HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-2007 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, June 7,2007 -7:30 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
C. Rezoning Item
REZ07-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Johnson County for a rezoning from
Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone for approximately 2.35 acres of
property located at 802 S. Clinton Street.
(45-day limitation period: June 24,2007)
D. Vacation Item:
VAC07-00003 Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Clark to vacate a portion of Court Street
right of way west of Clinton Street.
E. Other Items
F. Consideration of the May 17, 2007 Meeting Minutes
G. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Adam Ralston, Planning Intern
Item: REZ07-00009
Date: June 7,2007
GENERAL INFORMATION
Contact Person:
Johnson County
913 S. Dubuque St
Iowa City, IA 52240
Andy Chappell
P.O. Box 2450
Iowa City, IA 52244
Applicant:
Phone:
(319) 339-6100
Requested Action:
Rezoning from CI-1 to P-1
Purpose:
To provide reference and notice of publicly
owned land.
location:
802 S. Clinton St.
Size:
Approximately 2.35 acres
Existing land Use and Zoning:
Intensive Commercial (CI-1)
Surrounding land Use and Zoning:
North:
South:
East:
West:
University/Commercial P-2/CI-1
County P-1
University/Commercial P-1/CI-1
Commercial/Industrial CI-1/1-1
Comprehensive Plan:
Intensive Commercial
File Date:
May 10, 2007
45 Day Limitation Period:
June 24, 2007
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The applicant, Johnson County, is requesting a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to
Neighborhood Public (P-1) for recently acquired property located at 802 S. Clinton St. Section 14-
2F-1 of The Iowa City Zoning Code requires that all publicly held property be zoned Public (P-1 or
P-2) to provide reference and notice to surrounding landowners of public ownership and use of
land.
2
ANAL YSIS
This property was most recently used for commercial purposes, including Hawkeye Lumber
Company, and several small businesses. The current state of this property is vacant land as all
structures previously on this property have been cleared. The county intends to use the land for
an expansion of the offices it currently has on nearby property to create a campus of county
administration offices in the area. The City recently vacated the alley in the center of the block to
facilitate redevelopment of this block.
The Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone is intended to provide notice to those owning or buying land
near land owned and used by the County, City of Iowa City, or the Iowa City Community School
District. Uses within a P-1 zone are subject to development standards that create a smooth
transition between public and private uses. Section 14-2F-1 of The Iowa City Zoning Code lists
these development standards which include parking and landscaping requirements, among
others. The County will need to adhere to these standards at the time it submits a site plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that, REZ07-00009, an application for the rezoning of approximately 2.35 acres
of property located at 802 S. Clinton St. from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Neighborhood Public
(P-1) be approved. Approved by: ca4.-/~
Karen Howard, Associat Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
(j)
0
0
0
0
I
~------- "'"
0
~ N
~ , --~ w
a:
0 z:
0
f-
z:
W W
f- CO
f-
W IS 3nOn8nO
>-
~ <(
LL
<(
tj ----1 ,
~ C\I D..
~
~ +oJ
Q.)
IS NOINllJ Q.)
~
+oJ
~ (f)
---------- c
--~.~- 0
tj +oJ
C
()
(f)
C\J
0
co
, . .
, Z
0
~
~
u
0
~
~
f ~
~
en
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Adam Ralston, Planning Intern
Item: VAC07-00003
Court Street west of Clinton Street
Date: June 7,2007
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Jeff Clark
414 E. Market St
Iowa City, IA 52245
Phone:
(319) 631-1867
Contact Person:
Jeff Clark
Requested Action:
Vacation of 156 square feet of right-of-way along
Court Street in exchange for nearby land of equal
size
Purpose:
To create a consistent right-of-way line
location:
North side of Court Street west of Clinton Street
Surrounding land Use and Zoning:
North: Residential/Commercial (RM-44/CB-5)
South: County (P-1)
East: Residential (RM-44)
West: Commercial (CB-5)
File Date:
May 14, 2007
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Jeff Clark, is requesting the vacation of 156 square feet of the Court Street right-of-
way west of Clinton Street. If vacated, the property would be acquired from the City and would be
added to the property currently owned by the applicant. In exchange, the applicant would convey
to the City a piece of land along Court Street of equal size to the land being vacated.
Currently, the right-of-way line along this portion of Court Street has a jog mid-block. The
applicant is requesting this action in order to create a consistent right-of-way line along the north
side of Court Street in order to facilitate development. The proposed development is to be a
mixed-use development including both commercial and residential aspects.
ANAL YSIS:
Requests for vacation of right-of-way are reviewed with regard to the following factors: 1)
impact on pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation; 2) impact on emergency and utility
vehicle access and circulation; 3) impact on access of adjacent private properties; 4) desirability
of right-of-way for access or circulation needs; 5) location of utilities and other easements or
restrictions on the property; and 6) any Qther relevant factors pertaining to the specific
requested vacation.
2
Vacatien ef this piece ef right-ef-way will net have a negative effect en vehicular access lOr
circulatien, access fer emergency lOr utility vehicles, lOr access te adjacent preperties, because it
merely straightens the right-ef-way line aleng Ceurt Street.
Private utilities have been centacted and asked te identify any utilities currently en-site. If the
right-ef-way is vacated, easements will need te be granted fer any utilities that may exist, lOr
alternatively, the utilities weuld need te be relecated.
