets that serve all potential road users, some of which are often in
conflict with each other. Iowa City, for most of their new construction, already follows a Complete Streets
policy with sidewalks, bicycle lanes, public transit facilities, bus pull-offs, etc.
Yapp said the Complete Streets policy states that all public street projects or public street reconstruction
projects (not including maintenance) in the City of Iowa City shall be designed to accommodate travel by
pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit, and motorized vehicles and their passengers with the following
exceptions:
1. bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibited by law (such as interstate highways);
2. public transit facilities are not required on streets not serving as public transit routes; the
desirability of bus turn-off bays and other transit facilities will be determined on a case-by-
case basis.
3. where the cost of the facility is excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use,
defined as 20% of the project cost. This would occur when there is a reconstruction process
which might include a pedestrian tunnel or bridge. In these cases, the City has the option of
delaying this part of the project until more funding becomes available.
These policies are implemented on either subdivision design standards, which this Commission is the first
public body to review, and design of public street projects and city-funded projects.
Yapp showed a picture of an incomplete street and pointed out the deficiencies of this example.
Not every street under the Complete Streets policy requires sidewalks. A shared roadway is appropriate
for lower volume, lower speed situations like alleys. Where a road is wide enough to include bike lanes, a
road can be made more complete by adding them. Many local bicyclists do not support bike lanes.
Bicyclists prefer to ride with traffic because sand collects in the bike lane. Another option which functions
similar to bike lanes are paved shoulders. They are often used in rural areas.
Most Iowa City arterial lanes are designed with wide curb lanes where there is enough room to share
traffic with bicyclists.
Another option is division between parked cars and pedestrians, often in the form of landscaping. This
helps make a street more complete.
Eastham asked whether there were any subdivision regulations since this policy has been adopted. John
responded that there are changes being made to the subdivision code, but they are unrelated to the
adoption of this policy. Miklo stated that they are working on a draft of the new code and that it should be
ready within the next few months. The subdivision code currently requires sidewalks. Those design
requirements are not changing dramatically but they are adding some requirements about where the
sidewalks should be located.
Yapp said sometimes the Commission gets requests for waivers for sidewalk requirements, especially in
industrial zones. However, the City has gotten complaints from employees in industrial zones who like to
walk over breaks and lunch periods but there are no sidewalks. There are also people who bike to work
or have to walk from the bus stop.
Koppes asked about pedestrian crossings, such as in-pavement flashing lights, as installed on Benton.
Yapp stated that they thought this would help encourage traffic to yield when the lights were flashing.
This plan only worked for a few months and then local drivers, without enforcement, began to ignore
them. The City does not want to create a false sense of security for pedestrians by using those.
Eastham asked about any costs to developers. John stated that there were none aside from any
changes required in their designs. Typically, the changes are to make the streets narrower to encourage
slower traffic. This would actually decrease the cost.
Shannon asked Yapp's opinion on speed humps. John responded that they are only effective when there
are speed issues. It has helped around City High. He doesn't recommend them as a matter of course
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2007
Page 6
because it creates irritated drivers which can cause them to break other laws. Shannon said they were
probably a better alternative to gates, such as the one on Lexington Street.
Eastham asked if Yapp had a map of which streets meet the Complete Streets policy requirements. John
stated that he did not but his thought is that most streets do.
Freerks stated that this has been an initiative for quite some time. Yapp confirmed this and stated that
this has been an initiative of the City but hasn't been in writing.
Miklo stated that most of the streets that don't fit these criteria are private developments.
Update on Central Planning District.
Karen Howard said the Central Planning District surrounds downtown. Since most of the land is
developed, this plan is different than most other district plans. A public workshop was held in October
and more focused group discussions have been taking place since that time. The focused discussions
covered the Northside Marketplace, parks, trails, and open spaces, streets and transportation, housing
and quality of life, and Gilbert Street Commercial Area. There will be another public workshop in late
spring.
The planning workshop gave people the opportunity to get into small groups to discuss issues of concern.
Attendance at the October meeting was approximately 90. Most attendees were thankful for the
opportunity to get together to discuss the future of their community.
The focus groups have a maximum of 20 participants. The discussion is more detailed and focuses on
one set of issues. Staff presents background information and issues identified at the October public
workshop.
Howard summarized the meeting discussion to date and said the next meeting will be April 10 - Housing
and Quality of Life. University officials have been invited to discuss the proximity of the neighborhoods to
the University.
She said the next steps will be:
· focused group discussion on the Gilbert Street commercial corridor
. 2nd public workshop
· Public review draft and presentation to the public and P&Z
· P&Z public hearings
· Council public hearings
. Adoption
Freerks asked about the mix of participants. Miklo stated that there was a wide variety of property
owners, students and business owners and that the meeting was very worthwhile from that perspective.
