Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-17-2007 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, May 17, 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 122-lot, 34.86 acre residential subdivision and rezoning from Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) zone and High Density Single Family (RS-12) zone to Planned Development Overlay Zone (OPD-8 and OPD-12) for property located south and west of Whispering Meadows Drive. (45-day limitation period: May 18, 2007) D. Other Item: E. Consideration of the May 3, 2007 Meeting Minutes F. Adjournment Informal Formal City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM May 17, 2007 o :~om: ::r~::o::d~:::C~~~:I::::' ...~ \'-.// Re: Whispering Meadows, Part 4 At your last meeting, you requested add.itional analysis/information about the following unresolved issues: . Whisperinq Meadows Drive - Staff from the Public Works Department, City Attorney's Office, Fire Department, and Planning Department met last week to reconsider the issue of extending Whispering Meadows Drive across the Sycamore Greenway. Staff confirms their recommendation that this street connection is necessary to serve the needs of the proposed subdivision. If this property were not developed to the extent proposed, which includes an upzoning and disturbance of a significant portion of the sensitive features on the site to increase the development potential, this road connection would not be necessary. Therefore, staff believes that the developer, rather than City taxpayers, should bear the cost of making this necessary connection across the Sycamore Greenway to the adjacent subdivision. This situation is similar to that of the General Quarters Subdivision, where the developer bore the cost of extending Gable Street across the Greenway to connect with the adjacent neighborhood to the north. . Neiqhborhood Open Space - To satisfy the neighborhood open space requirement, the land proposed for dedication must be usable and accessible parkland or recreation space. Planning staff has contacted the Director of Parks and Recreation to discuss again whether a portion of the woodland along the western edge of the development adjacent to the Sycamore Greenway would meet the criteria for neighborhood open space. We will report to the Commission the results of this discussion at your meeting on Thursday. . Tree protection: The grading and erosion control plan submitted by the developer states that "all trees outside the limits of grading operations shall be saved, unless otherwise indicated to be removed. Trees near the edges of grading limits and in the storm water detention basin area shall be saved if possible..." Staff suggests that in the interests of preserving trees near existing home lots along Amber and Regal Lanes, the developer consider identifying specific trees that could be saved on the proposed lots 16 through 22. Preliminary MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 3,2007 - 7:30 P.M. EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Dean Shannon, Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Ann Freerks, Charlie Eastham, Bob Brooks, Terry Smith Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Holecek STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Gordon, Ron Amelon, Sharon Sorensen, Mike McLaughlin RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (become effective only after separate Council action): None CALL TO ORDER: Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA No discussion. REZONING 1 DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 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: 5/18/07) 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-8) zone and High Density Single Family (RS-12) zone to Planned Development Overlay Zone (OPD-8 and OPD-12) for property located south and west of Whispering Meadows Drive. (45-day limitation period: 5/18/07) Eastham recused himself indicating that he was president of the Board of Trustees of the Housing Fellowship, a non-profit affordable housing development partnership which was the general partner in a limited partnership which owned property within the 200-foot boundary of the properties subject to the rezoning request. Eastham left the meeting room. Howard gave Staff Report. The applicant had requested a rezoning of a portion of the property to allow a mixture of housing types within the proposed development. The central portion would be single-family townhouses. The South District Plan called for a mix of small-lot single family and duplexes; townhouses were a type of single-family dwellings which were becoming increasingly popular within Iowa City. The recently adopted revised Zoning Code contained new standards for townhouses to assure that neighborhoods were attractive and livable; Staff felt that the standards would be sufficient to take care of the design concerns expressed in the South District Plan. The applicant proposed to maintain an RS-8 zone transition area of single family homes between the existing development to the north, zoned RS-5, along the north side of Whispering Meadows Drive and also along the south side of the development which butted up against the Sycamore Greenway. The transition zone would help to concentrate units in the center of the development so garages would face private open space instead of public open space along the Sycamore Greenway and provide a buffer between the different housing types to the north. Planning and Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page 2 The site contains a number of sensitive features. Woodlands are located on the western portion, a blue- line regulated stream corridor which