HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-15-2008 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, May 12, 2008 - 6:30 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Lobby Conference Room
410 E. Washington Street
Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 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. Development Items
1. SUB06-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Dav-Ed Limited for a preliminary
plat of Galway Hills Parts 10 & 11, a 51-lot, 21.75-acre residential subdivision located at
Dublin Drive & Shannon Drive. (45-day limitation period: May 25, 2008)
2. SUB08-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Dav-Ed Limited for a final plat of
Galway Hills Parts 10 & 11, a 51-lot, 21.75-acre residential subdivision located at Dublin
Drive & Shannon Drive. (45-day limitation period: June 8, 2008)
3. SUB08-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Hendrickson for a preliminary
plat of Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums, a 2-lot, g.48-acre residential subdivision located
south of Melrose Avenue as an extension of Olive Court, Leamer Court, and Marietta
Avenue. (45-day limitation period: May 22, 2008)
D. Conditional Use Item
CU08-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Agudas Achim Congregation to
establish a cemetery on 4. 12-acres of property located south of Linder Road, west of Prairie
du Chien Road.
E. Discussion of amendments to Title 15, Land Subdivisions
Consideration of amendments to regulations pertaining to the subdivision and development
of land.
F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: May 1, 2008
G. Other
H. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
May 9, 2008
To:
Planning and Zoning Commission
From:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Re:
SUB06-00003 Galway Hills Parts 10 & 11 Preliminary Plat
During the May 1 st discussion of Galway Hills, a number of comments were made regarding
traffic on Dublin Drive and other streets in Galway Hills. The most recent traffic counts
available for this area were form August 2007. They were taken for a study aimed at
determining the traffic generated from a retirement community, such as Melrose Meadows.
JCCOG Transportation Planners have been conducting additional traffic counts this week. The
counting devices are bein~ collected on Friday, May 9. We hope to have numbers available for
the Commission's May 15 meeting.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Robert Miklo
Item: SUB08-00006 Galway Hills
Parts 10 and 11 Final Plat
Date: May 15, 2008
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Dav-Ed Limited
2300 Cae Drive
Iowa City, IA 52246
Contact Person:
Scott Pottorff
319351 8282
Requested Action:
Final plat approval
Purpose:
Part 10 - 35 residential lots
Part 11 - 16 residential lots
Location:
South of Dublin Drive
North of Shannon Drive
Size:
Part 10 -16.52 acres
Part 11 - 5.23 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Undeveloped, RS-5
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Residential and church, RS-5
South: Residential, OPD-8
East: School, P-1
West: Residential, RS-5
Comprehensive Plan:
Residential 2-8 dwelling units per acre
File Date:
April 24, 2008
June 8, 2008
45-Day Limitation Period:
60-Day Limitation Period:
June 23, 2008
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Commission is currently reviewing the preliminary plat of Galway Hills Parts10 and 11
(see staff report for SUB06-00003). Approval of this final plat depends on City Council
approval of the preliminary plat.
ANAL YSIS:
The final plats of Galway Hills Part 10 & 11 conform to the pending preliminary plat and
comply with the subdivision regulations. The City Attorney is reviewing legal papers.
The City Engineer is reviewing construction drawings. These documents should be
approved by staff prior to City Council consideration of the final plats. Assuming that the
Commission forwards a recommendation on the preliminary plat, the final plat may be
considered by the City Council at the same Council meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that SUB08-00006, the final plat of Galway Hills Parts 10 & 11, a
21.75-acre, 51-lot residential subdivision located south of Dublin Drive and north of
Shannon Drive be approved, subject to staff of approval of legal papers and construction
drawings and subject to Council approval of the preliminary plat.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Photograph
3. Final Plat
Approved by:
?/I')~~
Jeff Davidson, Director,
Department of Planning and Community Development
----,...
()
-N --C: () D..
CI) C))
Q) . -- --C:
~=t~
co
o
o
o
o
I
CO
o
CCl
:J
(f)
~
tj
~
~
~
~
tj
o
T"""
c:~
:::-.J CJ
C:O::::Q
:::-.J
=t
t:
ro
a..
-
CJ)
,...
D..
I
>-
ro
S
ro
C}
. .
Z
o
~
~
U
o
~
~
~
~
rJ'J
/'
en
a:
I
C
-
<0
o
o
o
o
I
CO
o
CO
:)
U)
~
(j
~
~
~
~
(j
o
T"""
t:::
ro
a..
-
(j)
I
>.
ro
~
ro
(!J
. .
Z
o
~
~
U
o
~
~
f-l
~
rJ)
0"'"
-J.-J --C: () a.
en tJJ
Q) . ~ --C:
~:t:~
~
tj
~
~
~
~
tj
C-t:
:::J CJ
CO::::Q
:::J
:t:
,....
a.
en
a:
I
c
-
CD
o
o
o
o
I
co
o
OJ
:J
Cf)
T"""
T"""
t
ro
a..
-
(j)
.-
I
~
ro
~
ro
(.9
. .
Z
o
......
~
U
o
~
~
~
......
rJ)
(0
o
o
o
o
I
CO
o
c:c
:::>
(f)
~
tj
~
~
~
~
tj
,.-
,.-
t::
ct1
(L
-
(f)
I
>-
ct1
~
ct1
C!J
. .
Z
o
""""
~
U
o
~
~
f-l
""""
rJJ
III
W
0::
~
&l
~
~~fQ~i3 ~a~~ ~n
rgz~~~ ~~iiil iil~~
t-' ~ ~ u c.. t!lQ~ il ~Q~
Z :i Il:: <>: ", o:ittl. B til!itl.
lZl p..:::>"<:oil t::h E ul!;
g 0 ~ ~ I ~~ ~ ~~
uj~~~ I M
~
I~~IIJI
z
~
E--<
E--< 5 ~
~ ;~!)I
~ ~~;=
P-< ~:l5l
~ <.;-,! ~~t:
· I (r) gtl
,,~< , - ~ ..
, ~ " iil"
". i .~ ~~~.
~ '~~ _~</!L
! 0 ~ '
....\/)...... '~
't-< ;=
" ,;.:> >=; a
, >-< -+-> '01 <
,:1 SCG, -~5 Ii ! ~~
~, ~ ~ (\5 ~~B= 1 !J
A~! ~.~<;ol~5l (f) ~lli 1_ ii d!
"J ! {": ~t;~ ~ III>I~~ Ih Id I
e ~~<'j~~!)I 0 1IIIIft Hi ill i
! d ~ ~ ~ z HU~~ *~ ~
&! ~ < 0 tt... ~t Ie 5. III
~::r:: 8:il5 Z "'" '''''''I '''I1J- ~I~
~ ~ a~~ ~ III Ii ~ . :i~
~ Z -4<<100 . I i I I ~~ W :fil
......:l W I, II u! -!I
~ () ,I I .
CJ ~ I i I: ~ EAST UNE SVOI - NEll or SECTION ,.
5OO'0'02"E 1
~~:;~:J~~:S~~~35~
;~ II~
~ it I~I
~(0'>>~:~
~ ~'\j
~~i=i
='I ~ rl~
~@, ~~b
!1;2i .'
~
';?
I- (/)' u
<( -'Z ~;o ~
..J :::! 0 ~:s~~ ~ ~
a.. J: - Z w~~ll. :;) ~
>-~w iEL;ji:::iE 0 ~
I <(>1- o..zJ,'" u ::>
... - ow....w ~z en
<C $:Cll-iSiEiSiEug ~
Z <i!~~ ~:s~:s ~~~~
LL C)(/) ll. '" Vl QQQ~ ~
iB ~~IJiJ!~ i!~JJljAJ'lg:!
~i :~!I!I fa~ll~i~il~~i~
~i ~j~JJ8 i~~.~J~i=f~J <~
11 fl!j~g iii~f!ilil~!!~;~!
