HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-05-2009 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, March 2, 2009 - 6:00 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Lobby Conference Room
410 E. Washington Street
Thursday, March 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. Zoning Code Item
Discussion of amendments to the Zoning Code to regulate Drinking Establishments and Alcohol Sales
Oriented Retail Uses and to establish minimum spacing requirements between such uses.
D. Rezoning Item
REZ09-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Interim
Development ~ID-1) zone to General Industrial (1-1) zone for approximately 100 acres of property
located on 420 h Street SE, west of Taft Avenue.
E. County Rezoning Item
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.
(Applicant has requested indefinite deferral.)
F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: February 2 & February 5,2009
G. Election of Officers
H. Other
I. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 27, 2009
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
RE: Proposed amendments to the zoning code regulating businesses that sell alcohol
The City Council has had ongoing discussions regarding underage and over-consumption
of alcohol in the community. One factor identified as a problem by the Council is the
concentration of bars in downtown Iowa City and more recently the proliferation of liquor
stores in the downtown area. The Council requested that City staff investigate zoning
regulations that would prohibit or limit the possibility of additional bars and liquor stores
locating downtown and also prevent concentration of bars in other commercial areas as
well. It is not uncommon for communities to regulate the location of bars in relationship to
other establishments that serve alcohol. Such regulations often take the form of
separation requirements between bars and/or liquor stores ranging between 300 to 1,000
feet.
One of the more difficult tasks in drafting such an ordinance is distinguishing bars, for
which the principal activity is the sale of alcohol for on-site consumption, from other
establishments for which the sale of alcohol or alcoholic beverages is merely an accessory
activity to the principal use of the property, such as a restaurant, theater, bowling alley,
hotel, convention center, etc.
Similarly, before one can establish a separation requirement for uses such as liquor
stores, where the principal activity is the sale of alcohol in closed containers for off-site
consumption, one must distinguish such a business from other businesses that have a
liquor license to sell alcohol, wine or beer for off-site consumption, but for which such
sales do not constitute the main part of sales. The most obvious example of this would be
a large grocery store for which the sale of liquor, wine, and beer is only a small percentage
of the establishment's sales.
The attached, proposed amendments to the zoning code would create a system of
regulating the concentration of bars and liquor stores, while at the same time avoiding
undue restrictions on businesses for which alcohol sales are not the principal activity. In
summary, the attached regulations would:
· Establish a classification process for businesses that sell alcohol. Prior to issuance
of a liquor license the person or entity applying for the liquor license must submit
information to the City that details the nature of the business, the type of liquor
license applied for and the proposed hours of operation. Staff will review this
information with the applicant and determine how the proposed business would be
classified according to the use categories in the zoning code.
· Establish a definition of "Drinking Establishment" as distinguished from a
restaurant, hotel, theater, bowling alley, etc.
· Establish a definition of "Alcohol Sales-Oriented Use" and create a process to
exempt businesses from any separation requirement if income derived from the
sale of alcohol is less than 25% of gross yearly income.
· Establish a separation requirement of 500 feet between Drinking Establishments in
all zones that allow Drinking Establishments. Drinking Establishments would be
February 27,2009
Page 2
allowed in all zones that currently allow restaurants (CN-1, CH-1, CC-2, CB-2, CB-
5, CB-1 D), except for the Office Commercial Zone (CO-1) and the Mixed Use Zone
(MU). Staff recommends against allowing Drinking Establishments in the CO-1
Zone, because this zoning designation is often located next to low density
residential areas and is intended primarily for office uses. Staff is not aware of any
restaurants or bars that currently exist in the CO-1 Zone. The Mixed Use Zone is a
new zoning designation that allows all types of residential (single family,
townhomes, apartments) and compatible commercial uses to be located in the
same area. While both the CO-1 and MU Zones would continue to allow
restaurants that are open as late as midnight to sell alcoholic beverages,
establishments that meet the definition of a Drinking Establishment (see attached)
would not be allowed.
· Establish a separation requirement of 1000 feet between Alcohol Sales-Oriented
Retail Uses in the Central Business Zones (CB-2, CB-5, CB-10). Staff
recommends limiting this separation requirement to the Central Business Zones,
because it seems unlikely that there will be a problem with concentration of liquor
stores in areas other than in the downtown. Staff believes that the cost to both the
City and the businesses of administering an exemption process for all the grocery
stores in town that sell alcoholic beverages would outweigh the benefits of
establishing separation requirements in outlying commercial areas, where a
concentration of liquor stores is unlikely.
· Establish rules for existing businesses that would be grandfathered in as
nonconforming uses if these regulations are adopted. Similar to the regulation of
other nonconforming uses, if the use were to be discontinued for a year or more,
then it may not be re-established, but must be converted to a conforming use.
The attached draft amendments are red-lined; new language is underlined and language
to be deleted is shown with strike-through notation.
Approved by:
~~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
In 14-4A-2, Classifying Uses, insert a new subsection G as follows:
G. Use classification for establishments that sell alcohol
1. ADDlicabilitv
Anv use for which an aoolication has been filed for a liauor control license or
wine or beer permit is subiect to the followina use classification orocess.
2. Definitions
The followina definitions shall aoolv to terms used in this subsection.
a. Alcohol Sales - the sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages, including but
not limited to alcohol. beer or wine in closed containers intended for off-
site consumotion: and alcoholic beverages, includina cocktails, shots,
wine, beer, and any Dart of an alcoholic beverage intended for on-site
consumotion, as defined in Chaoter 123 of the State Code.
b. Licensee - Anv oerson or entity that holds a Iiauor control license, wine
or beer permit issued bv the State of Iowa.
c. License - Anv Iiauor control license, wine or beer permit issued bv the
State of Iowa that allows sales of alcohol or alcoholic beverages.
3. Classification Process
a. Prior to issuance of a License for a new use or renewal of a License for a
use that was established prior to (the effective date of this ordinance),
but which has not vet been classified accordina to these orovisions, the
Licensee must submit to the Deoartment of Housina and Insoection
Services a verified statement that details the nature of the principal use
for which the License will be issued, the tyoe of Iicense(s) aoolied for,
and the hours that the establishment will be ooen for business. The City
may reauest any other information deemed necessary to verify and
classify the use, includina but not limited to business records uoon which
the statement is based, state and federal tax records, aoolications for
dram shoo insurance and audits oerformed to determine dram shoo
insurance oremiums, and receiots from vendors for goods ourchased.
b. Based on the information orovided bv the aoolicant. the tyoe of License
beina aoplied for, and the classification system set forth in this Article,
the City will advise the aoolicant reaardina the classification of the
proposed use for zonina ourposes, and, if aoolicable, whether the
alcohol sales will be considered a orincioal or accessory use of the
prooerty .
c. If through this use classification orocess, a use that was leaallv
established orior to (the effective date of this ordinance) is determined
to be nonconformina with reaard to the seoaration reauirements for
Drinkina Establishments or Alcohol Sales-Oriented Retail Uses, the
orooerty file will be tagaed bv the Buildina Official or designee as a
nonconforming Drinking Establishment or nonconformina Alcohol Sales-
Oriented Retail Use, as aoolicable. Such a nonconformina use may
continue provided it is in comoliance with the aoolicable orovisions of 14-
4E. Nonconformina Situations.
4. Accessory Alcohol Sales Certification
Any use that is classified as an Alcohol Sales-Oriented Retail Use is considered
a principal use and subiect to the regulations pertaininq thereto. unless it is
determined that alcohol sales are an accessory use to another principal use of
the property throuqh the followinq certification process. Any Licensee
applYinq for an Accessory Alcohol Sales Certificate must submit verified
statements and business records as set forth in the followinq subparagraphs.
a. For existinq uses. if accordinq to a verified statement issued by a
certified public accountant. alcohol sales expressed as a percentage of
qross yearly income is less than 25 percent (25%), an Accessory Alcohol
Sales Certificate will be issued for one year. after which time it must be
renewed annually at the time the License is renewed. Said statement
shall be based on records made in the regular course of the Licensee's
business. The licensee shall allow. upon request. the Building Official.
City Clerk or designee to examine the business records upon which the
statement is based. includinq state and federal tax records. applications
for dram shop insurance and audits performed to determine dram shop
insurance premiums. and receipts from vendors for goods purchased.
b. For new uses. if the Licensee estimates. based on their submitted
business plan. that alcohol sales expressed as a percentaqe of gross
yearly income will be less than 25 percent (25%), an Accessory Alcohol
Sales Certificate will be issued for one year. The certificate must be
renewed annually thereafter at the time the License is renewed based on
actual sales accordinq to a verified statement from a certified public
accountant as described in subparagraph 4a.. above.
c. If at the time of renewal of the certificate. alcohol sales constitute 25
percent (25%) or more of gross yearly income and the use is not in
compliance with zoninq requirements for Alcohol Sales-Oriented Uses. a
notice of violation will be issued. If the use is in violation of the zoning
requirements for Alcohol Sales-Oriented Uses. the Licensee must reduce
alcohol sales to below 25% of qross yearly income or otherwise brinq the
use into compliance with the applicable requlations.
Amend 14-4A-4E, as follows:
E. Eating and Drinking Establishments
1. Characteristics
Establishments where the principal activity is the preparation, dispensing and
consumption of prcpJrcd food and/or beverages. at prcpJrcd food Jndjor
bcvcrJgcs. Depending on the type of establishment, food and/or beverages
may be consumed on or off of the premises. These uses may vary with regard
to traffic generation, congestion, and the potential for off-site impacts.
Therefore, the size, location, and accessory uses permitted may be regulated
differently based on the underlying zoning.
2. Examples
Examples include uses from the two subgroups listed below:
a. Eatina Establishments: Restaurants; cafes; cafeterias; coffee shops;
delicatessens, tearooms; dining rooms; supper clubs; fast food
restaurants; ice cream parlors
b. Drinkina Establishments. Anv use that meets all of the defining
characteristics listed in sub-subparaqraphs (1), (2), and (3). below. is
considered a Drinkinq Establishment for purposes of this Title. unless
listed as an exception in paraqraph 4. below.
(1) The principal activity of the establishment is the preparation.
dispensing and consumption of food andlor beveraqes: and
(2) The establishment is licensed bv the State for the sale of alcoholic
beverages for on-site consumption. as defined by Iowa Code
Chapter 123: and
(3) The establishment is open for business anv time between the hours
of 12:00 AM and 2:00 AM.
3. Accessory Uses
Off-street parking. Drive-through facilities and sidewalk cafe seating are
accessory uses that are subject to additional regulations as set forth in Article
14-4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings.
4. Exceptions
a. Establishments featuring nude dancing are considered an Adult Business
use.
b. Restaurants and/or bars that are associated with a Hospitalitv-Oriented
Retail Use and that have been issued a Class B liquor control license are
considered accessory to the subject Hospitalitv-Oriented Retail Use and
are not considered Eating or Drinking Establishments or Alcohol-Oriented
Retail Uses.
Amend 14-4A-4H, as follows:
H. Retail Uses
1. Characteristics
Establishments involved in the sale, lease, or rent of new or used products to
the general public for personal or household consumption and establishments
involved in the sale of personal services, hospitality services, or product repair
services to the general public.
2. Examples
Examples include uses from the five six subgroups listed below:
a. Sales-oriented: Stores selling, leasing, or renting consumer, home, and
business goods, including, but not limited to, antiques, appliances, art,
art supplies, bicycles, carpeting, clothing, dry goods, electronic
equipment, fabric, flowers, furniture, garden supplies, gifts, groceries,
hardware, household products, jewelry, pets, pet food, pharmaceuticals,
plants, printed material, stationery, videos. Also includes retail
establishments that have a cottage industry component, such as
bakeries, confectioneries, upholsterer, artist/artisan's studios, and
similar.
b. Personal Service-Oriented: Establishments engaged in providing retail
services and services related to the care of a person or a person's
apparel, such as retail banking establishments, laundromats, catering
services, dry cleaners, tailors, shoe repair, photographic studios,
photocopy services, quick printing services, blueprint services, beauty
salons, tanning salons, therapeutic massage establishments,
taxidermists, mortuaries, funeral homes, and crematoriums.
c. Repair-Oriented: Repair of consumer goods, such as electronics,
bicycles, office equipment; appliances.
d. Hospitality-Oriented: Hotels; motels; convention centers; guesthouses;
commercial meeting halls/event facilities.
e. Outdoor Storage and Display-Oriented: Uses that typically include large
areas of outdoor storage or display, such as lumber yards; sales or
leasing of consumer vehicles, including passenger vehicles, light and
medium trucks, and recreational vehicles; sales of landscaping materials
and nursery products to the general public; farm supply and implement
sales; equipment or vehicle rental businesses.
f. Alcohol Sales-Oriented: liquor stores: wine shops; qrocerv stores.
convenience stores. and other retail establishments for which a Class E
liquor control license or wine or beer permit has been issued that allows
sale of alcohol or alcoholic beveraqes in closed containers for off-premise
consumption.