contained a series of wetlands flows through the center of the area and a series of fingers of wetlands flows to the north and to the east. Because of those sensitive features, the site would be difficult to develop. The developer had requested the rezoning in order to cluster the development away from the sensitive features of the site. A number of traffic implications would occur as a result of rezoning the property to high-density single family. Sycamore Street was the nearest arterial street to the development; Lakeside Drive, a collector street, was nearing traffic capacity. Grant Wood School, located near Lakeside Drive, increased the likelihood of pedestrian - vehicle conflicts. The Sycamore Greenway wound around the development property on the west and south sides, Staff hoped to limit crossings of the Greenway. The proposed logical crossing would be equal distance from Lakeside Drive and a future arterial street which would go further south of the property. Approximately 850 tripslday would be triggered by the proposed development which would put Lakeside Drive over its traffic capacity. Therefore the City felt that there was a need for another collector street from the development to the west to Sycamore Street. Staff felt that the proposed rezoning from RS-8 to RS-12 in the central portion of the property would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and with the surrounding neighborhoods, provided that the secondary access issue to the property was resolved by extending Whispering Meadows Drive to the western edge of the Sycamore Greenway to provide for an eventual extension to Sycamore Street. An unresolved issue was who would be responsible for paying for the cost of the proposed connection across the greenway to hook up with General Quarter's subdivision and the eventual street connection to Sycamore Street. The Developer was only willing to pay for the extension of the street to the edge of the property. REZ06-00026: Howard staid that the first rezoning was proposed to increase the density form RS-8 to RS-12. This second rezoning was for the Planned Development Overlay zone for the Sensitive Areas. Woodlands were located on the western portion of the property. Fingers of wetlands located along the stream corridor were fed by stormwater outlets from previous developments surrounding the property. The developer was required to preserve 50% of the woodlands located on the property. The applicant is requesting approval to allow more than 50% of the woodlands to be cleared in exchange for planting replacement trees. The developer intended to preserve 38% of the existing woodlands and plant 265 replacement trees on the property along the stream corridor, in the middle of the wetlands mitigation, along the edges of the buffer and to plant one tree in the front yard of every home in the development. Staff felt that the measures proposed by the developer to preserve and replace trees met the requirements of the Sensitive Area Ordinance (SAO). The 30-foot stream corridor extended east to west across the center of the property. The SAO required a 50-foot buffer around the stream corridor anywhere there was a corresponding second or third sensitive feature. Due to wetlands and woodlands being located within the stream corridor, much of the corridor would have to have a buffer on either side. Preservation of the stream corridor on the east side of Verbena Drive would be difficult as the bed and bank were not well defined and the topography was very flat. The applicant proposed to grade-out much of the area and reconstruct a large portion of the stream corridor and wetland cells. Staff felt that if the compensatory mitigation for the wetlands was acceptable, the impacts to the stream corridor would be acceptable provided that a buffer of equal to or greater than what would otherwise have been required for the existing stream corridor and wetlands was provided in the mitigation plan. In order to develop the property, the applicant would disturb wetlands which would require 2.26 acres of replacement wetlands according to SAO guidelines. The applicant had submitted a wetland mitigation plan to the City and to the Army Corps of Engineers. Because more than .5-acre of wetlands would be disturbed, the longer gO-day review period through the Corps of Engineers, the EPA Fish and Wildlife Service and the Iowa DNR was required. The applicant had not yet received approval of the proposed mitigation plan so Staff recommend that one of the conditions of the CZA stipulate that the Plan be approved before any development activity be allowed to occur on the site. Planning and Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page 3 Staff had reviewed the proposed wetland 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. If successfully established, it could result in an improvement over the exiting low quality wetlands. Given that the proposed wetland mitigation area with a 50-foot buffer would be greater than the original wetlands, stream corridor and associated 100-foot buffer, Staff found this to meet the intent of the SAO. The mitigation site would be surrounded by a residential neighborhood. Because it is unlikely that construction of the homes in this development will be completed within the typical required 5-year wetland monitoring period, Staff recommended that the wetlands be monitored for as long as home construction is occurring on the lots that surround the wetlands. Also staff recommends a requirement for written reports to be submitted to the City after every site visit rather than just on an annual basis as proposed in the mitigation plan. Additionally a credible long term plan detailing