The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-05-2008 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, June 2 - 6:00 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Lobby Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street Thursday, June 5 - 7:30 PM Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Iowa City City Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda c. Rezoning Items 1. REZ08-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for a rezoning to amend the conditional zoning agreement to modify the concept site plan for approximately 25.16-acres of property in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 855, 911 & 1001 Highway 1 West. (45-day limitation period: June 29,2008) 2. REZ08-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by 6 Corp for a rezoning from Community Commercial (CC-2) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately .28- acres of property at 700 S. Dubuque Street. (45-day limitation period: June 29, 2008) D. Code Amendment Item Discussion of proposed amendment to 14-5J-9 Variances to Flood Plain Management Standards. E. Election of Vice-Chair F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: May 12, and May 15, 2008 G. Other H. Adjournment Informal Formal City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: June 5, 2008 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Adam Ralston, Planning Intern RE: Wal-Mart's proposed amendments to the Westport Plaza Conditional Zoning Agreement Wal-Mart is proposing to construct a Super Wal-Mart store on the Westport Plaza property where it currently operates. They plan to construct the new store in the area that currently contains the Staples office supply store, the former Cub Foods store and parking lot. They would then demolish the existing Wal-Mart store. The space where the current store now stands will then be used as surface parking. For this to take place, a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) that is in place for this property must be amended. In June of 1989 the City rezoned the current Westport Plaza property from 1-1, General Industrial, to CC-2, Community Commercial. The rezoning was subject to a CZA which specified design requirements for development on the property. The CZA contains references to the site being developed as a cohesive, integrated development, in substantial conformance with a concept site plan filed with the City at that time. The CZA also contains a requirement for the facades of the buildings to provide "horizontal continuity," and refers to a drawing illustrating this concept. The site plan and drawing indicate that the development was planned to be an L-shaped configuration with a sidewalk fronting a line of shops in between anchor stores on each end, which became the current Wal-Mart and previous Cub Food stores. Loading docks and service areas were on the back sides of buildings and not visible from Highway 1. At the time of the Westport Plaza rezoning, the shopping center was presented by the applicant, the Joseph Company, to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council as an integrated shopping center. The applicant assured the City that the development would not be a typical strip development and entered into the CZA to help assure that this would be the case. At the time of the rezoning, one concern the City had was that the development not consist of individual, unrelated buildings, but that the buildings should relate to each other and function as a cohesive development. The Joseph Company expressed their intent to follow those ideas by submitting a concept plan and drawing illustrating an integrated development and agreeing to a CZA which contained language requiring the property to develop in that manner. The responsibility of the developer to conform to the CZA was passed on to Wal- Mart when they purchased the property. The CZA was originally put in place largely due to aesthetic concerns since this property lies along Highway 1, a major entryway into the city. Although the original conceptual site plan never materialized as agreed to in the CZA, aesthetics continue to be important along the Highway 1 corridor. The South Central District Plan, adopted in 2000, also emphasizes the importance of aesthetics and improvements to the city's entranceway such as upgraded Page 2 landscaping and increasing pedestrian access. Therefore the appearance of the proposed development should be considered with changes to the CZA. For this application, the City is not being asked to rezone the property from one classification to another, but rather to look at placement and aesthetic issues relating to the proposal in order to amend the CZA. The proposed amendments to the CZA will allow for the reconfiguration of the development on the property and replacement of the previously approved multi-tenant shopping center with a single-tenant building. The concept site plan initially submitted by the applicant with a proposed amended CZA did not meet the standards contained in the zoning code for large retail uses and placed the building so that the loading docks and service areas would be visible from Highway 1. Staff advised the applicant that this design did not meet the intent of the original CZA, the entrance way policies of the Comprehensive Plan, or elements of the zoning code. The applicant has since submitted a revised plan that faces the building towards Highway 1, and places the loading and service areas away from public view. Although this plan is an improvement over the earlier request, staff has not had sufficient time to review the revised plan for compliance with the commercial site development standards. We have identified some elements of the parking design standards (section 14-5A-5 H.4), and standards for large retail uses (section 14-2C-6 K.2 and 3) that do not appear to meet code. We have advised the applicant's engineer and architect of these items. These items should be corrected prior to finalization of CZA. In addition to these code issues, staff recommends the use of a higher proportion of brick on the front and left facades (Ruppert Road entrance) of the building. The current proposal consists of predominately concrete masonry units. There may be other items identified as needing correction after a complete review of the revised plan. Although staff is not averse to amending the CZA to allow a reconfiguration of this property and the replacement of the exiting buildings with one larger building, the concept plan to be contained in the CZA should comply with the minimum requirements of the zoning code. Staff recommends that REl08-00006 an application submitted by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for a rezoning to amend the conditional zoning agreement to modify the concept site plan for approximately 25.16 acres of property in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 855, 911 & 1001 Highway 1 West, be deferred until a concept plan adhering to the requirements of the zoning code is submitted and the building design consists of significantly more brick on the two most visible facades. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Concept Plan 3. Elevation Drawings 4. Proposed CZA 5. Original CZA Approved by: ~ Jeff D vidson, Director Department of Planning and Community Development ~ +-' 0 CJ) Q) tj C\I 3: ~ T""" a: >- ~ -- ctS C ~ D. ..c ~ 0> 0 I ~ T""" 0 0 T""" ~ ,.... l:J - 0 c ctS tj T""" T""" (j) - LO LO ex:> . . Z 0 I-f ~ U 0 ~ ~ N ~ .,-. I-f :i r.n D: ]J...... .~..... J.. .~.. '..'.'..-'.."u'."-'..... L ,..., ~ ,... - o -Jf--. "'Co::: 9::() S2Q <0::: ~--- ~"l:: C\I o o ,... D. co o o o o I ex:> o N W a:: I :: u :~ ~~; l~ c:s:. - 0 .:, ~~~~H '- i '" Ill!' ~ i~ li!lfl;! I ~ ~~ dsM III ~ ~;~ i!1 lll~i j 1m 10010 ml! , ~ n i Hnli H~~ ~~ i q h Hi! it ~ ~ ~ nHniH I drhhlH II f;] I ~. : ~ i i i 0 ~ ;; 3 [:J ~ :0041 1. I ~ ... 1 !5 to I j '" u ~~I: 'z 0 00 1= 8 ~ ~ .; o ;:: ~ " ;z 51 .. ~ iii ~ ::l N ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~oo~~ ~~ ; :~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~g i~ o <{...J;::;:;"" '" [ll . "'ii)~"~!!I o(0~t;;ulli~~~ ;~~~~u~~< 4:~g@<~:j~~ 5~~~~~~~~ :;15Q"'~"'''''''''' :$ j;Ub!.:!U~U ~~~~1~~~~ ~~~ 15 ~ (j ~ ~ ~ .. N ~ ... oj ~ tj N ~ 15 ~ o (j " ;z ~ 8 ~ i:l t1 ~ ~ ~ o '" '" ~ @ ~ " ~ N \ \, / '"', ''"', _.~ ;! ~!; ;50'> I ~i~~~~ 'f i i~.t~~ ~N f ~!nn '" g:: ~ih~;; ~ I .. ~~"~~i Q; c> i ~'f~."t m c> g~!~'i = 'f I ,.~~~ 8 ~ q~!i:l~ ~<" Q i <..J ~~. t.~ ~~~ ~gi~~~1 - 0 ~!I V1~i !~~~n" :;;...~ L !uOOM '"'" '"' .;,i:; ~.., '"', I Ii ~ : f r f ! I I I I L 1""....., W """'" .~.l,$ ~..""". ~. ... ' {-~ ,..,1r, ""-:J"",~' e:: '";;1 I..-~ 1. ~' 1,1 .il 't. I-it hi il.!!! ntil' ~!iill hhb ~ ~ ~ ~ i! II I: i ~ . . ~ I .... !i '~ o ," ~ . ~ ~ '-., ~3 i't if i [ It" ..... . :- It ~ d 1 r Ii I , I' 1 , I , ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~! . .~l ~!~ . .. ~~ ., ii' ..1 .p 1 J . ~~ -~ 1- ~; ~ . ~t! .rt j .1 ~~ "~ ~a. ~11l . 1 I ~: I ,\ H! .p -. J ~ ~ ~, 1~~ 'ii z ~r 5111 fir o p' IZ I. ... j ,"' { ". >> ~ J ,. 1,; ~. ~~ - ;'''. iI' tl' .e~ lr~ l . Ii i,l ~ ~I' t = ~ II' ~r ell. Ii I. Z '; ~l > . ~ ~r ~ I. <(* _!:l ~'8! .- U ; OE - ~ . ~ ~ ~ ..~ --'l1t ;;::J ;::s. '~M ; :::~ l.t~_,_I-l "\~ ~ -."""-1 ' ~ 1,1 Iii 'II lih J!,:fi c611!I' biifl hId. Prepared by and return to: Robert N Downer 122 South Linn Street Iowa City, IA 52240 319/338-9222 FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT (the "First Amendment") made and entered into this day of 2008, by and between WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST, a Delaware statutory trust ("Wal-Mart") and CITY OF lOW A CITY, lOW A, a municipal corporation ("City"). RECITALS A. On June 13, 1989, The Joseph Company ("Joseph Company") and City entered into a Conditional Zoning Agreement (the "CZA"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "l", and by this reference made a part hereof, and which agreement has attached thereto as Exhibit liB" a legal description of the property covered by the CZA. B. Attached hereto as Exhibit "2", and by this reference made a part hereof, is a copy of the Site Plan for the real estate covered by the CZA, as said property presently exists. C. Wal-Mart, as successor in interest to Joseph Company as to all of the real estate described in Exhibit "1" and depicted upon Exhibit "2", except for Outlots A and B (the "Wal-Mart Property"), desires to redevelop the Wal-Mart Property as described in Site Plans filed contemporaneously herewith. D. City and Wal-Mart, as successor in interest to Joseph Company as to the Wal-Mart Property, desire to amend the CZA as hereinafter set forth. IT IS THEREFORE AGREED as follows: 1. Paragraph 5 of Section B of the CZA is hereby amended by inserting thefollowing, which shall apply solely to the Wal-Mart Property: In order to lessen the impact on one of the major entrances to the City, Wal-Mart agrees that the portion of the Development Site owned by Wal- Mart (which includes the entire Development Site other than Outlot A and Outlot B) (the "Wal-Mart Property") will substantially conform to the Conceptual Site Plan and Landscaping Plan, each dated , 2008 and by reference incorporated herein (together, the "New Conceptual Site Plans"). These Plans include and shall satisfactorily address the following concerns: A. Wal-Mart agrees that no more than two (2) free-standing signs will be permitted on the Wal-Mart Property, as shown on the New Conceptual Site Plans. B. Signage on the exterior wall of the building on the Wal-Mart Property facing Highway 1 West is prohibited. C. Signage on the rear wall of the building on the Wal-Mart Property is prohibited. D. Arborvitae screening shall be placed along the southwest boundary of the Wal-Mart Property south of the frontage road, as shown on the New Conceptual Site Plans. E. All lighting shall be downcast, and all signage shall be internally illuminated. F. Plantings along the right-of-way shall be a mix of deciduous trees with varied groupings of evergreens, as shown on the New Conceptual Site Plans. G. Low-lying evergreen landscaping shall be deemed appropriate along the major entrance to the Wal-Mart Property from Highway 1 West. 2. Paragraph 6 of Section B of the CZA is hereby amended by inserting the following, which shall apply solely to the Wal-Mart Property: 2 Parties agree that the New Conceptual Site Plans will be subject to modifications within the general parameters of the New Conceptual Site Plans such as structural dimensions and tree species. Parties further agree that any modifications departing from the New Conceptual Site Plans must and shall be subject to staff review and approval. Parties also agree that nothing in this agreement shall be construed to require Wal-Mart to conform to the New Conceptual Site Plans in every detail, since all building plans have not yet been completed, but the intent hereof is that Wal-Mart shall substantially conform to the New Conceptual Site Plans understanding, however, that dimensional changes are anticipated. Parties further agree that the New Conceptual Site Plans shall govern the Wal-Mart Property, and that neither party may intentionally digress from this New Conceptual Site Plans for any arbitrary reason. 3. Paragraph 7 of Section B of the CZA is hereby amended by inserting the following, which shall apply solely to the Wal-Mart Property: 7. Wal-Mart agrees that the final Wal-Mart Property shall provide facades of the structure that conform to applicable ordinances of the City that are compatible and that provide horizontal continuity as shown on the drawings presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and dated , 2008. 4. Parties agree that this Amendment shall be deemed a covenant running with the land and shall inure to the benefit of all successors and assigns of the property described herein. Parties further agree that this Amendment shall be incorporated by reference into the rezoning ordinance; and that at anytime after the adoption and publication of the ordinance, this Amendment shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the direction of Wal-Mart, concurrently with the the recording with the Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, of any plats necessary to effectuate the terms and conditions of this First Amendment as to the Wal-Mart Property. The parties hereby agree and acknowledge that the approval of this First Amendment by the City shall not be conditioned upon the recording of such plats or this First Amendment within any certain amount of time from the date of such approval. 5. All agreements and parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby superseded to the extent of such conflict. 3 DATED this day of ,2008. CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST, a Delaware statutory trust By: Regenia Bailey, Mayor By: Title: Attest: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this day of , 2008, before me , a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared Regenia Bailey and Marian K. Karr, to me personally known, and who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City; that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of the corporation, and that the instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the corporation, by authority of its City Council, as contained in Ordinance No. passed by the City Council, under Roll Call No of the City Council on the _ day of 2008 and that Regenia Bailey and Marian K. Karr acknowledged the execution of the instrument to be their voluntary act ad deed and the voluntary act and deed of the corporation, by it voluntarily executed. