Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-20-2009 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, August 20, 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. Rezoning Item 1. REZ09-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Company for a rezoning from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately 4.29 acres of property located on Walden Road, west of Mormon Trek Blvd. (The applicant has requested that this item be deferred to the September 3 meeting.) (45-day limitation period: Waived) 2. REZ09-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Iowa Wireless Services, LLC for a text amendment to allow communication towers in Interim Development Residential zones. (45 day limitation period: September 7, 2009) 3. REZ09-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by The Breese Co., LLC for a rezoning from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 3,450 square feet of property located at 611 Southgate Avenue. (45 day limitation period: September 13, 2009) D. Subdivision Item SUB09-00006 / SUB09-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Johnson County Extension Service for a preliminary and final plat of Johnson County Extension Service, a 1-lot, 1.64 acre subdivision located at 4265 Oak Crest Hill Road. (45 day limitation period: September 11, 2009) E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: July 13 and July 16, 2009 F. Other G. Adjournment Upcominst Plannins~ 8~ Zoning Commission Meetings Informal Au ust 31 Se tember 14 Se tember 28 October 12 Formal Se tember 3 Se tember 17 October 1 October 15 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: August 14, 2009 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner RE: Request to defer REZ09-00003 (Walden Woods, Part 7, Lot 79 The applicant for REZ09-00003, Southgate Development, has requested a deferral of this item. They are still working out the details of an agreement with the Walden Court Homeowners Association with regard to storm water management. The applicant hopes to have an agreement in place prior to your September 3 meeting. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: August 14, 2009 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner RE: Request to amend the zoning code to allow communications towers in Interim Development Residential Zones (ID-RS & ID-RM) Iowa Wireless Services, LLC, has submitted an application requesting a text amendment to the zoning code to allow communication towers in the Interim Development Residential Zones (ID-RS & ID-RM). Their letter and supporting documentation are attached. In summary, they argue that demand for cell phone service has grown dramatically over the last several years, particularly in residential areas, since so many people have abandoned their landlines and rely solely on cell phones for service. The applicant has provided a list of cities in Iowa that allow communication towers in zones similar to Iowa City's interim development zones. The purpose of the interim development zones is to provide for areas of managed growth where agricultural and other non-urban uses of land may continue until the City is able to provide City services and urban development can occur. The interim development zone designations of RS (Single Family Residential), RM (Multi-Family Residential), C (Commercial), I (Industrial), and RP (Research Park) reflect the intended future use of the property according to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff have reviewed the ordinances of Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, and Ames and found that the applicant's assessment is accurate. Compared with these cities, the current regulations in Iowa City are more restrictive in the location and zones where communications towers are allowed. Restricting communications towers to commercial, industrial, and research park zones and interim development zones with those same designations may be causing problems for cell phone users in areas of the city where there is an absence of non-residential zoning. Given that so many people rely on and expect cell phone service in their homes, staff finds that the proposal to allow communications towers in interim development residential zones by special exception to be a reasonable request. One concern is that communication towers will detract from the aesthetics of future residential areas. However, as long as standards are in place to ensure that the towers are not obtrusive and are carefully considered by the Board of Adjustment on a case by case basis, proposed towers are less likely to detract from or discourage future residential development. Since towers will be allowed prior to rezoning for urban residential development, property owners, developers and future residents will have full knowledge of the tower prior to making any investment decisions. Staff recommends adopting standards similar to the ones currently in place for communication towers in Neighborhood Commercial Zones. These standards were Page 2 adopted to ensure that towers are located and designed so that they do not prevent or discourage development of the area for other uses intended in the zone. In addition, staff recommends allowing monopoles, which do not have guy wires or trusses and that are painted or designed to blend in with the surroundings. Monopoles have been used in several locations in Iowa City in recent years, and staff have noticed that the simple structure tends to fade into the background even better than some more elaborately camouflaged towers. After reviewing zoning ordinances from other cities, staff found that this is a fairly common standard. Staff also noticed that the code does not contain a requirement for removal of obsolete communications towers in industrial zones. Staff recommends adding this language to the industrial zone section to address this oversight. Note that staff added a requirement to grade and replant the area after removal of a tower in order to prevent erosion. We have been a few instances when we have received requests to build a new tower in the general vicinity of another tower. When asked why they cannot co-locate on the existing tower, the answer if often that the tower is not of an adequate height or design to provide the service they desire. There has been some concern expressed by staff and the Board of Adjustment that even though there is a requirement that towers be designed to accommodate additional users, we don't have the expertise to determine whether the proposed design is adequate. We added a requirement for an engineer's certification that the tower can, in fact, accommodate another user with an antenna system of equal size. The language is modeled after language in the Des Moines ordinance. We hope with this additional language that co-location will be more feasible over time and prevent unnecessary proliferation of towers in the same vicinity. Suggested changes to the zoning code language for communications towers are attached. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed zoning code language 2. Application materials Approved by: ~~ ~ l~'~~i~-.'--.~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development Amend paragraphs 14-4B-4E-4, 5, and 6, as follows: 4. Communication Transmission Facilities in Residential Zones and in the ID-RS and ID-RM Zones a. Communications antennae are permitted in all Residential Zones and in the ID-RS and ID- RM Zones, provided the following conditions are met: (i) The antenna is mounted on an existina communications tower, on the roof of a principal building that contains a nonresidential use or on the roof of a building that is accessory to a nonresidential use, or on another tall structure that is permitted in the zone. Examples include church and school buildings, water towers and clock towers. A maximum of two antennae is permitted per building or structure. (2) The height of the antenna shall not exceed the height of the existing tall structure or building by more than 20 feet. If it exceeds this limit a special exception is required to ensure that the antennae and any associated structure is designed to blend into its surroundings or be camouflaged so as not to be obtrusive or detract from neighboring properties. (3) Strobe lighting is prohibited in Residential Zones. Therefore, any antenna that requires such illumination is prohibited. (4) Any equipment associated with an antenna must be located within the exterior walls of the building to which the antenna is attached. No separate equipment shed is permitted, except if the antenna is attached to a tall structure that is not a building. In such a case, a separate equipment shed is only allowed by special exception if it can be demonstrated that the shed can be adequately screened or designed in a manner that blends in with the residential character or future residential character of the surrounding area. b. Communications towers are allowed by special exception in the ID-RS and ID-RM Zones and must comply with the following approval criteria: (1) The proposed tower serves an area that cannot be served by an existing tower or industrial property or by locating antennae on existing structures in the area. The applicant must document attempts to utilize existina structures, towers, and commercial and industrial properties within one-half mile of the proposed tower. Such documentation must include maps illustrating existina towers and potential alternative sites for antenna and towers that have been explored by the applicant and the applicant must state the reasons that these locations were not feasible. (2) The proposed tower will be constructed in a manner that will camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area. Examples of camouflage design include monopoles which do not have auv wires or support trusses and that are fainted to blend in with the sky or surroundings, towers camouflaged as flaq,poles monuments steeples, or the integration of rooftop towers onto existing buildings, water towers, etc. Rooftop towers must use materials similar to or that blend in with the structure to which it is attached. Other camouflaaed tower structures must be of similar height and appearance as other similar structures allowed in the zone e.q. towers camouflaaed as light poles or utilit rLpoles must be of similar heiaht and appearance as other such poles The applicant must include an illustration of how the tower would appear in the proposed location. (3) The proposed tower will be no taller than is necessary to provide the service intended Evidence presented should include coverage maps illustrating currentyaps in coverage and chances to coverage with the proposed tower. Communications towers are exempt from the maximum height standards of the base zone but under no circumstance may the tower be taller than 120 feet from grade. If a communications tower is camouflaged to appear similar to another common structure allowed in the zone, it must comply with the same height standards that would apply to the type of structure that it emulates. For example if the tower is camouflaaed as a light pole flag pole or utility pole it must not exceed the heiaht limitation for such structures as specified in the base zone. If no he9ht standard exists in the code for such a structure, it must be designed to be of similar height and appearance to other similar or typical structures. If the tower is camouflaged as a chimney, steeple or other similar rooftop structure, the Board may exempt it from the base zone height