HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-05-2009 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, February 2, 2009 - 6:00 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Lobby Conference Room
410 E. Washington Street
Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 7:30 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
C. Development /Rezoning Item
SU608-00010 / REZ08-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by S&J Development LLC for a
rezoning of 18.58 acres from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density
Single Family (RS-5), a rezoning of 44.29 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) to Low Density Single
Family (RS-5), a rezoning of 82.3 acres from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to Planned
Development Overlay Low Density Single-Family (OPD-5), and a preliminary plat of Country Club
Estates Parts 3-8, a 170-lot, 82.3-acre residential subdivision located on Rohret Road, east of
Slothower Road. (45-day limitation period: February 5, 2009)
D. County Rezoning Items
1. CZ09-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Michael Furman for a rezoning of 40 acres
from County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R3) zone located at 3051 Buchmayer Bend
NE.
2. CZ09-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Richard Wonick for a rezoning of 39.92
acres from County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R) zone located east of Buchmayer Bend
NE and west of Hwy 1 NE.
E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: January 13 & January 15, 2009
F. Other
G. Adjournment
Upcoming Planning ~ Zoning Commission Meetings
Informal Februa 16* March 2 March 16 March 30
Formal Februar 19 March 5 March 19 Aril 2
* Meeting cancelled due to holiday
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 5, 2009
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Christina Kuecker, Associate Planner
RE: Country Club Estates, Third -Eight Additions
The application for REZ08-00011 and SUB08-00010 was deferred at the January
15 meeting. The Commission requested answers/clarifications about several
issues pertaining to the application. This information is provided below.
Rohret Road -improvements and traffic
Several questions and concerns were raised about the current state of Rohret
Road and its future improvements. Concerns over the capacity of Rohret Road
were expressed. According to Transportation Planning Staff, the improved
portion of Rohret Road (east of the proposed subdivision) is designed with a
capacity of 13,000 - 15,000 vehicles per day. The current traffic counts along
this stretch indicate that there are approximately 4,000 - 5,000 vehicles per day.
A 170-lot subdivision will generate approximately 1,190 vehicle trips per day (7
trips per day per household). Transportation Planning Staff believes that the
improved portion of Rohret Road is able to handle the additional traffic.
Delays experienced at the Mormon Trek Boulevard/Rohret Road intersection
were also a concern. These delays are caused by the high volume of traffic on
Mormon Trek Boulevard and the timing of the traffic signal. Improvements to
Mormon Trek Boulevard, including the addition of left turn lanes at this
intersection, are currently in the CIP. These improvements will help lessen the
delay. Minor improvements may also be made to the traffic signal timings.
The future improvements to Rohret Road brought up many questions from the
neighbors, such as future of sidewalks, driveways, and tree loss. Since the
southern portion of Rohret Road is in the County, it is not likely that sidewalks will
be installed on the south side of the road unless this land is annexed into the City
and developed sometime in the future. It is also the decision of the County to
determine if a property is allowed to have two driveways onto an arterial street.
City Engineering Staff believe that two driveways will likely be allowed. If the
land south of Rohret Road were annexed into the City, then City arterial street
access standards would apply.
Engineering staff also indicated that every effort is made to save trees during
road improvements and if a tree on an individual's property is lost, the property
owner is compensated. The compensation is worked out between the City
and/or County and the property owner when negotiations for acquisition or
easements are being made. Engineering Staff indicated that construction
easements would need to be secured, but until the improvements are designed,
the amount of necessary right of way is uncertain.
Lake Shore Drive alignment
The proposed alignment of Lake Shore Drive was determined by the applicant
and City staff for several reasons. One reason is to connect the already
constructed portion of Lake Shore Drive to meet up with an already existing
intersection at Rohret Court and Rohret Road. When intersections do not line up
there is often driver confusion and increase potential for collisions. Another
reason to have the intersections line up is that there is a subdivision code
requirement that intersections along arterial streets must be spaced at least 600'
apart. The proposed location of the Lake Shore Drive/Rohret Road intersection
provides adequate distance between other intersections along Rohret Road
The proposed alignment of Lake Shore Drive was also determined because of
the features of the land. Portions of the wetlands and the land to be subdivided
make road construction and maintenance difficult due to topography. The
proposed alignment takes advantage of the more gentle topography to provide a
safer and more feasible road. In addition, the proposed alignment crosses the
stream, wetlands, and drainage way at one of the narrower points, which disrupts
a smaller amount of the natural areas.
Drainage, runoff, and sewer
Some questions about the drainage, runoff, and sewer of the proposed
subdivision were mentioned at the previous meeting. None of the proposed
subdivision drains towards properties south of Rohret Road. The majority of the
subdivision drains into the indicated storm water detention area. Engineering
staff has indicated that the storm water detention is adequate to serve the
proposed development.
The sanitary sewer has been extended to the western most point of Southwest
Estates and a sanitary sewer easement extends along the property lines that
abut the proposed development. Currently lots 9, 10, and 11 of Southwest
Estates are on septic systems and when the septic system of these properties
begin to fail, the City may require the properties to hook up to City sewer.
If there is drainage the underground in Outlots A and C, it will likely be cut during
the construction of Lake Shore Drive, the installation of the utilities, and the
reconstruction of the wetlands. Engineering Staff believes that bringing the water
over land may be a better, more natural situation for the wetland improvement,
rather than keeping the water underground in a tile. Either way the wetlands and
storm water detention has been designed to accommodate the drainage from the
neighboring properties and cutting the the and moving the water above ground
will not effect the drainage of the neighboring properties.
Wetlands
The Wetland Mitigation Plan does not indicate that the proposed wetland
plantings will require burning. Not all wetland plantings require burning to thrive
and if the plants do, it is generally only required once every 3-4 years.
Comprehensive Plan -Country Club Estates in the larger context
It is necessary to look at Country Club Estates in the larger context of the
Southwest District. The Southwest District Plan addresses the rural feeling of the
Southwest District, states that sprawl should be prevented, and orderly growth
should be executed. Specifically it notes "Citizens want to prevent sprawl and
preserve the rural character of the far western and southern portions of the
district. Although these areas are not likely to remain permanently in farm use,
the plan encourages orderly growth. Urban densities should not occur until
public facilities are in place and until areas adjacent to existing urban
development are built out." Country Club Estates is abutting already developed
land and the necessary public infrastructure will be installed. In Staff's opinion,
the proposed development is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Southwest District Plan also states that a safe and efficient network of
streets is important and that street networks should be designed to prevent cut-
through traffic and provide safe travel routes for pedestrians and bicyclists. The
proposed subdivision provides a modified grid pattern of streets, which provides
safe and efficient routes for pedestrians and bicyclists. The proposed subdivision
also works with the proposed plans for the County property to the north.
In 2003, Johnson County Board of Supervisors adopted the Johnson County
Poor Farm Planning Study. This plan indicates a portion of the land immediately
north of Country Club Estates to be developed as single family residential. Other
portions of the land are set aside as preservation land and public uses, such as
the historic County Poor Farm site and Chatham Oaks. This plan prevents Lake
Shore Drive from extending straight north to Melrose Avenue. Lake Shore Drive
will likely intersect with another street in this future subdivision and Slothower
Road will be the intersection with Melrose Avenue. This will result in a circuitous
collector street system between Melrose Avenue and Rohret Road.
The Poor Farm Plan also shows proposed trails through the area north of the
proposed subdivision that connect to the trail system at Hunters Run Park.
Please refer to the attached aerial photograph.
The location of the proposed park has been debated. The proposed parkland
may not be centrally located for the proposed subdivision, but as this area
continues to grow and develop, this will become a centrally located park for
Country Club Estates and adjacent subdivisions. The Southwest District Plan
contains the following statement about this land, "The City plans to use a small
parcel of land near the southwest corner of the County Poor Farm property for a
water reservoir. Most of the ground will remain open and could be used for a
small neighborhood park. Additional parkland could be added to this property as
Country Club Estates continues to develop." This is the reason Staff and the
Parks and Recreation Commission suggested that the open space be provided in
the proposed location.
The lot sizes in the proposed subdivision are similar to other subdivisions in the
area. Lots in Country Club Estates First and Second Additions range in size from
8,500 to 18,000 square feet. Southwest Estates' lots, with the exception of Part
2, range in size from 10,000 to 20,000 square feet. Lots in Southwest Estates
Part 2 range in size between 44,000 to 79,000 square feet. The proposed
subdivision lots range in size between 8,000 to 25,426 square feet.
School District
Staff sent a letter, along with the plat and staff report, to the Iowa City Community
School District asking for comments. As of January 30, no response was
received. However, plans were announced by the School District that call for a
new elementary school to be built near the west side of Iowa City.
Revised Plat
A revised plat has been submitted showing the wetland buffers around the
created wetlands and revising the phases as indicated at the previous meeting.
The revised plat also shows the lot widths at the 15' setback for any lot that does
not have a frontage of 60'.
~. On`F9
,, ~~~ .,
ti I '~oso .,_
~ '~ ~
~I
~I
O
C1 _
O
V
~1
~ '
ti
PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN
JCCOG
a
a
0
SECONDARYROADS
v I DEPARTMEM' NATIONAL
GUARD ~
\ `FUTURE
~'
',, ,~__
- __
_~- MELROSE AVE
_
.
~~~ _ PUBLIC USE
, `
~
I S ACRES 10 ACRES , ~~ ---- ------~ ~~
' POOR FARM CHATfLtM OAKS ~ - _
' ~ ~\
~~ 1~
1
//~~ ~r a ~ -~ ~
,
,,
1 30 ACRES ~~
~ ~`
1~1
FIGURE 3
~' `~
~.~
~~ ~ G
~~ ~ W-
gyp '~ ,M' - j Y A y ~ i~ ~
»~ 4 , ~' r~
`~~, ~~
Y t oM~ Y YY.
4~,ay, ~n.5ctr;,.w! "`i'fiv"~"• ~~x i ~ 9 .y 4 t
fff .; u'
`Y
~srbv'~'d i ~n ,~~ «w, vim "~"a'1~~."'"y~G.St~ 3 F~u1 +,E!'' ~.~
~"'4''~~ ~'~ 4z/ a "adU~ m,~ i~~'~~*x`~ +i,v~~r ter: i
;-
~,~
aND
CITY OF I0~'A CITY
1 " = 400'
January 24, 2009
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Iowa City
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
My wife and I, along with many impacted neighbors, have previously expressed our objections
to the current proposed rezoning and development plans for the Southwest district (Country
Club Estates) area. However, we would like to take a moment to further reiterate our specific
obiections to the proposed extension of Lake Shore Drive as a designated connecting street
between Rohret Road and Melrose Avenue. We feel the current proposed design places the
street too close to existing properties within the Southwest Estates neighborhood and fails to
provide sufficient noise and sight buffers to prevent a significant negative impact on current, and
future developed, properties. The current elevation of the soon to be developed property
situates the street such that the headlights from vehicles traveling this, and adjoining streets, will
shine directly into the existing Southwest District houses bordering this proposed development.