I~ fJ~I~! JiJ~~~~.jJj:5~. fl
~ ~;J~;! iJ~~il~j! IAf~l~i
i. J~Jl~~ ~il~~~~~~ifJ!jJgl
f~ ~1~:i'-~~~;i~~fl~~~~~I~i~
!l tljfll~i~'!Jff~ ~~i~!fljl
; ~~. !~!~I~~ ~!1~3A3l.~i!3
I: jiiifj~!Jlk:J~i!!i!I;i!i!
lt 1Jl' I~"ij~~i~~~ifi~l Ail
~JI if~jJI~6~JI~~l~ll~~~lJi~1
ii I ~iH;~~~~~F!;;j)~~I~i f!~
;;! ~!IJIIJ:ii:i:~!tIJ~~!~~li
Ili €Ji~J.i8~~'!;~~B~irlj5IJ~
t s JJ~i8~~3~~~"~ 8~~~~3~~
tl~ Ji~31~~~j!~~!!:5:5J~~gti!!i
i!i ill:~iii~!Jjilf~jfti;!~li
J~J 1€~~ijij~~i!~liiJijijc~~t
fil, J:fjlifiii~:~;f~~fjf!~A;f
jj iil.~lf'~JI'fil~~~5~1~ii~
fJI 11~1 ii!iJi J ;l;;i~:lfi~
9 ~ ~ -
;::;i e. ~
i
;gJ j ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ (5 ~
E E <" ~
}fJP~
J
~
~
tN
~
n=
iQ)
d
~
I j
~
~
t ~
I l
~
j; i
~ ~
j "
~
~ ~ ~ 1 I
.t
t /
g ~ I I ~ ! i~
II ! ~ 11 ;*~~~~
R i 51 51 ~ I~
Inn !~m
~~in i 1111
')""",
I II
III! i RI dl
I !i ~ I~~ Ii!" ! I
il!i : ~!!~i!!.:"" ,II I
~ ~ III!.
II~; ~ ~u 81: II I! Q~!
i~~ .J : I
~ i1
..:ala
~~I + I
III! U! I
~~Ur
~~I~I ~
~Wl ~:~ O@
~ ~'(j I?
~~i~1
d ~ ll~
~@,~~~
~ .'
: ! I ---~,>\ ~
'! ~ i\\'\
L~\l)~~ ,\
.lW11[l:l) L (1)_ ~ ~.~ '<' / / /
'1I'!I!l~_~[liOJ - J",?( ~ O@" /' / ///:.~~..~
::::Tm_-=:J--_ -- ~. O@ 1 /' / ,/' /~~~'
I r----...: ~~ 'V"" ,/ ./:/::1':~::':V"
Q)CL; i _. .-1-"
~
a..
..J
<3::
Z
LL
en' cj",o-
...JzZ.:t ~ ~ 'i' ;:: -
...JOW~l!lil!. ~ ui;;;' J' ~
I->III"'!~ ~ !z ,U j 'i
enw..'l!:j5 0 <( j 1
>->...Jl!l~.l.1i: U :i I jl .
:;5_Wz~-~~Z ~ g; ~ ul tit)
;>C::lt-~ I uO Z ,. oi' bN
...J1IlD::lI<l!l l!l<(~,:( 8 .. ... ~ ~
<(:J<(il: ~:c~ }")20","
<9 en a.. " QQQ~A J~r~
:=,1' vii ~I ::'11;' LI
ICJ I.! 'Pdl": r
'.:' f' . i"'r ',,) /I.i/ \
..- '9'~
1A'.ll II- !II
'll
~ .to s ! I
i:'3 III Ii! I
I I
iUM
iu
II)
J
I !
; I
I ~
I I
I ·
I f
I f
~
/
/
/
\ \ ylll'~
\ \ / / J 1;I;rl~
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 9, 2008
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
RE: SUB08-00002 - Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums
Due to an omission from the agenda for your May 1, 2008 meeting, approval of the
subdivision creating the Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums has been added to this
week's agenda.
As stated previously, staff recommends approval of SUB08-00002, a 2-lot, 9A8-acre
subdivision located south of the terminus of Olive Court and Leamer Court and north
of Tower Court.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 24, 2008
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Doug Ongie, Planning Intern
RE: CU08-00001 Agudas Achim Cemetery Expansion
Johnson County has received an application from the Agudas Achim Congregation
requesting a conditional use permit for 4.12 acres of land located at Outlot A, Batterson
Corner. The applicant wishes to expand an existing cemetery in order to increase its
capacity. The property is located north of Iowa City's City Limits in Fringe Area A and is
included within the growth area of the city.
The Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance permits cities to review conditional
use permits for applications within their extra-territorial jurisdiction. A conditional use permit
requires a 4/5-majority vote of the County Board of Adjustment to approve a permit opposed
by the City Council.
Zoning Requirements:
Cemeteries are allowed in the County Agricultural Zone by conditional use permit. In 2006,
the property was rezoned from County Residential to County Agricultural (CZ06-00001) with
the expectation that the cemetery would expand in the future. During the review of that
rezoning application, staff had a concern about parking due to the narrowness of Linder
Road and the presence of only two existing off-street parking spaces. Staff recommended
that additional parking be provided when the County reviewed the conditional use permit.
The proposed cemetery expansion will provide a drive from Linder Road and seven parking
spaces. Additionally, the 18-foot drive and 16-foot loop will provide sufficient room for
vehicles to park without disrupting traffic flow.
Compatibility with City Plans:
The property is located within the City's growth area. Therefore, it is likely that the property
will be annexed into Iowa City in the future. Staff believes that the open space use of the
property as a cemetery is an appropriate use because it is adjacent to Interstate 80.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of Adjustment
recommending that the application submitted by the Agudas Achim Congregation for a
conditional use permit for the expansion of a cemetery be approved subject to general
compliance with the submitted plans.
May 8, 2008
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map/Aerial Photograph
2. Conditional Use Permit Application
3. Site Plan
Approved by: ~~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
~
t3
~
~
~
~
t3
LL
o
>-
I-
U
Ln
C
~.
01
N
,...
en
a:
.,.....
o
o
o
o
I
co
o
::>
()
c
o
"(1)
c
~
Q.
X
Q)
>.
~
Q)
+-'
Q)
E
Q)
()
E
"-
..c
()
<(
(1)
~
"0
::J
0)
<(
. .
Z
o
~
~
U
o
~
~
~
~
rJ)
~
tj
~
~
~
~
tj
,.-
.0
o
o
o
I
00
o
::>
()
c
o
"00
c
ro
Q.
X
Q)
>-
~
Q)
+-'
Q)
E
Q)
()
E
"-
J::
()
<(
00
ro
"tJ
::J
0)
<(
. .
Z
o
i-oo(
~
U
o
~
~
~
i-oo(
en
gj fQ fQ [3 ~ l;i~n ~~~
~~IIJ I ~~~~~ Il!t igi
o ~ p:: >a '" "'1:" I;;~
Zc..::>:;a=l~ti ,,~
'" (I)~~~~ .~;
~~~~~ I ~
~lEi
II
"
Z < ~~~ '
o ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ I; ,i
~ ~ S :SI'I'
~ 0 ~~
Z p,.. ~ U ~.~ I
j fil ~ z ~ ~:I ,I
p.. '" ~ g ~ ~i "
>il:;] '" ~q. 'I
E-< ~ u g ~ """ I
- ~ 2'1 .~ .~~ '
CIl~:r:Q ~~~'I
~ u c5 ~~~ I
0<1>: nl'
u ~ I>: ~~~'I
E3 @ ~~~I';
~::l o~~,1
"
II
"
'I
I,
:1
I,
:1
>
j
~
i
.
"
~
;~~ \
~~"""J'"
..t? .J~ ~~Jlcn,. ~
""'''W
----.- ------1
I
I
I
I
I
'" 'l;. 'l{t;~
I \\\ I ~~<> \
I ~~ I ~ \ \.
~ ~~.. y ~<\
I~I
I
'\
\---
\
\
~
~
"'l " I
Z ~:1\
15 oJl
< I
~ . ~I
~ ~ ~
8~E ~I
~~~~~
<::>I<-<><b
1>:1:il ~ ~ g ~
~El~_o",
~~u~p.;9
CIl~
, [;J I>:
<uo
, <,
E-<"''''
O~tIJ
....:I...'"
!:;nel
Or:J<
~~
'"
.6Z,90.ION
.
"'l
/
il ft / ~~ .
~~l ~ / ~~ Is
! ~I!! i ~~ ~~~ "~
J (/) ~~:~~t;;: ~~ ;;~..ii
~ w !~~" 1.) a~~ .~j~~h ~
6 wH;t iii~i~~~U~!
Z ~~~~R~)~~ ~~~~ili~~ ~
O ~nu"ia~ ~~9gwwJtl ~
I I 1 I I I I j I
Z'"'' I i
~ i
€~51
~
~
o
Z 4l4<jeo @
W
o
W
.J
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
{l:l).Qt1 _.1
OO~1K6.'VlS -:
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
I
(~).Ofl: __ . __ ___I
-'--",,.,,~ - .- - i
I
I
,
f
I
I
ZUJi5
5~~
a.~1
WE~
f-Cl~
-~~
C/)u~
. Q::~
<C~Q
:gsg
r-U=
0i58
...J~g
r-wz:
::)~Q
Od'ii'?
