The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-20-2008 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, November 17,2008 - 6:00 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Lobby Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street Thursday, November 20, 2008 - 7:30 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda C. Annexation I Rezoning Item ANN08-00001/REZ08-00009/ANN07-00001/REZ07-00006: Discussion of applications from the Veronica Prybil Trust and the Iowa Interstate Railway for annexation and rezoning from County Residential (R) to Interim Development Industrial (ID-I) for approximately 179 acres of property located adjacent to 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue, and for the Iowa Interstate Railroad right-of-way between Industrial Park Road and Taft Avenue. D. Rezoning Item REZ08-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Services LLC for a rezoning from Interim Development Commercial Office (ID-C01) zone to Commercial Office (CO-1) zone for approximately 1.69 acres of property at the southeast corner of intersection of Camp Cardinal Road and Kennedy Parkway. E. Discussion of Capital Improvement Program F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: November 3 & November 6,2008 G. Other H. Adjournment Informal Formal City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: November 14, 2008 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner RE: ANN08-00001/REZ08-00009 & ANN07-00001/REZ07-00006 There were several questions raised at your last meeting regarding the annexation request for the Veronica Prybil Trust property and the Iowa Interstate Railway right-of-way: · What does the Fringe Area Agreement between the City and Johnson County outline for this area? · Is this annexation consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and how will the City address a transition from industrial to residential development north of the railroad? · Is access to the railway important to industrial development and what are the long term implications for truck traffic? FrinQe Area AQreement To quote directly from the Fringe Area Agreement, the intent of the agreement is "to provide for orderly and efficient development patterns appropriate to a non-urbanized area, protect and preserve the fringe area's natural resources and environmentally sensitive features, direct development to areas with physical characteristics which can accommodate development and effectively and economically provide services for future growth and development." The subject land proposed for annexation is located within Fringe Area B within the City's growth area. For land within this area, the fringe area agreement states: As applications are received to develop land contiguous to and within the growth limits of the city, the City will give favorable consideration to the voluntary annexation of this land and its development at an urban density in conformance with the City's adopted land use plan. The Director of Planning met with the Johnson County Board of Supervisors at their meeting on November 13. The Board and the County planning staff were supportive of this application for annexation and agreed that it met the goals of the fringe area agreement and the County and City comprehensive plans. As with most annexations, the City and County will cooperate in maintaining the roads along the edge of the cit~. After annexation, the City is committed to maintaining the entirety of 4201 Street out to the City Limits. Iowa City Comprehensive Plan As mentioned in the staff report, staff finds that this annexation and subsequent rezoning to allow industrial development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. While a more detailed District Plan has not been formulated for this area, the 1997 Comprehensive Plan states that providing adequate space for industrial To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: REZ08-00010 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Phone: E-mail: Owner: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner Date: November 20,2008 Southgate Development Services LLC 755 Mormon Trek Blvd Iowa City, IA 52246 (319) 337-4195 Glenn Siders 755 Mormon Trek Blvd Iowa City, IA 52246 (319) 337-4195 gsiders@sgdev.net The Crossing Development LC Rezone property from ID-C01 to CO-1 To allow development of a an office building Southeast corner of intersection of Camp Cardinal Boulevard Road and Kennedy Parkway 1 .69 acres ID-CO-1 North: Undeveloped Commercial (Coralville) South: Undeveloped Residential OPD-8 and future park/open space. East: Undeveloped Residential OPD-8 West: Undeveloped ID-ORP Low-density residential, Office and Research Park (Clear Creek Master Plan) Clear Creek (NW1) October 28, 2008 December 13, 2008 Sanitary sewer and water lines are available and can be extended from Camp Cardinal Boulevard 2 Public Services: The City will provide police and fire protection. Currently, no transit route serves this area. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In April 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and endorsed a concept plan- Clear Creek Master Plan-proposed by Southgate Development Services, LLC (previously Southgate Development Company) for the development of an area covering approximately 462 acres of land that is located in both Iowa City and Coralville. In May 2002, the City Council signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Coralville and Southgate Development Services, LLC, to agree upon a concept for a "conservation-type" development including residential and commercial uses in the area. The memorandum also called for the location of nonresidential uses (Le. commercial, office retail) at major intersections and along higher volume routes. The extension of Camp Cardinal Boulevard is intended to serve as a "primary connection" from Melrose Avenue in Iowa City north to U.S. Highway 6 in Coralville until the Highway 965 extension is constructed. In August 2007, the Commission approved a rezoning of approximately 45.04 acres of land from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID-ORP) zone to Medium Density Single- Family Residential (RS-8) with a Planned Development Overlay zone for approximately 34.58 acres, Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone for approximately 8.75 acres, and Interim Development Office Commercial (ID-C01) zone for approximately 1.71 acres. The applicant is now requesting a rezoning of the ID-C01 property to Commercial office CO-1 to allow development of an office building at the corner of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and Kennedy Parkway. Good Neighbor Policy: The applicant has indicated that they have not used the "Good Neighbor Policy"; the surrounding neighborhood is not developed at this time. ANAL YSIS: Current Zoning: The subject property is currently zoned Interim Development-Commercial Office (ID-C01). The purpose of interim development zones is to provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and other non-urban uses of land may continue until such time as the City is able to provide City services and urban development can occur. Upon provision of City services, the City or property owner may initiate rezoning to zones consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The CO-1 designation attached to the interim zone, which was applied as part of the 2007 rezoning, reflects the intended use of the property according to the Comprehensive Plan. At the time of the 2007 rezoning, the applicant had not developed a detailed concept plan for the commercial property. Although low-intensity commercial uses were viewed to be appropriate for this location, the design of the commercial development, including the placement of parking, were seen as critical to achieving compatibility with the neighboring single-family homes on the opposite side of the street. The interim (ID) zoning was agreed to until a detailed plan could be developed and reviewed by the Commission and staff. Proposed Zoning: The Commercial Office Zone (CO-1) provides specific areas where office functions, compatible businesses, apartments and certain public and semipublic uses may be developed. Medical offices as well as general office, personal service-oriented uses, community service, and school uses are permitted by right in the CO-1 zone. Other uses such as personal service-oriented retail and indoor recreational or daycare uses are considered provisional uses in the zone. Uses such as eating and drinking establishments and animal-related commercial (e.g. PCDlSlaff Reportslrez08-000 cardinal point office. doc 3 veterinary clinics) and drive-through facilities are allowed only by special exception. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: Cardinal Point South is located in the Northwest Planning District. The 1997 Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as suitable for office and research facilities and low-density residential development. However, the establishment of Oakdale Campus north of Interstate 80 diminished the potential for additional development of office and research park. The Plan also recognizes the topographical and infrastructurallimitations of the area, and therefore, supports development with a mix of uses, such as low-density residential and office commercial uses. The Memorandum of Understanding and Clear Creek Master Plan supplement the Comprehensive Plan policy for this area. The master plan laid out a general development concept with possible street layouts, residential neighborhoods with various densities, and commercial and office development. Camp Cardinal Boulevard will serve as a major north-south arterial street that connects Highway 6 and Melrose Avenue, and Kennedy Parkway as one of the east-west collector streets, extending west to connect to Deer Creek Road. The master plan calls for uses of moderate intensity, such as neighborhood commercial, office, or mixed uses at the intersections of the major streets. Compatibility with neighborhood Because the CO-1 zone is a low-intensity commercial zone, it can serve as a buffer between residential and more intensive commercial or industrial areas. Because Kennedy Parkway (a collector street) and Camp Cardinal Boulevard (an arterial street) are designed to serve significant traffic, a commercial zone is appropriate for this intersection. Low-intensity commercial uses permitted in the CO-1 zone may buffer the residential neighborhood from the effects of traffic at what will eventually become a high-volume intersection. Ordinarily the boundary between commercial and residential zones should occur along rear property lines. In this situation the commercial property fronts on the streets, one of which is along a single-family frontage. For this reason, staff believes that additional conditions are appropriate to ensure that the commercial development does not negatively affect the single-family character of the future neighborhood. The applicant has submitted a concept plan for a proposed medical office development, a use that is permitted by right in the CO-1 zone. The plan illustrates the proposed location of the office building, entrance drive, parking lot, pedestrian connections, signage, and required landscaping screening (see attached). The concept plan shows the building set close to the intersection of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and Kennedy Parkway, with the parking area and entrance drive located off of Ryan Court (a residential street). A the recommendation of staff, the vehicle entrance is centered between lots 10 and 11 of the adjacent residential zone in order to minimize the amount of direct glare or other impacts associated with vehicle traffic-light will not shine directly into an individual dwelling but rather between properties. Staff recommends that a single access point with the location indicated on the concept plan be a condition of approval. Due to the adjacent residential zone, a 20-foot front setback is required along Ryan Court, and a 10-foot side setback is required along the south property line. In addition, S3 (tall) landscape screening is required between the parking area and Ryan Court and along the south side of the parking area adjacent to residential property. The concept plan shows compliance with these requirements, which are intended to minimize views of the parking area. In order to provide an appropriate sense of separation and screening between the commercial and residential zones, staff recommends that the buffer area include a low, 2-3 foot berm or a decorative fence (masonry and wrought iron). To minimize paving, Staff recommends landscaping (low shrubs or other perennials such as PCDlStaff ReportslrezOa-QOO cardinal point office. doc 4 decorative grasses) between the sidewalk and the building favade on that portion of the building that faces the parking area (similar to the examples