Also, this proposed street is currently designated as a collector street, which is rated to allow up
to 2,500 vehicles a day. Besides the potential volume of traffic that will be allowed to travel the
street, the current design reflects no consideration for diminishing its desirability as a cut-
through street (as called for specifically within the Comprehensive Plan). It is currently designed
to align with an existing chip-sealed street (Rohret Court SW) that goes into an unincorporated
neighborhood. Although there is a side street that exits to Maier Avenue SW from this
neighborhood, Rohret Court SW is a dead-end street. It has been stated by the planning staff
and the developer that a key reason this street alignment location was selected was to minimize
the cost to the developer. However, it does not take into consideration what is best in the long
run for this overall proposed development and the existing impacted neighborhood.
We would strongly urge that repositioning of this road be reconsidered to move it further away
from the existing established properties to minimize any negative impacts. It does not make
sense to allow rezoning of the current RR1 zoning and placement of a collector street to be
located so close to existing properties. As an alternative, we feel serious consideration should
be given to opening up the existing Slothower Road as the primary collector street for this newly
planned neighborhood. Even though part of Slothower Road is not within the City limits, all
options should be thoroughly explored with the County before a final decision is made. There
are also other design options that should be considered as well, if the Slothower Road does not
represent a viable option.
If the current proposed design is not changed, we specifically request that the developer be
required, at a minimum, to install an adequate noise and landscaping barrier along all impacted
properties within the Southwest Estates neighborhood to mitigate the noise that will be
generated from the traffic based on this current street design. We also have requested that the
100 foot wetland buffer remain in place and not be reduced to 25 feet as currently requested.
Thank you for your time and consideration regarding these concerns.
Larry and Sarah Jewell
Page 1 of 2
Christina Kuecker
From: Nancy Hitchon [nhitchon@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 1:40 PM
To: Christina Kuecker
Subject: rezoning for country club estates
Christina,
If you could please pass this on to the Planning and Zoning Commission. I'm not
certain the Commission is understanding my concern over Rohret Rd even before
its improvement. As it stands now we only have one road yet to be open off Rohret
Rd and that is Shannon St to Galway subdivision. Again if something blocked
Rohret Rd at 218 we have no accesses to an Iowa City street and city emergency
equipment (Weber Elementary is there also). The city has continued this expansion
to date without taking this safety concern into consideration. As was discussed
Maier Rd is a county gravel road. Rohret Ct is a dead end into an unincorporated
neighborhood and a different street surface. This also makes it unnecessary to line
up Lakeshore Drive to this road shinning car lights into homes and cutting into
large lots already developed with home owners.
I have spoken with Dave Elais from the city about the smell from the landfill. Since
the floor debris taken in we have had a foul sulfide Oder to deal with. He states
"WE rarely have odor complaints. Two things can be concluded: more people live
closer to the landfill and the landfill is producing more odors ". With this now a
problem you will be moving more people closer to 1 mile of the landfill! Until this
problem is corrected this seems very irresponsible.
Please take this into consideration.
Nancy Hitchon
2g Tucson Place
1 /26/2009
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 5, 2009
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Sarah Walz
RE: Item CZ09-00001 3051 Buchmayer Bend NE
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The applicant, Michael Furman, is requesting a rezoning from Agriculture (A) to Residential
(R3) for forty (40) acres of land located off Jenn Lane NE, a private subdivision road off
Buchmayer Bend NE in Newport Township. Buchmayer Bend is a gravel Road. While the
subject property is outside the city limits of Iowa City and the City growth area, it is within the
area covered by the Fringe Area Policy Agreement.
The applicant has submitted a concept plan illustrating his intent to subdivide the 40-acre
parcel into five lots with five corresponding outlots. The existing house will be set on a 5.63-
acre lot with the four new, developable lots each consisting of 3.0 to 3.44 acres. More than
twenty acres of the total forty-acre site would be set aside as outlot area.
ANALYSIS
Existing Land Use and Zoning
The subject property is zoned for agricultural uses but is currently not in production. All
adjacent properties, excluding property to the east, are zoned Agricultural (A) and most land
that is not wooded appears to be in production. Properties to the east are zoned Residential
(R) and are developed as a ten-lot residential subdivision. There is limited development in
the area between Highway One and Newport Road (to the west). Instead, most of this area
is agricultural fields or woodland.
Infrastructure
Vehicle access to all five proposed residential lots would be provided from the existing
driveway, which extends off of Jenn Lane and Buchmayer Bend. The applicant has proposed
to convert the driveway into a private road that meets all County subdivision standards, but
has not addressed improvements to Buchmayer Bend, a gravel road. If zoning for this property
is approved, staff recommends that the rezoning be conditioned upon the Buchmayer Bend
being upgraded to County road performance standards and that the proposed access road be
T-ed into Jenn Lane at aninety-degree angle, rather than the design that the applicant has
submitted.
The existing house will continue to use its current well and individual septic system. The
remaining four lots will be served by individual septic systems and a single community well.
The application does not address storm water detention.
Page 2
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan
The Fringe Area Agreement, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, is intended to provide
guidance regarding the development of land located within two miles of Iowa City's corporate
limits. The agreement's stated purpose is to provide for orderly and efficient development
patterns appropriate to anon-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 development standards in the Fringe Area Agreement "encourage cluster development,
which preserves large tracts of open space including environmentally sensitive areas and
farmland, results in compact development that requires less infrastructure, and is more
efficient for provision of services." The proposed plan, with lots more than 300 feet in width,
does not meet the standard for clustered or compact development. Amore appropriate plan
would have narrower lots (ca. 100-150 feet in width vs. 200-300 feet) with land designated as
oultot set aside for future development at such time when the City's growth boundary is
extended, or preserved permanently as open space. The current proposed plan would create
a situation in which future subdivision of property for infill development might not be possible.
As proposed, each outlot corresponds with a developable lot, and thus appears a defacto
extension of the lot-though the applicant has not indicated an ownership arrangement. It is not
clear what purpose is served by dividing the open space into separate outlots. If the goal is
environmental protection of ravines and woodland, then a single outlot with measures to
ensure preservation (such as a conservation easement) would be more appropriate.
The Fringe Area Agreement states that any rezoning for property outside Iowa City's Growth
Area will be considered "on the basis of conformity with the Johnson County Land Use Plan
and other related policies." At this time a proposed amendment to the County Land Use Map
is under consideration. If approved, the amendment would remove the subject property from
the county's growth area boundary and rezoning the property for non-agricultural uses would
not likely be approved.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Because the proposed plan does not meet the development standards in the Fringe Area
Agreement that call for clustered development, Staff would recommend against approving the
current plan. Moreover, rezoning this property for non-agricultural uses appears inconsistent
with the proposed map change now under consideration and with the County's stated goals for
preserving agricultural land.
Because the property is outside the Iowa City growth boundary and is subject to the County
Land Use Plan and policies, it is most appropriate for the County to determine whether the
proposed rezoning is consistent with County land use policy. tf a rezoning is approved, staff
would recommend that Buchmayer Bend be improved to meet County road performance
standards, that the proposed access road be T-ed into Jenn Lane, that the applicant address
storrmwater detention and ownership of the outlot/s, and include measures to preserve the
woodlands, such as a conservation easement.
Page 3
ATTACHMENTS:
Location map
Aerial photograph
Concept plan
Approved by: ~~~' _
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
January 30, 2009
Page 5
rNPl
~_ r..
:k t
-{4 y•' ~~~
g .4 'e.
~~ '
~~
OS
c- z ~~a
vwi0
O ~°~
Z~
-FGZ
w
~
j a
a
o
~xW
d
~+
~-+ 3 ~
a
wa3
ado wYo
au~,F
oo~
Y~.I ~ ado ~~m
W Z ~t
WWOy
~
W E
[~ V
"
~ O osm
~ZyFy
SOu o~ia
F!-7.
Z6
'77
'''
~i (~ c
v
o
y
~`~'~ U
ZEN
~
~
Z p ~
Q rn ~ 3
z
~m5 U
4~a
~
~_
~'
I~
~ ~~ I ~ ~ I ° ~ o 00 ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ,
-- -
~~~ ~ m _
W
~ ~ ~j~ ~
F
o~ ~w
- 'i ~
~ ~ ~
a
/ '~
N ~ zz% aQ8 ;~ ~. \
ro a, ,
ova ~
O jx< ouzo \I ~ ~ /
F~ ~$~~
om
mop wi-.6 ,~
~m ~a00 ~ ~////~-
qQ i Uh ~ ~
~}
~'3 i?~dg ~ SS _ _ ~ - _~ ~
SSG
~ _ _ _ ~ 6L'SBZI 3 ZZ LC.005 K
~ ` ~ 6 ~
W
F-
O
Z
Z
Q
Z
w
w
J
K~ 4
e
sag .~-~ ~ asgp= s ~ ;I _ ~ M ~ o ,
1
~ _
j
,.
~ : ~ ~ ~ ~'
~-~ 4'1.
~~~aa~ ass ~~ _ ,
~ I ~ ~ ~a<_
I ~ m _ ;,~ y
~®a• o ® I I I ~ I i p ~ /I R ~~ ~, ~y ~, ~~ , N~ ..1 a ~ ~ i ~ tea. I ,.
®~ o. o
~~ ms W
I) I g I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
m ., ~ ~ \ p-S ~ o - - - \n
~~~ ~ metro ~I . o $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ w a ~ ~ ', ~ ~
i ~ - `~ .n ~
~ ~ i h i .. -
- , ~~ Off'. ~ _ ,o~,n
a
_ U
_ .. m
~, ~~ A ^' - ~ ~o ' o
Q ~ ~ J
a r~
~~
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 5, 2009
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Sarah Walz
RE: Item CZ09-00002 2939 Buchmayer Bend NE
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The applicant, Richard Wonick, is requesting a rezoning from Agriculture (A) to Residential
(R) for approximately forty (39.92) acres of land located on the East side of Buchmayer Bend
NE, a gravel road, and west of Highway One in Newport Township. While the subject
property is outside the city limits of Iowa City and outside the growth area, it is within the
area covered by the Fringe Area Policy Agreement.