Eastham asked how much time the Commission would have to review the draft before they need to make
a decision. Howard stated that it was up to the Commission. In the past there has been a presentation to
the public of what the plan is and then allow a period of public review time. Most people who have
participated are fairly satisfied with the plan as presented.
Shannon asked if anyone had mentioned parking on the north side. There are no places for residents to
park in front of their homes because people are parking there and then walking to work at the University.
Shannon suggested restricting the parking between 8am and 5pm. It would force people to pay for their
parking or to use public transit. Miklo stated that this has been a problem for years and that suggestions
have been made to issue residential parking permits. Miklo stated that they might get more ideas during
this process but might not get a resolution from this process. Eastham suggested parking meters.
Other
Smith asked about the subdivision draft. Miklo stated that the draft was nearly complete and that it would
be shared with Home Builders Association and other groups before the public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2007
Page 7
Eastham has been considering inviting people to get together with him monthly and discuss planning
issues in general. He has thought about inviting the people who applied for the Commission but were not
selected. His intent is to further his education and knowledge about local outlooks on planning issues.
Freerks feels that these meetings should be public if you're going to form opinions about projects and
policies. If the public hears that Eastham is meeting outside of the meetings with private parties, this may
become an issue. She recommends using the beginning of the meetings to have people come forward
with other items. Koppes also said she feels uncomfortable with this idea.
Smith asked about the legal concerns. Holecek stated that if Eastham will be discussing applications, it
would be inappropriate to do so. Holecek cautions Eastham because he could be subjected to criticism
that he had already made up his mind before coming to the meetings and hearing the public's input.
Smith asked if it would be more appropriate to discuss applications that have already been heard,
discussed, and decided on in public. Holecek stated that there was a danger from discussing
applications that have been decided and comparing them to future and current applications. Holecek
feels that it would be difficult to harness these discussions to things that are appropriate.
Eastham asked what methods he could use to educate himself. He stated that he is aware that he can
read information, etc. but he would like a way to learn through dialogue. Holecek stated that the
Commission is always approached with questions but that they must keep the discussions to hypothetical
questions and not discuss specific applications.
Koppes recommended going to the education meetings that are offered by the American Planning
Association. Miklo stated that the City will reimburse any costs of going to these meetings.
It was the consensus of the Commission that it was best not to have ad hoc committees. If there are topics
for which they would like to get public input they could place those on the agenda and get the word out to
the public. This could be similar to the way staff gathers input for the District Planning meetings.
Consideration of the March 15. 2007 Meetinq Minutes
Eastham motioned to approve. Koppes seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Adiournment
Meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Megan Weiler.
s/pcd/minutes/p&z12007/4-5-07. doc
C
o
'en
.~
E
E
o
o'E
0)0
C CJ
.- II)
SO::
NII)~
.....CJo
....CN
O)n:l
C"
.- C
C II)
C=
.!!<C
a.
~
C3
n:l
~
.2
It) w
~ -- X X X X X X
0
It) X X X X X X !:!:!
..-
- 0
M
..-
e X X X X X X X
M
It) W W
..- X X X 0 0 0 X
-
N
..-
e X X X X X X X
-
N
co X X X X X X
..- X
-
..-
III 0 CO ,..... 0 CO
E ~ ..- ..-
..- ..- 0 e ..- 0 ..-
tD .~ -- -- -- -- -- --
I.() I.() I.() I.() I.() I.() I.()
f-UJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E ..Ie: C
Ul Ul Ul 'c 0
III ~ CI) .. c
Q) ..Ie: .c ;, .c
0 Q, c
E .. CI) Q, .c III :!::
e Ul e III E
lI:l III 0 ii: .c
Z lD W u. lII::: en en
C)
z
i=
w
w
:e
..J
<C
:e
0::
o
u..
<i.
CD UJ
~ >< >< >< 0 >< >< ><
en UJ
~ >< >< >< >< >< 0 ><
....
III 0 CO ,..... 0 CO ..-
E ~ ..-
..- ..- 0 0 ..- 0 ..-
tD .~ -- -- -- -- -- -- --
I.() I.() I.() I.() I.() I.() I.()
f-UJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E ~ C
In In In C 0
~ n:l ~ 8 - C
0 .c ... ~ C .c
- II) .c -
Q) e In n:l 'E
n:l e 0 n:l .c
Em w u.. ~ 0: U) U)
ro ai 0 <i. u.i ~ ci ...:
z
C)
z
i=
w
w
:e
..J
<C
:e
0::
o
u..
~
ai
"C
Q)
III
::l
()
X
UJ
--__:t::>
c: c: c:
Q) Q) Q)
III III III
~.o.o
a.<l::<l::
.. II II II
>. UJ
Q) --
~><oo