The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-04-2007 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, October 1, 2007 - 5:30 PM Informal Meeting Lobby Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street Thursday, October 4, 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: REZ07-00014: Discussion of an application submitted by Big Ten Rentals for a rezoning from Central Business Support (CB-5) zone to Central Business (CB-10) zone for approximately .48 acres of property at the northwest corner of Linn Street and Court Street (former St. Patrick's Church). (45-day limitation period: October 29,2007) D. Development Item: REZ07-00015/SUB07-00007/SUB07-00008: Discussion of an application from Dav-Ed Limited & Prime Ventures for a rezoning to amend a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and a preliminary and final plat of Galway Hills Part 4, a 26-lot, 10.41 acre residential subdivision located west of Donegal Place on Galway Drive. (45-day limitation period: October 29, 2007) E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: September 20, 2007 F. Other G. Adjournment Informal Formal Commission Meelin s: November 12* December 3 December 17 November 15 December 6 December 20 *Meeting cancelled due to holiday. 5T AFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Karen Howard Item: REZ07-00014 228 E. Court Street Date: September 23, 2007 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Big Ten Rentals 2249 Pinehurst Drive Middleton, Wisconsin 53562 Contact Person: Michael Fisher Phone: 608-235-0122 Requested Action: Rezoning from CB-5 to CB-10 Purpose: Development of a mixed-use residential/commercial building Location: 228 E. Court Street Size: 0.484 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant / Commercial (CB-5) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential/Commercial - CB-5 South: Institutional - CB-5 East: Residential/Commercial - CB-5 West: Residential/ Commercial CB-5 Comprehensive Plan: Mixed Use - Central Business Near Souths ide Plan File Date: September 13, 2007 45 Day Limitation Period: October 29,2007 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Big Ten Rentals, is requesting approval for rezoning from Central Business Support Zone (CB-5) to Central Business Zone (CB-1 0) zone for 0.484 acres of property located at 228 E. Court Street. St. Patrick's Church occupied this property until it was severely damaged by the tornado in April 2006. The church was subsequently razed and the site cleared and sold for redevelopment. A rezoning to CB-1 0 would allow construction of the proposed twelve-story building, which will be marketed as housing for university students. The applicant proposes one floor of commercial, the minimum required in the CB-10 Zone, and 11 floors of apartments for a total of 132 units containing 430 bedrooms. Parking is proposed below grade and on the ground floor level of the building behind the commercial storefronts. 2 ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is located in the Downtown Planning District and is also covered by the Near Southside Plan, which was adopted in 1992. The City began implementing this plan by adopting the CB-5 zone and applying it to the area generally between Court and Burlington Street. The relationship between the CB-10 zone north of Burlington Street and the CB-5 zone to its south was intended to create a hierarchy of taller buildings and greater intensity of development in the downtown core with a step down in height and intensity to the south. A change in policy with regard to Near Southside development was initiated with the CB-10 rezoning of the Hieronymus Square Property at the southeast corner of Burlington and Clinton Streets. The logic supporting that rezoning and the amendment to the Near Souths ide Plan to allow the extension of the CB-10 zone holds that much of the current CB-5 area south of Burlington Street-as well as the north side of Burlington Street, which is already zoned CB- 1 O-contains few buildings that have the characteristics envisioned for the downtown. It was decided that encouraging redevelopment of this area by extending the CB-10 zoning to just south of Burlington Street would reduce redevelopment pressure on the downtown core where the desirable pedestrian-oriented streetscape and historic buildings are in place and that CB-1 0 zoning would be appropriate provided that adequate parking and pedestrian connections to the established downtown are provided. Another justification for amending the Near Souths ide Plan, and a condition of the Hieronymus rezoning and for the subsequent rezoning of the property at 301 S. Dubuque Street, was the potential benefit of diversifying the mix of housing stock downtown. The success of Plaza Towers suggested that a market exists for a different sort of high-rise residential development downtown. In other words, constructing apartments and condominiums designed for and including amenities suited to residents other than University students would diversify the housing stock and help support the type of retail commercial development envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan for the downtown and the Near Southside. There is a concern that if apartments are built solely to serve university students, particularly younger undergraduates, that the downtown would evolve into a campus town with goods and services geared mainly toward students rather than for the wider community. The conditional zoning agreements for Hieronymus Square and for the proposed building at 301 S. Dubuque Street require a mix of studio or 1, 2 and 3-bedroom units, with no more than 30% of the units containing 3 bedrooms, and no units were allowed more than 3 bedrooms. The difficulty is determining the right balance of student and non-student housing that will support a vibrant and diverse commercial core. The amendment to the Near Southside Design Plan states that either CB-5 or CB-10 are appropriate between Court and Burlington Streets, based on the property providing a logical extension of the downtown and adequate services for the density proposed. Residential uses within the buildinQ Unlike the two recent rezonings from CB-5 to CB-10 in the area south of Burlington Street (301 S. Dubuque Street and Hieronymus Square), this rezoning request is intended largely for student apartments. The applicant, Big Ten Rentals, has built similar projects in Madison, Wisconsin near the University of Wisconsin campus. Their primary focus and expertise is student apartments. The commercial space in the building is limited to the ground level floor of the building. 3 The applicant has cited several reasons to approve an upzoning to CB-10: · The location is an infill site, so will increase the tax base with minimal increase in services. · It increases the amount of housing available to the University population within walking distance to campus and downtown. It reduces vehicular traffic coming into the downtown and promotes more environmentally friendly pedestrian and bicycle circulation. · It may decrease rental housing demand in the more historic residential neighborhoods bordering campus, so that those homes may transition back to owner occupancy. Staff finds that these are legitimate goals and, in general, supported by the Comprehensive Plan and the Near Southside Plan. Staff is concerned, however, with the mix and intensity of the apartments proposed within the building. Only 22 of the 132 apartments contain apartments with fewer than 3 bedrooms. The preponderance of the apartments are 3- and 4- bedroom units and the building also contains a number of 5-bedroom units. The apartments with 3, 4, and 5 bedrooms tend to attract young undergraduate students. Older students and non-students do not typically need or desire so many bedrooms and instead opt for apartments with fewer bedrooms and more living space. The applicant has provided some sample floor plans, which are attached to this report. Staff notes that the amount of living space (living room, dining space, and kitchen area) remains about the same regardless of how many bedrooms there are in the apartment. The lack of diversity in the units offered and emphasis on units with a large numbers of bedrooms is likely to attract a preponderance of young undergraduates living on their own for the first time. It is the experience of City enforcement officials that property maintenance and enforcement issues are greater for these types of apartments. In turn, these internal problems become neighborhood nuisance issues and result a living situation that is not suitable to young students or to other residents the City is trying to attract into the downtown. The applicant has provided a description of their property management policies. They have indicated that there will be a management office on site that will be open during regular business hours and one tenant in the building will be hired as the resident manager. Problems that arise after business hours would be addressed by this designated person. While these policies may be well-intentioned, staff is concerned that it may be difficult for one resident manager to handle the issues that are likely to occur with 11 floors of large student apartments (430 students). Staff cautions against approving a rezoning