provided by the applicant) or installing tree wells within the walkways. The proposed concept plan shows the recommended tree wells along the walkway. The concept plan shows the dumpster enclosure located away from the residential property, to the south of the proposed clinic building. Staff recommends that the dumpster enclosure be constructed of masonry materials matching the office building. Because the property just to the south is heavily wooded and will be dedicated as public park land no additional screening is required. At this time, the applicant is proposing to develop the site as a Mercy Hospital clinic and has supplied examples of other Mercy clinic buildings in the Iowa City area. In staff's view, the scale and mass of these buildings along with variation in roof lines and building plane, mix of building materials, and ample use of windows make it compatible with the adjacent residential zone. The Camp Cardinal Boulevard and Kennedy Parkway elevations should also demonstrate appropriate articulation and fenestration for this entranceway and highly visible road, such that the develop does not appear to turn its back on the street. The development of the property may be completed in phases with the unit for Mercy Primary Care completed first, and additional CO-1 offices built at some point in the future. The concept plan shows up to three additional lease spaces. Any portion of the parking area that is not screened from Kennedy Parkway or Camp Cardinal Boulevard by a building must comply with the S2 (low) screening standard. Staff believes some limitation on the type and amount of signage on the buildings is relevant to neighborhood compatibility. Illuminated signs are a particular concern (see below). Traffic and Pedestrian Facilities: Though surrounding properties are currently undeveloped, the corner of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and Kennedy Parkway will one day be busy intersection. Because of the amount of traffic at this intersection, the location of the access point to the commercial property should be carefully considered. Access is prohibited along Camp Cardinal Boulevard and, because an access point along Kennedy Parkway would likely create confusion with turn lanes for the intersection with Camp Cardinal, staff and the applicant prefer access from Ryan Court. To minimize the impact on the residential neighborhood and to contain traffic to a small portion of the residential street, staff believes a single access point as shown in the concept plan is appropriate. Centering the drive entrance between lots 10 and 11 will minimize the effects of glare and increase traffic on those residential properties. As stated above, staff recommends that a single access point with the location indicated on the concept plan be a condition of approval. The plan provides pedestrian walkways from the adjacent rights of way as required by the zoning code. Staff believes the locations of the access points are appropriate as all entrances will be from the east side of the building. A private pedestrian walkway is provided along the entire east side of the building. Proposed Conditional Zoning Agreement: Given the location of the proposed CO-1 development with its entrance and parking facing a residential zone, staff believes the commercial rezoning should be subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The CZA should spell out the requirements for development of this property that are addition to the CO-1 zone standards. Staff recommends that the CZA address the following issues based on the need to ensure that the commercial development is compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood and to document some of the elements shown in the PCDlStaff Reportslrez08-000 cardinal point office. doc 5 applicant's concept plan and sample elevations. In part these conditions are intended minimize conflicts or impacts that might inhibit investment in the residential neighborhood over time. Buildino desion: Buildings should be similar in scale; fenestration; and variation in building materials, roofline, and building plane to examples provided by the applicant, including elevations along Camp Cardinal Boulevard and Kennedy Parkway. Final design to be approved by planning staff. Vehicle access: Vehicle access from Ryan Court will be limited to one entrance drive, centered between lots 10 and 11 in the residential zone as shown in the concept plan. Landscapino and screenino of the parkino area: To create an appropriate and attractive buffer and separation between the commercial use, which faces its main entrance and parking area toward the residential properties to the east and south, Staff recommends that the required screening areas for the parking lot include decorative fence (masonry or wrought iron) or a 2-3 foot high berm along with the required S3 screening and shade trees shown in the concept plan. Any portion of the parking area that is not screened by the building from Camp Cardinal Boulevard will require the standard S2 screening as specified in the zoning code. To reduce the hardscape effect of the parking area and entrance facing the residential zone, staff recommends a 3- to- 5 foot wide area of landscaping (low shrubs or perennial plantings) between the walkways and the building or installing tree wells within the walkway. Sions: Staff recommends that other than signs permitted on the buildings, that signs be limited to one monument sign at the corner of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and Kennedy Parkway. This would permit fascia, canopy, awning, window, identification and integral signs as well as barber poles, flags, and directional signage. No illuminated signs should be allowed on the east side of the building or any portion of the building facing the parking area. Signage within the front setback along Ryan Court should be limited to a directional sign marking the entrance to the parking area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ08-00010, an application submitted Southgate Development Services, LLC, for a rezoning from Interim Development Commercial Office (ID-C01) zone to Commercial Office (CO-1) zone for approximately 1.69 acres of property at the southeast corner of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and Kennedy Parkway, be approved subject to a conditional zoning agreement that includes: · A requirement for substantial compliance with the concept plan as submitted. Substantial compliance is in regard to the location of the building and parking area. Any significant deviation from the concept plan regarding building, parking placement, or screening requires approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission; · Vehicle access is limited to one entrance point to be located off Ryan Court and centered between lots 10 and 11 of the residential zone as shown in the concept plan; · Screening of the parking area to the S3 Standard provided along the front (Ryan Court) and side (south) property line to include S3 vegetative screen in combination with a decorative fence (masonry and wrought iron) or minimum 2-3 foot high berm; · To reduce the hardscape effect of the parking area and entrance facing the residential zone, provide 3- to 5-foot wide landscaped beds (low shrubs or perennial plantings) between the walkways and the building or install tree wells within the walkway; · Other than signs permitted in the CO-1 zone, signs will be limited to one monument sign at the corner of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and Kennedy Parkway. No illuminated signs will be allowed on the east side of the building or any portion of the building facing the parking area. Signage within the front setback along Ryan Court will be limited to directional PC DIStaff Reportslrez08-000 cardinal point office. doc 6 signage marking the entrance to the parking area. · Any street-facing fayade greater than 50-feet in width must be broken into modules that give the appearance of individual unites. These modules must meet the following standards: a. Each module must be no greater than 40 feet. b. Each module must be distinguished from the adjacent module by at least three of the following means: 1. Variation in wall plane by recessing a building module from the adjacent building module; 2. Variation in material colors, types, or textures; 3. Variation in building or parapet height; 4. Variation in architectural details such as decorative banding, reveals, stone, or tile accents; 5. Break or variation in window pattern; · A minimum of 30 percent of the street-facing fayade between 2 and 10 feet in height from the adjacent exterior grade must be comprised of windows or doors; · The building shall be predominately quality exterior building materials, including brick, masonry, stone or stucco. Predominately is defined as at least 75% of the exterior of the entire building · Primary building entries must be distinguished by at least two of the following means: 1. Canopies or awnings; 2. Recesses; 3. Raised cornice or similar architectural features; 4. Architectural details, such as tile work and moldings that are integrated in the building structure and design; · Final design to be approved by planning staff. A IT ACHMENTS: 1 . Location Map 2. Concept plan 3. Photos Approved by: ~~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development PCDlStaff Reportslrez08-000 cardinal point office. doc ~ tj ~ ~ ~ ~ tj 0 ~ 0 0 0 en I ~ 00 a: 0 . N C ~ - CO>,; i ,....~f\ t'o-I '1:0 :~../a. t~ /'0 . -+-l U ~ ~ ~ a. 0($ a: . f 0 . c ~ - ~ "'0 Q) ~ ~ Q) ~ c . . z 0 """"" ~ u 0 ~ ~ f-l """"" rJ) AQplicants Statement Our request is to rezone this property from Interim Development to regular CO 1 zoning. We have a signed purchase agreement with Mercy of Iowa City for the development of this lot to erect a Family Practice Center on the west side of Iowa City. This rezoning is within the comprehensive plan for Iowa City. Currently there is no district plan for this area. In the past few years Mercy has developed three structures that are similar with the one intended to be erected on this site. These structures are found on the east side of Iowa City, Coralville and West Branch. They consist of pleasant architecture that sets nicely into a residential area. The people of Mercy are sensitive to the environment and its surroundings. Their highest priority is to be a compatible neighbor and a benefit to the people that live in that area. There will be representatives present to answer any questions that might arise during the approval process. ("', ...,....;' i'. J t'-.) "'" v......' q~;l;:;_ ~ .C";. .- "~I -0 0.::] ::::;;:: 4(.- ;~\ ~ .......... ;r;,. .. "-...; N ~>- u~ cc~ ~~ ~2 ..IL ,r \ \ \ I =- :J o .....-4 U ro ~ o ~ -.+-l rJ'J (]) ~ U .....-4 ~ .....-4 ,.......; U (]) ~ ro U C ro S .....-4 ~ ~ ,..l::i ...... ;::l o C/l <l) ...... ~ '0 ~ c;:; ~ ~ ro U 0\ ...... o ......:l U ll. III ... I- et u o III III et :c u et III Ill: :c o Ill: '" ... v III ~ ... :z: >.. ...... U ro ::: o - v '" <l: C\l ~ C") ~ ~ ~ L() ~ ai il! "''' "'" ~.~ ~ 10I . ,~ u -1< " ~;1;~ ex:> , pJBAaln08 IBUiPJB::> dWB::> >---- u <l) ~ >- .- ....... u r- ~ 'S v II) .- ...... U ......-f ....... Q. - >-. U u \I) .. u 00 ... ~ ~ (\) 0 .... .- u 0 ct v U Q) ...... N -< i-' H u ..... v ... ~ ro C\l v 0 ~ ro l-< .D ~ \I) U p.... E <II .. ~ ~ v ct 0 .Q ..c: P- o C ...... v :r S u VJ - ~ V J: ~ ro C\l C\l to: ct -IL ~ ~ ~ l-< .~ III v S ....... CO V 00 ""C:J ;>, D: Q) ....... U i-' 0. :r '" ,r .- ....... l-< (/) E 0 ~ H ;:j (\) (\) ~ ~ 0 D: <l ~ ~ U (fj ... i, li~~i ~. "... '" .. "";: ~ .,\j .;l~:...,." 1< ~.: :;. ,f ~f ~.. ~ " ,. 4 ;-~ ~~ '\ " 'J ~~ i6; ,~:"i u u .- ~ >- .~ !1) ~ ~ ....- r- u U .~ V III - (1) - ~ u U a. U .- III .. cc: ~ ...... III U .~ (]) ro I- --. 0 U - ~ III ~ ~ .- .. 0 S III 0 Cl: 0 C ro 0 - ~ N :t: ~ C >-. v :l: .lL cd I::l ~ Cl: ~ ...... .g s .- .- rfJ ....... U U III u "'0 <l) D: (]) ....- ro ro Q.. ,r .~ ....... :t: .. ~ ~ ;::::S ~ ~ a 0 ~ I:Q 0 0 0 D: <l ...... ...... u ~ :. I 1!l ;~ ,e '" l ~ u r~ l~ ). iJJ ,,!nli!e1i t#., ~ Ii:I ~.~ o!l1."\' ';.- ~~!.! r. 1&'.; " -;,~ {d;, :r, ~.{ ~ ,e lee .~ & ~ '~~i 'lP ~ ~'" ,~ III ~; ~ .~ ~): . 'ill' u () '8 ~ >- .~ .- ~ - 1- .~ u u II) U ~ Cl) Cl. - 0 U u \I) ... .- U ..... ... CC u .... v .~ ~ C\l ct <( U l-4 ;.... p... v ... ~ ro 0 ~ ro ;>, ~ \I) U ] \I) ... ~ ~ ct 0 0 C C\l 0 0 ~ :c ....... N U J: ~ ro ;>, ;>, t::: ct ..IL ~ ..... ..... .S:: v ~ U U III S ....... V r.rJ ""d CI: ~ --' C\l C\l 0. :c '" .,r .