The applicant has submitted a concept plan illustrating his intent to subdivide the 40-acre
parcel into 19 lots with 17.96 acres of open space.
ANALYSIS
Existing Land Use and Zoning
The subject property is zoned for agricultural uses and most of it is used for grain production.
Land abutting the subject property to the north and west is zoned agricultural, save for
properties to the southwest along Jenn Lane, which are zoned Residential (R) and
developed as a 10-lot subdivision. Properties east of Highway One, along Running Deer
Road and Penny and Fox Lanes, mostly consist of R or R3 developments, however the
development is limited in the area between Highway One and Newport Road (to the west)
where land is mostly agricultural fields or woodland.
Infrastructure
Vehicle access to all nineteen proposed lots would be provided along three cul de sacs
extending from Buchmeyer Bend NE. The applicant has indicated that the cul de sacs would
be built to County subdivision standards, but has not addressed the condition or upgrading of
Buchmayer Bend, which is currently a gravel road. Staff believes that if a rezoning is
approved for this area, Buchmayer Bend should be brought up to County road performance
standards, which would likely include conversion to a chip-seal surface.
The 1-acre lots would be served by individual septic systems and three community wells will
provide water service to the entire development. The applicant has not addressed stormwater
detention for the development.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan
The Fringe Area Agreement, an element of the Iowa Ciry Comprehensive Plan, is intended to
provide guidance regarding the development of land located within two miles of Iowa City's
corporate limits. The stated purpose of the agreement is to provide for orderly and efficient
Page 2
development patterns appropriate to anon-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 agreement states that any rezoning for property outside Iowa City's Growth Area will be
considered "on the basis of conformity with the Johnson County Land Use Plan and other
related policies." At this time a proposed amendment to the County Land Use Map is under
consideration. If approved, the amendment would remove the subject property from the
county's growth area boundary and rezoning the property for non-agricultural uses would not
likely be approved.
The Fringe Area Agreement indicates that R zoning, which allows one-acre lots, will be
considered if the submitted concept plans shows "a minimum of 50% of the property
designated as open space or agriculture". The proposed plan does not meet the 50%
standard. The proposed "common open space" is somewhat amorphous-it appears to be left
over land at the margins of the development rather than open space intended to serve a
collective purpose for the development. (The applicant has not defined an ownership
arrangement for longterm management of the outlot.) It is not clear whether the outlot is
designed to preserve sensitive environmental features or agricultural land. Moreover, the
requested rezoning would allow conversion of farmland to residential use, which runs contrary
to the goals of the County Land Use Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Because the application does not meet the 50% open space requirement in the Fringe Area
Agreement, Staff would recommend against approving the current plan. Moreover, rezoning
this property for non-agricultural uses appears inconsistent with the proposed map change
now under consideration and with the County's stated goals for preserving agricultural land.
In this case, because the property is located outside of the Iowa City Growth Boundary, it is
most appropriate for the County to determine whether the proposed rezoning is consistent with
County land use policy. If a rezoning is approved, staff would recommend that Buchmayer
Bend be improved to meet County road performance standards and that the applicant address
stormwater detention as well as ownership and management of the outlot.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Photograph
3. Concept plan
Approved by: i~~'v~~i~GL~I/'
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
z ~ i
c._ l ~
~__ ---- _~
~~ ~. ~ I
._ ___
__ ,~;
--
__~..
~~~ _ i
___
___
~
~
-
--__
N
p
~ ''_
'~
~ c
°
O
f
-____._
-
_._.. - I
N
3
V
_
L
C ~~
__.~-
_ ^
~
~-~-~ :
-- - . _
_
_ ___--
i 1 ! --
'~J
_ ___
i
i
~__~"1~_~
l I 11
a
¢
O
(~\
-
o ~_
-- --_.... ~
i _. _ - . ~
~
~~
d
o
3
...
-
I _ "_-- __
_...
~ ~ 0
U
~T~
!1
z
~~
_.._~.._- ~ a
~
i_I
~~-1
~
~ ~
I h+y
~ I
I
_.-_-_
___ _
___. _ ~_ r~._._ __._~___- ._
__ j
_ __ L_.-__. -- --- %i ____ ~
;:~,: ~ o U
0
~Q
~ ~~..
! - O
H-1
~
_ . ~
~zw~s
~ O
a
{
. _ ' ~
v~
s ~ ~
January 30, 2009
Page 4
Aerial view of the area between Highway 1 and Newport Road. The proposed amendment to
the County Land Use Map removes this area from the North Corridor Growth Boundary.
1» rvv .i OOLGL/: ^~2bao<KL\IhILC\']
L aaa~~;hs~~ os~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ zV o ~ r
n WZ~+~~,,,WU~~Yj ~~~ wS of
Vl
W aD'~ ~ rna~ Z
W C1. ~ W ~°'a Ug u ~_ ZLL 2 ~ 0~ o N
~6ca°~" - ~ ~ ~2 w~ O= oo t~ O ~ `~ s o
~~
Ga
~ ~~
i>3. ~r G ~ W N ~ ,o
W~.. z ~ ~ ° o ~ a ~ G ~ g T ° a m ° o ~ ~
EESS S " `° c~E
b3.. n~^°~~~om°'m~Y3Q{Lla: ~~'
M ~ '~ ~ ~~6 $~-goo mg ~~~~~r3zo ~Y Q y
W ~ C $ iS ` 'j'j ° ~2
W ~ W ° z d U N T ®'S ~ E' m~ N ~ 6 '~ s m ~ ~°
T 1^1 ,.1 ~, Soo .$Ss °~3 >,o ay,q :~ q~j C
0 6b
i Y~ ~ N ~ ~ '«~ ~ .C ~` C ~ .Y" ~ p W ~ ~ ° . dpi ~ O O f^ L° ~ ~~ g ~ Y ~ V
O °0D1 N T II tNO, , O `~ .a ,° y ° ~ 3t0~ Oi wOZ~ ,8 S~ a~~^
M } 8 p ~Q
W 11Q~e' ~ a' ~ ~o ~ U o°30~ GWS°~Cq°~~~ivt '~o~~ g~ ~3iS~2SSa 4 .~
Ii ry W ~ c o d c Q ,~ `° ~ e, 2 0~~~~ppj E~~ ~s~ZY, 9~ u ~~NC w~ r .a S ~` ;i9j~~o tF
/ /r N C ~ O g ~j L x~ Vl of ~ 'F ~ P W ~Y rd 3 C ~ T 8 ~ fi° ~ o ~~ Q W O
V E t iyJ S ~ N C.1
S Q w V :a ~ ~..'~; mN c
a
~ o ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~~ °.S .g'~?oa.~S- ,~¢'B.D`,,EVga"m'eu ~ a ~~ a~
;~ -3 m ~ c ry .gb ~ ~ ~ g ;"y~ ; o~y,~ ~ G '~ ,^., ~ F w 5 ~° 9
Z ~ ~ a~i m w ~ 4 ~ ~ vJ rn°~~o za~$S~S~~^'~a°'r°>o~mgrn E yc ~~^ 3pS~ ~~
'Q g ~ ; .°~ $ A cfl.& ~.s9a~w r °a Ss ~.~~ SQ ~ ~ ~ 3.5 'S~' u °
tC d Q d d ~ ~~ ~ O'S O.ry ~ a
z ~~ d d Z '6 m So 3 ~g °~m83~?qquma°°Z~QJ~j "~,000O m y5 3$0 p q`d
U ~ VA p~~ . CW .. r~~ C ~ tp (yJ Sv~i vl F~+rz F 0.~9 ~ W `«9 °
0 0 0 0 o Q ~ p ~b ~p (-X.~ ~ gbi ~'N^~`~° S~p~ ~' ~ ,q~ S 8 ~pp° ,c g ~' a ~ ~ S ~g ~~S
O a 6a o5~~ m ... "' ~ ~ HEtll c' ~Ya F°~9 [~ Q S ~~ a a
N z ,~
W ~ ..
~ ~ ~ ~;
_~~
s~~~a
~~~
W~o~~
~~.
ao~ _
~~ N ` _
rte, ~
~o~ o ~ ~ pN ~ l ~
l~ ~ ~ M H ~ 1J ~~0~~0
....
SD M.bS BGPi__ ~ /t
~~.~._ __
.C1 ~ .fnl ' ' -. ... _ ~
IIJJ~~ n Uu ~ ~ ~t T-.- ........ _
~ ` ~
En$i IINE NE 1i SEC 35
501b9 ]b"E 5{8.13 ~ '~ -_ _ _ .._ _ .... .. .. M Z.OQP - ~-
- - - 4Z J35 !( 35 3NIl 16tl3 , ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ]Yt YD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Tf ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
I 5 ^: . ~/
V 11 ~
50031 12'E fi6365 1..... ... ~, 'I 1 ~~' ~ / vim,. / i ~ ~- i
. .
e
-_ a : t ; : ~ miI '-i h ,~ ~~ 3~. ~ I "g8 a7~ i aC N
®~
~:
~~ ~ o ~
' i ~ ~ ~ /
-r r i ~~ s' i ~ -
I
i j ~~ i
~3.i0 ~ CS g ~
~ 4 c~ ~ ~ ' i i ~'
_.
~ _ ~_~ ,, ~
~- ~ ~~
gp~~58 Y _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - -
S
MINUTES Preliminary
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 13, 2009 - 6:00 PM -INFORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Weitzel, Elizabeth Koppes, Josh Busard
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
DEVELOPMENT/REZONING ITEM
REZ08-00011/SUB08-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by S8~J Development LLC for
a rezoning of 18.58 acres from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low
Density Single Family (RS-5), a rezoning of 44.29 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) to Low
Density Single Family (RS-5), a rezoning of 82.3 acres from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to
Planned Development Overlay Low Density Single-Family (OPD-5), and a preliminary plat of
Country Club Estates Parts 3-8, a 170 tot, 82.3 acre residential subdivision located on Rohret
Road, east of Slothower Road.
Kuecker stated that at the time this property was annexed there was a lack of sewer system to the area
and Rohret Road was in sub-standard condition. Because of this, the IDRS and RR-1 zoning was chosen
for the area. Since 1994, the City has brought the area into the growth boundary and made the
commitment to extend sanitary sewer to the area in order to allow development.