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 4 STATE OF COUNTY OF ) ) ss: ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on by as of Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust a Delaware statutory trust. Notary Public in and for said County and State 5 CONDrTlONAL ZONING AGREEMENT this Agreement is entered by and between The Joseph Company r Joseph Company") and the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation ("City"). WHEREAS, Joseph Company has applied for rezoning a 28.084 acre parcel of land from Industrial, 1-1 to Commercial, CC-2 located on the south side of Highway 1 West and legally described in: Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. WHEREAS, the City has a policy to preserve and enhance the entranceways to Iowa City, Iowa; and WHEREAS. Highway 1 West is a major entranceway to Iowa City from the southwest and increased traffic is anticipated if this rezoning request is granted; and WHEREAS, Iowa law provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting Joseph Company's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, Joseph Company acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are appropriate in order to lessen the impact on this major entrance to the City, and acknowledges responsibility for certain capital improvements to accommodate increased traffic. THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows: /0, 2 A. General Conditions 1 . Parties acknowledge Iowa City has a policy, as stated in the Comprehensive Plan, to preserve and enhance the entranceways to Iowa City. Joseph Company agrees and acknowledges this policy is reasonable, proper and appropriate under the circumstances. 2. Parties agree Highway 1 West is a major entranceway to Iowa City from the southwest. Joseph Company acknowledges the City's policy concerning entrance ways governs this rezoning request. To this end, Joseph Company agrees to provide certain amenities over and above City regulations in order to lessen the impact on the surrounding area, more particularly described below. 3. Parties acknowledge and agree that the proposed rezoning from 1-1 to CC-2 will permit commercial uses, not otherwise contemplated under 1-1 zoning, and that the rezoning request herein will generate higher traffic than . under 1_ 1. Joseph Company agrees that, in order to lessen the impact on the surrounding area, it will construct certain capital improvements, more particularly described below. 8. Conditions - Amenities 4. Joseph Company agrees that the :t28 acre parcel, to be known as Westport Plaza and referred to herein as the Development Site, will be developed as a cohesive, integrated development with one major entrance on Highway 1 West. J'\ 3 Nothing In this Agreement shall preclude a secondary entrance a t the eastern boundary of the Site Development. 5. In order to lessen the impact on one of the major entrances to the City, Joseph Company agrees that the Development Site will substantially conform to the Conceptual Site Plan dated April 20, 1989 and by reference made a part hereto. This Plan includes and shall satisfactorily address the following concerns: a. Joseph Company agrees that no more than two (2) free-standing signs will be permitted on the Development Site, as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan dated April 20, 1989 and incorporated herein by reference. b. Signage on the wall of Anchor NO.1 facing Highway 1 West is prohibited. c. Signage on the rear wall of Anchor NO.1 is prohibited. d. Arborvitae screening shall be placed along the southwest boundary of the Development South of the frontage road, as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. e. All lighting shall be downcast, and all signage shall be internally illuminated. f. Plantings along the right-of-way shall be a mix of deciduous trees with varied groupings of evergreens, as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. J q 4 g. Low-lying evergreen landscaping shall be deemed appropriate along the major entrance to the Development Site from Highway 1 West. 6. Parties agree that the Conceptual Site Plan dated April 20, 1989 will be subject to modifications within the general parameters of the Conceptual Site Plan, such as structural dimensions and tree species. Parties further agree that any modifications departing from this Conceptual Site Plan must and shall be subject to staff review and approval. Parties also agree that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to require Joseph Company to conform to the Conceptual Site Plan in every detail, since the Plan is intended as conceptual in nature due, in part, to the fact that only one of the anchors are currently identified. Dimensional changes are therefore anticipated. Parties further agree that the Conceptual Site Plan shall govern the Development Site, and that neither Party may intentionally digress from this Conceptual Site Plan for any arbitrary reason. 7. Joseph Company agrees that the final design of the Development Site shall provide facades in the retail centers that are compatible and that provide horizontal continuity, as shown on the drawings presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and dated April 20, 1989. Jo, 5 C. Conditions - Off-Site Imorovements 8. Joseph Company agrees to assume total financial responsibility for the off-site improvements required by this Development Site, specifically: a. Any geometric changes in the Highway 1 West right-of-way associated with the major entrance; b. Signalization (traffic light) to be placed at the main entrance to the Development Site on Highway 1 West as shown in the Conceptual Site Plan; and c. Improvement of the north-south right-of-way east of Carousel Motors from the existing frontage road to the north boundary of the Development Site. Joseph Company agrees these improvements will be made to City standards. * * * * * * * 9. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to relieve Joseph Company from complying with all applicable local and state regulations, and Joseph Company acknowledges this obligation. \<1 6 10. Parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed a covenant running with the land and shall inure to the benefit of all successors and assigns of the property being rezoned herein. Parties further agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the Rezoning Ordinance; and that upon adoption and publication of the Ordinance, that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office and shall constitute notice to the public of the :above restrictions. Dated this 13th day of Jtme ,1989. CITY OF IOWA CITY Attest:~ jI. ~.; Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Attest: By: &~ STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this 13 day of Jtme , 19~, before me, Gina O'Donnell . a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared John McDonald and Marian K. Karr, to me personally known, and, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City, Iowa; that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of the corporation, and that the instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the corporation, by authority of its City Council, as contained in (Ordinance) ~) No. 89-3418 passed (~) by the City Council, under Roll Call No. of the City Council on the 13th day of Jtme , 19 ~ and that John McDonald and Marian K. Karr acknowledged the execution of the instrument to be their voluntary act and deed and the voluntary act and deed of the corporation, by it voluntarily executed. rDJUno ~()J'/lA.. (l 0 L Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa J~ 7 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) as: PEORIA COUNTY ) On this je! day of ~ ,A.D. 19 J1 befora me,lha undarslgned, a Notary Public in and for the State of . wa, personally appeared. David S. Joseph, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that he Is the President and See r eta r y , respectively, of said corporation executing the within and foregoing instrument to which this Is attached, that (no seal has been procured by the said) corpora- tion; that said instrument was signed (and sealed) on behalf of (the seal affixed thereto is the seal of said) said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors; and that the said President and See r eta r y as such officers acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corporation, by it and by them voluntarily executed. ~f1};t1 '10 IIOAM lEGAL DEPARTMENT ~--27- ?f' JCt ..., ;;-r'" '" .'P','" ""',0 t'"r''''.~'F;''' , ;i'~'-'o " . H' !~;~~ni; ~g~; ,~H ;~H:.," i ~i~~~~i;~~,!~l '''i'" ',1' "I',,;:. .l"'b'[u.! i....... ! ~~,!!~ j ~ ,: ;![ ~ f, [~!~!~~, ~;;~ ;~?! ~;, ~~~l' I i"H~'"I! -~.'~'~"nl.'!! ":.,-.,IH'. '; ii~d! ~f' ~r!i;~; :~J'!;5'~s ~! ~~,! H~!~~l:r I '-~;;I ';.., .r".., ,J, .'" """~r! " i !!ilil!!liil!i!'I!ill!i!lillllll~. i ; H....",.';,. "-8iH-".I".!.n''',ce, l "l~"". "".:".'," .:..;::"" n 11 ,', ~ ~.~.~. f I-m ! ~ w ~Io :~~' ~~~~F'i:~~f,~~ rUl~ M ~:~ ~~~t:!~~"~-b \' ~' ." l' ~ I . i II ~ ,/ p " -I.t r:; n j > ~ ! " 'I'. , ,I..J.. ~" z:. : u ." .." - - ~ r- '" I ~ :;;~" .-" ~;\'o, ".r, " QQ ,.IIlI~;'t~,~ Q'~'" . "- E i~ u.~~~ ~ .,", HI ~-- ", ,," W I ~ ~ rs .~ i I , ~I .....1 t_,.. '. -;. " .~ ~:: ~ /(1 r>: <' / ~ 'r 2: ::I o l ):- FI ']' ;. '." / :;) , . .. .:: .... ~. ,/ .. o' o~ '. " " .' ,:>:;0" .,y, y '<Y', / ;<l,: '''.> . '<<- .' 'if( / iJ: ~> \ ~/\ ":" \ \ \ r.::c/ \ I \ . ~ I \ ' ,"" -L' "- ~, / '''~~)'<'J'-.:~ ''''~''P,~~: ~, ,,.:. <'J' ."';~^ . '. .- )/.~ . .. ~.%#:~.... I~'." . V'''''. ^ .'. < <..,"'.'+~.....,...' (~ ~" _"r_.,V._,j,.'_~ ;. ~" . ~.::<;~ )"': ~) ~~~;"'! -, ... '\-~..., <'. ~ . 1 \ ..../ , . [ , . i~ r:' I~ ? [1 _'0"_. -- ~ l~ . --. h ----11 , \ \ \~~ .J +-, ,- -- ,\ ;" CD ....'.. '~1'. / L ZD'. i. m[i~ ~ ~-' f-r i'; Hi! -.--,:,-' 'IT"..' · ~. .. fH'i -.-, 'Of ~ .:r ; . ., . . ,; i I ~ . " -- Hm:WHli .:~~~: i~th ~ ""'l'lIJ.. 'Iii; i .,.a .. ",!.'a'ii ! IO::ilrg~:g i~~:'."':~ )H,!,,~.l. '!r~~;.~'"fi I' -"J 'I.. "Il~ 0.... :..,;mmi I I ~ , r r r: '. .. b --- =:..~~...... ..- JIlL....t,.1''''...1t'( _l.,&.~~ijT "".~I;IoC"'T1to.1.; -.--.- -~-- ..:.: ~.:..-. STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Doug Ongie, Planning Intern Date: June 5, 2008 Item: REZ08-00007 700 S. Dubuque St. GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: 6 Corp 700 S. Dubuque Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Contact Person: Sarah E. Swartzendruber 1100 5th Street, Suite 205 Coralville, IA 52241 Phone: (319) 354-1019 E-mail: sswartzendruber@moyerbergman.com Requested Action: Rezoning from CC-2 to CI-1 Purpose: Construction of self-storage units on the lower level of the property. Location: 700 S. Dubuque Street Size: Approximately .28 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Community Commercial (CC-2), fitness center Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: South: East: West: Commercial; CC-2 Commercial; CI-1 Commercial; CI-1 and CC-2 Commercial/Public; CI-1 and P-2 Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as appropriate for intensive commercial. File Date: May 15, 2008 45 Day Limitation Period: June 29, 2008 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, 6 Corp, is requesting that the property at 700 S. Dubuque Street be rezoned from Community Commercial (CC-2) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to allow the construction of self- storage units on the lower level of the property. The Dubuque Street level of the property contains the business, the Studio, which is currently operating as a yoga studio. The applicant would like to continue its existing use as a yoga studio and supplement that use with self-storage units in the lower level of the building. 2 ANAL YSIS: Land Use and Zoning The subject property is currently zoned as Community Commercial (CC-2). The CC-2 zone is primarily intended for retail goods and service operations that require high visibility, but does not allow self-service storage warehouses. The proposed zoning is Intensive Commercial (CI-1) is a quasi-industrial zone that allows businesses to store or display merchandise outside, to repair large equipment and motor vehicles, and operate in buildings that are not completely enclosed. Rezoning this property to CI-1 would allow the subject property to continue operating as a fitness studio on the upper level and self- service storage on the lower level. Compatibility Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood The Comprehensive Plan identifies properties south of the Iowa Interstate Railroad as appropriate for intensive commercial use. Properties surrounding the subject property are zoned CI-1, so rezoning this property will make its zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the current zoning of neighboring properties. Staff is currently working on the Central Planning District and has identified the area south of the Iowa Interstate Railroad as an area for potential redevelopment. There has been discussion that the long term use of this area may be appropriate for mixed-use, transit-oriented development. The applicant has expressed interest in redeveloping the subject property as a mixed-use project in the future, but as noted, the applicant's current request for CI-1 is appropriate at this time. Traffic implications Access to the proposed storage units is provided by a drive from Lafayette Street. The rear of the property cannot be accessed directly from Dubuque Street. Staff believes the intended use of the property will not significantly affect traffic flow to or from the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends item REl08-00007, a request for a rezoning from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately .28 acres of property located at 700 S. Dubuque Street, be approved. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Photograph Approved by: ~~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development S:IPCDlStaff ReportslREZOa-Q0007 700 S Dubuque StIREZOa-Q0007 Staff Report.doc I ~ I 1 I II Ir-, U . ~'.. 11I' hi - I f-<_ ~ A"--,,, j ~ I'~~~ ~~ ~__ ,"'-- - ~ '"-- r" " r-',^~~ O r'~m"m~,m~m'mw""E '-,^ <" ",:': ? v I ~~~ .~. N H~ -f-f( - I I II I : ~, r '-:~ l~ ~~\lI._ L..I .:: ,. ~- ~~ ..... U tL. ~ ..... a' - -, r-, '" r'\ --, J.I. IIVII-.JIIU ~I- ~ (J ~ ~ ~ ~ tj tmwJ " '" I . ,-,,, --.) I 'JV..LI 'JI Iv C\I D- EI S lOlldVJ- r:Jf 'nn'T')~.<<._..".m I i ~'l II'r I { ! NI ,...... o o o o I co o N W a: ~~~ V." ( (I ~ ~~ I ~" >-1 I <(1 ~ I LL <( - 2 .-0.. ~ IIf I:.; (\l- e.. \\ \\ ~ \ / , ~s J2J~) ~~!!..}/CJ !J ra ! I 1,-,. I I ~It - U,... .... . . / J ,.. :D! I I +-' Q) Q) II ~ ~\ ::J ,\ 0- 1\' E \ 6 I~ g \111 /' ~ ~ u o ~ ~ ~ I--( (J) I I II J'-.. o o o o I CO o N W a: ~ tj ~ ~ ~ ~ tj ...... Q) Q) ..... ...... C/) Q) :J 0- :J .0 ::l o C/) o o J'-.. Z o to--oI ~ U o ~ ~ f-t ~ 00 700 S. Dubuque Street Rezoning Application OWNER'S STATEMENT AS TO WHY ZONING CHANGE IN WARRANTED The applicant, 6 Corp, is requesting that the real estate located at 700 S. Dubuque Street be rezoned from CC-2 to CI-l in order to permit the construction of self-storage units on the lower level of the real estate. 700 S. Dubuque Street is located immediately adjacent to 710 S. Dubuque Street, which is currently zoned CI-l, so this rezoning will make the two adjoining properties compatible. Over the past couple of years, the applicant has discussed with City staff the possibility of developing this real estate at a higher density than is currently permitted. The applicant understands that the Comprehensive Plan for this district may eventually permit higher density development of this parcel in connection with future transit-oriented development plans. The applicant is in favor of such a higher density use and would welcome the opportunity to develop the real estate consistent with such a plan. Until such time as the Comprehensive Plan permits such development, the applicant would like to continue its existing use of the real estate as a fitness center but supplement that use with self-storage units in the lower level of the building. Rezoning the real estate to CI-l is necessary to permit that use of the real estate. The public infrastructure and facilities will support the intended use of the property. The intended use of the property will not significantly affect traffic flow to or from the property and will not adversely impact any neighboring real estate uses. This use complies with the current Comprehensive Plan. As indicated above, the applicant fully intends to redevelop the property for a higher density use after the Comprehensive Plan is amended to permit higher density development. o ~() >- -l 0-< ----1(') -<, -m -;0 O=" :E )> ~ ::z: :lI> -< \.II :lI> ::z: - - .... V't .c: -n - r- m o ...! City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: June 5, 2008 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner Re: Proposed code amendment to 14-5J-9, Variances to Flood Plain Management Standards The Parkview Church recently requested a variance from the Flood Plain Management Standards located in the City's zoning code. The need for a variance was triggered by a request to build an addition on the church and the discovery that the flood plain maps had changed since the church was built. The applicant has presented evidence that the cost of bringing the older portion of the building up to code would be more than what it would cost to clean-up I restore that portion of the building in the event of a flood. This variance request is being processed through the Board of Adjustment. The Flood Plain Management Standards and the associated variance approval criteria mirror federal standards. However, with the adoption of the new zoning code we added a cross reference to the City's general variance procedures that will make it unnecessarily burdensome to qualify for a flood plain variance. Since the variance procedures and approval criteria for the flood plain regulations were set up specifically to address questions of flood plain management, staff recommends that the cross reference to the general variance approval criteria be deleted from the ordinance. Specifically, staff recommends that the language shown with strikethrough notation, as indicated below, be deleted from the zoning code. The rest of the variance provision will remain the same and is provided for your reference. 