maintenance and monitoring responsibilities including estimates of costs and how often and what types of maintenance will be necessary should be submitted as part of the subdivider's agreement at the time of final plat. The subdivision design consisted of 122 residential lots. The developer will need to extend Whispering Meadows Drive across City property in the southeast corner to connect with the next development to the south. The original design submitted called for a cul-de-sac, by extending the street to the west, the developer was able to gain two additional lots with the current plat which should help to mitigate the costs of building Whispering Meadows across the Greenway. The developer had requested a sidewalk waiver along Outlot A along the west side of Verbina Drive. Sidewalk waivers have proven to be problematic in the past. Residents in neighborhoods where sidewalks had been waived question why there are gaps in the sidewalk network and request that the City build those sidewalks at taxpayer expense. The City had recently adopted a "complete streets policy" that called for streets to be built for all users including pedestrians and bicyclists. Staff recommended that the streets be complete streets and the developer be required to build the complete sidewalk. Outlot C would be dedicated to the City as part of the open space requirement which would provide access to Sycamore Greenway to the south. Howard said Staff recommended 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 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. 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 the resolution of deficiencies ad discrepancies noted in the Staff Report with regard to the sidewalk connection and to a Conditional Zoning Agreement specifying that · the wetland mitigation plan must be approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and all other applicable State and Federal agencies; · Copies of all site visit reports and annual monitoring reports submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers will also 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 · 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. Plahutnik said it appeared that the eastern portion of the stream that ran north-west appeared to have been disturbed and straightened at a previous time. Howard said the area had been farmed over the years. The area was fed by stormwater, wetlands had formed because the area was so flat. Planning and Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page 4 Freerks asked what would be the cost in terms of extending the road. Howard said the City Engineer had estimated the cost of constructing the road across the greenway with a 20% contingency at approximately $260,000. Brooks asked what was the precedent for requiring the developer to the east to make the connection through the entire distance of the greenway instead of the two developers sharing the cost. Howard said it was a judgment call as to whose development would cause the need for the street connection. Staff felt it was unlikely that persons residing in the General Quarters development would travel to the east as most destinations in the City were to the north and west. If the proposed development were not to develop, it would be unlikely that a connection across the greenway would be needed. Miklo said the property being discussed was being up-zoned, the property to the west was not. Koppes asked with respect to the proposed replacement trees that were to be planted in the yards, would there be any protections placed on the trees? Could the homeowner cut them down, what if a tree died? Miklo said in the SAO, a time periOd for which the developer had to maintain the trees was specified. Generally homeowners wanted to maintain the trees as a benefit to their property values. Plahutnik asked if the wetlands were not being maintained could occupancy permits be withheld until the wetlands were brought up to viable standards. Holecek said City legal staff was in the process of working with the developer to try to design a workable maintenance mechanism. The idea of a continuance of maintenance for those lots would make them difficult to sell. It was an unusual application, the City did not have another example of this type of maintenance obligation for a large development within the City. Steve Gordon, AM Management, project managers for MBHG Investors. Gordon thanked Staff for their assistance, it had been a long process over the past year. The site had been challenging; it had a lot of natural features to protect while at the same time protecting the investor's ability to sell the lots and build affordable housing. A good mix of housing had been proposed, the integrity of the existing neighborhoods had been protected and through clustering a nice neighborhood which enhanced the existing natural features had been proposed. Areas of disagreement: Requirement to install a sidewalk along the west side of Verbena Drive: All lots within the subdivision could access the entire subdivision and the City trail system without going out of their way and only crossing the street at an intersection. The exception would be lots 66-74, if they wanted to go north they would have to go south, cross the street, then go north. The developer felt that the large stretch of sidewalk along Verbena would be an undue cost burden to place on the residents. Maintenance of Wetlands during Construction: 5-years was normally required, they'd talked about 10- years or when construction on the lots surrounding the wetlands was completed. It was Gordon's understanding that they'd compromised on a 10-year requirement or when all the lots around the wetlands were completed, whichever came first. It was possible that a homeowner or builder could purchase a lot(s) and hold them for a long period of time. The developer felt that there needed to be some type of cap on the responsibility time limit. The City had very strict ordinance(s) regarding building requirements for stormwater runoff; those restrictions coupled with a 1 O-year monitoring and maintenance of the wetlands would be adequate to establish the wetlands. Gordon requested that language regarding 10-year limitation or when all the lots were developed be placed in the CZA. Open Space had not been discussed at the Staff level yet. 