The Southwest District Plan indicates the area as appropriate for low-density residential. Most of the
surrounding area is large-lot residential or RS-5. This development came before the Commission several
years ago and was met with concern from area residents. The application was not approved at that time
because it did not comply with the wetland requirements. The Comprehensive Plan does indicate the
necessity for a transition area from large acre lots to the smaller RS-5 lots. Overall Staff believes that the
rezoning would be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and would be an efficient use of the land.
The subdivision calls for 170 lots, with three out-lots that will serve as a storm-water retention area,
dedicated park space, and an area containing the wetlands. There are some environmentally sensitive
areas. The applicant proposes construction of additional wetlands in the western portion of the stream
corridor to compensate for the reduction of wetlands and buffer areas in other parts of the property. Staff
has expressed concern about the combination of the wetlands and storm-water retention; however, Staff,
is confident that if the Army Corp of Engineers approves the design, then their concerns can be
alleviated.
One complication with the subdivision is that neither Slothower nor Rohret Road are up to city standards.
Staff recommends that the portions of the subdivision closest to Rohret Road not be platted until after
improvements to the road have been made. Transportation staff does not believe that any traffic from the
subdivision should be allowed on Slothower until it is widened to at least County standards, as presently it
is only twelve feet wide.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 13, 2009 -Informal
Page 2
In general, roads within the subdivision do provide for good connectivity, and pedestrian walkways are
adequately provided for. Staff has indicated that the applicant must get the right of way of the southern
section of Slothower vacated to avoid future development of the road resulting in lots with double-
frontage.
Miklo noted that some of the questions brought up in the staff report may be resolved by the Thursday
night formal meeting, however, not all of them will be.
Eastham asked how the condition of Rohret Road compared to the condition of Sycamore Street south of
Lakeside Drive. Miklo said they are comparable, though Sycamore may be slightly better because the
City has done more chip sealing on it and there is a sidewalk in place.
Freerks asked about the apparent limited access to the park land. Miklo said that as it stands presently,
there is considerable public frontage for the park on Slothower Road, and the Commission would have a
say if it changed in future plans.
Payne asked for clarification on the portion of Slothower that would be vacated. Kuecker explained that
the County portion of the road which is to be vacated is currently impassable and washed out. Miklo said
that the Commission could approve the plat subject to the vacation of Slothower with the condition that if
it is not vacated that portion of the subdivision would have to be redesigned. Greenwood Hektoen noted
that specific lots could be denied development if the road was not vacated and those lots were not
redesigned.
Payne requested a visual aid showing which lots were in each addition of the subdivision.
Eastham asked for clarification on the timeline for Corp approval. Kuecker indicated that it could be
weeks or months; Miklo noted that approval of the application could be made subject to final approval by
the Corp. Eastham asked if there were any alternatives to the current storm-water retention plan. Miklo
stated that given the topography of the area substantial redesign of the development would be required to
provide storm water management if the Corps of Engineers did not approve the current proposal.
Plahutnik asked if the Commission would be required to accept the storm-water retention plan just
because the Corp accepted it, and Kuecker informed him that they would not. Miklo noted that it is not
the Corp that requires a buffer around wetlands, but the City's sensitive areas ordinance. The City's
ordinance spells out conditions for when a wetland can be reduced, all of which, Miklo added, apply to
this particular circumstance. Miklo said the overall wetlands are presently of poor quality, and could be
improved if the plan is followed through correctly.
Staff is suggesting that the order of the additions be changed around to allow time for Rohret Road to be
improved, and to avoid having houses in place along Rohret Road when the considerable road
construction takes place.
Eastham asked if Staff had considered breaking the application up into more manageable parts; some of
the concerns could be more easily addressed over time if things were taken in small chunks. Miklo said
this has been discussed with the applicant but that the applicant prefers to do it all at once. However,
Miklo said if the Rohret Road improvements do not make it into the CIP, then Staff would not recommend
rezoning the area adjacent to Rohret Road at this time. Payne asked how many years it would take to
for the improvements to the road to be made, since the 7`h and 8'h additions would be held up until that
point. Miklo said that given the pace of the market, he suspects that it would be more than five years
before those lots would be developed anyway. Greenwood Hektoen noted that according to the current
recommendations the road does not have to actually be put in prior to development.
Eastham asked about a request for increased density that he had read somewhere in the staff report.
Miklo clarified that the reference to increased density came from a neighbor's letter and concerned the
previous attempt at subdivision of this property; Miklo explained that Staff had not endorsed that particular
plan, but had simply noted that if density was being lost due to wetland preservation in one area, the
applicant could propose clustering to make it up in another area. Eastham said that the Comprehensive
Plan does suggest more dense development along Rohret Road would be appropriate, and suggested
that the somewhat higher density found in townhome design might be more appropriate for part of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 13, 2009 -Informal
Page 3
area. Payne asked if this would not result in more objection from the neighborhood.
The Commission wrapped up discussion and moved on to the next item on the agenda.
REZ08-00012/SU608-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Three Bulls for a rezoning
from Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single-
Family (OPD-8) and a preliminary plat of Hickory Pointe, a 3-lot, 2.97 acre residential subdivision
on Hickory Trail, west of First Avenue.
Miklo stated that the plan calls for re-subdividing the lots by shifting the lot line and building Hickory Trail
to the west of First Avenue to provide access to the ACT property. Miklo said there is multi-family
development along First Avenue already. He noted there are steep and critical slopes in the area, but
that they are not natural and were created when the First Avenue extension was built.
The first proposal is to rezone from RS-5 Low-Density Single-Family to RS-8 Medium-Density Single-
Family. An overlay zone would allow the clustering of three buildings on three different lots that would
each be broken up into six townhouse style units. The current zoning would allow for further subdivision
of up to ten single-family lots without requiring any rezoning, as long as there was rear alley access. RS-
8 would allow for 13 detached single-family homes on this property. The actions the Commission is being
asked to take will allow for increased density from a maximum of ten single family homes to eighteen
units. The Comprehensive Plan does support increased densities along arterial streets. The Northeast
District Plan specifically shows townhouse development in this area.
The planned development comes with several conditions and criteria to determine if it is appropriate for
the area. The staff report lays out how staff evaluated the project; Staff's conclusion is that these
buildings are appropriate for the area. The applicant has proposed quality building materials and
architectural details which help the project fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. Further work will
need to be done on the window design for the rear and side elevations to ensure compliance; it has also
been suggested that the applicant take better advantage of the Hickory Trail side of the building. Miklo
said overall Staff recommends the design.
Staff does not believe the proposal will over-burden utilities or traffic in the area. A minor modification
would be required to allow for an adjustment to the driveway placement.
Staff does not believe that this development will adversely affect the light, air or quality of life any more
than the development of ten single-family homes would have.
Staff does need more final details on the landscaping plans and the outdoor common spaces; however,
approval of the plan could be made conditional upon final Staff approval.
The area does contain critical slopes, however, in this particular case, the slopes are not natural and were
the result of construction along First Avenue. Because of that, this is a case where Staff is comfortable
with the amount of disturbance of steep and critical slopes that this project proposes.
The requirement for open space will be met by a small dedication of land and a fee paid for the remaining
open space requirement.
Staff suggests waiving the sidewalk requirement on the south side of Hickory Trail because the
Comprehensive Plan suggests leaving a buffer to the park, and as there will be no development south of
the development, the sidewalk to the north will suffice.
Miklo said that most of the conditions that need to be resolved can be handled by updating the plat rather
than implementing a conditional zoning agreement. Staff recommends approval of this plan provided the
details left to work out are resolved.
Eastham asked if the rationale for having northern access to First Avenue was for safety reasons. Miklo
replied that it was for safety and general access purposes.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 13, 2009 -Informal
Page 4
Payne asked if the applicant or Staff had ever considered having five units in each building rather than
six. Miklo said that it had not been discussed, but that given the amenities and the quality of design
proposed by the applicant, Staff is comfortable with the higher density.
The Commission discussed townhouse development in the city in general and its relation to the
Comprehensive Plan. Several Commissioners said they would like to see the most southern unit
redesigned to present a front to Hickory Trail.
OTHER:
Miklo noted the City Council has instructed Staff to write a zoning ordinance regulating bars and liquor
stores, which could be coming before the Commission as early as February.
Miklo noted that there would be a City Council budgeting meeting January 28th at 6:30, which is an
opportunity for boards and commissions to come and comment. In the past, the Commission has never
felt compelled to comment; however, if there is a budget issue of concern to Commission members (such
as capital improvements) that is the time to comment. To be placed on the agenda, Commissioners
should notify Miklo prior to January 22~d
Miklo passed out updates for the Commissioners code books.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
0
E
E
0
U '~
~ o
c ~
•~ a~
O ~
N d p
~ ~ N
~ ~
C ~
•= C
C +~'
Rf Q
a
.~
U
~v
3
0
r x x x o x x x
~~
~
I-W r
~
0 r
~
0 M
~
0 N
t,()
0 O
~
0 O
Lf)
0 M
~
0
a~
~
z
~
~v
~
m
-~
~
s
~
W
v
Y
~
m
u.
d
~
a
c
Y
ui
~
c
~
~'
~ ~_
C
~
t
a
3 _
d
!`
d
3
~
~ o x x o x x o
~~
` ,~
F-W r
r
0 r
r
0 M
r
1
0 N
r
\
0 O
r
~
0 O
r
0 M
r
0
~
z
~
~
m
-~
~
i
w
C~
Y
~
~
Q
d
Q
Y
LL1
d
~
a
~ ~_
C
7
a
3
~
3
H
7
U
X
W
~. c
N ~ vii
~ ~ .n
~ .a Q
d Q n
~, i i n w
YXOO
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 15, 2009 - 7:30 PM -FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Michelle Payne,
Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Koppes
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Duane Musser, Larry Jewell, Robert Hegeman, Tim Thompson,
Chester Schulte, Judy Tokuhisa, Rai Tokuhisa, Witold Krajewski,
Mary Ebert, Karl Ebert, Diane Thrift, Nancy Hitchon, Lucy
Wibbenmeyer, ~Janni Ebert, David Tokuhisa, Casey Boyd, Susan
Huff
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
Recommended approval of REZ08-00012/SUB08-00011, an application submitted by Three Bulls
for a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay Medium
Density Single-Family (OPD-8) and a preliminary plat of Hickory Pointe, a 4-lot, 2.97 acre
residential subdivision located on Hickory Trail, west of First Avenue, subject to compliance with
the revised elevation drawings; staff approval of detailed plans for the open space area; and
approval of a minor modification for the location of the north curb cut on First Avenue.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Eastham announced that he had received a letter from Linda Prybil regarding concerns she had with the
Commission's recent annexation of land owned by the Prybil Trust. Eastham said that he would like to
enter the letter into the record so that it was officially shared with the entire Planning and Zoning
Commission (copies had been distributed at the January 13~h informal meeting).
