HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-03-2007 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, April 30, 2007 -7:30 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Lobby Conference Room
410 E. Washington Street
Thursday, May 3, 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/Development Items:
1. REZ06-00025: Discussion of an application submitted by MBHG Investment Co., LC for a rezoning of
15.42 acres of property from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) to High Density Single
Family Residential (RS-12) for property located south and west of Whispering Meadows Drive.
(45-day limitation period: May 18, 2007)
2. SUB06-00017/REZ06-00026: Discussion of an application submitted by MBHG Investment Co., LC for
a preliminary plat of Whispering Meadows Subdivision Part 4, a 124-lot, 34.86 acre residential
subdivision and rezoning from Medium Density Single Family (RS-S) zone and High Density Single
Family (RS-12) zone to Planned Development Overlay Zone (OPD-S and OPD-12) for property
located south and west of Whispering Meadows Drive.
(45-day limitation period: May 1S, 2007)
D. Other Item:
Consider a request submitted by Mike McLaughlin to amend the zoning code to allow duplexes on lots
narrower than SO feet without access to an alley or rear lane.
E. Consideration of the April 19, 2007 Meeting Minutes
F. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Karen Howard
Item: REZ06-00025 & REZ06-00026/ SUB06-00017 Date: May 3, 2007
Whispering Meadows, Part 4
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
MBHG Investment Co., Inc.
821 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Contact:
MMS Consultants
Paul Anderson
1917 S. Gilbert St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Requested Action:
Rezoning of a portion of the property from
RS-8 to RS-12 and, if approved, a second
rezoning from RS-8 and RS-12 for the
entire property to OPD-8 and OPD-12;
Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas
Development Plan approval
Purpose:
Development of a 122-lot single-family
residential subdivision with a mix of
detached and attached dwellings
Location:
West of Whispering Meadows Subdivision,
Parts 2 and 3
Size:
REZ06-00025: 15.42 acres;
REZ06-00026/SUB06-00017: 34.86 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Undeveloped; RS-8
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Single family residential; RS-5
South: Undeveloped Johnson County;
Sycamore Greenway
East: Single Family and Two Family
Residential; RS-12
West: Undeveloped land and public open
space (Sycamore Greenway); RS-5
and ID-RS
Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan identifies this
area as appropriate for duplex and small
lot single family residential
2
Neighborhood Open Space District:
Grant Wood (S2)
April 4, 2007
May 18, 2007
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The proposed development is a continuation of the Whispering Meadows Subdivision, Parts 1, 2,
and 3, which are located east and north of the proposed Part 4. REZ06-00026/SUB06-00017,
which includes a planned development rezoning, sensitive areas development plan, and
preliminary plat, is dependent on approval of REZ06-00025, a rezoning requested for a portion of
the property from RS-8 to RS-12. Because these applications are interrelated, the analysis for
both is included in this report.
The subject property is bounded on the west and south by the Sycamore Greenway and to the
north by a neighborhood of low density detached single family homes. Due to the location of the
Sycamore Greenway and the existing discontinuous street pattern to the north, street access to
this property is somewhat limited and connections should be carefully considered. The property
contains a number of sensitive features, including wetlands, a regulated stream corridor and
woodlands. Due to the proposed modification of these sensitive features a Level II Sensitive
Areas Review is required, which is administered through the planned development process. The
applicant has submitted a preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan to illustrate how
the land will be developed in a manner that will protect, preserve, or mitigate for disturbance of
these sensitive features.
The applicant has indicated that they have used the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have had
discussions with neighborhood representatives.
ANAL YSIS:
REZ06-00025:
The applicant is requesting a rezoning of 15.42 acres of land from the current Medium Density
Single Family Residential (RS-8) to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12). The
developer intends to subdivide this land into .narrow home lots in order to construct attached single
family townhouse-style homes. This area is included in the proposed Whispering Meadows
Subdivision, Part 4, which will include a mix of housing types clustered away from the existing
stream corridor and wetland mitigation site proposed on this property. The area to be rezoned lies
near the center of the proposed subdivision, with areas to the north and south remaining RS-8.
The larger subdivision is bounded on the west and south by the South Sycamore Regional
Stormwater Facility, popularly known as the Sycamore Greenway, a corridor that provides for
management of stormwater from the entire region and doubles as a unique public open space
and trail corridor for the surrounding neighborhoods and for the larger community.
Current and proposed zonina:
The current RS-8 zoning is intended primarily for detached single family homes on small lots.
Duplexes and attached single family dwellings are only allowed on corner lots in order to create a
balance between attached and detached homes within a neighborhood. The area north of the
proposed rezoning consists of detached single family homes along Amber and Regal Lanes. East
of the proposed rezoning is an area consisting largely of duplexes and zero lot line dwellings. This
S:IPCDlStaff ReportslWhispering Meadow, Part 4IREZ06-00026.SUB06-00017.whispering meadow 4.doc
3
area was rezoned to RS-12 during the recent rewrite of the Iowa City Zoning Code, due to
changes proposed for the RS-8 Zone, which disallowed duplexes and zero lot line dwellings on
interior lots. Changes made to the RS-12 Zone will allow development of small lot single family
including townhouses on lots as narrow as 20 feet. The larger subdivision, which will include the
subject RS-12 land, will require a Levell! Sensitive Areas Review through the planned
development process due to proposed development activity that will affect the sensitive features
on the site. However, if this portion is rezoned to RS-12 prior to the planned development review,
no modifications to the underlying zoning will be needed in order to build townhouses in this
location. As a consequence, the planned development review will be limited to review of the
impacts of the proposed development on the sensitive features in the area.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan:
While the land use scenario within the South District Plan does not specifically anticipate
townhouses in this location, the plan generally calls for a mix of small lot single family and
duplexes. Townhouses are a type of small lot single family development that has become
increasingly popular in Iowa City as an affordable option to detached homes. The South District
Plan calls for townhouse and duplex style housing that will mix compatibly with detached single
family housing. As stated in the plan, "as housing density increases and lot sizes are reduced,
attention will need to be paid to design issues, such as garage and driveway locations, to
assure that the new neighborhoods are attractive and livable." With the adoption of new
development standards for attached single family in the new zoning code, there will be some
assurance that any new townhouse development will comply with the policies of the South
District Plan. For example, the new code requires that on narrow townhouse lots, garages and
driveways must be located to the rear with front entrances visible and oriented toward the
street.
Compatibilitv with neiahborhood
The applicant is proposing to maintain a transition area of RS-8 zoning between the RS-5 zone
to the north and the proposed RS-12 zoning. This will allow enough space for a row of detached
single family homes on the north side of the extended Whispering Meadows Drive. Similarly,
the applicant proposes to construct detached single family homes on lots that back up to the
Greenway with the townhouses concentrated along the proposed Verbena Drive that extends
across the stream corridor from north to south. In this fashion, the rear lanes and garages from
the townhouses will back up to the private open space within the interior of the property rather
than onto the public space along the Sycamore Greenway.
Environmentallv Sensitive Areas: Woodlands, hydric soils, a network of jurisdictional wetlands
and a regulated stream corridor extend across the center of the subject property. Due to the
extensive nature of these sensitive features, it is difficult to develop this property without some
impact to the sensitive features on the site. If REZ06-00025 is approved, the applicant has
requested consideration of an application for a sensitive areas planned development rezoning,
which would include the rezoned RS-12 portion of the property and surrounding RS-8 areas as
shown on the attached exhibit. Consideration of the sensitive features is covered in depth in the
analysis for REZ06-00026/SUB06-00017, below.