14-5J-9 Variances The Board of Adjustment may authorize, upon request, in specific cases, such variances from the terms of this Article that will not be contrary to the public interest where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Article will result in unnecessary and undue hardship. To ensure that the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice done, no variance to the strict application of any provision of this Article shall be granted the Board unless the demonstrates that all of the criteria are met. A. Approval Criteria 1. No variance shall be granted for any development within the f100dway that would result in any increase in flood elevation during the occurrence of the lOO-year flood event, unless approved by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or its successor. 2. Variances shall only be granted upon a showing of good and sufficient cause, and a determination that the granting of the variance will not result in increased flood elevation, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances or cause fraud on or victimization of the public. 3. Variances shall only be granted upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. 4. In cases where the variance involves a lower level of flood protection for buildings than what is ordinarily required by this Article, the applicant shall be notified, in writing, over the signature of the Building Official, that the issuance of a variance will likely result in increased premium rates for flood insurance. 5. All variances granted shall have the concurrence or approval of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or its successor. B. Factors for Consideration When considering applications for variances, the Board of Adjustment will consider all relevant factors specified in other sections of this Article in addition to the following factors: 1. The danger to life and property due to increased flood elevation or velocities caused by encroachments. 2. The danger that materials may be swept on to other land or downstream to the injury of others. 3. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. 4. Such other factors that are relevant to the purposes of this Article. C. Conditions of Approval Upon consideration of the factors and approval criteria listed above, the Board of Adjustment may attach such conditions and safeguards to the granting of a variance as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes and intent of the provisions of this Article. Approved by: ~ ~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 12, 2008 - 6:30 PM - INFORMAL CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM Preliminary MEMBERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Koppes, Tim Weitzel, Ann Freerks, Wally Plahutnik, Charlie Eastham STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen, Ron Knoche OTHERS PRESENT: Dan Smith CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. It was noted that Greenwood-Hektoen and Eastham would have to depart early and that Howard arrive late. DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: SUB06-00003 & SUB08-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Dav-Ed Limited for a preliminary plat and a final plat (respectively) of Galway Hills Parts 10& 11, a 51-lot, 21.75 acre residential subdivision located at Dublin Drive & Shannon Drive. The 45-day limitation period is May 25, 2008 for the preliminary plat and June 8, 2008 for the final plat. Miklo began by addressing concerns brought up by Galway Hills residents at the last Commission meeting. Residents had expressed concerns about traffic volume if the road connection between Galway Hills and Walden Hills to the south were completed. Miklo said that the connection would allow Galway Hills residents to exit their subdivision to the south, just as it would allow Walden Hills residents to exit their subdivision to the north. Miklo said that it could be assumed that some additional traffic would use the neighborhood, but that traffic planners think it will be limited. Miklo pointed out that Mormon Trek only has only a few traffic signals in that area and that as a result it would remain the fastest route. An updated traffic count was done by transportation planners, given the concerns residents had brought forward that the previous count could be flawed if it was not taken while school was in session. Miklo stated that in order for a collector street to be considered overburdened it would have to have 2,500 vehicle trips per day. The new traffic counts were much in line with the previous ones, showing approximately 700 trips per day on Dublin and 700 trips per day on Shannon, for a combined total of under 1,500. He noted that only a percentage of the traffic from Shannon would travel to the north and some of that would be offset by traffic from Galway Hills being able to travel to the south once the connection is made. Regarding the concern about additional West High students using the street if it were connected, Miklo said that there were 120 enrolled students west of Highway 218. Even if every one of those students began using this road when it was completed, the traffic counts would still remain well under 2,500 vehicle trips per day. A positive aspect of the completion of the road would be that city services would be improved to the area and transit services could be established. Miklo said that the overall vehicle trips and miles traveled may actually go down if the road is connected and this was important towards minimizing greenhouse gasses. Next, Miklo addressed the issue of park design that had raised concerns among current Galway Hills residents. Miklo said that the greatest difficulty in alleviating these concerns is that the north part of Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 2008 Page 2 Shannon Drive is fixed, having been built by the Walden Hills developer to a certain point. Miklo believes that rebuilding the road so that it does not run through the middle of the park would not be financially feasible or justified based on traffic projections and the great cost of doing such a project. He said that if there are issues with traffic flow or speeds, the area could become eligible for traffic calming. Miklo said that taking traffic calming measures beyond those already built into the street design before knowing if there would be traffic problems and what those traffic problems would be, would not be advisable. Eastham remarked that Shannon seems to narrow as it goes north. Miklo said that that may be because of the culvert in that area. Eastham said that he did have some concerns about the park-land issues, and wondered if the City had accepted responsibility for the parks at this point. Miklo said that the City had not. Eastham wondered if the City intended to buy playground equipment for the park area, and expressed concern for the marshy- ness of the area. Koppes suggested that the community could use part or all of the space as a community gardening lot. Eastham asked what the parking policy on the through streets would be, if there would be any restrictions, and if parking policies might affect speeds. Miklo responded that in the traffic counts done the week prior, speeds seemed pretty typical of similar neighborhoods, and that as a collector street, there would be no restrictions on parking unless requested by the neighbors. Miklo added that the issue of West High students using the street for parking was not observed during the traffic counts. Miklo stated that he was recommending approval of both the preliminary and final plats for this project. Koppes asked if there were any mitigating factors that would even legally allow the Commission to deny this project. Greenwood-Hektoen remarked that legally the Commission did not really have a basis for denial. Miklo remarked that in general a pretty compelling reason was required for the Commission to deny a plat that has met all other approval criteria. Eastham asked if there were comments obtained from the Police Chief regarding connector streets. Miklo said that there had not specifically been comments on this project, but that the position of emergency services was generally that the more connector streets the better. Eastham and Koppes agreed that public transportation becoming available in the area was a positive change. Plahutnik said that the issue of street connectivity would be an important factor in his decision. SUB08-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Hendrickson for a preliminary plat of Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums, a 2010t, 9.48 acre residential subdivision located south of Melrose Avenue as an extension of Olive Court, Lamer Court, and Marietta Avenue. The 45-day limitation period is May 28, 20085. Miklo stated that this was a procedural matter, having been mistakenly left off of the last meeting's agenda. There was no discussion held on the matter. 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. Miklo stated that this was a conditional use application being submitted to provide for expansion of an existing cemetery. The plan includes 7 off-street parking spots in addition to the parking provided along Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 2008 Page 3 the side of the cemetery road. Staff is recommending approval of the plan. Freerks noted the wooded area in photographs shown by Miklo and asked if this was considered a sensitive area. Miklo replied that the County, in whose jurisdiction this cemetery lay, has its own sensitive areas ordinances which would govern the County's actions for the area. The item was before the City because the cemetery was within the City/County fringe area and County regulations allow for City input in these cases. DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 15, LAND SUBDIVISIONS: Consideration of amendments to regulations pertaining to the subdivision and development of land. It was decided to go through the staff-prepared matrix entitled "Proposed Amendments to the Staff Recommended Draft of the Subdivision Code," dated April 25, 2008, discussing each of the items individually. Item #1: Amend the definition of "Alley," deleting the word "abutting." This item was withdrawn by the original requestors. Item #2: Amend definition of "Boundary Line Adjustment" defining it as a certain percentage of a lot rather than 1,000 square feet." Staff expressed reservations about changing this as Staff had experienced no instances in which the current definition had been a problem, and was concerned for the ramifications of this with a large piece of property. Item #3: Request for clarification: What is a "public open space improvement?" Staff stated that this is defined in City code and is a generally understood term. Koppes agreed that no clarification was needed. Freerks asked if the submitting developer, Glen Siders, had expressed why he felt the need for clarification. Plahutnik wondered where the quote was taken from. Howard stated that the quote was from the section of the code defining "improvement," and that the City does not want to accept open space as an improvement until the lots are built. Item #4: 15-1-7B Clarify when a full release will be granted by the City for storm water facilities. The City Engineer, Ron Knoche, stated that the new language would allow for a little more flexibility to accept improvements prior to completion of the subdivision. He said that with the adoption of the new Construction Site Run-off Permit, it will become even less of an issue. Koppes asked what the City does with the land used for stormwater detention. Knoche replied that some of these areas become city parks, some are maintained by the homeowner's association for the area, and some are maintained by the developer. Howard said that the request was for clarification on when a full release will be granted. Weitzel stated that the main concern was to avoid having a bunch of lots with soil eroding throughout the city. Plahutnik asked for clarification on whether a release was granted when the project was finished or when the City Engineer said so. Howard said that typically all infrastructures would have to be in place before that release was granted, so this provision would allow the flexibility for the City to accept the land earlier if the City Engineer determined that erosion would not be problem, for example, if all the lots surrounding the detention basin were developed first. Item #5: Include language providing for one mandatory staff review, with any further review at the discretion of the applicant, who may choose in the alternative to petition the Planning and Zoning Commission of review. Delete language prohibiting plats proceeding to the Commission when there are more than 6 deficiencies. Howard pointed out that a plat can already go to the Commission without Staff recommendation. Koppes asked how the number 6 deficiencies had been settled on. Miklo stated that in the past it was not uncommon to find plats with 20 or more deficiencies coming before the Commission, and that the Commission asked not to see anything with more than 6 deficiencies. Howard explained the nature of a technical deficiency versus a disagreement on subjective design issues. Koppes asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 2008 Page 4 word "technical" might be inserted prior to "deficiency" to clarify the matter. Miklo explained that design issues were a matter of policy disagreements whereas deficiencies were a matter of inaccurate or missing information required by code. Freerks asked if deficiency could at least be defined to clarify matters. Howard suggested that because deficiencies covered a vast area of possible errors in a number of fields, defining it might be difficult. Howard and Miklo agreed to consult with the City Attorney's office and the Public Works Department about the possibility of defining this term. Item #6: Request that all departments reviewing the plat must provide their written comments to the applicant within 20 business days. Freerks asked if this was 20 business days from when the application comes in or 20 days from when the application is complete. Howard stated that if applications are complete when they are received comments are typically back to the applicant well before 20 days, because the application, if complete, would be put on the P&Z agenda approximately 2 weeks after received. If, however, the application is incomplete or has a lot of discrepancies, there may be a number of revisions necessary before they are ready to be sent to P&Z. If there are changes made to the documents after they are returned to the applicant, then Staff has to review them again, generating new comments. Miklo stated that an applicant usually knows within a week if their application is too incomplete to fully review. Item #7: Request that any code deficiencies be clearly cited