Vacatien ef said right-ef-way benefits beth the landewner and the City. The landewner wishes te
create a censistent right-ef-way line in erder te facilitate develepment. Vacatien will create a
censistent right-ef-way, making it easier to establish censistent and legical building setbacks aleng
the Ceurt Street frontage. The City benefits frem this actien in that it gains a piece ef land aleng
Ceurt Street te straighten lOut the jeg in right-ef-way, making it easier te establish public
streetscape elements within the right-ef-way.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recemmends that VAC07-00003, a request te vacate a pertien ef right-ef-way lecated en the
nerth side ef Ceurt Street west ef Clinten Street, be appreved subject te the retentien ef any
necessary utility easements.
A IT ACHMENTS:
Location Map// . / 1
APprOVedbY:~
Karen Heward, Asseciate Planner,
Department ef Planning and Cemmunity Develepment
(]j
(j
()
~
Q ~
~
IS NOINllJ
tj
~ m
~ ,
~ 0 ~
D.. ~
.......
~ ~ 0
+-'
..c
0>
tj ~
::=> +-'
Q)
m Q)
~
~ +-'
C/)
t::
:J
0
~ ()
N . .
a: N z
0
D.. ~
~
u
0
~
, ~
~
~
en
II)
~--
CV)
e
e
e
e
I
l"-
e
()
~
I~~II)I [Qrnrn~~ ~~~ ~ 0(;18 >- <= ~~ ~ c..::i ,.....
r.:l~~U~ ~N . j!:!'<I"~ W~ ::;;;::<:1- ~ 0
~~~f,':..., ~",'1' !!.l N'" >~ =~ 0
-"" en ~
~ c: ~<(~ o:::~ z
~jg;::aU W~~ .l!l ::o;!: L.LI l-
e;> ~~'" ~OCi''5 ~~Ci' ::::n:rl ;:;::;i:E ::l z: 0
~P..::- f7; = LL.. 0 ~ C")
-'Orn",:;! Cl-~ III <n-~ ~ CI)~ L.LI c::::> C,) --
1Ii~!2. 8 ~ vi!2. "<t
s:zo<;;:!;; . ~~~z ....J
<no :; u.. C- =>
Oj~~~ ::: (3 ~ ~~ & o cr.> ~ aii-o en
-'zZ ~~ E C::: = r:== C,) U) z:
...,0 1O~ 5~ ~~<(z<( 0
,..,"" o . (.)
s: - ~ ~ ~ ~J:~
:z 0 . en <;
'" w 8 a..~ <:1- LL.. 0 0 0 ::i: 8
() ..c:Cc::>_-:l_ ::i:
N b ~ ~
~ '"
~CXl JI
'" 0
0
dl z a
<; "
" a
.. ~
iL ,)\
...J en ...J '<I"
W <( W 0
k' :; ..' 0
B' Q~
" B' " z'"
.
~ c ~ -:)1'-
< .
;;; Q 1l 0'
. is ttS:2
a "
o
CD
0>-
>-d'- t; <
!::L)OU;;::
"-- 0 0
-C\1<-
0:::: ;;::.
;::J ~2~ ~
(f)WIi,.Z 1=
Uo::> ~
0.:: o?;s
~<r:>-U ::1
op.,t;z ~
Uo ~
E-< ...(/) "" ~ ~
<r: o.::::r::::r::
.......:ioE--<o
(l,t:~'-"
~
~
<r:
i:q
~5
~C2
",:!i!
Y'::;l
!:@i';u;
oui3'
~~3
,"",-,
i3' 0
x~ '"
t2;:;~
oxo
Zf-<,"
'"'"'"
xoOl
!-<f-o~
'""''"
0'"0
",i3',.,
~~~
~gjs
g~u
",;;'r:;
615~
f-<"'''"
"'ogj
i1izo
;c",;;;'
~t--<
~~~
",~-,
i5o~
'"f-<5
~~8
Sa5
"'-'"
2tJ~
<~Q
N
III
N
III
I
on
'"
'"
;;;
o
"
N
N
III
<:
?;
Q
~'
t-
o
<:
?;
Q
>'
III
t-
a:
w
"l
(3
vi
Oi
ti
~
vi
t-
Z
<:
t-
..J
:J
If)
Z
o
u
If)
::;
::;
I
o
~
o
~
o
o
M
""
'"
u
'::i
'"
'"
..
o
!::
@
-<
~~p-fE3:i~~tnl
g_?~o~~
i:2~?~~~o
o;i;~~~~~~
Io;lf-<," ,f" ,Io;lo
E=:~UC:~~~E-<
~s;ili;:;8g00
......25i:5gCl)~f-o~
SOil-,cg;l;igJ
::4J,.lJu..1(.QI~"''''
I:l~~~ ::;:~
......:IUO...., ut'"'"-'8
:gj~Cl8~2~
8~R~~J,.lJ .~f~
-'~5-'~[jj~~
~ O~5:l~o~
o U<f-<<nO'>~
p:::: Z P-1 '"~ 00 ~
~3S5~o-"~g
o,,"~,"s~~u:g
u~Qo~o-J c
~o~~~t;,e
g2'if-<"',"i5I;i<
~Clilioo'";t;~
o 1;<<=,","00
oUi3,"~8~dU
Ul~f5><~(iJ~O~
~~~~~s~.h
~~ 5o>-f1~B
oi3'~iOif-<iiJ;>8c
B;;:~~~5~o'~
~O_f-< o"'~'"
......O~r/Ju ~
~gj1S,,",oilioo
8g;:::;15;);i'S~~
10
o
-------g
--------1-
"'
CIl 0
~ 0
'" C\l
f:i ::3
~jO<: ~
~ '"
~ u Ii
>~~
,.,[:J~
t""':> tZl
CIl
~
~~
so'"
::>0
'"
~~
,,~ ~
~ ~ 5S
f::l>-~
g: g; '"
o ~ f-<
~::><
<'<CIlO
~ L
r~
1!5
; ~~'t;J
lit -u II
"''-
..