Traffic implications: In order to accommodate the additional traffic anticipated due to this
rezoning, an additional collector street connection to Sycamore Street will be necessary, since
Lakeside Drive is near or at the traffic volume threshold for a collector street. The best solution
to this secondary access issue is to extend Whispering Meadows Drive across the Sycamore
Greenway for its eventual extension across the General Quarters subdivision to Sycamore
S:IPCDlStaff ReportslWhispering Meadow, Part 4IREZ06-00026.SUB06-00017.whispering meadow 4.doc
4
Street. If extended to the western edge of the Sycamore Greenway, staff finds that this is
acceptable as a temporary condition. The analysis of these traffic circulation issues is
described in more detail below, the resolution of which should be included in a conditional
zoning agreement.
Summary: In summary, staff finds that the proposed rezoning from RS-8 to RS-12 is
compatible with the comprehensive plan and with the surrounding neighborhoods, provided that
the applicant resolves the secondary access issue for this property by extending Whispering
Meadows Drive to the western edge of the Sycamore Greenway to provide for eventual
extension to Sycamore Street.
REZ06-00026
The applicant has applied for approval of a Sensitive Areas Development, a type of planned
development. If REZ06-00025 is approved and the proposed plat meets all of the underlying
zoning and subdivision requirements, the approval criteria for the proposed planned development
are the standards and requirements of Zoning Code Article 14-51, Sensitive Lands and Features.
The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is to permit and define the reasonable use of
properties that contain sensitive environmental features and natural resources, and allowing
reasonable development while protecting such resources from damage. Due to the flat
topography that hinders drainage and the extensive nature of the sensitive features on this site,
it will be difficult to develop this property without disturbing a considerable portion of the
sensitive features on this site. The following paragraphs describe the impact on these sensitive
features and the applicant's proposal for protection and mitigation.
Woodlands: Woodlands are defined as any tract of land with a contiguous wooded area not less
than two acres and containing not less than 200 trees per acre. In RS-8 and RS-12 zones, at
least 50% of the woodlands must be retained. According to a note on the plat this property
contains 430,544 square feet of woodlands (approximately 9.9 acres), and 162,418 square feet
(approx. 3.7 acres) will be preserved, which represents approximately 37.7%. Most of the tree
removal will occur at the northwest quadrant of the property where Whispering Meadows Drive is
proposed to be extended, in areas where the stream corridor will be graded and reconstructed to
create new wetland areas proposed as mitigation. The sensitive areas ordinance allows for more
than 50% of the woodlands on a property to be removed if an appropriate tree replacement plan is
submitted indicating a replacement ratio of 1 tree per 200 square feet of woodland lost above the
50% allowed. The applicant is required to replace trees to mitigate for the 52,854 square feet of
woodland lost or 264 trees. The applicant proposes to plant 139 trees in the upland areas
surrounding the newly created wetland cells, 4 trees on the islands within the wetland cells and
plant 1 tree in the front yard of every dwelling unit prior to occupancy for a total of 265 trees.
In addition, the code requires the preservation of "groves of trees" wherever possible. The
applicant is proposing to preserve the grove of trees that exists along the southern border of the
property where it abuts the Sycamore Greenway by establishing a construction area limit and
implementing tree protection measures during construction. To preserve these trees over time
this area should be designated as a no-build conservation area.
Staff finds that with the measures taken above to preserve and replace trees that the plan meets
the standards for woodlands and groves in the sensitive areas ordinance.
Stream Corridor: A regulated stream corridor extends in an east-west direction across the center
S:IPCDlStaff ReportslWhispering Meadow, Part 4IREZ06-o0026.SUB06-00017.whispering meadow 4.doc
5
of the proposed development. The stream corridor in this case is 30 feet wide. The buffer area
should extend 50 feet from the edge of this 30-foot wide stream corridor in areas where there
are other sensitive features, in this case where there are woodlands or wetlands within the
regulated stream corridor. In areas where there are no other sensitive features the stream
buffer should extend 15 feet beyond the edge of the 30-foot stream corridor. These are
illustrated on the sensitive areas development plan.
Preserving the stream corridor east of Verbena Drive is difficult if the wetland mitigation as
proposed is accepted as the best solution for maintaining the hydrology of this area. The
existing wetlands are mainly of a linear variety associated with the stream corridor, particularly
in the area east of Verbena Drive. The steam bed and bank east of Verbena Drive is not well-
defined and the topography is very flat. The existing stream is largely fed by run-off from storm
water outlets from surrounding developments. The flat topography has contributed to poor
drainage, which has resulted in the formation of the linear wetlands along the stream corridor.
The standards in the sensitive areas ordinance for stream corridors state that the required
natural buffer along a blue line stream may not be reduced if there are other sensitive features
contained within that corridor; in this case, jurisdictional wetlands.
This presents a conundrum for development of this property. If the existing wetlands were
preserved with the required 100 foot buffer, very little developable land would remain. The
development as proposed will impact 1.5 acres of wetland, some of which is within or adjacent
to the stream corridor. The applicant is proposing to provide replacement wetlands in the area
of the existing stream corridor east of Verbena Drive. A series of wetland cells would replace
the existing stream corridor. The ordinance allows essential public utilities such as storm water
management facilities within protected sensitive features where it can be shown that such a
use, activity or structure will not be detrimental to the functioning of sensitive areas or
associated buffers. Staff feels that if the compensatory mitigation for the wetlands is
acceptable, the impacts to the stream corridor are acceptable provided that a buffer equal to or
greater than what would otherwise have been required for the existing stream corridor and
wetlands is provided for in the mitigation plan. The applicant has illustrated how this can be
achieved with the mitigation area being proposed.
Wetlands: The subject property contains wooded wetlands and wetlands associated with the
stream corridor that extend east-west through the center of the development. There are some
wetland fingers that extend in to the northeast and northwest along the intermittent steams. As
required by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, a wetlands delineation report was prepared by the
wetlands specialist and was accepted by the Army Corps of Engineers. The delineated wetlands
are shown on the plat.
Wetland Mitiaation Plan: Compensatory mitigation may be allowed if it is clearly demonstrated
that avoiding and minimizing the impact on a wetland is unreasonable. In order to develop the
property, the applicant is requesting to disturb 1.5 acres of wetland, which will require 2.26
acres of replacement wetlands according to the replacement ratios in the sensitive areas
ordinance. For properties containing a wetland, a wetland mitigation plan is required as part of
the Sensitive Areas Development Plan. The wetland mitigation plan must include the type and
location of erosion control measures, and a stormwater management plan that addresses
stormwater runoff and sedimentation. Subsection 14-51-6F of the zoning code contains standards
for the discharge of stormwater into a wetland, including that the partial treatment of storm water
S:IPCDlStaff ReportslWhispering Meadow, Part 4IREZ06-00026.SUB06-00017.whispering meadow 4.doc
6
runoff through the use of constructed wetlands, detention basins, vegetative filter strips, sediment
traps or other means will be considered as part of a mitigation plan.
The applicant has submitted a wetland mitigation plan to the City and the Army Corps of
Engineers. Because more than 1/2 acre of wetland is being disturbed a more extensive 90 day
review period is necessary to obtain approvals from the Corps, the EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service,
and the Iowa DNR. The applicant has yet to receive the required approvals.
Staff have reviewed the mitigation plan with Liz Maas, a wetland specialist and found the
mitigation plan to be a credible plan for replacement of the existing wetland and stream corridor
and agree that if successfully established may result in an improvement over the existing low
quality wetlands. The mitigation plan is attached for your review. Note that the applicant is
requesting to reduce the required buffer around the newly created wetlands to 50 feet. Given that
the wetland mitigation area is larger than the area being replaced, the mitigation site with a 50-foot
buffer will be greater than the original wetlands, stream corridor, and associated 100-foot buffer.
Therefore, staff finds this to meet the intent of the ordinance.