to the corresponding existing City code or ordinance provision. Howard stated that since the vast majority of plats are prepared by the same consulting firm, the City's engineering standards are well known. The reviewing engineer will redline the plat noting any corrections that need to be made. Requiring the engineer to reference each detailed engineering specification would likely cause unnecessary delay and redundancy. Most of the codes, other than perhaps zoning which is slightly more discretionary, are very clear-cut and self-explanatory. Written comments are given to the developer explaining what deficiencies need to be resolved. Staff prefers to maintain the current flexibility to work with developers rather than codifying such an arrangement that may actually slow down the process. Weitzel said that it sounded as if developers were insinuating that there was something capricious or arbitrary governing some of these non-compliance issues. Freerks asked if this was a frequent problem. Miklo said that if Staff cannot point to a City code, then it becomes an issue of design, and design issues are not deficiencies. Item # 8: 15-2-38-3 Amend the language so that a digital copy of the plat is only required after everything has been finalized. Howard stated that only the final plat is required to be compatible with the County's GIS system. Early digital copies can be in simple pdf form and helps to reduce unnecessary paperwork as revisions are made. Staff suggested making this distinction clear in the code. Item #9: 15-2-3C-ge: Delete this paragraph because there are a lot of possibilities for things to become "peculiar," a term which is not defined. Howard stated that the term "peculiar" is used quite frequently in City code and it means unique or specific to. It is not new language. This allows subdivider's agreements to be tailored to the specific property being subdivided. Item #10: 15-2-3A-5 Delete this provision or provide further guidance as to its purpose and scope. Howard stated that current wording is intended to benefit the applicant and allow the flexibility for minor changes between preliminary and final plats. Staff suggested changing the language to make this section more clear. Item #11: 15-2-38 & C Add a new subparagraph to 15-2-38 and a new subparagraph to 15-2-3C that would require a note on the final plat and in the sub-divider's agreement to the effect that notes on plats are not intended to create any stated use- restriction or covenant or create any third party beneficiaries to any noted use restriction or covenant. This change was requested by the City Attorney due to a recent court case. Item #12: Delete paragraphs A2, 3 and 4, plus various questions submitted by Glen Siders regarding this section. This section adds language establishing standards for street connectivity. There is currently no Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 2008 Page 5 language in t.he code regarding this issue to give the applicant, staff or the Commission any guidance with regard to review of proposed streets within a subdivision. Howard stated that Staff position is that it is better to have a code that provides guidelines so that reviews can be fair and consistent over time. Item #13: 15-3-2B-2 Clarify what the additional "projected traffic generation" calculations or methodology the City will utilize and rely upon. Howard said that the City uses the ITE traffic generation manual and local traffic counts and studies to project traffic generation. These are industry accepted methods. Item #14: 15-3-2C Street Types - Retain current right-of-way standards as sufficient minimums. Howard stated that even with an increased right-of-way, Staff does not anticipate much loss in lots, as lot lines can be adjusted to accommodate it. Miklo stated that staff reviewed various plats to determine if increasing the ROW widths to better accommodate bicycles and street trees would affect the number of lots that could be achieved and found that since most lots were not exactly at the minimum lot size, boundaries could be adjusted so that there was no net loss in the number of lots achieved. Item #15: 15-3-2C Street Types - Clarify when and who has the discretion to choose between a 26 and 28 for pavement width for cul-de-sacs and local residential streets. Howard said that the intention was to let the developer decide based on the neighborhood needs. Item # 16: Table 15-1 - The request from Bob Elliot was to not reduce the street pavement width for local residential streets from 28 feet to 26 feet. Howard stated that a narrower pavement width generally equals lower traffic speeds. Item # 17: 15-3-2F-3 Delete language requiring adjacent property owners to maintain landscaped areas within medians of cul-de-sacs and loop streets. Miklo said that generally what happened is the homeowner's association takes it over, or people in the neighborhood just informally take care of it. Plahutnik pointed out that "adjacent property owners" could be deleted as it does not matter to the City who does it so long as someone is responsible. Staff will consult with legal prior to making any modifications to the language. The Commission indicated little interest in requiring the City to maintain the grassy areas of all cui de sac bulbs in the City, since this was not parkland or open space that was benefiting the public at large. Item #18: 15-3-2H-5 Develop specifications for the construction of emergency service turnarounds. Howard said these specifications are in the International Fire Code. Public Works and Fire Code standards are not in the subdivision code; they are in separate documents. Item #19: 15-3-2J Private Streets - Question about designating responsibility for maintaining private streets and the procedures and financing of such services. Howard stated that while there may be appropriate places for private streets, the City generally discourages them as often people are unaware that they live on a private street and expect the City to solve maintenance issues. Item #20: 15-3-3G Remove this paragraph regarding mid-block pedestrian connections or extend the length of the block before requiring one. Delete subparagraph 1 in its entirety. Amend subparagraph 2 to allow for current maximum block lengths of 2,000 feet. Amend subparagraph 3 to allow for current minimum block lengths along arterial streets. In subparagraph 4, delete the 900-foot maximum cul-de- sac length and substitute "1000 feet." Howard stated that currently there is not much of a standard for block length. While it is best to have more streets with greater connectivity, where that is not possible, mid-block pedestrian connections are an alternative method of achieving connectivity at least for pedestrians and bicyclists. Plahutnik asked if there were instances where it could be waived. Miklo said that language allows the City to waive for example when there is no apparent destination. Item #21: 15-3-4B-4 Exempt corner lots from this standard that requires double-fronting lots to be 125% of the required lot area. Howard stated that this was not the intention of the code language. It was intended for lots with parallel frontages. She said that language could be added to exempt double- Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 2008 Page 6 fronting corner lots. Item #22: 15-3-48-7 Clarify that only "public open spaces" as defined by Code are subject to subparagraph 7. Howard stated that staff was at a loss of how to make the language more clear. Freerks and Plahutnik agreed. Item #23: 15-3-4C Provisions To Minimize the Effect of Highway Noise - Delete this subsection in its entirety. Weitzel stated that good design maintains property values and makes quality of life better for those who live in the area. He maintained that certain people would benefit from being able to develop right up to the white line. Howard stated that the federal government encourages local jurisdictions to create standards for residential development near high volume roadways, such as interstate highways. Howard said that some people do not realize how loud the traffic can be when purchasing homes along the interstate and the noise level varies from summer to winter. Miklo said the best solution in their view is to develop that land for non-residential uses, but requiring a buffer area was the minimum necessary. Item #24: 15-3-58 - Create an incentive and reward sub-dividers who voluntarily create open space by providing credits towards the required fees in lieu. Howard stated that this was an interesting idea but that it would require further study. Plahutnik stated that this was a recipe for gated communities with one entrance. Miklo said that Staff recommends coming back to this, putting it on the pending list, and studying it with the Parks & Recreation Commission. Koppes said that Windsor Ridge has all of that park space that is really the backyards of the residents, with no access other than through private property. Miklo reiterated that Staff would like to look at this idea in more detail, but recommended no change at this time. Item #25: Delete this subsection. Howard said this is only a cross-reference to public works codes and so should not create any conflict with actual regulations. Item # 26: Delete the words "and beyond, as necessary." Knoche commented that there are times when there are topographical constraints or issues with some neighbors not allowing it to be extended for example in which this language becomes necessary to ensure that neighboring properties can be developed in the future. Item #27: Amend subparagraph A to include only projects that have not received final plat approval as opposed to "constructed." Delete subsections 8 and C. Staff agrees to amend the paragraph in this manner. The developer typically works it out with the Post Office; the City would like to be involved to potentially add their voice to the decision if need be. Staff is against deleting subsections 8 and C. Item #28: Delete subsection15-3-128 - Staff is against deleting this subsection. Item #29: 15-3-14C Delete "at its discretion, may" and insert "shall." Howard said the intent behind this language was to avoid leap-frog development and amending the language would tie the City Council's hand with regard to setting priorities for capital improvements. Weitzel asked the best procedure for making motions to make changes in the Formal Meeting. Miklo said that the best thing to do would be to make motions to make changes for the ones the Commission wished to change. It was decided not to go through the entire matrix at the formal meeting, but to identify those things they wish to change and then make their motions. Koppes asked when the Commission would be voting on a Vice-Chair. It was decided that this would be placed on the agenda for June 2, 2008. There were no further questions or concerns Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 2008 Page 7 ADJOUNRMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. I: o 'Iii III 's E o o"E eno I: U .- CD 1:0::: o NCD~ .....UO -I:N en"' I:"C .- I: I: CD 1:- ..!!<e 11. l;- (3 "' ~ .2 C) z i= W W :E ..J <C :E 0::: o LL .... W I ii;><><><><<31 I :><><><><><><<31 I ~><><><><><><><; o WI s:::!><><><><><><O- I M I ~b!:!><><><><><ob!:! I ;: 0 I s:::!><><><><><b!:!><l ..... 0 I (fl EQ)o......MNooo......M '--r-~~.,-.,-O.,-.,- L.. ';:::: ""'- -... -... ....... ........ -... ........ ........ Q) ~>< LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO I-WOOOOOOOO E ~ I: III "' III III I: 0 _ ~.ci!:!'5I:.c~ 8Ui CD~.c ;~._ Q)""' 2! O..!!.c E:: EmWLL::':::I1.(/)(/);> ~aicjc(u.i3:cit-=t-= N W I I 't!'" - >< >< >< >< - 0 I I II) I I "'lIt I 't!'" >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< <3 <3 >< >< >< >< <3 <3 <3 I N I (fl 0 M N 000 ...... M E ~ ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......0 ...... ...... cu .~ - - - - -- - - LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO I-w 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 E III ~ I: III III 'c 0 - ~ "'~ i - I: .c CD 0 .c.. ::I I: _.tI - CD .c "' Q) e III CD ..!!.c ~~ "' .. 0 Em WLL ::.::: 11.(/) to . cjc( u.i3: cit-= t-= zm C) z i= W W :E ..J <C :E 0::: o LL ~ "C Q) (fl :J U >< W --:;:. r::: r::: r::: Q) Q) Q) (fl (fl (fl ~.o.o 0..<(<( .. II II II >. W Q) - ~><oo MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2008 - 7:30 PM - FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL Preliminary MEMBERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Koppes, Tim Weitzel, Ann Freerks, Robert Brooks, Wally Plahutnik, Charlie Eastham STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Carter LeaVesseur, Noah Stevens, Candice Stevens, Jay LeaVesseur, Nancy LeaVesseur, Charlotte Bailey, Dan Smith RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommend approval by a vote of 6-0 SUB06-00003, 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. Recommend approval by a vote of 6-0 SUB08-00005, an application submitted by Dav-Ed Limited for a final plat of Galway Hills Parts 107 11, a 51-lot, 21.75 acre residential subdivision located at Dublin & Shannon Drive. Recommend approval by a vote of 6-0 SUB08-00002, an application submitted by Jeff Hendrickson for a preliminary plat of Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums, a 2-lot, 9.48 acre residential subdivision located south of Melrose Avenue as an extension of Olive Court, Leamer Court, and Marietta Avenue. Recommend approval by a vote of 6-0 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. Recommend approval by a vote of 6-0 amending regulations pertaining to the subdivision and development of land. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: 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. The 45-day limitation period is May 25, 2008. Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 2 Freerks asked for staff comments. Miklo stated that the full staff report was given at the last meeting and is available online for anyone who is interested in it. The basic information concerning the plat is that it is 51 single family lots, with 2 out-lots for the storm water management system and 2 out-lots to be added to the existing green space. Miklo stated that at the last meeting there were concerns expressed regarding increased traffic in the area, specifically on Dublin Drive, which along with the extension of Tipperary and Shannon Drive, is designed to be a collector street to funnel traffic from Galway Hills and Walden Wood to Rohret Road and Melrose Avenue. These are collector streets which are considered to be overburdened when they carry 2,500 or more vehicles per day. City transportation planners project that the addition of the 51-lots in Galway Hills Part 10 & 11, the existing traffic in Galway Hills itself, traffic in Walden Woods that will choose to go north, and general traffic in the area will add up to roughly 1,500 trips per day using that street network. This projection was based on traffic counts that were taken in August 2007. At the last meeting concerns were expressed that this count was taken in mid-August prior to the start of the school year and thereby failing to include traffic from West High students. As a result, traffic planners took a new count last week, which found the count to be consistent with that taken in August 2007, with roughly 600-700 vehicle trips per day on Dublin Drive and roughly 700 vehicles trips per day on Shannon Drive. An additional count was taken on Sunday to account for the perceived increased traffic due to church services, and again it was roughly 600 trips per day, slightly less than the weekday count. It was found that the increased traffic generated by the church on Sunday was off-set by the decreased general traffic in the neighborhood on that day, a pattern consistent with other neighborhoods throughout the city. Based on these measurements and projections, the transportation planners, do not feel that this street will be overburdened. Miklo reiterated that in the event that it becomes overburdened in the future there are traffic calming techniques that can be applied, and that the streets have been designed with inherent traffic calming features such as turns which are intended to discourage through-traffic in the neighborhood. Miklo pointed out that there will