:<:
Me>.
0;;'3
tBI <.'>
I
J,33~LLSN OJ,NI1J- --:s - - - - - --I
,
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
'E--<
I~
,~
I~
,UJ
IE--<
,0:::
Is
'U
I .
I~
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
't",
n-r ~ ~~
\--::C---''6
~ 10 ~~
I --- .<L ~ "-.
.~ -:;'IJ-.\;("'
''E,c::, .i'6:,
~~I ~:~~ ~'t
~~ c::,c::, c::,-<<-fu
~~I ~~-z- 0). ~'(?,
"-~ <s: ~ \--::. ~
~u y ~
o' ,_ ..J cv
'5~t- 'C::, ,j1J-.
e~ .-J z
69.82'(1.4) 70'(R) t -
;L I~
~~il~
:,.qt
a:~
-!~
o
Z ~<(j<1. 0
W
o
W
~
! I! I
i : I I
i! i I
i i i I
"
"'
~~I ~
~~8 ~
o
o
~
'"
'"
?5
o
.- .- - - - - - - - T - - - ~9~'i"!. 70'(R) - - -
.<L
t
ww3:3:
c.:>~'<t~U1t,
ZOONN
~~~~~~
~tD~~~~
...
~~inioin;"
~~~:J:::::i
"'~
w
z
:J~:::i::J~~
~I
\
il
z
4-
L
A311V
~
~H
i:~
~ E ~
~ ~
01; ,
~-g.3
i~~
E ~
I
J
~
N
~
I
o
~
5
];
;;
O~
CD~
o Ii,.
1'-,
00'
OifJ
C\1co
0[)
~-
W~
U""
0.::0::
<r:U
p.,:
.(/) g
0::0
011
E-<
.......<
~""
~o::
<r:<
fQfQfQtj!;;
~~~~~
~~~s::u
t:l....:li:t::'-''''
~P-.:=>ei1~
~Q[/)~:;2
EZ~~ffi
,-,jj2::a
zZ
:jlii!
!>
z
'"
1~~1II1
r-:~~ en
en ~N <:
!:;;",'I' .l!i
~ ~ <:
W~~ .fl
~061:;
C) -.,... fJ)
'~~ <:
~_ 8
;;; () E
~~ E
o .
- ~
o~gs
l!!N~
5LO~
en~Q!;
:S:061
en-~
~rn~
enc
~~
r;;~
c
w
()
>-~
w:?g
>~
o::::~
::::)<::;::1
CI)~
LL. C1....
o lOP
c:::
~~
a...~
~ ==E
~a.: ~
.......~ z
~~ 5
LU c:::> U
::;:~~z
~ ~ ug
~5;<(z<(
~frl~6~
""':;cr.>_""")_
o
~
0'
:z:
~
...J
=>
en
:z:
o
u
en ~
~ g
f'-.
o
o
~
o
C"')
--
"<t
N b ~ ~
..~ '"
oCO
z J'
'" c;
0
dl z a
~ "
" Q
:;j .
u. ~ ili
..J en ..J ...
UJ ~ UJ 0
k"" ..., .. d:
k oco
" E' " z'"
. . 0.....
&, c '"
! " .
'" 0 II 0'
. Is n:g
D '.)
c
o
'"
&
.'l
&
.-<
co
0>-
>-<bt:~
r::.:lou",
>C\1~0
rv ~~
I-'-< "'.
f--, .....:l 0 >-
;--I~~t--
Ulu""Z
0::05
i::r-. <r:>-u
o o...t:z
Uo
E-< .r:n ~ C/l
<r: 0:: ::r:: z
,....:1ot--5
0... E-< 0 ....,
Qt--
;:J
<r:
z
o
~
~
:i
'"
Cl
...
~
"
'"
...
ij~
<<-
~I
::>
9':;!
~~'"
~~g
~,,::l
~i:: &:
<<~~
~f-;@
~ijB
....'"
"""''''
~~~
I'J"'~
~r::s
g~u
",~e:
f5~:;i
....<<"
"'o:;j
~Zo
~"'"'
~t-..{
Os?;
ZU)8
S~ .
f':ol:
""....5
~::::R8
855
~G~
~~~
N
00
N
00
,
:ii
"
en
~
'"
o
<-
o
o
N
Z"'S"'.""'"
~~f':~O!<
l2~~;~~
~~q~~~
i5....<f-.~<(
o~"~ ~
~""~8 0
O~gcni2~
~OM~f-;U
f':"''' "'~
,,~~ffi::lg::
0...:1 ~1"'1V1
o~~~~~
~ i5ffi'" 's
tJA~::l~~
3\3~~~p
cqg;P-lO'OtW
~"U~~grE
....:;jooz;:J
o "Ul.I.ll.I.l~
...,,"'uu::>
"O'"zzO'
o~"<s'"
~ f-;~\O
~ ~S;.;3
8g~:~~
f-;~Oo......<
~12~~~8@
g~S;3~~~
S;~~~SSij
~uP,~o Si!Vl
UOIZl~f-<Z
<Ul!-L.CI)ZO
~I:SloeJ8G
"o8~titi~
B<:;j..otIlS'"
~~~g~~~
~~~~~~<
o
Z ~<tl<J. 0
W
(j
W
~
! I! I
i: I I
i! i I
i i i I
~
~H.