~ ....... ~ ~ E 0 ~ ;.... ;:j ~ ~ 0 0 0 CI: ct ....... ....... u ! r I" I ,) ~ ill!! City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: November 20, 2007 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Re: Capital Improvements Program (CIP) The City Council will soon be considering the City's budget, including the Capital Improvement Program. Because investment in infrastructure affects where and how development occurs we have asked the Commission to review and comment on Capital Improvement Program priorities. In the past the Commission has generally been concerned with investment in street and sewer projects that accommodate development. Your packet includes a list of priorities identified by the Planning Staff. We would like to discuss this at your November 20 meeting and receive the Commission's comments regarding any projects that you feel should be identified as priorities. PCD/JCCOG Capital Improvements Program Priority List November 6,2008 Southeast Area Commercialllndustrial Development Plan · Reconstruct 420th Street and Taft Avenue · Water, sewer, rail and communications systems infrastructure · Park/stormwater management/buffer concept · City Carton relocation? Streets · Elevate Dubuque Street/Park Road Bridge · Mormon Trek Boulevard left turn lane, Melrose Avenue to Abbey Lane · Burlington Street Median Phase 1, Iowa River to Capitol Street · Sycamore Street/US 6 to Lehman Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle · Rocky Shore Drive to Peninsula pedestrian bridge · Highway 6/Highway 1 trail, Gilbert Street to Mormon Trek Boulevard (there are other worthy sidewalk projects; we feel this is the highest priority) Downtown Enhancement · Gilbert Street streetscape, Benton Street to College Street · Linn Street pedestrian corridor between Iowa Avenue and Market Street · Near Southside multi-use commercial/workforce housing/parking facility project (St. Pat's Parish Hall) 1-80 · Aesthetics project · Pedestrian bridges (2) Concept/Design Plans · Near Southside urban neighborhood in City Carton/North Wastewater Treatment Plant vicinity · South Gilbert Street corridor · Towncrest Pending - On the Radar - Identify Priority · Downtown ice skating rink · Brick street reconstruction in historic areas · GIS · First Avenue railroad overpass · South Riverside Drive streetscape enhancement · Foster Road between Dubuque Street and Prairie Du Chien Road ppddir/CIPlist11-6-08.doc MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 3, 2008 - 6:00 PM - INFORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL Preliminary MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Michelle Payne, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS EXCUSED: None STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: None CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. ANNEXATION / REZONING ITEM: ANN08-00001/REZ08-00009/ANN07-00001/REZ07-00006: Discussion of applications from the Veronica Prybil Trust and the Iowa Interstate Railway for annexation and rezoning from County Residential (R) to Interim Development Industrial (10-1) for approximately 179 acres of property located adjacent to 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue, and for the Iowa Interstate Railroad right-of- way between Industrial Park Road and Taft Avenue. Howard explained that the City is purchasing the Veronica Prybil Trust with the intention of adding it to the industrial land base in Iowa City. Currently, there is a shortage of industrial land, and when this property came up for sale, the City Council decided to pursue purchasing the land for future industrial development. The land is ideally located adjacent to a current industrial zone and is within the long-range planning boundary of the City. It also has good access to the arterial street network and potential access to the Iowa Interstate Railway. Improvement of 420th Street from Highway 6 to Taft Avenue is in the City's capital improvement budget for FY09/10. As a result it seems like a good time to annex the land into the city and provide city services, making it available for future industrial uses. Howard explained that the other annexation request is for the Iowa Interstate Railway right-of-way from Industrial Park Road to Taft Avenue. Howard said the idea is to annex the railway so that it forms a more logical city boundary and we don't have unincorporated land inside the City limits. Payne said that MidAmerican received a notice on this annexation and rezoning because they own property adjacent to the railroad. She asked if this could be perceived as a conflict since she is employed by MidAmerican. Greenwood-Hektoen said she did not believe so. Payne said she could not be there Thursday night so she would not be able to vote on the matter anyway, but she wanted to know for future reference. Busard said he had done some work for the County in regard to this property. He said he would check into it, and let Greenwood-Hektoen know on Thursday if he felt it could be perceived as a conflict. Eastham asked about a parcel south of 420th Street of approximately 180 acres. He asked what the rationale was for including that parcel for zoning to ID-I as opposes to just ID. He said he asked because it is a large parcel and there is no Southeast District Plan to guide overall development. Howard said there is no longer a zoning designation of just "ID," and that parcels are zoned either ID-I, ID-R, ID-RM, etc., in order to give an indication for the intent of the future land-use. Howard noted that the 1997 Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2008 - Informal Page 2 Comprehensive Plan does address each district of the city, so even though there is not yet a Southeast District Plan, there is a general plan for this area of the city. Howard said that the industrial use for this area is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. Eastham said that he thought 420th Street served as a useful boundary between commercial and industrial. Busard asked if the Commission would get an opportunity to give input on a proper zoning for the property in the future. Howard said that the intention in making the zoning ID-I to indicate that industrial zoning is appropriate once city services are extended to the area. Eastham said it would be useful for Staff to comment on how an ID-I zone south of 420th Street affects development between 420th Street and Highway 6th. Howard said that the growth-area limit extends in such a way that only a small parcel of land will be affected. Eastham said further discussion would be helpful given that this is being done without the help of a Southeast District Plan. Howard stated that staff would provide additional comment on this question at the formal meeting. SITE PLAN REVIEW: Review of a major site plan for Shelter House, 429 Southgate Avenue. Howard passed out the notification letter from the Board of Adjustment that was referenced in the Staff memo. Howard explained that it was a standard letter sent out to anyone receiving a special exception which outlined the requirements they must follow as a result of the decision. Howard explained that the City reviews site plans to determine if all applicable city codes and standards have been met; the Public Works Department reviews site plans to determine if engineering standards are met; the Fire Department determines if fire codes have been met. Howard said she will provide a memo from each of the staff reviewers at the Commission's meeting on Thursday night. Howard said Staff had nearly completed its review of the site plan when they received the petition asking that the site plan be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission instead. Freerks asked for a brief explanation as to how site-plan review differs from the Commission's usual duties. Howard explained that site plan review is basically an administrative review to ensure that a building plan meets all applicable city codes. Howard said there is a clause in that ordinance that states that the owners of 20% of the land within 200 feet of the proposed project can request that the Planning and Zoning Commission perform the review in lieu of Staff. Howard explained that this is sort of a carryover from how site plans used to be done. In the past, all site plans went to the Planning and Zoning Commission; when that process was changed, there was a desire to keep some remnant of that in case there needed to be a broader review. Howard said that the Commission's task is to act in place of Staff in performing the review. Busard asked if the Commission had any right to go above and beyond or ask for more than is required by code. Howard said that they could not; those issues were resolved in the special exception process. Howard stated that the Commission would be applying the city standards plus any board of adjustment conditions. Howard advised that the Commissioners packets included the petition, Staff memos, the Board of Adjustment decision, and the lawsuit decision. Koppes asked why the lawsuit and Board of Adjustment documents were included. Greenwood-Hektoen said that the special exception can impose conditions that must be met at the site plan review. Howard said the added documents were provided to provide context for the issues brought up in the petition. Some of the issues brought up in the petition are collateral issues, not related to site plan review, Greenwood-Hektoen advised. Eastham said that Busard's question gets to what the standards of review are, and whether or not it includes interpretation of whether the special exception has expired. Eastham said he would like Planning and Zoning Commission November 3,2008 - Informal Page 3 guidance on that question. Plahutnik said that it is the City Attorney's opinion that the special exception is still valid since the Shelter House has taken step to establish the use within six months of resolution of the litigation. Eastham said he understood this was the City Attorney's view, but that he wants to know if the Planning and Zoning Commission's scope includes interpreting that. Howard said clarification on that from the City Attorney's office would be helpful. Howard said that the standard process has been followed in this case. Busard asked what the heart of the question was as it seems that the Board of Adjustment basically granted Shelter House six months after all pending litigation was resolved. Koppes said that extension was granted after the initial six months had expired. Greenwood-Hektoen contended that this was not necessarily true. She said that the language says that steps have to be taken to establish the use, not that a building permit is required within six months time. Those petitioning against Shelter house believe that a building permit must be obtained within six months, however, that is not the City's standard practice. Eastham said if the City Attorney's office concludes that the Commission does need to interpret the timeframe language, it would be helpful to him to have a timeline of events. Howard advised that that information could be found in the text of the packet. Eastham concurred, but said a timeline would be more helpful. Eastham said he just wanted to be sure he knew what his job was. Greenwood-Hektoen said that she believed the Commission's job would be determining whether or not the applicant complied with requirements set forth in the special exception; however, she said she would confirm that on Thursday. Howard noted that because the litigation took so long, there has since been a change to zoning standards with adoption of the new zoning code. The Commission should keep in mind that the Board of Adjustment ruling is based on criteria that were in the zoning code at the time. However, since the site plan is coming in under the current code, all the site development standards in the current code apply. Howard said that when an applicant applies for a special exception, there usually is only a concept plan at that stage. The Board of Adjustment, Howard said, typically will state that applicants will have to comply with all applicable codes when they get a building permit. As a result, the current screening and parking standards are a bit different than what they were at the time Shelter House went before the Board of Adjustment. Payne said that it looks like the attorney thinks Shelter House needs 22 parking spaces and Staff only thinks 21 are needed. Howard said it is a written standard and that according to the number of employees and temporary residents projected by the Shelter House, 21 parking spaces are required. Busard asked if it was possible to put the number of occupants, number of employees, etc., on the actual site plan. Howard replied that it is already marked on the plan. Eastham asked if he was correct in assuming that the Commission was allowed to rely on Staff's expertise and did not have to go back through the whole plan and recalculate figures and research code. Payne asked if it was not the whole point of the process that the Commission is being asked to review in lieu of Staff. Greenwood-Hektoen said that Commissioners could rely on whatever information Staff gave them and that she believed the petitioners were primarily interested in having a public process for the decision-making. Freerks advised that obviously Commissioners should read everything carefully. Eastham asked what happened after the site-plan review process. Greenwood-Hektoen said that depending on the Commission's decision; either a building permit could be issued or not. Eastham asked if the decision would then have to go before Council, and Greenwood-Hektoen said that it would not, but that issuance of a building permit can be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. Payne asked about the section of the special exception which required screening around the transformer and the bicycle rack. Howard explained that the screen would be on the perimeter to screen from the Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2008 - Informal Page 4 public view, not necessarily around the entire perimeter of the transformer. Koppes asked for clarification on the boundary dispute. Greenwood-Hektoen advised that that was a private matter and would not be something to consider as a part of the site plan review. Koppes asked if the storm-water was all pushed to the back of the lot. Howard advised that there is a drainage easement at the back of the lot and a connection to the storm sewer through a culvert that extends under the street. Eastham asked if there is on-street parking on Waterfront Drive. Plahutnik said there is not. Koppes asked where overflow parking would wind up. Payne asked if there would be visitors to the facility who would need to park. Koppes asked about school buses and what the plan for that would be. Howard advised that while these are good questions, that they are not really part of the site plan review process, and would not be considered legitimate questions given the scope of the Commission's review. Greenwood-Hektoen reminded Commissioners that this was not a conditional zoning agreement. The meeting was adjourned at 6:36 p.m. E: .2 II> .!!! E E o o'E c)o E: (,) .