DEVELOPMENT/REZONING ITEMS:
REZ08-00011/SUB08-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by S&J Development LLC for
a rezoning of 18.58 acres from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low
Density Single Family (RS-5), a rezoning of 44.29 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) to Low
Density Single Family (RS-5), a rezoning of 82.3 acres from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to
Planned Development Overlay Low Density Single-Family (OPD-5), and a preliminary plat of
Country Club Estates Parts 3-8, a 170 lot, 82.3 acre residential subdivision located on Rohret
Road, east of Slothower Road.
Kuecker explained that the southern triangle of the property in question was annexed into the city in 1994.
At that time, Rohret Road was in substandard condition and there was no sanitary sewer system in the
area. As a result, the decision was made to keep the area designated as RR-1, large lot single-family and
ID-RS Interim Development Residential. Since that time, the City has extended the growth boundary to
include this area, and the area up to Highway 965; the City has also committed to extending sanitary
sewer throughout the area in order to encourage full development. Kuecker said that the first phases of
Country Club Estates have been subdivided and are in the process of being built; the applicant now
wishes to move forward with the other phases of the development.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 15, 2009 -Formal
Page 2
Kuecker said that the land is in the Weber sub-area of the Southwest District Plan, an area which has
been indicated for low-density single-family residential development. The proposed development meets
the intent of the plan, The Southwest District Plan does indicate that larger RS-5 lots should be platted
against the lots along Tucson Place in order to provide some sort of transition between large-lot
residential and the potentially smaller RS-5 lots. The lots in the proposal bordering Tucson Place are
larger than the required minimum of 8,000 square feet, ranging from 11,000 to 25,000 square feet.
Kuecker noted that a small finger of wetlands provides further buffer along that area.
Staff believes that the rezoning of the land to an RS-5 zone would be appropriate and in accordance with
the Comprehensive Plan providing that Rohret Road is improved to city standards. Kuecker stated that
the plan would provide an efficient use of land and infrastructure in the area.
Kuecker stated that the applicant is proposing a 170 lot subdivision with three out-lots. Out-lots A and C
contain a blue-line stream, drainage way and some jurisdictional wetlands. Out-lot B is in the
northwestern corner and has been accepted by the Parks and Recreation Division as a dedicated park.
The applicant is proposing six phases, the first of which would be along Lakeshore Drive, connecting
Lakeshore Drive to Rohret Road. The applicant has indicated a willingness to re-order the phases based
on Staff and Commission recommendations.
Kuecker noted the applicant is requesting a reduction of the wetland buffer area and the elimination of it
altogether in the southern finger in order to construct Lakeshore Drive. Compensation for that would be
the extension of the wetland area on the western portion of the property. The Army Corp of Engineers
would need to approve this wetland mitigation plan, about which Staff has raised some concerns. If the
Corp of Engineers is willing to approve the plan, then it will meet Staff's requirements as well. It is
because of these issues surrounding the wetlands that the Sensitive Areas Overlay is required.
The conditions of Slothower Road and Rohret Road are also of concern to Staff. Both are currently chip-
seal streets that are in fairly good condition, though not up to city standards. Staff is recommending that
the 7th and 8th additions should be the last phases of the project to allow time for Rohret Road to be
improved. If the City Council includes Rohret Road in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), then the
developer can go ahead and develop the 7th and 8th addition (provided their fair share is paid). City
Council will be deciding within the next few weeks whether Rohret Road will be included in the CIP.
Slothower Road is only twelve feet wide and is not currently wide enough for two cars to pass each other
without one car having to leave the paved surface. Staff does not feel comfortable allowing traffic from an
urban subdivision onto Slothower Road until it is improved at least to County residential standards (22
feet wide, chip-seal).
The subdivision contains a range of lot sizes that are scattered throughout the site. The street design
does provide connectivity within the neighborhood and to the surrounding area.
Kuecker explained that the southern portion of Slothower Road is currently an impassable dirt trail. She
noted that if the road is left as it is, it is possible it will be developed at a later time and all of the lots
adjacent to it will become double-fronting lots. As a result, Staff has recommended that the western-most
lots not be platted until Slothower Road is vacated.
Staff recommends the rezoning and subdivision (provided that City Council does include Rohret Road in
the CIP) with the condition that the portion of Rohret Road adjacent to lots 1 and 38 be improved to city
standards at the expense of the developer and that the extension of Lakeshore Drive be completed in the
first phase of the development. Staff recommends that the 7th and 8th additions be subject to the
developer paying his fair share (12.5% of the Rohret Road improvements), and the Parts 7 and 8 should
be the last phases of development unless Rohret Road is improved prior to or simultaneous with their
construction; the portion of Slothower Road from the northern boundary of lot 95 south to Rohret Road
shall be vacated prior to the development of the 7th addition and lots 152-170 of the 8th addition. The
wetland mitigation must be approved by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. If the City Council does not
include Rohret Road in their CIP, Staff recommends that the 7th and 8th additions retain their ID-RS,
Interim Development, zoning. All deficiencies addressed in the Staff report have been resolved except
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 15, 2009 -Formal
Page 3
that the applicant needs to indicate on a revised plat the wetland buffers. Kuecker noted that the City
Engineer also indicated that a note needs to be added to the plan to state that the landscaping buffer
along Rohret Road would be paid for by the developer. Kuecker asked for Commissioner questions.
Eastham asked Kuecker how this plan satisfied the neighborhood trail needs of the Weber sub-area.
Kuecker noted that in the trail-plan there is no indication of a trail for the area in questions. She stated
that the topography makes it difficult to provide a satisfactory trail. However, she noted, the
interconnected nature of the streets and the required 5-foot wide sidewalks will provide a safe, accessible
way to navigate the neighborhood. Miklo added that Rohret Road will have an 8-foot sidewalk connected
to the trail system, and that there has been a concept plan developed for the County Poor Farm which
includes a trail system just to the north of this development. Miklo said Staff had explored the idea of trails
through the wetlands connecting the subdivision to the parks, but that it was not possible to get an ADA
accessible trail through that topography.
Eastham asked about the access points for the proposed park area. Kuecker stated that there would be
one access point to it off of Slothower and two from Wildcat Lane. Freerks asked about parking for the
park. Miklo explained that the Parks & Recreation Department generally waited until a subdivision is
established before developing the park (to allow for resident input), but that generally neighborhood parks
do not have parking. Parking will be available on the street.
The public hearing was opened at 7:52 p.m.
Duane Musser of MMS Consultants spoke on behalf of the applicant. Musser said that the applicant
understood Staff's concern with the need for Slothower and Rohret Road improvements. Musser said that
a wetland mitigation plan has been submitted to the Army Corp of Engineers. Musser noted that the
applicant has been through this process with the Corp once already, and that the applicant has done
everything necessary except for the archaeological study (which is not possible until the ground thaws).
Musser said that the applicant is aware that final approval will not be granted from the Corp until the
archaeological survey is completed. Musser pointed out that nearly 100% of the current wetlands are
non-native invasive species. Staff had expressed concern for the amount of grading indicated for the
existing wetlands, but, Musser said, the grading is an intentional part of the plan for re-establishing native
wetland seeds. An application to vacate the level B impassable portion of Slothower has been submitted,
and the applicant does not foresee a problem with it. The applicant would like to see Rohret Road
improvements remain on the City Council's CIP, as it would help to alleviate uncertainty about phases 7
and 8. Musser offered to answer any questions.
Freerks asked why the wetland buffers do not appear on any of the information before the Commission.
Kuecker and Musser explained that the buffers are accounted for in the plan, but that the hatchings were
left off the plat in an oversight.
Eastham asked if it was correct that the applicant did not anticipate Corp approval until the weather was
warm enough to do an archaeological survey. Musser said he anticipated approval of the design, and that
the applicant has hired an archaeological firm to do the work, but that the Corp could not grant final
approval until after the survey takes place. Eastham asked if it was correct that Staff would not approve a
final plat until the archaeological survey had taken place and final approval from the Corp was received.
Miklo said that this was correct; no final plat would be approved until the Corp signed off on the plans.
Larry Jewell, 53 Tucson Place, stated that he is one of the neighbors impacted by the proposed rezoning
and development. Jewell has lived in the Southwest District since August of 2001. Among the reasons
that he and his family moved to Iowa City was to raise their children in an environment that valued quality
of life, planned its neighborhoods, and did not overdevelop properties. They chose to live in the
Southwest District because of its rural atmosphere, larger lots, and close proximity to schools and
downtown. Their specific lot was chosen based on the current zoning of RR-1, which they felt would help
to maintain the rural feel of the area and help to protect sensitive areas from the affects of
overdevelopment. Jewell said that his family specifically participated in the urban planning efforts involved
in developing the Southwest District Plan. Jewell said that his family does not believe that the current
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 15, 2009 -Formal
Page 4
proposal follows the established planning principles in the Southwest District Plan. Jewell noted that he
had provided Commissioners with a packet of information for their perusal.
Jewell said that he believed that the planning process that had been set forth by the City should be
respected by all. As part of the Comprehensive Plan, Jewell said, the Southwest District Plan lays out
some fairly clear planning principles and guidelines. Specifically, the Plan calls for transition and
integration from the existing large-acreage lots in the neighborhood adjacent to the proposed RS-5 lots.
Jewell said the proposed lots are not large enough to comply with this principle.
Jewell said the Southwest District Plan also speaks of a safe network of streets that prevents cut-through
traffic, specifically that streets from Melrose to Rohret should be circuitous to discourage non-local traffic.
Jewell contended that with 170 additional families in the development, Lakeshore Drive would become a
desirable cut-through route for Rohret and Melrose.
Jewell said that the current plan does not make adequate provisions for interconnected trails and
accessible green space/park space for a neighborhood of its size, as is required by the Southwest District
Plan. The current park space is not centrally located and is not easily accessible to the southern portion
of the development. Jewell said the existing wetlands could be utilized as park space, thereby decreasing
somewhat the overall impact the development is having on them.
The Southwest District Plan calls for the preservation of the rural character of the area. Jewell said that
rezoning the space from RR-1 to RS-5 and putting in multiple minimum sized lots is the exact opposite of
the Plan's directives.