be some benefits to the inter-connected street network for area residents: it will make it easier for the City to provide services to the area, especially emergency services such as fire and police. The Fire Marshall has confirmed that the more ways in and out of a neighborhood the better it is for their department, especially in an emergency situation where one road might be blocked. Miklo also addressed a question raised in the previous meeting regarding the relationship of the street to the open space and the Willow Creek trail network which is in a temporary form in that area. If this subdivision is built out, the Willow Creek Trail in this area will be rebuilt and improved to its permanent state. Actually moving the road (Shannon Drive) in relation to the open space, as suggested by residents in a previous meeting, would be difficult as the road has already been built at great expense by the developer of Walden Hills. There was no immediate benefit to the residents if Walden Hills when that portion of the road was built. It was built exclusively to provide connectivity to other neighborhoods at a later date. Redesigning this subdivision to move that road in relationship to the park would be a great expense and one of questionable value given the traffic projections for the area. Miklo stated that the plat, as submitted, does meet all zoning requirements, subdivision requirements, is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and what it calls for for this neighborhood, so at this point staff recommends that the preliminary plat of Galway Hills Parts 10 & 11 be approved. Miklo offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. Eastham asked if it was still the position of staff that, as stated in the staff report, in order for bus service to be extended to that area it needed to be a connected street. Miklo stated that in terms of serving the west side, the Transit Department would like to create a loop in that area and this street is necessary to do that; there is not another option. Weitzel asked if Shannon Drive would be widened at all. Miklo replied that it will be a 31-foot street once it gets over the culvert, which is standard for a collector street, and it is the same width that Dublin Drive is built to. Freerks opened the Public Hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 3 The developer was invited to comment first, but no one came forward to speak. Eastham disclosed that he went out to visit the proposed site after the last meeting and that while he was there he had a conversation with a resident that had been present at the previous meeting. The general topic of the conversation was regarding the process that the Commission went through in making its decisions. Eastham wished to state this in the interest of full disclosure. Carter LeaVesseur, 742 Tipperary Road, stated that he would not like to have the road put in because he and his friends are kind of small and a lot of times adults driving cars would not be able to see them when they were there. They do not want to be hit by cars so near their bike path. Noah Stevens, 2459 Ireland Drive, stated that he agreed with Carter. He bikes to school on the current path often and feels it would be very likely he would be hit if there was a through-road there. Candice Stevens, 2459 Ireland Drive, had a question about the traffic on Melrose Avenue. She stated that it is difficult already to get out of the neighborhood onto Melrose at certain times of day, and she wondered if there were any plans to alleviate that problem of getting onto Melrose. Miklo stated that Melrose Avenue is an arterial street and that transportation planners did look at that. There are 12,000 trips per day on Melrose, which is not unusual for an arterial street, and is what it was designed for. The transportation planners did look to see if there was a way to synchronize the lights at West High and the one closer to the interstate. The difficulty there is that this is an unusual traffic signal designed specifically to provide better access to West High, and there was not much the transportation planners believed that they could do in terms of synchronization of the signal. They anticipate that some of the traffic from this subdivision is going south and will have the option to take Shannon Drive and Rohret Road. There was not much hope of improving the situation on Melrose. Freerks asked what type of criteria was usually used to look at replacing a traffic signal. Miklo replied that it was not actually about replacing the light, but that there would need to be a warrant to have other traffic lights installed in the area. The traffic counts from Dublin and Galway indicate there are not and probably never will be enough traffic trips per day to warrant a light at that intersection. Jay LeaVesseur, 742 Tipperary Road, stated that he would like to take an opportunity for a quick math exercise. LeaVesseur stated that the Melrose Meadows traffic counts alone were 281 cars per day, there were 678 cars that were past Melrose Meadows (not Melrose Meadows traffic), with 51 new lots coming in at 7 trips per day, the numbers are up to about 1,400-1,500, 650 cars coming off of Rohret Road into the other subdivision, and still no car counts are given to anyone on Hunter's Run and the whole Weber side of town which has grown dramatically faster than anyone could have anticipated. LeaVesseur stated that all of those people are going to need to come over to Northwest Junior High, and to take Camp Cardinal over to the mall area. LeaVesseur stated that Galway Hills will become the shortcut, and that all of the traffic counts he stated were getting perilously close to 2,500. He encouraged the Commission not to wait to solve a traffic problem after the fact if they chose to approve the plat. He said it seemed likely that there is going to be a traffic problem heading into the situation, and that it was best to try to incorporate solutions to those problems now by making restrictions on the road or putting some traffic calming measures in at this point in time. Overall, LeaVesseur stated, that he understood that it would be a great expense to move the road, but that the road is still going through the only green space in the subdivision. He understood that the road had valid reasons for going through and that it has been in the Comprehensive Plan for twenty years, but he stated that the demographics are changing, the counts have changed and that it is not an unimaginable scenario that the traffic counts will be as high as the residents are fearing. He thinks the math is flirting around those numbers already. Miklo clarified that the guidelines for a collector street being overburdened is 2,500 vehicle trips per day at the mid-point of the street. The traffic from the elderly housing project was not taken into account because that traffic is not likely to go in that direction, at least not much of it. Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 4 Nancy LeaVesseur, 742 Tipperary Road, stated that she had a problem with the way the new traffic count was done and felt that it was a bit dishonest not to put the traffic counters so that they included traffic from the retirement community. She believes the counters were not put in the right spot and that as a result the traffic counts are off. She fears that their community will become "Gateway Hills" rather than Galway Hills, and that the Commission is underestimating the amount of traffic that will be coming through the neighborhood and that having a park with a street through it is dangerous. She said that she understood the desire to make it a through street to provide city services, but she does not believe that the benefits will be for the Galway Hills neighborhood as there are already two exists in their neighborhood. What she believes is actually the case is that the focus is getting the services over to the over-populated area near Weber which currently does not have a fire department or another way out of their area. She would have felt better about the project if another exist onto Melrose or Mormon Trek had been created for the people in the Weber neighborhood, so that cutting through Galway Hills was not such an attractive option. LeaVesseur said that while she understands that this was the deal that was made fifteen or twenty years ago, the plan no longer makes sense, and it is the residents of Galway Hills who will be stuck with it. She feels it funnels too much traffic through their subdivision, will be dangerous, and will lower their property values, and she believes that no one at the meeting would appreciate the same things happening to their subdivision. She asked the Commissioners to really think about what they would be doing. Charlotte Bailey, 6 Kearney Court, stated that none of the Galway Hills residents were trying to be alarmist, and that they all know roads are important and that the more roads connected in different directions means the more options traffic has to flow. She stated that she believed that the people living south of Galway Hills who do not have another way to get their children to Northwest Junior High, the mall, or to West High are really the issue. The traffic coming in and out of Melrose Meadows still creates traffic at the Melrose intersection and contributes to back-ups, even if they do not drive deep into the subdivision. Changing the math on the number of trips the new residents will generate does not really change the issue or the problem for Galway Hills residents. The other issue she wished to address was not just the volume of traffic, but also the speed of traffic. She wondered if the data that was collected on the most recent count included speed information. Bailey believes that if there is a combination of volume of traffic and speed of traffic then this should be taken into consideration. She believes that speeds increase in the straightaway portions of road nearest the path that was put in for kids living in Galway to walk to West High, and that this presents a danger. Another questions she posed regarding the traffic counter placement as it relates to the issue of speed, was that if you came up with speed data, would the data be collected to show only average speeds. This was significant, Bailey said, because turning traffic of those living in Galway Hills would obviously reflect lower rates of speed than through traffic that would be using Galway Hills as a thoroughfare. She would encourage the Commission to take this fact into consideration if they were given speed information. She reiterated a statement she made at the meeting a few weeks ago, saying that the residents there wanted to be part of a positive process, and that if most of the key decisions that can be made about a plan are made prior to a plat being presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission, then this is a hard place to be heard for the first time. She encouraged the Commission to look at the process, because it is hard to come and try to be heard when the majority of key decisions have already been made. Freerks asked if there were any other speakers who would like to address the Commission on this topic. None came forward. Miklo stated that there is a similar connection proposed for west of Highway 218 in the Country Club Estates subdivision which would provide a circuitous connection between Rohret Road and Melrose Avenue. When that development occurs, Miklo stated, the Commission will have a similar question before them. Freerks asked what the timeline on that project would be. Miklo did not feel comfortable giving an actual timeframe as that would be determined by the developer. Miklo also pointed out that there were several residents from Galway Hills present during the Southwest Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 5 District planning, and that discussion of this connection did come out at that time. Freerks asked when this took place. Miklo believes it was 2002. Nancy LeaVesseur, 742 Tipperary Road, pointed out that in 2002 Camp Cardinal Road was not open yet, and that it's opening changes everything. LeaVesseur did not believe the issue with Country Club Estates would be comparable to the Galway Hills situation, as a connected street there would be used by those in the subdivision, not by several other subdivisions trying to get out. LeaVesseur stated that Galway Hills in comparison with other subdivisions in the area is tiny. She also stated that the person who came to talk to the Commission in 2002 would have been the developer, not the residents who actually live there, and the population over by Weber was not as large at the time. LeaVesseur said that it might have been a different story if they had connected the other street first, from a subdivision to a major road, but that what is being done in this project is taking a cluster of subdivisions and making a gateway road for them through one very small subdivision. LeaVesseur added that the Melrose Meadows counts are really very important as they would reflect the difficulty of trying to get out of the subdivision in the morning. She reiterated that because Melrose Avenue is so overburdened, all of the increased traffic in the Galway Hills area would cause traffic in the mornings to become stuck and backed-up. She believes the Commission would be making a big mistake to approve the plan. Freerks invited the public to comment further. No one came forward. The public hearing was closed. Eastham motioned to approve SUB-06-00003, 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. Plahutnik seconded. Freerks invited discussion from the Commission. Brooks stated his agreement with many of the concerns the residents expressed about the traffic, and as a result, he was not sure that he was ready to support the plat. He stated that he knew it conformed to the master plan, the concept that was developed in 2002, but he agrees that making this the only connection to Melrose from the west side of Highway 218 will increase traffic in the area. He does not believe that the curves in the plan are enough of a deterrent to discourage using the new connection as a cut-through. He stated that he has real problems with the way the area has been developed and what appears to be the lack of street planning to get the traffic moving through neighborhoods to the destinations they seek. He stated that he was not sure what the answer was to this, but that he was not sure he was going to support the plat. Eastham stated that in considering this application he began where he always begins and that is with the Comprehensive Plan. It is clear that the Comprehensive Plan supports a connector street between Rohret Road and Melrose at this approximate location. Eastham visited the area both to look at the potential traffic and utilization issues, as well as the parkland issue. He believes it is a relatively adequate amount of parkland for the subdivision. The only major issue he saw to resolve was the connection between Rohret and Melrose. In considering the matter, he asked himself what was different about this situation and others in the community where two major arterials needed to be connected through existing subdivisions. He was unable to convince himself that this was an unusual or unique situation. He believes there is an adequate alternative for traffic flowing west and north by taking Mormon Trek Boulevard to Melrose Avenue, and believes that most people will continue to take that route. Eastham believes that the route and the traffic calming designs will discourage cut-through traffic, and that it will not present an attractive alternative to Mormon Trek. Eastham feels a great obligation to heed the Fire Marshall's statement that connector streets are very important for public safety overall, whether or not they are utilized in a particular instance; it is simply wise policy in the community to encourage connector streets. The bus service is of concern to Eastham due to the concentration of people, especially the substantial numbers of senior citizens and people with disabilities, and families of lower income in the Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 6 area. Extending bus service to the area will ensure some transportation is available to those families and