'Fees in lieu of' was noted in Staffs Report. Gordon stated that he felt the development had adequate open space. The developer had offered the City a large parcel which was continuous with currently owned City space and trail system but the City had declined the offer. The developer felt it was not right that the City had declined their offer but would require fees in lieu of. Street connection from the subdivision to connect with general quarters. The developer wondered if an additional access was really necessary as there would be three separate access points - Whispering Meadows Drive, Indigo Drive and Blazing Star Drive. At issue was also who was to pay for the Planning and Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page 5 construction of Whispering Meadows across City land. They'd accommodated the request to make Whispering Meadows Drive a collector street, it had originally been designed as a cul-de-sac. They had lost available land because of the street re-design and it had increased their construction costs. A portion of Whispering Meadows Drive would be for the greater public good, which was the definition of a collector street. The developer felt it was within their rights to assert that the City pay for a portion of the street. The developer took issue with the City requesting them to pay for the costs of constructing Whispering Meadows Drive across the City Greenway land to which the City held title. The developer should not be required to pay for the costs of public improvements that extended beyond the platted boundaries of their subdivision; the extension of Whispering Meadows Drive across the Greenway was not necessary to serve the subdivision from an access standpoint alone. Under City Code, a developer was not required to extend streets outside the boundaries of the subdivision across public property. If the City chose to be a landowner, they should not be exempt from the requirements of the City Code. Requirement of Whispering Meadows Drive to be a collector street was inconsistent by definition with the claim that it would only serve their residents. A collector street served a larger area and would benefit a much larger area than just the proposed development. It would be unfair to place the financial burden completely on the homeowners of their subdivision. Design and location of the crossing across the Greenway had been inconsistent over the years. The land was being up-zoned but due to clustering and the existing natural sensitive features on the land actual density would be much less than allowed by RS-5 zone. The cul-de-sac lots would have been much larger and more desirable; now every lot along Whispering Meadows Drive would be less valuable as they would be on a collector street as opposed to a quieter cul-de-sac. To burden the 122 homeowners with the estimated costs of public improvements of $270,000-$300,000 would amount to an increase in thousands of dollars per lot for public improvements to land owned by the City which was unreasonable and unfair. Koppes asked Gordon regarding the Good Neighbor policy. Gordon said they'd had two different meeting nights in the Saddlebrook Club house. They'd sent letters to property owners within the 200-foot radius. The plan had been a little different at that time. Shannon asked Gordon what was his understanding of the home owner's association responsibility for maintenance of the wetlands. Gordon said they intended to put together a game plan of what would be required over time to maintain an area such as the proposed development. It was their intent that once everything was sold that a homeowner's association would be created and a small yearly fee would be put into a kitty that would go toward long-term maintenance of the wetlands. The developer's intent was to give the association a blue-print of how to monitor and maintain the wetlands. Smith summarized Gordon's 4 primary areas of discrepancy: requirement of fees in lieu of open space; crossing for the greenway; sidewalk; limitation period for wetland maintenance, either during time of construction or 1 O-years which ever occurred first. Gordon said that was accurate. Those were the 4 areas in which they disagreed with Staff's recommendations, the critical one being the crossing of the greenway which had the potential to make the project not even feasible to undertake. Howard said Parks and Recreation Department did not accept land that was not suitable for active park space. For the City to take on land which had numerous sensitive features on it was more of a burden than a benefit to the public as far as park space went. The Neighborhood Open Space ordinance intended for open space to be flat, usable, playground type space. It was up to Parks & Recreation whether they wanted to accept the land or not, if they did not then the ordinance specified that fees should be paid in lieu of. The City Council would decide this particular issue. Freerks asked if the fire department had commented on the proposed accesses tolfrom the development. Howard