~>6 ~
~E~
~ ~
~~3
-'~
ails::
E ~
"'
[jj
g~~ ~
o 6
~
'"
'"
z
~
J
~
ro
N
'"
i
o
'"
~
;s
1;
<
~
I
133H1S-N01NI1~~S-----------1
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
'~
I~
,~
I~
,Cf]
I~
,0:::
15
'u
I .
,~
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
o
- ------ -1----- - -- ---- T --- -- - - -- ---m
I ~I t ~II
I w~ - i~
~\;J~ ny ~ ~~ gll
~~~~ . ~ ,,\ ~~ 0
I ~OJ~02 \l-' ~.a:. 0
- o. I ~ <L ~ ~- il I
.... I:::::, L;.\)...\::<.OO -
~5;";" \-tJ ~~ 00
I ~ ~ ~ ~ I . ~: ~~ to ~ ~ I I
I S~::;:J ~~ 6'6 C:) ~\.
~~I ~<6.{~t JI
~~ <s: {::) \-; ~ 0
I U')u \- "'-L W ~fg
~~t- Ie:; ~~ ~ ~~::i
e~ _ ..J- a.. _ e~
I ,Z9'69~ g
-;:j ~
u- 5
C:) ~ g
o
"
N
N
"'
<(
;:
Q
,:
....
(j
<(
;:
Q
"'
III
....
'"
w
OJ
..J
(j
vi
;;
u
~
vi
....
z
<(
>-
..J
OJ
III
Z
o
U
III
::;
::;
,
f;J
u
~
"
'"
'"
o
t:
@
~
is
o
-------0
g
'"
o
o
'N
;'8
~ L_
r~
as
; ~~iol
W .....u II
",.
;,a
'"
:~
iRl '"
~I
L
(~),OL <r0,OO'OL
"
~~
!Z~
~lR
5
ci
"'
.....~
<D~
or...
1:-.
00-
0(1)
C\)<D
'"
~c
U'"
ez::i>:
~~
0-.....
C/lg
l' ~ci
~ ~"
~ -<
;" Q",
'" ::Ji>:
V1 ~<
J..311V
N
-'
Preliminary
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 17, 2007 - 7:30 P.M.
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dean Shannon, Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks, Wally Plahutnik, Beth Koppes,
Terry Smith
MEMBER RECUSED:
Charlie Eastman
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Holecek, Sara Greenwood
OTHERS PRESENT:
Steve Gordon
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council action):
Recommended approval, by a vote of 4-2 (Smith, Shannon voting against; Eastham recused) REZ06-
00025, 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 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 adequate secondary access for the property
proposed for rezoning.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Eastham recused) REZ06-00026/SUB06-00027 a request for
a rezoning from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) and High Density Single Family (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 in Staff Report of
5/3/07 and to a conditional zoning agreement specifying:
. 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 a period not less than 5 years
and until 85% of the lots abutting the wetlands are developed and the other 15% of the lots are
stabilized. Written reports will be submitted to the City after every site visit (at least 3 reports per
construction season) and any damage to title 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.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 4-2 (Koppes, Brooks voting against; Eastham recused) a
recommendation to City Council to accept the dedication of land for public open space instead of
requesting fees in lieu of, with a minimum of 1.82 acres connecting to the existing wooded area to remain
in the natural woodland state.
CALL TO ORDER:
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm.
Public Discussion of Anv Item Not on the Aqenda
No discussion.
Rezoninq 1 Development Items
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2007
Page 2
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 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: 5/18/07)
Howard said there were a few outstanding issues from the previous meeting. Since the previous Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting, Planning staff met with representatives from the Fire department,
Public Works department and Transportation Planning to reconsider the issue of whether the developer
should be responsible for extending Whispering Meadows Drive to the western edge of the Sycamore
Greenway. Staff confirmed their initial recommendation that this road connection was needed for
connectivity and for secondary access for the property proposed for rezoning. The request is for an
upzoning and a significant portion of the sensitive features on the site are being disturbed and modified in
order to maximize the development potential of this property. Due to the extent of the development
proposed, the road connection is necessary for secondary access. Because this particular development
makes this street connection necessary and because it will largely benefit this particular development,
staff feels that the cost of extending the road across the Greenway should be borne by the developer.
The applicant also requested reconsideration of the neighborhood open space fees in lieu of the
dedication of land. Originally it was taken to the Parks and Recreation Commission who determined that
they did not feel that this was suitable for public open space and did it meet the standards of the
Neighborhood Opens Space Ordinance. Howard reported that she and Terry Trueblood, the Parks
Director, visited the site to walk the property; Trueblood re-confirmed his preference for open space fees
in lieu of dedication. The property contains some mature woodland but it also contains a lot of underbrush
which would require some clearing and maintenance to get it up to standards for neighborhood open
space use. Howard reported that Trueblood would agree to take the issue up with the Parks and
Recreation Commission again if the Planning and Zoning Commission felt strongly that a portion of the
woodland on Outlot A, which abuts the Sycamore Greenway Trail should be accepted for neighborhood
open space, he would take the issue back. to the Parks and Recreation Commission or the applicant
could make his request before the P&R Commission. Miklo said the area shown on the preliminary plat
which was proposed for open space dedication was the most logical area as it abutted the trail and the
open space could be integrated in to the overall trail network. It was relatively flat and dry; to be made
usable the brush and poison ivy would need to be cleared from the area. Miklo said the ultimate decision
would be made by City Council but the Commission could make a recommendation supporting either the
fees or the dedication of land.