individuals. For all of these reasons, Eastham stated that he is reasonably comfortable with supporting this application. In the future, Eastham stated, it may be a good idea for neighborhood associations in the area to get together and promote bus usage to alleviate some of the traffic. Eastham said that if traffic speed becomes a problem it can be handled with the installation of traffic calming devices in the future. Eastham said that his family has lived on two major streets and has some experience with traffic, and the family did adapt to the busy traffic. He stated his intention to support the plan. Plahutnik stated that part of sitting on the Commission and voting is making sure that they have not made a snap decision, but that they have thought through their decisions. Plahutnik stated that he is on-record as being anti-sprawl and pretty much anti-development. If within the confines of the Comprehensive Plan he could deny any of this, he would. Plahutnik added that that statement goes back as far as the rest of Galway Hills, Hunter's Run, and all of the rest of the sprawl that has spread out from Iowa City. This, however, is not the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Plahutnik stated that from what he heard, it sounded as though the Commission or staff designed this subdivision. Plahutnik stated that this land belongs to somebody else who has property rights over the land. The developer has designed the subdivision in a process with staff being there to make sure that at every step the developer is complying with the rules that have been set down. That, said Plahutnik, is staffs job. Plahutnik stated that to the extent that staff can nudge a developer in a direction that is more beneficial to the community, he believes that we have a pretty enlightened staff which does that. Plahutnik believes that the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission is being misunderstood. The Commission is there to ensure that development is fulfilling the letter of the law. In this instance, the developer has worked well within the recommendations of staff, Plahutnik said. The main concern brought forward by the residents seems to be traffic. The bulk of traffic in the area, according to Plahutnik, will continue to be that of residents. Plahutnik put forth the question for consideration of whether or not residents of a community will drive responsibly within that community. He believes that speed issues have been addressed pretty well by the street design and that if it turns out they are not adequately addressed, they can be resolved in relatively short order. Plahutnik wished to make the point that this is really no longer a subdivision; it is a part of Iowa City. He states that he lives right on Gilbert Street and that the traffic does not present an irresolvable issue for his family; that it has worked across America in hundreds of communities since the post-War years when traffic began steadily increasing. It is time some city services were provided to the area, as the city is filling in. Plahutnik said that as in-fill happens, the areas left as isolated subdivisions will soon be few. For these reasons, and for the reasons Eastham articulated -fire and police coverage, bus service-Plahutnik supports this application, and commends the developer for working within the framework and working with the City so well. Plahutnik stated that the stubbing for all of these properties and the fact that the road was to be filled in has been there for all to see for quite some time, and should not be a surprise. Koppes stated that she will support the plat. She has some concerns about traffic, but feels that she must go with what the traffic planners have been reporting, which is that there will not be a traffic problem. If traffic becomes a problem, she believes it should go right back to the City immediately. Concerning the park, Koppes suggested the idea of a community garden space for the neighborhood. The bus routes will not present a traffic problem, according to Koppes' experiences, and will provide benefit to the neighborhood. Koppes pointed out that every neighborhood has some traffic concerns, but that part of filling in the city is connecting such streets. Weitzel agreed that traffic was a pervasive problem in the community, and is everybody's problem. Weitzel does not believe that traffic is a reason to stop this project. He does not see how we could take one section of the community and say that it does not have to have roads through it, but everyone else does. The positive sides of the street connection are in providing fire safety and police security. Weitzel stated that he would like to see a wetland and a prairie there instead of a subdivision, but that that is just not going to happen. Weitzel said that the subject had to be viewed fairly and from the vantage point that an allowance for some sort of growth must be made. Weitzel stated that this was not a new plan; the subdivision has been growing for some time. He stated that the street design and topography allowed for some natural traffic controls and that in the event that traffic became a problem in the future, traffic- Planning and Zoning Commission May is, 2008 Page 7 calming measures could be implemented. Weitzel encouraged those present to think in terms of wild optimism and toward the future when perhaps cars were not needed, or were much smaller, or everyone rode the bus. He stated that there are a lot of reasons why this plan has met the necessary criteria, although he can see why the residents are upset about it. Weitzel recounted that he lived in a subdivision that had a neighboring subdivision come in and to which current residents were opposed. He said that though many were upset about the idea of it, no one really talked about it anymore. He acknowledged that change in your neighborhood is a difficult thing, and that traffic is a back and forth thing that everyone in the community lives with. He stated his support for the project. Freerks agreed with many of the comments presented and said that she did not know what she could add that would be much different. She stated that the plat was in agreement with the Concept Plan that was developed long ago and the Comprehensive Plan. Freerks said that there were opportunities to get involved at earlier stages, and that people need 'to make themselves aware of the plans for their area and realize that streets will be connected eventually. Freerks believed that the curves will help with traffic calming and that speed is an issue all over the community. She urges residents to address the problem immediately if they do experience speed issues in the future. She stated that it would be negligent in their duties as the Planning and Zoning Commission to not allow for this connection of streets. Freerks stated that she lives on a secondary arterial and has a four year old and a nine year old who have learned to respect the cars. Part of living in Iowa City is everyone sharing the roads. Freerks stated that while she knew residents would not be happy with this decision, the connection is part of the bigger plan. She thanked residents for their input and advised them that they could contact the City Council with further concerns. The motion was voted on and passed 5-1 (Brooks voting no). 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 & Shannon Drive. Miklo stated that the final plat is in two parts, Part 10 which includes Dublin Drive, Tipperary Road and Shannon Drive, and Part 11 which includes Limerick Lane, and would complete the subdivision. The plat as submitted is in compliance with the subdivision regulations and zoning code. Staff will be reviewing the construction drawings and legal papers related to the project, and recommends approval subject to approval of those documents prior to City Council consideration. Freerks asked if the Commission had questions for staff. Eastham asked if the developer was obligated to complete Part 10 of the plat first, so that the street connection was one of the first things done on the project. Miklo stated that this was correct. There were no other questions for staff. A public hearing was opened on the issue. Nancy LeaVesseur, 742 Tipperary Road, wished to point out that the 92 year old man who began developing this piece of property was very much opposed to this street connection; he wanted to cap the street off and loop through the development. LeaVesseur felt that this version of the plan was forced onto him, and was not consistent with his original vision for the development. She stated that she had lost a lot of respect for the process. There were no further comments from the public. The public hearing was closed. Eastham motioned to approve the application submitted by Jeff Hendrickson for a final plat of Galway Hills Parts 10 & 11, a 51-lot, 21.75 acre residential subdivision located at Dublin Drive & Shannon Drive. Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 8 Koppes seconded the motion. Freerks invited discussion from Commission members. Eastham wished to point out that it often happens that a developer may have had a different street pattern in mind then that in the Comprehensive Plan, and sometimes the Comprehensive Plan has to prevail. Brooks made clear that he would vote in favor of the final plat because the preliminary plat had already been approved, but that he still holds the same concerns and disagreements. He acknowledged that the developer had done what was required of him, but feels concern that all of the traffic west of Highway 218 still has no other convenient connection between major destination points. Freerks stated that the final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat and she would be voting to approve. The motion carried in a 6-0 vote. SUB08-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Hendrickson for a preliminary plat of Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums, a 2-lot, 9.48 acre residential subdivision located south of Melrose Avenue as an extension of Olive Court, Leamer Court, and Marietta Avenue. The 45-day limitation period is May 22, 2008. Miklo stated that the Commission voted on the planned development for this project at a previous meeting, but that the subdivision had been mistakenly left off of the agenda. The subdivision basically creates two lots, Lot 1 & Lot 2. It also creates the Leamer Court loop and extends Marietta Avenue. Miklo said that the subdivision is in order for approval and staff is recommending approval at this time. There were no questions or staff. The public hearing was opened and closed with no comments. Brooks motioned to approve an application submitted by Jeff Hendrickson for a preliminary plat of Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums, a 2-lot, 9.48 acre residential subdivision located south of Melrose Avenue as an extension of Olive Court, Leamer Court, and Marietta Avenue. Eastham seconded. Freerks invited Commission discussion. Eastham thanked Miklo for pointing out the error in the subdivision having been left off the agenda at the previous meeting. The motion carried 6-0. 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. Miklo stated that this property is just beyond the city limits, north of Interstate-80, west of Prairie du Chien Road. It is in the Iowa City/Johnson County fringe area, and county zoning code provides for City comment on any conditional use permit within our fringe area. If the City objected for some reason, then it would take a super-majority of the County Board of Adjustment in order to approve the item. The plan Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 9 would expand the existing cemetery to the east and south. It would include a new interior roadway and seven parking spaces. This property was rezoned last year with the anticipation of this plan. Linder Road is a fairly narrow road that does not provide for off-street parking, so the addition of the interior road would be seen as an improvement to the existing situation. The property is heavily wooded. The County does have their own Sensitive-Areas Ordinance which they would apply to this development. Staff recommends approval at this time. Freerks asked if there were any questions for staff. Eastham asked if this area was likely to be annexed by the City at some point. Miklo responded that it does fall within the City's growth area. Eastham asked if the City's parking requirements would be met by this plan. Miklo said that he did not believe the City had parking requirements spelled out in the code for cemeteries. He said that the roadway's width of 18-feet should allow for a car to pull off to the side of the road informally and let another vehicle pass. Freerks inquired about whether or not there were restrictions on the quality of road to be put in. Miklo was not sure what the County standards would be. Freerks asked if there was signage on the property informing nearby residents of the Conditional Use application. Miklo said that the County had posted signs, but that the City had not. The public hearing was opened. No one wished to speak to the issue and the hearing was closed. Koppes motioned to approve 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. Weitzel seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 15, LAND SUBDIVISIONS: Consideration of amendments to regulations pertaining to the subdivision and development of land. Freerks noted that the matrix prepared by staff outlining the proposed changes to regulations and staff recommendations for each of them was gone through by the Commission in their informal work session on Monday, May 12, 2008. Howard asked if the Commission had more questions for staff, or if the Commission wished to go ahead and go through those items on the matrix in which the Commission was interested in recommending a change. Freerks stated that the Commission would proceed by opening the public hearing and allowing for comments and then close public hearing, entertain a motion, and from there bring up any amendments they wished to discuss. Miklo pointed out that Ron Knoche, City Engineer, was at the meeting and available for comments and questions. The public hearing was opened. Dan Smith, 905 Wylde Greed Road, stated that he was present on behalf of the Homebuilders' Association and the Land Development Council. He stated that some while some of their concerns had been alleviated, others remained, and in the interest of time he would focus on those. One issue he wished to bring up was the notion of what is a "complete" application. The issue, Smith stated, really Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 10 revolved around what it takes for an application to be deemed complete. Freerks asked for clarification on which exact proposed amendment he was referring to, so that the Commission was able to follow along. Smith stated that in the interest of making things as easy as possible, he would refer to the matrix. He was referring primarily to numbers 5, 6, and 7 on page four, all of which speak to having a complete application. There is no provision in the code that talks about what a complete application is. The hope and goal is that clarification will enhance the Homebuilders' and land Development Council's ability to submit a complete application the first time, thereby speeding up the process for all. The second thing Smith wished to address was on page 24 of the actual subdivision document. In this section, the code requires a mid-block pedestrian connection in a development "unless that connection is deemed to be unnecessary by the City, and can be waived. . .." He requests that the City highlight a few of the circumstances that contribute to the connection being waived, and flesh out the details of this clause. Smith stated that he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have, and noted that they were working on a revised document addressing these issues more fully. Eastham noted that currently a preliminary plat does not reach the Planning and Zoning Commission until it is complete and has no more than six technical deficiencies. Eastham asked Smith if at some point the Homebuilders' Association and the land Development Council intended to suggest specific language either within the existing