- Q) go:: NQ)~ ....(,)0 -E:N C)ns E:"C .- E: E: Q) E:- .!!~ D.. ~ (3 ns ~ .2 U) l:!:!x .... x x x xx - 0 0 .... co .... X X X X X xx - 0) :!!: x x x x x xx 0) .... xl:!:! w N xx 0 xx - 0 co t:: w , - x xx , xx co 0 , , I' , .... X X xx , x x - , I' , M W , X xx , x x ;::: 0 , , 0) I .... X X xx I X X - , U) , II) , , w - , x xx , 0 x U) I , I , II) , , .... , x x X , X X - , , II) , , .... : I w - X X X , 0 x II) , , , , I' , , I I .... I X X X , X I ~ , I I , , I M , , I , X X X , X I - I , I V I , I 0 , , I ~ , X X X , X I I , I M I , I I' , I , .... , x x x , X , - , I I .... , I , N , , , , x x X I X , - , I , .... , I , (/) ('I) N 0 0 ('I) E ~ ..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- '- '0. - - - - - - - Q) >< It) It) It) It) It) It) It) I-LU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'E E In II> Q) ~ Q; ns ~ ~ E: Q) ns .c ~ I~ - ~ E II> - Q) :s ~ II> ~ ns .c III :s ns 0 D.. ns z m w LL ~ ii: .., 0 c:C w :ii 3: ....= C) z i= w w :E ..J <C :E 0:: o LL M - >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ..... ..... M ..... >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - 0 ..... It) ..... >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - ~ co LU ..... >< >< >< >< >< >< 0 - co ~ LU , LU ..... >< >< >< 0 , 0 >< - , ...... , 0 , ~ >< >< >< >< , >< >< >< >< >< CD , , , , N , , ..... , >< >< >< , >< >< - , , It) , , ~ I , , ..... I >< >< >< , >< , ~ I , , I , , .... I I W I ~ I X X X I - , , , 0 , N , , , t:: , I W , , x x X I - , N , , 0 , , , , (/) ('I) N 0 0 ('I) E ~ ..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- "0. - - - - - - - Q) >< It) It) It) It) It) It) It) I-LU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E ~ 'E II> II> Q) E: Q; ns ~ i ~ - l:I Q) ns .c ~ :s E II> - Q) .c 'a; II> ~ ns ro :s ns 0 D.. ns 3: z m w LL ~ ii: .., 0 c:C W :E ~ ....= C) z i= w w :E ..J <C :E 0:: o LL Z "0 Q) (/) ::J (.,) >< LU ~ cc~ Q) Q) (/) (/)(/).0 ~.o<( (1.<(11 >'11 II LU Q) - ~><oo MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2008 - 7:30 PM - FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL Preliminary MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel, MEMBERS EXCUSED: STAFF PRESENT: Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne Karen Howard, Bob Miklo, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Scott Murray, Mark Hamer, Jim Greazel, Don Flannery, Noel Bree, Craig Dahlen, Tom Huber, Isabella Vine, Greg Redlin, Lori Dahlen, Bart Cramer, Janet Dahlen, Gregg Geerdes, Tim Krumm, Joyce Barker RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. ANNEXATION / REZONING ITEM: ANN08-00001/REZ08-00009/ANN07-00001/REZ07-00006: Discussion of applications from the Veronica Prybil Trust and the Iowa Interstate Railway for annexation and rezoning from County Residential (R) to Interim Development Industrial (ID-I) for approximately 179 acres of property located adjacent to 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue, and for the Iowa Interstate Railroad right-of- way between Industrial Park Road and Taft Avenue. Busard announced before discussions began that he had worked with the property in question in his professional role in the Planning and Zoning Department for Johnson County. As a result, he excused himself from discussions and abstained from considering the matter. Howard shared a graphic outlining the properties in question. The property is located near Scott Boulevard, Taft Avenue, 420lh Street and Highway 6. Howard stated that the City is in the process of purchasing the land owned by the Veronica Prybil Trust. She stated that there are three considerations for annexing property into the City. The first consideration is whether the area falls within the adopted long-range growth boundary of the City. The property in question is within the city-growth limit that can be served by City water and sanitary sewer, an area generally determined by watershed. Howard said that because this land is so close to the growth area limit, Staff had the City Engineer look at this property Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 2 and its topography in detail to make sure it all can be sewered and the City Engineer has confirmed that it can be. Howard said that the City's intention is to purchase this property from the Veronica Prybil Trust with the goal of bringing it into the industrial tax-base for the city. Currently, Iowa City has a lack of industrial land, particularly large parcels. Howard said that recent requests from large industries wishing to locate in Iowa City had to basically be turned away for lack of an industrial parcel large enough to accommodate their needs. Howard said that with that in mind the City Council and the City Manager saw this purchase as an opportunity to acquire some land to increase industrial land in the area. In this way, the second consideration for annexing land - fulfilling an identified need for the City --- has been met. The third consideration for annexing land is whether control of the development is in the City's best interest. The parcel falls within the long-range planning boundary of the City, fulfills an indentified need for industrial land, has access to rail service (which is important for industrial development), and is located near arterial streets. Staff feels that this annexation and rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, as it is in the Southeast District of the City and is identified in the plan as an area of potential industrial growth. Howard said that the City has plans in its Capital Improvement Program to improve 420th Street between Highway 6 and Taft Avenue in the near future (FY09/1 0). Water service will be extended along 420th Street when the street improvements are made, and sanitary sewer service can be extended from a branch from the Scott Boulevard Trunk Sewer. The sensitive areas map indicates that there are some hydric soils in the area that will have to be taken into account prior to future development. Staff recommends that the Veronica Prybil Trust land be annexed and rezoned to Interim Development (ID-I) and the Iowa Interstate Railway land be annexed and rezoned to General Industrial (11). Howard offered to answer questions from the Commission. Eastham asked if Staff had any comments on the rationale for including the area south of 420th Street in this industrial zone. Eastham noted that there was a not a detailed District Plan for this area yet, and said that he wondered if in the future there would be an interest in commercial or residential zoning in that triangular parcel of land sandwiched between 420th Street and Highway 6. Howard said that given the small size of the area it would not be appropriate for residential as a buffer zone would be required between industrial development and residential development. Howard noted that that piece of property was not actually under consideration at the present, but that its zoning would be consistent with industrial zoning already in the area. Miklo added that the pattern has been that anything west of Scott Boulevard and north of Highway 6 is zoned industrial. Miklo noted that the land is also relatively flat, which is desirable for industrial development. The Commission had no further questions for Staff. Freerks opened the public hearing. Mark Hamer, 4569 Jenn Lane NE, Iowa City, identified himself as an attorney for Meardon, Sueppel & Downer, and a representative of E&L Prybil Partnership. Hamer noted that E&L Prybil was not the applicant. Hamer distributed maps to the Commission for consideration which showed an 80-foot tract of land running through the Veronica prybil property. On April 3, 2008, the E&L Prybil Partnership entered into a purchase agreement with the Veronica Prybil Trust to purchase the 80-foot tract of land. The purchase was subject to court approval, which was granted on August 7,2008. Hamer said that his client has an interest in that parcel. The purchase was also subject to an easement agreement, which the purchase agreement required to be submitted within twenty days from April 3, 2008. Hamer said that the easement agreement was submitted in the timeframe required by the purchase agreement. Hamer said the easement was left with the Prybil Trust for review and consideration, and nothing more was heard until October 27,2008 - a date after the application for annexation and rezoning was filed. Hamer said Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 3 that his office and client have not had ample time to assess the impact of the revisions set forth by the Trust. Hamer said he wished to make clear that at the time of the purchase agreement his client agreed to be a cooperative co-applicant in the annexation/rezoning process; Hamer said that the fact that his client is not listed on the application must have been an oversight. Hamer said that their easement speaks in terms of the usage of this parcel, part of which may be impacted with the railroad crossing over it. Hamer said that he fully anticipates agreeing to this annexation and rezoning, and to being a co- applicant in the matter; however, given that his office has not had adequate time to assess the changes made to the easement and how the annexation process might affect it, he asked that the Commission defer the matter until their next meeting. Hamer noted that there is a court hearing set on the approval of this sale on the 19th of November, and that the next Commission meeting is November 20th. Hamer said he believed it would be appropriate for this matter to be deferred, and said that he would be happy to take any questions. Freerks asked if Staff was aware of the complication referenced by Hamer. Howard said that Staff and the City were aware of these issues, and that the purchase agreement between the Veronica Prybil Trust and the City was contingent on the 80-foot parcel (E&L Prybil Partnership's interest) also be annexed at the same time. Howard said that the City has also been in conversations with E&L Prybil over the last two years about annexing their property. However, Howard said that in the last 6 months the City has had to turn away several interested industrial developments due to lack of available land. While the City is interested in working with the E&L Prybil to annex their property, the City Manager and City Council decided to move forward to pursue this opportunity to acquire land to meet the current need for industrial land rather than wait until E&L Prybil were ready to annex. Howard emphasized that the City continues to be interested in negotiating with them to annex their larger piece of property. Eastham asked what larger piece of property Howard was referring to. Miklo said that E&L Prybil owned property to the north and west of the Veronica Prybil Trust property, as well as property to the north of 429th Street. Miklo said that he believed that one of the reasons E&L Prybil wanted to buy this piece of property was to provide access to both sides of the railroad track. Hamer explained that E&L Prybil has maintained an easement for many years with regard to the fields to the north and access to the south. Hamer said that through discussions