Staff, however, is concerned about the long term maintenance of the newly created wetlands.
Because the mitigation site is unique in that it will be surrounded by a residential neighborhood,
new wetlands may be difficult to establish and maintain over time. Because it is unlikely that
construction of the homes in this development will be completed within the typical 5 year wetland
monitorina period reauired by the Corps, staff recommends that the wetlands be monitored for as
lona as home construction is occurrina on lots that surround the wetlands with written reports
submitted to the City after every site visit. rather than iust yearly as Qroposed in the mitiaation
plan. This will allow a quick response to any damage to the new wetlands occurring due to
ongoing construction activity. In addition, staff feels that the mitigation plan does not adequately
address long term maintenance of the wetlands. The plan states that after the initial monitoring
period the maintenance will be turned over to a homeowners association. It is imperative that a
plan detailina maintenance and monitorina responsibilities. includina estimates of costs and how
often and what types of maintenance will be necessary, be submitted as a part of the subdivider's
aareement at the time of final plat.
If these monitoring and long term maintenance issues are adequately addressed and required
approvals are received from the Army Corps of Engineers, Iowa DNR, Fish and Wildlife Service
and the EPA, staff finds the wetland mitigation plan meets the standards of the sensitive areas
ordinance.
Hydric Soils: According to the Soil Survey Map submitted with the plat, almost the entire site
contains soils with hydric Inclusions. A small portion of the property in the southeast corner
contains hydric soils. The entire subdivision must be designed with sump pumps and a drainable
base. Minimum low openings must be shown on the final plat.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Subdivision Desian: The plat consists of 122 residential lots clustered away from the sensitive
areas on the site. The subdivision will consist of a mix of townhouse lots in the RS-12 zoned
area and detached single family home lots in the RS-8 zoned area. The lots meet the minimum
lot size requirements for both zones. Outlot B will be the site of the wetland mitigation required
due to the proposed grading and development of the existing wetlands on the site. Outlot A will
encompass the portion of the woodland that will be preserved, a portion of the stream corridor,
S:IPCDlStaff ReportslWhispering Meadow, Part 4IREZ06-00026.SUB06-00017.whispering meadow 4.doc
7
and a stormwater management cell that will function as a part of the system of wetland basins
proposed as mitigation. Staff finds that the proposed lot layout is acceptable. The townhouse
units will be clustered along the south side of Whispering Meadows Drive and along Verbena
Drive. Staff finds the placement of the various housing types within the development to be
appropriate, although notes that the rear drives and garages will be visible from the public
streets due to the location of the private open space. The applicant has proposed screening the
rear lanes with evergreen trees and landscaping as illustrated on the sensitive areas
development plan.
Street desion and connections: One of the most important considerations with this subdivision is
providing adequate street connectivity. The number, location, and design of the streets are
important for the safe and efficient provision of emergency and public services, for the distribution
and dispersal of traffic, and to provide for efficient routes to community destinations. Possibilities
for street connections are limited by the extensive network of sensitive features on the property.
Lakeside Drive currently provides the nearest connection to the arterial, Sycamore Street.
However, Lakeside Drive is nearing the traffic capacity threshold for a collector street. Given that
most destinations in the City are located north and west of the proposed subdivision, it is likely
that a vast majority of the traffic from the new development will flow along Nevada Avenue to
Lakeside Drive and over to Sycamore Street. The location of Grant Wood School on Lakeside
Drive adds another element that increases the probability of pedestrian-motor vehicle conflicts
along this collector street. If an additional street connection to Sycamore Street is not provided for
Whispering Meadows, Part 4, the proposed development will add approximately 850 vehicle trips
per day to Lakeside Drive, an unacceptable level of traffic according to City standards.
While street crossings of the Sycamore Greenway should be minimized, another collector street
crossing will be necessary between Lakeside Drive and the future east-west arterial proposed
further south. Originally this collector street crossing was proposed further south as an extension
of Pinto Lane, on property also owned by the applicant. However, since the alignment of the future
east-west arterial has been moved north from what was originally planned, the Pinto Lane location
is no longer appropriate from a traffic circulation standpoint. Whispering Meadows Drive is in the
most logical location to provide needed traffic circulation for the proposed new development. It is
located approximately equal distance between Lakeside Drive and the future location of the east-
west arterial. For these reasons, staff recommends that Whispering Meadows Drive be extended
across the Sycamore Greenway to connect up with the future development of the General
Quarters subdivision and eventually over to Sycamore Street.
As an off-site improvement that is necessary for the development of this property, staff
recommends that as a condition of the rezonina from RS-8 to RS-12 and the subsequent rezonina
from RS-8 and RS-12 to OPD-8 and OPD-12. the developer be responsible for constructina
Whisperina Meadows Drive to the west edae of the Sycamore Greenway. Given that the need for
this collector street is directly linked to the traffic that will be generated by future development of
the Whispering Meadows subdivision, for which the applicant is requesting an upzoning and a
sensitive areas overlay rezoning, the cost of constructing this street connection across the
Greenway should be borne by the applicant. It should be noted that the costs of building this
crossing should be offset by the fact that extending Whispering Meadows Drive rather than having
it end in a cui de sac will allow development of an additional two home lots.
A street connection is also proposed in the southeast corner of the plat. As proposed, the
extension of Blazing Star Drive will require the cooperation of the City because it cuts across the
corner of City-owned park property adjacent to the Sycamore Greenway. Allowing this street
S:IPCDlStaff ReportslWhispering Meadow, Part 4IREZ06-00026.SUB06-00017.whispering meadow 4.doc
8
crossing location will benefit both the developer and the community; the developer will gain land
for the development of 3 or 4 additional lots on the east side of Blazing Star Drive and the
community will gain street access to a corner of City parkland. If at the time of final plat, the
alignment and grade of this street connection has not been determined, the City will accept an
escrow in lieu of construction of the road connection. However, a fire apparatus turnaround will be
required at the end of Blazing Star Drive. It is recommended that this turnaround be located on
the west side of the street.
Both Indigo Drive and Blazing Circle Drive will end in cui de sacs in order to limit impacts to the
wetlands and woodlands on the site.
Pedestrian circulation: Sidewalks are required along all streets within new subdivisions, including
along all outlots. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the sidewalk requirement along Outlot A
along the west side of Verbena Drive. Such sidewalk waivers have been problematic in the past.
It has been our experience that residents in neighborhoods where sidewalks have been waived
will later question why they have gaps in their sidewalk network and request that the City build
those sidewalks at public expense. The City recently adopted a "complete streets policy" that
calls for streets to be built for all users including pedestrians and bicyclists. Iowa City residents
have repeatedly expressed a desire for a complete sidewalk network along public streets. Staff
recommends strongly against granting a waiver of the sidewalk requirement, particularly in a
residential neighborhood.
The proposed plat indicates that an 8-foot sidewalk will be constructed in Outlot C between lots 94
and 112. Said outlot will subsequently be dedicated to the City. The Parks Department has
agreed to accept this outlot to satisfy a portion of the open space requirement for this
development. The developer will also establish a public access easement over the storm sewer
drainage easement next to lot 65 along Indigo Drive. This easement will provide access for area
residents to the private open space in outlot B.
Sanitary Sewer: A tap on fee of $1796.50 per acre is required for the South Sycamore
Sanitary Trunk Sewer.
Storm water management: South Sycamore Regional Greenspace and Drainage Corridor Fee
is required at $2,775.68 per acre.
Open Space: Dedication of 1.82 acres of land is required or fees dedicated in lieu of this
requirement.