I
I
I
i
i---
!
l
i
!
I
/
~8~?-.:--~
-: ~~ ~ . <
~ ~~ ~ 't ~
~ ~L~ 1 '{!
~ g~gg8~
o to t d ~ ~
~~trlr;2;"
o
.
"
;::>
ill
.
ill
/"
o
o
o
10
.
10
/"
"
o
"'
/"
"
,
(~J.c;iH ._ _ J
-.------OO'~~ - -- !
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
i
,
~
.
"
~
~
~
(~).<;&l
I
,
!~
/g
,~
If
jf!J
,
I
,
-__J
Q.,
<
:::g~
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 1, 2008 -7:30 PM - FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Charlie Eastham, Tim Weitzel, Robert Brooks, Elizabeth Koppes,
Ann Freerks
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jeff Hendrickson, Ron Amelon, Harold Partt, Stepheny Gahn, Caroline
Mast, Renee Goetts, Anna Olson, Sue Hettmansperger, Chris Anderson,
Doris, Eikey, Aaron Olson, Caroline Massegene, Josh Gahn, Chris
Luzzie, Elizabeth Goetzman, Jim Woodin, Nancy LeaVesseur , Shannon
Bartholomew, Jay LeaVesseur, Heather Woodin, Charlotte Bailey, Tori
Jones, Lee Mickey.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL:
Recommend approval by a vote of 5-0 amending the Land Use Map to change the land use designation
from industrial to general commercial for approximately 10 acres located north of 420th Street, east of
Scott Boulevard and west of Commerce Drive.
Recommend approval by a vote of 5-0 REZ08-00003, an application to rezone from Intensive
Commercial (CI-1) to Community Commercial (CC-2) for approximately 10.08 acres located north of
Highway 6 west of Commerce Drive and north of Liberty Drive.
Recommend approval by a vote of 5-0 REZ08-00001, an application to rezone from Medium Density
Single Family (RS-8) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-8) for approximately 9.48 acres of
property located south of Olive Court and Leamer Court and east of Marietta Avenue.
Recommend approval by a vote of 5-0 SUB08-00001, and application submitted for a preliminary plat of
Kennedy's Waterfront Addition Part Five, a 4-lot, 6.48 acre commercial subdivision located west of S.
Gilbert Street, south of Stevens Drive.
Recommend approval by a vote of 5-0 VAC08-00002, an application submitted to vacate Northtowne
Parkway located east of Northgate Drive and to relocate the street to the north.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Freerks announced that item G. "Discussion of amendments to Title 15, Land Subdivisions" would be
deferred until next formal meeting, to take place on May 15, 2008.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM:
A public hearing was held to for an amendment to the Land Use Map to change the land use designation
from industrial to general commercial for approximately 10 acres located north of 420th Street, east of
Scott Boulevard and west of Commerce Drive.
Howard reminded members that at the last meeting it was noted that in order to rezone this property from
Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Community Commercial (CC-2), a comprehensive plan amendment is
needed. Howard referred to a map that showed what the zone looked like presently, and what it would
look like if the amendment was passed. Howard stated that when considering whether or not to amend
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 1, 2008
Page 2
the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council should determine what
circumstances have changed, and/or additional information or factors that come to light, such that the
proposed amendment is in the public interest. Howard stated that there were a number of things that had
changed in this situation that may make a change to the Comprehensive Plan warranted, such as the
establishment of a Fareway grocery store and a convenience store on these properties, leaving only
about six smaller intensive commercial lots in the that area. Given the size and proximity to the grocery
store, Howard stated that those remaining lots may be more conducive to community commercial/retail
commercial use. Howard pointed out that given that only six lots are remaining, this may be a good idea.
According to Howard, the Comprehensive Plan calls for retail nodes at the intersections of arterial streets,
and that would be the case here. Howard points out that as the city grows to the south and the east, there
may be more residential areas that these commercial nodes could serve. Howard stated that this is also a
high industrial employment area and that those commercial nodes may serve those employees. Given all
those factors, staff recommended this change.
There were no questions for staff from the Commission, and the public hearing was opened for anyone
wishing to speak. No one spoke, and the public hearing was closed.
Eastham moved to recommend the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Koppes seconded the
motion.
Eastham noted that although this change at the intersection may be warranted, in the future it may be
better to be diligent in making sure that the city does not wind up with strip development along Scott
Boulevard, and that if there is more commercial development along that area it would be better if it were
more of a planned development style similar to aide Towne Village.
Freerks stated that there was a good chunk of commercial in that area and that she would be in favor of
the change as well.
The motion carried in a 5-0 vote.
REZONING ITEM:
REZ08-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Streb Investment Partnership for a rezoning
from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) for approximately 10.08 acres
located north of Highway 6 west of Commerce Drive and north of Liberty Drive. The 45-day limitation
period is May, 22, 2008.
Freerks asked if staff had comments. Howard stated that she had nothing to add beyond last meeting's
discussions on the matter. The panel had no additional questions for staff. The public hearing was
opened. No one came forward, and the hearing was closed.
Brooks made a motion to approve an application submitted by Streb Investment Partnership for a
rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) for approximately
10.08 acres located north of Highway 6 west of Commerce Drive and north of Liberty Drive. Eastham
seconded. The motion carried 5-0.
REZ08-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Hendrickson for a rezoning from Medium
Density Single Family (RS-8) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-8) for approximately 9.48
acres of property located south of Olive Court and Leamer Court and east of Marietta Avenue. The 45-
day limitation period is May 25, 2008.
Freerks asked if there were comments from staff on this issue.
Howard noted that there had been correspondence on this issue which she had handed out to members.
Howard stated that a few things had been resolved since the last meeting. At the last meeting, several
neighbors mentioned an issue regarding drainage, standing water, and a resulting mosquito problem with
the western portion of the property. The applicant has offered to try to resolve that issue. The problem is
that there is a poorly functioning storm water system. There are two pipes that outlet draining down from
Marietta, and then from the west, draining into a ravine which is plugged up and leaving un-drained
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 1, 2008
Page 3
standing water. There is also a small dam in the area which is keeping the water from flowing. Howard
stated that the applicant's engineer could provide more detailed information on the subject, but that staff
feels that this would be a good change and would add value to the property, as well as resolving some
issues for the neighborhood.
Howard noted that the final geo-technical report from Terra-Con has been received and that it indicates
that, based on soil borings taken from the site, the stability of the slopes is adequate for the project.
Terra-Con noted that a more detailed structural analysis should be done prior to the construction of the
retaining walls and the buildings, which staff also noted on their previous report. Preliminary side and rear
elevation drawings of the proposed dwelling have been received. There have also been notes added to
the plan regarding tree preservation and having an on-site meeting prior to grading regarding designation
of which trees will be preserved and ensuring that erosion control measures are in place. The note that
staff mentioned has also been added to the plan regarding variation in design for adjacent buildings.
Howard noted that the City does require a construction site run-off permit, and finalized grading and
construction plans will be more detailed, including that structural analysis for the buildings and the
retaining walls. The tree-protection plan should be received in the final plan stage of this project. These
will be done at the time of final administrative review prior to the issuance of building permits
Howard stated that given that these issues have been resolved to the extent possible at this preliminary
plan stage, staff is now recommending approval of REZ08-00001 and SUB08-00002.
Freerks asked if there were questions for staff.
Eastham asked if the area which has the problem with stagnant water was actually west of the applicant's
property, and if the retention dam blamed as the source of the problem was actually on the applicant's
property or on someone else's.
Howard replied that the dam is on the applicant's property; however the storm water pipes that are out-
letting are on a different property. There are two ends of pipes that dump water onto that property and
onto the applicant's dam. Howard stated that the applicant's engineer could answer those questions in
more detail.
Miklo pointed out that the City's engineer feels that the best solution would be to hook into the pipe and
then pipe the water out of the area; a plan which is likely to require an easement from the adjoining
property owner. The applicant will seek that easement as the preferred solution; however, if that is not
possible there may be other solutions.
Freerks asked if there were any other questions for staff, and when there were none.
The public hearing was opened. The applicant was invited to speak first and address the drainage issues.
Jeff Hendrickson, the developer and applicant, stated that what appears to have happened is that
approximately a ten acre run-off from the west and south of University Heights all drains into that area.
Hendrickson stated that while he is unaware of whether or not the dam was intentional and functional, his
engineer, Ron Amelon would know. Hendrickson stated that what they would like to do is to hook up to
the existing outlet on the neighbor's property, and run it into their new storm sewer system all the way
down to their retention facility. His understanding is that this would totally dry up that area, and eliminate
the problems.