said generally the more street connections the better for emergency access and the efficiency of providing public services over time. Due to not knowing how much development would actually occur on this property because of the sensitive features, it had been difficult early on designing street connections. Planning and Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page 6 When General Quarters had been designed it had not been known if any development would occur on this piece of property or not. The City had tried to purchase a large portion of this property to add to the Sycamore Greenway because it had a lot of sensitive features on it but that negotiation with the property owner had not worked out. Ron Amelon, MMS Consultants was present to answer questions from the Commission. Public discussion was opened. Sharon Sorenson, 26 Amber Lane, said she had a listing of signatures regarding removal of the wooded area in the Sycamore Greenway. She had lived in her house for less than one year; one of the reasons they had purchased the house was because of the wooded area behind it. The individuals who'd signed the petition were concerned about the loss of the woodlands and the wildlife and the fact that all the houses would be constructed in an area where the land was already saturated with water and run-off from downspouts and people residing in the area. With the loss of trees, the land would soak-up less water and it would be at least 50-years before the bicycle path would have shade again. She had attended the previous two good-neighbor meetings. In the first meeting the developer had indicated that they would only cut down 50% of the trees, at the second meeting they had said that all the trees in the area would be removed. Sorensen said the intent of the petition was to request that consideration be given to preventing the trees from being cut-down. Miklo indicated in which areas trees would be removed; not all the trees adjacent to the greenway would be removed. Gordon said in the original plan with the cul-de-sac they had been able to preserve more trees in the northwest corner because it was a cul-de-sac and not a through street. Along the north edge of the property the developer had always planned to create a drainage way to take care of water; any trees that were not in the buildable area would be preserved to the best of the developer's ability. By pushing the street through, the tree situation was clearly different than the original proposal. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Koppes made a motion to defer REZ06-00025, an application for a rezoning of 15.42 acres of property from RS-8 to RS-12 and SUB06-00017/REZ06~00026, an application a preliminary plat of Whispering Meadows Subdivision Part 4, a 124-lot, 34.86-acre residential subdivision and rezoning from RS-8 and RS-12 to OPD-8 and OPD-12 for property located south and west of Whispering Meadows Drive. Shannon seconded the motion. Shannon said he was also concerned with the proposed removal of trees and would like additional information on the footprint(s) of the house and streets where trees were to be removed and additional information on the long term maintenance and protection of the wetlands. Smith said to paraphrase Sorenson's concern's, #1) runoff which the development was taking care of and #2) sheer loss of the forestry, trees and aesthetics of the area which had been the reason why she'd purchased her home. The area was not a dedicated parkway which would guarantee that the trees would continue to exist so unfortunately concern #2 was outside of her property owner's rights. The only way to preserve the area would be for private individuals to purchase the lots, the Commission could not hinder the developer's ability to develop their land. Smith said issues between the developer and Staff included 1) Sidewalk - he felt the sidewalk should be required. In his short tenure with the Commission he'd already seen sidewalk issues come before the Commission, he'd prefer to have a sidewalk system maintained on both sides of the street. 2) Requirement to monitor, maintain and report three times throughout the construction season. He agreed with the applicant that once the lots were sold it was out of the developer's hands and some sort of sunset or clouding clause should be included. A limitation set at 10-years or completion of the development seemed reasonable to him. 3) Open space fees in lieu of - if 13-acres out of 34-acres were to remain as open space, it seemed to be a valid argument that fees were unreasonable. 4) Crossing of the Greenway. They were trying to develop entry-level, small lot, affordable housing. The more burden put on the developer the more which would get passed on to the homeowner and the less likely they would end up with affordable housing. Just because the City owned property didn't mean that the City Planning and Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page 7 itself would pay for the expenses, the taxpayerslall the members of the community would pay if the City had to pay for the development. People incurring an expense should pay for that expense, an expense which would benefit only a few living in an isolated area should pay for that expense and it should not be passed on to and spread among the masses. The extension didn't seem to benefit the City as a whole, it appeared to benefit that general isolated area. Smith felt the cost should be born locally and isolated. His preference would be a 50/50 split. Each developer should extend the street 50% of the way. Miklo said the 50/50 split would not be possible, there would not be a rezoning to the west so the City would incur any