Jewell said that he did understand that the plan is a set of principles and guidelines, and that it could not
hope to address all of the issues and concerns that come up. However, he contended that these
principles should be used in conjunction with input from the citizens directly affected by the development
to make planning and zoning decisions. Jewell said that this is the process the City has out forth to
encourage participation of its citizens. Citizens are left feeling powerless and disenchanted with their local
government when they follow the processes laid out by the City for participation and then their input is
disregarded. Jewell said that he had been involved in previous efforts to stop the over-development of the
area, and that he has found many neighbors have thrown up their hands in frustration this time around,
certain their voices will not be heard.
Jewell urged Commissioners not to let this type of development go into the area without considering the
concerns of the neighbors and the violation of principles set forth in the Southwest District Plan.
Jewell expressed concern for the negative long-term impact that such a large development would have
on the stream corridor, due to run-off from the large number of lots. Jewell said that the mitigation plan
calls for only a 5-year period of oversight by the developer, and then it is handed off to the homeowners'
association.
Jewell expressed a concern for the impact on available resources and infrastructure in the Southwest
District.
A known-issue regarding a methane gas smell that comes from the landfill and inundates the entire area
is of concern to Jewell. Jewell said that he has spoken with the landfill supervisor who has acknowledged
the smell, but cannot pinpoint the exact source, despite investigations by the fire department, the gas
company, and the landfill emergency response team. Jewell said it would be irresponsible for the City to
allow further development in that area until the landfill issue is resolved. A potential risk and liability exists
for any new development in that area as there is a known-issue of concern and tax-payers could foot the
bill for any harm caused by this.
Jewell said that only four out of the 170 lots are close to an average of two lots per acre. Jewell said the
developers calculations take into account property covered by wetlands. The other 166 lots are less than
half an acre, including 45 lots that are at the low-end of the minimum lot size for RS-5.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 15, 2009 -Formal
Page 5
Freerks requested that the speaker wrap things up as a large number of people also wished to speak;
she advised Jewell that he could speak again after others had spoken if he wished.
Jewell stated that 11 % of the lots (19) do not appear to meet the minimum required lot-width. He
suggested closer scrutiny of the plans was in order.
Kuecker said that there are a few lots that do not have 60-feet when measured from the street frontage;
however, at the 15-foot setback, where the measurements are taken, all lots have the full 60-feet.
Eastham asked which direction drainage would flow and if it would all flow toward the wetland area.
Kuecker said that approximately one-third of the drainage flows in the opposite direction of the wetlands.
Robert Hegeman, 44 Tucson Place, asked if his understanding is correct that it is City policy to connect
the current lots on septic systems to the sewer system. Miklo said that City policy is that once the sanitary
sewer is within 300 feet of property that is served by a septic systems, it sometimes requires connection.
Freerks added that it is not standard, and that while it may be required, it is not necessarily required.
Hegeman asked whose obligation it would be to bring the sanitary sewer up to the property line, the City's
or the resident's. Greenwood Hektoen said that without having the code in front of her she was not certain
of the answer. Hegeman pointed out that the sewer system was designed on the current platting, so while
it comes close, it does not come all the way up to the property line.
Hegeman noted that he owns the pond and drainage system to the east of this property and which forms
the start of the wetlands. Hegeman said the system is dependent on a pipe that runs underground for
1600 feet to just west of Slothower Road. At the time the system was put in place, all of the property was
owned by one landowner, and was subsequently divided; this results in an implied easement for access
to the the and that system. Hegeman said construction will disconnect the the and he is wondering how it
will be addressed.
Hegeman said that there is a major problem between Rohret Road and Melrose Avenue, and the lack of
connection between them currently. Lakeshore Drive has all the markings of scut-through and is ideally
situated to be one, Hegeman said. He said he believes the situation needs along-term, up-front solution.
Hegeman said that he believed that it is the Commission's duty to balance the interests of the developer
with the interests of the adjacent landowners: He said that while he does not have a great objection to the
development as a whole, he does not believe this plan balances those interests.
Tim Thompson, 3040 Rohret Road SW, stated that he takes care of the farmland to the west of this
property. Where the drainage comes through, Thompson said, he has two creek crossings which he has
had to repair several times. Over the years, as development has increased, more water comes down the
creek. Additional houses and additional roads will exacerbate the problem. Thompson said it is popular
wisdom now to often have prairies surrounding wetlands. To have prairies, Thompson said, you must
properly manage them, and this includes controlled burns. He said that he has already had three wildfires
on the property since he began taking care of it. Thompson said that he has spoken with the adjacent
landowner, and that adjacent landowner is unaware of the road vacation.
Freerks asked Miklo if it was possible for the road to be vacated without the adjacent property owner
being aware. Miklo said that the vacation is being reviewed by the County Engineer, but that his
understanding was that the County Engineer intended to require the consent of the adjacent landowner
prior to vacating the road. Miklo reminded the Commission that Staff's position is that those lots should
not be platted until the road is vacated, so unless the road is vacated, that portion of the plan will have to
be redesigned.
Eastham asked Staff to comment on the storm-water retention plan for the property. Miklo advised that
this would be a question for the City Engineer. He said that the City Engineer did review the plan and felt
it met city requirements for storm-water management. Miklo noted that at the time of final platting, the
developer will be required to submit a plan for long-term maintenance of the drainage system.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 15, 2009 -Formal
Page 6
Chester Schulte, 1812 Rohret Court SW, has lived at his property for 25 years. He said that he opposes
this rezoning for a number of reasons including the density of the housing, and the location of a major
intersection. The intersection, Schulte said, would essentially be located in his front yard and would cause
car lights to constantly flash on his living room wall, making it a more suitable location for a convenience
store than a home. He said he does not want these changes dumped on the neighborhood. He said he
has concerns about the traffic and the noise, as well as increased accidents.
Judy Tokuhisa, 3305 Rohret Road SW, stated that she was pretty concerned about this development.
She said her greatest concern is the density of the development, and that she does not believe that the
transition area that is called for in the Southwest District Plan has been at all met in this case. Tokuhisa
said that she has six acres, and that she is going to be across the street from properties that have five
homes per acres situated on them. Tokuhisa questioned if the current overcrowding of area schools had
at all been considered in developing this plan, and if the School Board had been consulted. It greatly
concerns her that a large chunk of her front yard would be taken if the road is widened. She said plans to
widen the road would make it so that her house was only 43 feet from the road and a large old oak tree
would be taken out, as would her walnut and apple trees. Tokuhisa said that she has owned her property
since 1993, and that it is emotionally significant to her because her children were married there, she
raised her children there, and she wants her younger children to be married there as well. She said that
her front yard and her circular driveway would be taken away and the only thing she would get in return
would be sidewalk costs and sidewalks to shovel. Tokuhisa said that at a good neighbor meeting she had
been told that water would run away from her property, but that at tonight's meeting she was told that
polluted run-off would be heading straight for her organic property. She said that this plan does a lot for
the developer and nothing for her, her family, and the people. living in the area.
Busard asked what Tokuhisa meant when she said she would lose front yard space and her driveway
access. Tokuhisa replied that she was told that eventually they would be limited to one-driveway access
point, and that she has a circular drive that makes it possible to drive and turn around her tractor. Freerks
asked Miklo if he was familiar with this. Miklo said that he did not believe that the City could take
someone's driveway away if they had an existing driveway. Miklo said the concerns seem to be based on
the future improvement of Rohret Road. He explained that there is the possibility that the City may need
to acquire up to 15 feet of additional land to make those improvements, but that he believed that the
amount of tree removal would be less than what was being stated. Freerks asked Tokuhisa if the trees in
question were that close to the road. Tokuhisa replied that they were, and that because her land was very
long, and not deep, removing fifteen feet would take away both her buffer and a significant amount of
land. She expressed concern that on top of that she would be required to put in and maintain sidewalk.
Freerks asked if this was correct. Miklo said that the land to the south of Rohret, where Tokuhisa's
property is, is governed by the County. Freerks noted that this was a question that could be followed-up
on.
Rai Tokuhisa, 3305 Rohret Road SW, expressed concern that this development would be damaging to
the sense of community in the area that she had grown up with. Tokuhisa said that dropping 170 new
families into a tight knit community like theirs would have the effect of breaking it apart. She conjectured
that if for every four houses there was one high school student, then an additional 40 cars would be
driving over to City High every morning. Tokuhisa addressed the issue of over-crowding in Iowa City high
schools, and the effects that the new development would have on it. She expressed concern that the
sense of friendship and community she had grown accustomed to would vanish once the area grew so
rapidly. Tokuhisa said that living in her small area and getting to know her neighbors has helped her to
develop on a personal level. She expressed her great appreciation for the beauty her family had created
in the outdoor spaces of her home, and how she wanted it to remain that way until she herself was able to
get married in the back yard sometime in the distant future.
Witold Krajewski, 3329 Rohret Road, said that he moved to his residence over 21 years ago from very
high density living in Washington, D.C. He said they very carefully chose the location of their home, and
that at that time, their land was not even part of the city. When it was annexed, Krajewski said, no one
took their opinion into consideration. Krajewski said that he understands that populations grow, but he
said he feels the principles of taking the existing neighborhood into consideration have been left behind.
Krajewski said that there is no transition between the large acreages and those lots that consist only of
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 15, 2009 -Formal
Page 7
the minimum square footage required, He said he agrees with everything his neighbors have said so far,
and that he is strongly opposed to the Commission approving this plan. He said that in order for the
development to be compatible with existing neighborhoods, the density should be much lower. Krajewski
urged Staff to provide better maps in the future so that people had a clearer idea of what they were
looking at. Freerks noted that the Commission did have larger maps for their review.
Dr. Mary Ebert, 3357 Rohret Road, said that her family has lived at the acreage south of Rohret Road
since 1973. She noted that at that time the area was, of course, very sparsely populated. She said her
primary concerns are for general safety and increased density. Ebert said the increased density would
mean a lot of houses across the road from her, a lot of noise, and a lot of kids driving to school. Ebert
said that traffic is already a problem in the mornings with traffic heading east on Rohret Road backed up
consistently. She said it would get worse when 170 additional families are added to the mix. Ebert said
that there are a lot of car accidents in the area already, including a recent fatality. Ebert said that another
safety concern is for the large number of people who walk and bike along Rohret Road (a number that
would only increase with so many. new households), which is very narrow and hilly with no shoulders and
deep ditches. Ebert said she also was concerned about the possibility of losing her trees in the front of
her house, which serve as a windbreak, help with erosion control, and serve as a noise buffer.