Howard also addressed possibilities for protection for the trees on the northern edge of the property next
to the existing home lots. Concerns had been expressed about the loss of the trees by the existing
homeowners along Amber Lane, because their lots back up to the proposed development. When
Howard and Miklo visited the site, they loo,ked at this area as well. A lot of the area for the drainage
easement along the northern boundary of the property has already been cleared; it looked like most of the
trees were outside/south of the proposed drainage easement area. Howard suggested that there is a
potential opportunity for the developer to identify and preserve the mature trees in back yards of the
proposed lots to reassure the neighbors that the lots would remain wooded to the extent possible. There
are also mature trees along the Sycamore Greenway; staff also suggested that the developer identify and
attempt to save those mature trees as well.
Koppes asked if further consideration had been given to traffic issues and the need for an additional
collector street; did they have a time line for development yet?
Howard said it would depend on the market; how quickly the General Quarters subdivision would be
developed to the west and how quickly the proposed Whispering Meadows subdivision would develop.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2007
Page 3
Miklo said in terms of secondary access, it was the City's policy that for a temporary period situations like
this might arise but the City was concerned about the long term. It might be a number of years before an
actual access point to Sycamore Street would occur; it was an issue that the City just had to deal with. In
the long term, extending Whispering Meadows Drive is necessary.
Koppes said the area was being upzoned which would increase traffic which fed back to Lakeside Drive.
There was no alternative for traffic flow. Howard said if the street were extended across the Greenway it
could then be further extended over to Sycamore Street when General Quarters subdivision was
developed.
Smith asked if there had been any change in the sidewalk situation? Howard said Staff continued to
recommend against waiving the sidewalk requirement along Outlot A.
Smith asked if there had been any change regarding the issue on maintenance and/or monitoring of the
wetland area. Was the recommendation still to have the developer monitor the wetland mitigation site
until all lots had been developed or would it be capped at 10 year monitoring period. Howard said Staff
continued to recommend 10-years or as 10l!lg as there were undeveloped lots surrounding the wetland
mitigation site, whichever is later. The potential for damage to the newly created wetlands would be
greater as long as construction was occurring on the lots that surrounded the wetlands. Miklo noted as an
example the subdivision to the east which has been going on for 15 or 16 years and there were still a
number of vacant lots in the area - it had just recently begun to fill in. Depending on the market, the
proposed development could go on for more than 10 years before it was fully built out.
Plahutnik asked if there had been any further discussions with the developer? Howard said she'd spoken
with the developer but it appeared that Staff and the developer were in the same positions as previously.
Brooks said if everything stayed the same as it was and the wetland mitigation was done off-site, did Staff
know how many lots the developer could achieve. Wasn't the upzoning being allowed to allow the
mitigation to occur on site. Miklo said that was not necessarily correct. Howard said even if mitigation was
not done on site, with the existing blue-line stream corridor she didn't know if it would be possible to get
any more lots on the property. Miklo said the RS-12 zoning would increase the density over what would
be allowed even if there were no wetlands on the property. Staff had roughly calculated 20-25 additional
units as a result of fairly narrow lots.
Public discussion was opened.
Steve Gordon, MBHG Development, said their position was still the same as at the previous Commission
meeting.
Sidewalk connection - he understood Staff's position and noted that the Commission did not seem in
support for waiving the sidewalk requirement, so they would drop their request for a waiver.
Fees in lieu of - Gordon noted that he had a conversation with Howard regarding this and understood
Staff's position about usable neighborhood open space. It was not too big an issue for him, but they still
felt that since a significant amount of land on the site would remain as open space, they should not be
required to pay fees in lieu of.
Wetland mitiqation Dlan -to extend maintenance and monitoring from 5- to 10-years would require the
developer or future land owners to incur additional costs. Gordon requested to have the time period
capped at 10 years rather than having it be the undetermined period of until full build out. If the situation
arose that just one lot did not develop because someone had purchased two lots but only developed one
lot, the mandatory monitoring burden could run an indefinite period. He noted that the City had a strict
stormwater management ordinance which would provide protections. Developer's preference was a
capped 10-year monitoring period or when all construction was completed, whichever was earlier. If the
10-year period came first, then all the remaining undeveloped lots would need to be stabilized and
covered with grass.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2007
Page 4
Up-zonina. traffic concerns; reauirina the developer to build a street beyond their property line. Gordon
noted that if they only utilized RS-8 zoning and put in single-family lots, maintained the buffer around the
blue line area, mitigated a few wetland fingers where Whispering Meadows would come in, did not disturb
the big patch of wetlands in the lower end - the developer would lose 14 lots and only be able to get in
108 single-family lots. The developer felt with their proposed single-family and town home design they
were offering a variety of housing and were vastly improving a blue-line wetlands drainage ditch which
was currently of low value; improvements which did not come without some costs. The fourteen extra
town home lots had alleys associated with them for which the developer would incur extra expenses as
well as the re-planting of the trees which would be removed from the stream corridor. Gordon said the
costs incurred by the developer to build the 14 town home lots did not justify nor make it feasible for the
developer to pay the $270,000-$300,000 to build across the greenway. Gordon said they'd designed for
the street to go through as a collector street; the developer continued to request that they not be required
to pay for construction of the street beyond their west property line.