based on the management practices of the current owners. However, zoning can address the intensity of use, the physical amenities and shared open space provided on-site. To that end, staff recommends against including 5-bedroom apartments and recommends reducing the number of 4-bedroom apartment to create a better balance of efficiency, 1-, and 2-bedroom units within the building. Another suggestion is to design the upper two floors as condominiums, taking advantage of the views and proximity to downtown. Short of providing a greater diversity of apartments, staff does not recommend increasing the allowable density on this property by rezoning to CB-10. Commercial uses within the buildinQ The proposed building is largely a residential building. Only one floor of commercial is proposed. This may be reasonable given the location of the building, some distance from the existing downtown core. However, the commercial spaces within the building should be constructed in a manner that will be attractive and usable to a wide variety of commercial tenants. Both the CB-5 and CB-10 Zone contain requirements to ensure the viability of the ground-level floor of buildings for commercial uses, including storefront window and doorway requirements, ensuring that entrances are close to grade, and requiring a minimum floor to floor height of at least 14 feet. As currently designed, the commercial storefronts proposed along 4 Court Street do not meet the required floor to floor height requirement for commercial uses in a mixed-use building. Failure to design the ground floor space in a manner that is attractive to commercial tenants will likely result in vacant storefronts, not a desirable result in an area intended for an expansion of the Central Business District. Due to the slope of the site from west to east, increasing the height of the second floor will ensure usable storefronts along Court Street and provide an additional "mezzanine" level along Linn Street. This space could be marketed for office uses, personal service uses, or commercial recreational uses, such as a fitness center, or reserved for use by the tenants of the building as a common room, a fitness center, secure bicycle parking area, or other such amenity. Parkina: The Comprehensive Plan notes that some downtown merchants and business owners feel the residential population burdens the parking system in the district to the detriment of businesses. The Plan indicates the need to establish a clear policy for housing, parking and redevelopment in the Downtown Planning District, which includes the established downtown and the Near Southside area. When the City completed its study of the redevelopment potential in the Near Southside, several measures were taken to address the demand and supply of parking for new commercial and residential development in this area, including the creation of the Near Southside Parking Facility District. The policy that underpins the Near Southside Parking Facility District acknowledges that residential parking demand is fundamentally different than the demand for short term commercial parking. Therefore regulations were set in place to make sure that any new residential development would pay its fair share to meet the demand for parking in the Near Southside. Rather than requiring each individual property to provide the required parking on- site and take up valuable land that could be used for buildings and other site amenities, property owners pay a fee at the time of development. These fees are pooled into a fund that is used for development of municipal parking structures that are then shared by all users in the area. For development on properties in the Near Southside that are zoned CB-5, the owner is required to pay a set fee for 75% of the required parking spaces for residential units. Currently the fee is $6,119 per parking space and represents less than 1/3 the cost of building a structured parking space. At the time the Near Southside Parking Facility District was established, CB-10 zoning was not anticipated in the Near Souths ide. Because the fee is based on the amount of parking required and there is no requirement for private, off-street parking in the CB-10 zone, this fee would not apply to areas rezoned to CB-1 O. To insure adequate parking is provided for properties rezoned to CB-10 and to treat residential development equitably with CB-5 properties that have paid or will pay the fee in the Near Southside, staff continues to recommend that any properties south of Burlington Street rezoned to CB-1 0 be required to pay the parking impact fee as if they were in the CB-5 zone. This arrangement was a condition of the CB-10 rezonings for both Hieronymus Square and 301 S. Dubuque. If the CB-5 parking requirement is applied to the building proposed at 228 E. Court Street, 309 parking spaces would be required, 25% of which would need to be provided on site and fees representing 75% of the required spaces paid into the Near Southside Parking Facility District Impact Fee Restricted Fund. Staff recommends that this be a condition of approval, if the property is rezoned to CB-10. Providing adequate bicycle parking should also be required. Bicycle parking is also based on the number of required parking spaces. Since no parking is required in the CB-10 Zone, bicycle parking would not be required if this property were rezoned to CB-10. Given the likely demand for bicycle parking generated by the tenants of this building, staff recommends that a 5 minimum of 1 secured on-site bicycle parking space be required per apartment, which is the requirement in the CB-5 Zone. Adequacy of Shared Parkinq Facilities in the Area During the rezoning process for Hieronymus Square and 301 S. Dubuque a concern was expressed about the extent of the redevelopment activity proposed in the Near Southside and whether the City is committed to building another parking facility in the area in the near future to meet this increased demand. Transportation planning staff have completed an analysis of the parking demand that will be generated by new and proposed development in the Near Southside. This analysis shows that the net increase in parking demand from recently constructed buildings and from buildings that are currently under construction is estimated at approximately 390 spaces. The net increase in parking demand for Hieronymus Square, 301 S. Dubuque, and for the subject property at 228 E. Court, as these projects are proposed, is estimated at approximately 650 spaces. There is clearly a need for new parking facilities to meet this imminent demand. Unless the City makes a commitment to build a new parking facility in the next 5 years, staff recommends against further upzonings in the Near Southside, including a rezoning for the subject property at 228 E. Court Street. Staff will be discussing this issue with the City Council at an upcoming meeting. Buildinq and Streetscape Desiqn The Near Southside Design Plan was adopted in 1995 to provide more clear direction for implementing the Near Southside Plan. The vision expressed in the Design Plan for the Downtown Extension area states that redevelopment efforts should architecturally mirror the existing Downtown area. "New structures in this district should reflect the scale, proportion, fac;ade repetition, setbacks, materials, roof lines, color, signage, awnings, and equipment screening elements of the adjacent Downtown. . . . This character can be further enhanced through implementation of design guidelines and a review process to address each of these design elements within the Downtown Extension." The applicant has submitted several sketches that illustrate the proposed exterior features of the building and have also provided conceptual floor plans. Staff finds that the proposed exterior design is attractive and would meet the standards expected for the central business district. It would set the bar in this area with regard to building articulation, fenestration, architectural detailing, and use of building materials. The street-level storefront design would meet City standards for pedestrian-friendly design, with generous storefront windows, architectural detailing that provides interest, and distinctive storefront entrances built at grade. If the problems with the floor to floor height of the commercial spaces are addressed, staff finds that the building would generally meet the design expectations for a building in the central business district. Staff, however, have concerns about the provision of balconies over the rear courtyard. Since the courtyard is isolated from public view, it may be an attractive nuisance if balconies are allowed above. A similar private courtyard on the adjacent building to the east has proved problematic. City enforcement staff have indicated that this building has one of the highest rates of criminal complaints in the City. Staff believes that the court yard design may be contributing toward these problems. Therefore, staff recommends disallowing balconies over the proposed rear courtyard. The interior floor plans illustrate the proposed mix of apartments within the building and provide sample interior layouts for the various apartment sizes. As mentioned previously, staff finds the number of apartment with 3, 4, and 5 bedrooms to be excessive and the limited