Karl Ebert, Coralville, owns the west parcel of 3357 Rohret Road, and intends to build a home there.
Ebert said that the intrusiveness of this project was beyond comprehension, and that he is very worried
about its ramifications. Ebert said that traffic is backed upon Rohret Road every morning, and that adding
170 units could mean 200-300 more cars to add into the equation. Ebert noted that the majority of people
living in the development will use Rohret Road as their primary access point.
Ebert said that mixing high density living with the rural setting requires a much better transition than that
provided by the plan. He said he believes that the development needs to be platted differently. He noted
that he is a former Iowa City realtor, and as such, is not against developing land in general.
He stated that the increased foot and bicycle traffic on Rohret Road combined with increased auto traffic
will cause serious safety concerns. Ebert said he hopes City Council gives this thorough consideration
because the development will negatively impact a lot of property owners in southwest Iowa City.
Diana Thrift, 3329 Rohret Road SW, said that she owns three acres to the south of Rohret Road. She
said that her family has been there for almost 25 years. She said that they have huge trees in the front of
their property that serve as a wind block and give privacy from the road, and that it sounds to her as
though they would lose those trees if the road has to be widened for this development. Thrift said that her
driveway is horseshoe shaped and she is afraid of losing one of the driveway access points if the road is
widened. Thrift said that the homeowners were told at the good neighbor meeting that when the City re-
does aroad, they sometimes take out one driveway access point to avoid the cost of a culvert. Thrift said
that there is a lot of traffic on Rohret Road, so much so that dogs are constantly hit on the road. She
expressed a concern for the large impact the addition would have on the area schools. Thrift said that the
plan does not properly preserve the rural feel of the area. With such large lots on the south side of Rohret
Road, Thrift believes that RR-1 is the highest density that should be allowed on the north side of Rohret
Road. Thrift said the area is very beautiful and understated and that high density will detract from that.
Thrift said she is very concerned about increased flooding due to water runoff from over-development.
Nancy Hitchon, 29 Tucson Place, asked the question of how many years it would be between when this
development was passed and when there would be Rohret to Melrose access. Miklo said this was not a
question he could really answer as it would depend on the residential real estate market and what
property owners decided to do with their land. Hitchon said that even if it were only five years, this could
be a long time given the traffic pressure. When children are being dropped off at school, and again when
it is time to pick them up, traffic in front of the school comes to a standstill. Hitchon said that if for some
reason Rohret Road had to be closed due to some sort of accident, there is no way for emergency
personnel to get to residents. She said this is a major safety concern, and directly related to the issue of
overdevelopment.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 15, 2009 -Formal
Page 8
Lucy Wibbenmeyer, 1281 Prairie Grass Lane, said she wished to echo the concerns expressed by others.
Wibbenmeyer stated that Weber School is extremely over-crowded and there is a 3-4 year wait for the
after-school program. She asked at what point Planning and the School Board got together and
discussed when a new school should be built.
Janni Ebert, 3357 Rohret Road, said that she and her husband, Karl, have been very excited to build a
house on Rohret Road, and all of a sudden there is now a development with 170 families across the road
from their property. She noted that that there are 170 lots in 82.3 acres, which would be .48 acres per
home. She noted that a football field is 1.32 acres. She asked the Commission to imagine having four or
five homes in an area the size of a football field. Ebert said that one thing that disturbs her about the plat
is that there are very good sized lots in the middle and toward the top, and then lots become quite small
down near Rohret Road. Ebert said she read somewhere that homeowners would run the "gamut of
economic status." Ebert said that big lots would go to the wealthier people, and smaller lots would go to
low-income people. Ebert said she found that scary. She asked if she was going to have a situation like
what happens over on Broadway right across the road from her property. She said this was a frightening
thought to her.
David Tokuhisa, 3305 Rohret Road, said that he appreciated his neighborhood, which he considers to be
an island in that it provides a very unique atmosphere for intellectual growth, personal growth, and raising
children. He said the environment is good, the air is clean, and there are a number of places to cross-
country ski and bike. However, Tokuhisa said, though he appreciates Iowa City, he is concerned about
the direction the city has taken. He says that he sees schools as a critical factor. He said the student to
teacher ratio in some Iowa City schools is disturbing, while at others, the schools are under-populated. He
said the overcrowding is systemic. Tokuhisa asked how long Iowa City can sustain its excellent schools in
this environment.
Tokuhisa said that he has noticed a strong smell of natural gas in living a mile or so away from the landfill.
He noted that the new development will actually be closer to the landfill than the property he lives on.
Tokuhisa said that not only was having accessible routes for first responders and car traffic important, but
also one must consider the steps necessary to be a green community and to promote public transit.
Tokuhisa compared the density problem to that of an overcrowded goldfish bowl, in that if only a few fish
are added to the bowl it can remain habitable; however, if the bowl becomes overcrowded with fish, they
cannot survive.
Tokuhisa said that in many ways Iowa City is encouraging people to live greener lives, to reduce their
carbon footprints, grow gardens, and have green space and parks. However, Tokuhisa said, if the
wetlands and parks are all hemmed in by small (perhaps fenced) lots, then it is difficult to use and access
them.
Robert Hegeman, 44 Tucson Place, said that he thinks one of the most important tools for planning when
there are unresolved issues (such as the major issue of access between Melrose and Rohret) is simply
preserving your options. Hegeman said that the north part of this land will be developed and the
landowner has that right. However, the part of the development that is south of the wetlands and west of
Lakeshore Drive is not going to be developed for some time anyway. As a result, there is simply no need
to rush to judgment and plat that area tonight. Hegeman advised the Commission to rezone the area, but
not to plat it. Hegeman said the developer does not need it platted right now and there is simply no need
to hedge the City into that situation when there are so many unresolved issues.
Larry Jewell, 53 Tucson Place, said that he thinks one major factor that should be taken into
consideration is the current economic situation. Jewell said he thinks we need to stop and ask in the
current housing climate if it makes sense to dump more housing stock into our community. He said that
doing so will only act to further depress the housing market and delay our recovery.
Jewell said that as far as he understands, no Commissioner has actually come out and reviewed the
property. He said that he hoped some of them would, prior to making this decision from information
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 15, 2009 -Formal
Page 9
provided on a small, flat map. Eastham informed Jewell that he had been out to the area two years ago
when a rezoning issue came before the Commission.
Jewell said that the theme from the neighborhood is the fear of losing the rural feel of the neighborhood.
Jewell reminded Commissioners that the Comprehensive Plan and the Southwest District Plan explicitly
state the desire to retain the rural feel. Jewell urged the Commission to deny the request for rezoning and
subdividing. Jewell said he would strongly suggest that the Commission deny any application unless the
developer sits down and does a true good neighbor meeting. Jewell said that in this case there was only
one meeting and it was entirely one-way communication, with the developer informing the neighbors what
they would be doing. Jewell said-that the concerns of the existing neighborhood and community have to
be balanced against those of the developer. Jewell acknowledged that a developer has an absolute right
to develop their property. They do not, however, have a right to expect that it will be rezoned. He said that
one-acre lots are still very desirable, and that neighbors are willing to sit down with Staff and the
developer and get what everyone wants.
Witold Krajewski, 3329 Rohret Road SW, asked who was in charge of Rohret Road. Miklo explained that
the road was divided down the middle. The southern half was under County jurisdiction and the northern
half was in the city. Krajewski suggested that the concerns from those on the southern side of the road
for lost property and trees could be assuaged by shifting the road to the north side (i.e., instead of taking
15 feet from each side, take 30 feet from just the north side where the proposed development is). This
suggestion, Krajewski said, has the consequence of making the current plat proposal untenable, but, he
said, he hopes that would not be the only reason not to act on this idea.
Freerks noted that whether or not the road is put into the improvements plan will be decided by City
Council in the next few weeks, and will be part of the budget they adopt in March. Freerks said that City
Council may be entirely unaware of the concerns expressed by Rohret Road residents tonight, so it would
be worth following that process and making their concerns heard.
Eastham asked if the alignment of the road could be an infrastructure issue that the Commission could
consider and perhaps direct. Miklo said that shifting the road to the north would be difficult given the other
intersections along the way. The concerns about loss of driveways, Miklo believed, was not necessary as
he believed that the City had an obligation to put back any driveway they took out unless there was some
sort of health or safety issue with it. Miklo said that 15 feet of right-of-way was the maximum that would be
needed, so he suspects that the fears of encroachment to the south are somewhat greater than what
would occur.
Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, noted that the open space for the development was decided on by the
Parks and Recreation Department because the City owns the adjacent property to the north. Originally,
the applicant wished to have more centrally located green space, near the wetlands.
Musser said that water is leaving the site at three different areas. The storm-sewer system in the streets
will collect a majority of the runoff and direct it into the storm-water detention basin. Sanitary sewer is
extended to the boundary of the applicant's property. During the construction process, Musser said, tile-
line investigations are completed and will be patched and reconstructed by the applicant if damaged.
Musser said the intersection of Rohret and Lakeshore Drive is pretty much locked in due to design
standards and specifications.
Eastham asked if the maintenance of the subterranean the system would ultimately fall to the
homeowner's association. Miklo said that the outlots would eventually become the responsibility of the
homeowner's association, as well as the the if it was a part of the drainage system.
The public hearing was closed at 9:28 p.m.
Freerks noted that the 45-day limitation period is up on January 19t". The Commission could deny the
application, pass the application, pass the application with conditions, or ask the applicant for an
extension.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 15, 2009 -Formal
Page 10
Eastham motioned to defer the item and ask the applicant to extend the limitation period through
the next formal meeting.
Plahutnik seconded.
The applicant wished to hear the Commission's discussion prior to granting or denying the extension.
Busard said that what he would like to see in a subdivision would be more clustering of the homes and
more shared green space, although he acknowledged that this is a trend that has not caught on in Iowa
City. He said that this subdivision reduces sprawl and that from his perspective he would rather see more
lots than less lots within the city limits. Busard said one reason he would like to consider a deferral is to
get input from the school district on the overcrowding.
Freerks said that the Commission typically does not talk to the school district about that, but that it may be
appropriate to ask the school district to comment. Miklo said that the City and the school district have at
least one annual meeting where the district looks at growth that is taking place to help them make those
kinds of decisions. Miklo noted that a development of this size will not happen overnight, and that it would
take several years before those lots were built and full and perhaps 10-12 years before the impact was
felt on schools. Busard suggested asking the applicant if the applicant is amenable to dedicating some
property to a school.