Utility Tap-On Fees: A water main extension fee of $395 per acre is required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ06-00025, a request for a rezoning of 15.42 acres from Medium
Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) for
property located south and west of Whispering Meadows Drive, be approved subject to a
conditional zoning agreement specifying that the developer will be responsible for constructing
Whispering Meadows Drive to the west edge of the Sycamore Greenway to provide for adequate
secondary access for the property proposed for rezoning.
S:IPCDlStaff ReportslWhispering Meadow, Part 4IREZ06-00026.SUB06-00017.whispering meadow 4.doc
9
Staff recommends that REZ06-00026/SUB06-00017, a request for a rezoning from Medium
Density Single Family Residential and High Density Single Family Residential (RS-8, RS-12), to
Planned Development Overlay 8 and Planned Development Overlay 12 (OPD-8 and OPD-12),
and the Sensitive Area Development Plan and preliminary plat for Whispering Meadows, Part 4,
an approximate 34.86 acre, 122-lot residential subdivision located west of Whispering Meadows
Subdivision, Parts 2 and 3, be approved, subject to resolution of deficiencies and discrepancies
noted below and subject to a conditional zoning agreement specifying that:
. Copies of all site visit reports and annual monitoring reports submitted to the Army Corps
of Engineers will be sent to the City;
. the wetland mitigation site will be monitored by a wetland specialist for as long as home
construction is occurring on lots that surround the wetlands with written reports submitted
to the City after every site visit (at least 3 reports per construction season), and any
damage to the wetlands repaired; and
. prior to final plat, submittal of a maintenance plan prepared by a wetland specialist and
approved by the City for the wetland areas and private open space within outlots A and B,
detailing long term maintenance responsibilities and estimates of maintenance costs.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
· Missing sidewalk along Outlot A, along west side of Verbena Drive
. Technical discrepancies as noted by the City Engineer
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan
3. Copy of wetland mitigation plan
Approved by:
'~t'UJL .
Karin F nklin, Director
Department of Planning and Community Development
S:IPCDIStaff ReportslWhispering Meadow, Part 4IREZ06-00026.SUB06-00017.whispering meadow 4.doc
\ \ - lJ ONIViOTv'd II I
\ \ ~ =---~ {~~NV1~)1 CJ)~
\ \ lJ NV~~OVi Il II a::
_ -::::] I (,---1 I; __
I (l:JANOdOlOd ' 1::J ^3N~::JVH ' C
D..
o
~\lii ~~, \~~;:;2,
~_= =cc ~:CC>~~;;N~ I
~
C\I
,...
CJ)
a::
--
C
D..
o
1- -- - ---- - -
I
I
t:
t3
~
~
~
t: ~
t3 &
Sycamore
,... "
D..
j -'lIT
---,~~. (~l-~ r
~f==1,il~"l,rt".. ~. 1..,-=',-,., i
R ~t1 f=H" -
fj t=j/ [II -
rig; r--
LO
en
ln~i ~'v'~ a:
en
a:
I
c
'"
o --
z
..:
'"
1"'-
, W
I
, Ul
/111111//'[; r
-
---
co
en
a:
fl.
LO
C\J
o
o
o
I
CD
o
N
W
a:
Q)
.>
~
o
f/)
~
o
l:J
ro
Q)
~
0)
c
~
Q)
Q.
f/)
...c
$
. .
Z
o
~
~
U
o
~
~
~
~
en
-
I
II
,I/i
1&
~I/
~,..
z
(.)
1-
_ 1_
C\I
,..
en
a:
--
c
D-
O
a~
D.(/)
00:
\---
I
I
-
-+-
co
en
a:
11
\ I -.
f'..
_ T"""
o
o
o
I
c:o
o
co
:)
U)
---
c:o
C\J
o
o
o
I
c:o
o
N
W
a:
I
I
1>-
~
liE I
Ie{
I1!I
1$/(
I I
I I
\ \
\ \
F-\~
-
---
-
r
~
t:
ro
c...
c
.0
C/)
:>
1:J
..c
:::J
U)
C/)
S
o
1:J
ro
Q)
~
CJ)
c
.;::
Q)
Q.
.C/)
..c
$
z
o
~
f-i
~
U
o
~
~
f-i
~
crJ
I I
-
11~~lIIllim! lll!!l
~:.; '" ~ I · ~I
U:lj~1 I
~~~ ~~ U i
~ ~ T"""
0<1- 5 g -i . j
>->-!!;!"- "'~ "
~~l::ffi ~8 !:3 ! II
ji!- ~ lJlijro
:i~~~ mi u~
~~~~ r~ 8 i'rjg~
<1-<1-:;: i~ -~Q ~ I ! ~ lQ
~
g
~ ~
~~~
~J1:
E:. 0
~ ~
....
fi
~
r--r-=::~ J1" ___~"-if"--;>=- -
: ~~~~~-c"~t
.I~ 'I: i .. \
Srs i . 91,ji I ~I'!i '\ =j.ii
2 I ' ~. j! ,,".. I g. i!
I i .ODW~..mms \ so:.'~4'
III~
Ill,
'."t-,
~$> ~;i
~i;
::U ~~ ~.~
;'i; · :a!
i i :1 .
"
Ji'
,.
~
, i
~. ~
l< 6~ !
i~i~~
~ S~ n
~ I: ~ i
'~ i~ -4 ~
~i: !~ hl
M 'W' ~'".
.- II" ~~~
!!ii'~'.5a
..~~ o-o!..~~..
'" li I~
z
...
...J
<1-
,..
" I
Il!:
# "
~!:
".\,~
a!,
I .;
~!:
!~i
a g
I~ :
n.;
Ih~i
a S
I~!i
n!m
~';
!lli
~h
I!E
"
IIi'
" , 4~
tlIi; " I' II"
, ; :~... !:
I' 12
~: ~ ,; II"
;, t:r 5;
'"
'.
~J"~_~.
~" ~"Z'=:;~,:!.;.~~
>l',,",,_"'_" ''''''''I~''''';_/7Io~
- ~,~ -, ~~="'"t". 'fi.....-w..J
I ~..,:::::~:....., ..
"'..,.....,,-"""..-
__"':ou""~_..
w_
l,~
-
-:::~;-
;;
Ii' ;i"'l!~!"m!"'iiil'r'1'
'il I "Il!' 'I"ll!' u '>!'~!
I~ il!!!~liIU~iii'!ii!!m:!;i
il! '~~l"I!'!hi'; """!!l!' !
iii i W!I!I::iIIIMI!ii:l!!lijMi !
! ,'i, I lEI" ill'"~ 'I"I;;"! ,io, z
'! ""i!,' il!~l 'i".''''''11 0(
ih~ i !!~;~~S;h"iI6 S~:tlll~~~~!ltSiO ~
hi! ! '11;~ii;~;lii'!ile;!mi' Ii; g "11'i'1 '1'1'
!€~\2 ~~~iE~Ei~ !;llj 1oI;~ i~~iH~~e; c I
:m !~I!!imlll~II!!!!iiiil!il; ~ : I ~"
U'i1 !;mli!l!il~i:!I!i:t;'!!lili! ~ III I! I
,,/'tU;jliC .Io! m'II.~I! I.. .,!dihl..,i.
.. IIlJ '~~!~~~I ~ : I
,'. · I, ;j II I- c---H' .~~V~/)~. i ..1
;1;: Ilitl ii.!l~i: i; ii;; - :. ;Jw>>~~~:~~u;:x'1 \
~i~i dl~:~llh~il ~~i U j ,f' ./ / / /,/1 0 0
~ - *0 :: ,,/,/ / / {/( ~000' 0 0 ': Ii
...p-.n .~- 1 ~_ j" I : - : : j- .,: /// /p~ ....... .~ ~ ~.?:7
L :U! -iH;~:::: ~i=-': l ~:'~~(~f~; jti;~~~
~ ~ ,:~ > i ~ - I " 1 o;lO'~ ______ l~" ____ /~ ',w~ ~ ~ 6 I 7/ ~N Ie ~
g "" · tti' I Iil I I '\. II! i -,- Ii . 0 00' /[ '~ii'-- lull
~ ~ / r : rl 'I T '\ ~.. .. oogoggl/ 1~ i ,-hI
~ ~ ~ 1: ' ~ : T -; 0 /q:! r) omm'og:og ~ 1/ I I !Ii!!