Eastham stated that solving the drainage issues in this way was a laudable thing to do, but asked if
Hendrickson was then accepting any kind of liability for run-off and drainage issues.
Hendrickson said that Ron was better equipped to answer that, but that he would probably say yes,
because he didn't think there would be any further drainage issues if their plan was enacted.
Ron Amelon with MMS Consultants stated that he and people from the City's Planning and Engineering
departments went up and walked the site on the west of the property which has the drainage issues.
Amelon said presently there is a 21 inch standard storm sewer that comes down from University Heights
to the west, and then another 12 inch storm sewer that comes from Marietta and the south down to the
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 1, 2008
Page 4
ravine. Both of these pipes outlet discharge there. About 100 feet east of the proposed development
property, the previous property owner had created a dam across the ravine, for the assumed purpose of
driving cars back and forth during tailgating season. They put in a 15-inch corrugated metal type culvert to
go underneath across the embankment/dam that they had built. There is enough debris, plant material,
and litter down in that area to appear that the opening of the culvert has been plugged, causing water to
back up. Amelon stated that if the debris was removed, it looked like it would still be a wet area. As a
result of discussions with the City Engineer, they both felt it would be best to connect the storm sewer into
the storm sewer from University Heights. That way, the flow is intercepted and conveyed in a pipe down
to their basin, leaving less water discharged onto the ground. Where the dam was built, an intake box
with openings that are 15 inches high 3 feet wide will be installed on either side of it. This way, any
surface run-off that the storm sewer doesn't collect, will be collected in the box and then conveyed
through the storm sewer. Amelon stated that the result will be to completely drain the area so that there
will no longer be standing water.
Eastham, wanting to make sure he understood correctly, asked if the dam that was not working very well
was located on the applicant's property. Amelon affirmed that it was. Eastham asked if in Amelon's
opinion that dam is causing water to back up to the west. Amelon stated that it was. Eastham asked if for
Amelon's solution to function properly he needed to connect to the storm water system. Amelon said that
he felt it would be better to connect to it because you keep the water in a pipe and lessen the chance for
erosion and increase chances for establishing vegetation. Eastham asked Amelon if he would then
remove the dam. Amelon stated that he would recreate the berm at a lower height in order to maintain the
integrity of the existing slopes. This way if the capacity of the storm sewers is exceeded, the water will no
longer back up into the neighboring property, and will not lead to erodible conditions. Eastham asked
what would happen if they were unable to obtain the easement needed to connect to the storm sewers.
Amelon stated that if that was the case, they would just put a dead end section on their property and then
put some rip-rap and rock between the two pipes to try to keep it from eroding and to try to stabilize that
section on their property. Eastham asked if they would then still lower the berm. Amelon stated that they
would continue with the berm revisions as planned.
Freerks asked if the slopes in question were steep, critical or protected slopes, and how that would affect
the percentages discussed in the last meeting. Amelon stated that he believed they were steep slopes up
to critical slopes, but that he believed it was a very small percentage, less than 1/100th of an acre.
Harold Pratt, 5th Avenue, said that the ravine to the south and west of his residence has three springs that
sometimes run full throttle. He said that this is what is causing the back-up. He said the previous property
owner had put the dam up there and backed everything up into people's yards.
Stepheny Gahn, 52 Highland Drive, said that she was there to plead with commission members to take
the time to put together an exploratory committee to find some funding source to purchase this land and
keep it a green space.
Caroline Mast, 111 Highland Drive, whose property goes into the ravine that connects to this area said
she was very concerned about water runoff and how it might eventually back up to her property and that
of her neighbors. Mast advised that the Natural Resource Commission Service out of Sigourney should
be contacted to evaluate the project and the property, rather than relying on engineers that work for either
the City or the developer. Mast said that someone who really is looking after the natural resources of our
in-some-ways public land should evaluate this property as green space. She would appreciate the
Commission taking this recommendation under consideration.
Renee Goetts, 103 Highland Drive, one of the neighbors who lives on the ravine to the west of the
proposed development, has been looking over the proposal and the minutes of the last meeting and has
several concerns. While she wishes to be clear that she is not necessarily anti-development for that
property, she believes the development proposal as placed before the committee is flawed in a number of
ways. Firstly, she objects to the developer's plans to be under construction for at least 48 months. Goetts
said that if he follows the business model of his past developments, he will build a unit, sell it, and then
use the capital to build the next unit. Four years of continuous development would unduly stress the
residents of Marietta with heavy moving equipment, noise and traffic problems. Goetts stated that it could
well take more than 48 months to complete construction because if continued construction is contingent
on sale of existing units, the nationwide mortgage crisis could come into play. So-called "jumbo" loans,
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 1, 2008
Page 5
mortgages exceeding $417,000, are increasingly difficult to get and it is exactly this price-range to which
this development will be marketed. Goetts stated that residents would be looking at constant noise in the
area for four years as well as environmental damage in the form of soil erosion and run-off. Secondly,
Goetts said, the report states that 72% of the green space will remain intact. Goetts maintains that that is
only true if you leave the ravine out of the equation, as the ravine as it stands right now is not easily
developable. Goetts said that the current proposal does not include having someone come in to fill it and
put in the appropriate drainage. The claim that 72% of the green space will be maintained, said Goetts,
will require excessive clustering on the remaining area. The proposal argues that the density for this
property is lower than surrounding areas. However, according to Goetts, if you leave the ravine out of the
equation it is actually quite a bit higher. If 20% of the green space that is currently in that field is left after
development, Goetts would be very surprised. Goetts said that there seems to be an indication of a dry-
bottom retaining area that will be maintained in the ravine. Goetts said that if she was understanding it
correctly, this would be another area of standing water similar to Melrose Lake. Goetts urged Amelon to
correct her if she was wrong, but as she sees the current proposal there is no plan right now to install any
kind of aeration system to reduce algae and disease-bearing mosquitoes. Goetts noted that reports of
West Nile virus coming into the Midwest are heard each year. Finally, Goetts asked for an independent
environmental impact analysis to be done by an engineering firm not hired by or beholden to Mr.
Hendrickson's firm. Goetts asked the commission to consider asking that the proposal reduce the number
of units, to reduce run-off, and require that the project start and finish in a much more timely fashion.
Anna Olson, 79 Olive Court, at the last meeting heard and voiced numerous concerns regarding
increased traffic resulting from the proposed development. Olson asked for follow-ups on traffic control
measures that had been discussed, specifically a fire-gate or a way to limit the loop from Olive Court onto
Koser.
Freerks asked if staff had looked into a fire-gate. Howard replied that the Fire Department and Public
Works Department would not recommend a fire-gate because it is being proposed on a public street.
Miklo added that if one recalled some of the numbers from the last meeting, even with this development,
this will be a low volume street. Howard commented that the fire-gate that was mentioned at the last
meeting was a fire-gate on a private drive and a street between an apartment complex and a low-density
area. As a result, in that case it is a fire-gate only for fire access, whereas in this case it would be
basically putting a gate across a public street. Freerks asked if there was a precedent for doing that.
Howard responded that the one spot where the residents requested that was due to fear of the slope and
serious speeding by teenagers up and down the hill. Miklo added that that was Lexington Street and that
there were documented speed problems on that street. Howard pointed out that the City does have a
traffic-calming program and that while staff does not believe that there will be a traffic problem, if in the
future one arises, there are methods that can be put in place to calm traffic.
Sue Hettmansperger, 114 Highland Drive, wanted to make sure that the commission had received an e-
mail from her. Freerks confirmed that they did receive her e-mail. Hettmansperger said that the nature of
the e-mail concurs with a previous speaker's concerns regarding excessive clustering. Hettmansperger
stated that in order to be in keeping with the quality and character of the existing community, single family
dwellings would be the preferred mode of development. Hettmansperger questions why single family
home development wouldn't be the first option for development, although the most desirable outcome for
the property in her opinion would be to maintain it as green space. Hettmansperger states that she is
opposed to the project because she believes that it is high density clustering although the developers say
otherwise.