3. Accessory Uses
Offices; storage of goods; assembly, repackaging, or processing of goods for
on-site sale; off-street parking, services incidental to the sale of goods;
wholesale sales. Drive-throuqh facilities are accessorv uses that are subiect to
additional regulations outlined in Article 14-4C. Accessorv Uses and Buildings.
Crematoriums, for either human or pet remains, may be an accessory use to a
funeral home or mortuary.
4. Exceptions
a. Lumber yards and other building material suppliers that sell primarily to
contractors and do not have a retail orientatio,", are classified as
Wholesale Sales.
b. Repair of consumer motor vehicles, motorcycles, and light and medium
trucks is classified as Vehicle Repair. Repair and service of industrial
vehicles and equipment, and heavy trucks is classified as Industrial
Service.
c. Sales, rental, or leasing of heavy trucks and equipment is classified as
Wholesale Sales.
d. Firms that primarily sell tree nursery products and landscaping materials
to other retail outlets rather than to the general public are considered
Wholesale Sales.
e. Restaurants and/or bars that are loc;:)tcd within associated with a
Hospitality-Oriented Retail Use and that have been issued a Class B
liquor control license are considered accessory to the subiect Hospitalitv-
Oriented Retail Use and are not considered Drinkinq Establishments or
Alcohol-Oriented Retail Uses. ;:)rc rcgul;:)tcd scp;:)r;:)tcly ;:)s ;:) principal usc
;:)nd ;:)rc subjcct to Zlny spccific rcgulZltions rcl;:)tcd thcrcto.
f. Drinking Establishments are not considered Alcohol Sales-Oriented Uses.
even if thev have a liquor control license or wine or beer permit that
allows sale of alcohol. wine. or beer in closed containers for off-premise
consumption.
g. A use is not considered an Alcohol Sales-Oriented Use if an Accessorv
Alcohol Sales Certificate has been qranted accordinq to the process set
forth in 14-4A-2G. Use classification for establishments that sell alcohol.
h. Bed and Breakfast Inns and Bed and Breakfast Homestays are
considered accessory uses to owner-occupied Detached Single Family
Dwellings and are regulated according to the provisions specified for
such uses in Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings.
i. A pet crematorium, if a principal use on a property, is considered an
Animal-Related Commercial Use. Pet crematoriums may also be an
accessory use to a veterinary clinic.
Amend 14-4A-4F, as follows:
F. Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses
1. Characteristics
Quick Vehicle Servicing uses provide direct services for motor vehicles where
the driver generally waits in the car or on-site before and while the service is
performed. The facility may include a drive-through area where the service is
performed. Full-serve and mini-serve gas stations are always classified as a
principal use, rather than an accessory use, even when they are in
conjunction with other uses.
2. Examples
Full-serve and mini-serve gas stations; unattended card key service stations;
car washes.
3. Accessory Uses
Off-street parking and stacking lanes.
4. Exceptions
a. Repair and service of consumer motor vehicles, motorcycles, and light
and medium trucks is classified as Vehicle Repair and is considered a
principal use rather than an accessory use, even when in conjunction
with a gas station or other use. A development with both a gas station
and automotive repair shop would be classified as containing two
principal uses: Quick Vehicle Servicing and Vehicle Repair.
b. A convenience store located on the same lot as a Quick Vehicle Servicing
use is regulated as a separate principal use, Sales-Oriented Retail or
Alcohol Sales-Oriented Retail, whichever is aoolicable.
c. Repair and service of industrial vehicles and equipment, and heavy
trucks is classified as Industrial Service.
d. Fleet vehicle refueling facilities that are located on the site where the
fleet vehicles are kept are classified as an accessory use.
Amend Table 2A-1 as follows:
Table2A-1 -Prin(i)ipall.Jses Allowed in Sin,leF.I11LilyResidenlial Zones
USE CATEGORIES I SUBGROUPS I RR-1 I RS-S I RS-8 I RS-12 I RNS-12
Residential Uses
Household Living Uses Detached Single Family P P P P P
Dwellings
Detached Zero Lot Line PR PR PR PR
Dwellinas
Attached Single Family PR PR' PR
Dwellings
Two-Family Uses (Duplexes) PR PR' PR PR
Groue Households PR PR PR PR PR
Multi-Family Uses See Note
Group LiYing Uses Assisted Group Living
Independent Group Living See Note
Fraternal Group Living See Note
USE CATEGORIES SUBGROUPS RR-1 RS-S RS-8 RS-12 RNS-12
Commercial Uses
Animal-related Commercial General
Uses Intensive
Institutional And Civic Uses
Daycare Uses S S S S S
Educational Facilities General PR S S S S
Specialized
Parks and Open Space PR PR PR PR PR
Uses
Religious/Private Group PR S S S S
Assemblv Uses3
USE CATEGORIES SUBGROUPS RR-1 RS-S RS-8 RS-12 RNS-12
Other Uses
Agricultural Uses Plant-related P
Animal-related
Communication PR PR PR PR PR
Transmission Facility Uses
P = Permitted PR = Provisional S = Special Exception (See 14-48 for requirements for provisional uses and
special exceptions)
Notes:
1Multi-Family and Group Living Uses in the RNS-12 zone must comply with the special provisions contained in Section
14-2A-7.
2 Special provisions may apply to existing Two Family Uses and Attached Single Family Dwellings located on interior
lots in the RS-8 Zone. See 14-2A-7D.
3Any establishment that is licensed by the State to sell alcohol or alcoholic beverages is subiect to the Use Classification
process as set forth in 14-4A-2G.
Amend Table 28-1 as follows:
USE CATEGORIES
Residential Uses
Household Living Uses Detached Single Family Dwellings P P P
Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings PR PR PR
Attached Single Family Dwellings PR PR PR
Duplexes PR PR PR
Group Households PR PR PR PR PR
Multi-family DwellinQs P P P P P
Group Living Uses Assisted Group LivinQ S PR PR PR PR
Independent Group Living PR PR PR
Fraternal Group Living PR PR PR PR
Commercial Uses
Retail Uses Sales-oriented
Personal Service-oriented S
Repair-oriented
Hospitality-Oriented Retail PR PR
Outdoor Storage and Display-
oriented
Alcohol Sales-Oriented
Institutional And Civic Uses
Community Service General Community Service S S S S S
Uses Community Service - Shelter S S S S S
Daycare Uses PR PR PR PR PR
Educational Facilities General PR PR PR PR PR
Specialized PR
Parks and Open Space PR PR PR PR PR
Uses
Religious/Private Group PR PR PR PR PR
Assembly Uses1
Other Uses
Communication PR PR PR PR PR
Transmission Facility
Uses
P = Permitted PR = Provisional S = Special Exception (See 14-48 for requirements for provisional uses and
special exceptions)
lAny establishment that is licensed bv the State to sell alcohol or alcoholic beveraqes is subiect to the Use
Classification process as set forth in14-4A-2G.
Amend Table 2C-1 as follows:
Household Living Uses Detached Single Family P
Dwellinas
Detached Zero Lot Line PR
Dwellinos
Attached Single Family PR
Dwellinos
Duplexes PR
Group Households PR PR PR PR PR PR PR
Multi-familvDwellings PR PR S PR PR PRlS P
Group Living Uses Assisted Group Living PR S PR
Independent Group Livino
Fraternal Group Living
Commercial Uses
Adult Business Uses PR
Animal-related General S PR PR PR PR PR
Commercial Uses Intensive PR
Commercial Outdoor P P S
Recreational Uses2 Indoor PR/S PR P P P P P P
Commercial Parking PR PR PR
Uses
Eating & Drinking Eatina Establishments S PRlS Fll;;; P P P P S
Establishments2 ~n~~IIi1S1IEs~bl\~tlmen~ Ii! iEB EB> PR EB .>. ffi
Quick Vehicle Servicing S PR PR PR PR PR/S
Uses2
Office Uses General Office P PR P P P P P P P
MedicallDental Office P PR P P P P P P
Retail Uses2 Sales-oriented PR PR PR P P P P PR
Personal Service-oriented P PR P P P P PR
Repair-oriented P P P P P
HOSDltalitY~Oriented Retail PR PR P P P P P PR
Outdoor Storage and Display- P PR
oriented
;.!P!!Rl! \.. PRY !;!I~!R P !PR. PR PR PR
Surface Passenger P P P P P
Service Uses
Vehicle Repair Uses PR PR S PR
Industrial Uses
Industrial Service Uses P
Manufacturing and Technical/Licht Manufacturing PR PR PR PR PR
Production Uses General Manufacturing See PR PR PR PR PR
Note'
Heavv Manufacturing S
Salvaae Ooerations
Self-Service Storage P
Uses
Warehouse and Freight P
Movement Uses
Waste-Related Uses
Wholesale Sales Uses P PR PR PR PR
Institutional And Civic Uses
Basic Utility Uses PRlS PRlS PRlS PRI PR/ PRI PR/S PRlS
S S S
Community Service General Community Service P S S P P P P S
Uses Communitv Service - Shelter S S S PR PR S S
Daycare Uses PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR
Detention Facilities S
Educational Facilities General PR P P P PR
Soecialized P PR P P P P PR
Hospitals PR
Parks and Open Space PR PR PR PR PR PR PR
Uses
Religious/Private Group PR P P P P PR
Assembly Uses2
Other Uses
Communication PR PR PR/S PR PR/S PR/S PR/S PR/S PR
Transmission Facility /S
Uses
P = Permitted PR = Provisional S = Special Exception (See 14-4B for requirements for provisional uses and special exceptions)
1Special provisions apply to dairy products processing and packaging facilities established in the Highway Commercial Zone prior to
January of 1983. See 14-2C-10B.
2Any establishment that is licensed by the State to sell alcohol or alcoholic beveraqes is subiect to the Use Classification process as
set forth in 14-4A-2G.
Amend Table 2D-1, as follows:
Table 2D-1 - Princi 81 Uses Allowed in Industrial and>R.,s.arch Zones
USE CATEGORIES SUBGROUPS 1-1 1-2 RDP ORP
Commercial Uses
Commercial Outdoor
Recreational Uses1 Indoor S S
Office Uses General Office P P
Medical/Dental Office P P
Retail Uses Sales-oriented
Personal Service-oriented
Repair-oriented
Hospitality-Oriented Retail S S
Outdoor Storage and Display-
oriented
Alcohol Sales-Oriented
Industrial Uses
Industrial Service Uses P P
Manufacturing and Technical/Light Manufacturing P P P P
Production Uses General Manufacturing PR P
Heavy Manufacturing S P
Salvage Operations S
Self-Service Storage P P
Uses
Warehouse and Freight P P PR PR
Movement Uses
Waste-Related Uses PR PR
Wholesale Sales Uses P P PR PR
Institutional And Civic Uses
Basic Utility Uses PR PR PR/S PR/S
Colleges and Public
Universities Private S S
Community Service General Community Service S
Uses Community Service - Shelter
Daycare Uses PR PR
Parks and Open Space PR PR
Uses
Other Uses
Aviation-related Uses Airports
Helicopter Landing Facilities S S S S
Extraction Uses PR
Communication PR PR S S
Transmission Facility
Uses
P = Permitted PR = Provisional S = Special Exception (See 14-48 for requirements for provisional uses and special exceptions)
'Any establishment that is licensed by the State to sell alcohol or alcoholic beveraoes is subject to the Use Classification process as
set forth in 14-4A-2G.
Amend 14-48-48-9 as follows and add new paragraph 10 to this subsection:
9. Eating and Drinking Establishments in the CN-1, MU, and CO-1 Zones
a. The occupancy load for anyone establishment will not exceed 100,
except as allowed in subparagraph c., below.
b. Drive-through windows and drive-through lanes are prohibited.
c. In the CN-1 Zone, the maximum occupancy load may be increased to
125 by special exception, provided that the following criteria are met:
(1) The increased floor area will be supportable primarily by residents
of the surrounding area;
(2) The proposed exception will result in a more attractive
neighborhood commercial development due to the presence of
outdoor eating areas that enhance the pedestrian orientation of the
development, additional parking lot landscaping, additional
vegetative buffers, or other site improvements.