0... . : , i '('''' 00 00 II" , ,~ ill j
~ i! I ." tlIt____J I 00 0:00 ogg g~ ~(l I :;B;a
gJ :i' i, Ilf~ " '7 C\ ~ oog*~o ggOo' 1<: 't- : ~ / 1,1.'
< 0 i: ., I-' ~gOOgggggoo .........t--1l T .ooggggoo 000 .. -.y 1 +-!-t;: i~ft
52 en < I -j ~ I i l < ggg~ggggggOmgglggOo '\ "/i ) e ~ ~
E ::; E: I -1-~~:.IillI::: " -1 ggggggggggggo Ogggggg .. I f --L--~-*-
~ a 9 g 1;-- ggggggggggg~~o~~g~ g~ogt ,. ~1 : ~ ~ t
~ co I : WI I t'-\ ggggg~ggggo'gg~ggg~gO ~gggggo' I j a: ~ ! -= j
[IJ ., ~"I _ o'oOoO,o~oooo,o 0 0 ,000,0 00 " /l -
>--' ~ I , , , . 000000001'00000 00000000.00000000 0000 I I I ~~' I
cl:l (f) t: 1 00000000 00000 000000000000000 oOg~g9 I I I
~ u II lID : I j ggggggg 000 (~Oggggggg.oOgggggg~L r I bl : Ii
j (fJ <>: -, ,,,,- i ogggoo gg' . 0 i I ~ I l' I '-,
c.. ~ '"' = ,~ '11 ' . 00 og. ~", ~ ,i i
a)! \; I I {:,;i\. I ~ggg~. W I......~ ! I ~
I ~9~~ ;': ;~ 11,'11 :': ~ ~u 1!;.1~~.~~~0 ~j~-- -- ---i- -~i: ; - ~ .~,!I~l :: j
~0' e~oo G I"IW". ~a~- I
c.. Z ,';=.Il ~\ ,0,00 ,0, , J
~ &5 . i~ i. : liT ~: :: ~,- - ..~ ,o,;":~, ----j - - - --~ ~- - -- - - -~~ I (I
~ 53 ~'>: I\! G : 1,1 t~~-tta-WI-Q ~ _ ,-' ~I .:-~ !,)~)- . ))~ : :I
g~ ~;; ~ ; 'T~)-----<)-h.w--II~) ~:,'<-cj. T-;--m~--~-;ll'l- i !i "" b
; ~/ i I · ,j Tc=c~:r-}:~ ;';. t .l::'n ': - ~ - :'l' il'I ~f :-
i · i 1 ii i (~~.TT' 'l'~.'V-\Y~\ ,: 1;{~);hV- - -- ~ i ~~'1 ~I ~
. : : '1J.+ I .):[. il~ ..:,~ if ~ ' I: li
~ I .1.-, ~)... ~ Ie: I
,~~OO]IP~~'! . ~.~ ,!~~i:=;=~~i~ jl~~, i
-~ : mllH-n ! i.,~ .--i~ /' /, /~; i
; JJ' ': · ! IT : l'> I ~ t Ii! \ \ , ';'~ - X )~I k J:><o: ~
==:: " t' I ~~ ~ .! '-':.i'l /; !~~ }:;~
i · i ~'I i n (i ! ~ . ~ ~ 1(-::- -~-~-:::- u i"~/::
: : - : A ~ \; ~ ~ . ~ II g ;,/~. . f-"\
, 2 J..." \ :....1:- ,~ = I . . 01 .- ..
H-- ' ' H---::-~ \ i -1- --r~
~ i" \ \r~ \\\ ,q~ ~
;' ~ \ ,: ~\ " i R
j--+ :11 r; l\ \\' \ \
111I::~.n IIIIIn ilil Iii ~m
~lIIIE:lU' ~~~~r I~~ IU,
::liS ill.!
~5~
Oc..~s
>->-~"-
iiVi15
::::E::E::Z:~
:::;:::;ljj~
UJM!c
g:a.:;;
~~ ~
"'~ ~
~~ 5g
~1!j r~
,.,ill _~Q
u pili: ~ ~ i ~-; ~
'! I' I Ii I !{"II! ~ I~: ;;1 :j ej
liiill 1111 ~ji !! ! ~~ iPi~ ~: :~
,'I I,!,!",,, '" "" 1, : ~ iql hI; I H i;
"....xoo 1 111 IIII1 . I ! !HnS!~ . ~ !~ ~~
II - /t; I ! , 0' -- o~'" ~ ! -" wi
I""',,,! 1 Ii 0 I;~!m I ~llm [] w m
\ll( \\
- -- --I r-7
'>-...
-.......
~!
~~~
l, ,
h. · i' 1
'; '!.; I
il ~ H ;:, -
@! , rl '! ill;
~ ~i h!;! I~I
I ir I ~I " I ,;
r .~ ,.1: Il!1 ill'
~>- t.. Ii ; W w.,
~ ti ,:'~ ': :; i ~I-;I
I · '~I'I- 11 . I ,;
~ I: ~ s! ii ~ ~:~;
~ I, !... , .".l
, ""
.. ~~~~
,
,
'/..-=--:
o
......
I ..
I I
/
April 5, 2007
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
When the City of Iowa City adopted the new zoning code it had a vision to guide
residential design, as well as move vehicular traffic, parking and garages to alleys or rear
private lanes, particularly in the Central Planning District.
I have a property at 315 South Dodge Street, RNS-20 zone, which I would like to develop
possibly as a two family use. However this property is in a dilemma with this vision that
exists in the code. On page 186 of the zoning code, 14-4 B, item f, number 2, there is a
requirement for any two family uses with a lot width less than 80 feet to have vehicular
access from an alley or rear private lane. On this block there is no alley, since it was
abandoned many years ago. I may be able to create a rear private lane with an adjacent
property owner, however this will increase traffic on their drive, designed for an existing
duplex.
The other option I have, in this zone, is to develop a multi-family structure. This plan
may require a much wider drive, however this type of drive would be allowed to move
traffic on and off the street in the front, Dodge Street. This seems to be encouraged in the
existing code, for this zone, even though it may lead to more density and thus traffic.
I am writing to request amending the code for situations such as mine, where the
prototypical block doesn't exist with an alley access. I would like the option of
developing at a lower density yet be allowed to use the existing front drive to move
vehicles on and off the street to parking, which would exist behind the structure.
Through this process I would be eliminating a second front drive on the lot, which would
help support that vision in the current zoning code.
Please call me at 319-631-3853 with any recommendations or suggestions.
~~-c2i..:
Mike McLaugWinG- - V'''''
Preliminary
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 19, 2007 - 7:30 P.M.
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER:
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks, Terry Smith, Wally Plahutnik, Dean Shannon,
Elizabeth Koppes, Charlie Eastham
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Miklo; Sarah Walz, Karen Howard; Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ann Kohl (709 Giblin Dr., Iowa City); Merle Headington (County
Materials, 3705 1st Ave SW, Cedar Rapids); Liz Maas (Transition
Ecology; 620 Ronalds Street, Iowa City); Ron Amelon (1917 South
Gilbert, Iowa City); Jerry Full (4642 Oak Crest Hill Road); Kevin
Hochstedler (1434 Compton Road, Iowa City)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council action):
Recommended approval with conditions, by a vote of 7-0, of 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 Oak Crest Hill Road.