Chris Anderson, 22 Leamer Court, responded to staff statements that traffic would not be a problem on
the streets. Anderson maintains that the street will become a thoroughfare and a speed trap. Anderson
said that she had heard comments on the speed of the individuals trying to get into the Neuzil property by
people who were unaware of the proposed development, and that by opening up the street she
guarantees that a problem will be created. She stated that while the current numbers do not back up her
claim of a traffic problem, she has seen it first-hand, and it will be a problem in the future. She pointed out
in the last meeting that Koser is used to bypass Melrose Avenue, and that if the streets are hooked up
into a thoroughfare Koser will be used to by-pass traffic on Melrose even more frequently. She believes it
is an area where people like to take shortcuts and that they will do so.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 1, 2008
Page 6
Doris Eikey, 33 Highland Drive, stated that she completely agreed with everything that has already been
said. She also believes that four years of construction sounds like a nightmare of pOllution and noise to
her. She stated that she is thinking of moving if the project is approved. She said that Mr. Hendrickson
had stated that it may even take five years to complete when asked at a developers meeting that she had
attended. Eikey pointed out that construction in particular usually takes more time than originally planned.
Eikey is particularly upset because she does not believe that the condos in this project will sell in the
current real estate market. She noted that in a meeting with Hendrickson, he stated that one of the prime
markets for these high-end condos would be people looking for second homes. Eikey said that all of the
pundits agree that in the current real estate market, second homes would be the first market to decline in
sales. Eikey maintains that even if people can afford to buy second homes they will want to purchase
them in scenic locations, not where they would be marooned in the middle of University Heights. Eikey
does not believe they will sell and is afraid they will never actually be completed, that there will be empty
structures in what is essentially a field. Empty structures, Eikey stated, are known to be crime magnets
and to result in lowered property valu~s for their neighbors. She does not know if it is something that can
be taken into account, but she does not think that the development will be a success.
Aaron Olson, 79 Olive Court, asked for forgiveness on his ignorance of the process, but wanted to know if
the Commission's ultimate purpose was to act in the best public interest, and, if so, was curious to know
in what way this project is in the public interest. He said that he had not heard from staff in making their
recommendation to approve any rationale that defined how the pUblic interest was served. Olson said that
the best rationale he could come up with was that it would increase tax dollars to the City, which he
acknowledged was in the public interest. He noted that the project certainly decreased green space,
which is not in the public interest. He imagined that it would eliminate a tailgating issue which he believed
was in the public interest, although he thinks there would certainly be alternative ways to do that. He said
that he was hoping to hear some rationale from the people who matter, who will either approve or deny
the project, why they think it would be in the public interest.
Freerks stated that they would have discussion after the public hearing as generally they do not discuss
at that point in the meeting. She pointed out however that the Planning & Zoning Commission is not a
political entity like the City Council, and that they operate in a different fashion with codes and regulations
and standards that apply the same to everyone.
Olson asked if they had a mission that they work on or a common goal. Freerks asked if Greenwood-
Hektoen wanted to clarify a little. Greenwood-Hektoen stated that the Commission certainly has its by-
laws that it is governed by and advised Olson that the ordinances set forth the standards that the
Commission takes under consideration when they're making their recommendation. Olson asked if she
could provide a couple sentence summary of what those standards were. Greenwood-Hektoen referred
him to the internet for the ordinances and advised him that the staff reports basically walk through the
requirements step by step. Freerks stated that the Commission is governed by the Comprehensive Plan,
a well-thought through document that has been developed over many years. Olson asked if acting in the
public interest was a part of the Comprehensive Plan. Miklo stated that the role of the Commission is to
make a Comprehensive Plan and then to implement ordinances and regulations to enact it. Miklo said
that the public interest is a big part of that. Part of every decision the Commission makes, is to look at the
Comprehensive Plan, the environmental regulations to determine whether the proposal meets that plan.
Miklo stated that the Commission cannot require someone to keep their property open as green space.
As long as the property owner's plan is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning
regulations, Miklo said, it is very difficult for the City to deny a proposal. Miklo stated that in their last staff
report they did go into some detail about how they believed this proposal to be in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, and that whether the Commission agrees or does not agree with that they will state
before voting tonight how they believe it does or not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Olson asked if
it was even difficult to deny a zoning change. Miklo responded that if a zoning change does not comply
with the Comprehensive Plan, it is possible to deny it. Miklo said that you cannot be arbitrary and
capricious, and must have some pretty good reasons for denial. Freerks pointed out that the
recommendation the Commission makes then goes to City Council. Olson concluded by saying that he
was interested in hearing what would happen if the project did struggle.
Caroline Massegene, University Heights, asked if the fact that this was an Iowa City Planning and Zoning
Commission and the neighborhood that would be affected by the project is in University Heights had any
impact on their decision, and whether they take into account the effect of a project on surrounding
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 1, 2008
Page 7
communities. She pointed out that she had so far heard of a storm drain on just one end of the property,
but that her ravine is further up, ahead of that storm drain. She believes that the project will affect the
ravine further west than has been discussed, and wanted to know if this was being considered by the
Commission.
Freerks stated that the Commission did indeed look at the whole area under consideration and did not
want to create massive issues for someone on the other side of the property line. To avoid that, engineers
and others are hired to look at these projects in detail, and to assure the Commission that those issues do
not hurt nearby property owners. Massengene asked if they considered even up to a block and half away
from the proposed project. Her concern was that she bought her property knowing that it was somewhat
of a watershed for University Heights and building with that much cement in a development that has
drainage in a ravine makes it difficult for her to believe that it won't back up.
Josh Gahn, 62 Highland Drive, stated that his wife and he were in the military for ten years and that they
chose 62 Highland Drive, their dream home, over any other place in the world. He pleaded with the
Commission to put as much passion and time into this decision as they all have, and to make the right
decision for all of the citizens of Iowa City and University Heights.
Chris Luzzie, 338 Koser Avenue, wanted to support what other folks had said but also wanted to point out
what can happen to a community and a neighborhood when it is overrun by traffic. Luzzie stated that as
someone who lives there she knows what traffic is like during rush hour and on game days, and traffic
can get very bad and very heavy. She does not want to see the community destroyed, as she believes
that this is an older area of the community that should be maintained. However, she fears that the
development is too much for the area. She thinks the development will cause more traffic problems on
Melrose, and she asked the commission to take these concerns into consideration in making their
decision.
Elizabeth Goetzman, 107 Highland Drive, invited the commission members to come take a look at the
ravine at the last meeting, and she noted that none of the commission members had been out there. She
reiterated that invitation and said that members would be surprised at how steep and full of water the
ravine is. She included her phone number and e-mail so that members could contact her to come and
take a look for themselves.
Eastham and Weitzel stated that they had been out to look at the ravine. Goetzman asked if they had
walked the length of it. Weitzel stated that he did not as he did not have permission to be on the property,
but he did see that it was a very steep ravine. Goetzman asked if he walked the applicant's property or
did he actually go into the ravine. Weitzel replied that he remained on the street. Goetzman invited him to
bring his boots and walk the ravine with her sometime. Freerks stated that the Commission should not
meet with the applicant or others outside of the public meeting. All discussion should be in a public forum
Freerks asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. Miklo noted that there was a question
about storm water and what the City's engineers look at, and he wanted to point out that they do not limit
it to the city boundary. They look at the storm water ordinance in the context of the drainage shed. In
terms of this development, Miklo said, they did review the plans and proposals that were put together by
the applicant's consulting engineer and confirmed that they do meet City standards for storm water
management. Eastham inquired if that included capacity issues and Miklo confirmed that it did. Howard
wanted to clear up any misconception that there would be a wet-bottom basin, as it should be a dry
bottom basin and there should not be a lake.
Freerks closed the public hearing. And asked if anyone wished to make a motion so that the commission
could have discussion.
Eastham moved to recommend approval of REZ08-00001 and SUB08-00002.
Freerks clarified for Koppes that final construction plans as well as tree-protection plans will be included
in the final stages of planning. Brooks noted that the agenda listed only REZ08-00001, not SUB08-00002.
He asked for clarification on whether or not the subdivision could be discussed since it was not actually
listed. Miklo stated that that was an error on staff's part and that to be on the safe side, the subdivision
should be put on the next meeting's agenda.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 1, 2008
Page 8
Eastham amended his motion to include only approval of REZ08-00001. Brooks seconded, and
Commission discussion was opened.
Brooks stated that he very much sympathized with the residents and that he had lived in two homes in
Iowa City that faced similar dilemmas. Although he would like to see green and open spaces, when
someone owns a piece of property they have the right to develop it in accordance with the codes and the
laws that Council has approved. He stated that in this case the developer has met very well what is
permitted by the zoning. Although with any expansion and in-fill development there are things that will
potentially not go smoothly, the Commission cannot control the length of time a developer takes to
construct something. Brooks said he knows what it is like to live with traffic down your street when an
area is being developed and that is part of living in a city. Brooks thinks it is a very good development,
and while he would like to see as much open space in a community as possible, short of University
Heights buying the property he does not foresee that happening. He stated his support for the
development as a good addition to our community.