portion not paid by this developer. Koppes said her main concern was the overall traffic flow in that area. Adding that many more properties to that general area without Sycamore Street being improved and without a guarantee when the other road would be installed would make Lakeside Drive a very dangerous place. The sidewalk needed to be installed. She was also concerned with a homeowner's association being responsible for maintenance and monitoring of the wetlands. What if the association dissolved or neglected the area, there would be no enforcement mechanism. Her preference was to not have a limit in years (i.e. 10-years) but to have it stipulated as "when construction is finished". Plahutnik said the developer was offering wetlands as open space in lieu of payment. There were wetlands on the property and what the residents of the neighborhood would want would be soccer fields and baseball diamonds. The sidewalk should be installed, trying to resolve sidewalk issues after the fact was impossible. He had no wish to encumber what a developer could do with their property with respect to trees; wooded lots were worth more. The City did own the property under the Greenway but it was not for recreational or financial benefit. It was part of the stormwater management program which benefited the entire district. He saw the crossing need as generated by the proposed development. He didn't feel that it was very fair that the development pay for the entire expense but the majority of the need was generated from the development. Freerks said she agreed with the prior comments and Staff's opinion regarding the installation of the sidewalk. Wetlands, mitigation and maintenance plan - she'd like the stipulation to be "until completion of construction" as she felt it was important to assure that maintenance was done property so no issues would occur in the future. The connector street was a tough call, she felt that the General Quarters Subdivision had taken care of their responsibility to the north and similarly the Whispering Meadows connection would benefit the proposed development the most. She would agree that the development pay for the costs. Trees and wooded lots - wooded lots sold very well and she hoped that the developer would do the right thing. The motion to defer passed on a vote of 6-0 (Eastham recused). Eastham rejoined the Commission. OTHER Consider a request submitted by Mike McLaughlin to amend the zoning code to allow duplexes on lots narrower than 80 feet without access to an alley or rear lane. Miklo said a letter from Mike McLaughlin had been included in the Commissioner's information packet. With respect to this matter they could decide not to study it, study it and put in on the pending list or study it and put it at the top of the pending list. Staff felt that during the rewrite of the Zoning Code there had been a lot of discussion regarding lot width and configurations; a lot of compromise had been achieved during those discussions. At this time, Staff did not see the need to re-open those discussions. Mike McLaughlin, property owner of 315 S. Dodge Street, said the existing structure on this particular parcel of land was not well maintained. Lot size was 46 x 160 square feet, 50-feet deep with an existing driveway along the north side of the house, a shared driveway along the south with an easement for lots 315 & 317 North Dodge Street. McLaughlin said he was requesting latitude to 14-4B-5-ltem F - Access. Planning and Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page 8 Previously there had been an alley which had run north and south, a section was currently owned by a property on Burlington Street. When the former alley had been vacated, McLaughlin did not have the vision or knowledge that City Code would change therefore limiting the ability to develop properties within the block. The current zone would permit multi-family development which would require a wider drive to access parking in the rear. He was requesting consideration for a less dense option with a two-family use but the current code would not allow that option. He would like an amendment to the current code or exceptions to allow a less dense 2-family use for his particular lot. The existing structure was a single- family structure. Eastham asked why the applicant was interested in a duplex or 2-family use. McLaughlin said under the current code based on the restrictions on the lots, set-backs, driveway widths and buffers that he would be able to construct a more appealing 2-family use building rather than a of multi-family structure. For persons residing in the structure a 2-family use would be more desirable than multi-family. Eastham asked what population he would be marketing the 2-family use to. McLaughlin said probably to student rentals. Eastham asked if McLaughlin would consider marketing to non-student persons. McLaughlin said he'd considered developing it and selling it. If he was limited to a multi-family use, he'd probably build and sell it as condominiums. Eastham asked if McLaughlin had additional properties along Dodge Street or in the neighborhood that were already duplex configuration. McLaughlin said not in that particular block, he did have properties further south. Miklo said Staff and McLaughlin had looked at a couple of multi-family proposals but they didn't meet Code. Given how narrow the lot was he was not sure a multi-family unit could be constructed on the lot. Howard said even with concessions, it was questionable if a duplex could be built on the lot. The narrowness of the lot constricted the use, not necessarily the zoning regulations. McLaughlin said he'd had some discussion with a neighbor on