subdivision code or some additional language. Smith replied that what they had requested was a one mandatory staff review. He said that while they did not wish to burden the Commission's agenda with horribly inaccurate applications, their recommendation was that if there is something that they are not doing in the code or in other ruling legislative language, the City should be able to point to that and say exactly wherein the deficiency and noncompliance lies. That is why they made the recommendation of one mandatory staff review, which they understand may not be feasible, but may get the ball rolling. Citing the code provision would make the deficiencies clear to all parties. Howard recalled a conversation from the Monday work session in which the issue of defining a technical deficiency was raised by a Commission member. Staffs hesitation in doing so, she stated was that it is such a broad term and there are so many different types of standards involved. If it would help the process or make it more clear for the development community, Howard said, staff could probably add a broad definition of what deficiency is, saying, "including, but not limited to. . ." She wished to make it clear that these are not discretionary design issues that are being talked about, but technical construction specifications and legal issues such as zoning standards and engineering standards that you must comply with in order to meet the code. This is in contrast to idea of where the streets should go and designing the lot layout, which are policy issues and the kind of questions where staff and a developer might disagree, but are not the kinds of deficiencies being addressed here. Miklo said that the deficiencies staff was speaking of are missing or incorrect measurements, easements, noncompliance with zoning requirements. At this point, Miklo said, staff did not have language for the Commission defining these circumstances, but that before the Council, staff could develop a sort of descriptive list of issues typically found as deficiencies on a plat. In this case, the amendment would be to insert language to define deficiency as one or more of these types of things. Plahutnik asked if somewhere there was a document that stated what a plat consists of. Miklo confirmed that this is found in the subdivision regulations themselves, the engineering standards, and the zoning standards. Plahutnik replied that there are documents that could be easily cited. Howard noted that as most subdivisions in Iowa City go through one firm, she believes that firm knows fairly well what the City's construction standards are. These are complicated documents, Howard said, and it is typical for technical mistakes to be made when the applicant's consultant is in a hurry to submit the application. The City Engineer's Office goes through these documents in detail and highlights discrepancies or omissions. Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 11 Howard asked Ron Knoche to address the detailed process the engineers take in reviewing the documents. City Engineers, Howard said review every mark on the plat and then send it back to the developer's engineering firm, who then makes revisions and returns it to the City Engineer who once again reviews every mark on the plat. If there are major changes or deficiencies from the time of the original submission, it is going to take awhile to resolve. Those are the kinds of technical things we are talking about. Greenwood-Hektoen added that even some non-technical deficiencies, such as labeling something as an easement where there was none, is an example of an issue that must be cleared up prior to proceeding. Things such as this are hard to define. Knoche stated that the process City Engineers go through in reviewing the applications is basically the same process the contracting engineer goes through in designing the development. They review each calculation, checking the math, making sure the dimensions are correct, the call-outs for specifications are correct, and any other unique situations that might come up in a given subdivision. Knoche stated that it was not a matter of going through the documents in an hour or two; rather it was a multiple day's process. He maintained that to have to go through and cite each provision as to why something does not comply with standards and regulations would actually slow the process down, not speed it up, nor would it help the consultant design things better. Koppes asked if Engineering was the department that evaluated whether the fire codes were satisfied. Miklo replied that it was the Fire Marshall who did this. He said that there are several departments that review the application, including: Fire Marshall, Engineering, Water, Housing & Inspections Department Planning Staff, Parks and Recreation. Howard stated that the application comes through planning and is sent out from there to the various departments to be reviewed. At their joint staff meetings where everybody is there from the different departments to discuss it. In a separate meeting, the City Engineers generally meet face to face with the consulting engineers to discuss the plat. Freerks asked if it was one engineer working on a specific plat, or was it more of a group effort. Knoche replied that typically the engineer that starts a multi-phase subdivision stays with that subdivision all the way through to provide continuity for the developer and the City. Koppes asked if the engineers have a list of things they look for. Knoche replied that the review of the final plat is based on what is in the code. Eastham asked for clarification of this answer. Knoche said that for preliminary and final plat reviews they make sure that the items called out in the subdivision code are met. The construction specifications and design standards are what are then used for the technical side of the review. Eastham asked if the parts of the code to which Knoche referred were all in 15-2-2-B. Knoche said the construction standards are not. Howard asked Knoche to address how consistent those construction standards are across jurisdiction. Knoche said that the current standards being used was a joint process developed between Iowa City, North Liberty and Coralville, and so engineering standards are generally consistent amongst the communities and not unique to Iowa City. There is also a statewide construction standards document to which Iowa City contributes, and which Coralville, Iowa City, and North Liberty eventually hope to adopt. Howard said she pointed this because having consistent standards across jurisdictions makes it easier for any engineering firm within these jurisdictions to comply consistently. Brooks asked for clarification that staff would be willing or is currently working on some additional language to clarify or define technical difficulties so that there isn't that potential policy-type issue. Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 12 Howard said that she believed that they could come up with some type of broad definition which said, "included but not limited to . . ." Brooks noted that there was something similar to that in the explanatory notes on the matrix staff had provided. He believes that when it comes to a deficiency that is based solely on technical standards, it should be straight-forward. Brooks said the Commission should not be dealing with technical deficiency, that that is what the City's experts in their various fields are for. Eastham asked if staff was at this point going to come up with some additional language defining technical deficiency. Freerks believed that this type of specific question should be held for the Commission discussion phase, and not in the public hearing. Freerks asked if Smith had anything further to say prior to the public hearing being closed. Smith stated that 15-2-2-B provides pretty good objective measures. Smith said what they've asked is that comments be returned within 20 days regardless of department, so that there is consistency which would allow developers to plan out the process with some degree of certainty. Smith added that 15-2-2-B provides pretty good objective measures. Eastham asked for clarification on the 45-day limitation period as it pertains to the 20-day proposal Smith had made. Miklo stated that the 45-day limitation period is a state law. He added that in order to get an application on the Planning and Zoning Commission's agenda, they must have the comments back well within the twenty days, usually within two weeks all initial comments are back. Howard added that this was the initial set of comments. If the developer then makes revisions to the plat, then it must be reviewed again. Miklo said that they do try to accommodate developers; if deficiencies are minor then they work with the contracted engineer to try to get them resolved so it can get on the Commission's agenda as soon as possible. If the deficiencies are significant or there is a long list of them, then that is not possible. Those delays, Miklo said, are the fault of the consulting engineer who submitted an application with multiple mistakes. Weitzel asked Smith if he was actually seeing problems with long delays, or if this was a preventative measure. Smith said that it was both. Smith stated that the concern was not so much the time in which the application was before the Planning and Zoning Commission as there is a built-in statutory time limit, but the timeframe in getting the application to that point. Smith said that he had been told anecdotally that comments from one city department may come in immediately, whereas another department's may come in much later. Smith said there was no deadline that they were aware of prior to the application being placed before the Commission. He acknowledged that there may be an internal schedule, but that it is unknown to the developers. Freerks asked if the 20-day limit was intended to be from the day an application was sent in. Smith said yes. Miklo clarified that comments trickle in because if Planning gets comments early, they go ahead and forward them to the consulting engineers. Smith said that the Homebuilders' Association and Land Development Council were trying to get their members to take advantage of the City's pre-preliminary plat meetings where all parties are at the table. Encouraging this is their way of trying to streamline the process as they are asking the City to do in implementing a 20-day policy. Greenwood-Hektoen pointed out that the time period being discussed was the time period in which an application had not yet been deemed complete. At that point, she said, the burden is still on the developer to submit a complete application. It should not be up to the City to point out various technical deficiencies that the consulting engineer should have been aware of prior to submission. This is why the deadline is set at the point at which a complete application is submitted rather than any application at all. Smith said they were not asking for the 45-day clock to begin running an earlier; they are just asking to consistently get the comments in a timely fashion; the 20-day number is negotiable. Howard said that the Planning Department's hope was that when the application is submitted it is complete and accurate. When that is the case, it should not take very long for the various departments to Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 13 review it, and it will go directly to the Planning and Zoning Commission. On the other hand, Howard said, if developers are using City staff as quality control, then it takes longer. She believes that this is where the dispute comes in. Koppes asked how often an application was submitted that was so complete and accurate that it went right through to the Commission. Miklo said that an example would be the Galway Hills final plat which had very few technical deficiencies. He said that this was an "above-average" example. Plahutnik stated that the Commission does not see applications that are not complete; staff does. He said that while Smith had heard anecdotal evidence of City delays, Plahutnik imagined that anecdotal evidence could be gathered in the other direction in which applications ranged from the equivalent of something drawn on a napkin to a complete, amazingly accurate technical drawing. Plahutnik said that what Smith was saying was that the drawing on the napkin and the nearly complete application both would need to get comments back within 20 days. Plahutnik said that not taking into account the lower end of that scenario was making an unreasonable demand on staff. Smith replied that in taking the worst case scenario things always sound extreme. Eastham asked how such an ordinance could be enforced. What would happen if the City departments did not return their comments within 20 days? He understands what happens when a complete application is submitted: the Planning and Zoning Commission votes on it and it goes straight to Council. The Council could adopt a policy that asks staff to return comments within s certain amount of time, but he does not see how this could be made into an ordinance. Howard said that there are some larger cities that upon receiving an application that has a number of deficiencies it is rejected out of hand with no comments from staff and returned to the developer for completion. Howard said that they do not like to do that; they like to work with developers to try to work things out and get it to the Commission as quickly as possible. She said that it would not be to the benefit of the developers to have these very precise and exact procedures laid out in the subdivision code. Freerks said that all could agree that it is a complex process and that everyone wants to make sure it is done fairly and accurately. Eastham said it would be helpful if there was some sort of data or list showing the number of applications that were affected in this way. Miklo said that a study was done a few years ago to answer this question, as it is one that has been ongoing. It turned out that typically it was four to five weeks between the time the application was submitted and the time the Commission was voting on it. Miklo said there are outliers that take longer because of complicated issues facing the project. An example is Whispering Meadows Development that was approved last year and had a wetland and various other sensitive features. The plans that were originally submitted would have resulted in a subdivision that did not drain properly and would have had effects on neighboring properties. It took a year to work through those issues because of the wetland and other topographical features and the need to get approval from the Army Corp of Engineers. So there are some projects out there that take extended periods of time, however, Miklo said that for those projects the finger must be pointed at the consulting engineer who designed it. Knoche stated that one item called for in a complete application is that construction plans are according to the specifications of a City Engineer. Basically that means that there are no more "red lines" on any of the documents, all problems identified by the engineer have been resolved. Current practice is to go through the entire document and point out every deficiency before returning it to the consulting engineer so that they have the opportunity to fix things. According to the language, Knoche stated, once the City Engineer comes across one deficiency they are within bounds to stop and send the document back to the consulting engineer, saying that they will not look at it further until all errors are corrected. Knoche thinks there is a lot of give and take in working with the development community in that the engineers do a full Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 14 review of the plans, not stopping after one error and sending it back to them. Knoche said that if the development community wants to set a 20-day limit, then it needs to start when a final set of construction documents that are perfect are submitted. However, it will take a much longer time to get to that point if those sorts of limitations are set. He believes his department has a good working relationship with the development community, and wants to see it remain flexible and reasonable. Knoche