standards if it is designed as if it were an integral part of the building and is not out of scale or proportion to other similar rooftop structures. (4) The proposed tower will be setback from the property line at least a distance equal to the height of the tower. (5) Any equipment associated with the tower facility will be enclosed in an equipment shed or building] which must be adequately screened from view of the public right-of-way and adjacent properties and designed in a manner that will be compatible and blend in with future residential development. (6) The proposed tower will not utilize aback-up generator as a principal power source Back-up generators may only be used in the event of a power outage. (7) Strobe lighting is prohibited. Therefore, any tower that requires such illumination is prohibited in these zones. (8) The proposed tower must be designed and constructed to accommodate at least one additional user, unless in doing so the tower will exceed the 120 foot height limitation or if the Board of Adjustment determines that allowing the additional height needed to accommodate another user will detract from the area to the extent that it will prevent future development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan The applicant shall provide a certification by a ,professional engineer licensed in this state that the proposed tower will be designed to permit a second antenna system of comparable size to be added to the tower above or immediately below the original antenna system. (9) If use of the tower is discontinued the tower and any associated equipment must be removed by the owner of the tower, the operator or the owner of the property within one year of discontinuance of use and the land graded and re-planted to erevent erosion The applicant shall present a signed lease agreement a recorded declaration of covenants, or other satisfactory evidence acknowledging this obligation. 5. Communication Transmission Facilities in Commercial Zones and the ID-C Zone; Privately-Owned Communication Transmission Facilities in Public Zones. a. Communications antennae are permitted in all Commercial Zones, the ID-C Zone, and in Public Zones provided the following conditions are met: (i) The antenna must be mounted on another structure allowed in the zone, such as a rooftop, light pole, or utility pole. (2) In the CN-1 and CO-1 Zones and in any ID-C Zone that is intended for a future CN-1 Zone, strobe lighting is prohibited. Therefore, any antenna that requires such illumination is prohibited in these zones. (3) In Public Zones and in the CC-2, CH-1, CI-1, CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10 Zones and in any ID-C Zone not intended for a future CN-1 Zone, antennae may not be illuminated by strobe lights unless required by federal regulations. If alternatives are allowed under federal guidelines, strobe lights may not be used. (4) Any equipment associated with an antenna must be located within the exterior walls of the building to which the antenna is attached or screened from view of the public right-of-way and any adjacent property to at least to the S3 standard (See Article 14-5F, Screening and Buffering Standards). If the equipment is located on the roof it must be set back and screened so that it is not within public view or appears to be part of the building. b. Communications towers are allowed by special exception in Public Zones, the ID-C, CO-1, CN-1, CH-1, CI-1, CC-2, CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10 Zones and must comply with the following approval criteria: (1) If the proposed tower will be located in an ID-C Zone that is intended for a future Neighborhood Commercial Zone according to the Comprehensive Plan, as amended, then it must comply with any specific standards listed below for CN-1 Zones. (2) The proposed tower serves an area that cannot be served by an existing tower or industrial properly or by locating antennae on existing structures in the area. The applicant must document attempts to utilize existing structures, towers, er and industrial properties within one-half mile of the proposed tower. Such documentation must include maps illustrating existina towers and potential alternative sites for antenna and towers that have been explored by the applicant and the applicant must state the reasons that these locations were not feasible. (3) The proposed tower will be constructed in a manner that will camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area. Examples of camouflage design include monopoles which do not have guy wires or support trusses and that are painted to blend in with the sky or surroundings, towers camouflaged as flag poles, monuments, steeples, or the integration of rooftop towers onto existing buildings, water towers, etc. Rooftop towers must use materials similar to or that blend in with the structure to which it is attached. Other camouflaged tower structures must be of similar height and appearance as other similar structures allowed in the zone, e.g. towers camouflaged as light poles or utility poles must be of similar height and appearance as other such poles. The applicant must include an illustration of how the tower would appear in the proposed location. (4) The proposed tower will be no taller than is necessary to provide the service intended. Evidence presented should include coveraae maps illustrating current gaps in coverage and changes to coveraae with the proposed tower. In the ID-C (except areas intended for CN-1), CH-1, CC-2, CI-1, CB-2, CB-5 and CB-10 Zones, communications towers are exempt from the maximum height standards of the base zone, but under no circumstance may the tower be taller than 120 feet from grade. In the CO-1, CN-1, and any ID-C Zone intended for CN-1, communications towers must comply with the same height standards that would apply to the type of structure to which they are attached or if a communications tower is camouflaged to appear similar to another common structure allowed in the zone, it must comply with the same height standards that would apply to the type of structure that it emulates. For example, if the tower is camouflaged as a light pole, flag pole, or utility pole it must not exceed the height limitation for such structures as specified in the base zone. If no height standard exists in the code for such a structure, it must be designed to be of similar height and appearance to other similar or typical structures. If the tower is camouflaged as a chimney or other similar rooftop structure, the Board may exempt it from the base zone height standards if it is designed as if it were an integral part of the building and is not out of scale or proportion to other similar rooftop structures. (5) The proposed tower will be setback at least a distance equal to the height of the tower from any Residential Zone, ID-RS Zone, and ID- RM Zone. (6) Any equipment associated with the tower facility will be enclosed in an equipment shed or building, which must be adequately screened from view of the public right-of-way and any adjacent residential or commercial property. (7) The proposed tower will not utilize aback-up generator as a principal power source. Back-up generators may only be used in the event of a power outage. (8) In the CN-1 and CO-1 Zones and in any ID-C Zone that is intended for a future CN-1 Zone, strobe lighting is prohibited. Therefore, any tower that requires such illumination is prohibited in these zones. The tower will not be illuminated by strobe lights unless required by federal regulations. If alternatives are allowed under federal guidelines, strobe lights may not be used. (9) .The proposed tower must be designed and constructed to accommodate at least one additional user, unless in doing so the tower will exceed the 120 foot height limitation or if the Board of Adjustment determines that allowing the additional height needed to accommodate another user will detract from the area to the extent that it will prevent future development intended in the zone. The applicant shall provide a certification bra professional engineer licensed in this state that the proposed tower will be designed to permit a second antenna system of comparable size to be added to the tower above or immediately below the original antenna system. (10) If use of the tower is discontinued, the tower and any associated equipment must be removed by the owner of the tower, the operator, or the owner of the property within one year of discontinuance of use and the land graded and re-planted to prevent erosion. The applicant shall present a sinned lease agreement a recorded declaration of covenants, or other satisfactory evidence acknowledging this obligation. 6. Communication Transmission Facilities in Industrial and Research Park Zones and the ID-RP and ID-I Zones a. Communications antennae are permitted in all Industrial and Research Park Zones and in the ID-I and ID-RP Zones, provided the antenna is mounted on another structure allowed in the zone, such as a rooftop, light pole, or utility pole. b. Communications towers are allowed in the ID-I, I-1 and I-2 Zones and by special exception in the ID-RP, RDP and ORP Zones, provided the following conditions are met: (1) The proposed tower will be setback at least a distance equal to the height of the tower from any Residential Zone, ID-RS Zone, and ID- RM Zone. (2) The tower and any associated equipment buildings must be screened from the public right-of-way and any bordering Residential or Commercial Zone to at least the S3 standard (See Article 14-5F, Screening and Buffering Standards). (3) The proposed tower must be designed and constructed to accommodate at least two additional users. The applicant shall provide a certification by a professional engineer licensed in this state that the proposed tower will be designed to permit two additional antenna systems of comparable size to be added to the tower above or immediately below the original antenna system. (4) If use of the tower is discontinued, the tower and any associated equipment must be removed by the owner of the tower, the operator, or the owner of the property within one year of discontinuance of use and the land graded and re-planted to prevent erosion. The applicant shall present a signed lease agreement, a recorded declaration of covenants, or other satisfactory evidence acknowledging this obligation. ~ • ~~ Grinn~l ~ ~ ~~ c a Real Estate Development Solutions ..,~ ~~~ July 23, 2009 ~ ' ~ ,-, _~, ~-- ~_ City of Iowa City '~:~:' c/o Sara Walz '' ~~ c~ 410 E Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Ms. Walz: As you recall, we recently discussed the best alternative to addressing telecommunication siting needs in Iowa City in light of the fact that towers are currently precluded in residential zones and interim zones designated for future residential use. On behalf of my client, Iowa Wireless Services, LLC, d.b.a . i Wireless, I am filing a formal request to amend the Iowa City zoning ordinance to allow Communication Transmission Facilities in Interim Development zoning districts by Special Exception. Please see the attached application and proposed text amendment showing additions as underlined and deletions ascrossed-out. I've also enclosed a check in the amount of $450 for the application fee. Over the last several years, the public demand for wireless phone service has grown dramatically. Moreover, the public demand now places a greater emphasis on consistent, reliable indoor wireless service in residential areas. For more information on