Gordon said at the previous Commission meeting the neighbors had expressed concern regarding their
initial meeting with the developer and having been told that 50% of the trees would be preserved. It had
never been the developer's intent to cut down all the trees in the northwest corner of the property. He also
noted that originally there had been a cul-de-sac planned for that area. The original plan had shown that
50% of the trees would have been preserved, so the current plan was different than what the neighbors
had seen at the first neighborhood meeting. The neighbors had also mentioned concerns regarding no
shade along the trail and the extended time frame for newly planted trees to grow and provide shade
again. Two-thirds of the existing trees along the trail were scheduled to be preserved; just the upper
northwest corner was scheduled to be cleared. Gordon said in the 50-foot buffer area the trees that were
being preserved in the buffer area were not included in the total count/calculation of trees being
preserved. It was possible that some trees might be damaged during construction but the developer was
aware that wooded lots were more valuable and the lots were fairly deep so in the backyards of the lots it
was probable that the mature trees could be preserved.
Gordon said the issue of the General Quarters subdivider paying for Gable Street to be connected across
the Sycamore Greenway was not a comparable situation. Since it had been their only access into and
out of the site then they would have had to pay to develop it or wait until it had been developed from the
south. That was not the case for this particular development and it was not a fair comparison.
In response to Gordon's comments regarding monitoring of the wetland mitigation site, Miklo said an
alternative solution to capping the number of years the wetland monitoring plan would be in effect was to
set a percentage, Le. when x percent of the lots were developed then the monitoring obligation would
cease. Miklo and Gordon agreed that a reasonable percentage would be when 85% of the lots abutting
the wetlands were developed and the balance were stabilized, then the monitoring obligation could
cease.
Freerks asked Gordon if the developer would be willing to mark some of the mature trees to be preserved
help assure the neighbors that some of the trees would be preserved. Gordon said he'd spoken with
Howard about that issue. At this point in the process it would be hard to mark the trees but the developer
would have another neighborhood meeting and once they had a better idea regarding grading for the
drainage way and elevations, they would have no issues with marking the trees in some manner.
Brooks asked if an individual purchased a lot and held on to it for several years then decided to cut the
trees down on the lot, could they do so. Holecek said unless a covenant or conservation easement were
placed on the trees there was no mechanism for preserving the trees. Brooks said he felt tree
preservation was important but the Commission seemed to be pushing for something that in 5-years
individual property owners could do regardless. It seemed that there were other issues that were more
important, such as infrastructure and maintenance issues. He noted that everyone wants to protect good
quality trees that were worth preserving and the Commission appreciated developers who made the effort
to preserve those trees. Unless the Commission could guaranteed that 10 years from now the property
owner could not cut down the preserved trees, it seemed a moot issue.
Howard suggested putting some general wording in the subdivider's agreement such as, 'prior to grading
a survey would be taken to see if there were quality trees which could be preserved.' It would not tie the
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2007
Page 5
developer's hands as to specific trees, but would show a good faith effort to take the trees into account.
Gordon said their goal was to make the backyards as nice as possible and they would certainly preserve
all the trees that they could. He did not have an objection to putting general language in the subdividers
agreement as Howard suggested, but did not want it to be specific. He agreed with Brooks that ehey
could not make any guarantees about preservation of the trees after the lots were purchased.
Howard said she wished to clarify that the decision regarding the road crossing would ultimately be
decided by the City Council. The Commission could make a recommendation that was different from the
staff position, but that since Staff felt very strongly about this issue she wanted to make sure the
Commission was aware that staff would continue to advocate at Council level that the developer be
required to pay the cost of the extending the road to the west edge of the Sycamore Greenway.
Public discussion was closed.
Smith said before any motions were made, he wished to clarify the conditions that had been discussed.
· Wetland mitigation approval and long term maintenance - same as listed in Staff Report of
5/3/07.
· Copies of site visit reports - same as listed in Staff Report of 5/3/07
· Monitoring of wetland mitigation site - limitation of when 85% of the lots abutting the wetlands
were developed and the balance were stabilized; the maintenance plan would no longer be in
effect.
Smith said he personally preferred the term of 10 years, which was more restrictive on the developer, be
maintained. In his profession they compiled a lot of statistics on development; the statistics showed that
most developments developed during the 10-year period. In normal cases 85% of the development
occurred within 2-;3 years, if they used the 85% factor in theory there would still be construction on 15% of
the lots without any monitoring of the wetlands. The 1 O-year term was finite; everyone knew the end date.
The townhouse development that surrounded the wetland site would occur in increments rather than one
dwelling at a time. Smith said his preference for wetlands monitoring would be 10-years or until all of the
lots abutting the wetlands were developed, the lesser of the two.
Freerks said there was merit to Staffs recommendation about the 85% build out.
Miklo said 35 lots touched the wetland area, 15% would be 5 lots. Howard said 5 years would be the
minimum required by the Army Corps of Engineers so the Commission could specify 10 years and until
85% of the lots surrounding the wetlands were developed and the remaining 15% being stabilized.