over time with the Prybil Trust an agreement was made to purchase this 80-foot strip and provide an access easement back to the Trust. Hamer said that he wished to reiterate that they fully anticipate cooperating and being a co-applicant with this annexation, but that the problem was that they had not received the revised easement language until October 2th. Hamer said the deferral request is to give them time to sort out the changes made to the language since the document was drafted six months ago, particularly with regard to when any type of utilities might be added, the timing of crops, etc. Hamer said the request is simply for a deferral until the Commission's next meeting. Freerks asked Staff if there was any limitation date for the annexation. Howard replied that there is not. Plahutnik noted that the applicant was the Prybil Trust who was asking the City to annex the property. He asked if outside concerns such as the purchase, the courts, and the easement agreement are entirely outside of the Commission's purview, or if it can be taken into consideration. Howard said that it is certainly within the Commission's purview to defer the matter; however, whether or not the issues mentioned are pertinent to the Commission's decision may be another matter. Howard said it certainly would not be unusual for the Commission to take two meetings to consider the annexation. Don Flannery, 2909 Gilmore Avenue, Des Moines, spoke on behalf of his mother who is the property owner directly north of the Prybil Estate, from Taft Avenue west on the northern fence-line. Flannery said that they stand opposed to the annexation and rezoning. Flannery said that the City did not disclose that the proposed rezoning was inconsistent with the Johnson County-Iowa City Fringe Agreement, the Johnson County Land Use Plan and the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan. Flannery said that these plans make provisions for land east of Scott Boulevard and south of the railroad tracks as industrial zones; all areas north of the railroad tracks are designated as low to medium density esidential. Flannery said that Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 4 if the City is changing the Comprehensive Plan and wants the Prybil property zoned industrial, then he questions how other adjacent properties would be used in future zoning. Flannery said that he respectfully asks the Commis.sion to be cautious in considering this rezoning to industrial as it sets a precedent counter to decades of prior zoning. He said that for decades, the railroad tracks have served as a logical buffer zone between the industrial in the south and the residential in the north. Flannery said the railroad tracks can be followed west from Scott Boulevard and all of the industrial uses will be found on the south side of the tracks; north of the tracks is all residential. Flannery said that they are very concerned that the development of the Prybil property will negatively affect their farm's productivity. Specifically, Flannery said, drainage, run-off, disruption of existing tile lines and the natural flow of surface drainage are all concerns that he and his family have. Jim Greazel, 4898 420th Street, said that he had two concerns. His first concern was that in today's world with its rising food costs, the land in question is very productive local farmland. His second concern was that industry likes to have access to interstates more so than railroad tracks. Greazel said that Iowa City has the luxury of good interstates in the area and that there is ample ground near those highways that would be suitable for industry. Greazel said that this land is a good distance from the interstate and that traffic is already bad in the area. Greazel said this decision would run counter to the City's long-range plan of promoting good quality of life. He noted that if 420th Street were improved to provide good access to Interstate 80 for the industrial area, then it would wind up running right through a recently built, major residential area. There was no one else who wished to speak on this issue and the public hearing was closed. Eastham moved to defer the item until the Commission's next scheduled meeting, November 20, 2008. Weitzel seconded. Eastham said he would like to have Staff comment at the next meeting on its views as to the natural demarcation between this industrial zone and residential development to the north served by the railroad. Plahutnik said he would also like Staff to review for the Commission the Fringe Agreement that was pointed out by Flannery. Howard said that Staff has a meeting with the Johnson County Board of Supervisors next week to discuss this issue. Weitzel asked if Staff could also address at that time transportation issues that had been brought up. A vote was taken and the motion to defer was approved 4-0 (Busard abstained; Koppes and Payne absent). SITE PLAN REVIEW: Review of a major site plan for Shelter House, 429 Southgate Avenue. Miklo noted that before Staff went into a detailed review of the site plan, the Assistant City Attorney, Greenwood-Hektoen, wished to clarify the scope of the Commission's considerations, and how it relates to the Board of Adjustments. Miklo referred Commissioners to a memo prepared by Greenwood-Hektoen on the topic. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 5 Greenwood-Hektoen said that the scope of what the Commission is being asked to do in the site plan review is pretty limited. Greenwood-Hektoen said that Commissioners were to examine the proposed site plan and determine if it complied with the standards set forth in Iowa City Ordinance 18-3-2. Greenwood- Hektoen said that she had listed out exactly what those standards are in her memo. Greenwood-Hektoen said the Commission did not need to consider whether any special exceptions granted by the Board of Adjustment had expired. Greenwood-Hektoen advised Commissioners to assume that the special exception still exists and complies with standards set forth in that special exception. She said that if a building permit is granted and that decision is appealed, the decision will return to the Board of Adjustment who will then decide whether the special exception which they had granted continues to exist. Greenwood-Hektoen said that if the Board of Adjustment decides that its special exception no longer exists, then the Commission's approval of the plan will have no effect. She explained that the special exception does not allow standards set below the minimum required by the code. Freerks asked for clarification as to whether or not Greenwood-Hektoen was talking about things like the landscape buffer that had been required. Greenwood-Hektoen said that this was correct, and would include screening and parking requirements. Greenwood-Hektoen acknowledged that there had been a lot of collateral issues with this case, such as a boundary dispute, but advised the Commission that these were not things they needed to consider when it came to determining whether this site plan complies with requirements of the code. She said that such issues were private matters for the parties involved to work out on their own. Freerks asked if that would be the same in any case and Greenwood-Hektoen replied that it would. She said that the Commission's job is not to determine ownership of the land. Greenwood-Hektoen advised that all comments from the Commission and the public should be limited to the site plan review standards. The Commission's job is not to determine whether the use is appropriate for this particular parcel, or whether or not the zoning is appropriate, Greenwood-Hektoen said. The sole question is whether or not the site plan complies with standards. Greenwood-Hektoen said there had been a question raised as to whether or not Commission member Charlie Eastham had been conflicted out of consideration for this case. Greenwood-Hektoen advised that it was the City Attorney's legal opinion that he does not have a conflict in this case. She noted that in the July 14, 2004, Board of Adjustment meeting when they were considering whether to grant the special exception, Eastham made a statement in support of the application. Greenwood-Hektoen said that the issue before the Commission is totally separate from whether or not the special exception is appropriate. She said that the issue is solely whether or not the site plan proposed meets the City's design standards. She said that her understanding is that Eastham has no direct personal stake in the outcome of the application, does not serve on the Shelter House Board, and does not feel personally biased one way or the other in this matter. Eastham said he did not serve on any Shelter House Board or committee. He acknowledged making a statement in the 2004, but said that it was a long time ago and had to do with the appropriate use of this parcel for the purpose of a homeless shelter. He said that it is his understanding that the matter before the Commission was simply one of compliance with site plan review standards. Greenwood-Hektoen asked if Eastham felt he could be unbiased and impartial. He replied that he could be as unbiased and impartial in this matter as he is with anything else. Miklo briefed the Commission on the site plan review. He explained that the site plan standards are in the city code and are what Staff uses to determine whether or not any site plan should be approved. In this case, Miklo explained, the Commission is being asked to serve in that administrative role and make that determination. Miklo said that there are 13 items in question. Miklo said Staff had received a site plan on November 5th that addressed the number of parking spaces, a major concern that had come up. The plan has been revised to allow for four additional parking spaces, three on the west side of the driveway and one on the north. Miklo pointed out that there are two parking spaces internal to the building. Based on the newest site plan, Housing Inspection Services (HIS) has verified that the site plan does meet minimum parking requirements. Miklo noted that the memo before the Commission lists the 13 items or areas that are outlined in more detail in the code and are used to review site plan. Miklo noted a memo Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 6 from the City Engineer's office in Public Works which finds the site plan in compliance with drainage and utility connection standards. A memo from the Fire Marshall indicates that the site plan complies with fire safety codes. Issues of erosion and sediment control, vehicle and pedestrian circulation, screening of the outdoor dumpster area, exterior lighting, screening of equipment, screening of storage areas and general parking areas, are all confirmed to be in compliance with the standards by Judy Tallman of HIS. The removal of trees from the southern part of the property had been questioned by some as to whether or not their removal complied with landscape preservation codes. Miklo explained that the trees were in the drainage way easement on the southern side of the property and in an area identified in the concept plan as a play area; at that time they were identified for removal so that the play area and fence-line could be developed. Miklo said that normally when Staff reviews a site plan they point out any trees that can be saved and still allow for development. Miklo said that Staff does not feel that trees were needlessly removed in this case. Miklo said that there are no issues concerning the sensitive areas ordinance as there are no sensitive areas involved with this property. Miklo said that the final item for site plan review is that the development complies with all other city, state and federal regulations. Miklo noted that in this case, this would include whatever requirements the Board of Adjustment had imposed. Miklo stated that all elements were in compliance. Miklo said that Staff has determined that if they were in the role of reviewing this site plan they would find that it now meets site plan requirements. Miklo offered to answer any questions the Commissioners might have. Freerks asked if it was typical for Staff to include the two spaces internal to the building as parking spaces. Miklo said that it is not unusual, and that the parking requirement is for a total number of spaces, not for surface parking. Eastham asked about the exterior lighting standards. Eastham asked if Staff felt that the outside lighting met the applicable standards and would not give off excessive light in neighboring properties. Miklo said that Judy Tallman in HIS has expertise in lighting and reviews the lighting plans for all site plans, looking at the wattage, the height, the amount, and other features of the lighting. She has determined that the lighting plan meets the City's requirements. Plahutnik said that generally the City's preferences for design have been a building near the street with the parking lot screened by the building or behind it. He noted that this design standard does not seem to be inn play here and wondered why. Miklo responded that the design preference to which Plahutnik spoke is a requirement in some of the commercial zones and in the multi-family zones. It is not a requirement or a stated preference in the CI-1lntensive Commercial zone, the CC-2 zone, or the CO-1 zone, and as a result does not apply to this property. Eastham stated that he received a call from the director of the Shelter House prior to the November 3rd informal meeting. He said that the call discussed what procedures would be followed as it pertains to the application, that there would be a public hearing and an open forum. Plahutnik asked if Staff had reviewed the correspondence from Gregg Geerdes that had been received November 5th. Miklo said that they had, and that they believed the City Attorney memo addresses those issues. Plahutnik asked if the requirement for a management plan had been fulfilled. Greenwood- Hektoen stated that a management plan is required at the stage that an applicant is requesting a special exception. Because this applicant had already received a special exception prior to that requirement being added to the code, they were grandfathered in and, thus, no management plan was required of them. There were no further questions from the Commission and the public hearing was opened. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 7 Freerks asked that those who comment keep their comments focused on things which the Commission can address. She noted that the Commission cannot address the appropriateness of the proposed use and so this would not be the forum to make those arguments. She said that if the public had comments within the scope of the items that the Commission would be considering, then they would love to hear them. Scott Murray, 605 Everett, Kansas City, Kansas, shared a power point presentation with the Commission. Murray noted that the site plan that he had been working off of did not have enough parking to meet the requirements, as it had only 18 of the 21 spots. He noted that the parking inside the building would be occupied by Shelter House vans used to transport children to and from school. As a result, Murray said, they should not be considered employee parking as there will be no employee cars in those spots. Murray asked if the buffering rules and setback requirements were still being met with the new parking spaces that had been added. He noted that there is no off-street parking on either of the two streets in question. Murray said that they disagree that the parking issue has been resolved, and see it as still a problem. Murray said that he disagrees that the site management plan should be grandfathered in. He said that it is a very, very important component of the site plan approval process. Murray said that according to the City's nuisance code, the site management plan actually consists of four sub-plans: 1) litter control plan, 2) loitering control plan, 3) a plan for on-site security, and 4) a conflict resolution procedure. In his presentation, Murray noted a wide area beyond the boundaries of the Shelter House property to which he believed a site management plan should apply. He also proposed a large security fence to keep Shelter House residents from infiltrating nearby homes and businesses. Murray said that a site management plan is crucial to the success or failure of Shelter House. Murray said that his plan also proposes security lighting, not just parking lot lighting, all around the site and possibly in the entryway to the trailer park. He said that he would like to discuss the issue of installing security cameras to monitor who came and left the facility as a way of helping to protect mobile home park residents. Murray said that residents are very concerned about their safety and security and that they believe a site management plan is crucial to helping to protect them. Without a site management plan, Murray said, the City could be asking for trouble. Murray said that it may even be necessary to have security guards or hired police in the area, especially on weekends. Murray said that Shelter House documents say that there will be at least 70 people in the shelter at anyone time, with enough square footage to hold 150. Murray said that on cold, rainy nights it is possible that over-occupancy could lead some clients to search for other places in the neighborhood to sleep. Murray asked what the plan was for holidays and Sundays when no bus service is available. Murray said he had a petition signed by 92 people who are very concerned about the site management plan and the safety and security of the area. He said they are concerned about people walking up and down the area and about vandalism, petty thefts, break-ins and large thefts. Murray said neighbors are concerned about the kind of people who sometimes inhabit shelter houses. Murray noted that the parking requirements are being set at current standards and so, he contended, should be the site management requirement; it should not be grandfathered in. Murray said that the neighborhood would like to come with a workable agreement for a site management plan before they considered moving on with the project. Murray explained the boundary-line dispute mentioned by Greenwood-Hektoen. He said that the situation is one in which the term "adverse possession" is more applicable. At the southern boundary of the property, there are three mobile homes encroaching on Shelter House land. Those buildings have been there since the 1960's and 1970's. For dozens of years, the owners of Hilltop Mobile Homes have been taking care of that property. Currently, Murray said, there is a 30-foot drainage channel easement. Adverse possession would seek to move the property line, which in turn would move the drainage easement, shrinking it to less than the 30-foot drainage setback requested by the Board of Adjustment. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 8 Murray contended that the building would have to be either moved forward or shrunk to provide the proper setback, and that would in turn change the current site plan. Murray noted that at one point the engineering report mentioned that there could be as many as 20 employees, something not noted anywhere else. He also asked if an FAA approval was required; a question put to city engineers for which he had received no response. Murray also noted that it had been hoped that the landscape preservation ordinance would help to save the trees that had been cut back on the south end of the property. Murray said that in light of the adverse possession situation, a matter in which he will be filing a law-suit, he had really hoped those trees would not be removed. Murray said that there are serious issues involved in this application that are just not quite straight. He said that he asked that there could be a time where everyone got together and came up with a more workable solution. Murray asked that the Commission delay its decision making until some of the issues regarding site plan, parking, and adverse possession are resolved. Gregg Geerdes, 105 Iowa Avenue, #234, said that he is a lawyer representing the Dahlen family, who are the adjacent property owners. He said that it was clear to him that the Commission is in a difficult spot. On the one hand, Geerdes said, the Commission has the City and Shelter House telling them that everything is fine; and on the other hand, the Commission is about to hear from a number of people telling them that indeed things are not fine and that there are a lot of problems with the site plan that need accommodations. Geerdes read from city cpde regarding the Commission's charge in this matter (18.1.1 a): "to promote the most beneficial relation between present and proposed uses of land." Geerdes said that this required the Commission's site plan review to accommodate existing uses as well as the proposed uses. Geerdes said that this brings the issue of the facility's management plan which is lacking from the site plan. Geerdes said that he adamantly disagrees with the representation made to the Commission that a site management plan is somehow not applicable in this case. City code says that the Commission is to "ensure compliance with this code as amended." Geerdes said that the flip side of this is that the applicant wishes to use the current code for its parking standards but the previous code when it comes to the site management plan requirement. Geerdes said that he knows of no other use in city code which contemplates a site management plan other than a shelter. He said there is nothing else in the code that talks about proactively addressing the concerns of littering, loitering, security and conflict resolution. Geerdes said the code recognizes problems and concerns that need to be addressed as part of the site management plan. Geerdes said that the code requires a site management plan to accompany the application and to be submitted as a part of the site plan process. This, Geerdes said, has not been done. Geerdes said that he very much agrees with the analysis given to the Commission regarding the boundary line dispute. Geerdes said that one of the things that the Commission is supposed to look at is whether or not the requirements of the Board of Adjustment's special exception have been satisfied. Geerdes said that he respectfully suggests that there is no possible way that they can be satisfied under the current scenario. The Board of Adjustment instructed and ordered a wooden boundary fence constructed along the south border of the property: an instruction which if fulfilled would put the fence right through the heart of the three encroaching mobile homes. The Board of Adjustment also required the 30-foot setback for the good reason of providing buffer for the mobile homes from the shelter. Geerdes said that because of the adverse possession factor, that 30-foot requirement can no longer exist. Geerdes asked the Commission to apply good old-fashioned horse sense to the situation. He asked if the Commission really wished to approve a site plan in which other people's homes were sitting right on top of the project. He said that it would make no sense, and it is an invitation to a dispute that can be resolved only through litigation. Freerks asked if Geerdes had any proof that the land is owned by the mobile home residents. Geerdes explained that the concept of adverse possession means that if a person openly and exclusively uses property as their own for a ten-year period, it then belongs to them; acquiring ownership from your neighbor through use. Geerdes said that for at least the last 35 years Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 9 there have been mobile homes encroaching on the original property line. Greenwood-Hektoen interjected that the boundary issue was a private matter with which the City did riot need to get involved. Freerks stated that it was not part of what the Commission needed to discuss in its site plan review. Geerdes said that it should be, and that he respectfully disagrees with the direction she and other Commissioners had been given in what they could and could not consider. He said that City staff and the applicant have vested interest in the outcome, and the Commission is playing the role of the judge. Freerks said that it is pretty clearly defined and that the Commission is not a judicial body. Geerdes responded that it is the Commission that needs to make a determination as to whether the site plan is in compliance. Freerks asked Geerdes to continue with his comments. Geerdes said that the parking issue had been discussed, but that the issue of where people coming to the center for day-services would park had not yet been addressed. Geerdes said there are a lot of people who use the Shelter House's drop-in services for laundry, mail, counseling, etc., and that no provisions had been made for them to park. Geerdes said that Shelter House says there will be up to 20 employees, a direct contradiction to the maximum number of 14 that had been given to the Commission. If there are 20 employees and 70 overnight residents, Geerdes stated, then the code requires 27 parking spots. Geerdes suggested that the Commission defer the matter until some of these concerns were addressed. Geerdes said that the Commission was apparently presented with a site plan that he has not seen or had a chance to review. As a result, he and his clients have not had a chance to review the parking provisions and determine if they are adequate. Tim Krumm, 4186 Prairie Meadow Court NE, identified himself as the attorney for Shelter House. He said that he strongly agrees with the opinion of the Assistant City Attorney regarding the scope of the review. Krumm said that the task of the Commission is to stand in the shoes of Staff and determine whether the requirements