(3) The proposed exception will be consistent with the stated intent of
the CN-1 Zone.
d. Drinkinq Establishments are not allowed in the MU and CO-1 Zones.
e. In the CN-1 Zone. a Drinking Establishment. as defined in this Title. must
be separated by a minimum distance of 500 feet from any other Drinkino
Establishment. Distance shall be measured along a straiqht line from the
nearest propertv line (or nearest point of the leased space) of the
proposed use to the nearest propertY line (or nearest point of the leased
space) of any other Drinking Establishment. For example. in the case of
a Drinkinq Establishment that is located on a lot with multiple leased
spaces. such as a shopping mall. the distance is measured from the
nearest point of the leased space occupied by a Drinkinq Establishment
to the nearest propertY line or leased space of any other Drinkinq
Establishment.
10. Drinkina Establishments in the CH-1, CC-2, CB-2, CB-S, CB-10 Zones
A Drinkinq Establishment. as defined in this Title. must be separated by a
minimum distance of 500 feet from any other Drinking Establishment.
Distance shall be measured alonq a straight line from the nearest propertv
line (or nearest point of the leased space) of the proposed use to the nearest
propertY line (or nearest point of the leased space) of any other Drinkino
Establishment. For example. in the case of a Drinking Establishment that is
located on a lot with multiple leased spaces. such as a shopping mall. the
distance is measured from the nearest point of the leased space occupied by
a Drinkinq Establishment to the nearest propertY line or leased space of any
other Drinkinq Establishment.
Amend paragraphs 14-4B-4B-13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 as follows and add paragraphs 18
and 19 to this subsection.
13. Sales-Oriented Retail, Personal Service-Oriented Retail, and Alcohol
Sales-Oriented Retail Uses in the CN-l Zone
a. Each such use is limited to 2,400 square feet of gross floor area, except
as provided below:
(1) Drugstores and hardware stores may contain up to 15/000 square
feet of gross floor area.
(2) Grocery stores, including sales of specialty food items, such as
bakery and delicatessen goods, may contain up to 30/000 square
feet of gross floor area. Grocery stores that include other
departments for goods and services allowed in the CN-1 Zone may
contain up to 40/000 square feet of gross floor area, provided that
any floor area that exceeds 30/000 square feet is departmentalized
for nonfood products and services.
(3) Except for the uses listed in subparagraphs a. and b., above, the
limit on floor area for anyone use may be increased from 2/400
square feet up to 5/000 square feet by special exception, provided
that the following criteria are met:
(a) The increased floor area will be supportable primarily by
residents of the surrounding area;
(b) The proposed exception will be consistent with the stated
intent of the CN-1 Zone.
b. Crematoriums, if proposed as a principal use, are not permitted in this
Zone. Crematoriums are allowed if they are accessory to a funeral home
and meet all other provisions of this paragraph.
14. Sales-Oriented, Alcohol Sales-Oriented, and Personal Service-
Oriented Retail in the MU Zone
a. Any such use is limited to 2/400 square feet of gross floor area.
b. The limit on floor area for anyone use may be increased from 2/400
square feet up to 5/000 square feet by special exception, provided that
the following criteria are met:
(a) The increased floor area will be supportable primarily by
residents of the surrounding area;
(b) The proposed exception will be consistent with the stated
intent of the MU Zone.
c. Crematoriums, if proposed as a principal use, are not permitted in this
Zone. Crematoriums are allowed if they are accessory to a funeral home
and meet all other provisions of this paragraph.
15. Sales-Oriented, and Alcohol Sales-Oriented Retail in the CH-l Zone
Sales-Oriented and Alcohol Sales-Oriented Retail Uses are limited to
convenience stores associated with Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses.
16. Sales-Oriented Retail in the CI-l Zone
Sales-Oriented Retail is limited to the following specific uses:
a. Convenience stores associated with Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses;
b. Retail establishments that primarily sell building supplies, auto supplies,
hardware, paint, flooring materials, furniture, or a~pliances.
c. Sales-Oriented Retail associated with a Repair-Oriented Retail, Industrial
Service, LightfTechnical Manufacturing, or General Manufacturing Use,
provided that the floor area devoted to the retail display of merchandise
does not exceed 50% of the total ground floor area or 5,000 square feet,
whichever is less.
d. Consignment stores as defined in Article 14-9A, General Definitions.
17. Hospitality-Oriented Retail in the RM-44, PRM, MU, CO-l, and CN-l
Zones
a. Hospitality-Oriented Retail is limited to guesthouses as defined in Article
14-9A of this Title, General Definitions.
b. Any accessory dining and/or bar service is limited to quests only and
may not be ooen to the qeneral oublic.
18. Alcohol Sales-Oriented Retail in the CI-l Zone
Alcohol Sales-Oriented Retail is limited to convenience stores associated with
Quick Vehicle Servicinq Uses.
19. Alcohol Sales-Oriented Retail Uses in the CB-2. CB-S. and CB-l0
Zones
An Alcohol Sales-Oriented Retail Use must be seoarated by a minimum
distance of 1000 feet from any other Alcohol Sales-Oriented Retail Use.
Distance shall be measured alonq a straiqht line from the nearest orooertv
line (or nearest ooint of the leased soace) of the orooosed use to the nearest
orooertv line (or nearest ooint of the leased soace) of any other Alcohol Sales-
Oriented Retail Use. For exam ole. in the case of an Alcohol Sales-Oriented
Retail Use that is located on a lot with multiole leased soaces. such as a
shoooinq mall. the distance is measured from the nearest ooint of the leased
soace occuoied by an Alcohol Sales-Oriented Retail Use to the nearest
orooertv line or leased soace of any other Alcohol Sales-Oriented Retail Use.
Amend 14-4E-5 by inserting a new subsection G, as follows:
G. Nonconformina Drinkina Establishments and Alcohol Sales-Oriented
Retail Uses
In addition to the other Drovisions in this Section. the following Drovisions apDlv to
nonconforming Drinkinq Establishments and nonconforminq Alcohol Sales-Oriented
Retail Uses.
1. Anv Drinking Establishment. as defined in this Title. that was legallY
established Drior to (effective date of this ordinance) and that is
nonconforminq with reqard to the seDaration requirement between said uses.
as sDecified in this Title. may continue unless one or both of the following
situations occur. If one or both of these conditions occur. then nonconforming
riqhts cease and the use must convert to a conforminq use:
a. The liquor license laDses. is revoked or is discontinued for a Deriod of
one year; or
b. There are changes to the use such that the use no lonqer meets the
definition of Drinkinq Establishment.
2. Any Alcohol Sales-Oriented Retail Use. as defined in this Title. that was leqally
established Drior to the (effective date of this ordinance) that is
nonconforminq with reqard to the seDaration requirement between said uses.
as sDecified in this Title. may continue unless one or both of the followinq
situations occur. If one or both of these conditions occur. then nonconforming
rights cease and the use must convert to a conforming use.
a. The liquor license laDses. is revoked or is discontinued for a Deriod of
one year; or
b. There are chanqes to the use such that the use no lonqer meets the
definition of Alcohol Sales-Oriented Retail Use.
3. For Durooses of this subsection. sidewalk cafes shall not be considered an
eXDansion of a nonconforminq use.
Amend 14-9A, General Definitions by adding and amending the following definitions:
ALCOHOL SALES-ORIENTED USE: See "Retail Uses" as defined in Article 14-4A,
Land Use Classification.
DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT: See "Eatina and Drinkina Establishments" as
defined in Article 14-4A, Land Use Classification.
EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT: See "Eating and Drinking
Establishments" as defined in Article 14-4A, Land Use Classification.
RESTAURANT: An Eating and Driflking Establishment '.vhere the princip\J1
commercial activity is the dispeflsing and consumption of prepared f-ood and
bever\Jges. Depending on the type of restaurant, food \Jnd bever\Jges may be
consumed on or off the premises. (See "Eating and Drinl(ing Establishments"
as defined in Article 14-4A, Land Use Classification.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Karen Howard
Item: REZ09-00002
420th Street, west of Taft
Date: March 5, 2009
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington St
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Contact Person:
Karen Howard
356-5251
Requested Action:
Rezoning from ID-I to 1-1
Purpose:
To allow development of industrial uses
Along 420th Street SE, east of the Scott- Six Industrial
Park and west of Taft Avenue
Location:
Size:
Approximately 100 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Agricultural, Interim Development Industrial (ID-I)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Agricultural - County R
South: Agricultural - County R
East: Agricultural and industrial - County Rand
County Heavy Industrial (MH)
West: Industrial and Agricultural - General Industrial
(1-1) and County R and County Highway
Commercial (CH)
Comprehensive Plan:
Southeast District - Industrial development
File Date:
February 18, 2009
45 Day Limitation Period:
April 4, 2009
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The City of Iowa City recently purchased approximately 174 acres of land east of the Scott-Six
Industrial Park along 420th Street SE with the intention of making it available for future industrial
development. The property was annexed and zoned ID-I in December 2008. We are now
proposing to rezone an approximately 100 acre portion located south of the Iowa Interstate
Railroad to General Industrial (1-1). An 80 foot wide strip of land containing approximately 3.25
acres along the west side of the recently annexed area is owned by E&L Prybil, who have agreed
to include their land in this rezoning. Approximately 78 acres located north of the railroad would
2
remain zoned 10-1.
We have had discussions with immediately adjacent property owners and businesses about the
City's plans to develop an industrial park in this area and the potential for the annexation of their land
to be included in future phases for industrial development.
ANAL YSIS:
The purpose of the 10 zone is to provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural
and other non-urban uses of land may continue until such time as the City is able to provide City
services and urban development may occur. The intent of the proposed 11 zone is to provide the
opportunity for the development of most types of industrial firms.
Since there has already been some serious interest expressed by a manufacturer associated with
the wind power industry, the City is proceeding with plans to reconstruct 420th Street and extend
water and sewer service to this land. The City has hired a consultant to design an industrial
subdivision for this land to maximize access to the rail line and arterial street network. Water service
will be extended when the City improves 420th Street to city standards. Sewer service can be
provided by extending a branch from the Scott Boulevard Trunk Sewer to this area. Improvement of
the road and extension of water and sewer service is scheduled to begin this coming construction
season. With the planned installation of these improvements the property is now appropriate for
rezoning from 10-1 to 1-1.
The proposed 1-1 zone is in compliance with Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with
surrounding land uses. The property is contiguous with existing industrial land, located next to a rail
line and major truck routes to Interstate 80 and Highway 6, which makes it ideally suited for industrial
development. The proposed industrial park is also supported by the Comprehensive Plan's
economic well-being goals and strategies that encourage the diversification of the industrial tax base.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ09-00002, a rezoning of 100 acres of land located along 420th Street,
east of the Scott-Six Industrial Park and west of Taft Avenue from Interim Development Industrial
(10-1) to General Industrial (1-1), be approved.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Photograph
Approved by:
~~
'Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
I
I
-
6
t:
tJ
~
~
~
t:
tJ
N
o
o
o
o
I
0\
o
N
~
~
rJ)
i-l
a;
a;
~
i-l
rJ)
...c::
i-l
o
N
"""
00
"""
['--.
"""
. .
Z
o
I-(
~
U
o
~
~
~
I-(
rJ)
~
t3
~
~
~
~
t3
~
N
o
o
o
o
I
0'\
o
N
~
~
rn
...
CI)
CI)
~
...
rn
..r:l
...
o
N
~
eX)
~
1"'--
~
z
o
~
~
U
o
~
~
f-4
~
rn
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 2, 2009 - 6:00 PM - INFORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik,
Tim Weitzel, Elizabeth Koppes, Josh Busard
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Sarah Walz,
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 ITEMS:
SUB08-00010/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. The 45-day limitation period expires February 5, 2009.
Kuecker began by addressing traffic concerns on Rohret Road. She said that transportation staff has
indicated that Rohret Road is designed to carry a capacity of 13,000-15,000 vehicles per day; current
counts are for between 4,000 and 5,000, well under capacity. Approximately 1,200 more vehicle trips per
day would be generated by the new subdivision.
Transportation staff did say that delays on Rohret Road are often at its intersection with Mormon Trek,
which is slated for improvements and turn-lanes.
Concerns about future improvements to Rohret Road and the possible loss of driveway access, trees,
and property converted to sidewalks were addressed by engineering staff. Kuecker reported that it is
unlikely that sidewalks would be installed or driveway access affected until and unless the area is
annexed by the City and redeveloped. The previously improved portion of Rohret Road required no
additional right-of-way to the south. As a result most of the trees were saved. Engineers believe this is
also possible with the portion of Rohret Road in question.