amount of living space and shared common areas problematic. If rezoned to CB-10, the applicant should also be required to improve the streetscape to meet 6 downtown standards, similar to the requirements imposed for Hieronymus Square. These would include a minimum 10-foot sidewalk width with decorative paving, street trees, trash receptacles, benches, and landscaping. SUMMARY In 2006, the Comprehensive Plan was amended to allow the extension of the CB-10 zone within the Near Southside Development Area, between Burlington and Court Streets, so long as concerns with regard to housing and commercial mix, parking, and design are addressed. The expansion of the CB-10 development was intended to encourage a diversity of housing types in the downtown while at the same time providing for areas of additional commercial growth. In addition, allowing the CB-10 zoning to expand into this area will reduce pressure for high-rise development within the historic downtown core. Providing multi-family housing with an appropriate level of services and amenities in the Near Souths ide may also relieve development pressure in the older neighborhoods located north and east of downtown. Provided that new development proposed for CB-10 zoning balances the issues of apartment mix, commercial storefront design, parking, and building and streetscape design in a manner that supports the downtown as a pedestrian accessible, economically vibrant commercial area, such a rezoning may be justified. The Near Southside Plan, however, still also acknowledges the appropriateness of CB-5 Zoning in this area. The residential density allowed in the CB-5 Zone is considered high in comparison to other residential zones and is only exceeded by the CB-10 zone by virtue of the difference in allowable height and FAR. While staff acknowledges the exceptional exterior design of the building as proposed, and agree that there is a need for student housing close to the university, staff believes that the application for rezoning 228 E. Court Street from CB-5 to CB-10, as presently proposed, falls short of meeting the goals for rezoning to CB-10. The apartment mix, with a preponderance of 3-, 4-, and 5-bedroom apartments without the services and amenities to support the resulting residential intensity will have a greater potential to cause spillover nuisances for adjacent properties and will further imbalance the housing mix and population in downtown Iowa City. Given the stated goals of the project and the configuration of the building and mix of apartments, CB-5 zoning may be more appropriate. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that REZ07-00014, a request to rezone approximately 0.484 acres of property from CB-5 to CB-10 be denied, unless the project is modified to address concerns identified in this staff report. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Elevations, Drawings, and Diagrams Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ~ - ..1.-,) ''1...JUI .~ _ ,~'1:!.!J~ ~- , ~~- v _ = ____~ ~_v ~~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ t:~" T""" ~ It) . /11 I ~.. 0 . 0 m 0" 0 c ) !_~m~ ',,:.<:: ''', . \--~"'" ,:z:.'" - t--- " ,""'W. (J ~~~~.~ I 1- -- 0 (J I J '- N W l1 a: I \ ' I 15 lH38ll~ \ [ I I ~ ! \ , I ! ~ ,me"~ t \ ~ ~- \ \ 1 I -m ,~ ~ 15 NNIl 'III ....... ~ lS ~ - - - v ~ .. f"~ 'II flV) Q tj -- ~ : III ~~ mm' ::~ T 1 ~ :::: n I U I ~ fl- I..r:: . ~ (,:~ ~ I ::::: I "'~" ~ 'y> 'r" ""1"\"'- -- ~ " ~~ ~,,~, -- -. _ ,...., ,'-' +oJ \ 1- a> LI.I a> -- I.- M l~ ~ +oJ ~ (f) -.. j I 0 +oJ \ . III ~ .~ en l.- I r, ::J tj " ~ ,'-I ~ 0::: 0 ............ 0::: () rJ i~:l. Q() <( I \ W - ~ -. I, Nn 1\111'1 .L..J 'V..L CO I^ C\J C\I C\J I' I' ~ I....r I ~ " all 'j . . I' f\ : ~ ~ ..... Q) D. z I' " 1: I""'~; 1', ,... 0 "" ::. U =) ~ Cf) \, D.. ~ I C~ ~ ::J ~ " ~ ~ ( .-......1 a ~ 'e. 0:: 0(:5 %11 "." f, ::t u I~ ~ ..J n'I'" / 15 0 Ir" ""1"'\ I 1\'1"\ ~~ \ ", ' ' " .." lOll ~ " "", '''! " '" - . - ' ':::"''':::'' ;, jjDf ~ I ~,:...... ',- ~ ~~ ~Xw.~ I ':1 [~-J ~ }..." l a: '\. ,- I,] mJUrrO~ ~ >"l rJ) -"..l .,_...'.---1 (",--.1 ' . ) It) 0' v ~ yO' REZONING EXHIBIT 228 E. COURT STREET IOWA CITY, IOWA REZONE PARCEL FROM CB-5 TO CB-10 LOT FOUR (4) IN BLOCK ONE HUNDRED AND THREE (103) IN IOWA CITY 'V yO' ____________J ------------l , , , I N us iP ~ o 10 25 50 75 100 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1"=100' 1E 0'1{} I I 0''' -\ v ~ v U ' !! ,o"~ '\ i i ~ j''V : yO' LOT B i~~~ ~ E-< E-< LOT '3 i::.:l i::.:l i::.:l 0' \g ~~~" 0' : i::.:l 0:: ~I IE-< v:::\: v, I LOT \0 rn 9?0J rn i::.:l 0 , Z , :::> ~fY), z i LOT 1\ 0' - :::> .....:l II! {- 0 , :::> aU j' , LOT I~ Q I I ~ : LOT I~ L___________J ~~_\~ 150.51'CM) 150'CR) COURT STREET 1- -- - - -- - - --l I::;'.~.::r -- - - - --l , I{} " ... " ' i yO' i i yO' : 1---- : 0''' , v I 228 E. COURT STREET 1 I- l/l I- l/l I- l/l COURT ST Iii c;:::p HOUH H RRI ON ~ i.. ~ is ll~ \Z ~ PRENTI S ::; z o l/l Z J: o -, ~ o o o l/l < U ::l ...J o RY J LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 351-8282 CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 52404 (319) 841-5188 www.mmsconsultants.net Date I Revl~lon De~lgned by. 5Gale. DAM 1"=100' Dra....n by. Date. J DM 09-13-07 c.hec:.ked by. ProJec:.t No. DAM Ie 7953001 REZONING EXHIBIT 228 E, COURT STREET IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA ~. \ 70nn\ 70<; ,nn1 \ 70<; ,nn17 ~"'~ 0 /1 , /')nn7 R. ,<;. II <; ^~A rnT ~.l..H.lJ '" ;q ~ ~l ~r ~ u.; C> iij }-o~ :ill~ tri \Ji t.l) .n <f> I!l ==~~~=I~ f--- S"'..a N ~UU~,~ IS "'~ <f>c>~", ~ ~ ~ ~~2 ~ 11 ~ tn~~ ~ ~U':'~ "" N '" ~~- .~ ~~fj JI1ul i:G31~ ~ ~i o ",0, ~ ~ Zt::O< ~~ =f~u.. lH c> "~ '" ~ ~ d~ -< l'! ~0 88. !h ~ li'~_ ~ ';::-<rr'rr'~ ~ ~ ~ ;gh~ ~~~dH~ ~ n~~S~5 I IS 12 f- ~ . iI: iL I:H I-'- c> -< ~ ~~ ~ -' IL '" IL \;) \jC)c:? 080 <;::, ('7= <:::> 0'0 ~s NNI1 \;) \jC)\j 08 0 '=> Do 6<i5 '=> csl \;) \jC)\jo 080 C\ ~! I"'" . j I '" \D ~ " \ ", ,C/"O' ~ 9 a j / ~/ i ~ ~" i".,\,'. ...................,.1-1 l"~d L....I , "~. , I II ',20' , . " 'UJ, , ' '-n. .- ' I .;<;. _ 'J" ~. ~ '~_M;,O '~~" frC1-,V .. .. '., I I . .-It:gg ~ " .1- n ~ ~~ - '" ~d:)o Hl~ ~:::: 1111 ~ '-'> !!j Ill; 'jil iil, f!' qj I" ;: , () ij! 'F 1,1 l () Hl <: <] <",0: ~ 'i'~ [ia\f) ~z. . ( g. 1:'1.9 ...r;u o Cb CJ= = CF> :\:)"" \S u 9L9 o Cb 0= \g9 ":0'39- d.,. q;' ____'-'iQ) ~_/ ..$tt-t\~"'''~~::;:~- ~." " ~"-..."---"-'" . .~._-.------.._-~._..,' . I .- c,g~/' '" ~..r-H.L.l ~ ~~ 6 I~ a PI ~~~ l 0:: d5. !I; 1 ~ < 1'1 >Ip b~~ \) I' . iC dll ~ ~ir r~J !ji! -~~ d 1,,1 , I~ " l ~d:)~ ~Q liB , ]] .U.Nl: \j) r ,r- I,ll .tN..9: ~ Ii lo ,ill _z$- ~ ~-, c \\l E \\l II) G ill ~0_9r--~-=-~~-~_-= _':VOI--~=~= _ _ _ _ _ : i if I I I I I I I I I I I ':' o '! I -.J I L -- no: I 1"- -- "- I \J -- ~ - -l -" i ;g I I I n - I ~I I ---~~+---~_._+- _.~-- I ,,0.01 ~{-- --_.~ "v.,Eo "G.,be ,,9.,11 "Q-,Of "G.,Oe ~ . . [ ':' ~ ~ '<> ~ ~ Ci I ~ r-c---c I f-----u---- -0 IJ "",,- ~/ 1 11__ ~ /<itI~ d ~ I I5f ';> ~ ~ . ~ I ~ en :;j .- - -- - -- - - ~-- I z ';2 D . ~ '--0 I It ~ II ~ I I d ~ N " ':' I [IJ}_ ~ 0 " ~ ~ I: ~ ~ I i ~ '-0 Lb____I__.L_ -~ - -- ~-~ "O.,vc I "v.,So J ._--.t "G.,Go "p-.bl "t ,10 ':' . . ". ~ ~ Ci ~ d W = ~- ';> '" ;g ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I----j------------------- --r 0~ ~oo o ~~~ ::c~g b~~ Z~<J: ~~ ,2 ~ <i ! j j " ~ ~ .~~ ~~ g ~ ~ .S> If::::; iF1 a < II] Iii ;{" - l:li 0-- 'j' x~ lid Ql\) 'j'l :n rc-J HH II ~.., ~ '- g Illl ~r~~lr-- W - olL~ < a ,iii (() > (() -1 L (() <: () -1 ~Z*- ~ I i i I L () () lL +> Ul L it: ~s NNI1 L -.J ,o-,or ----~---~- ,O-"S ,O-,os 0 0 -.:t. 0+ -.:t. 0 rp; I ~ ~f ~T 8~ 1__- ,.j!j;l l) ~ 8 "' I "' 8jj. ~ l !~ 0 0 9 ~ + ~ ,.j . eX l!;! >~ ~ D ~ ~ . ~ ~ I a ,.j ,.j " ~ ~ <,< ~ ~ ~ - .- - -. -. - 1it -. ~ I X- D + . '" ~ I ~ ~ !; X- ,.j I ,.j ,.j i ~ "- 'I b ----r " . ~ ~ ~ I_~IX: ~ i ,.j ~1; ~~-~- . + ~ ~ - - -- ,.j ,.j ~ t-t "O-,g 9 '" + '" i,- i ~ " ,.j eX D g ~ ~ ~ l~ 9 9 "' ci;l ci;l ~ . ~ ,.j i;- '" t ,.j , t " ~ I" " ,,,""" "'''''''' " " " r '" ~~~ :~ ""r"'IUU" ~~~j ~~~l ~~' II ~s NNI1 ~ ti _1 j ] 1) ~ ~= G ~c!)o HH {< lil ~:::: 111 -< !I! ~ I;! D..~ t11 l~l [!I lL "- I' I~....'l) J. Q II' ti)r~~n~ hI! r:! Ol+-~d: '-JI 11. ~z. => I <: G iL ~~ Cl " lL~ ~~ iL~ ~~::" 6 tC'i PI "'* ,- ill :::c ~~ l n: "'..( ill ~ 'Ii b~~ 1'1, <:> [iii ~ t iC ~ iHI Z o:l <{ ti 3ir i:' Ii:; _ i ~ " Q t@T iQ Pi! ~Z2) j] ~cQo "' .-0 do il i~] <::! ~<lil f~ HH r--------- r- I I I \ L-l - ----~r I! ~" u.. "O-,tcl I~ ~~ u.. '" ~ '" i~ ~= u.. '" ~3 Cll!: ~ ~ ~ Jf :>: I- Cl ~"' ~ Iil ~ ~~ <r N i: ~= u.. i~ ,3' rj ~ i} ,~ <:: Cl il- L Cl g LL Ii ~!l <;> Q "- :5 c ~ f- I It ~ )- ~~ -Jr 2~ lb ----ir-- l___~_ Ii ~~ ~-----L i! l!;!E iC lJ c Cl \l ~ \f) Ii ~~ u.. "O-,bS ,,9-,S~ ~~~ " 'I 6 ~(() Ii! ~~g ;;: ~ .... 0: ~:I !I! ~ ~ L. !'I 0 I!i! O~~ 0 u: li'i ~ ~~ ~ W" .pl Z~~ rl i'!! ! l- ~ ~0 ~ " " ~.. ~~ Iii! in >=Q;)c:s ;j) 1~ n Ht~ .:.1 r- l,li I' f" fO ,iii r-H 01 ~I ~ I '? j;> '? fg ,,0-.,," '" ~ u) i~ ~~ U- i~ r I~ ~~ '" \lS~ "", ... ~ '" ~. '" ~ .B II- N Q '" N Iii-n d) D Z ~ lli ~ lR<L e- N t "O-,b" ,,0-,1:" i~ g~ i~ ~~ fO.OI r--0~j;j-l 9 (:) i~ <;0 ~~ :;: 9 5:~ ::>: I~ C,) "' ~~ N '" ~ '? S~ )- h ,,~ ~~ ~--T--i-- i}~-- ~~ i~ ~~ ii: "O-,OL i} ~il 'q '? N " I} r l= ,,0-,<;1 i' N 0, c: C5 0:: L Cl Cl lL ..<:: ~ ~ s: I- .,. :Ei ~ > ~ ill ~~~ !i ~...., Iii ^ ~ c;<< iP ~~~ l g 0-( ill CD b~~ ill I:I! I .