for site plan approval have been met. Krumm said that he believes the requirements have been met and will therefore not spend time going over that, but would like to primarily make himself available for any questions. He introduced Tom Werderitsch from Selzer-Werderitsch Associates as the construction manager on the project, Christie Canganelli, Executive Director of Shelter House, and Dwight Doberstein, design professional, as being present to make themselves available to any questions. Krumm said that Shelter House strenuously resists the notion that there should be a deferral on the matter. Krumm said the construction of this shelter has already been deferred for about four and a half years. He noted that many of the same issues brought before the Commission were the same questions raised four and a half years ago. Krumm said there is clearly a desire for communication, and he said that the shelter is ready and willing to communicate with its neighbors. However, he said that he did not believe that that had anything to do with what the Commission was charged to do in this matter. Krumm said that parking issues are clearly a proper subject for a site plan review, but that the parking requirements have been met and there is not much more to say on the subject. Krumm noted that the old parking standards actually required fewer spaces than the newer regulations, contrary to what Geerdes had implied. Krumm said there will not be 20 employees in the building at anyone time, and the maximum number of staff present at anyone time will be 14. Regarding the site management plan that had been discussed, Krumm said that at the time that the special exception was granted four and a half years ago there was absolutely no requirement that a site management plan be submitted. Krumm said Shelter House was granted its special exception under the rules in effect at that time and has spent the last four years in litigation trying to preserve that special exception. Krumm said that the suggestion that Shelter House would be required to comply with new requirements for what it takes to get a special exception is completely specious. Krumm said he did not want the Commission to think anyone was trying to pull a fast one on them, or that they were missing some requirement. Krumm said he understands that neighbors are concerned and he expressed his desire to keep the communication with neighbors open, however, he said that imposing requirements like Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 10 security lighting, guards and cameras that neighbors would like to see is not something that code would permit the Commission to do. In regards to the boundary dispute, Krumm said he was not sure if one actually existed. Shelter House surveyed the property in preparation for construction and discovered encroachment. Krumm noted that just because the Board of Adjustment said there had to be a fence, does not mean that that fence has to go directly up to the property line. Krumm said that if Shelter House does not prevail on the boundary issue, then they will simply build the fence farther from the property line. Krumm also noted that there is not a 30-foot setback requirement; rather there is a 30-foot drainage way easement. Krumm said that the building would obviously not be constructed in the drainage way easement, and that it will be preserved. Krumm stated that any boundary issues were private matters that hopefully could be resolved outside of court, but that regardless, it was beyond the scope of the Commission's consideration. Joyce Barker, 2018 Waterfront Drive #128, said that if Shelter House is acknowledging the current code, then she believes that they should be held to that code. She said that they had had time enough to redraw and resubmit plans for the extra parking spaces, so they should similarly be required to submit a site management plan. Submitting a site management plan is not optional, Barker contended, but is a requirement. Barker said she and her neighbors are extremely disappointed that Shelter House and city staff did not even attempt to comply with this requirement. Barker said that her mobile home park has 80-100 children in it. She said that her neighbors and neighboring businesses take the issues of crime, vagrancy and loitering very seriously. As a resident of the proposed neighborhood, Barker said, she has a right to expect the requirements of the nuisance code to be followed. She said they have a right to learn how Shelter House expects to address loitering, noise, conflict issues, and the flow of traffic. Further, Barker asked how Shelter House intended to deal with those they turned away due to failure to treat their mental illnesses or abstain from drugs and alcohol. Barker asked what the Shelter House's on-site security plan was. Barker said that the neighborhood which Shelter House intends to be a part of should have input on any nuisance plan developed. Barker asked how the Commission could be expected to approve a site plan that may have to be redesigned when the adverse possession issue is ruled on. Barker said she believes it makes sense to postpone approval until outstanding issues are taken care of. Noel Bree, 1321 North Seventh, stated that he did not believe the Commission knew what it was getting in to. He said that he worked at a homeless shelter for four years, starting off in security and moving up to assistant case manager. He said that when he hears the word homeless shelter he thinks about the homeless person; when he thinks about the homeless person he thinks about people who are dealing with substance abuse problems, bi-polar disorder, people who are unpredictable. He said that the current plan seems to be just to release 70 of these people into the community. He said that he just did not think this was right. Bree said that it is a fact that homeless shelters bring about more loitering, more pan- handling, more drug-use, more public intoxication and more prostitution. Freerks asked Bree to keep his discussion to the issues that the Commission could rule on. Bree said that it seemed to him that there should be some way to decrease the impact that this homeless shelter will have on the safety and security of the community. He said that at 7:00 a.m. the "convicts" were going to be released into the community with homes and businesses all around the shelter. Plahutnik interjected that he lives across the street from a homeless shelter and he can assure Bree that at 7:00 a.m. his neighborhood is fine. He added that the issues Bree was bringing up were not germane to the site plan review before the Commission. Bree asked how the public was supposed to handle these concerns for neighborhood safety and security. Plahutnik said he would like to handle a lot of issues regarding safety and security in Iowa City but that they are outside his purview as a Planning and Zoning Commissioner. Bree said that he just wished to reiterate that he did not believe the Commission knew what it was getting into it. Craig Dahlen identified himself as one of the managers of the mobile home park. He stated that one of his biggest concerns are the homeless camps in the woods and parks surrounding the mobile home park. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 11 He said there are certain areas where the homeless do congregate, and that it was his wish to see a site management plan that would address how such camps would be dealt with. He said that the camps would only get bigger with a homeless shelter so nearby. He said that some of the camps are in wooded areas near the river and in Napoleon Park and that he has several times had to remove homeless p~rsons from his property. The new shelter will increase the size of the camps due to its proximity. When clients leave the shelter, Dahlen said, they will be going to those camps. A site management plan is needed to address this issue. Freerks asked Greenwood-Hektoen to take a moment to talk about the reason that parking standards must meet the current code but the site management plan aspect of the current code is inapplicable. Greenwood-Hektoen said she believed Krumm did a good job explaining that distinction. Greenwood- Hektoen explained that a shelter site management plan is required at the time that a special exception is applied for. Shelter House did not submit a site management plan at the time of its application because such a requirement did not exist at that time. Because the Commission is not deciding whether or not to grant a special exception, the new law is not applicable. Shelter House has essentially been grandfathered in because their special exception was granted at a time prior to the new requirement. Freerks clarified that the distinction lies in the requirements of a special exception versus requirements of the basic code. Freerks said that comparing the parking code requirements and the site management plan requirements is not really comparing apples to apples. Howard noted that when an application for a special exception is made before the Board of Adjustment a specific site plan is not generally drawn up because they are getting early approval for a specific use on the property. The Board does not look at very specific details of the site because they have not yet been determined. Howard explained that special exceptions require that at the time the building permit is issued, current code requirements will have to be met. Howard said Shelter House is at that point now: having to meet current code requirements with regard to parking, setbacks, screenings, etc. The Shelter House has already met all of the approval criteria required by the Board of Adjustment to determine whether a specific use is allowed. Therefore, Howard said, those criteria are not applicable at this time. Tom Huber identified himself as an employee at Hilltop Mobile Home Park. Huber said that the park is a clean one and that a lot of work has been done to make positive changes there. Huber said the park has a mail-house in which many grade school kids wait for the buses between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. Huber noted that fences can be climbed. Huber said that he had twice fixed a concrete post on the property that the homeless had ripped right out of the ground. He said that he believed it was very poor judgment to put too many kids and too many people just getting out of prison in such a close proximity. Freerks asked Huber to direct his comments to the issues of site plan review. Huber said he understood that, but did not understand to whom he should direct his concerns. Isabella Vine, 2018 Waterfront Drive, pointed out her home as one of the structures encroaching on the Shelter House site. Vine questioned the logic of the Commission not being able to consider the boundary issue as a factor in approving the plan. Vine said that the Commission cannot approve a plan that sits on someone's home. She said there are issues to resolve first. Vine said she was present when Tom Werderitsch came and began chopping down all of the trees. She said that the original plan for Shelter House had retained the trees as abuffer in addition to the privacy fence. Vine said her mother asked Werderitsch why he was cutting down the trees at the time, and he replied that he had been ordered to by the courts. Vine said that this was not true. Vine said that Werderitsch had actually petitioned the courts for permission to cut down the trees. Vine said Christie Canganelli said that she did not know what was going on with the trees. The person they spoke with at the City also did not know what was going on with the trees. Vine asked who did know what was going on with this project, and accused Werderitsch of not being honest about the trees. Vine asked why it was not important that her house was sitting on that property line. She asked Commissioners how they thought they could approve a plan that was to be built on top of her house. Vine said she and her mother asked on a Friday if Werderitsch would refrain from cutting down any more trees. The following Monday Planning and Zoning Commission November 6,2008 - Formal Page 12 they received a letter informing them that they had until December 31st to cease encroaching on Shelter House property. Vine said that such behavior was not respectful. Freerks said that she knew it was an emotional subject but that she needed to ask that the tone of Vine's comments remain civil. Vine reiterated that the plan must be adjusted so that it is not sitting on her house prior to approval by the Commission; to fail to do so would be wrong and irrational. Freerks asked if Greenwood-Hektoen would like to talk a little bit more about the scope of the Commission. Greenwood-Hektoensaid she believed it had been adequately addressed. Freerks asked her to restate the issue. Greenwood-Hektoen said that title to land is not examined in site plan reviews. Freerks added that anyone