Lakeshore Drive's alignment was chosen by staff as it was seen as an opportunity to connect it with an
already-existing intersection at Rohret Road and Rohret Court. This is part of an effort to decrease driver
confusion and the increased potential for collision. The subdivision code also requires that intersections
along arterial streets must be at least 600 feet apart. The topography in this particular location is also
deemed to be the most desirable for the road.
The subdivision will not drain to the southern properties along Rohret Road. Rohret Road is a ridgeline
so everything either drains northward or to the west.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 2, 2009 - Informal
Page 2
Sanitary sewer has been extended to the Southwest Estates properties. When the septic systems on
those properties begin to fail the City can require them to hook up to city sewers. Miklo noted that the
easements go to the property line; Public Works is checking to see if it is necessary to bring the sewer
line that far as well. It would be at the developer's cost to get the line to the edge of the property.
Kuecker said it is likely that the drainage under Outlots A and C will be cut during the construction of
Lakeshore. It is up to the developer if they wish to reinstall it underground or keep it above ground.
Kuecker said that not all wetland plantings require burning, and if they do it is usually only once every
three or four years. There is no indication in the wetland plan that there will be prairie involved.
Kuecker said the plan does contain a network of safe and accessible streets on a modified grid plan.
Kuecker said it would be very unlikely that a road would go through the County Poor Farm site or that
Lakeshore would be a straight shot from Melrose to Rohret. The plan shows proposed future trails.
The location of the proposed park has been debated. Staff feels that while it may not be centrally located
to this subdivision it will be for the larger area. Further, it is adjacent to city-owned property and will be a
larger, more useful park.
Lot sizes in the Country Club Estates first and second additions ranged from 8,500 to 18,000 square feet;
Southwest Estates ranges from 10,000 to 20,000; part 2 of Southwest Estates ranges from 1 to 3 acres.
No comment was received from the school district in response to the letter sent asking for their comment
on this development. However, the district did make an announcement that a new elementary school
would be built in the area.
Miklo noted that the construction of the eastern portion of Rohret Road was done within the 33 foot right-
of-way, and he feels confident based on the information he has received that nearly all of the trees on the
southern side of Rohret can be saved.
Miklo said the land use plan in the Southwest District Plan does not show multi-family and townhouses on
the plan, but they are addressed in the text. It says that the area is suitable for single-family but that
townhouses might be possible if designed to be compatible with the neighborhood. Miklo said a couple of
years ago they had conversations with the developer about doing townhouses in that area to allow
clustering of development away from the wetlands and to create more open space, but the configuration
submitted was not compatible with the neighborhood. They were a barracks-like design and did not
increase the open space. Staff suggested ways to make the design more compatible with neighborhood
and then the applicant changed his mind and decided to propose all single-family lots.
The owner of the house at the corner of Rohret Road and Rohret Court had expressed concern about
headlights shining into his living room. Miklo said that Staff implements design techniques to avoid that.
He said that this particular house is fairly well screened and is set farther back from the street than in
most cases, and he is confident the headlights will not be an issue.
Freerks asked what Staff thought about the letter the Commission received which outlined a plan to shift
Rohret Road to the north 17 feet to lessen the impact on houses to the south when improvements were
made. Kuecker said they had received it only a few hours prior but it is being looked into by engineering
and Public Works.
Freerks asked if it was true that the school district had ignored the letter entirely. Miklo said he had an
unrelated meeting with the school district the next day and would touch base on the issue. Freerks said
she felt it was a problem not to have received a response.
Koppes asked when the CIP would be set. Miklo said the City Council will be voting on it in March about
the same time that this rezoning application will be going to them.
Freerks asked if drainage to the west would be problematic for the farmland there. Miklo said that City's
engineers have reviewed the drainage plan and are comfortable with it. Eastham asked where water that
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 2, 2009 - Informal
Page 3
did not go to the retention basin would actually go. Miklo said he did not know that and would have to
check with the engineers.
Eastham said that he has a definite concern about the lack of multi-family/town home units in the area.
Eastham said he was not yet convinced the project met the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Eastham said he had noticed developments on the east side of town that very successfully mixed
townhomes and single family homes, and felt this would be an opportunity for the west side of town to do
the same.
Eastham asked why Lakeshore Drive's placement seemed to be held to a different standard than other
streets connecting to Rohret such as Maier. Miklo replied that the roads were done several years ago
when the standards were different.
Eastham asked about using Slothower as an interconnection between Rohret and Melrose Avenue.
Miklo said that in the long-term Hwy 965 is supposed to serve as an arterial connection between the two,
so a pattern of collector streets is the goal for now.
Eastham asked if Slothower still had to be vacated by the County as a condition for approval. Miklo said
that it did. Greenwood Hektoen pointed out that the County's vacation process was different and
somewhat simpler than the City's, resulting in a clearer title to the property by the property owner.
Eastham asked if the two-driveway issue for those south of Rohret Road would come up again once the
area is annexed. Miklo said they would basically be grandfathered in until the lots were redeveloped and
the arterial street standards were in place.
Weitzel asked about universal design as it pertained to this planning process. Miklo said that the
Commission is being asked to consider a rezoning issue and universal design is more of a building issue.
In a planned development, Miklo said, it could be something on the table.
COUNTY REZONING ITEMS:
Busard left the meeting as he will be abstaining from both of the County Rezoning items.
CZ09-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Michael Furman for a rezoning of 40 acres
from County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R) zone located at 3051 Buchmayer Bend NE.
Walz explained that what has been proposed is five lots and five outlots. The County encourages cluster
development, and this development does not really fit that bill. Walz said the outlots do not seem to serve
any communal purpose for the development, but seem to be the less useful land. The development does
not encourage or allow for easy in-fill in the future. This area is currently under reconsideration for the
County's land use map. The new land use map moves the growth area all the way over to Newport
Road, leaving this area off the drawing board for future development.
Staff does not think this meets the cluster development standard and is not recommending it for that
reason. If it were approved, Staff suggests that all roads meet the county road standards and the
applicant address storm-water detention and the ownership of the outlots. Staff and Commissioners
discussed the way that the outlots did not seem to relate to one another in a coherent or useful way.
Greenwood Hektoen outlined a few of the things addressed in the Fringe Area Agreement, such as:
ensuring orderly growth, economical provision of utilities and services, conservation of natural resources,
etc.
Miklo said that Staff's recommendation is that the County should decide if this is good land use since they
are changing their map.
Greenwood Hektoen said the Commission is simply making a recommendation to the County.
Walz said that Staff does not believe the development meets the standards as they are right now, much
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 2, 2009 - Informal
Page 4
less if the land use map is changed.
Miklo said that the County does take the Commission's recommendations very seriously.
CZ09-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Richard Wonick for a rezoning of 39.80
acres from County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R) zone located east of Buchmayer Bend
NE and west of Hwy 1 NE.
Walz said this is rezoning to a one-acre lot with one large outlot. The County's requirements may have
influenced the odd shape of the outlots. Staff recommends that Buchmayer Bend be brought up to
County requirements. The (R) zoning can be considered where the outlot is at least 50%, and this plan
does not meet that standard. For that reason, Staff recommends denying this application as well. If it
was to be approved, then Buchmayer Bend would have to be brought up to standards, and storm-water
retention would have to be addressed, as would outlot ownership.
Payne asked if Staff knew why the land use map was being changed. Miklo said there could be a
number of factors: the prevention of sprawl, focusing money for road improvements and maintenance,
create more centralization and density.
OTHER:
February 16th meeting is cancelled due to President's Day.
Staff anticipates having a zoning code for bars and liquor stores for City Council to consider sometime in
February.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:54 p.m.
C
o
'iii
III
'E
E
o
o'E
ClO
C (,)
,- Q)
Co:::
o
NQ)~
~gQ
ClftSN
C'1::J
,- C
C Q)
Ct::
.!!<C
Q"
~
(3
ftS
~
.2
C)
z
i=
w
w
:::E
...J
<C
:::E
0:::
o
u.
It) W
..- X X X 0 X X X
-
..-
(/) (') 0 0 (')
E ~ ..-- ..-- N
..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- ..--
lu'~ ""- ""- ""- ""- ""- ""- ""-
LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
I-UJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E III III .:.::
'E ftS .:.:: 8 Q) C Q;
Q) ftS .c .. ~ - .tl
E III - Q) :J ~
III ! ftS .c
(ll :J ftS 0 Q" ftS
Z OJ W U. ~ c::
-.i 0 < u.i :::E ~ ...:
C)
z
i=
w
w
:::E
...J
<C
:::E
0:::
o
u.
~
N X X X X X X X
-
N
N W W W
..- 0 X X 0 X X -
- 0
..-
(/) (') 0 0 (')
E ~ ..-- ..-- N
..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- ..--
lu'~ i?> i?> i?> i?> i?> ""- ""-
LO LO
I-UJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E .:.::
'E III III Q) 'c Q;
ftS .:.:: ~ ~ - .tl
Q) ftS .c .. :J
E III - Q) .c ~
III ! ftS
co :J ftS 0 Q" ftS
Z OJ W U. ~ :E c::
"'":I 0 < u.i ;: ...:
"0
Q)
(/)
::J
U
X
UJ
~
+-'+-,~
C C (/)
Q)Q).o
(/)(/)<(
~.o
~<(II
~II II!:!:!
~><oo
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 5, 2009 - 7:30 PM - FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ann Freerks, Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Wally Plahutnik,
Elizabeth Koppes, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Michelle Payne
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT:
Duane Musser, Larry Jewell, Chester Schulte, Sarah Jewell,
Davis Tokuhisa, Kolleen Shield, Robert Hegeman, Linda Dyer,
Karl Ebert, Jayne Sandler
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission recommended approval of SUB08-00010/REZ08-00011, 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. The approval is subject to the following:
1. The portion of Rohret Road adjacent to lots 1 and 38 being improved to city standards by
the developer, and the extension of Lakeshore Drive being completed in the first phase of
development;
2. The development of the 7th and 8th additions shall not occur until the improvement of the
remainder of Rohret Road is in the CIP and the applicant/owner pays their fair share of the
improvements to Rohret Road. If Rohret Road is not included in the CIP, then ID-RS
zoning is to be retained on the 6th and 8th additions unless the applicant agrees to improve
the portion of Rohret Road adjacent to the subdivision;
3. The southern portion of Slothower Road being vacated such that lots 91-95 and 164-170
do not become double fronting lots. If the southern portion of Slothower Road is not
vacated, no lots west of Desert Lane shall be preliminary platted and an alternate design
shall be created that eliminates the double fronting lots;
4. The Wetland Mitigation Plan being approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
5. A long term maintenance plan for the wetland private open space by the homeowners'
association being included in the legal papers with the final plat;
6. A revision to the preliminary plat to reflect a 33-foot right-of-way on the south side of
Rohret Road.
The vote was 5-1 (Eastham voting no and Payne absent).
The Commission voted 5-0 (Busard abstaining; Payne absent) to recommend denial of CZ09-
00002, an application submitted by Richard Wonick for a rezoning of 39.80 acres from County
Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R) zone located east of Buchmayer Bend NE and west of
Hwy 1 NE. The Commission noted that if the application was approved against their
recommendation then the improvement of Buchmayer Road should be a condition of approval.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2009 - Formal
Page 2
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
DEVELOPMENT/REZONING ITEMS:
SUB08-00010/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.
Kuecker began by addressing concerns and questions brought up by the Commission in the last meeting.
Kuecker addressed traffic on Rohret Road and future improvements to be made to the road. Kuecker
noted that a number of people at the meeting had expressed concerns for the capacity of Rohret Road,
and its ability to handle the traffic that will be generated by 170 more units. Kuecker spoke with
transportation planning staff, and was informed that the improved portion of Rohret Road currently has a
capacity of between 13,000 and 15,000 vehicles per day. Current traffic counts indicate that it is used
daily by 4,000 to 5,000 vehicles. Planning staff estimates an average of seven trips per day, per
household; using that figure, a 170-lot subdivision would generate approximately 1,200 additional vehicle
trips per day. Thus, transportation planners deem the improved portion of Rohret Road as having more
than adequate capacity to absorb the additional traffic from the subdivision.
Kuecker acknowledged that delays are experienced at the intersection of Mormon Trek and Rohret Road,
but stated that the delays are primarily caused by the high volume of traffic on Mormon Trek Boulevard
and the timing of the traffic signals there. Improvements to Mormon Trek are included in the City's CIP
Plan, and it is believed that these planned improvements will help to alleviate congestion problems.
Specifically, the addition of left-turn lanes and an adjustment to traffic signals should help to resolve
current back-up problems.