~6' II !ill -jil Z~<1: d l.f1 ~~ ! .. e<l) ...Q IIH !I If:ll i r- I,ll " 0 .IIi Iii ~ Ii! ! i J1JtE I,,!lmlam~~u~ If--HIIH I - , ::: ~ ""!~~ !!; ",":,; - ~ !, ";~,; ~ III' ~;Ui" ~~ ~ ~ f-t11 Ir: :DBI f-H F I !-HI If- I!-HIE .!-HIE PEIE I t-tll E I ,'.;.i " ~11::I'it~ = I;":"i'~ iii: I" ;= Il~-:Ic~ ':::;, ,i ,_ , I JL!' ~ - [0 - I,: T7 jl~ E5 ii! ~ ~. c;.f-- 'i -F-r d II ' lid:D ~ -"- ilit : i [E I; ~ 1'1c:::=J 11__ '. Itlc:::=J m :r II~!II - , ~ ill ii i, c.L.l! ., , I, "'" w.J -'-'--' - LU, - ..,..,..........,.". = ", . :JII ~ cq F- - :':i i,l,!:!'i - P U i'!i ~ ~ ~H ~ i" ,I T'liil:::i .,.... ",,',1'1 ,) o_~ II ~ -l - CP Ff-- ~ ~~~~illi~~r\;'I: t:T _ ~~ 811 11c:::=J u 'I = ~ ~ ~l 5' ~ ~ .... CI) CI) ~ <: <: :J <: () 4: ~~~ ~ if'1 111 ^ 1j; ::cU~ ... g gc;t i! ~ -< ,1'1 O~~ q) ill IJ . ~~S' 'f II!! ilil Z~<{ If r" . ; J- oQ Iii! ~~ i~J ! ;:;;=: ! :d fO I,ll ,Hi :j ! !I 'I ~i 'I , ~ '1 ! ! !I ~ t ~::: i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ HIE ~ I tilt tJaIlE;l ~~I/ I TIT -'--'-' IFHIE 't..] l]!I[i I TI:~ ~ =F IHlIIH E: UI:~~ CI ..... :i':!1 Sf ' B' ,I" II-HE ,," ,.U:1 il' II' ,I ~ II-H If- :: iillil _ II .... 'ill P p I-HII~ II 1111 l- I_I." 1l1'1 [,].,1- - !~~'~ r ., "7 '.( TS --'-'- III IIIL ---1J1'1!IL Will _ III 1111 -n"11 .,.,,-JVLL ,.,', i, .1") fl ,I" ""T.:!!' i! ,I, , - : :: m=::!1 ~ ~ ~:![lE f--- i~! "';'i Lq JH ~ .ill ~ I HlI IH II : ::1 F I- -- -HiH- f- f- f--- I I' .... \i! ~'I~i:,rll"}i' ..~ ~m~ rlBniT, o --iBllf i =AI IF IHlII~ It-HIIH q 8i I ' ~ r~tdc:=J :: '9jU "11_ .::q, I LLJj _ " j ;;; uJ .... q) ~ ~ .... L :> Q I.) .... ., s c: Q ~ c: () g ~ ill KNOTHE &t~B~t~ September 21. 2007 Ms. Karen Howard Associate Planner City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 RE: Rezoning CB-5 to CB-1 0 228 Court Street Dear Ms. Howard, Attached along with this letter is supplemental information for the 228 Court Street rezoning request. The included items are: . A letter reGardinG the manaaement policies. . Floor plans for the tvpical apartments within the buildina. The unit sizes are larger than typical student housing to provide living areas that are sufficient for proper furniture placement and to meet the social needs of the occupants. . Computer renderinGS of the buildina, These drawings provide a better representation of the building from the intersection of Court and Linn Streets. The exterior of the building features high-quality materials suitable for the buildings prominent location within the city downtown area. Traditional brick and glass materials are used in conjunction with more contemporary glass and precast concrete panels. The exterior materials are composed to reinforce architectural articulation and step-backs to provide an appealing skyline. The cast stone and masonry materials at the street level give the building a strong commercial presence on the street. . Photoqraphs of The Equinox. This property was completed in August of 2006 by the same developers and architects. It illustrates the type of quality that is intended for the 228 Court Street development. I hope this additional information will assist your review of the rezoning request. The CB-1 0 zoning allows for the property to be developed with a higher quality of student oriented housing than is currently available in Iowa City. This trend toward premium level housing for students is a nation wide trend with current students expecting an ever-increasing level of amenities within their housing. This development is designed to meet those demands. We also believe that the proposed development will have several positive impacts on Iowa City. . The development is located on an in-fill site and will substantially increase the city tax base with minimal increase in services. 7601 University Ave, Ste 201 Middleton, Wisconsin 53562 p (608)836-3690 f (608)836-6934 wwwl<nothebrucecom . _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _~ .\!.l7 19:c;l..IIY!1!~I~ 11l~'!I_t)lt~!~j:S! !,!I~I!'.!l.~I!i!lll~.(21!i~lf_~. ~~':: !IJ~l! ~.PJll:!)Y!lt~~{}I2? :(~~'f ).u:m.: -1:J~~~ _ _ _ __ _ __ _. M_ - - - - - - -~- - - - - - -- -- - - - -. -- -. --. - - - - - - - - - - --. - - - - -- - - --.. - - - - + - -. - - - : . It increases the amount of housing available to the University population within walking distance to campus and downtown. It reduces vehicular traffic coming into the downtown and promotes more environmentally friendly pedestrian and bicycle circulation. . It decreases rental housing demand in the more historic residential neighborhoods bordering campus, so that those homes may transition back to owner occupancy. Thank you for your time in reviewing our proposal. Please let me know if you need any additional information f)p~~ X-\0110.Cmctlnm 10wII Cily\Prl1jccllnfHlllllllioll\L.nllillll.'(: Sil~ Plow ^1\llnl\'u\.~\21101.0')-2] lllWA.J()C II II '] ,. 'r.h II \I 'I' .~'.~'o .....\..'..: If:: . l' o i .' *.' ';-. ~. l ~. ~. '- - t~ rn ...~ $- ~~ ~ r- -< ~ ~ <: ij; ~ ~ . ( '" ~ ~ !I!r 9 f .II f~! H if i' ~~ !Irs ~ i t ~ . -J ! ~ )>t;dZ ii. Ii ! Il!l ~ ... ~ w C ;o~O I '7' in 11'1 ~ !!C ~ llj, J 'I ~ ~n::c kll ,,~ """ t"T'1 t"T'1 hI \II ~ ~ 2 VI ~ [WD r <: (j( i~ ~~ ~. ~~ ~ j~ ~ Rl ~ aIr ~ f jl -~f H if ~~ ~ ~ 1i!1 () , ~!. -J H-! 5' J>I ~~ ~Oja HI, ~ ~ ~~ 'Ill I !l h:1 8~ IC~ ,I, I I ~n::c fir t I hI. ~ " ~ tT1 tT1 ! ! ~I tI:IJjD j8J gl $ ~ ;l! ~ ~ I Q) 0 0 !f!r ~ I .II f~! H if i ~~ ill! () f i' t ~~J J 1111 5" J>l . )>t:dZ I" f ~ ~ ~~~ 1111 I Illl! I I ~n~ g ~mm ~ I m I >< o Q) -n -~ ~I 3: lm1D is I I ll!l 9 i .II -~i H H ~2 ~ ~ 11110 f ~ &!. -J iil .- J>l Jlil 't ~ ~~~ 111 I ! 'I iii, I 'I ~n::c Ill! ! ~ ~mm DECI< BEDROOM LM~ ~ ~D BEDROOM BEDROOM G) BEDROOM BEDROOM FIVE eEDROOM 12i6 Sq.Ft. KNOTHE &~E!J~~ 7601 Un..."ltyAflIn~. ....201 Middleton, W~u",.ln SlSU 608-lIl60-lUO FuU6-409H C"",~k:m ..... - ...-. .....w5epl2~ZOO'T ProjeaTide 22& Gourt street ,,,,,,,City """,no. !xcnp'- 1"1v. e.crClC/lll Prlljt<;tNll Dr'""'INo 0110 1\-4.1 ..._w__.... __._..__. _..._-_...__._..~.."",..__...... ......_.~.....__._~_..,,-.-_. .......--.,-..'-<,........- Date: September 20, 2007 To: Iowa City Planning Department From: Big Ten Rentals Re: Iowa City Project As the developers who have purchased the site ofthe former St. Patrick's Parish, we would like to provide you with some information on our management practices as it is our intention to develop the site with student housing. The partners of Big Ten Rentals, LLC embody a combined experience of over fifty years in real estate with an emphasis on student housing. The majority of our properties are located in downtown Madison, Wisconsin with a main client base ofUW-Madison students. As a result of this experience, we have been able to refine our lease documents and management practices to avoid many common problems with student rentals and enable us to act swiftly and effectively in dealing with any issues that do arise. We have found that by consistently enforcing our policies, the rate of infractions decline and word spreads amongst the students that violations are not permitted in our properties. Our management practices include: 1. Lease Documents: A "Nonstandard Rental Provisions" form is incorporated into each lease. This 4-page document clearly addresses our rules and regulations. It addresses what is deemed unacceptable behavior and describes the repercussions if its terms are broken. Examples: a. Common Areas i. To enforce these terms, surveillance tapes are reviewed for evidence of any violation is apparent and trash bags are gone through to obtain tenant names and/or apartment number. 1. $50.00 fine for trash found in common areas or on grounds 2. Tenant is responsible for any damage caused to common areas by their actions or those of their guests b. Parties 1. Eye-witnesses (i.e. resident manager, police, security tapes, residents, etc) provide testimony to enforce this. 1. Visible kegs result in $100 fine and future incidents may result in immediate eviction c. Balconies 1. Routine inspections of balconies are performed by maintenance staff and management for enforcement. Infractions result in a $100 fine and cleanup fee 1. Not to be utilized as storage areas 2. No indoor furniture, grills or bikes 3. Patio furniture may be used during summer months only 11. Eyewitness accounts by police, security company, other residents are used to enforce 1. No more than 5 persons allowed on balcony at one time 2. Guarantors: A guarantor is required for each tenant. We were told by one ofthe larger management companies in Iowa City that they require only one guarantor per apartment. We feel it is beneficial to require individual cosigners as their involvement proves vital in curbing problematic behavior. 3. Surveillance Cameras: Cameras are placed in common areas (halls, lobbies, elevators, etc) and recordings are kept for two weeks. These devices allow us to hold tenants responsible for any negligent actions by both them and their guests. 4. Resident Manager: A tenant of solid character with good references is hired as resident manager of the building. This person acts as a liaison between the management company and other tenants of the building. Acting as a representative of our company, this person is able to act on our behalf in dealing with problems during non-office hours. This allows for action to be taken when late night parties are held or noise disturbances or parking issues arise. 