this trend, please see the enclosed Associated Press article from May 2009 which puts some numbers to this trend. As noted in the article, one in five homes (20%) have abandoned landlines and now rely solely upon cellphones. Another 15% have a landline but typically only use it for Internet access. In total, these groups represent more than 1 in 3 households (35%) relying solely on cellphones for telephone service. By contrast, only 3% of homes were cellphone-only in 2003. Further, the FCC estimates that more than 50% of 911 calls are from mobile phones. The wireless needs and demands of the citizens of Iowa City now conflict with the zoning ordinance which greatly limits communication facilities in residential areas and future residential areas. To resolve this conflict, i Wireless proposes to allow Communication Transmission Facilities by Special Exception in the interim development zones designated for future residential use. I Wireless is not proposing any changes to the code as it relates to towers in existing residential districts. Interim development zones are undeveloped areas allowing agricultural uses until city services are provided allowing for its development. I Wireless' proposal would allow telecommunications infrastructure to be planned and development prior to residential development, similar to other infrastructure serving the development. Future developers and residences would be aware of the facility and able to make their investment and design decisions accordingly. By utilizing the special .:r:~ b,~'~ -~, exception process, the City would be able to ensure that the Communications Transmission Facility would be compatible with future residential uses. Together, the pre-planning and thoughtful conditions resulting from special exception process would allow for the provision of the necessary service and avoid future land use conflicts. As you requested, I researched the policies of other Iowa cities which may be of interest to you in evaluating our proposal. Attached is a brief summary. As you can see, all but one of the jurisdictions allow towers in future residential areas by special exception or a similar process. Thank you for your time and interest on this proposal. I look forward to working with you and addressing any questions or concerns which may arise during the process. Upon your review, please call me to discuss. Sincerely, Peter .McNally Principal cc: Robert Renken, Real Estate Mgr, I Wireless ~.:;~ _, .; , ' ° ~ ~, ~- . ~~ 'rl , : -~ . L k b '~ k..tf ,h I .. r. a~~ ~~ Summary of Select Cities' Zoning Provisions Regarding Towers in Ag or Interim Development Zones--: ,;_;; ; ? ~(~ '~: ~ Researched by __ The Grinnell Group ; ~ ~ ,-„ `3j~:~ City & District Use Provision Conditions Des Moines Board of 1:1 setback or adequate screening A-Agriculture Adjustment Painted "sky blue" or alternate compatible color and (Sec. 134-307 & FAA lighting only R1-80 Residential 134-347) 180' maximum height Capacity for 2"d carrier Screened equipment at base Monopole design Cedar Rapids Up to 80' height MP - 50% from property lines, 100' from residential A -Agricultural by right; over 80' Other towers -100% property lines, 300' from residential by conditional use Screen base Shared use West Des Moines Permitted Setbacks same as for principal structure (50') OS -Open Space Conditional Use Agricultural Ames Special Use Permit Demonstrate need A-Agricultural Provide for collocation Minimum height necessary to achieve objective Setback = greater of 50% of height or 60' Cedar Falls Planning If in area designated as future residential, must demonstrate A-Agricultural Commission and that proposal is in interest of the community. In such case, City Council limited to 80' height and monopole. approval Must be at least 750' from any existing tower of similar height. Demonstrate no existing tower can accommodate use Accommodate 3 additional carriers Screened base Urbandale Conditional Use 100' or less A1-Agricultural Non-residential property (i.e. church) or designated as commercial or industrial in comp plan Bettendorf Special Use Permit Accommodate collocation A1-Agricultural STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: REZ09-00005 611 Southgate Ave GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Prepared by: Karen Howard Date: August 20, 2009 The Breese Co, Inc. 611 Southgate Avenue Iowa City, IA 52244-2267 Contact Person: Phone: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Thomas Breese (319) 330-4050 Rezoning from CC-2 to CI-1 Allow use of an existing building for a CI-1 use 611 Southgate Avenue 3,450 square feet Commercial / CC-2 North: commercial / CI-1 and CC-2 South: MF residential / RM-12 East: commercial / CC-2 West: commercial / CI-1 Intensive Commercial July 30, 2009 September 13, 2009 The subject property at 611 Southgate Avenue is unusual because it contains an existing building that straddles two lots (Lot 8 and Lot 9 as shown on the attached exhibit). However, the zoning of the eastern lot (Lot 9) is Community Commercial (CC-2) and the zoning designation of the lot to the west (Lot 8) is Intensive Commercial (CI-1 ). Given that there is a significant overlap in the types of land uses allowed in these zones, this has not posed a significant problem for the owner. In fact, they prefer keeping the split zoning to give them maximum flexibility to lease the space in the building to a wide variety of businesses. The owner of the building has requested a lot line adjustment to shift the eastern boundary of lot 8, 23 feet to the east to reflect remodeling in the interior of the building to accommodate a new CI-1 tenant that would like more space. However, this particular land use, an intensive animal-related commercial use, is not allowed in the CC-2 2 zone. The zoning code states that "where the zones designated on the Zoning Map are bounded approximately by lot lines, the lot lines shall be construed to be the boundaries of the zones. The intent of this provision is that no lot shall be divided by a zone boundary." (Subsection 14-1 B-4C). It is therefore necessary to shift the zoning boundary to mirror the lot line adjustment. The applicant plans to reconfigure the interior space and build a new fire wall along the new lot line and zoning boundary. The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy." ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is located in the South District. The South District plan map designates this property as "intensive commercial." The plan states that "although there may be some redevelopment of the existing commercial and residential areas south of Highway 6, the character and major infrastructure of these developments have already been established and major changes are not anticipated." Staff finds that this minor adjustment to the zone boundary between the CI-1 and the CC-2 Zones is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code requirements and will have little, if any, effect on future development or redevelopment in the area. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that REZ09-00005, a request to rezone approximately 3,450 square feet of property from Community Commercial (CC-2) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Zone be approved. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Rezoning Exhibits Approved by: - ~~~/ "y(~.~i(/ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development I " I ~r ..... _.. ~- + _. _____ ____ ~ p _ __ _ _ p Z Z c -~i , N ~ zl I ~ ;' t ~- ---- - c __ ~~ ~ N ,, o~ ~o ~ ~ ~ __ _-~~ V ~r ~ ~A __~____ is ~n~o~~ -~.-~--- f I I 1^i. ~ a 1' w __..._. Q ~~___-- _ --_._~ w __ __._____. O __ _ _ ~ ~ U _ __. i U = ~ ~ ________ ~ ______ __ N v ~ _ __ _ _ J __ e_.__ ~ o T ~ l ~l~l 8 ~ ~ ~ ~_ _._. _ _ -- - c~ r _- __ 0 (~ { __ a .. z o ~~ ~R V Wp,TERFR~---~;' ~, p f \1 t 1~ `\ l ` }~ 1 Ir_1 ,~ r~^'~1 L~~ a "~ O O O O O i G1 O NW a Fit r?..~ 5 U _,z< ~~r ~ W ~' ~9~ ~ 0~ N Q ~ ~' ~c ~~ r d ~°~W ~~ i ~~v ~ d ,r h' STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Anderson, Intern Item: SUB09-00006/SU609-00007 Date: August 20, 2009 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Johnson County Extension Service 4265 Oak Crest Hill Road SE Iowa City, IA 52246 Contact Person: Gene Mohling Phone: (319) 337-3043 Requested Action: Preliminary and Final Plat Approval Purpose: To subdivide the Johnson County Fairgrounds to create a lot for the Johnson County Extension Service Location: 4265 Oak Crest Hill Road SE Size: Parent Parcel: 45.27 Acres New Parcel: 1.66 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Johnson County Fairgrounds, C-AG Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Agricultural -County Highway Commercial (CH) South: Ryerson's Woods Park -County Residential (R) East: Industrial and undeveloped - (11) West: Johnson County Fairgrounds -County Commercial Agricultural (C-AG) Comprehensive Plan: South Central District Plan -public service/institutional File Date: July 30, 2009 45 Day Limitation Period: September 13 60 Day Limitation Period: September 28 SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: The applicant has indicated an existing well will be used for water and a leach field will be used for 3 Fire Protection: The Fringe Area Agreement requires that applicant's engineer establish a fire rating for the subdivision and that the Hills Fire Department submit a letter approving provisions for fire protection. This letter has not yet been submitted. It will be needed prior to approval of the plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval for SUB09-00006/SUB09-00007, a preliminary and final plat for Johnson County Extension Service, a 1.66 acre subdivision in the north portion of the Johnson County Fairgrounds, subject to correction of deficiencies and discrepancies noted below and staff approval of construction drawings and legal papers prior to City Council consideration. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: 1. Inconsistencies in the legal descriptions contained within the preliminary and final plat must be corrected. 2. Afire rating must be established for the subdivision. A letter from the appropriate Fire Protection District approving provisions for fire protection is required. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary and Final Plat 3. Aerial Photograph Approved by: /~G~IJ~~G~t.Gf,~i Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development PCD\Staff Reports\sub09-00006, sub09-00007 oak crest hill rd se :~ -4 r~~ w m° yJ a ~;.~~ a3o o ~;~ y. ~ ~ © I 1 /' N ~ ,~ ''~ ~ •.. ~I _ ' ~ ~ 1 QQ r~ ~~ F~1 \ \ ' \' ` ~ \ ~ O ~'\ O /~ v ` O i ~ '' ^^ v/ _._ ~ -, - ~ ~ d " ,\ ,. ,~ ~ ~' '~ i r .