Kuecker noted that there had been concern expressed by area residents about the consequences future
improvements to Rohret Road might have on their properties. Specifically, residents were concerned
about the effects that the installation of sidewalks, limitations to driveway access, and the possible
removal of mature trees might have on their quality of life. City engineering staff has said that it is not
likely that sidewalks would be installed on the south side of the road when the road is improved. The
engineering staff said that sidewalks would likely not be installed until and unless the area south of Rohret
Road is annexed into the city and redeveloped. At that time, city arterial street standards would go into
effect, and it is not until then that residents would be limited to one access point off of Rohret Road for
their driveways. Contrary to the fears expressed by some residents, the City would not limit them to one
access point per driveway if the improvements to Rohret Road that have been discussed in relation to this
subdivision are made. The property south of Rohret remains under the jurisdiction of the County and
county road regulations would continue to apply.
Engineering staff also indicated that every effort to save trees is made when road improvements are
done, and that residents who lose trees are compensated for them. Kuecker said that the rate of
compensation is worked out when easements or additional right of way required for the road are
negotiated.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2009 - Formal
Page 3
Kuecker reported that engineering staff had said that they believed they could reconstruct Rohret Road
without having to acquire any additional right of way to the south; this was the case for the already
improved portion of Rohret Road, and it worked out well.
Kuecker addressed the alignment of Lakeshore Drive by saying that city staff and the applicant worked
together to design a connection between the already constructed portion of Lakeshore Drive and Rohret
Road, creating an intersection at the already-existing intersection of Rohret Road and Rohret Court. The
goal is to decrease unnecessary intersections on an arterial street by connecting with existing
intersections, thus preventing driver confusion and potential accidents. Additionally, the subdivision code
requires a minimum spacing of 600 feet between intersections along an arterial street. The chosen
location of Lakeshore Drive provides good neighborhood connectivity and appropriate intersection
spacing. The location crosses the wetlands at one of its narrower points and at a somewhat gentle spot
in the topography, making the road easier to construct in that location.
Questions regarding drainage, run-off and sewer, had been asked both by residents and Commissioners
in previous meetings. Kuecker clarified that none of the proposed subdivision drains to the south of
Rohret Road. Kuecker stated that with the drainage systems that will be in place, there may actually be
less drainage for the neighbors once the subdivision is in place than there is now. Kuecker said that
sanitary sewer has been extended to the western-most point. Code requires developers to extend
sanitary sewer to the borders of the subdivision. Public Works has indicated that in this case, if the
developer extended the sewer beyond the edges of the subdivision it could be problematic and may not
function very well.
Kuecker said that there are underground drainage tiles in Outlots A and C which will likely be cut during
the construction of Lakeshore Drive. Kuecker said that whether the drainage tile was reconstructed with
the water flowing above ground or below ground would have no detrimental effect on properties to the
east.
Kuecker said that Country Club Estates needed to be looked at in the context of the larger
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does call for preserving the rural character of the area,
but it does so in the context of promoting orderly growth and developing adjacent to areas that are
already developed. In Staff's opinion, this development meets the requirements of the Comprehensive
Plan in that it is developing next to a developed area, and not creating "leap frog" develpment.
Kuecker noted that the Poor Farm Plan adopted by the Johnson County Board of Supervisors does call
for trails from Willow Creek into the Poor Farm and extending toward the street system of the
development itself. The plan also has a preservation area which indicates that Lakeshore Drive could not
be a straight street toward Melrose Avenue and would have to curve and connect into Slothower Road.
This is the circuitous collector street pattern also indicated in the development's plans.
The park land that has been proposed joins in with property that is already owned by the City. The
Comprehensive Plan does state that once Country Club Estates is developed, opportunities should be
sought out to add to the already-existing city-owned property to create a larger neighborhood park to
serve the area as it continues to develop.
Kuecker reminded Commissioners what the Staff recommendations are. Staff recommends the rezoning
and subdivision with the conditions that were listed in the Staff report, with the exception that the 6th
addition has become the ih addition so condition #3 is no longer necessary. Kuecker outlined the Staff
recommendations:
1. The portion of Rohret Road adjacent to lots 1 and 38 being improved to city standards by the
developer, and the extension of Lakeshore Drive being completed in the first phase of
development;
2. The development of the ih and 8th additions shall not occur until the improvement of the
remainder of Rohret Road is in the CIP and the applicant/owner pays their fair share of the
improvements to Rohret Road. If Rohret Road is not included in the CIP, then ID-RS zoning is to
be retained on the 6th and 8th additions unless the applicant agrees to improve the portion of
Rohret road adjacent to the subdivision.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2009 - Formal
Page 4
3. The southern portion of Slothower Road being vacated such that lots 91-95 and 164-170 (here
Kuecker noted that the lot numbers may have changed) do not become double fronting lots. If
the southern portion of Slothower Road is not vacated, no lots west of Desert Lane shall be
preliminary platted and an alternate design shall be created that eliminates the double fronting
lots;
4. The Wetland Mitigation Plan being approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
5. A long term maintenance plan for the wetland private open space by the homeowners
Association being included in the legal papers with the final plat.
Kuecker offered to answer questions from the Commission.
Koppes asked Kuecker to restate the sanitary sewer issue. Kuecker said the sanitary sewer is being
extended to the easternmost part of the development. Kuecker said there had been some question as to
whether the sanitary sewer should be extended even farther eastt; however, Public Works does not feel
that that is the proper course of action at this time. Koppes asked what would happen in the future if it
became necessary to extend the sewer further east. Kuecker said that Public Works did require
easements to be placed upon the boundary line in case sewer lines do need to be extended beyond the
development in the future. Koppes asked if they would then be extended at taxpayer expense. Miklo
said that it would not. He explained that city code allows the City to require property owners to hook up to
the sanitary sewer system if they live within 300 feet of a sanitary sewer line. Miklo said the City does not
usually require property owners to do so unless their septic system is failing and they seek Board of
Health approval for a new septic system. Miklo said the expense would fall on the property owners that
would be replacing their septic systems.
Freerks asked if the school district had ever responded to the City's request for comment on the
development. Miklo said that it had not, but that a meeting on another matter had taken place with the
superintendent, who had mentioned that most schools in town are at or over capacity and that the district
plans to build a new school on the west side of town. It is hoped that this will relieve pressure on the
current schools in the area.
Eastham asked if the expense of extending sanitary sewer would fall on the new property owners for the
lots west of the development in the event that they changed hands. Miklo said that it would. He
reiterated that while the City can require a property owner to hook up to the sanitary sewer line once it is
within 300 feet of their property, it has been the City's practice not to do so until there is an issue with the
septic system.
Eastham asked about the trail system Kuecker had discussed in her summary. He said that the
illustration provided indicated that the trail would connect to Lakeshore Drive, and he wondered if Staff
was sure that at least five foot sidewalks were present in that area. Miklo said that the existing part of
Lakeshore Drive is a four foot sidewalk, but south of Dunley Court the sidewalks are five feet wide. He
noted that the illustration is conceptual and that depending on how things are platted it may be better to
hook the trail in at Wildcat Road. The illustration is intended simply to convey the idea that the trail will
connect into the subdivision.
There were no further questions from the Commission.
The public hearing was opened at 7:53 p.m.
The applicant was invited to speak first.
Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, addressed the Commission, saying that he had Brian Spear, a family
member of the developer, with him at the meeting. He said that the applicant agreed with the staff report
and the conditions recommended by Staff. He said that he was present to answer any questions the
Commission might have.
Koppes asked if this development would be forming its own homeowner's association, or would be joining
the existing one. Musser said that this was still under discussion. It has not yet been decided if the
wetland area will serve as a boundary between the current homeowner's association and a new one, or if
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2009 - Formal
Page 5
it would all be incorporated into the existing one. He assured the Commission that there would be a
homeowner's association of some kind to manage the wetlands, the exact nature of which will be
determined prior to submitting a final plat.
Larry Jewell, 53 Tucson Place, said that while he did not wish to rehash issues that had been addressed
he would like to address some of the latest information provided to the Commission. '
Jewell said that traffic delays are not only a problem where Rohret Road intersects with Mormon Trek, but
are also a problem at Weber School during school drop off and pick-up times. Jewell suggested that
despite engineer ratings for the road, there are issues that need to be addressed. Jewell said that the
improvements that will be in the CIP do not alleviate these concerns because the traffic builds up on
Rohret Road, not Mormon Trek where the turning lanes are scheduled to be installed. He said that the
addition of 170 homes is sure to exacerbate already existing problems.
Jewell said he remained concerned about the impact of road improvements to Rohret Road on property
owners to the south of the road. He advised serious consideration of the proposal to realign the road to
the north to prevent impact on existing properties. He said that based on the history of the area, it is
assumed that the southern portion of Rohret Road will be annexed and sidewalks will be installed, putting
mature trees to the south at risk in the future.
The placement of Lakeshore Drive remains a concern for residents, given the close proximity and the
rating of the road. Jewell said that there are multiple options for realigning this road based on the
topography, and contended that a less direct route over gentler terrain was possible.
Jewell said residents are concerned with the lack of trails and centralized park space. The trail system is
currently conceptual with no commitment in place. Jewell said that the property for the proposed park is
at the top of the development and will never become centralized because it borders the Poor Farm and
an operational farm, neither of which will be developed. Jewell said that a park space centralized along
the wetlands would be a better option. Jewell disagreed with the view that the topography did not allow
for accessible trails through the wetlands. He said that based on the amount of grading that will be
required and the fact that the wetlands will be re-done, the opportunity to provide ADA accessible trails
will present itself and will add character to the area.
Jewell said that the Comprehensive Plan says that urban density should not occur until public facilities
are in place. Jewell said that the public facilities for the area are currently insufficient, noting overcrowded
schools, a lack of recreation facilities, lack of timely access to emergency vehicles and fire protection,
inadequate streets and a temporary lift station. Jewell said there were concerns about the water pressure
that had not been addressed. He noted that the proposed school was an elementary school and did
nothing to address overcrowding in the west-side junior high and high school. He said that the
Comprehensive Plan clearly states that "the citizens want to preserve the rural character of the far
western and southern portion of the district." Jewell said that while planning staff had indicated that this
requirement had been met, it was his belief that it had not, as he could not see anything in the plan that
met that criteria. He said the fact that property was being developed from east to west was not enough.
He asked Staff what in the proposal met the Comprehensive Plan's call for preserving the rural character
of the area.
Miklo said that when the Comprehensive Plan was written a desire was expressed by the residents not to
have "leap frog" development where pockets of development were scattered throughout the area. Miklo
said that it was believed that the best way to manage growth was to have it occur next to existing growth.
Miklo said that this is how Staff interprets that section of the Plan. He said that if there was a
development planned farther to the west that skipped an area, then that would run counter to the
Comprehensive Plan.
Jewell said he participated in those planning meetings as did a number of other neighbors in the area.
He said that the Staff interpretation did not reflect the intent of the citizens who participated in the
meetings for the Comprehensive Plan. Jewell said that he was aware that the area would be developed,
but that he felt it was important that in doing so, the rural feel of the area was maintained. The density in
the proposed plan does not allow for the rural character of the area to be preserved.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2009 - Formal
Page 6
Jewell read from the Comprehensive Plan: "A transition between existing rural residential zone RR-1
portions of the southwest estates and future low-density single-family residential development to the west
may be accomplished by platting larger RS-5 zoned lots backing onto the existing rural residential lots to
the southwest estates." Jewell said that the plots in the proposed plan are less than a quarter of an acre.
He said there is no attempt at all to put larger lots there. Jewell said that current zoning for that area is
RR-1, questioning the wisdom of jumping down to a quarter-acre sized lot, and whether doing so was in
keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. Jewell suggested taking the larger lot sizes which are currently in
the northern part of the development and placing them adjacent tothe already-existing large-lot
properties.
Jewell noted that the current proposal calls for a reduction of the wetland buffer from 100 feet to 25 feet in
the southern part of the development. Jewell said this does not help to transition the development into
the larger already-existing lots. Jewell shared photographs of his property that showed the results of a
hard rain in 2007. Jewell stated that the running water that resulted in his backyard was one to two feet
deep. Reducing the wetland buffer, Jewell said, will only increase the already existing problem of excess
water and run-off.
Jewell asked if a Level-2 Sensitive Areas Review was done for this property. Miklo said that this review
was part of what the Commission takes part in and passes along to the City Council; the review consists
of the plan that shows the wetland reconstruction and the question of whether to reduce the buffer.
Freerks said that the missing hatch marks on the plat that were discussed at the last meeting were a part
of this review.
Jewell asked who the wetland specialist is that the City has engaged to provide the information for the
review. Miklo replied that it was Liz Maas, an independent contractor.