5. On-Site Management Office: The visual presence of a management office aids in detracting deviant behavior. The physical presence of management personnel allows for prompt enforcement of rules and routine inspections and camera footage review. 6. Special Event Security Patrol: On dates historically known to involve large gatherings (i.e.- Homecoming, Halloween, Graduation), security guards are hired to patrol the premises. Their presence deters many problems and allows for prompt intervention when situations do arise. They provide management with a written report describing the events during their patrol, including any problems and the person(s) associated with the problem. 7. Police Interaction: Our management office personally meets with the "beat cop" for the neighborhood. Open communication with the police department allows for us to keep abreast of any issues within our buildings and allows for the police to involve our resolve to assist them in their dealing with the residents. 8. Adequate support staff: Routine maintenance and cleaning of the building and grounds are performed to maintain a good appearance. The interior common areas and grounds are cleaned on a daily basis. Based on the severity of a situation, appropriate action is taken. In some cases (first time trash or noise violation) we first attempt to resolve the matter directly with the tenants. If the matter is not settled within the set time line or if it is not a first-time violation the guarantors are contacted. If the actions of our tenants merit harsher penalties, we will also involve the police, fire department and university and/or file for eviction. To provide you with a better sense of how matters are handled, please refer to the following summaries of prior incidents: . The police contacted us about underage drinking at a party in one of our apartments. Underage drinking tickets were issued and the party was broken up. We contacted the guarantors of the apartment to alert them of the illegal activities taking place in their child's apartment. No future incidents occurred. . After a fire alarm was pulled needlessly, we were able to identify the person by using the recordings from our surveillance cameras. A copy of the recording was given to the fire and police departments and the tenant was issued a steep fine. . A resident manager contacted our office on a Monday to report common area damages caused by guests of an apartment over the weekend. The surveillance tapes were reviewed and the timeframe showing the destruction was saved. The damage was repaired and the tenants were billed. Wernet the tenants to review the tape with them. As it was their first offense and they paid the bill immediately, no further action was taken. If it had been their second offense, the guarantors would have been notified immediately of both the current and prior incidents. The following scenario was created to show how this situation would be dealt with: . Over homecoming weekend, beer bottles were being thrown to the street from an upper level balcony posing possible physical harm to passer-byers and possible property damage to vehicles. The security guard on duty would respond immediately and order that this behavior be stopped and would then contact the police. The police would arrive and issue tickets and dispel of the party. Upon receipt of the security company's report the following day, we would contact the police to get a summary of their report. Immediate contact would be made to both the tenants and guarantors of the apartment. STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Sunil Terdalkar Item: REZ07 -00015/SUB07 -00007/SUB07 -00008 Galway Hills Subdivision - Part IV Date: October 4, 2007 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Dav-Ed Limited and Prime Ventures 580 Madison Avenue, Unit #3 North Liberty, IA 52317 (319) 665-9200 Contact Person: Kevin Hochstedler Phone: (319) 665-9200 Requested Action: Amendments to an approved Planned Development Overlay (Sensitive Areas Development Plan) and preliminary and final plat to allow additional grading of steep and critical slopes and removal of woodlands. Purpose: Single-Family Residential Development - 24 lots Location: Galway Drive Size: 10.41 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Partially developed, Low-Density Single-Family Residential (OPD-5) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: South: East: West: Highway 218 Highway 218, Park - P Residential - RS-5 Highway 218 and undeveloped -ID-RS Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Single-Family Residential Neighborhood Open Space District: West High District File Date: September 13, 2007 45 Day Limitation Period: October 29, 2007 60 Day Limitation Period: November 13, 2007 2 SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines are available Public Services: The City will provide Police and fire protection. The City will also provide refuse and recycling collection services. The Westwinds, and Wests ide Loop transit routes serve this area with the nearest stop located approximately half a mile to the east on Melrose Avenue. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicants, Dav-Ed Limited and Prime Ventures, are requesting revisions to a previously approved rezoning of approximately 10.41 acres of land (from Low Density Single-family Residential-RS':S zone to Planned Development Overlay-Low Density Single-family Residential-OPD-S) with a Sensitive Areas Development Plan, and amended prelimnary and final plat of Galway Hills Subdivision - Part Four, a 24-lot residential development. The property is located on Galway Drive, south of Melrose Avenue and east of Highway 218. At the time of previous the approval, Dav-Ed Limited sought a waiver of the subdivision standards to allow for a cul-de-sac street longer than that allowed by Code. A planned development overlay rezoning and a Sensitive Areas Development Plan was approved to allow for a 990 feet long cul-de-sac street. The waiver from the subdivision regulations was justified as it allowed development to occur closer the to top of the ridge line and thus minimizing grading of the slopes and removal of trees. Dav-Ed Limited started the work after the approval, and some development activity including the street construction has been completed. Some of the development activity has been carried out beyond the approved construction limits. The property is now being purchased by Prime Ventures. The applicants are now requesting approval of the modifications to the sensitive areas development plan to move the construction limit lines to allow more grading of the steep and critical slopes and tree removal and therefore create additional developable areas on the lots. The applicants report that the current buildable area available on certain lots is not sufficient for house models that they had designed for another subdivision and that they would also like to build in Galway Hills. The applicants have indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have not had discussions with neighborhood representatives. ANALYSIS: The applicants are not seeking to change the current underlying RS-S zoning designation nor the street and basic lot layout (some of the lots lines are being adjusted slightly) however they are proposing to increase the total area of disturbed land containing sensitive features including steep slopes, critical slopes and woodlands, by moving the construction limit line deeper into the lots. With the proposed changes, disturbance of critical slopes will increase from 30% up to 34%, steep slopes from 62% up to 63%, and woodlands from 33% up to 37%. The changes will also affect the wooded areas and groves located near the eastern boundary of the subdivision. As mentioned above, the applicants indicate that the buildable area available on lots is not adequate for the building plans selected. Initially, the applicants proposed to extend the construction limit boundary on most of the lots by at least 10 feet farther into the sensitive areas. Staff advised against further disturbance of lots that contain protected slopes and/or 3 protected slope buffers. Therefore the applicant has agreed to maintain the existing construction limit lines on lots 10, 11, 13, 14 and 18. As discussed below there is sufficient room to build sizable houses on these lots with out further disturbing the slopes. The applicants are requesting to move the construction limits deeper into the regulated sensitive areas by at least 10 feet on lots 9, 12, 15 and 19; by at least 20 feet on lots 20,21 and 22, and elimination of the construction limit for lot 8. Staff believes that the existing lots provide adequate buildable area for houses of the size that the applicants are proposing to build, although not necessary in the configuration of the applicants' standard model. The construction limit lines on the currently approved lots are at least 80 feet away from the front lot boundary. With a minimum lot width of 60 feet (most of the lots are 65 feet wide or greater), after subtracting the minimum setbacks the buildable area available on each lot would be at least 3,000 square feet. The applicants have submitted a set of building plans with footprints ranging from 2,602 to 3,036 square feet (42-46 feet in width and 62-66 