Recommended denial, by a 6-1 vote (Shannon voting no), of REZ07-00005, 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.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, of V AC07 -00001, an application submitted by Southgate
Development Services LLC to vacate a portion of Hollywood Boulevard located south of Highway 6, east
of Broadway Street.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, of CZ07-00001 , 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 Xi mile south of IWV Rd SW and a nearby 3.0 acre
property from County Residential (R) zone to County Agriculture (A).
Public Discussion of Anv Item not on the Aqenda
No discussion.
Rezonino Item
REZ07 -00004: Discussion of an application submitted bv Countv Materials for a rezoninq from Heavv
Industrial (1-2) zone (14.5 acres) to General Industrial (1-1) zone and Planned Development
Overlav/Generallndustrial (OPD/I-1) zone for a Sensitive Areas Development Plan to allow the fillino and
mitiqation of wetlands and the reduction of a wetland buffer on approximatelv 36.65 acres of property
located north of Izaak Walton Road. east of Oak Crest Hill Road.
Walz indicated that the subject site is located at the southern end of the City limits and is surrounded by
County land, most of which is zoned agricultural, although some is zoned residential. On the east side
(Izaak Walton Road), land is zoned for recreational uses. There are two parts of the property. The part
of the property further to the east is currently zoned 1-2. The western part of the property is zoned 1-1.
The applicant is seeking a rezoning to change all of the land to 1-1. 1-2 is heavy manufacturing. 1-1 is
, "~--~""-"'-""-'-"-"'-'~'--~~---'--',-"-=--
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 2
general manufacturing. The 1-2 portion is currently used as a gravel quarry and there are no wetlands on
this area which would require mitigation. The applicant is proposing to fill some portions of the wetland
on the north end of the site and to mitigate wetland on the southern half. This will approximately double
the wetland on the site.
Walz stated that the manufacturing processes would entirely indoors, thus there minimal noise would be
generated by the production facility. Also, the outdoor storage for the phase I portion of the site is
designed as a series of paved drives interspersed with sand storage beds, which would reduce the
amount of dust created by the use. For these reasons staff has classified this project as appropriate for 1_
1 zoning. Because outdoor storage is an accessory use which must be zoned the same way as the
principal use, which is the manufacturing part of the facility, the applicant needs to have both portions of
the property zoned for the same use, thus the request to rezone the 1-2 area to 1-1. The sensitive areas
overlay is required because the applicant will be filling wetlands in order to develop the site and is also
seeking a reduction in the required wetland buffer.
Phase I includes the development of the manufacturing facility and outdoor storage for the concrete
pipes. Walz pointed out the employee parking lot, the location of the outdoor storage for the concrete
pipes, and the portions of the site that will be paved. The applicant has gone through a special exception
to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 78 to 34, which Walz stated was a positive change
because a reduction in paved areas is favorable to the wetlands. Walz said that Izaak Walton Road would
be the main access for the site and that S&G Materials has a maintenance agreement with the County to
maintain Izaak Walton Road.
Phase II includes the western portion of the site, which is where the wetlands are. Walz stated that 1.96
acres of wetlands would be filled as part of the proposed development, and 3.92 acres of mitigated
wetlands would be created to replace those wetlands that are filled in. This portion of the site would be
used for outdoor storage, and the applicant is not yet sure how much storage they will need. Because the
applicant has not submitted a site plan for the extent and design of the storage area, staff will not be
recommending reduction for the wetland buffer for this portion of the site.
Walz stated that staff received revised plans yesterday. The Comprehensive Plan covers this area in the
South Central Plan and indicates this area as open space because the area is in a flood plain and there
are wetlands in the area. It is also difficult to get sewer to this area. On the other hand the
Comprehensive Plan indicates that industrial development is appropriate for property that has good
access to the railroad and highway. Unless the property is purchased by the City or some other entity
that wants to maintain it as open space, the owner is allowed to develop the site as the current zoning
permits. This applicant is requesting a down-zoning from 1-1 to 1-2, which staff believes is appropriate.
The wetlands consultant has delineated 3.45 acres of wetland. The applicant proposes to fill 1.5 acres of
emergent wetland and .46 acres of wooded wetland. The applicant's mitigation plan would create .92
acres of wooded wetland, which is required by code, and an additional 3.0 acres of emergent wetland,
which is more than what is required. New and existing wetland would be surrounded by a 50 foot buffer,
which is proposed as a bio-retention basin. This basin would hold and absorb water from an average
storm, allowing the water to infiltrate the soil. During more intense storms, some of the water would drain
into the wetlands after being filtered through the buffer.
The mitigation plan shows 1.02 acres of existing wetland would be enhanced. Walz said that according
to the criteria in the code, the wetland is eligible for a buffer reduction of up to 50 feet. However, the City
must consider the design and development of the site when granting the reduction. Staff is
recommending approval of the 50 foot reduction to the buffer on the east side of the site (phase I)
because of the design of the buffer, which acts as bio-retention to protect the wetland, and because the
design of the outdoor storage area with sand beds will allow more water to be absorbed in that area.
Walz said that staff does not recommend the 50-foot reduction for Phase II since the plan for the
development of that storage area has not yet been submitted for review.
The current site plan includes all the required screening (S-3), which is required to grow to at least 6 feet
high includes a dense evergreen component to screen year round. The screening will be provided along
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 3
the outdoor storage area along Izaak Walton Road and between the property and the Izaak Walton
League property.
Along the western portion of the site, there are a number of trees that will be removed, but the plan
preserves trees within 40 feet of the right of way. The building official will review this to see that it is
adequate for screening the outdoor storage. No screening is required for the wetlands. The last 250 feet
of woodlands in the southwest section of the site will be preserved.
Staff recommends approval of the applications subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Phase I outdoor storage area be developed as a system of concrete paved drives and
sand storage beds in compliance with the site plan submitted.
2. The final landscape will be approved by the City Forrester.
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 2 storage area must be delineated (area and location) and a site
plan submitted to staff; the site plan must comply with all code requirements 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 storm water management and erosion control plans by City Engineering 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 (that area east of the wetlands - the phase II buffer reduction to the north of the wetlands is not
recommended for approval) subject to:
7. 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 - the design of sand beds
to be approved by staff.
8. 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.
9. An additional berm to be built to an elevation that will force the water to flow into the wetland
area.
10. Substantial compliance with all other aspects of the mitigation and development plan as
submitted
11. Subject to approval by the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Eastham asked whether the sewage and water supply would come from. Walz stated that the plant
would provide bottled water for drinking and would rely on a septic system. The water for the
manufacturing facilities will be from a well.
Smith asked what staff does with the wetland monitoring reports. Walz stated that staff reviews these
plans and ensures that they are treating the wetland as was intended and as they promised. That if
vegetation does not grow or silting in occurs that corrective measures would be taken by the property
owner.
Freerks asked what would happen if the property changed hands. Miklo responded that these conditions
would be a covenant that would run with the land and they would be binding on future owners.
Eastham asked about the height of the manufacturing building. Miklo responded that the 1-1 zone has a
height limit of 45 feet. There were elements like filters that may be higher. The silos and hoppers will be
higher than 45 feet but there is a condition that as long as the buildings are set farther back from the
property line that this is allowed-they must be set back two additional feet for every one foot of additional
height.
Eastham asked about the possible extension in the trail and screening on the east side. Walz stated that
the eastern side is already set to be screened with S-3 screening, which includes evergreens. Eastham
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 4
confirmed that there would be screening when the site was viewed from the river. Walz confirmed this
and said that portions of the buildings will be viewable over the screening but that the machinery, etc.
would be hidden from view.