Chester Schulte, 1812 Rohret Court, said that he wished to go on record as being opposed to this
development. He said the reasons for his opposition were that the lots are too small, and the new
Lakeside Drive intersection will be in his front yard, which he does not care for.
Freerks told Schulte that the Commission had discussed the intersection at their informal meeting and
had been shown photographs of his property. She asked Miklo to describe the findings. Miklo said that
in designing a subdivision one of the things Staff makes sure of is that streets do not intersect in front of
someone's house; streets must either intersect at another intersection or between houses to avoid the
issue of headlights shining onto a property. In this case, Miklo said, the intersection is with another street
and there is a lot of vegetation in the front yard to serve as a buffer for the property. Schulte said that
neither Maier Avenue nor Phoenix was required to have four-way intersections. Miklo said that the
development that resulted in the building of Maier and Phoenix was done several years ago and he was
not familiar with the particulars of that development.
Sarah Jewell, 53 Tucson Place, expressed disappointment that the issue of the wetland area had not
been put to bed after the last time she and her neighbors had come before the Commission. She said
that she had thought that an agreement had been reached to respect the wetlands, and she is very
disappointed in the proposed decrease in wetland buffer. Jewell said the water is not just a problem at
the bottom of their property (the area depicted in the photographs shared by Larry Jewell) but has
demonstrated an ability to raise the water table very high very quickly. Jewell said it only makes sense
that if the buffer zone is decreased and houses are able to encroach more closely behind their home that
there is nowhere for the water to go except onto their property. She said this is her biggest concern with
the development.
Jewell said she has three teenage boys in the high schools in town. She said that due to overcrowding
some of their friends and neighbors are unable to go to the same high school. Jewell said one of her
sons would like to have a foreign exchange student but was told that it would not be allowed because
there is no room in the schools. She said these issues need to be addressed in order to meet the needs
of the residents who are already there.
Freerks asked Staff to address the issue of the buffer and how that works. She said her understanding is
that it is not as though a home will be built 50 feet from the property line if the buffer is reduced. Miklo
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2009 - Formal
Page 7
said that there is a jurisdictional wetland in this area. The sensitive areas code requires a 100-foot buffer
from the edge of the jurisdictional wetland. The applicant is able to request a reduction of that buffer if
certain criteria are met. Miklo said that a few years ago, when this plan was last reviewed, the applicant
was requesting a reduction in buffer which did not meet the criteria for consideration of a reduction. Miklo
said that in addition to the wetland there is a stream through the area. The application was deferred to
allow a redesign that included the full 100-foot buffer to be maintained. Miklo said that because there is
no stream corridor associated with the area in question, and no known endangered species in the area,
the Commission and the Council can consider reducing the buffer to 25 feet in this case. Plahutnik asked
if it was correct that the plan was calling for the wetland area itself plus an additional buffer of 25 feet.
Miklo said that was correct.
Weitzel asked how calculations for storm-water drainage disposal are made, and if that was a factor in
this case. Miklo said that the city's engineers review calculations submitted by the applicant's engineers,
looking at them very closely to ensure that they meet city requirements.
Dave Tokuhisa, 3305 Rohret Road, said he had no doubt that Rohret Road would grow as the area
around it grew. Tokuhisa said that the plan calls for a 100 foot right-of-way, which would be expanded 50
feet in each direction from the center of Rohret Road (although the plat map has it expanding only in the
northern direction). Tokuhisa shared a diagram that showed a 66 foot right-of-way on Rohret Road, south
of which many large, old hardwood trees currently grow. These trees serve a number of purposes,
Tokuhisa said, among which are: beauty and aesthetics, windbreaks, and visual and audio buffer from the
road. Tokuhisa said that if Rohret Road is expanded from the current center line a lot of those trees,
some of which represent 50-60 years of growth, will disappear. These trees cannot be replaced, and no
amount of money can compensate for their loss, Tokuhisa said. Tokuhisa shared a diagram in which the
road's center was shifted 17 feet to the north, keeping the southern edge of the right of way at the same
position it is in now, thus preserving the trees.
Tokuhisa noted that just beyond Rohret Court, Rohret Road begins to make a slight bend to the south.
Traveling southwest from Slothower, Rohret Road makes another slight bend. Tokuhisa said that moving
the centerline an additional 17 feet would not add any additional bends to the road. He said that soil
conditions on the north side would support an expansion of the road.
Tokuhisa said that the current road is a two-lane chip-seal road. Tokuhisa explained that chip-seal is a
fancy name for a gravel road with a lot of "goo" on top to hold everything together. He said that these
roads behave like gravel roads when they get wet or get frost heave. He said that roads in his residential
area are embargoed in the spring so that they do not fall apart under heavy truck traffic. Tokuhisa said
that generally chip-seal roads are replaced with a hard surface. Shifting the centerline, Tokuhisa said, is
a simple matter of local government action (most likely the City Council and the Board of Supervisors
acting together). Tokuhisa argued that shifting the centerline may even reduce costs, in that the need to
compensate property owners for trees would be eliminated. He contended that the easements existed
that would make it possible to shift the centerline without any loss of lots to the developer.
Tokuhisa asked why the developer wished to have a berm along the road. He said that as a parent he
found berms disconcerting as children and dogs can disappear behind berms and make them difficult for
drivers and those supervising them to see. He suggested the elimination of the berm might make an
improvement to the neighborhood.
Freerks said that the Commission had received Tokuhisa's letter and diagram at the informal meeting.
She asked Miklo if he had had a chance to run Tokuhisa's plan by the engineers. Miklo said the
engineers pointed out that when the eastern portion of Rohret Road had been improved it had been done
without acquiring additional right-of-way to the south. Miklo said that the engineers would continue the
same plan of building to the existing 33-foot southern right-of-way for the western portion of Rohret Road.
When Rohret Road was built between Phoenix and Mormon Trek Boulevard, most if not all of the trees
were able to be saved. In terms of Tokuhisa's design, Miklo said, it would be possible to require more
right-of-way or shift the road to take more land from the applicant's property. The difficulty, Miklo said,
would be that the cooperation of an additional property owner would be required to shift the road back at
the end of the stretch described in Tokuhisa's plan.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2009 - Formal
Page 8
Plahutnik asked if Miklo's explanation had cleared things up for Tokuhisa. He explained that the plan is
currently to try to rebuild the road without taking more land from the south. Tokuhisa said that it would be
nice to get that in writing. Miklo said that the current plat does show the right-of-way as being 100 feet
although the applicant does not have control over the southern portion. Miklo said that he did not believe
the City would enter into an agreement stating that it would never acquire additional right-of-way because
no one knows what the future will hold. Miklo said that it would be possible to require the preliminary plat
to show the southern right-of-way at 33-feet rather than the 50-feet on the current drawings prior to the
matter going before the City Council. Koppes pointed out that the intention to keep the southern right-of-
way at 33 feet would also be reflected in the minutes. Tokuhisa asked if it would be possible to require an
additional seven to ten feet north of Rohret to accommodate future growth, such as turn lanes. Miklo
said that this is an area where intense growth farther to the west is not anticipated because it is at the
edge of where the city can provide sanitary sewer.
Eastham asked if it was the case that maintaining a 33 foot right-of-way on the southern side of Rohret
Road would not jeopardize any of the trees in question. Miklo said that he could not say that for a fact
because the design for the Rohret Road improvements is not actually done, and it is possible that
temporary construction easements may be required. Miklo said that he can only relay that farther to the
east it was not necessary to have additional right of way or to remove large numbers of trees. Miklo
suggested a modification to the preliminary plat reflecting a 33 foot right-of-way to the south and a 50 foot
right-of-way to the north.
Eastham said that he did not see any advantage at all of requiring an additional 17 foot right-of-way to the
north if the center line of the road is not being moved. Miklo said an eight foot walkway will be put in
which requires additional right-of-way. Additionally, more room would be provided for street trees on the
north side.
Kolleen Shield, 3335 Rohret Road, said that her property would be facing an outlet from the subdivision.
She said she did not know exactly where the outlet would be placed, but that it would definitely be in her
front yard. She said that it was possible that as many as 400 cars per day could be coming straight
toward their home. Shield said that there are eight to ten white pine trees that her family planted 20 years
ago that would fall within that 33 foot of right-of-way, giving them no buffer for traffic, lights, sound, or
wind. Shield said that she is opposed to the development because they purchased their property
because of its rural feel. She has always enjoyed living on the edge of the city in a rural setting, and a
development of this intensity will negatively impact the rural character of her property.
Robert Hegeman, 44 Tucson Place, said he would like to address the traffic capacity of Rohret Road. He
acknowledged that Rohret Road probably does have the traffic capacity stated by the engineers, but he
said that the capacity was not the problem. The problem, Hegeman said, is the connections between
Rohret Road and Melrose Avenue. Any new grade school going in on the west side is irrelevant to what
is going on Hegeman said. It is the traffic to West High School back and forth that creates issues.
Hegeman said that there is no place between James Avenue and Mormon Trek to get through. Hegeman
said there is simply no planning for this area and that important connection. He suspects that whether
there is a curve in lakeshore Drive or not, it will by default become a cut-through from Rohret Road to
Mormon Trek.
Hegeman next addressed drainage issues. He said that there is drainage tile that extends from the face
of the dam on his property for an extended length into the developer's property. Hegeman said that the
city planners seem to dismiss this tile as if what is done with it does not matter. Hegeman contended that
what is done with the tile matters a great deal with respect to water back-up on his property. Hegeman
said if the drainage tile runs the full extent of the land it has a drop of 15-20 feet which has a tremendous
suction capacity. If instead the water goes to lakeshore Drive and stops, that water will just pool back
up. That situation creates a friction between Hegeman and the developer as to whether or not an implied
easement exists. Hegeman said that this question needs to be answered more fully.
Busard asked for Staff clarification as to whether or not lakeshore Drive will go through the County Poor
Farm. Hegeman said that his understanding was that near the Poor Farm, lakeshore would curve into
Slothower; the curve, theoretically, would discourage through-traffic. Hegeman said that he did not
believe this would be enough to prevent cut-through traffic because there is tremendous pressure for
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2009 - Formal
Page 9
traffic through that area. Miklo said there will probably be an easUwest street that Lakeshore will''T'' into
with Slothower or another road then connecting to Melrose. Miklo said that there will not be a direct, '
straight-line connection between Melrose and Rohret Road, and that he suspected there would be an
intersection on the connector street where a full stop would be required. Weitzel asked if it was
discussed in the informal meeting that an arterial will later be built in the area to connect Melrose and
Rohret. Miklo said that Highway 965, approximately a half-mile to the west of Slothower, was intended to
be developed as the arterial.
Freerks asked Miklo if he could address the drainage-way issues Hegeman had brought up. Miklo said
that he really could not other than to reiterate that the developer would find it acceptable if the water from
the drainage way flowed above ground. Hegeman said that if the drainpipe was discontinued at
Lakeshore Drive there would not be enough drop for his existing tile to continue to function, placing him in
a situation where the water either backs up or the drain tile continues to drain down. Hegeman said that
his lot was sold to him by the original owner and he had an easement through that property. Hegeman
said the issue was important and that the question must be asked as to how Lakeshore Drive can be built
over someone else's implied easement.
Linda Dyer, 4115 Rohret Road, said that at the time that the eastern part of Rohret Road was improved
she lost no land from her property, but she did lose a big stand of white pine trees that were damaged
and died as a result of the construction.
Dyer said the speed limit past her house is supposed to be 35 miles per hour. She said that there were
many cars and trucks driving the road that travel at least 60 miles per hour. She said that enforcement of
speed limits is a definite issue.
Freerks asked Greenwood Hektoen for information on how the City deals with damaged trees and
whether or not there is a time limit for filing claims. Freerks asked Dyer if she had contacted the City.
Dyer said that she had, but that there was no way to actually prove the damage was a result of the
construction. She said that she was told by tree experts that the roots were probably severed when the
road was stamped flat with heavy machinery.
Koppes asked Dyer if she had talked to the police department about the speeding issue. Dyer said that
she had called many times. She said the police tend to patrol from the Weber School parking lot, and do
not tend to patrol farther west. Freerks said that it was possible for neighborhoods to get speed gauge
signs to help raise awareness. Dyer said that this was near the school sometimes. She said that the
police tended not to come out during the rush hours when the violations were the worst. Freerks
acknowledged that speed is an issue everywhere.
Karl Ebert, 3357 Rohret Road, said that he and his wife co-own with his sister a 10-acre parcel of land
just past Rohret Court. He said that he intended to build on his lot within the next year. Ebert said that
there is no transition between the large lots on the southern portion of Rohret Road and the very small
lots in the proposed development. He said that he is not opposed to urban sprawl or development, and
was an Iowa City realtor for many years. He said that development is necessary, but that it needs to be
done in such a way that the aesthetics of the area are maintained.