feet in length). Because the applicants propose to build houses that are narrower than what is permitted and have chosen to set the front portion of the house farther than 25 feet back from the font lot line, these footprints go beyond the existing construction limit line. It should be noted that, except on lots located on the bulb of a cul-de-sac, the minimum front setback for the principle dwelling is only 15 feet and only the garages need to be setback 25 feet from the front lot line. Staff recommends that, to the extent possible the houses should be built utilizing a 25 foot front setback setback so that the houses area closer to the street and only limited amount of construction activity occurs near the construction limits. One of the requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is to provide sufficient protection to the sensitive areas against soil instability, erosion, downstream siltation, flooding, landslides and mudslides, as well as ensuring safety of the houses. Staff has consulted with the conservationists from the office of Johnson County Soil and Water Conservation District to asses the proposed additional impact on the sensitive areas. If it is determined that the revisions to the construction limit line should be moved farther into the slopes the conservationist recommends that additional measures be taken to stabilize the slopes, improve the soil and water quality, and the wooded areas. These measures include: 1. Slopes - Maintaining a consistent grade from building lots into outlots and avoiding "overfalls" from lots onto the steep slopes on the construction limits and outlots. 2. Soil quality - Amending the soil on each lot with compost and avoid compaction to create a healthy soil structure that can absorb a large amount of water, decreasing the erosion potential and impact on critical slopes. 3. Timber improvements - Removing invasive species and weed trees to open up the forest canopy to allow for regeneration of desirable trees, and light to the forest floor 4. Planting native woodland grasses and flowers in the understory to prevent soil erosion 5. Storm water management - Treating storm water at the lot level with infiltration based practices to reduce erosion and improve water quality, for example, rain gardens can infiltrate and treat rain from roofs, decrease the amount of direct water flow onto the steep slopes and ravine. Staff recommends that these conditions be incorporated into the amended Sensitive Areas Development Plan. The applicants should provide a plan (or include it on the grading plan) showing the measures taken and include corresponding notes on the plat. There may be some merit in amending the construction limits on lots 8 and 22, as the slopes on these lots are minimal and the vegetation was been cleared at the time when the infrastructure was installed. If the Commission finds that the revisions to the construction limits are justified to provide larger development areas, staff recommends that the changes on lots 9, 12, 15, and 19 though 22 should be considered only if additional measures are taken to stabilize the slopes, 4 improve the soil and water quality, and the wooded areas as recommended by the Soil Conservation Service. Although the revised construction limit may be sufficient to accommodate the proposed building footprints, the actual construction activity of such a footprint may result in the disturbance of additional sensitive areas including the woodland buffer. Adequate precautions and measures must be taken to ensure that the construction activity including storing excavated soil is not carried out beyond the construction limit line. Because the existing development has apparently encroached into construction limits, staff recommends that temporary construction fencing should be put in place to demark the construction limit line prior to development of the individual lots. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ07-00015/SUB07-00007/SUB07-00008, an amendment to the existing Planned Development Overlay zone Sensitive Areas Development Plan and an amended preliminary and final plat for Galway Hills Subdivision - Part IV, a 1 0.41-acre, 24-lot residential subdivision located on Galway Drive, be approved to modify the construction limits on lots 8, 9, 12, 15, 19 and 20-22 subject to the following conditions being incorporated into the Sensitive Areas Development Plan: 1. Slopes - Maintaining a consistent grade from building lots into outlots and avoiding "overfalls" from lots onto the steep slopes on the construction limits and outlots 2. Soil quality - Amending the soil on each lot with compost and avoid compaction to create a healthy soil structure that can absorb a large amount of water, decreasing the erosion potential and impact on critical slopes 3. Timber improvements - Removing invasive species and weed trees to open up the forest canopy to allow for regeneration of desirable trees, and light to the forest floor 4. Planting native woodland grasses and flowers in the understory to prevent soil erosion 5. Storm water management - Treating storm water at the lot level with infiltration based practices to reduce erosion and improve water quality, for example, rain gardens can infiltrate and treat rain from roofs, decrease the amount of direct water flow onto the steep slopes and ravine 6. Temporary construction fencing should be put in place prior to development of the individual lots. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Location Map 2. Amended preliminary plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan 3. Amended Final plat Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ~/?~~ pcdlstaff reportslrez07 -oOOOX+sub07 -00007 GalwayPartIV-1.doc I --- ~ w -;.....,...c::O ,... > Q. << Cf) th 0 CO w Q) . - ...c:: V1 ~:::t::() 0 0 '" -..l lr) 0 w ::. 0 0 I r-... 0 CO ::> CO if) -- C r-... 0 Q. 0 0 0 0 I r-... 0 CO ::> ~ if) (j ~ ~ ~ lo.... ::J 0 u.. ~ t ,... CCS (j Q. 0.. CJ) .- I ~ CCS ~ -f> CCS q,v (!} ~ ~-<!' {f- c., . . ;, Z c.,'" en a: 0 ~ I ~ C - U 0 ~ ~ f-4 ~ en 'AMENDED' PRELIMINARY PLAT & SENSITIVE AREAS GALWAY HILLS SUBDIVISION IOWA CITY, IOWA PUT pRF.PARr.n BY' WNS CONSULTANTS INC 1917 SOUTH GILBERT ST lOlfA CITY, Ion 52240 , " " 0 I fi1 p~ NT I ~~R~l'EOIl.l.l. ~~ i ...."fi...~~..t~~ SltllW.....~ T ..:........ .:~............:. P[~~o:fr. I PA'o'[IIIEIIl IiIIlDlIl _2~ '~_C,-~,C, I GIJ,WJ.YIlRlVl TYPICAL STRFrT SECTION NOT TQ SCI\LE NOIt: PA'ltMLNllllDTM Of CUL-OC-SAC ~UUl IS 25' +. II> I"! E!l~ l~~iii! ~ '-"-~ Q.IPlIIC&CloLI.n:n r.w ~"'W,<f!1l<<Nr'''~T...r~____.__ '" . " .. .\' , ' ~ '. \\ .... \, . 2~~' - IU"CORllED PlIIIUISlOl'tS CVRVESt:GMEN'_BER _ElWST_ _PIlOl'_ -V1IUl'>'F'QL.[ is; i:: :!i'V~~~iHOl[ : ~. g ~ ~i~l~"QH __'_'I_~i__txISnNO~",r"'flv5tl\(R _:c:L:;~ i~~~~~~:!;' - COOTOOR l..ts (2' I..T(RV"'~J _OISll'<GlllftlINf -[xlSfIt.IGOCClO\lOUS1RU o >)I;; _,",,~'"''~''''''' vN..f$SNO'tDDlH[JtIII~.w.Ol\IOl!i()lS.IIIl..nflAIII~Tl<S THE SIZE "NO LOCATION 01' "lI- PRoPOSED ..mUnES SfjO'/lli ~1~~~~~~f~~:ii~;~~~~~jf;~i~::~~ ~ ~ rss3 D SU:OIl.oDI"D"'ND[ROSI{l"Co.llllOl.Pl"'llrGR[Xl511NGiIIPR~SUI GIlAll( CONTOUlS ....0 "1101'05(0 EROSION CQl;lllOl. ll[~SlJRE'5 l~~:: =: ~ :~::: ~[::~S" rcl11,'40 sr PERCEtmGE II' ~~~~~*~~':J:~ sr :~~:: : :~ ~g~i2~~:: sr ~gi::t=lCt::::::~iol3i.201Sf P.~F;1jT~Gt II' ~~n.IlI~ ~ ~UJ sr TO lIE IlISlURaED ~ J1~ Irr.AI OF!'>CRIPTION :::: ~~;~f.':':'::~~~': ~:,,:,:::.:\ ~.:' &:::'o;"'r"..~~~o~",';cor" 1I.9.......~ 01 I.... Hort~....1 C"'~... 01 ~ol U 01 GoI..o~ >l~I. SUodl.lO~~ - p"" !lit.. in ""_d",,oo..l\tI(~.Plot'h....oIR",,0f""''''PlOI_J7''' POot 21111 01 Ih. Roew.. or Ill. JoIl~.OI'I Co~~ly R.co'd.... 011k:.; Th.~c. NH'I3'I~"W, ..'mo Ih. [o.l.rly RIQ/'l-<>I-W<>) l"'. 01 Prlma'y 11<>0" N<>. 1111 a <!l.t"""", 01 O6J,J. ,..,: Th.~e. tl4"J,"J"W, _~ ....4 t...I....) R,.,I_of_Way ~.... In.!l r..I; Thono. 1I07"6O"W, """0 """ ~o.(...ly Rk}hl-ol-Wo, ~..., 18V.J. I..t, ""..... NJIl'II'1J"W, olono .010 [~l""y rli;t.,l-~~o':'l ~.~:: i': ~i~' ..:~;~..~:;c~rt~2~~J.I'::':;;.~';'3J,t~0~~:::;'t:~.:.-~';r= '_0; 1'1>""",, >Il!1I'UII'02'1:, ""'0 _ S....IMrI, R,.,t_of_Woy L.... .llI1.1IO fM" 110..... ~:~.7.:..~"~o-.i:~~.:~~:~~~ ~'t.~-Jo;.:a'I;.~,"'t~2;~~..'i.:;, r.,-:~~;.:'~~.~ GaI..ay HMo Swl>tl,,,,,oo _ ~o<l "a, .. ac....oo"". ...Ilh thO PIoI ",",...1 RoeOl'ded In PI.t II.... J~ ... p"," 21111 oll~. Roeo<<Io .f t". """~_ C...~ly R__'. D!r.cO; Th.~c. SJ2'47'~~.t, "'''''9 '010 WMt..,y lie., 20l1.13 f..,; Th."o. 5"'J7'n'E. olM9 .old ~;~~'~4~~~,.;;"~II:.,~.:;..~Ct..~,3ig'1:.~;.~on~.,,-= ~:;=::r,;:;: ~.;.9: :,,-:,I,w:=; Lin., OO.OOfMt, "'..0. SoIIIh....I....y, 112,Se f..l, "onll.aidW..l....yl...""a 17l1.114 I""t ,........u,... 001100.. Norlh.a.UrI",""".. "Q,lJlO<>'C,,,,,dl>.....seS'1S'JS"t; "'....,.SOO'07'1J.'fIl, "'''''''00.._,...1,...., ,ss,n IMI, I.. Fo..l "" 1~.Norlh",'yU.. a1 ~alUal$oidOol...,>l...s..b"'_ -P.'tlllroo: Tl>o~c.S'2"1'2e"W, oIon..aid ..orlll....~ L..., 54.27 1..1, \0 Ih. Pa..' 01 h,I~"..o' Said T'o<>t of Ion" .""t.ln. 10,4\ ...'M,"''''...'..o,_It.....joc:t 10.........1. """'..trICI.... 01 ",,,,,ci PLAT/PLAN APPROVED by the City of Iowa City Clt Clerk Delli' UTILITY EA.SEl.IEflTS,...S $HO'Mll HERWfl, ......Y OR ~....y NOT, INCLUDE S....NIT...RY SEW[R LINES, ....NO/OR STORM SEVI(R UNES, ",""O/OR WATER ~INES : SEE CONSTRUCTION Pl.....NS FOR DET....ILS o ~&":~~~S(2~:~A,Ttt:l :;S~L~~JM>ICI VUli:n.