Johnson Street who owned a property west and one lot to the south of his lot. An existing driveway serviced two properties but that neighbor was hesitant to accept a minimum of 6 more vehicles on their driveways. He'd also need to make arrangements with an additional property owner whose property had a tail of the alley on it. Eastham asked if McLaughlin built a condominium structure, who he would market those units to. McLaughlin said parents of college students or perhaps young professionals. Holecek said it was important to note that when making land use decisions it was not who would occupy the particular land use but whether the land use was appropriate given the inherent characteristics of the property around it. Who the structures would be marketed to was not a valid basis for making a land use decision. Miklo said the intent of the RNS-20 zone, Neighborhood Stabilization Residential zone was to stabilize and preserve the character of older neighborhoods which contained a mix of single family housing, duplex, single-family structures which had been converted to multi-family and properties which had been redeveloped to multi-family housing. Freerks said she'd attended the Central District Quality of Life meeting. During roundtable discussions, the concern that neighborhood stabilization was not doing its job had been raised and discussed. Public discussion was closed. Koppes asked Miklo to review the Commission's To-Do list. Miklo said regarding the new subdivision regulations - a draft had been distributed to the HBA and other interested groups. A 30-day comment period end at the end of May. Revisions would go before the Commission and they would also have a series of public meetings which could go into the fall. The Central Planning District had one final focus meeting in May and then another public workshop in June. A considerable amount of staff time would then be required to write up the Central District Plan document and a series of public input meetings Planning and Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Page g would occur over the following several months. CB-10 zone was a high interest item which needed to be addressed in the very near future. CB-2 zone should be addressed at some point as well. Brooks said the Commission needed more comprehensive information on the issue that McLaughlin was requesting. He'd prefer to place it on the study list but it would be non-priority and have to be worked in as Staffs time permitted. Plahutnik said per Miklo's reading of the intent of Neighborhood Stabilization Residential zone, keeping existing single family homes from being developed into multi-family homes was specifically cited as an intent of the Code and the Code was working very well in this instance. It raised a very high bar of standards and all the pieces of the Code had to be met. Freerks said she agreed with Plahutnik. The revised Code had not been in operation long enough to consider making changes such as those being requested but if the Board did decide to review the request it would need to be placed at the bottom of the work list. She did not support a review of the zoning code in this regard because it has not been in effect long enough. Eastham said he'd support the notion of looking at this further. Smith said he'd support putting something more general on the pending list such as maintaining a listing of concerns with the Code that could be referenced in the future when the Commission was reviewing 1 considering those particular Code items. Howard said she currently maintained such a listing. Freerks asked if there was a majority of the Commission that wanted to place Mr. McLaughlin's request for review of the zoning code provision with regard to the access issue on his property in the RNS-20 Zone. A majority of the Commission indicated that they did not want to study this issue further at this time. CONSIDERATION OF THE APRIL 19, 2007 MEETING MINUTES Smith made a motion to approve. Brooks seconded. Motion approved by a vote of 7-0. ADJOURNMENT Smith made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Brooks seconded. Motion approved by a vote of 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:31 p.m. Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill. s/pcd/minutes/p&z1200 7/05-03-07. doc s::: .2 II) .!!! E E o U"O ... 0)0 s::: CJ .- CIl S~ NCIlS ~gCl O)ClSN s:::"O .- s::: s::: CIl s:::- .!!!<e D. ~ U ClS ~ .2 C) z i= w w :E ..J <C :E ~ o u. CO? X X X X X X X - It) 0'1 .... X X X X X X X ;a: It) UJ 0 0 x x x x x x ;a: It) UJ .... X X X X X X 0 - CO? .... S2 x x x x x xx CO? It) UJ UJ .... X X X 0 0 ox - ('II .... e x x x x x xx ('II co X X X X xx .... x - .... II) 0 co I"- 0 co E ~ ..-- ..-- ..- ..-- 0 0 ..-- 0 ..-- <v'~ -. -. -. -. -. -. -. LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) I-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E .:.:. c 111 ~ 111 '2 0 .:.:. ClS CIl .. C Q) 0 .s::: ... Q, :::l C .s::: E .. CIl .s::: :t:: e 111 ~ Q, ClS ClS E ClS ClS 0 .s::: Z m UJ LL ~ ~ (/) (/) < C) z i= w w :E ..J <C :E ~ o u. ~ ai CI ~ >< >< >< >< >< >< >< CD UJ "l"" >< 0 >< >< >< >< >< ;jf CD UJ N >< >< >< 0 >< >< >< N en UJ N >< >< >< >< >< -. >< - 0 .... 1Il 0 co I"- 0 co E ~ ..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- 0 0 ..-- 0 ..-- <v'~ -. -. -. - -. -. -. LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) I-UJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E ~ s::: II) II) II) s::: 0 .lIl: ClS .lIl: i - s::: 0 .c: ... ::l s::: .c: - CIl .c: - Q) e II) e ClS ClS 'E ClS 0 .c: E m w u. ~ c:: U> U> <tl ai cj < u.i ~ ci ...= z "0 Q) 1Il :J U >< UJ -_:::. c: c: c: Q) Q) Q) 1Il 1Il 1Il ~.o.o c..<{<{ .. II II II >- UJ Q) -. ~><oo