Eastham stated his support for the motion. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Scenario Map
adopted in 2002 denote that this area is suitable for single-family and duplex residential housing. The
housing goal for the Southwest District says that single-family residential and duplex homes in this area
are appropriate to meet the needs of a variety of household including, elderly populations. As a result,
Eastham stated, the Comprehensive Plan does support the proposed use of this area. Eastham said he
feels it also meets the zoning code, the proposal meets the OPD, and the density of 3.8 units per acre is
actually lower than the required 4.9 units per acre. The building size and design is appropriate to the
zoning codes. The homes are slightly larger than the surrounding buildings. Normally that's a big factor in
preserving property values. Eastham further stated that there are restrictions that the developer has
agreed to for this property that will produce a variable design on all the buildings, and that in terms of
open space he has done about all he can do. He noted that there will be a trail crossing this property to
make it available to the surrounding neighborhoods even though it is a private area. Eastham stated that,
again, the developer has gone further than required to address drainage issues. In terms of traffic,
Eastham says that having lived in that area it is unlikely in his view that the development will generate any
cut-through traffic because of the proximity of the traffic signals and the angle of the turn. The 48-month
building period is not covered by any regulation that would allow the commission to regulate construction
periods. Eastham stated that for all of these reasons, he is supporting this development.
Koppes said that Eastham stated it very well and that while she would like to leave it as open space she
did not see how they could as a Commission. Therefore, she too is supporting the development.
Weitzel said that in looking at the Comprehensive Plan, the Southwest District Plan and the Zoning Code
and sees that all the criteria are met for approval. Concerning environmental resources, Weitzel notes
that the applicant has had a consultant file a report regarding wildlife species in the area, and that while it
is a diverse area, the species and habitats are not rare or critical. Weitzel believes the species will
continue to inhabit the area because the back of the property will remain a kind of green area. Weitzel
stated that there is similar construction going on near his street and that there has been ongoing
construction noise for many years. However, he agrees with Brooks that this is a part of living in a
developing town. Weitzel acknowledges that traffic will increase a little but notes that the staff report
indicates that it will not be inordinate, and that it certainly will be within the criteria specified. He said that
he too will be voting for the measure.
Freerks stated her agreement with the comments that had been made. She acknowledges the passion
that the neighbors have for this piece of land, and notes that people have had the same passion for the
property in the past. In years past this property was zoned at a much higher density that would have been
much more problematic. Freerks said that the community has come forward and tried to make changes
and compromises in this area before, and she believes that this development is a compromise of sorts.
She believes the developer has gone beyond what he needed to do to satisfy regulations to create
something that will hopefully be a positive part of the community. She stated her support for the project.
Freerks stated that there was a motion and a second for this reading, and a vote was taken. The motion
carried 5-0. Freerks advised audience members that if they would like to talk about this matter further they
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 1, 2008
Page 9
could still contact City Council through meeting attendance and written correspondence to discuss the
issue.
Freerks and Miklo conferred regarding the subdivision issue, SUB08-00002, and the fact that the
commission was not voting on it tonight would not affect when the rezoning issue went to Council. Miklo
stated that both the rezoning and the subdivision would go to Council together.
DEVELOPMENT ITEMS:
SUB06-00003/REZ06-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Dav-Ed Limited for a preliminary
plat of Galway Hills Parts 10 & 11, a 51-lot, 21.75 acre residential subdivision located at Dublin Drive and
Shannon Drive. The 45-day limitation is May 25, 2008.
Miklo presented a map of the entire Galway Hills development area, including the proposed development
to be subdivided into parts 10 & 11. Miklo stated that the Galway Hills development began in the 1990s
with the subdivision of Galway Hills Part 1. At the time of the rezoning process the Planning and Zoning
Commission insisted on two things. One requirement was to develop a concept plan for the entire
property so that it could be planned how Galway Hills would fit into the context of the development around
West High. The other requirement was that 6 acres of open space along the south of the development be
dedicated to the City to allow for the continuation of the Willow Creek Trail.
Miklo said that the original concept plan included a series of collector streets such as Galway Drive and
Dublin Drive to disperse traffic from the neighborhood to Melrose Avenue and Rohret Road, and that the
streets were designed to be circuitous and inconvenient for cut-through traffic. The street design is crucial
to allow efficient delivery of City services such as: trash and recyclable collection, police and fire
protection, school and city bus service. Miklo said that it was very likely that a bus route would be
established to provide bus service to the neighborhood. An additional way in and out of the development,
as well as the nearby Walden Woods development, would be beneficial for delivering police and fire
services. Similar concept plans appear in the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Southwest District
Plan. Miklo said that the proposed subdivision, Galway Hills Parts 10 and 11 are true to this plan. Dublin
and Tipperary Drive would connect as shown in all of the concept plans to provide street circulation in the
area. Shannon Drive was built by the developer of Walden Woods subdivision across Willow Creek at the
expense of that property owner to make this connection possible.
The subdivision includes 51 residential lots, as noted in the staff reports, this area is zoned RS5, Low-
Density Single-Family. The subdivision also includes four out-lots. Out-lots C and D will be combined with
an existing storm water facility to provide storm water facilities for this neighborhood. Out-lots A and B will
be dedicated to the City for Willow Creek trail and open space. These out-lots will fulfill the applicant's
requirement to provide six acres of open space.
Miklo stated that the Galway Hills Parts 10 & 11 preliminary plat complied with the Comprehensive Plan,
and also complies with zoning codes and subdivision regulations. As a result, staff recommended that it
be approved. Miklo asked if there were any questions.
Koppes noted that the agenda indicated a need to rezone this property and asked if this was actually the
case. Miklo said that when the subdivision was first submitted in 2006, there was some thought given that
there may need to be a sensitive areas overlay. As it turns out, the sensitive areas are pretty much in the
out-lots and will not be disturbed. Therefore, the sensitive areas overlay is unnecessary and rezoning is
not required.
Brooks noted that there had been a church built in the Galway Hills Development that was not part of the
original plan and wondered if traffic from the church had been taken into consideration. Miklo replied that
there are two developments that differ from the original concept plan. One is the Melrose Meadows
development, an 80-unit elderly housing complex. The other is the church. At the time of these changes,
each project had a traffic assessment done and were found not to unduly burden the traffic in the area.
Miklo said that the nice thing about the church is that the traffic is generally concentrated on one day a
week. Transportation planners did look at some traffic counts for Dublin Drive and found that it had about
600 traffic trips a day. It is designed as a collector street and as such is not considered over burdened
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 1, 2008
Page 10
until it reaches over 2,500 trips per day. Even with traffic patterns projected out to include the new
developments, transportation planners predict it will remain under 2,500 trips per day.
Koppes asked if the Parks and Recreation Division has agreed to take on the proposed green space, to
which Miklo responded that they had agreed to this in 1990 with the original rezoning.
Eastham inquired as to whether the plan allows for the Willow Creek Trail to continue, and Miklo said that
it did. The current temporary trail in place will be rebuilt to be a permanent trail and will continue beyond
beneath the interstate to the County Farm property.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Ron Amelon of MMS Consultants announced that he was there on behalf of the developer, and while he
had nothing to add directly, he was available to answer any questions.
Jim Woodin, 3468 Killarney Road, of the Galway Hills Homeowners Association Board expressed the
concern that the projected traffic flow would be an additional 300 cars making two trips per day. Woodin
said that attempting to turn out onto Melrose Avenue between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. was
impossible with traffic in its current state. An additional 300 cars will only cause more back-up and more
stress at that particular point. Another concern with the layout is with Shannon Drive continuing through a
city park. Woodin said that he is not concerned about the additional houses and is supportive of building
on the lots; however, he is concerned about the usability of a park with a road in the middle of it, and
about the increased traffic.
Nancy LeaVesseur, 742 Tipperary Road, expressed concern with a road being built in the middle of a
park, and that this road would become a through street drawing drivers from the Weber School area. She
was concerned that as the many children in the area grow and move on to Northwest Junior High and
West High, the traffic through the Galway Hills neighborhood will increase dramatically. The idea of a
thoroughfare in the middle of her subdivision with all of the young children who live there is very upsetting
to her. She is collecting signatures and believes the current plan to be a horrible one. She realizes that
the plan was made a long time ago, but thinks that things have changed so much that this plan no longer
makes sense. She urged the Commission to look at the traffic that would be coming from the Weber area
and warns against the increased traffic city bus routes would bring.