Submission of wetlands maintenance plan - had not been discussed. Howard said Staff felt that with the
wetland mitigation plan it was Staffs opinion that the likely responsibilities for the home owner's
association had not been spelled out very well. Staff felt it needed to be fleshed out and a wetland
specialist would need to prepare an analysis in more detail so that homeowners would know what they
were getting in to and the transition from developer to homeowner's association would be spelled out.
Even perhaps seed money set aside.
Question about recommendation of dedication of open space or waiving of fees in lieu of. Miklo said the
Commission would not be able to waive the fees, but they could make a recommendation of acceptance
of the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendation or they could make a recommendation of
their own.
Plahutnik said he grew up next to a park with woods and had a preference for woods.
Smith said he agreed with Plahutnik. As parks, baseball and soccer fields held an attraction for people,
but it was only one attraction in a community. Hickory Hill was another which allowed people to go
mushroom hunting. The underbrush area was desirable for some public activities. He would be open to
recommending that the City accept the wooded area 'as is'. It abutted the greenway and seemed like a
natural extension which would benefit some segments of the population.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2007
Page 6
Freerks said the area didn't necessarily need to be cleaned out or taken care of immediately; it could
remain in its natural wooded state for quite some time.
Miklo said when land was dedicated to the City to fulfill the neighborhood open space ordinance, it
needed to be in an acceptable condition at the time of dedication. At least the required 1.82 acres would
need to be cleaned up before it was accepted by the City. The idea of the neighborhood open space
ordinance was that land was being set aside as active usable neighborhood open space. The woodlands
could be accepted, but in order to get the credit for the ordinance the 1.82 acres would need to be
cleaned up. Miklo said Parks and Recreation may not have the budget to clean up areas such as the
wooded area being discussed.
Freerks said she would like to see part of the area be dedicated as open space.
Brooks asked for a clarification as to what other parks were located in the near area. He said he'd grown
up in the wooded parks era as well; growing up they'd climbed on trees and not played on swing sets.
There was a value to that type of space in a park system, there was also a need for playgrounds in a
development like this. Because of the character of the open space, if the developer had included an
active usable playground area in the development, they probably would not be having this conversation.
Brooks said he would be better able to frame his answer if he knew that Parks and Recreation had
identified a specific site for playgrounds and ball fields and open space. Miklo said when there was
development south of the greenway, Parks and Recreation had plans to make improvements there.
Brooks said he was leaning toward the Fees in Lieu of, there would be more benefit gained from that. The
wooded area would be there and the neighborhood kids would use it as they saw fit. In the broader
picture of the community park system, he supported Parks & Recreation staff on their recommendation of
fees.
Shannon said he was leaning toward the dedication of land rather than fees. Koppes said her concern
was still with traffic and collector street issues.
Missing sidewalk in Outlot A. Commissioners agreed with Staff's recommendation not to waive the
sidewalk installation. The missing sidewalk along the west side of Verbena Drive should be installed by
the developer.
Street extension I Crossing of the greenway. Smith said it appeared that there were three options 1) As
the developer had requested - do not require the developer to do anything beyond their property line, 2)
Staff's recommendation - that the developer be responsible for 100% across the public greenway, 3) 50-
50 split between City and Developer. Staff had voiced the concern that the 50% that was not paid for by
the developer would become the financial burden of the general public.
Holecek said there was no legal mechanism to require the property owner of General Quarters to the
west to pay for half the connection across tlhe Greenway because the was not a particular benefit to the
General Quarters subdivision to having this connection. Brooks asked why this wasn't planned for earlier.
Howard said that given the extent of the environmental features on the subject property the amount of
development could not be easily anticipated. She noted that the City had originally tried to purchase
much of the subject Whispering Meadows property to make it part of the greenway, given the amount of
sensitive environmental features on the property. Early on it had been difficult to say how much of the
property could be developed because of all the sensitive features on it. There had been discussion early
on about where the arterial street should be located, because that location had changed the location of
the collector streets had changed. Howard said given all its complex features, the developer had done a
good job in maximizing the development potential of this piece of land. Because of that and because of
the number of lots being proposed for development, it made it more critical that there be a connection at
this location. The connection was being driven by the proposed development of this property. Traffic from
General Quarters generally would not go to the east; it would flow to the west because that was where
the arterial streets were and where most destinations in the community are.
Howard said a developer was always responsible for ensuring that they could connect up their
infrastructure to make it a developable piece of land. It was not unusual for a developer to have to payoff
site costs if those costs were something that were necessary for the development of their piece of
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2007
Page 7
property. This was similar to other situations where development had occurred in piece-meal fashion and
it just happens that in this case the City owns the off-site piece of property. Miklo said if the proposed
development were of a much lower density, the discussion probably would not be occurring as the
proposed development would not be generating the traffic that would necessitate the second way in and
out. Miklo confirmed that the City would pay the oversize paving costs for the street to be constructed to
collector street standards.
Smith said his preference would be the 50/50 option.
Brooks said that because he felt that the City had boxed themselves in, he reluctantly supported that
option.
Plahutnik said he supported the developer paying for the connection; that was why he'd supported
consideration of land dedication instead of fees in lieu of. Someone had to pay for it, in this instance it
should be the developer because it largely benefited this development.
Koppes said with to the number of lots being proposed for development she felt that the developer should
pay for the street connection. She did not see any reason for General Quarters to pay for it. She also
didn't see a need for the community to pay for it.