~ 1 X( ~ ~ ---~`~. I d. _~~ \------~ S~dWll 31Vbdd?10~ l.ll~ 'dM01 ~0 ,lll~ ~ i a __ 1 _ N ~ O ® z ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ i BlL AYMIpIH QIO ~ O z I '~ V m ~ 2 ~ i I ~~~ ~ . ~ c ' '. _~~ i ~ ; ~ , oo~ 1 ' ~ ~ c k ~a ~ - ~ ; ~ o 1 ~ z __ _ o ~~ y j ~~r1 V V ~, O ~~ ` W H 1 I ~ ~ '~ ~ MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 13, 2009 - 6:00 PM -INFORMAL LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Elizabeth Koppes, Josh Busard MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: None CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. REZONING ITEMS: REZ09-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Company for a rezoning from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately 4.29 acres of property located on Walden Road, west of Mormon Trek Boulevard. The 45-day limitation period for this item is August 7, 2009. Eastham explained that he needed to excuse himself from this item as he is the President of the Board of Directors of The Housing Fellowship which has an interest in this item. Payne noted that MidAmerican owns property right across the street from this property and was notified of the rezoning. She asked if she needed to excuse herself. She said that MidAmerican did not have a position on the rezoning. Greenwood Hektoen said she did not believe Payne would have to recuse herself so long as she felt she could be impartial. Payne said that she could be. Howard noted that the parcel is rather irregular. Walden Woods subdivision has been developed in bits and pieces over the years and this is the remaining undeveloped parcel of land. Howard noted the diversity of housing types in the immediate area as well as the steep slope of the property. Howard said the piece is difficult to develop. It is currently zoned RS-8 which would allow small, lot detached single family homes, and duplexes or attached single- Planning and Zoning Commission July 13, 2009 -Informal Page 2 families on corner lots. Because the parcel is so narrow from north to south there is difficulty in creating a street on it. Various concepts have been suggested over the years but nothing has really come to fruition. One reason for this is the topography of the site and the fact that there are some drainage problems. Water drains from north to south into Walden Court at the bottom of the hill. Walden Court's storm-sewer system is private, not public, making it difficult to tap into. The owner of the property has had numerous discussions with the Walden Court Homeowners' Association over the years and presented various concept plans, but has never been able to come to an agreement with them on handling the storm-water drainage. Howard said this is an issue which still has not been resolved. Staff feels like the lay-out of the proposed subdivision would allow the developer to cluster development into townhouse type units, leaving more of the central space for storm-water detention while clustering the units on Mormon Trek and Rohret Road. Staff feels if the storm- water issue can be resolved then this will be a decent proposal and concept plan. Howard noted that this was simply an application for a rezoning, not for a subdivision. If the property is rezoned, the developer would have to come back in for a subdivision application. At that time, a number of things will have to have been resolved, Howard said. The concept plan shows 18 units; Staff does not know if that is actually achievable, as they would have to review the grading and the water retention plan. Howard said there are questions about the access road as there is a 100 foot gas pipeline easement that they believe they can get permission from the gas company to build over, but have not as yet secured it. If permission cannot be secured, the road will have to be moved. Howard said that the developer wishes to donate the same area of pipeline easement to the City as park land. Howard said the City does own a piece of property to the north and could potentially hook into a trail system to connect the parcel. Howard said these are the kinds of questions that will have to be resolved at the subdivision stage, but that are something to think about in terms of the developer's concept for the area. Howard said that for vehicular access Staff feels there should be a conditional zoning agreement stating that the property cannot have access from Mormon Trek Boulevard, but that the access must be from Walden Road. Staff is recommending the application be deferred until the storm-water management issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. She said that efforts are being made to get the developer, the City, and the Walden Court Condominium Association to come together and come to resolution on the matter. Busard asked if it was possible that the residents of Walden Court just did not want the area developed and were therefore holding out on the drainage system, or if there was actually a chance there might be a resolution. Howard said she did not know how to answer that. She said there seems to be some mistrust there. She said that a lot of proposals have been put before the condominium association over the years, and that they have been flooded, so there are some serious issues and legitimate concerns. Freerks asked what units were flooded. She noted that the Commission had received some letters concerning that. Miklo pointed out two units. Howard said that the storm-sewer system connects into Rohret Road and stops short of the property line; she reiterated that this is a private system so the association holds all of the cards as far as being able to connect. Another issue is that if the City does connect into it they would need some assurances that the system is Planning and Zoning Commission July 13, 2009 -Informal Page 3 capable of handling the water. Howard stated that Public Works has indicated that if the private system is in good order then it might behoove the City to take it over and make it a public system. Plahutnik said that if the rezoning is approved and the project does not go through, then the Commission will have given the developer a gift in making his land more valuable to sell. Howard said that it is definitely not a good idea to up-zone this until the drainage issue is resolved. Howard said that having to build a road or a cul-de-sac would eat up a lot of the property, rather than having to build just a private drive. Miklo said it would likely result in more run-off as well because there would be more ground covered by rooftops and pavement. Howard said there are some good reasons to rezone this RS-12 from RS-8, but that the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the drainage issue. Miklo said in the absence of a resolution to the storm-water issue Staff would not recommend going forward with this. Miklo returned to Busard's question and said that Staff has received indication from the homeowners' association that they are willing to see resolution of the drainage matter. Koppes asked why Eastham was recusing himself as the application has no mention of The Housing Fellowship. Miklo said he believed The Housing Fellowship might have an interest in buying the property at a future date. Koppes said that the same could be said for any development in town, so she did not understand why he would recuse himself on this issue. Miklo said there may have been discussions on this particular development. Koppes said her other question was why would the developer not link the concept plan to the rezoning as has been done in the past. Howard said that that is Staff's recommendation essentially; that if the storm-water management issue is resolved, there should be a conditional zoning agreement which incorporates the aspects of the concept plan. Koppes said that what she had understood Howard to say earlier was that the subdivision process would address all outstanding issues. Koppes said that sometimes the Commission gets burned when it follows that line of thinking. Freerks noted there is still another meeting in which this can be discussed prior to the 45-day limitation period's expiration. Miklo said it is unlikely that an agreement on the storm-water issues will be reached by Thursday. Koppes said the Housing Fellowship's potential involvement made her wonder how much low- income housing was in that area. Greenwood Hektoen said she was aware that Pheasant Ridge was down the road to the north but that other than that she was not aware of any. Freerks asked how common it was to have a public to private sewer line issue. Howard said that it was developed so long ago that it is kind of a mystery as to why it was made a private storm-sewer system. Miklo said that one of the issues is that Southgate was the developer of the property to both the north and the south, so this is a situation that they created. Koppes said it looked as though there was quite a barrier between the single family homes and the driveway that would go through the proposed development. She also asked what the barrier consisted of and was told it is the sloped, wooded pipeline easement. Koppes asked if it would be possible to require the wooded area to be left alone. Staff said that as it was actually a pipeline easement it would have to be left in place. Payne pointed out that because the land was actually a pipeline easement it could not be counted on that those trees would always be there. Koppes said she just wanted to make sure there were no headlights or other disturbances from the development for the single family homeowners that were already there. Planning and Zoning Commission July 13, 2009 -Informal Page 4 Plahutnik pointed out that until the drainage issue was resolved these kinds of discussions were moot. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SU609-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development for a preliminary plat of Stone Bridge Estates Part 6-9, a 102-lot, 36.32 acre residential subdivision located north of Court Street, south of Lower West Branch Road, west of Taft Avenue. The 45-day limitation period for this is August 10, 2009. Miklo said that Stone Bridge Estates was rezoned and subdivided in 2005/2006. The preliminary plat was approved for Parts 5-9 and only Part 5 was final platted. The subdivision regulations state that a preliminary plat is good for two years and then expires. The reason for this is to help ensure plats regularly come into compliance with any new zoning or subdivision codes that take effect. In this case, Miklo said, the preliminary plat expired several months ago and re-approval must be sought. Miklo said there has been one significant change to the regulations that had not been in place at the time of approval. The subdivision code now requires that streets must be 60 feet wide. In discussions with the City Engineer and Public Works it was decided for consistency's sake to continue current roads with a 50 foot right of way and four foot sidewalks. One exception to this will be a new east/west street connecting to Taft Avenue. Otherwise, the plat is pretty much as approved previously and Staff recommends approval, Miklo said. Koppes asked if the final plat had also expired. Miklo said that final plats do not expire due to the great expense involved in doing them due to the engineering work. It also gives the developer the opportunity to make changes if the market changes. Freerks said she remembered that there was a lot of discussion about the stone bridge and that everyone in the neighborhood wanted to make sure it was preserved. Miklo said all of those provisions were still in place. Freerks asked if it was correct that the developer was not required to make it pedestrian unless it was feasible. Miklo said they were required to put in a public trail through the development. He said there will be a walkway from the neighborhood to the main walkway. Freerks asked if there was a portion of land preserved for the school district in the event a school should be needed in the area. Miklo explained that the school district had 15 years from the time the property was annexed to develop the property set aside for it. Because that did not happen, it reverted back to the developer. Freerks asked where these kids would be going to school. Koppes said either Longfellow or Lemme; she believed that kids from homes on that side of Court Street would go to Lemme. Plahutnik asked which street would