Applicant: Merle Headington: General Manager for County Materials stated that the building will be
between 45 and 48 feet in height. The three silos will be approximately 70 feet, but a final height has not
been specified yet.
Koppes asked if the applicant has reviewed the staff conditions. The applicant stated that he was
agreeable to these conditions.
Brooks asked how the buffer strip will be working with the pavement and preservation of natural
vegetation along the west end of the property. Liz Maas (with Transition Ecology - Wetlands Consultant
for County Material) stated that the Army Corps of Engineers prefers mitigation to be on site. She finds
this plan to be a good compromise between allowing the space for development and maintaining and
increasing the acres of wetland. There is natural wetland on the west of the site which will be maintained.
There is currently canary grass, an invasive species, in the area and it will be replaced if possible. A
good portion of the wooded wetland area on the site is being maintained. The impact is being minimized
to the fullest extent possible.
Brooks asked if pervious pavement was considered. Maas stated that this technique has been used in
other places and for the type of material that they are trying to store; this is the best option because since
the items stored are hard, they will sink into the stand and they won't roll.
Ron Amelon (with MMS Consultants) stated that pervious pavement was not considered because the
equipment would cause damage over time because of its weight. The bio-retention area will store the
water from more intense storms before it is moved into the wetland.
Eastham asked about possible contamination due to dust from materials that are stored on-site. Amelon
responded that most of the material stored will be cured to the point that there won't be any contamination
or residual substances.
Eastham asked about the reduction to the buffer of 50 feet based on the expectation that the run-off from
the storage areas will be mitigated by infiltration so that a larger buffer will not be necessary. If this is the
case, is the applicant confident that the sand cover will actually accomplish the run-off reduction? Walz
stated that the engineers from MMS ran some numbers to show that it would reduce the run-off. The
condition was put on staff's list to give staff more time to assess the applicant's ultimate design. The goal
of the sand beds is that some of the water hitting the pavement will be absorbed by the sand bed and
percolate through to the groundwater so it never reaches the wetlands. Johnson County Soil and Water
Service found permeable sand beds to be an appropriate alternative for this reason. Miklo stated that the
buffer that remains is designed to filter the water before it gets to the wetland. Walz stated that the other
alternative would be a detention basin, which is like a ditch and doesn't encourage water to percolate
down into the soil. The basins should be designed so that the water will be filtered and percolate through
the soil into the ground water or wetland instead of going directly into the wetland.
Eastham asked if the sand would erode over time. Walz stated that this would depend on the design of
the bed. Amelon responded that the sand would be contained by concrete borders with a grade of less
than 1 %. This won't allow high velocities of water to shed across the site.
Freerks opened the floor for public discussion.
Jerry Full: lives a mile south on Oak Crest Hill Road. The neighbors have two concerns. He's not
speaking for the neighbors but has spoken to them. He is concerned about truck traffic, which has
increased, at his estimate, by 10 times in the past couple of years. There is a new sand plant and
increases in hog farming. The road is in bad condition and he blames the large truck traffic. There is a
large trailer court across from this property. He said the residents walk and bike to town, many of them at
night. There are no sidewalks on this road and he is concerned about adding more trucks to this traffic.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 5
When he moved, around 10 years ago, there was a proposal for a small sand operation which was well
thought out and had a strong environmental plan. Five years later they came back with a larger operation
that goes 30 years into the future. Their original hours of operation were 8-5 and now they start at 7 a.m.
and go late into the night. He is concerned about a bait and switch program where the plan is increased
in the future. He also asked if the building heights have been run by the airport commission. Miklo
responded that this has not yet occurred and that the building official will need to determine whether it
meets the requirements.
Smith confirmed that the 1-2 zoning would allow more heavy industry, which Full is looking to avoid.
Freerks confirmed that if this operation wants to expand in the future, it will have to come back before the
Commission. Walz stated that the land that is in City limits, the land would still be subject to the 1-1
limitations. If they wanted to change their zoning, they would have to come back before the Commission.
Miklo added that, at this point, the applicant is using most of the land on the site that is not being set
aside as wetlands so there would be little room for expansion.
Smith made a motion to approve, subject to staffs 11 conditions specified in the amended staff
recommendation. Shannon seconded.
Eastham asked if they could get an analysis of whether the roads could accommodate the extra traffic
and how much extra traffic there would actually be. Miklo responded that the Jeff Davidson,
Transportation Planner & the City Engineer analyzed the roads in this area. Izaak Walton Road is in the
county's jurisdiction. Oak Crest Hill is in better shape on the north half. As part of the conditional use
agreement between S&G and the county, S&G improved the intersection of Izaak Walton and Oak Crest
Hill. If there is any damage to the road, S&G is responsible for fixing it. Miklo also stated that there is the
potential for another access point on the northwest side of the road, which would be to Old Highway 218
which is in good condition and is able to handle the traffic.
Miklo stated that the pedestrian issue is a problem, but the development of the manufactured housing
park in the County where there are no sidewalks was a decision that was made years ago and is difficult
to rectify.
Freerks was happy to see that this was a down zoning as it is a compromise since the land cannot
currently be used as open space. She felt that the way the wetlands were to be treated was appropriate
and the conditions would provide some safe guards.
Motion carried unanimously.
REZ07-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by Ezebube Real Estate Investments LLC for a
rezonina from Medium Density Sinale-Family (RS-8) zone to Medium Density Multi-Family Residential
(RM-20) zone for approximatelv .40 acres of property located at 719 & 723 Michael Street.
Eastham stated that he is the President of a non-profit called Housing Fellowship. The non-profit owns
two properties in the area on Douglas Court and Douglas Street. He doesn't think there is a conflict with
the current application. Attorney Holecek was asked for her opinion and asked if Eastham felt he was
able to render an unbiased opinion. Eastham responded that he has considered this question and feels
that he can.
The applicant owns two small properties on Michael Street, a short dead-end off Benton Street. There
are numerous apartment buildings at the end of the street. The applicant is requesting rezoning because
it was surrounded on three sides by RM-20. However, the Comprehensive Plan and Southwest District
Plan calls for this to remain single-family or duplex residential. Howard showed photos of the area and
the properties. There are several concentrations of apartments in the area, including 7 apartment
buildings and 82 apartments at the end of Michael Street. There is a concern that the small, single-
family, affordable homes in the area be maintained. In order to keep this balance, and given that the
Comprehensive Plan calls for this space to remain single-family residential, staff does not recommend
approval and does not find the applicant's reason compelling. Another concern about increasing density
in this area is that Michael Street is substandard and has no sidewalks.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 6
Eastham asked if the applicant had any option except to redevelop this as two single-family residences.
He stated that if the lots were combined and divided into three parts, the lot width would not be sufficient.
Howard responded that duplexes are only allowed on the corner lots in RS-S zones. Currently, one of the
homes has been divided into three apartments, which is nonconforming. Howard stated that it would be
hard to tell how it would work to redevelop the property in the way Eastham proposes, and that it would
be an appropriate question for the applicant. This option would reduce the number of units.
Smith asked if the lots were conforming today. Howard responded that the lots are conforming but the
triplex is not conforming, but was grandfathered in.
Kevin Hochstedler, representing the applicant, gave a background on the applicant who came from Africa
in the 1990's, went to Georgia State and got a degree in chemistry. He is currently a research scientist at
the University who works with bone marrow transplants for cancer patients and has gone into the ministry.
The applicant owns both properties and wants to put more money into them. It would not be financially
feasible to bring the properties up to code. Ezebube apologizes for not being here tonight due to prior
commitments. He would like to express his interest in working with the City. He would like to build a solid
property which will benefit the City, be affordable for many residents, and add to the neighborhood.