Busard asked what the transportation planners had to say about the traffic problems discussed by the
neighbors. Miklo said that the transportation planners did not have concerns about Rohret Road; their
primary concerns were with Slothower.
Eastham said he agreed with the idea expressed by Busard of considering school capacity as a factor in
infrastructure support, although he acknowledged it may be pushing the boundaries of the current zoning
code. He said he too would like to hear comment from the school district.
Eastham said that while traffic planners may be satisfied with Rohret Road's capacity to handle the
additional traffic, there still is not good connectivity to Melrose or Highway 1. He and Miklo discussed the
future of Slothower's possible connection through the County Poor Farm property.
Greenwood Hektoen suggested keeping discussions limited to whether or not Commissioners would be in
support of a motion to defer.
Payne asked what the average size of the lots in Southwest Estates is (excluding the 1-acre lots). Miklo
said he would have to look at the plat more closely, although he knows they are larger than the 8,000
square foot minimum.
Payne asked what the likelihood of farmers using Lakeshore Drive as scut-through would be (a concern
brought up by one resident). Miklo said that it would be very unlikely. He said the only adjacent farm land
would be the County Poor Farm property which has better access from Melrose Avenue.
Eastham said that he has some concerns about density; however, his concern is that an opportunity for a
little higher density townhomes along Rohret Road is being missed.
Plahutnik stated that he felt very little effort had been made to meet the requirements of the
Comprehensive Plan in providing a transition from RR-1 to RS-5. The Comprehensive Plan's directive
that development is appropriate when infrastructure is in place is also not followed in this case. Plahutnik
said that this development was not ready for prime-time. He said that Rohret Road does not work now,
and it certainly is not ready for this development. Plahutnik stated that as a clerk in a grocery store he
might not have much call to disagree with a City Engineer; however, he noted that the people sitting in
traffic on Rohret Road probably are not City Engineers either, and they too would disagree with the City
Engineer's assessment.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 15, 2009 -Formal
Page 11
Plahutnik said much of this is perspective, noting that those on 10-acres think a 3-acre lot is too small,
and those on 3-acre lots think the 1-acre lots are too small, and so on. Plahutnik noted that all of the
houses on Summit Street are on lots smaller than those being discussed tonight, and yet, most people
would think that Summit Street is not such a bad place to live.
At some point, Plahutnik said, this property will be developed. More than likely it will be developed at RS-
5. However, Plahutnik's feeling is that the things that need to be in place before development can occur
are not yet ready.
Busard suggested that the applicant might want to consider zoning the entire area RS-5, but only platting
one phase of the project.
Payne asked how far out Rohret Road is improved. Staff explained that the road would be improved from
the last developed lot eastward, in the direction that most traffic would be flowing. This improvement is a
condition of Staff's recommendation.
Weitzel said that he believes there is merit in discussing doing the platting in phases, as there are enough
disparate ideas and opinions that more discussion seems necessary. He also noted that he would like to
hear comment from the school district.
Freerks said she had a number of questions she would like more information on before voting on this
development in any positive way. She noted that change is difficult, but that something will happen with
this property; it is simply a matter of how it occurs. Freerks said she lives on a lot smaller than all of those
in the development, but that she understands that what one is used to and what one is expecting has a
huge role in what one can easily accept. Freerks stated that she had concerns about the lack of transition
and buffer. She continues to have questions about drainage. She said that there is some merit in
preserving rural character. She has questions about the maintenance of the wetlands. She would like
more answers about curb cuts, driveways, loss of trees, etc., that would occur with improvements to
Rohret Road. Park access was also a concern for Freerks. She expressed interest in a deferral because
she would hate to have to vote no simply because her questions could not be answered.
Payne asked about Musser's comment that the Lakeshore Drive/Rohret Road intersection had been
chosen by the City. Miklo said that Staff did feel the intersection was located in the most logical place, as
it aligns with Rohret Court to the south.
Freerks said she wanted more information about the possibility of mitigating lights shining in the Schulte's
window if that would really be the case.
Musser indicated a willingness on the part of the applicant to grant an extension beyond the 45-day
limitation period.
A vote was taken and the motion to defer was approved 6-0.
SUB08-00011/REZ08-00012: Discussion of an application submitted by Three Bulls for a rezoning
from Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single-
Family (OPD-8) and a preliminary plat of Hickory Pointe, a 4-lot, 2.97 acre residential subdivision
on Hickory Trail, west of First Avenue. The 45-day limitation period expires February 20, 2009.
The proposal is to rezone this property and subdivide it into a planned development of three clusters each
with six townhouse style units. There would be a private drive to provide rear access. The property is
currently zoned RS-5 as three residential lots. Under its current zoning, the property can be subdivided
into up to ten single-family homes. The applicants request is to rezone this to RS-8 which would allow up
to thirteen single-family houses. Because the applicant is also requesting a planned development, which
allows the clustering and a slight increase of density, 18 units are proposed for approval.
Staff feels this rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Northeast District Plan
identifies potential townhouse development on this very property. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 15, 2009 -Format
Page 12
building town houses or small multi-families is appropriate on arterial streets adjacent to large open
spaces. The Northeast District plan gives guidance on development near Hickory Hill Park, a sensitive
area. This plan addressed that in terms of planning for open spaces and appropriate plantings.
The planned development is an option under the zoning code. It allows for higher density and clustering,
but some conditions must be considered. The development must be compatible in scale to adjacent
buildings. Staff feels that the proposed design and quality of materials is appropriate for the
neighborhood.
The location of the driveway is an issue. Staff recommends a minor modification - an administrative level
review - to allow the driveway to be less than 25 feet from the property line. The adjacent property is
owned by the City and will not be developed.
A sensitive areas overlay rezoning is required because there are some steep and critical slopes in the
area. Staff believes the slopes were created in the construction of First Avenue. As a result, in this case it
is appropriate to allow the dramatic amount of grading called for in the plans.
There is a small amount of open space on the south side of Hickory Trail to be dedicated to the City if the
Parks & Recreation Commission choose to accept it. A fee will be paid in lieu of the other required open
space.
Staff received a revised plan after the informal meeting. As a result not all of the conditions outlined in the
staff report continue to be necessary. Miklo said that staff recommended approval subject to compliance
with the revised elevation drawings (he noted that the elevations would need to be revised to comply with
section 14-4B-4 A. 3.d. regarding design features for attached dwellings); staff approval of detailed plans
for the open space area; and approval of a minor modification for the location of the north curb cut on
First Avenue.
Plahutnik asked why the Hickory Trail Extension was part of the Comprehensive Plan. Miklo said that at
the time the Northeast District Plan was created there was great concern about how the Northeast District
would develop in relationship to Hickory Hill Park. To create a buffer between development and the park
the plan included an extension of Hickory Trail as a "single loaded street' to the west of First Avenue. He
said that the intent of the single loaded street was to create an open space buffer on the south side of the
street and residential development on the north side of the street only.
The public hearing was opened at 10:12 p.m.
Casey Boyd, 40 Green Mountain Drive, said that he has really listened to what people want for the area
and worked with neighborhood groups. He said neighborhood meetings have been very positive, as have
meetings with Friends of Hickory Hill Park. Boyd said Sarah Walz has been very helpful and provided
great ideas. Boyd said the quality of the materials will be very similar to those used on the units at the
corner of Scott Boulevard and North Dodge Street. He offered to answer any questions the Commission
might have.
Susan Huff, 2601 Hickory Trail, said that she lives in a 16-unit condominium unit across the street from
the property. She said that the new units could affect the egress for her building. Huff asked why it was
necessary to build on the open space when there are lots on the other side of the street (where homes
are already built) that are for sale. She said she would prefer that the property not be rezoned
Greenwood Hektoen noted that an a-mail from Mary Gilbert regarding this development had been
distributed to the Commission.
The public hearing was closed at 10:19 p.m.
Busard motioned to approve REZ08-00012/SUB08-00011, an application submitted by Three Bulls
for a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay Medium
Density Single-Family (OPD-8) and a preliminary plat of Hickory Pointe, a 4-lot, 2.97 acre
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 15, 2009 -Formal
Page 13
residential subdivision on Hickory Trail, west of First Avenue, subject to compliance with the
revised elevation drawings; staff approval of detailed plans for the open space area; and approval
of a minor modification for the location of the north curb cut on First Avenue.
Eastham seconded.
Plahutnik noted that the Commission had gone from astate-of-the-art 1960's subdivision design to a
progressive, unique and innovative solution to housing. Plahutnik said he believed it was possible to live
in these units and function without an automobile. While it is a shame that the building will block some
open space, Plahutnik said, he assumes the applicant does not own the property across the street and is
simply going with what he's got. Plahutnik said he likes the development and the amenities in the rear.
Eastham said he too is in favor of this application; it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Eastham said he thinks the developer did an excellent job of proposing buildings that are attractive and
address the needs for a transition from residential housing to open space.
Weitzel stated his support for the project and said he would like to see more of it in town.
Freerks said she believes this is a good development, and that she believes this is a good example of
planned development overlay.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: December 1 8~ December 4 2008:
Eastham motioned to approve the minutes.
Payne seconded.
The minutes were approved on a vote of 6-0.
OTHER:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Payne motioned to adjourn.
Eastham seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote at 10:35 p.m.
s/pcd/mins/p&z/2009/P&Z 01-15-09.doc
C
O
N
N
O
vv
C1 O
C ~
C ~
N d p
~ C N
~ ~
C ~
•C ~
r
lC Q
a
U
cv
3
0
r X X X ~ X X X
~ ~
~' '`
F" W ~
\
0 r-
\
0 M
\
0 N
\
0 O
1
0 O
\
0 M
1
0
d
~
z
~
N
o'O
'~
l~C
~
N
W
tj
Y
~
G>
~i
a
d
Q
~°c
LLi
d
~
fC
a
~ Y
C
~
t
a
~
d
d
3
i"-,
Z
H
W
W
Q
k
N
r
r
~
~
F-W ~--
L 7
0 ~
~
0 M
~
0 N
~
0 O
tl
0 O
l'f)
0 M
L
0
~
z
N
m
"'~
lC
~
w
CU
Y
~
~
Q
~
Q
Y
LLI
~
~
a
~ Y
_
7
a
3
~
3
N
Z
H
W
W
Q
0
LL
Z
U
X
W
~ ~
C +' ~
~ C
N ~
~ Q
a Q u
~ n n w
1X00