has the right to remove trees on their property. During redevelopment, Freerks said, there are some issues when a stand of trees meets the definition of a grove. Miklo stated that as long as the trees are not protected by the sensitive areas ordinance the property owner has the right to remove them, so far as Staff is aware. Tom Werderitsch, 3 Evergreen Place, said that he is sorry Vine thinks that he is a liar because he is not. He said that he had never gone to any court to ask permission to remove trees, so he is not sure where that idea came from. What he said to her when asked why he was removing the trees was that he believed that in order to follow the letter of the law allowing Shelter House to proceed with construction, he had to put the fence within three feet of the property line. To do that, the boundary line had to be established and the trees had to be removed. It.was his interpretation of the drawing from which he was working that he did not have a choice in the matter. Werderitsch reiterated that the trees had to be removes as a part of the process for establishing the lawful property line. Werderitsch stated that the homes in question are actually encroaching on a city easement, not the lawful property line. He said he just wished to clarify so that people understood that he did not lie. Gregg Redlin, 2950 East Washington Street, said that he has a business at 515 Southgate Avenue. Redlin has been in business since 1977, and built his building on Southgate Avenue in 1982. In 1983 he purchased 505 Southgate, which is very near Shelter House. Redlin expressed his primary concern as being what he would need to do to help his renters secure their businesses to ensure that they are not broken into or vandalized. Redlin pointed out that at the Shelter House's current location at 331 North Gilbert Street there is a neighborhood watching things at all times. Redlin said that when he leaves his business at 7:00 p.m. and does not return until 7:00 a.m. the next morning, there is no one in the area to keep an eye on things. He has had no problems in the area up until this point, but wants to know what he is to tell those renting from him about the neighborhood's future. He is concerned that businesses in the area will have to go to additional expense to secure their properties. Lori Dahlen, 2018 Waterfront Drive, said she was thinking about the site management plan that they had all believed was a required part of the process. She said that she had spoken with a resident of the mobile home park whose daughter had worked at the HACAP Headstart which was behind the current shelter house. The woman said there was a fence surrounding the preschool, but that people had jumped the fence and that many mornings teachers had to pick up glass and beer cans from the play area; she also said there were problems with people wandering in to the daycare. Dahlen said that her concern was that if those things could happen there, what was preventing similar things from happening at Hilltop. Dahlen said that as a manager at Hilltop she has worked with Werderitsch on the trees somewhat and that she has found him to be nice. However, she said that the original proposal for the project stated that the fence in combination with existing trees would provide the transition and buffer between the two-story Shelter House and the one-story residences. Dahlen read a letter from a resident of Hilltop Mobile Home Park who could not be present at the meeting. The letter-writer identified herself as a mother of three children whose concern about the Shelter House being located next door were: 1) how will Shelter House ensure that Hilltop residents are not harassed in any way by shelter clients, 2) how will loitering be ensured against, 3) how will vandalism and theft be prevented. The letter-writer said there are many concerns but that safety is the first issue. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 13 Dahlen ask~d that the Commission hold off on approving the site plan until Hilltop, its residents and its representation had a chance to look at the newest version of the site plan with its parking revisions. Bart Cramer, 513 Center Street, Lone Tree, said that he was present as an observer. He directed his question to Greenwood-Hektoen, asking if in the absence of a site management plan all of the nuisances that are likely to occur will have to be dealt with ex post facto by residents seeking remedies after the shelter is built. Greenwood-Hektoen acknowledged that this was the case. Janet Dahlen, 4815 Southeast Sand Road, introduced herself as owning the Hilltop Mobile home park in conjunction with her husband for 23 years. Dahlen said that she has a responsibility to the people who live there and who have put their trust in Hilltop to provide them with a safe and secure place in which to raise their families. Dahlen said it is her responsibility to provide residents with continued safety and security. She said she is greatly concerned with the impact the shelter will have on Hilltop. She asked where people will go once they leave the shelter or are turned away from the shelter for being sex offenders, drug addicts, and drunkards. Dahlen said there are 152 families living at Hilltop and approximately 80-100 children. Dahlen said there is a daycare immediately across the street from the shelter. Dahlen said she has never been able to get her concerns across to anybody, but that she is very, very concerned. She thanked the Commission for listening. Geerdes stated that the code section for site plan review is Chapter 18 of the code. The code states: "The following factors shall be considered in arriving at a conclusion concerning proposed development and property: zoning regulation at the time of the proposal." Geerdes said that he could not state the matter any more clearly than that. Geerdes said that in regard to the boundary dispute, the Commission would essentially be taking property that rightfully belonged to Hilltop and incorporating it into someone else's project; a violation both of state law and of constitutional rights. No further members of the public came forward and the public hearing was closed. Freerks stated that the Commission had four options: 1) approve the site plan, 2) review and approve it with conditions, 3) defer the matter, or 4) vote the measure down. Miklo explained that the 20-day period for site plan review expires on November 13, 2008. As a result, the Commission could only defer to the next scheduled meeting on November 20th with the permission of the applicant, or if they held a special session prior to the expiration date. Eastham motioned to approve the site plan submitted by Shelter House as of November 6, 2008. Plahutnik seconded the motion. Freerks invited discussion from the Commission. Eastham said he was going to vote in favor of the motion. He stated that it was his understanding that the scope of review is strictly limited to elements of site plan review and the provisions of the zoning code. Eastham said it was his opinion that requirements have been met. Specifically, parking requirements are set not for the total number of employees, but for the maximum number of employees present on-site at a given time; those requirements have been met. Eastham said that he did not believe he had any authority to add requirements at this point that went above and beyond those in the code and the special exception. Plahutnik said he also is in support of approval. Plahutnik said that the Commission had been advised by counsel not to take these other matters into consideration, and based solely on the site plan before the Commission the requirements have been met. Plahutnik said he assumed there would be continued attempts to stall this project in court, but that the process the speakers seemed to want the Commission to revisit was the original zoning process and the special exception. Plahutnik said the Commission is not there to reopen that process. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 14 Weitzel stated that it is his understanding that the Commission's role was to take on the duties of Staff in reviewing an application that was made in 2004. Weitzel said that there are 13 specific criteria for the Commission to look at. Having looked at the site plan, the memos from the various departments stating that the site plan meets requirements, and heard the testimony of the public, Weitzel said he believed all criteria have been met. Busard said that whether or not he is in favor of Shelter House is irrelevant. The time to debate the zoning and use of the property was in the zoning and special exception phase. The site plan, Busard said is in compliance. Freerks said the Commission's focus was narrowed to the 13 items addressing site plan review. Freerks said she allowed some conversation that given the narrow scope of the matter before the Commission she might not normally allow; however, she said it is important that people feel they have a voice in these things. She said conversation can be very helpful, and she hopes that people can be good neighbors to one another. She said the Commission is not a judicial body and has very specific things that they can look at in this matter, and that she feels the Commission has served its purpose. She said she has a feeling this issue will probably continue on in other ways, but that Shelter House had to be treated just as any other applicant would and so she must vote in favor. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Koppes and Payne absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: October 13 & October 16.2008: Busard motioned to accept the minutes. Weitzel seconded. The minutes were approved on a vote of 5-0 (Koppes and Payne absent). OTHER: Freerks noted that there was an article in the newspaper about the County's justice center, and the possible site locations. She asked if Staff had had any conversations about that. Miklo said there have been discussions with the County Attorney's Office and the facility planners for the new addition. Miklo said that it was Staff's understanding that the court house would be retained and used as court rooms but that a new building would be built to the south of that. Miklo said the County is acquiring some property from the City for that purpose. It has been expressed by Staff and City Council that there is a plan in place for that area and that there are some design concerns. As a part of the purchase agreement, there will be provisions for the County to make a good faith effort to follow those design plans and build an attractive building that fits in with the streetscape concepts for the Near-Southside Plan. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel motioned to adjourn. Busard seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote (Koppes and Payne absent) at 9:22 p.m. C o 'in .!!! E E o o'E c)o C u .- CP Co::: o NCP~ .suo ....CN C)ns C'a ,- C C CP C- J!<e D.. ~ o ns ~ .E CD W W - X X X 0 X X .... 0 .... CD W .... X X X X X X - 0 0 .... CO .... X X X X X X X - en ~ X X X X X X X en .... W W N X X X 0 0 X X - CO t:: w , 0 X X X , X X CO , , ,.... , .... X X X X , X X - , ,.... , M W , - 0 X X X , X x ,.... , I en , .... X X X X , X X - : CD ~ I I W , X X X , - X CD , , 0 , , 10 I , .... I X X X , X X - I , 10 I , .... , I W - I X X X , 0 X 10 I , , I ,.... I , , I .... I X X X , X , ~ I , I I , I M I I , , X X X , X , ~ , , , , , , 0 , , , N I X X X , X I - , : , M , , ,.... , , , .... , X X X , X , - I , , .... I , , N , I , , X XX I X I - , I I .... , I I (/) E 2! ..- ..- C') N 0 0 C') ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- <v .~ - - - - - - - l.O l.O l.O l.O l.O l.O l.O I-LU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 111 111 .ll: 'E ns .ll: i CP C Q; Q) ns .c ... ~ - .tI E 111 - CP ~ ~ ~ 111 e ns .c ns ns 0 D.. ns z In W IL. ::s: ii: .., 0 <i. u.i :E ~ ~ C) z i= w w :!E ..J c( :!E 0::: o IL. C) z i= w w :!E ..J c( :!E 0::: o IL. ~ M - >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ..... ..... M ..... >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - 0 ..... 10 ..... >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - en CO LU ..... >< >< >< >< >< >< 0 - CO "lilt LU , LU ..... >< >< >< - , - >< - 0 , 0 '" , 0 I M >< >< >< >< >< - I (0 I N I , - I >< >< >< , >< >< (0 I , I , N I I ..... , >< >< >< >< - , , 10 , , "lilt I , , ..... I >< >< >< , >< , ~ I , , I , I .... I , W I ~ I X X X , - I , , 0 I N , , I t:: , , W , , X X X , - , N , , 0 , , I , (/) E ~ ..- ..- C') N 0 0 C') ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- <v .~ - - - - - - - l.O l.O l.O l.O l.O L() l.O I-LU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'E E 111 111 ~ Q; CP C ns .ll: ~ ~ - .tI Q) ns .c ... ~ E 111 - CP .c ~ 111 e ns ctl ~ ns 0 D.. ns Z In w IL. ::s: ii: .., 0 <i. u.i :!E ~ ~ "t:l Q) (/) ::J (,) >< LU '+:> ........c C C Q) Q) Q) (/) (/)(/).0. ~,O<( 0.<(11 >, II II LU Q) - ~><OO