~ SH/oO....SlUl LOCUS1, AlIT\I.... =~L.[o~SI1, REV SUol5n ",\.PL[, OIl SiII'A"P ~~~ ~~g: >~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,,<> 8 0--< c~:r: ~ AJ~F :< VI O~!E ~~~ Sil~lOl ",,~<;l ~~~ "'~c ~;l;!!;; ~~ G: \ljCC\1.L\11~':,'-',(w(J I/;!CFJ/ AfA DEVELOPMENT PLAN PART FOUR OWNf.RISUHD1VlDER DAV-EO UWITEO 2300 CAE DRIVE IOWA CITY, IOWA 52248 OlfNF.RISURnIVIDF.R' PRIWE VENTURES DE:VELOPJ.l!:NT, INC fl80 IoIAOISON AVENUE UNIT #3 NORTH UBERTY, IOW'A 52317 OWNF.R'S ATTORNF.Y WICHAEL J. PUGH TOWER PLACE ONE SOUTH CILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 _~~_.~". .~_~~,;.~ ~:-:;;:1-- - _ ~ _ ilELlIllSIE~II\l~ A?-Y~ -, ,- ,~. - ~f)....=-~ ~,~- :=~~~--- ~ I ''It'NA~''!1U.~.MoA' "'00'" '.'.-- ff ,;/o?,~~ ',/ -,- , ",.b- ' ;-',... 'iit.@'f"~n,- / " n". '/ ,/ "'~' ........--"f1'L~:' ~-~ ~---:';'-L_~,,(- "/L,_c~,-,,}t.,.. .,.,' ",i 1E';t==+:t ./ \ \\ 5)@ f!jg. '" f'5'59==1 ) \ ~ ~ ' ~'~~ ..-..1. ,\\. @l, ~@ &. VJ ....G<., \\." ...'^ ----.: ,;-:;.,;, ($.~ >;\.: I: /' /\;~ 'I ' I I \ '\ -'}", ',', ~,..' \ \, !fA",' "" 5)~ /):0~ J~ \. t" V; / 0 ..'~y'\\" \\; : ~t \ 0 !f!I>\ \ \\il. \\, ' ", ~~: '. '/~ ,. \\~ .. \\ .\./: ~0 " ' \", ',\ ~ \' \ ,.~... "~ 5)M,) " ,~:~~~ . \: \ ~., ..-j .,~I: ,.~0. 'II 'i' :~5) ~ . ;,1 ~_ ~ I \ r,i 'I II, 1,li i;,1 i 'Iii .. , I\', : ',1'" " '" ~ Iii: :'" \ \ q ',-'--- ,,\, '\ '\'01\ '" \\ @J~ . <%fBl "\y,-' ~1 \7,'. ":11,, ".:7 ($IBJ '\\\, \\" J \'~ " '\1>. \\\ ", .F#.. ',', Jr.' l:~, ~6 ' :", '\1\1 5)\ID " . '..:~~~~~~ii:~:~~ -r---\ - '~~(\ !m'l. \CIt\>? \~\ 1101\ I,g\! \~ o ~~ . mi~~E~N~J~~~!~H'tif~~;,~:) u~ HI >>l II II Ii B I nEe" l~, j!i~~~~~ ~oi ..1'",,,,,,,,, <J~~ ~.~!II tI:l ?S' ::d ~ ~ I~; ~iU ~ ~ ~ ~ i~oI.U~i01U!iJl1JlfJl (1I~ ------------" leJ VIla vr;; :<;2::(. LOOl/9l/6 OMP" J68Urr l\Oon\:9 (I)(I)(I)~~ ~l;j i1 O~! H 5 (/)zo::: 0 ..... ~~ - :!!:: 9 I~~IDI &3&1g;u Qil ~ ~-.:1 Ii jO::J ~ en ~i " I'ilZ><~ 5~ a.. i3j~::I::~ ~ (I)~~ ~ IooD z t- g31 ~ ~ ~~~ ge I ~~E ::J ~ . j ~ 1'ilP..::J =<1 o!:: h u::: >-;:;u. 8 ....J ~ Jl -'l~(I)"'1 E ~Iil ~ 5 fi C::l ~ 15 f- ~~ ::J en ~ ~ ~Ol en !5 ~j~iE ~ ~o ~H UJ z " [5~ Cl <i!~~ ~~~ 0 i' .i' de;; z: () ~n UJ en i i' l 1, - ~ ~ <9 (f) Q. Q...,Q :;; ! ~ ::. ~ t "--...., ~ < ~ ~ _ _0 .' ~ g:-.. ~ ~ ~ ~ I~~~ ~~:::;::J iI= ~ ~ iI: ~!!~~~~~ .....go 4: 4:4: ~~F~~~~~ ;~~~~;i;~~~ bI'O ~ ..,,,, '" - - ~~ 'j ~~~g~33g~3~~~~~g~~~~ ~ :=Je o~ ~~ ~ ~8 ~tl ~~ ~~ t3 ~ E!i o ~ E- I; ~ ~ <:r:: r; 9 ~ (f) .....:l i!S ~.,.., w 0... Z gj<:r:: I~~ ~ f- .....:l o~~ ~= g ~ <:r:: ........, 0........ !;:o ., Z U)!< ~~"'~ 0 ....... ........, .,; :;H ~ :iI ''''is Z i:;r..,>~E- ii!:'.38~<( I---l g 1----4 OjJ.,LQ!:3~ "r=l ~ ~ U ~ ~i~ I"'~~! J::<:IU),.,....... ~g ~ ~ tn ~~ -<:C 0 euu .. U) ~ ~8: ~tl, ooK38 ~~ " ~ i !"~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ gj ~g:; ~ ~ 8~G ~~ ~!:;~ ~E-< ::s~!2 ~~ ~~ c..J !;;o i" !;;~ :z: .,'" g ~~ Q..ro:Jt:Jo "~g~ . ~ gu u~~~ oSilgog , W N ",~ ~ :~ ~ r ~;::-'...'...'~ i;::- ~~~ ~~- ~'o g;"o "'"g hO~~' ~.~. . !". ~ (1)' .r ~ ~ ~33~3~ , " l' " , , .. " , , , , l' !'!'il~I~~ l' 0 '~~ 0 ~ ". ....i;; ~ ~ ~:-; . " "~ "< , . '", "0 In" ..... ~~ h i ~z~i~ ~ , ~ > , z > ~ > z ~ , "0 io io 5 , ". "0 ~ ", , , '" - ~oi'l - ~ "' ~I~I* - - ~~ "~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ - 5 ~ " ;., "- ~ "~ "- ", , - ~ " ", " - , , - 0 - - - - .. < ! ~ . ~ ~ ^ ~~ - - ~" "e "~ ~ , - " , , " ", j a - " "~ ~ ~ ~ ;.. "~ "~ - "~ "~ ~ " " ~ 0 0 - " " - - , , ~ :f, . . ~j , ~~ - ~. ~ ~ \5 '8 \5 \5 \5 .~ , \5 \5 \5 \5 ~ \5 " \5 \5 " B~ , io ~ ~ , ~ , ~ . d - - . " , ~ c c 0 , 0, ~ ^ , " ,0 g , \; .....~... ~ "' ". n ~- ~ "0 ~ .. ~ j:j~r "' - ;, " - ;, - '" . ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ""N- - G uu U ~ ~ G ~ ~ G U U u uu G U G G u B uu u ue u u ~8 u 5 u eu e "1"_ H, ~E~ it~ H · M ~ I .! .. . ~ I - .e ~ 0 1 "' ~ ". ] ~ 11 r & ~ ~ ~h ~ ~~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~~h t ~~ ~h ." 0 !- ~ mO. f to n~~~l'" oL g"~.g~ I "' ~~~g~~~ ~~~ ~~~8M ~ ~;t~~~: j !~i ~~~~!~i i ~ U;H~ld;~h~iii!~ ! i ~~~f f- af~.~gg~~~~a ~ _ , " I ~ :I ~ ., ~ --- "' !:S~~ CI u ~ ("" :j:!)'~'0II ~ ~!~ ~. ~'q~~"_dl ~Ill ~:! ;18 , ;i~ i " ~o~ ~G;~ ~@~i ~V10Vl ~8~~~ ~~F~~ '"15~i:jG ~S~~~~ O::J:i~t5 ZO:JIIlO III i i I I : o Z 4l<l<leo @ W C) W .J ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~rt);~ ~ @;j;4i) z z z o ill CD ~/ I- / I I v ~~ito ~ \~ @p.ti@ ~~\~T ~uA~ ~ ~...' ~ (Y~ / @;j;4i) . & " t' ~ "~ !il U ~S ~ ~$': !?:. 0 .. ~ ::i ;;: 0. U ~ / Preliminary MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 2007 - 7:30 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Brooks, Beth Koppes, Ann Freerks, Charlie Eastham, Wally Plahutnik, Dean Shannon, Terry Smith STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Adam Ralston, Sara Greenwood OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Porter, Kristine Wingate, AI Streb RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended denial, by a vote of 7-0, CZ07-0002, the rezoning of approximately 4.99 acres of property located along the north side of Rohret Road approximately % mile southwest of the intersection of Rohret Road and Landon Avenue from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R3). Call to Order: Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING ITEM: CZ07-0002, discussion of an application submitted by Streb Investment Partnership for a rezoning from County Agriculture (A) to Residential (R3) zone for approximately 4.99 acres of property located on the north side of Rohret Road approximately % mile southwest of the intersection of Rohret Road with Landon Avenue. Ralston said the purpose of the Fringe Area Agreement was to provide for orderly and efficient development patterns appropriate to a non-urbanized area, protect and preserve the fringe area's natural resources, accommodate development and economically provide services for future growth and development. The Fringe Area Agreement contained a land use map which identified appropriate land uses; the applicant's property was identified as appropriate for agricultural purposes. The Fringe Area Agreement sought to discourage development in areas which conflicted with the Johnson County Land Use Plan. The County's Land Use Plan discouraged development in the City's growth area unless it was contiguous to previous outward growth of the City. The application before the Commission would not be in compliance with either the Fringe Area Agreement or with the Johnson County Land Use Plan. The applicant had indicated that a well and septic system would be installed. A purpose of the Fringe Area Agreement was to "...effectively and economically provide services for future growth and development." A well system was not economical; over time as the City expanded outward existing rural residences would be switcher over to City services. Ralston said Staff recommended that CZ07-0002, a rezoning from Agriculture (A) to Residential (R3) be denied because it was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Fringe Area Agreement. Miklo said because this item was a county rezoning item, the Planning and Zoning Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council who would make a recommendation to the County. The recommend- ations would be reviewed by and a final decision made by the County Board of Supervisors. Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2007 Page 2 Plahutnik asked if there was just one house on the property. Ralston said there was not a house on the property. It is currently farmed along as part of the along with an adjacent property owned by the applicant. The surrounding use was agriculture with one house near by. Miklo said in an area zoned agriculture (A), there could be one house on a 40-acre tract of land, Residential (R3) could have one house on three acres of land, Residential (R5) could have one house on 5 acres. Eastham asked what type of surface was the road? Miklo said it was a chip-seal road. Eastham asked where the closest water service was located. Miklo said probably in Country Club Estates. Koppes asked Miklo for Staff's estimate as to when the growth area might reach this parcel of land. Miklo said it was unknown. Highway 965 had been identified as the boundary on the west, it would connect at Highway 1 to Highway 6. It was doubtful if development would occur before 10-years. Plahutnik asked what happened when homes that had existing water and sewer services were annexed into the city. Were those properties forced to begin utilizing City services? Miklo said that was negotiated at the time of the annex; it was one of the main reasons why the Fringe Area Agreement discouraged development on septic systems and private wells. In other situations where such development was in place there was difficulty incorporating them into the city. Eastham asked if Staff had received similar applications prior to this one? Miklo said he could not immediately recall any in Fringe Area C. Some had been requested in Fringe Area B; the City had recommended not approving those applications and the County had complied. In Fringe Area A, an area identified for growth by the County, some applications had been approved because they complied with the Fringe Area Agreement. Public discussion was opened. Bob Porter, 3136 Windy Meadow Lane, said he supported Staff's recommendation to deny this