Ebert said that his property has 300-400 feet of frontage that is lined with evergreen trees. He said that
his property would suffer more tree loss than probably any other along the road. If there was only a 15
foot encroachment, Ebert said, he would still lose 20-40 trees. The idea of moving the road to the north
makes more sense to him. He said that he realized it cuts into the builder's profits, but he believes that
the builder and Commission should take into consideration the large impact the development will have on
landowners to the south. He said minimizing the impact on the south side of Rohret Road was only fair.
Ebert said he was surprised at the numbers given for Rohret Road's traffic capacity. He said they simply
do not make sense. The traffic is a mess, Ebert said, and subject to frequent back-ups. Ebert said there
were traffic issues in the area of Weber school at three different times during the day: 8 AM, 3 PM, and
5PM. He suggested a more in-depth study of the situation is warranted in order to get a more realistic
sense of what is going on.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2009 - Formal
Page 10
Ebert said that the high school kids that would be living in the new development would likely go to City
High. Koppes pointed out that the Planning and Zoning Commission had no jurisdiction over the school
district's enrollment policies. Ebert said that he understood that, but that it was important to note that
those kids would be traveling on Rohret Road, adding even more cars to the road in the morning hours.
Freerks asked Staff if it was seven car trips per day that was used to calculate road use. Kuecker
confirmed that seven trips per single family household is the figure used in traffic estimations. Freerks
asked what time of day the traffic counts are done. Kuecker said that the counts are generally done all
day long for several days at a time, and then an average is taken. Miklo said that the seven trips per day
estimate is used city-wide for residential neighborhoods and is not particular to this development.
Jayne Sandler, 41 Tucson Place, said that she believes change is inevitable and that it is important for
this area to grow. At the same time, she thinks the integrity of what already exists should be preserved
and expanded upon. Sandler said that there needs to be a transition between the development and the
larger properties. At the time that this property was rezoned, the one-acre lot RR-1 designation was
found to be the one that provided the most transition for the area from urban to rural. Sandler said that
going from a one-acre lot zone to lots with a quarter of an acre was too abrupt.
Sandler said that a stream develops at the base of her property on a regular basis in the spring and
summer after heavy rains. She said that the water does back up, and that they have a sump pump
because they have had water issues during their time at that home. Sandler said that if the buffer is to be
25 feet plus the wetlands, she would like to know what the width of the wetlands is because she is not
convinced that water issues will not be exacerbated by the current plan.
The infrastructure to the area has not been developed enough to sustain this new development, Sandler
said. Sandler said that the temporary lift station and the lack of timely fire protection (the response time
for their area is currently over eight minutes) should be factors for consideration. Sandler said that water
service for the area is not adequate to support the development, though this is a requirement that is listed
in the Comprehensive Plan. Sandler said that she agrees with other residents' comments regarding the
improvements to Rohret Road and Mormon Trek. She said the timelines for these improvements are
important given the fact that there are already traffic problems now.
Sandler said that while she is aware that the City does not have jurisdiction over school development, she
thinks it should be pointed out that a new elementary in the Camp Cardinal area will not relieve pressure
at Weber School if 170 families are then moved in. Overcrowding at West High and Northwest Junior
High will not be resolved by a new elementary school. She would like to know the timelines for this project
as well.
Sandler said that one of her concerns is that an extended Lakeshore Drive may end up underwater just
as Shannon Drive is in the same area in the Walden Hills development. She thinks the topography of that
area needs to be reviewed.
Freerks asked Staff what the width of the wetlands is in the area Sandler was talking about. Miklo replied
that it is approximately 25 feet, and the buffer is an additional 25 feet for a total of 50 feet.
Plahutnik asked how big an area of relatively undisturbed wetlands currently existed behind the houses
being discussed. Staff did not have the exact measurement.
Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, said that the yards along the east side of Lakeshore Drive currently
receive a large amount of run-off from the cornfield behind them. Musser said putting in a street curb and
gutter will catch the water and run it off so that it does not flood their yards. Musser said that water from
the front half of the houses will come out into the street and be collected by the storm-sewer system and
the water retention basin. The grass from the yards will also help to decrease the concentration of run-off
from a rain event. He said this will also occur on the west side along the Slothower Road right-of-way.
Musser said that the developer is very concerned about the tile system coming out of the adjacent
property owner's pond. He said they intend to deal with the issue on their construction plans, and the
contractor will be dealing with any tiles that are encountered or cut for the benefit of both the neighbor
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2009 - Formal
Page 11
and the developer. Musser said he was sure that there were state laws that covered such issues and
that they would be careful in addressing the matter.
Muss~r said that the lift station was not, in fact, temporary, but permanent. He said it was very similar to
those In areas of town that do not directly gravity flow into the sanitary sewer system, such as Windsor
Ridge. He said the lift station is built to city standards, built to the appropriate size and capacity, and is
actually a public improvement that will be conveyed to the city for ownership and maintenance.
Eastham asked if Musser had any comments about the city water supply. Musser replied that they have
not looked into that but it is his belief that when the two dead ends at Rohret Road and the existing
Country Club second addition are connected the flow may actually be increased through that area.
Musser said that if the water department is concerned they could go out and do some flow tests, but that
he has not seen any issues.
Weitzel asked if Musser could speak to the reasoning and professional design standards behind the lot
sizes. Musser said the reasoning depended on which lots were being discussed. Musser said he
believed Staff had done a very good job of making sure Lakeshore Drive is designed where it is. He said
that the developer is trying to hit different price points in the market. The lots to the south of the wetlands
are a bit narrower and are a different price point whereas some of the lots that back up to the open space
and the park are a little bit larger. Musser said that there was an attempt made to stagger the lot sizes
with the phasing of the project.
Freerks asked Musser what he thought about Tokuhisa's proposal to move the road to the north slightly.
Musser replied that giving up more than a few feet would result in possibly losing a row of lots. Musser
said the thing to consider is the design standards for Rohret, and how quick and sharp the turns might be.
Musser said that there would be some potential there; but that how the road reconnected with the existing
pavement and how that impacted the county property on the other side of Slothower would have to be
examined. Musser said he had not discussed the matter with his client but that he imagined the client
might expect compensation for an extra ten feet. Miklo said that the right-of-way issues could be a
condition of the zoning if the Commission felt there was a public purpose to do so and therefore the City
would not have to compensate the developer. Freerks said she was thinking about the concerns
expressed by residents for their trees and the rural character of the neighborhood.
Larry Jewell, 53 Tucson Place, said that he did not agree with Musser's assertion that the development
would actually decrease the water flow. Jewell said that growing corn absorbs a ton of water and that
replacing it with properties covered in bluegrass sod will actually result in sheet run-off, making the
problem worse.
Jewell also wished to mention that there is still a known unresolved issue that has a direct impact on
existing neighborhoods and will also impact the development. He said that this issue is the strong odor of
methane gas that is coming from the City Landfill. Jewell said the landfill is aware of the problem and is
working to establish its cause, but there is a long-term timeframe expected before resolution is found.
Jewell said it would be irresponsible to approve any new development that is going to be closer to the
landfill when there is a known unresolved issue that could increase liability for the City and taxpayers.
Jewell said that it was important to understand that the residents present are not opposed to
development, and know that it is going to happen. Jewell said he would suggest that the residents
actually embrace change because they have been present throughout these discussions and many were
there at the creation of the Southwest District Plan. Jewell said the residents have offered to sit down
with the developer and the staff to try to come up with a way to make development work. Jewell said
there are examples of this happening in the community. Jewell cited the case of a developer at a recent
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting talking about how he had worked with neighbors and
neighborhoods in a positive way. Jewell said that this development does not represent positive change,
but more of the same: maximizing the number of lots that can be squeezed out of a property.
Jewell said neighbors strongly urge that the Commission deny the request for rezoning and the
development of the property. Jewell said that based on the issues they had brought up, the neighbors
feel that any further requests to develop the property should come with a requirement for the developer
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2009 - Formal
Page 12
and the planning staff to sit down with the neighbors. Jewell said that while the neighbors accept.t~at
development will eventually happen, they want to participate in it, have a say in it, and use the gUiding
principles of the Comprehensive Plan.
The public hearing was closed at 9:02 p.m.
Freerks noted that the limitation period is expiring so the matter would need to come to a vote that
evening. She asked for a motion so that the Commission could open discussion.
Plahutnik motioned to approve SUB08-0001 O/REZ08-00011 subject to recommendations outlined
by Staff and a reflection in the preliminary plat showing the 33 foot right-of-way on the south side
of Rohret Road.
Weitzel seconded the motion.
Eastham said that he begins always with the Comprehensive Plan when considering applications. The
Comprehensive Plan Housing Goals and Strategies states that "a well planned neighborhood welcomes
all people and includes both owner-occupied and rentals, single-family and multi-family housing." The
Plan goes on to state that "the City should adopt policies that encourage the creation of neighborhoods
and new developments" which include single and multi-family units. The goals laid out in the
Comprehensive Plan's Housing section include providing "housing opportunities for households of all
sizes, incomes, ages and special needs; review zoning of undeveloped areas to plan for the development
of sustainable and livable neighborhoods." Eastham said that two of the strategies included in the plan
to accomplish those goals are: 1) encourage smaller owner-occupied homes on smaller lots, and 2)
developing smaller lots with more common open space. The Southwest District Plan for the Weber sub-
area states that "the portion of the Country Club Estates property adjacent to Rohret Road may be
suitable for clusters of medium-density residential uses such as townhouses or condominiums."
Eastham said he did some measurements for the Weber sub-area which is currently zoned for residential,
and he defined the sub-area as being the area north of Rohret Road, south of the County Poor Farm,
west of Highway 21S, and east of Slothower, and including the area in the present rezoning application.
Eastham said that by his estimate this area includes some 300 acres of land. With the current and the
requested zoning there would be 600 RS-5 single-family detached lots, 11 RS-1 single-family detached
lots, and 12 ODPH-S townhouses on the 300 acres. Eastham said this would make 97% of the total lots
single-family detached houses. Eastham said this seemed to be an extravagant use of land to him.
Eastham said he believed there was an opportunity present to obtain some smaller-lot development with
townhouses and or smaller single-family homes on the portion of this application that is adjacent to
Rohret Road. Eastham said that this would mildly increase the number of total lots, and could be done in
such a way that the total acreage covered by houses was actually reduced. Eastham said doing this
would ultimately alleviate some of the neighbors' concerns. He said that lots to the east of the present
alignment of Lakeshore Drive could be eliminated with this plan, and the wetlands could remain intact.
Eastham said he has a hard time understanding how he can approve this proposed rezoning considering
the Comprehensive Plan and the Weber sub-area plan in its entirety. He has concerns regarding the
alignment of Rohret Road, the phasing of this development, the requirement to have City Council approve
the improvements to Rohret Road with the next CIP plan, the County vacating Slothower's right-of-way,
and the Corps of Engineers approval of the wetland mitigation. Eastham said these were pretty
significant requirements that needed to be met prior to the project going forward. Eastham said that he
believed the school district has addressed the school capacity issues to the best of their ability. Eastham
said he did not understand how he as a Planning and Zoning Commissioner could help the school district
resolve the difficulties of dividing students up between the west and east sides of town by looking at this
single development. Eastham said he supposed the Commission could look at prohibiting anymore
residential development on the west side of town, but he did not think that would be very attractive to
most people. Eastham said that for all of these reasons he did not support this application.
Weitzel said that one of the primary questions is whether the land use meets the requirements of the
Comprehensive Plan. Weitzel said there seems to be a bit of a disagreement about the intent that came
out of the neighborhood meetings: was it to keep large lots so that they blend in with the rural area, or
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2009 - Formal
Page 13
was it to maximize the limited land resources available? Weitzel said he was going back to what the
public good is. He said that he did not see how the Commission could deny this much potential growth.
Weitzel agreed with Eastham that seeing some denser development would be good, but he is also
mindful that there are landscape issues and transportation issues at play. Weitzel said that a balance is
being struck with this development as there are different lot sizes, with the developer trying to predict the
market. Weitzel said that a lot of consideration has been built into this plan.
Weitzel said that there were speed and traffic issues in his neighborhood as well. He said that issues of
run-off would be more readily resolvable by individuals than by a Commission or public policy direction.
Weitzel said he would be voting in favor of the application.
Plahutnik said he was very much in agreement with Eastham regarding the Commission's commitment to
mixed housing. However, Plahutnik said, he is just a clerk in a grocery store so he cannot redesign a
subdivision for the developer; he has to look at what has been put before him and make a decision based
on that.