Ezebube owns other RS-S property in the area which he is also putting money into. He does not request
rezoning on these properties. Each property is worth approximately $115,000. His intent is to put one
large building on these lots with underground parking. He feels this would be the best use of the
property.
Freerks opened the floor to public discussion.
Ann Kohl (709 Giblin Drive) feels that there are already enough apartments in the area and that adding
more would create too much extra traffic.
Freerks closed public discussion.
Freerks made note of the letter that was received via email from Mary Knudson-Dion in opposition of the
zoning.
Howard stated that if the Commission decides to go forward with this rezoning, the Comprehensive Plan
would have to be amended.
Koppes made a motion to deny the application. Smith seconded.
Koppes stated that both of these properties are in good shape and that there is a clear delineation where
the apartments stop and the homes start. She feels we should stick with the Comprehensive Plan.
Brooks stated that he did not think the street could handle anymore traffic and that it was worrisome that
the street was not pedestrian friendly. He feels that this application would start a slippery slope. He feels
that the need for affordable housing is paramount in this case.
Plahutnik stated that he doesn't feel that a past intrusion into RS-S zoning merits a continuation of this
intrusion. He stated that this zoning would increase the value of this property to the detriment of the
surrounding properties.
Shannon stated that he was in support of this rezoning. He feels that the RM-20 zone should be squared
off. He is upset that the Comprehensive Plan has not prevented the retirement home down the street on
Benton from gobbling up homes surrounding them. He feels that this development would be positive.
Smith feels that in order to be consistent with past applications, he is in support of Shannon. In past
applications, the Commission has used the Comprehensive Plan as a guide and loose deviations are
allowed without changing the plan - he referred to the rezoning for Sonic Burger. Miklo stated that this
case is different because of the specificity of the language in the plan which makes it clear that Michael
Street and the larger area should be preserved for small lot single-family homes. He said at the time the
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 7
Southwest District Plan was drafter there was considerable citizen discussion and support for this
concept. He said in the case of the Sonic Burger staff recommended approval without changing the
Comprehensive Plan because we felt that if a proper buffer was required the development could occur
without harming the housing in the adjacent neighborhood. In the case of Michael Street the rezoning
has implications for the adjacent single-family homes on Benton Street. Because of the grade of the land
the proposed apartments would tower over the existing one story homes and would likely lead to request
to rezone them.
Smith asked if we should be considering the need for affordable single-family housing in deciding zoning
issues. Miklo responded that since it's listed in the Comprehensive Plan, it should be taken into account.
Howard stated that the main concern of the property owners during this district plan is the need for
maintaining the balance between affordable, single-family homes and apartment buildings. Howard
stated that this looks to be squaring off zoning on the map but when you go to the neighborhood it would
feel differently.
Smith asked about the access points for the properties. Howard responded that all single and multi
families are accessed from Michael Street.
Eastham has reservations about the options that are available to the property owner under RS-S zoning
in trying to take existing properties that don't have the market place that is attractive to rental households.
He doesn't have any problem with not distinguishing between rental and owner properties in applying the
Comprehensive Plan. He feels that the current flexibility is less than optimal. He feels that combining
these lots and building three single-family homes might be attractive as far as housing prices go, but he
doesn't know if this is financially feasible. Eastham said that he realizes that the Commission just went
through updating the zoning ordinance and perhaps there was not the desire on the part of his fellow
Commissioners to revisit the issue. Freerks and Eastham stated that this was a discussion for another
night.
Freerks stated that she did not think that the applicant's reason was compelling and agrees with the
current motion to deny. She feels that there was a great deal of work put into this district plan and that
the neighbor's concerns about affordable housing should be taken into account.
Motion carried 6-1 (Shannon voting no).
Vacation Item
VAC07-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by SouthQate Development Services LLC to vacate
a portion of Hollywood Boulevard located south of HiQhway 6. east of Broadway Street.
Miklo said the request is to vacate a 6-foot wide section of the Hollywood Boulevard right of way. Staff
doesn't want to vacate the entire right of way because of the trail and utility lines. The most the staff
would recommend to be vacated is 6 feet. They are recommending approval subject to retention of utility
easements. There is at least one gas line within the area. This is what was contemplated at the time of
the rezoning application. The applicant had asked for as much as was possible, and 6 feet was the
maximum that was possible.
The applicant declined the opportunity to speak.
There was no public discussion.
Smith made a motion to approve subject to retention of utility easements. Plahutnik seconded.
Freerks stated that the vacation request does not present a problem when she considers things such as
pedestrian and vehicular traffic, circulation, access to private property, access for utility vehicles, or
operation of public or private utilities.
Plahutnik stated that this was considered and discussed during the rezoning application for this property.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 8
Motion carried 7-0.
Countv RezoninQ Item
CZ07-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Tyler ROQers for a rezoninQ from County
AQriculture (A) to County Residential (R) zone for 3.0 acres of property located on the west side of
Kansas Ave. SW, approximately X mile south of IWV Rd SW and a nearby 3.0 acre property from County
Residential (R) zone to County AQriculture (A).
The owner of the property would like to rezone three aces from residential to agricultural and also rezone
three acres farther to the north from residential to agricultural. The City has also received a subdivision
application for this property that would be reviewed at a future meeting. Staff recommends approval as
this generally complies with the Fringe Area Agreement.
The applicant declined the opportunity to speak.
There was no public discussion.
Eastham made a motion to approve.
Motion approved by a vote of 7-0.
Consideration of the April 5. 2007 MeetinQ Minutes
Smith made a motion to approve. Eastham seconded.
Motion approved by a vote of 7-0.
Adiournment
Meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Megan Weiler.
s/pcd/minutes/p&z12007/04-19-07
c
o
'en
III
'E
E
o
0'0
...
C)O
C U
.- CI)
c~
o
NCI)~
.....uo
....CN
C)I'\S
cOO
.- C
C CI)
C-
.!!~
a..
~
o
I'\S
~
..9
en
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
~
II) W
~ (; >< >< >< >< >< ><
II) >< >< >< >< >< >< W
.... (;
-
M
....
0 >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
M
II) W W
.... >< >< >< (; (; 0 ><
-
N
....
0 >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
N
co >< >< >< >< >< ><
.... ><
-
....
III 0 co I'- 0 co
E ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~
<u'~ - - - - - - -
L{) L{) L{) L{) L{) L{) L{)
I-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E ,:,(. C
~ III III '2 0
III ,:,(. CI) .... C J::
Q) J:: ... Q. j c:
E 0 .... Q) J:: :!::
e III l!! Q. ~ III E
Cll III 0 J::
Z In w LL ~ Q", en en
C)
z
i=
w
w
:E
.J
<C
:E
~
o
LL
<i.
CD W
~ >< - >< >< >< >< ><
- 0
~
CD W
N >< >< >< 0 >< >< ><
-
N
en W
N >< >< >< >< >< 0 ><
-
~
l/l co I'- 0 co
E ~ 0 ~ ~
~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~
<u'~ - - - - - - -
L{) L{) L{) L{) L{) L{) L{)
I-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E ~ C
III ~ III C 0
~ I'\S 8 - C
0 .c ... ~ C .c
- CI) .c ~
e III I'\S
Q) I'\S f 0 I'\S .c E
E OJ W LL ~ a: rn rn
co 0 <i. u.i ~ c:i ...:
z OJ
C)
z
i=
w
w
:E
.J
<C
:E
~
o
LL
~
ai
"'C
Q)
l/l
:J
o
X
W
-_:i::l
c: c: c:
Q) Q) Q)
l/l l/l l/l
~DD
Q..c{c{
.. II II II
>- W
Q) -
~><oo