Shannon Bartholomew, 329 Dublin Drive, stated that it was impossible to turn left onto Melrose from
Dublin due to current traffic patterns. As a member of the church in question, she says that it does
generate more traffic than once a week. She has serious concerns about the massive amounts of traffic
that would be coming through the subdivision, as well as the city buses that are planned to come through,
and believes that something else should be worked out.
Jay LeaVesseur, 742 Tipperary Road, in canvassing neighbors in the subdivision to gather signatures for
their petition, he and his wife encountered only 3 out of 64 people who believed that this was a good plan.
LeaVesseur said that the developer intends to come and asked for a special exception to add a very large
daycare to the development in the area just below the church.
Freerks clarified that any matters concerning a daycare would go through Board of Adjustments.
LeaVessuer stated that he believed the current plan created a Mormon Trek bypass, increasing traffic in
their neighborhood dramatically. LeaVessuer said that he had spoken at a previous commission meeting
of Prime Ventures and their lack of landscaping and green space in development. LeaVessuer challenged
the commission to look at the overwhelming lack of green space in the plan. The main out-lot #2 is just a
storm retention pond, unusable and full of weeds. The only usable green space is the chunk where the
road will connect with Shannon. Out-lot #3 is swamp land. The only green space to which neighbors have
access is the bike trail. LeaVessuer stated that the current plan as written changes the usage of the
neighborhood, taking the last vestiges of green space and putting a heavily traveled road through it. As
an example of the traffic problems already in existence, LeaVessuer offered that if he left his home to go
to his downtown employment at 6:55, he could be there by 7:00 a.m.; however, if he left at 7:00 a.m., he
would not get to work until after 8:00 a.m. He thinks there has been a gross underestimation of the
amount of traffic.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 1, 2008
Page 11
Freerks asked staff if there was a deficiency of public space in this area. Miklo replied that there is not, in
fact, the standard calculation for green space for this subdivision would be approximately half of what
they are actually getting.
Heather Woodin, 3465 Killarney Road, said that the thing she had not heard mentioned yet was that
Galway Hills serves as overflow parking for West High students, especially in the winter. She asked if
Dublin would be extended to have parking on both sides. Miklo replied that it will have parking on at least
one side.
Charlotte Bailey, 6 Kearney Court, wanted to clarify that she believes there may be a problem with the
process. She does not like not being able to be supportive of something and doesn't like it that her
neighborhood isn't involved in a collaborative way with staff and the developer. She expressed
disappointment with the fact that when she was elected to her homeowners' association she came down
to the City and met with Planning and Zoning and let them know that the neighborhood would like to be
involved and informed on the front end of any discussion about roads, parks, and the things that make a
neighborhood a neighborhood. Bailey said that she believes that every process is uniquely designed to
get precisely the outcome that it gets, and the current process is getting people who are at the meeting
feeling frustrated. Bailey said that when she has spoken with the developer regarding concerns of having
a road through the middle of the park, he has expressed that he does not wish to have the road there, but
that that is where the City will require him to have it. She said that the developer expressed frustration
that the City was going to make him do things a certain way regardless of how he or the neighbors would
prefer it to be. She understands that there is a certain aspect of that that is unavoidable in planning and
zoning developments. However, it is frustrating to her that when she did talk to city staff, to Parks and
Recreation, and went information gathering, the city departments also expressed a willingness to vary
from the original plan.
Bailey said that she also contacted John Yapp, JCCOG Transportation Planner, regarding the traffic flow
issues. Bailey wonders if the traffic study done in August 2007 was done when West High was in session,
as that may have affected the count. Bailey also wondered if the traffic study took into account peak times
during the day, as that would be relevant to her neighborhood's situation. Bailey feels that the volume of
traffic added at peak times by a potential daycare is also relevant. When the plan for this through street
was made 18 years ago, Melrose Meadows, the church and the daycare were not there and so could not
be taken into account. The traffic calming brochure she read indicates that collector streets are eligible for
traffic calming if they are utilized by 1,000 cars per day. If any street has more than 3,000 vehicles per
day, it is not eligible for traffic calming. Bailey said that the 2,500 figure cited earlier is when Iowa City
considers a collector street to be overburdened.
Miklo clarified that at 1,000 vehicles per day a street may be eligible for traffic calming if it reaches a
certain speed. At 3,000 vehicles per day it would be considered an arterial street and therefore is
ineligible for traffic calming.
Bailey said that if you use 2,500 as your guideline for beginning traffic calming and 3,000 as your
guideline for ineligibility for traffic calming, you are cutting it very close. Bailey said that her point was that
there are some really good ideas in the traffic calming handout, and that maybe if the Parks Department
could give some insight on a better park design and traffic folks could let them know the best way to
control traffic on the front end, then we would have a different, better process. In that case, they are
asking their questions of the right people rather than of a commission whose mandate is mostly dictated
by the zoning codes and the Comprehensive Plan.
Tori Jones (no address given), said that she did not yet live in Galway Hills but that they were under
contract to buy a home there. She really loves the neighborhood and its quiet feel. When she has spoken
with the developer he has expressed that he would prefer not to have the road through the park. She also
expressed concern over traffic congestion.
Nancy LeaVesseur pointed out that when the new school is built on Camp Cardinal their students will no
longer be going to Weber, so the through street to Weber would not be advantageous to their
neighborhood. She reiterated her concern with following a plan made so long ago when things have
changed so much.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 1, 2008
Page 12
Lee Mickey, 448 Galway, said that he had made several observations throughout the course of the
evening's meeting, one of which was that he did not believe that half the panel was even listening to the
people who had spoken. He said that this was a time to do business and exchange points of view and he
felt as though people were not being heard. He said that another concern he had was that the traffic
estimate was done in 2000, and that was too old to be a reliable piece of information. He said that
building more homes on the west side and then bussing kids over to the east side to go to school made
about as much sense as an 8 year old traffic estimate. He said that he has seen no provision in Iowa City
for developers to build parks or play areas and he wonders why.
Miklo clarified that the traffic estimates were from 2007.
Freerks assured Mickey that she does listen very carefully. He replied that he believed that she did.
Charlotte Bailey brought up the impact on property values in a high traffic area, and wondered if their
property values were damaged as a result of increased traffic would there be recourse through the City.
Bailey asked if the only way to go back and do the process right, with collaboration between
neighborhood, developer and the City, was to go back and have the developer resubmit his application.
She asked if doing it differently has to start with the developer.
Freerks explained that the Commission had to make some progress by the limitation date because every
developer has the right to progress within that time period. Freerks stated that in this case, the
commission must make a recommendation one way or the other by May 25, 2008, or they can ask the
developer if he wants to defer it. After a recommendation is made, it goes to City Council.
Bailey noted that it sounded like the different groups at the meeting tonight seemed like they were making
pleas to the Commission but were making them too little too late, and wondered when the appropriate
time to speak up actually was.
Freerks advised people to familiarize themselves with the Comprehensive Plan and to really have an idea
of what the vision for it was for their area.
Bailey responded that the process was done long ago, and that they were not necessarily the people who
wanted to stop the road, they were the people who wanted to calm the road before anything bad
happened.
Miklo clarified that the Southwest District Plan was adopted in 2002. The connection between Walden
Woods and Galway Hills was laid out in 1990, looking long-term. This is a common dilemma, Miklo said,
but if the city is going to grow there must be connecting roads. Everyone would rather not have busy
streets in their neighborhoods but the traffic is being generated from these neighborhoods, so the City
has to be able to find a way to direct it. Miklo said that staff believed that the Galway Hills plan has traffic
calming built into it by making sure there were turns and curves. Miklo would argue that since 1990, staff,
the City, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the growth of the city, the need to provide
public services and access to these neighborhoods and built that into the plan.
Shannon Bartholomew returned to the podium to say that when the traffic was analyzed in 2002, the
church was not even built at that time.
Freerks stated that a church can be in any residential area.
Bartholomew said that the numbers are not accurate on the traffic count because the church was not
taken into account, school may not have been in session, the daycare that the developer may want to put
in would increase traffic, and people who are going to come off of Melrose to cut through were not
considered.
Miklo stated that a collector street is considered overburdened when it exceeds 2,500 vehicles a day.
Board of Adjustments did consider traffic from the church when it was approved, and if a special
exception for the daycare goes forward, they will also look at those numbers.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 1, 2008
Page 13
Miklo said that based on the church, the elderly housing, the development of these 51 additional lots, and
projections form the Walden Hills subdivision, the Transportation planners estimated 1,500 vehicle trips
per day.
Bartholomew asked if the daycare was included in that figure.
Freerks advised her to go to the Board of Adjustments regarding the daycare.