Plahutnik said that while the Comprehensive Plan speaks to preserving the rural nature of the area, the
large development of Southwest Estates pretty much put an end to the area's rural character. Plahutnik
said that when a large subdivision is put in the middle of a rural area, the rural nature of the area is
destroyed, regardless of whether the lots are an acre or two. The Comprehensive Plan clearly states
that development should progress in an orderly manner and be attached to previous development.
Plahutnik said this application fits that bill. Plahutnik said that his sympathies are with the people on the
south side of Rohret. He said that while they bought land in a rural area under county jurisdiction, they
are greatly affected by the avarice of Iowa City developers who will develop and maximize their profits to
the best of their ability. Plahutnik said that while the developer in this case has done that, he has also
fulfilled the stipulations of the zoning code, and shown a willingness to follow the additional
recommendations of Staff.
Plahutnik said that while the landfill issue is unfortunate, it is really simply a matter of "concern trolling:"
bringing up an issue that is not really a concern, but helps to make a pOint.
Regarding traffic, Plahutnik said that people will drive on roads. He noted that even high school students
will drive on roads. He added that people will also like to live in desirable areas, which often makes it
take longer to get to work. He said these are the difficulties of development.
Plahutnik said that he hopes that the language of the city engineers is followed through in their
development of Rohret Road. Plahutnik urged the public to keep copies of the meeting minutes where
the Commission and Staff have reported that the city engineer's have stated that they should be able to
improve Rohret Road with only a 33 foot right-of-way to the south. Plahutnik said the Commission could
not bind the City into a contract stating that, but that neighbors could follow-up on their own behalves.
Plahutnik said that the most solid argument against this application is the wetlands. He said he had to
believe in the good faith of the engineers who have done the work on this. He said that, unfortunately,
there is an entire body of law regarding run-off and water rights. Plahutnik said that hopefully these
issues can be resolved prior to any houses being built.
In the big picture, Plahutnik said, he definitely has some concerns. He loves that part of town for its rural
nature and does not want to see it further disturbed. However, the landowner has the right to develop the
property, so he will be supporting the application.
Busard said that he agreed with Plahutnik and Weitzel that the development was in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. Busard said there really is no rural character out in that area. He said there are a
few large lots and then right next to them is a typical subdivision. Busard said he sympathizes with the
landowners in the area, but that they do live either within the city of Iowa City or adjacent to it, so they
may need to seek out other places in the county to find the rural character they desire.
Busard said that he does not fully endorse this type of development and would like to see more clustering
and more common open space. He believes that if the applicant would use more clustering in the design
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2009 - Formal
Page 14
the drainage problems would probably take care of themselves, help to preserve some rural character
and address some concerns of neighbors.
Busard said that he believed the developer has addressed staff concerns to the best of his ability, and
that he will be supporting the application.
Koppes said that she was on the Commission the last time this issue came up. Koppes thanked the
developer for working with Staff this time around to resolve the buffers around the wetlands; she
remembers long discussions on that topic.
Koppes said that unfortunately schools are an issue everywhere. Koppes said her daughter went to an
east-side school with over 500 kids, and that traffic in and out of there was not fun either. Koppes said
that schools are not an issue the Commission can do much about. Koppes said that her daughter has
friends that have actually chosen to go to the high school on the side of town opposite from where they
are living. Koppes said schools are an interesting problem, and not one for which she has a solution.
Koppes said that having a development package with mixed-sized lots is good and will get different
groups of people to come and live in the area. Koppes said that while everyone would probably like to
live on a large one-acre lot, people also understand that not everyone can or should.
Koppes said she would support this application.
Freerks said there has been a lot of good discussion and conversation and that it is important to note the
large amount of public participation that has taken place in this process. Freerks said that the
Commission has heard the questions and comments of neighbors and really has tried to follow-through
on their concerns. They have tried to decide if this is the best thing to do with this piece of land. Freerks
said she thought it probably could be done a little better, and that she would like to see more clustering,
smaller lots, and larger green spaces and open areas. Freerks said she believes the developer has
probably done research and feels that the current plan is one they can sell. It is, ultimately, the
developer's land.
Freerks said she has to go back to the Comprehensive Plan and she does think this development fits with
it. Freerks said that she thinks it is good for the neighbors to look ahead and not wait until people are
coming with equipment to express their concerns about the expansion of the road. Freerks advised
residents to go to the City Council and make Council aware of their concerns. Freerks acknowledged that
a big part of the rural character lies in the trees and the environment they create. She said she would like
to see that maintained and not done away with on behalf of sidewalks. Freerks cautioned the,
nonetheless, as development moves out, the City has to make sure that amenities are extended as well.
Freerks said that the lots are fairly large for RS-5, even though they may not seem like it to the owners of
larger properties.
Freerks said she wished the Commission could have better conversation with the school district, and that
she understands residents' concerns on that front.
Freerks said she had focused a lot on concerns she had about drainage issues and that she has to
believe that the engineers have done their work here. She hopes that it is true that the development will
truly ease the drainage problems.
Freerks said she intended to vote in favor of the application. She urged neighbors to go before the City
Council to share their concerns if they have not been alleviated.
A vote was taken and the application was approved on a 5-1 vote (Eastham voting no; Payne
absent).
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2009 - Formal
Page 15
COUNTY REZONING ITEMS:
CZ09-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Michael Furman for a rezoning of 40 acres
from County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R) zone located at 3051 Buchmayer Bend NE.
Walz informed the Commission that the applicant had requested a deferral until the March 5, 2009
meeting.
Busard said he would be abstaining from both county rezoning items on the agenda because he works for
county zoning in his professional capacity. Busard then left the meeting.
Weitzel moved to defer application CZ09-00002 until the March 5, 2009 meeting.
Koppes seconded.
The motion carried 5-0 (Busard abstaining; Payne absent).
CZ09-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Richard Wonick for a rezoning of 39.80
acres from County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R) zone located east of Buchmayer Bend
NE and west of Hwy 1 NE.
Walz noted that she had submitted an updated concept plan to the Commission indicating 39.80 acres to
be rezoned, rather than the 39.92 acres listed on the agenda.
Walz said she would not go into the plan in detail. She noted that it was for 19 lots a little over an acre
each in size. Walz said that this area is in the area covered by the Fringe Area Agreement which:
discourages development areas that conflict with the Johnson County land-use plan; protects public
health by requiring developers to meet or exceed minimum standards for water and waste systems; and
encourages cluster development that preserves large tracts of open space including environmentally
sensitive and farmland compact development that requires less infrastructure.
Walz noted that there is quite a bit of development to the east of Highway 1 in this area, but not much
development between Highway 1 and Newport Road. Walz said that a new land use map is being
proposed by the County that takes Buchmayer Bend out of the development zone.
Walz said that the regulations in the Fringe Area Agreement also indicate that R zoning will be considered
if the submitted concept plan shows a minimum of 50% of the property designated as open space or
agriculture. Walz said this concept plan does not show that, and, as a result, Staff is not recommending
approval. Walz said that the property is currently mostly an agricultural use, and rezoning it appears
inconsistent both with the proposed map change and the County's stated goal of preserving agricultural
land.
Walz said that because this property is located outside of the Iowa City growth boundary it is most
appropriate for the County to determine if the proposed zoning is consistent with County land use policy.
Walz said that if the Commission choses to recommend rezoning, Staff would recommend that
Buchmayer Bend be improved to meet the County Road Performance Standards and that the applicant
address storm-water retention, as well as ownership and management of the outlot. Miklo pointed out
that the outlot is just under the required 50% in this case.
The public hearing was opened at 9:39 p.m.
Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, represented the applicant. Musser said that the current land use plan
for the county does have this area in phase one of the growth area; this is the plan from which the
applicant is working. Musser said that while there is a plan under consideration, MMS Consultants has
several clients that are very interested in this plan change and who do not want to see significant changes
to the current plan.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2009 - Formal
Page 16
Musser said there are 18 proposed lots and an out-lot. The County does consider the green space in the
private street right-of-way between the lot-line and the pavement surface as calculable green space.
Taking that into account, the 50% threshold is met. Musser said that the applicant will also have to meet
the 50% when the project goes to the platting stage with the County. Musser said that while they may
appear to be splitting hairs, they have every intention of meeting the 50% requirement.
Musser said the applicant is aware of the need for improvements to Buchmayer Bend and is working on a
three-way agreement with adjacent property owners to improve Buchmayer Bend.
Musser noted that the cluster design was difficult to do in this case based on state regulations governing
community well systems and septic systems.
Miklo pointed out that regardless of the County's interpretation of what consists of open space, the Fringe
Area Agreement states that the outlot shall be a minimum of 50% of the subdivision.
The public hearing was closed at 9:39 p.m.
Plahutnik motioned to recommend that the County deny rezoning for application CZ09-00002.
Eastham seconded.
Plahutnik said that not even taking into account that the County may be in the process of changing their
allowable area for development, the Commission can recommend denial based on the fact that the out-lot
is not 50% of the land. He said that for him, the decision to deny the application is easy.
Koppes said that she did not think the Commission knew for sure what the County would do with its land
use map so she is not comfortable using that for a consideration. Plahutnik said that that is why he said
he was not taking it into account.
Koppes asked Miklo for clarification on the 50% issue. Miklo said that the Fringe Area Agreement clearly
states that the City will consider its zoning in this area if a minimum of 50% of the subdivision area is in an
outlot. Miklo said that in this case, 50% of the subdivision may be green space, but it is not in an outlot.
Koppes asked what the percentage was for the outlot. Walz said that the outlot is 47% currently. Koppes
said that she could recommend not approving the application for that reason, but did not want to put
potential changes to the land use map in her reasoning. Koppes said she does believe Buchmayer Bend
needs improvement. Several Commissioners indicated agreement with that sentiment. Koppes said she
agrees with the motion.
Miklo asked for clarification from the Commission, asking if they were saying that the application should
be denied, but if it was approved then improvements to Buchmayer Bend should be a condition of
approval. The Commission indicated that this was the case.
Freerks asked for a vote.
The motion to deny the rezoning carried 5-0 (Busard abstaining; Payne absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: January 13 & January 15.2009:
Eastham motioned to accept the minutes.
Koppes seconded.
The minutes were approved on a vote of 6-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2009 - Formal
Page 17
OTHER:
Freerks noted that it was time to start thinking about the election of officers.
Miklo passed around a booklet explaining that the City of Iowa City received an award from the federal
APA for smart growth based on the Senior Center and its efforts to improve active aging and the new
subdivision codes and its encouragement of more walk-able, compact neighborhoods. This is a national
award that will be presented at the February 10th City Council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Eastham motioned to adjourn.
Koppes seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote at 9:45 p.m.
c
o
'0
.le
E
E
o
o'E
ClO
c CJ
.- CD
So::
NCD~
oesgo
ClC'ClN
c"C
.- C
C CD
c:::
.!!<c
Q.
.a-
U
C'Cl
~
.2
~ >< >< >< >< w >< ><
N <5
It) w
.... >< >< >< <5 >< >< ><
-
....
rJl
E ~ ..... ..... ('f) N 0 0 ('f)
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
ti3.~ - - - - - - -
l.C) l.C) l.C) l.C) l.C) l.C) l.C)
I-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'E E In In CD ~ Q;
C'Cl ~ ~ c
CD C'Cl .c ... ~ ... J::I
E In ... CD := 'Q)
In ~ C'Cl .c
<ll := C'Cl 0 Q. C'Cl ;:
z al w LL ~ a::
-; 0 rei. u.i :::IE ;: ....:
C)
z
i=
w
w
:::IE
..J
<C
:::IE
0::
o
LL
N >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
N
N W W W
.... <5 >< >< - >< >< <5
- 0
....
rJl
E ~ ..... ..... ('f) N 0 0 ('f)
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
ti3.~ - - - - - - -
l.C) l.C) l.C) l.C) l.C) l.C) l.C)
I-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'E E In In ~ Q;
C'Cl ~ ~ CD C
Q) C'Cl .c ... ~ ... J::I
CD :=
E In ... .c ~
In ~ C'Cl
ro := C'Cl 0 Q. C'Cl
Z al w LL ~ a::
.., 0 rei. u.i :::IE ~ ....:
C)
z
i=
w
w
:::IE
..J
<C
:::IE
0::
o
LL
~
"C
Q)
rJl
:::l
U
><
W
:;::,
+-'+-,~
c:: c:: rJl
Q)Q)..o
rJlrJl<(
~..o
ll.<(1I
~II II ~
~><oo