be the 60 foot wide street. Miklo said that Thames had not yet been started so it would be 60 feet wide. He said that Norfolk also had not been started but it only covered four lots. Miklo explained that Thames would intersect with Taft, an arterial. Miklo said that if there is a four way intersection it is possible to go from a 50 foot street to a 60 foot street; however, most of the intersections in the development are three-way intersections, and therefore not good candidates. Planning and Zoning Commission July 13, 2009 -Informal Page 5 Eastham noted that the preliminary plat indicates that all of the outlots will be owned by a homeowners' association except for Outlot B which will be dedicated to the City. Eastham asked if the association was already formed and operating. Greenwood Hektoen said that that was not an assumption she would make. Eastham asked if these people were aware that they were going to become responsible for all of this property. Freerks pointed out that as more people populated the subdivision there would be more people paying dues. Busard asked if that was really a planning and zoning issue that could be considered. Miklo said that at the time of final plat the developer would have to demonstrate how the open spaces will be cared for. Eastham said that he did not know that the Commission could do a great deal about it, but that he thought this could be an issue for some homeowners. Eastham asked if the easterly part of the stream corridor would then be the responsibility of homeowners' associations for the latter part of the development. Miklo said he believed that the same developer has options on the other land but does not necessarily own it or control it. Eastham asked if there could potentially be two homeowners' associations responsible for one stream corridor; Miklo said that was possible. Eastham asked if there were similar situations in the city. Freerks said it would not surprise her. Greeenwood Hektoen said there are creeks running all over town. Eastham pointed out that homeowners' associations are relatively recent developments; as is the City insisting that these associations maintain at private expense what many would consider public lands. Plahutnik said it seemed like just any other property line to him. Eastham asked if there was a sidewalk on the north side of Court Street that the private trail will connect to. Miklo said he would check. Eastham asked if the public would have access to the green space in the outlots as well as access to the trails. Greenwood Hektoen said she did not know how wide the access easement is. Miklo said that as he recalls it is somewhat rugged out there. Eastham said he had seen signs in Windsor Ridge on the south side of Court Street stating that the green space and pond were only open to homeowners in the association. Koppes said she thought that was the case because Windsor Ridge maintained it. Eastham said that the generation of his question was that all of the public should have access. Miklo said the access would basically be limited to the trail, and that it was not a place where you would want to invite people due to the stream. OTHER: Miklo said that a number of people had inquired as to why the Commission met at 7:30 p.m. when the City Council met at 7:00 p.m. Miklo asked if Commissioners would be open to meeting at 7:00 p.m. instead. Several Commissioners said that 7:00 p.m. would be fine. Freerks said she felt it should be a unanimous decision and so waiting to discuss the change at the Thursday meeting would be best. The meeting was adjourned as 6:37 p.m. Z O N ~ D ~~ V W ~ ~ ZVo Z N a DD Q W C7 ~ Z_ Q Z Z J a X X X X X X X cc ~ ~ X X X X ~ X X X X X X X X ~ X X X X X O X X X X X X X X M X X X X X ~ X N X X X X ~ X X X X X X X X X r ~W .- ~ ~ ~ M ~ N ~ O ~ O ~ M ~ wa , ~ , ~n , ~n , ~n , ~ , ~ , ~n ~X o o o o o 0 0 W W ~ W ~- -~ m J a 2 Q Z ~ w o v Q ~-~ = ~_ Q '' w v Y ~ Z ~ Q Y N ~ ~ w a ~ oc w a w z ~ = N ~ c n ~ m v i a w w m tL a O Y ~ a a a ~ a = w ~ Z_ F- W W a O ~ X ~( X X X X D ti M X X X X X X X M M X X X X X X X M X X X X X X X ~ ~ X X ~ X X ~ W ~ ~ M N O O M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X o 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W ~ ~ ~ m J J J 2 a Z ~ W a N Q = U Z a W = U Y ~ ~ Z ~ ~ a Y N ~ ~ W ~ 2 CC w W ~ N a E- w a z = F. cn ~ cn a w ~ a o ~ a a ~ - w m w t~ Y a a ~ O Z H W W a z E 0 ~~ ~Z U p~ ~ X=~ w :_, ~, c ~ ~ ~ ~ y E cv ~~Q ° o aQ ~~ ZZ n n w n ~ , xooz ; w Y MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16, 2009 - 7:30 PM -FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Michelle Payne, Tim Weitzel, Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Glenn Siders, Kim Edge, Kevin Don Adel, Meigen Fink, Jason Mascher, Brian Fink, Libris Fidelis, Dorothy Dayton, Glen Stockton, Brian Maass RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 7-0 to approve SUB09-00004, an application submitted by Arlington Development for a preliminary plat of Stone Bridge Estates Part 6-9, a 102-lot, 36.32 acre residential subdivision located north of Court Street, south of Lower West Branch Road, west of Taft Avenue. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. REZONING USE ITEM: REZ09-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Company for a rezoning from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-li) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately 4.29 acres of property located on Walden Road, west of Mormon Trek Boulevard. The 45-day limitation period for this item is August 7, 2009. Eastham announced that he was a member of a Board that has an interest in this application and recused himself. Howard described the property as irregular in shape, and as the last remaining parcel of the Walden Wood subdivision located at Rohret Road, Mormon Trek Boulevard and Walden Road. The Walden Wood subdivision has been developed over the last 30 years, Howard said. Howard presented an aerial photograph for a better idea of the surrounding area and its topography. Just to the north of the parcel is a retirement home. Across the street are some single family homes and duplexes. To the south is a condominium association with attached units. A MidAmerican power station is to the east of the parcel. Howard shared several photographs which showed various viewpoints of the parcel, noting the slope from north to south on the property. Howard said the applicant has submitted a concept plan. She noted, however, that this application was just for a rezoning, and that the concept plan was intended to show how the property would be developed in the future if it was rezoned. The plan shows the developer's intent to further subdivide the property into individual townhouse lots. The concept plan illustrated 18 units that front on both Mormon Trek Boulevard and Walden Road. There would be a private, rear drive with access to the garages behind the units. Howard advised the Commission to keep in mind that this is a concept plan, not a subdivision application at this point. Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2009 -Formal Page 2 Staff reviewed the Comprehensive Plan to determine if the application was compatible with its vision for the area. Howard said the property is in the Willow Creek area of the Southwest Planning District. The district plan indicates that this area is appropriate for single family and duplex residential. The plan specifically mentions this property, as it is one of the few remaining undeveloped parcels in that area. The plan states that the property will require careful design given its topographic conditions and its unusual shape and size. Howard said that the topography and shape would make the property difficult to develop into detached single family homes, which is what would be allowed under the current zoning of RS-8; thus, the request for a rezoning to RS-12. The level of density being proposed would still fall under the RS-8 zoning levels; the RS-12 zoning is being requested to allow for attached townhome-style single family dwellings. Howard noted that there were a number of positive aspects to the proposed rezoning and lot lay-out. The proposal is compatible with the density of the surrounding development, which has quite a mix of different housing types. It allows the construction of townhouses, a popular and affordable housing type. The RS- 12 zone contains requirements for the main entrance of a dwelling to face the street and for a rear drive with garages behind, both of which give the dwellings more of a residential appearance. The Comprehensive Plan encourages compact infill development, Howard said, as well as proximity to neighborhood services. Howard said this property is close by a neighborhood commercial area and would therefore be a good location for additional housing. Howard noted, however, that there are a number of issues that still need to be addressed. First, the concept plan submitted is just that, a concept plan, and as such the achievable residential density cannot actually be determined until the property is designed and engineered. If, for example, MidAmerican Energy does not allow a driveway to be located over the gas pipeline easement, it may mean that fewer dwellings can be achieved. Vehicular and emergency access will need to be from Walden Road, as the City will not allow another access from the heavily trafficked Mormon Trek Boulevard. With access coming from a private rear drive, it will have to be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. The applicant has also indicated that they would like to dedicate the land that contains the gas pipeline to the City as open space. This idea has been forwarded to the Parks and Recreation Commission, but will not be officially decided until a subdivision application is received. Howard said the biggest outstanding issue was storm-water management. Drainage is a concern for this property due to the sloping topography. The water from the site drains from north to south over land onto the neighboring Walden Court Condominiums. The applicant has proposed a system of one or more stormwater detention basins, but these basins would need to have an outlet into a storm sewer pipe. Given that the only feasible storm sewer available is the private system that serves the Walden Court Condominiums, the developer will have to get permission from the Walden Court Homeowners Association for this connection. Before development can occur, there will need to be an agreement between the Walden Court Condominium homeowners' association and the developer to get the water drained off the property properly. Staff met with both parties today and it sounds like they are willing to work together to come to some sort of resolution. Until a final agreement can be worked out, staff is recommending deferral of this application for rezoning. If the developer and condominium association come to an agreement whereby the proposed development can tie into Walden Court's private storm sewer so the water can drain out to the public storm sewer along Rohret Road, then staff recommends proceeding with consideration of the rezoning application. Howard noted that the City Engineer has indicated that the City may be willing to take over the private storm sewer system in Walden Court if is it determined to be up to City standards. Staff recommends that the application be deferred until the next Planning and Zoning meeting so that an agreement can be reached between the condominium association and the developer on the issue of drainage. If at that