application, He'd also spoken with County Staff to urge them not to approve this application for rezoning. Porter said the history of a property being designated as a Farmstead was that the property had to be at least 10-acres in size to be classified as a Farmstead. Country Club estates already had a lot of infill capacity. This proposed rezoning was not in compliance with the Johnson County Land Use Plan. Kristine Winqate, 3136 Window Meadow Lane, said she and Porter worked for the school system. Development affected the school system; bussing was already an issue. AI Streb, said he owned 220 acres which had been platted for over 100 years. His daughter wanted to build a home and he wanted to give her 4-acres upon which to build it. It would be a good looking home. If he moved just a few yards to the west there would be no permits required. Streb said he owned the 220 contiguous acres of land which abutted this property. There was a dilapidated school house on the property and a rental house which the owner had not kept in repair. The County allowed a house to be bu'ilt on land zoned agricultural [40-acre parcel size], although he might have to get building permit. Miklo clarified by explaining that one farmstead designation per property was allowed. If a subdivision were requested then the City would review that particular application. Koppes asked how long the Johnson County Land Use Plan and Fringe Area Agreement had been in effect. Miklo thought approximately 6 years. Porter said there had already been one farmstead split of this property. It has been zoned agricultural for a very long time. The Corn Suitability Rating for this area was higher than 65, which was a very high rating. Public discussion was closed, Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2007 Page 3 Motion: Brooks made a motion to deny CZ07-0002, the rezoning of approximately 4.99 acres of property located along the north side of Rohret Road from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R3). Eastham seconded. Smith asked if it was unusual to have small parcels of land zoned Agricultural (A). Miklo said it was not unusual, he said they had received applications for rezoning requests for smaller tracts of land an when they did not comply with the fringe area agreement they were not approved. He said that in this case the applicant owns a much larger tract that surrounds this property so that it is still viable for agricultural uses. He said that in Fringe Area C the only recently approved rezoning request was on Kansas Avenue, where one area was zoned to residential but near by area of equal size was rezoned to agricultural. Koppes said that she recalled in that case they were simply moving the residential zoning. Koppes said she felt that the Fringe Area Agreement policy was clear. Plahutnik said he felt that Streb was going to get his house built one way or the other. It was unfortunate that that it had to be done this way and that the same issue would probably come before the Commission again. Smith said he agreed with Plahutnik. Did or would the Commission have any possibility of approving just one house given that this parcel has existed for a long time. Miklo said that there was an issue of consistency. If this one property was rezoned contradictory to the Land Use Plan and the Fringe Area Agreement, then would it be ok to also rezone the property across the street or down the road as well? He said that this area is clearly in the growth area and it is intended to be annexed into the city at some point in the future. He said that there have been difficulties when properties that were developed in the county have been annexed into the city. For example when Lindemann Heights was annexed the properties around Hummingbird Lane were strongly opposed to being annexed. He said that an additional concern for this property was that it is adjacent to the potential location of Highway 965 and that raised the question of the appropriateness of residential zoning. Greenwood said that the State Code and Fringe area were clear as to the rights of the City to regulate development in the Fringe Area. She said the intent was to give closer scrutiny for properties in the growth area to assure that development according to County standards did not interfere with future growth of the city. Freerks said the County Land Use Plan discouraged development in the City's growth area unless it was contiguous to previous outward growth of this city. This parcel did not comply with those criteria. The motion to deny was approved on vote of 7-0. OTHER ITEMS: Estham said he had attended the City Council's meeting on Tuesday evening. There had been a great deal of discussion regarding Camp Cardinal Road and St. Patrick's Church. Two council members had seemed in favor of universal design standards. Eastham said he did not believe that there were currently any provisions in the Comprehensive Plan or City Code that would require universal design. Eastham said he'd spoken with Wilburn after the City Council meeting; Wilburn had indicated an interest in meeting in January to see if they were on the same page. Eastham asked the Commission if they would be interested in convening a joint meeting with the City Council after the new councilors were elected to discern their level of interest in either setting new policies or if the Commission should be interpreting the current policies differently. Koppes said the Commission received their direction from the City Council. If the Commission wanted to re- direct their focus, they should review the Commission's work list. Freerks said that in the future it would be good if members could confer with the rest of the Commission to obtain the input from the entire Commission before initiating meetings with the City Council. Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2007 Page 4 Smith said he would be in favor of a joint meeting, especially since the revised City Code had been in effect for a period of time now. Miklo said there were really two issues at hand. Aesthetics of a parking lot, and Universal Design which applied to accessible housing for persons with disabilities. Brooks said he would like an opportunity in the future to discuss large parking lots. He felt there might be a need to hold unique situations such as this one to higher standards because the parking lot had the potential to sit un-used a majority of the week. If not designed carefully such a large parking lot could become a heat island, perhaps there could be alternative community uses which could be incorporated into the parking lot. Miklo said City Staff had seen a concept plan of the proposed church/campus and were pleased with it. Rather than having one large parking lot, the parking had been broken into three more manageable areas. Staff felt it had the potential to fit into the neighborhood setting; the final plan would be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Eastham made a motion to approve the August 16, 2007 meeting minutes as typed and corrected. Brooks seconded the motion. The motion was approved on a vote of 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Plahutnik make a motion to adjourn the Commission meeting 8:23 pm. Brooks seconded. The motion was approved on a vote of 7-0. Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill. s/pcd/m ins/p&z/2007 /9-20-07. doc r:: o 'iij ,~ E E o O't:l ... C'lO r:: C) ,- II> 5D:: Nil>"" ~gg C'lC'ClN r::'t:l ,- r:: r:: II> r::= .!!<C c.. ~ (3 C'CI ~ .2 C) z i= w w :E -J <C :E D:: o u.. 0 N >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - en CD W ..... >< >< >< >< >< >< 0 - co N >< W >< >< >< >< >< iiO 0 en >< >< >< W >< ..... >< 0 >< - .... N W W ..... 0 >< >< >< 0 >< >< - .... ..... W W W N 0 >< 0 >< >< >< - - 0 CD .... W 0 >< >< >< >< 0 >< >< CD .... ..... >< >< >< >< >< >< >< it; M 0 >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - It) en ..... >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ~ It) W 0 0 >< >< >< >< >< >< ~ It) W ..... >< >< >< >< >< >< 0 - M ..... 0 >< >< >< >< >< >< >< M It) w w ..... >< >< >< 0 0 0 >< - N ..... 0 >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - N co >< >< >< >< >< >< ..... >< - ..... (/) 0 N co E ~ ..... co 0 ..... ..... ..... 0 ..... ..... 0 ..... Qq~ - - - - - - - 1.O 1.O 1.O 1.O 1.O 1.O 1.O I-W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..ll: C E ~ UI :s 0 UI ra Q) =' C ..ll: J: ... C. J: C J: 0 .oJ Q) .oJ UI C. ra ra 'E Q) e ra l!! 0 0: J: E m w u.. ::s::: en en ctl IIi cJ <i u.i ~ c:i ....: z .... W W M >< >< >< >< a >< a - ,... (Q >< >< >< w w >< .... >< - a - 0 ,... 0) >< >< >< w w >< w - a a a ,... co w .... >< >< a >< >< >< >< - (Q 0 M >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ~ (Q w .... >< a >< >< >< >< >< ~ (Q W N >< >< >< a >< >< >< - N 0) W N >< >< >< >< >< a >< - .... (/) 0 E ~ 0 ..... co N co ..... ..... ..... 0 ..... ..... 0 ..... Q)'~ - - - - - - - 1.O 1.O 1.O 1.O 1.O 1.O 1.O I-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E ~ r:: In In In r:: 0 .lI:: C'CI .lI:: II> - r:: 0 .l: ... Q. ::I r:: .l: - II> .l: - Q) e In e Q. C'CI C'CI 'E C'CI 0 .l: E III W u.. ~ a: rJ) rJ) ro ai <i. W 3: c:i ....: z 0 C) z i= w w :E -J <C :E D:: o u.. ~ "U Q) (/) :J U X W ..........:;:, c c c Q) Q) Q) (/) (/) (/) ~.c.c Cl.<(<( .. II II II >- W Q) - ~><oo