Shannon said it was easy to say the developer should pay for it. However in his mind, if the developer
was required to pay for the connection thei costs would be passed on to the lot purchasers and they
wouldn't be affordable lots. He'd prefer the 50/50 split.
Freerks said she would support the developer paying for the connection; it would much more benefit
Whispering Meadows than General Quarters.
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve REZ06-00025, 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 subject to a CZA specifying that the
developer would be responsible for constructing Whispering Meadows Drive to the west edge of
Sycamore Greenway to provide adequate secondary access for the property proposed for rezoning.
Plahutnik seconded.
Smith said he would not support the motion, he wanted the development to go forward but did not feel
that the developer should have to pay for the entirety of the road connection across the Greenway.
Koppes said she would support the motion, because without making the developer pay for it, the collector
street would never go through. The area had to have another collector street to serve this additional
development.
Freerks said she would support the motion because Whispering Meadows subdivision would benefit; she
didn't feel the tax payers should bear the burden rather than those who would benefit from the
connection.
The motion passed on a vote of 4-2 [Smith and Shannon voting against].
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve SiUB06-00017/REZ06-00026, 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 8 Zone and Planned lDevelopment Overlay 12 Zone (OPD-8 and OPD-12) and the
Sensitive Area Development Plan for property located south and west of Whispering Meadows
Subdivision Parts 2 and 3, subject to resolution of deficiencies and discrepancies noted in Staff Report of
5/3/07 and subject to terms of a CZA as noted in Staff Report of 5/3/07 for bullet points 1,2,4. Bullet point
#3 to be amended as, "The wetland mitigation site will be monitored by a wetland specialist for a period of
5 years and until 85% of the lots that surround the wetlands are developed with reports submitted to the
City after every site visit at least 3 reports per construction season and any damage to the wetlands
repaired". Brooks seconded.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2007
Page 8
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
Motion: Brooks made a motion that a recommendation be made to City Council to endorse Parks and
Recreation Commission recommendation for fees in lieu of instead of the dedication of land for the
neighborhood open space requirement. Plahutnik seconded the motion.
Smith said he would not support the motion, he'd prefer to see a wooded area off the green space. It
would be a good amenity to the neighborhood and to the community and less cost to the developer.
Plahutnk said he agreed with Smith.
Freerks said she agreed with Smith, a woodland open space would be a better use of the area.
The motion was denied for a lack of majority. [Smith, Plahutnik, Shannon, Freerks voted against]
Motion: Plahutnik made a motion that a recommendation be made to City Council to accept the
dedication of at least 1.82 acres of open space (a portion of the wooded area within Outlot A adjacent to
the Sycamore Greenway) from the developer instead of requesting fees in lieu of. Smith seconded the
motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 4-2 [Koppes, and Brooks voting against]
Other Items:
Commission confirmed that that the informal Monday meetings would be at 5:15 (unless cancelled) until
further notice.
Sara Greenwood, Assistant City Attorney, was introduced.
Consideration of the Mav 3. 2007 meetinq minutes
Motion by Brooks to approve. Koppes seconded.
Motion approved by a vote of 6-0.
Adiournment
Motion by Brooks to adjourn. Koppes seconded.
Motion approved by a vote of 6-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill.
spcd/mins/p&Z12007/5-17 -07 .doc
e
o
'ji)
In
'E
E
o
CJ"C
...
mo
e CJ
,- Q)
5~
NQ)S
.....CJo
-eN
mftl
e"C
,- e
e Q)
e~
.!!c(
c..
~
(3
ftI
~
.!2
C)
z
i=
w
w
:IE
.J
c(
:IE
~
o
u.
....
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
It)
M >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
It)
en
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
~
It) UJ
0 0 >< >< >< >< >< ><
~
It) >< >< >< >< >< >< UJ
.... 0
-
M
....
0 >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
M
It) UJ UJ
.... >< >< >< 0 0 0 ><
-
N
....
0 >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
N
co >< >< >< >< >< ><
.... ><
-
....
In 0 co I"- 0 co
E ~ ..- ..-
..- ..... 0 0 ..- 0 ..-
Q;'~ - - - - - - -
LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
I-LU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E .:.:: c
III III III '2 0
.:.:: III t: II) .... c
Q) 0 .=. Co ::::l C .=.
E .... II) .=. ::
e III e Co III III E
to III 0 .=.
Z a:l W u.. ~ ii: U) U)
<i.
C)
z
i=
w
w
:IE
.J
c(
:IE
~
o
u.
~
ai
0
CO) >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
~
CD LU
.... >< 0 >< >< >< >< ><
~
CD LU
N >< >< >< 0 >< >< ><
-
N
en LU
N >< >< >< >< >< - ><
- 0
....
In 0 co I"- 0 co
E ~ ..- ..-
..- ..- 0 0 ..- e ..-
Q;'~ - - - - - -
LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
I-LU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E ~ e
In In In e 0
.:.:: ftI .:.:: ! - e
0 .c ... ::::l e .c
- Q) .c -
Q) e In e ftI ftI 'E
ftI 0 .c
E m w u. ~ c:: (/) (/)
ro ai 0 <i. u.i 3= ci t-=
z
"C
Q)
I/)
::::l
o
x
LU
----:;::.
c: c: c:
Q) Q) Q)
I/) I/) I/)
~.o.o
a.<c<C
.. II II II
>. LU
Q) -
~><OO