also noted that due to the slow market, turn-around time is much quicker than it was four or five years ago. He thinks the process works very well although he acknowledges that there are anomalies out there. Freerks asked for further comments. None were forthcoming. The public hearing was closed. There was some discussion regarding the best way to proceed with motions and recommendations for changes to the subdivision. Koppes made a motion to approve amendments to Title 15, Land Subdivisions, as recommended by staff in the matrix "Proposed Amendments to the Staff Recommended Draft of the Subdivision Code," in #5 adding the word "technical" to language concerning deficiencies. Miklo interjected that staff did not in fact recommend adding the word "technical" to deficiencies. Koppes withdrew the motion. Koppes motioned to approve Title 15, Land Subdivisions, including the amendments from the matrix dated April 25, 2008, for items #8, #10, #11, #21, and the first paragraph of #27. Weitzel seconded the motion. Freerks opened the topic for Commission discussion. Koppes stated that she would like to amend #5 to include the word "technical" to deficiency. Freerks asked if she could spell that out and make a motion to do so. She believed an amendment to the motion may be necessary. Greenwood-Hektoen pointed out that the current motion did not include #5, and that after the current motion was voted on, #5 could be addressed. Freerks restated that there was a motion and a second and that the Commission was currently in discussion to approve 15, Land Subdivisions, including the amendments from the matrix dated April 25, 2008, for items #8, #10, #11, #21, and the first paragraph of #27. Eastham required further clarification, asking if voting in favor of this motion to approve the recommended subdivision code with the additions outlined in the various sections of the matrix would preclude the Commission form offering further amendments to change the subdivision code. Greeenwood-Hektoen stated that it was her understanding that further amendments could be permitted. Howard and Freerks asked Greenwood-Hektoen what the best procedure for voting would be for when the changes go to Council, so that they would not have to go through a whole list of amendments one by one. Miklo stated that what Council will receive is a draft that includes any amendments the Planning and Zoning Commission has approved. Plahutnik, Freerks, and Eastham thanked the Homebuilders Association, staff, and other members of the public for their input on the issue. Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 15 A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. Freerks asked of there were further amendments to discuss. Koppes motioned to add the word "technical" in front of deficiency in item #5 and add a definition of some sort. Eastham seconded. Freerks opened for Commission discussion. She asked if it was clear to staff what was being asked of them in this motion. Brooks said that rather than having to list every single violation, having a clear understanding of the word technical deficiencies would be more effective. He pointed out that there was somewhat of a definition of it already in the explanatory notes of #7. Miklo stated that staff recommendation would be to skip the word "technical," but to define deficiencies. Koppes said that as she understood it there were two kinds of deficiencies, design deficiency and technical deficiency. Miklo stated that design was a policy issue, not a deficiency. Greenwood-Hektoen pointed out that there are deficiencies other than technical, for example, legal deficiencies, or things required by the fire department that are not fulfilled. Brooks stated that those would be technical deficiencies because they are things that can be specifically tied back to the code or the law; they are not opinion or design issues. Freerks contended that the scope of what could be considered a deficiency makes it difficult to define. Brooks said that he just wants to make sure everyone is comfortable with what a technical deficiency is defined as. Miklo said that staff's goal is to draft a definition that excludes things like street curve notes, etc. Brooks said that if we cannot define it we cannot expect anyone to live by it. Plahutnik stated that when engineering makes a red line on a plat, it is clear what the deficiency is. He asked if when others are looking at the code -fire, water, housing inspections-is it also as straightforward what the deficiencies are. Plahutnik said that it seems as if this referring back to the original codes is already done. Koppes said that having a definition could only help to clarify things; she did not expect and exhaustive or comprehensive list as things change and you never know what's coming. Koppes asked for clarification on why staff did not wish to have "technical" in the definition. Howard replied that it opened things up for an argument on what is and is not "technicaL" Howard asked if it would help if they had a list of types of items that would be considered deficient which stated "included but not limited to these types of things" and similar things, but not including the word "technicaL" Koppes said that that would be fine and that she would modify her motion. Koppes modified her motion to create a definition of deficiencies that would include but not be limited to an illustrative list. Brooks asked what the distinction was between a deficiency and a discrepancy. Howard stated that a deficiency is something that is missing, whereas a discrepancy is something that is inaccurate. Eastham stated that he continues to be bothered by the way the code is written right now whereby the staff can prevent the forwarding of an application to the Commission because in their view it contains too many deficiencies. In his view, he's not quite so sure that that's a good way to construct the process. It appears to give the applicant very little recourse to move an application from a discussion about how many deficiencies it has to being reviewed by the Commission. Koppes stated that she agreed but that this was not part of the motion on the table. Furthermore, Koppes pointed out, it was the Commission who stated that they did not wish to see applications with so many deficiencies anymore. Eastham stated that he thoroughly agreed that a plat should not have more than a few deficiencies before coming to the Commission. The questions, Eastham said, is what if there is a big disagreement within staff about the deficiency and they prevent the application from moving forward. Brooks said that he wasn't sure the Commission should be the arbiter of what is a deficiency. To him, that is set by the City Manager and approved by the Council. Those are the things that are deficient. If a developer feels they are being unduly harassed, Brooks said, he believes there is recourse for them besides the Commission. Howard Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 16 stated that the recourse would be through the Board of Adjustment. Howard could not recall any instances in which the engineers disagreed about a technical construction standard, but that if there was an actual disagreement about an interpretation of existing code language, the arbiter of that is the Board of Adjustment. Howard said that she did not think the disagreements that occur between staff and developers are over these types of deficiencies. The disagreements are over policy-type questions. Eastham stated that this answered his concerns; the applicant has some recourse. Plahutnik stated that 15-2-2 pretty clearly says what complete is and then lists, and so it is not really question of staff being in a position to hold an application up. As soon as the list is met, it is complete by definition. Freerks stated that she did not believe staff tries to hold things up. Eastham clarified that that was not what he was saying; his concern was giving proper recourse. There was no further discussion on the motion. Weitzel requested that the motion be restated before being voted on. Freerks restated the motion as: a definition of deficiency including and not limited to a list that staff will come up with before this goes on to City Council. The motion was carried in a 5-1 vote (Plahutnik voting no). The Commission discussed changing wording in item #17 of the matrix. Miklo said that staff recommends changing the language from "adjacent property owner" to say "designated property owner or homeowner's associatiOn." Howard suggested the following language: "property owners or homeowner's association as designated in the sub-divider's agreement." Weitzel moved to amend item #17 to the language just stated. Koppes seconded. There was no discussion. The motion carried 6-0. Weitzel wished to discuss item #24, per discussions at the informal meeting. Miklo stated that the discussions at the informal had resulted in tabling this particular item until further discussions with Parks and Recreation could be had. Howard stated that this particular item is in existing zoning and subdivision code so changes to the existing language are not recommended at this time. Eastham agreed that the issue would need further discussion. Howard brought up that there were probably some cross-references within the draft that would need to be cleaned up if the changes were made. Eastham wished to discuss item #23, the noise buffer provision, 15-3-4-0 in code. Eastham wished to make a motion to remove 15-3-4-C be removed from the draft of the subdivision ordinance. Brooks seconded. Eastham stated that while this is a well-intended provision, he thinks that some of the objections raised by the Land Development Council on this are well-taken. He finds particularly valid the recognition that a 300-foot buffer would not necessarily offer noise reduction in some of the areas along Highway 218. He is not comfortable having a provision in the subdivision code that is supposed to address the specific problem of noise control when it is clear from the outset that the provision will not be effective in some instances. In his opinion, noise levels are something that can be evaluated by potential buyers. Koppes pointed out that that may not necessarily be the case depending on when they buy the house as Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 17 in the summer the trees provide a buffer, but in the winter, with no leaves, the buffer disappears. Brooks stated his agreement with Eastham. He believes it sets an unaccomplishable goal. He says that studies fall predominately on the side of the argument that vegetation does not necessarily buffer sound. He said it should be up to the developer to provide a good visual screen. Weitzel stated that this is a standard that is trying to avoid the problem of opening your door right onto interstate traffic. Brooks said he struggles with the City mandating 300-feet out of development for a visual screen under the guise of requiring a sound buffer. He suggested that perhaps the City needed to buy that portion of the property if that was there objective. He felt he would have to have time to think about this and validate that this type of ordinance was really reducing the noise in the way it is intended. Freerks requested a view of the map showing what areas were being discussed. Miklo described the different areas of the map where the ordinance applied. Freerks stated that the City strives to create quality neighborhoods, which does not include building right up to the interstate. Brooks asked that the quality neighborhood not be sold on a sound buffer as that was not what he believed the ordinance was about. Brooks said that it was a visual screen that was intended. Eastham said there appeared to be people willing to buy homes in very noisy areas. He felt that if it was clear that sound reduction could be achieved at some reasonable cost and with reasonable certainty, then he would have a much different opinion. Miklo said that as the language is drafted there is an opportunity for the developer to create a berm or a wall to get closer to the 60 decibel or less level. Koppes said she almost felt this policy should go to Council. Miklo stated that the Commission was there to make a recommendation on policy. Koppes said that while she would not personally buy a house along the interstate, how far should the Commission go to protect people from buying them that want to. Miklo said that one of the other concerns was that in a hot real estate market, such houses sell. However, fifteen or twenty years after the house is built and it needs rejuvenation and reinvestment and there are whole neighborhoods, is someone going to be willing to reinvest in them or will we be left with while neighborhoods that are deteriorating? Brooks said that he does not disagree, he simply does not like the fact that it is being sold on the premise of reducing sound. Miklo replied that part of the intent is that you have 300 feet to work with to plant trees, build a berm, or do something. Brooks reiterated that this again was a visual screen being discussed, not actually a sound barrier. Howard said that she believed 300 feet sometimes works as a sound barrier. Distance and berms can work as sound barriers. Plahutnik asked if the word "noise" was left out of Section 1, and the wording simply stated "buffer," and in Section 2 the decibel level remained, would that meet everyone's concerns? Plahutnik said this would take away staff's concerns about noise, and Brooks's concerns regarding selling the idea on a false premise. Brooks stated that that would mean changing the wording in the title that said "To Reduce the Effect of Highway Noise. . ." Plahutnik maintained that that could easily be changed to "To Reduce the Effect of Highway Impact." Brooks said he was comfortable with it going forward to Council; he just didn't like selling it on the idea that it would reduce the noise. He thinks what is being done is to try to create a visual barrier between highway and any development, commercial or residential. He thinks that the City should have a policy in general that wouldn't allow anything like what happened along Highway 218 in Coralville. Eastham said that it was a good discussion of the issue, and Freerks called for a vote. The motion failed 4-2 (Eastham and Brooks voting no). There were no further issues to discuss on this item. CONSIDERATOION OF MEETING MINUTES: MAY 1, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission May 15,2008 Page 18 Eastham motioned to approve the May 1, 2008 minutes. Brooks seconded. The motion passed 6-0. OTHER: Miklo stated that the election of Vice-Chair would be on the June 5, 2008 meeting agenda. Discussion was held on returning to the 5:30 p.m. meeting time for informal meetings and it was decided that for the time being, informal meetings would be held at 6:00 p.m. ADJOUNRMENT: Weitzel motioned to adjourn. Koppes seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. e o 'iij ,!!! E E o o'E mo e u ,- CI) Sa:: NCI)~ .....uo ....eN mIV e'tS ,- e e CI) e= .!!!c( Q" ~ (3 IV ~ .2 II) I I .... >< >< >< >< >< - I I II) I I UJ I I .... >< >< >< - >< 0 I I II) I I ~ UJ I I .... >< >< >< >< >< >< 0 I ~ I M I >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< 0 I - I M I ~ UJ UJ I I .... - >< >< >< >< >< 0 I - 0 .... I ('II UJ I >< >< >< >< >< - .... 0 I III 0 MN 0 00 ..-M E ~ ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- 0 ..- ..- Q)'~ - - -- - - -- LD LD LD LD LD LD LDLD I-W 0 0 00 0 0 00 II) E ~e II) II) e 0 ~G) .ll:IV ti -e 0= ::s e _J:::! o II) ~ IV 's 'Q) Q) ... IV ! 0 .!!!~ E mw LL.~ Q"U) Cl)S: ell aio <W s:c::i ..,;..,; z C) z i= w w :e ...J c( :e a:: o LL. N W I I >< >< >< >< .... a I I in I I 'lilt I .... >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< 0 0 >< >< >< 0 0 0 I I III MN 0 00 ..- M E ~ 0 ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- 0 ..- ..- Q)'~ - - -- - - -- LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD I-w 0 0 00 0 0 00 E II) ~ e II) II) e 0 ~G) .ll: IV.ll: 12 -e 0 ~... ::s e _J:::! - CI) ~IV <ll e II) CI) .!!!~ 's 'Q) IV ... 0 Em WLL. ~ Q"CI) Cl)S: CI:l . 0< wS: c::i..,; ..,; zm C) z i= w w :e ...J c( :e a:: o LL. 2: '0 <ll III ::J U >< W --'+:> c: c: c: <ll <ll <ll III III III ~.o.o a.~~ .. " " " >. W <ll - ~><oo