time no agreement has been reached, then Staff would recommend indefinite deferral of the application. The staff report outlines Staff's other recommendations, to be resolved after the drainage issue has been worked out. There were no questions for Staff and the public hearing was opened. Glenn Siders, Southgate Development Services, said that he understood that the matter would be deferred at tonight's meeting and that he would not waste the Commissioner's time with a presentation, but that he is available for any questions. He said that he has no conflicts with Howard's presentation or Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2009 -Formal Page 3 the staff report. He said that he is optimistic an agreement can be reached, and that each time the two parties have met over the last two years they have come closer to reaching an agreement. Kim Edge, 2633 Walden Road, said she had lived in her residence for 15 years. She said that she and her husband are hoping that the Commission will not rezone the property to be higher density because they are concerned about noise and traffic. Edge said that the neighbors had been asked by the City to vote ten years ago as to whether or not they wanted this strip of land returned to native prairie. She said that while the residents had voted in favor of returning the property to prairie, the prairie never came to fruition. She said she once called the City to ask what had become of the prairie idea and that the person she spoke with knew nothing about the vote. Freerks asked Miklo if he knew what strip of land Edge might be talking about. Miklo pointed to an area on the map where the gas pipeline easement is located north of the subject property and asked if this was the park land to which Edge was referring. She said that it must be. Miklo said it was an area that was dedicated to the City for a park when the property to the north was developed. He said that generally the Parks and Recreation Commission develops parks with resident input, and that may be the process to which Edge was referring. He said that Staff could check on it. Kevin Don Adel, 43 Coll Court, described himself as a homeowner at the end of Coll Court, in the middle of the cul de sac. He said that he wanted to make sure that the homeowners adjacent to the property are a part of the discussions concerning drainage. He said the adjacent properties currently had some water in their back yards, and he is worried that what might be a solution for the condominium association and the developer, may prove to exacerbate the water problem for other neighbors. He said he just wanted to ensure that homeowners like him are included in these discussions. Freerks asked for clarification on whether Don Adel was a member of the homeowners' association that had met with Staff and the developer earlier in the day. Don Adel said he was not. Meigen Fink, 44 Coll Court, said that she lived right next to Don Adel. She said her family has lived in that residence for nearly 11 years and has had drainage problems almost the entire time they have lived there. She said that her back-yard is always wet, and that they have assumed it is coming from over the hill. Fink said she worries that if this property is developed her yard will become a swamp. Fink noted that where the proposal suggests a sidewalk, currently a wooded easement area exists which she fears will be disturbed. She said she also had concerns about the type of properties that will be developed there and the types of people who will be living there. She asked if the storm-water retention would involve ponds; something which concerned her because there are many small children in the area. Freerks asked Siders if he would mind addressing the concept plan's drainage system. Siders said that he is presently anticipating two storm water basins, and that they are trying to design a system that would shed the water from the parcel into the ponds. Siders said that re-grading the area will go a long way toward assisting neighboring properties with their drainage problems. Siders said the basins would be designed as "dry bottom" ponds, meaning that there is no water in them except when there are heavy rain events. Siders also explained that the rectangular section on the west side of the property is something the Parks Department is looking at. He said that department will determine whether or not a sidewalk would be desirable there. He said that the walkway easement that is shown on the map currently was actually vacated some years ago. Siders said that some language about making a connection between Walden Road and Mormon Trek Boulevard along the northern boundary of the property was involved in that vacation, but that that would probably be renegotiated once the platting of the property begins. Koppes said she thought Fink's other question might be related to the number of units in the development that could be dedicated to low-income housing. Siders said he did not have a clue, and that he did not anticipate any right now. Greenwood Hektoen said that the Commission really should not consider who will be living in the unit. She said the job at hand is to consider what the best use of the land is. She said that zoning cannot be done based on who may live in a certain area, but should be based on the compatibility of the use with the neighborhood. Income level should not be a factor, Greenwood Hektoen said. Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2009 -Formal Page 4 Busard asked how many single family homes could be built on the land if it kept its RS-8 designation. Siders said two homes at best. Siders said there are access issues as he does not think access would ever be granted off of Mormon Trek. He said there is a 100 foot gas line easement that is very limiting. He said it could probably be subdivided into two single family lots. Miklo said that Staff looked at that question and had felt that it might be possible to get four homes on Walden Road with the required 40 foot lots and rear access. He said whether it would be viable to get four more lots on the Mormon Trek side for single family was questionable. Jason Mascher, 45 Coll Court, said he and his wife had moved to their home in April. His concern is the drainage issues in his back yard. He said that all of the neighborhood yards are wet as there is not enough grading for the water to run toward the ravine behind his home. Mascher said that he is worried that the drainage issues would be exacerbated by further development and that he too would like to be a part of discussions with the developer, the condominium association, and Staff regarding drainage. Mascher said he is definitely not in favor of a sidewalk that runs from Walden to Rohret Road as it would severely disturb the privacy of the four homes in his area. He said he is in favor of more single family homes rather than a higher density development. Brian Fink, 44 Coll Court, said that in addition to his concerns about drainage, he had major concerns about the trail shown going through the easement. The easement serves as a very valuable, heavily wooded buffer, Fink said, between his neighborhood and the new development to the right. Fink said he would suggest moving the trail from its proposed location further away from the property lines to promote privacy. Howard suggested that she could clarify this issue somewhat. Howard said that when the property was originally subdivided, there was an agreement to have a sidewalk, a public access in that location. Freerks asked how long ago that was. Miklo replied that he believed it was in the 1980's. Howard said that a portion of the sidewalk was built behind the Walden Court condominiums, but the portion in the gas pipeline easement was never built because the developer asked to have that portion vacated because it was too steep to make it accessible. The City agreed to vacate that easement. Howard explained that even though the easement does appear on the map, it really is no longer there and should be taken off of the map. Howard further explained that there is no plan by the developer to put a sidewalk in that location; it is a remnant on the map of former plans. The developer would like to dedicate the 100 foot wide gas pipeline easement to the City as an open space designation. This would then become park land if the Parks and Recreation Commission agreed to accept it. It would not be until the Parks and Recreation Commission accepted the land that discussions as to what to do with it would take place. Freerks noted that there would be public discussion and conversation about what became of the park. Howard said that was correct, and that at this stage the Parks and Recreation Commission has not even had a chance to take a look at it. Miklo pointed out that to the south of Rohret Road there is a trail that is dedicated to the City as a part of the parks system. The trail goes through the Mormon Trek Village area. Miklo said that the thinking at one time was that it might be possible to extend that trail up through the pipeline easement and through to the north. Miklo said that Parks and Recreation will look at topography as one basis for making its decision about the land's use. Miklo said there is some discussion that the topography of this piece of land may be too steep for a trail. He suggested that property owners in the area who wished to weigh in on the matter send an a-mail or letter to the Parks and Recreation Director. Freerks noted that the necessary a-mail address is available online or could be found by contacting Staff. Jason Mascher, 45 Coll Court, asked who he could get contact information from for Southgate or Walden Court residents in order to collaborate with them. Freerks advised Mascher to wait until the Commission finished and then to talk to Siders directly. She said if he had any troubles he could contact Staff. Libris Fidelis, 320 South Dubuque Street, said that although he had arrived late due to his attendance at a different Commission's meeting, and had neither seen the plans for the development nor heard the discussions regarding them, he would advise against any high density housing for the area as it would not really fit in with the neighborhood. Fidelis said that given the strange shape of the parcel, trying to cram a large number of units into the area could give the wrong impression and would be like an old-fashioned trailer park. Fidelis said that he sympathized with the developer and the property owners, but that he just did not see high density as a good option for that piece of property. Fidelis said there are small houses Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2009 -Formal Page 5 located all over Iowa City that have 1600 square feet or fewer. Fidelis said that smaller houses of this type could be offered to low-income individuals with some sort of steady income; however, not for those who are simply impoverished. Fidelis said there is a need in the community for small residences for low income individuals and retirees. Fidelis said that he personally would like to purchase such a home on Park Street; however, given the economic situation and his own lack of funds, he is left out completely of such an opportunity. He stated that high density housing in that neighborhood would detract from it and would generally not fit in. Dorothy Dayton, Walden Court, said that she has a little trouble seeing why high density would not fit in nicely in that space. Dayton said that on the right side of Mormon Trek there are townhomes; south