Bartholomew asked what to do if the road was approved and the daycare was approved to then calm
traffic.
Miklo said if there's an indication that the daycare would overburden this street then the Board of
Adjustment would have grounds to deny the daycare.
Freerks once again advised Bartholomew to go to the Board of Adjustments regarding the daycare,
because the commission cannot take it into consideration.
Bailey returned to go over the traffic numbers once more. According to her calculations the traffic calming
measures would be reasonable to avoid problems rather than waiting until one actually occurs.
Miklo stated that it is difficult to tell in advance when traffic calming is necessary. At present transportation
planners have deemed there is not a need for traffic calming. If problems arise, a number of techniques
can be employed to assist in calming traffic.
Eastham pointed out that in his experience when traffic calming devices are installed there is generally
more objection from those who live in the neighborhood than those who travel through it.
Bailey replied that this may because it is reactive rather than designing the road for calming in the first
place.
Nancy LeaVesseur stated that the situation reminded her a lot of the neighborhood by Coral Ridge Mall
where the traffic was so increased they had to narrow the street and make it a one-way leading into the
mall. She expressed concern that it would not be a connecting street but simply a way through.
Freerks asked if there were further comments from the public. There were none and the public hearing
was closed.
Eastham moved to recommend approval of SUB06-00003.
Koppes said that usually when the commission has a pretty controversial issue they defer it.
Freerks stated that if there is no second, the motion will die. The motion failed. Brooks moved to defer to
the May 15th meeting. Weitzel seconded. The issue was deferred until the May 15th meeting. Freerks
opened for discussion.
Koppes asked if it was possible to re-do the bottom part of the plan where the park and road are an issue.
Miklo stated that Shannon Drive was built to that point, so the road is a fixed point.
Koppes agreed with that but wondered if there was something that could be done.
Miklo advised that there was an 8-foot sidewalk proposed that would go all the way to Melrose.
Commission member agreed that they would like to investigate what other options might be available.
Discussion was closed and the motion to defer was passed 5-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 1, 2008
Page 14
SUB08-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for a preliminary plat of
Kennedy's Waterfront Addition Part Five, a 4-lot, 6.48 acre commercial subdivision located west of S.
Gilbert Street, south of Stevens Drive. The 45-day limitation period is May 25, 20008.
Miklo said that the subdivision design would include a cul-de-sac on Stevens Drive. Lots 4 and 1 would
have access to Stevens Drive. There would be no direct access to Gilbert Street from Lot 1. Lot 2 and 3
would share a driveway to Gilbert Street. No other access would be allowed to Gilbert Street. There's also
an access easement which would provide alternative routes for all of the lots to Stevens Drive. As
submitted, the subdivision is in compliance with subdivision regulations. There were some drainage
issues that have been resolved. Staff now recommends approval of the subdivision.
Weitzel asked Miklo to speak to the arterial road and curb cuts. Miklo said that generally minimizing curb
cuts to arterial streets is the preferred method. He said that staff felt one shared driveway was reasonable
in this location.
Koppes asked if the Fire Department was fine with the cul-de-sac, and Miklo stated that it was.
The developer was invited to speak but said that he would simply make himself available for questions.
There were none.
Public hearing was opened and then closed with no comments.
Brooks motioned to approve SUB08-00001, and confirmed with Miklo that the deficiencies had been
resolved. Koppes seconded the motion. Freerks asked if there was any discussion.
Brooks asked for clarification on whether efforts would be made to align the driveways with existing
driveways. Miklo said that they would.
The motion carried 5-0.
SUB08-0004: Discussion of an application submitted by Peninsula Development Company for a final plat
of Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 2A, a 17-lot, 7.6 acre residential subdivision located on Walker Circle.
The 45-day limitation period is May 15, 2008.
Eastham disclosed that he is the president of the Housing Fellowship, which owns property within 2-3
blocks of this subdivision. He did not see this as a conflict but wanted to bring it up. Greenwood-Hektoen
said that she concurred that there was no conflict of interest.
Miklo stated that in this subdivision, Walker Circle would connect providing a loop street, and then there
would be Barber's Place which would be a small street off of that. There would be 17 single family lots, all
of which comply with the preliminary plat as approved by the planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council. Staff recommends approval at this time.
Public hearing was opened. No one wished to speak to this issue so the hearing was closed.
Brooks moved to approve. Weitzel seconded the motion.
The motion was carried 5-0.
VACATION ITEM:
VAC08-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate BP Properties to vacate Northtowne
Parkway located east of Northgate Drive and to relocate the street to the north.
Miklo stated that the subdivision approved the platting of the Northtowne Parkway between lots 12 and
11. A portion of the Parkway has been built and there was an escrow for the remainder of it. The
applicant is now asking that this be vacated so that it would become part of the development on lot 12,
and the proposal is to replace it about 450 feet to the north in this vicinity with an east-west roadway to
provide for future access in this area. If this is vacated it will provide some more options for the
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 1, 2008
Page 15
development of lot 12 and eliminate the need for a creek crossing in this area. There is a draft agreement
specifying the requirements for the replacement street and its construction at the time that the property
adjacent is developed. Approval is recommended.
Public hearing opened and closed without comment.
Koppes motioned to approve. Eastham seconded. Motion carried 5-0.
DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 15, LAND SUBDIVISIONS: Consideration of amendments
to regulations pertaining to the subdivision and development of land.
Eastham moved to defer. Weitzel seconded. Motion to defer carried 5-0.
CONSIDERATION OF THE APRIL 3 AND APRIL 17 MEETING MINUTES:
Eastham motioned to approve the minutes. Koppes seconds the motion. Motion carries 5-0.
Freerks welcomed Weitzel to the Commission.
Miklo let commission members know that when an application is made the property owner checks a box
letting Planning and Zoning know if the property owner requires permission before someone from the
Commission goes on the property. Miklo advises that when commissioners make a site visit, unless they
have been told in a staff report not to go on the property, they may do so.
Greenwood-Hektoen reminds members that no more than 3 can go on a site visit at a time to avoid a
quorum.
Motion to adjourn is made and seconded. Motion carries 5-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 9:54 p.m.
Pcd/mins/p&z12008/05-01-08.doc
C
o
'iij
,!!!
E
E
o
0'0
...
eno
C (,,)
,- CI>
Co:::
o
NCI>~
.....(,,)0
....CN
en lIS
cOO
,- C
C CI>
C-
~<C
D.
~
C3
lIS
~
.E
UJ I I
.... >< I I ><
in >< >< >< - I I
0 I I
.... UJ I
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< 0 I
- I
'0:1' I
M I
>< >< >< >< >< >< >< I
~ I
I
0 UJ I
N >< >< >< >< >< >< 0 I
- I
M I
.... UJ UJ I
.... 0 >< >< >< >< >< - I
- 0 I
.... I
N UJ I
>< >< >< >< >< >< I
- 0 I
.... I
(/) 0..- ('I') N 000 ('I')
E ~ ..-
..- ..- ..- ..- ..-0 ..- ..-
li>'~ -- - - -- - -
l.C)l.C) l.C) l.C) l.C)l.C) l.C) l.C)
I-w 00 0 0 00 0 0
Ul E ~ C
Ul Ul C 0 -
.:.c: lIS ~~ - C .c CI>
0:5 ::s C .t:I
.c lIS -
o Ul 'S 'CD
Q) ... lIS ~ 0 ~.c
E mw u.:lII:: D.rJ) rJ) ~
co aieJ .ceLLi ~c:i ~~
z
C)
z
i=
w
w
::::E
...J
c(
::::E
0:::
o
u.
C)
z
i=
w
w
::::E
...J
c(
::::E
0:::
o
u.
~
~ I
:!:><><><><><><><,
~ '
NW><><><~~>< I
N 0 00:
~><><><><~~~ :
In O..-('I')N 000..-('1')
s::.....~~~~.,-o.,.-.,-
t: ';::;' -... ........ -... -... __ ........ -.. -...
(I) ~X l.C) l.C) l.C) l.C) l.C) l.C) l.C) l.C)
I-WOOOooooo
.:.c: C
Ul i Ul Ul 'S 0 -
.:.c:.c~CI>:;c.c~
O-CI>~ c_.oJ
(I) e lQ ~ o~~'s~
Emwu.:lII::D.rJ)rJ);>
~aieJ.ceLLi~c:i~~
"'C
(I)
(/)
:J
o
X
W
..........:;::.
c: c: c:
(I) (I) (I)
(/) (/) (/)
(1).0.0
0:<(<(
.. II II II
>- W
(I) -
~><oo