of Rohret Road there are also townhomes and a condominium association; Walden Court is duplexes. Dayton said that it seemed to her that there was high density development in that neighborhood already so she did not see how Southgate's plan was out of sync with the neighborhood. She said it certainly seemed like a better use of the land than to let it sit there vacant. Dayton said that Southgate's plan leaves about 83% of the land without buildings on it. She said that the property will undoubtedly be developed sometime, and that this is the best plan she has seen for it. Jason Mascher, 45 Coll Court, said he disagreed with Dayton. He said that he believes that having the area less densely populated is also a viable option, and one he wishes the developer would more fully investigate. Mascher said that while there is a mix of housing in the area, if one asked the families in the surrounding neighborhoods, most of them would say they prefer a lower density than that currently proposed by Southgate. There were no further comments and Freerks closed the public hearing Payne motioned to defer REZ09-00003, a request to rezone approximately 4.29 acres from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12), until there is a plan for storm-water management that meets City standards. Koppes seconded. Miklo said that the deferral would be until the August 6th agenda. If there is no resolution prior to August 6th, then the meeting would be cancelled and the issue would be put on the August 20th agenda. Freerks noted that generally a deferral would have to be granted by the applicant at this point. Miklo said that the 45-day limitation period would have to be waived in order for the matter to be deferred beyond the August 6th meeting. Siders indicated that a waiver would be granted if needed. Miklo said that interested parties could check the City's website closer to the 6th, or call into the Planning office that week to make sure there is a meeting. Weitzel said the landscape was clearly steep and that it was obvious something would have to be done on drainage issues given the number and variety of comments on the subject. He said he thought it was entirely appropriate to defer. Freerks said it is clear that there are some issues that have to be worked through and that regardless of what sort of development takes place on the lot in the future, it would have to be something that improves the drainage situation overall and does not make things worse. Freerks said this was something she would be looking at as she considers the matter. She agreed that deferral was the best course for now. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Eastham abstaining). DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SU609-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development for a preliminary plat of Stone Bridge Estates Part 6-9, a 102-lot, 36.32 acre residential subdivision located north of Court Street, south of Lower West Branch Road, west of Taft Avenue. The 45-day limitation period for this is August 10, 2009. Miklo said that the preliminary plat of Stone Bridge Estates, parts 5-9, was approved in 2006. Miklo explained that Part 5 is down along Court Street and that it has been final platted, allowing the developer Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2009 -Formal Page 6 to actually sell the lots and get building permits. The preliminary plat for the remainder of the subdivision expired after a two year period. Subdivision codes require that a plat expires after two years so that if there have been changes to the subdivision and/or zoning codes in the interim, the development would have to comply with them unless there is some significant reason for granting an exception. In this case, Miklo said, the applicant is submitting an application for re-approval of Parts 6-9. Miklo noted that the plat is essentially the same as it was when originally approved in 2006, with the exception of some minor adjustments to lot lines and sidewalk locations. Miklo said that there have been changes in the subdivision codes that would apply to this development. There is a requirement that street right of ways increase from 50 feet to 60 feet; street widths potentially decrease from 28 feet to 26 feet; and sidewalk width requirements were increased from four feet to five feet. Miklo said that all of the north/south streets have already been started in the development, and only three of the east/west streets have not been started. The City Engineer feels it would be difficult for the developer to transition to the wider right-of-way, given the lack of "T" intersections on the street, without creating difficulties with property lines and maintenance issues. As a result, the engineers recommend that the streets remain at their current widths of 50 feet, maintain 28 feet of pavement, and four foot sidewalks. The exception would be an east/west street that has not been started yet and will connect to Taft Avenue; that street will meet the new standards. Miklo said that another change is that Staff has recommended an additional sidewalk that will provide a path or link to the private open space. Miklo noted that in the area is a parcel that has been donated to the Parks Department, and which contains remnants of a historic stone railroad bridge. The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be developed as a park and to preserve that bridge and possibly incorporate it into a trail network. The remainder of the trail is on a series of outlots that are to be owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. There is a 15 foot easement that gives public access or rights to travel on that trail, but does not open the entire outlot to the public. Staff is recommending approval of the plat. Eastham asked if any consideration had been given to just dedicating the outlots to the City rather than the homeowners' association. Miklo said there had been discussion of this a couple of years ago, but that the Parks and Recreation Commission did not wish to take over the outlots due to the maintenance costs. Eastham noted that the plat shows three pillars that are remnants of the bridge, only one of which is actually in the current plat. Eastham asked if Staff was confident that the City would be able to acquire the remaining parts of the old stone bridge when the land to the east was developed. Miklo said Staff was pretty confident of that because the area will require a rezoning. When Stone Bridge Estates was rezoned a conditional zoning agreement requiring the dedication of the bridge to the City was put in place. Staff would recommend a conditional zoning agreement with similar requirements when the land to the east is rezoned. Freerks opened the public hearing. Florence Stockman, Stone Bridge Estates, said she had lived in her current residence about five years. She noted that she came before the Commission a couple of years ago, and that she was returning to echo the same concerns that the park lands in the area remain a high priority for the Commission, just as it is for the neighbors. She said that in the present plat there are a few more inches of park land in the area, and that she was pleased to hear Eastham's comments regarding acquiring the land where the additional pillars stand. She said she was concerned about the outlot and trail system because the neighborhood is not organized in any way yet. She said that hearing that the trail system will be the property of the neighborhood association leads some neighbors to wonder what they are getting into. Stockman said she had come before the Parks and Recreation Commission and that they had indeed expressed an inability to pay for maintenance of more land, but that they did say they would send someone out to keep the parks up. Stockman said that she was glad to hear that Thomas Street was going to be wider, as the trail was to be on one side and the creek on the other and she had wondered how that would all be accommodated. Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2009 -Formal Page 7 Stockman said that she hoped Arlington would be developed closer to Court Street; Part 6 is not completed and there are quite a few lots in Part 5. She said that access to Court Street is good but that there is a lot of traffic on Taft Avenue, which has not been improved. Stockman said she wondered when the City and the County would decide to do something about Taft. She said that if Parts 7, 8, and 9 are approved and development begins soon after, then that could be a problem in terms of more traffic onto Taft. Stockman requested that the Commission once again ask the developer to develop Parts 5 and 6 completely before moving on to Parts 7, 8, and 9, to give time for improvements to Taft. She noted that the developer had been moving dirt in Parts 7 and 8 in recent days. Stockman reiterated that neighbors were not yet organized into a homeowners' association and that she felt the trail system needed to be addressed at the level of the Commission and the City Council. She thanked the Commission for preserving the area with the stone bridge and noted that she had pulled together a history of the area for the Commissioners. Freerks asked Stockman if she was the person who had provided photographs of the area when the preliminary plat had previously been approved. Stockman said that she was. Freerks noted that there had been a lot of discussion about the bridge and the need to preserve it, and thanked Stockman for the information. Brian Maass, 115 Eversoll Lane, said that his concern was with the maintenance of the trail. He said that no homeowners' association had yet been formed, nor had residents had a chance to meet with the developer. Maass said that with Scott Park is so close by, his recommendation would be to try to coax the City into maintaining the outlots as well. Maass said that because the stone bridge is such a wonderful thing he would like to see the developer put in some sort of trail or sidewalk to the area through some of the lots that have not yet been developed. Maass said that on the western part of the plat there are a couple of ponds in the Mayfield Condominium Complex that have nice trails surrounding them. He said this is a great place to go for walks in the evening and that it connects with a couple of other trails off of Court. Maass said he would urge the developer to put in some sort of walkway off of Eversoll or Chadwick to connect down to the park. Freerks asked Miklo to comment on the trail system in that area. Miklo said there is currently an eight foot walkway on Court Street and a trail in Windsor Ridge south of Court Street. He said he believed a trail was being installed in a development on the east side of the creek that will eventually be continued up along the creek. Miklo said the plan is to basically use the creek bed as a trail network. He said he did not believe there were any east/west trails in the neighborhood. Miklo said the trails referred to by Maass were required in order to break up the long blocks in that development. Eastham asked Miklo about the sequence of when the trail might be built and the outlot dedicated to the City. Miklo said the park is in Part 8 of the subdivision, so the answer to that really depends on the housing market and the pace of development. Eastham asked if it was the developer's decision what order to develop the phases, and Miklo replied that it was both the developer's and the City's decision. Miklo said that at the time the plat was first approved, Lower West Branch Road had not been improved and so the preference was to develop from Court Street and move north. Presently, Lower West Branch Road is improved and the developer could final plat those areas and move from the north to the south if he wished. As it stands, the phasing is Parts 6, 7, 8, and then 9, Miklo said. Payne asked if the developer could do Part 9 next if they had an agreement with the City to do so. Miklo said that was correct. Miklo said that sometimes plats are phased for timing purposes but at this point he did not think the City would have any objection to changing the phasing around. Eastham followed up by asking when people can expect trails to be developed. Miklo said the trails are being put in as sections of the development are built, at the time the roads are put in. Miklo said that residential sidewalks are done as individual houses are built, but that if sidewalks or trails are on outlots or common areas, then they are done at the time the streets are put in. Koppes asked if moving dirt on Parts 7 and 8, as the developer was reported to be doing, was acceptable. Miklo said he would have to check with Public Works on that. Miklo said that generally an approved preliminary plat gives authorization to grade. He said that because this preliminary plat was expired, he would have to check to see whether the grading permit was still good or not. Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2009 -Formal Page 8 Payne asked for clarification on the maintenance of the trail. Miklo said that the City will only maintain the portion of the trail in Outlot B, the public part. The developer will initially be responsible for the trail, and the outlots, the private open spaces. Eventually that responsibility will be turned over to the homeowners' association. Access easements will allow the public to travel those trails, but they will not be publicly owned. Payne asked if the homeowners' association will be responsible for removing snow and repairing the sidewalks and Miklo said that they would. Greenwood Hektoen added that the trails and outlots will beturnled lovertotthedhomeownersll assoc'ation.s Fheerrksoasked f thatawas' nftheeegaldpahpers,kand is Greenwood Hektoen said that it was. Freerks reminded everyone that public hearing was still open. Florence Stockman said that when they purchased their lots they were given a covenant about the homeowners' association. Stockman said the homeowners' association was put into effect in January of this year by the developer sending residents bills for dues. Stockman said that no meeting had taken place, no bylaws had been developed; the neighbors had simply been assessed a fee. Stockman said that there have been promises of meetings in the past, but that nothing has materialized. Freerks asked if Stockman had been able to get a hold of the developer. She said that he talks in a friendly manner about developing the association but that nothing comes to fruition. She said she had called the City to see about forming a neighborhood association, but that it was her impression that a homeowners' association needed to come first. Freerks asked Greenwood Hektoen if she had any comments on the matter. Greenwood Hektoen said that usually the City does not get involved in these matters but that it is typical for a homeowners' association not to be formed until 75% of the lots are sold. Control remains with the developer until that time, even if the dues are already being paid by homeowners. She added that without seeing the documents for this particular homeowners' association she could only speak in general term. Freerks advised Stockman to contact Marcia Bollinger about forming a neighborhood association, which, she cautioned, was very different from a homeowners association. Brian Maass, 115 Eversoll Lane, said that he lives in Part 4 of Stone Bridge Estates. He said that his covenant mentions a homeowners' association but only for Parts 1 through 4. He asked if the developer intended to create a different homeowners' association for Parts 6 through 9. He said he felt like the cart was being put before the horse as they were paying a fee and no association existed yet. Freerks said she did not think the Staff would have access to that information. Greenwood Hektoen advised Maass to read the documents filed at the time he acquired the property. She said they would include information on how to amend the homeowners' association declaration. To include additional parts or phases, an amendment would be required. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Payne made a motion to approve SUB09-00004, an application submitted by Arlington Development for a preliminary plat of Stone Bridge Estates Part 6-9, a 102-lot, 36.32 acre residential subdivision located north of Court Street, south of Lower West Branch Road, west of Taft Avenue. Plahutnik seconded. Eastham said he would go ahead and support the motion in part because he feels this is the best resolution for preserving the stone bridge and developing north/south trails in the area. He said he would like to comment that the questions about homeowners' financial responsibilities in maintaining the outlots have made him wonder if the City is really doing the best it can to promote amenities, trail systems, green spaces, etc., while still being fair to people who buy homes and therefore assume some of these maintenance costs. He said one question to ponder is who is paying for the maintenance of our trail systems that are under the responsibility of homeowners' associations. Eastham said a number of people do not really know how homeowners' associations work and what the establishment of one in the development process entails, nor the transition process between developer control and homeowner control. Eastham said he found this lack of understanding unsatisfying. Plahutnik said he viewed this application as a sort of book-keeping matter. He said the expired application is being brought up to date; the issues with the new subdivision code have been addressed; Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2009 -Formal Page 9 and issues such as relationships between homeowners and developers are outside the Commission's purview. Plahutnik said he would be supporting the application. Busard said the application meets the requirements of the subdivision regulations and he will vote for it. Freerks said she too would be voting in favor of the motion. She said it makes god common sense to continue the roads as they were begun and not to try to re-do them. She said she also thinks it is wise to add to the width of the road that had not yet been developed. She said she was happy to see the bridge will be preserved and an area where a lot of people can enjoy it will be created. She said the application meets all of the requirements and she too will be in favor. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. Miklo added that there is a planned development overlay for this application, a requirement of which is that there is common open space. At the time of the final plat, the developer is required to provide legally binding instruments stating how the financing and maintenance costs will be handled. Miklo said that when the final plat is submitted there wilt be more detailed information on the maintenance of the open space and the plan for the homeowners' association than is typically available because of this planned development overlay. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: June 18, 2009: Busard motioned to approve the minutes. Eastham seconded. The minutes were approved 7-0. OTHER: Miklo stated that Staff will let the Commission know if there is to be a meeting on August 6tn. If the drainage issues are not yet resolved, then the meeting will be cancelled and the Commission will meet again on August 20`n Busard asked if it would be possible to move the meeting time for Planning and Zoning meetings to 7:00 p.m., rather than its current start time of 7:30 p.m. Freerks noted that this had been discussed in the informal meeting on Monday, and that in the past there had been questions as to whether it would be possible to have Planning and Zoning meetings begin at 7:00 p.m. like City Council meetings do. Commissioners agreed that the 7:00 p.m. time would work for each of them. Freerks said that she felt that before the switch was made effort should be made to notify regular attendees. Miklo said that for anything that is on the agenda the neighbors are notified of the date and time of the meeting. Miklo said when the switch is made, the time will be highlighted. He suggested making the switch not at the next meeting but at the meeting after that, since there had been a number of attendees tonight. Busard asked how the time switch would work for Staff. Staff said 7:00 p.m. would be fine. Freerks said that there had been an article in the newspaper about Hieronymus Square and some of the high rise building projects that were going to potentially go up on Burlington Street. Freerks said the article mentioned some changes to plans. She wondered if Miklo could fill the Commission in on that without going into afull-blown discussion since it was not an agenda item. Miklo reported that the paper said that because of the recession, financing for the size of project originally approved was not available. Miklo clarified that only one project discussed in the article was actually approved by the City Council. The Hieronymus Square project was approved under a conditional zoning agreement requiring at least a seven story building, among other things. If the developers chose to go with a smaller building that was not at least seven stories then they would have to come back before the Commission for an amendment to the conditional zoning agreement. Koppes noted that there was also an article in the paper concerning a green industrial park. She asked if there was anything that the Commission would be seeing with that any time soon. Miklo said he was skeptical that anything would be seen soon. He noted that the property was in an area that has no Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2009 -Formal Page 10 sanitary sewer and no street access, though it does have the possibility of water. He said that in order for the area to be developed some very expensive roads would have to be put in. He said the discussions with the developer are in the very preliminary stages. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel motioned to adjourn. Busard seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote at 7:45 p.m. s/pcdlm ins/p&z/2009/p&z07-16-09.doc Z O N ~~ ~ ~ O W ~ ~ ZVo NaN Q W ZQ Z Z J a co ~ X X X X X X X ti ~ X ~ X X X X X ~ ~ X X X X ~ X ~ X X ~ X X X X ~ X X X X X ~ X X X X X X X X M X X X X X ~ X N X X X X ~ X X r X X X ~ X X X r N W rL~ ~ r- M N O O M WX ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ~n ~ ~n ~ ~n ~ ~n ~ ~ H W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 W J ~ ~- a W J J 4 J Q N = V Z a rv = ? ~ ~ W C~ Y F- ~ ~ ~ ~ Q _ Y ~ W W ~ ~ W N w Q ~ w a z = F. ~ cn cn w a >- Q - w Q z ~ m Q w ~ w O Y Q a J a O Z H ~ a 0 LL ~ ~ X X X X X X ~ 0 M X X X X X X X I I i M X X X X X X X i N X X X X X X X ~ O X X ~ X X ~ w ~~ X ~- ~ ~ ~ M ~ N ~ O ~ O ~ M ~ -n W I-W ~n 0 ~n 0 ~n 0 ~n 0 ~n 0 ~n 0 0 W ~ ~- m Q = Q Z q Q W ~ N ~ = V Z Q N W 2 C) Y ~ ~ fn ~ Z J ~ _ ~ W W ~ N ~ a ~ a ~ F Q c n ~ v i Q w ~ O Q a ~ = W z m w w Y a a ~ C7 Z H W W a LL Z E 0 ~~ ~ o ` U Z ~ X ~ W •~ ~ a~ ~~, ~ a~i~ ~~NEcv ~ N .n o ~. ~~QZ d Q n „ z uuw ~~ xOOz w Y