HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-15-2009 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, October 12,2009 - 6:00 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Lobby Conference Room
410 E. Washington Street
Thursday, October 15,2009 - 7:00 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
REZ09-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development, Inc. for a rezoning
from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Medium Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-8) zone for approximately 7.91 acres of property located on Huntington Drive, west of
Taft Avenue. (45 day limitation period: October 9, 2009)
D. Code Amendment Items
1. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow flexibility on the type of fence required
for Salvage Operations.
2. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to correct problematic language that is will make
it easier to extend wheelchair ramps and stoops into setback areas for all types of buildings.
3. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to clarify standards that apply to duplexes and
single family attached dwellings in planned developments.
4. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow specialized educational facilities in the
CI-1 Zone.
5. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to specify that the amount of the Near Southside
Neighborhood Parking Facility District impact fee shall be adjusted annually based on the national
historical cost indexes contained in the most recent edition of the Engineering News Record rather
than the Means Square Foot Costs Manual and to hold any negative changes to the cost index of
the preceding year.
E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: September 17, 2009
F. Other
Update of Draft Towncrest Urban Renewal Plan
G. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
December 14
December 17
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: 9 October 2009
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner
RE: REZ09.00007 Stone Bridge Estates Part 10
At the September 17 meeting the Commission deferred its consideration of the proposed
rezoning of Stone Bridge Estates Part 10 in order to provide the applicant an opportunity
to address Staff concern regarding the proposed street layout of a concept plan for
development of the site. The Commission also raised concerns about the design of the
stub street and its effect on the single-family property to the north.
Staff had recommended that the applicant curve the Huntington Drive to the west in order
to allow a future extension of the road to be single-loaded to provide views of the public
park and Stone Bridge as described in the Northeast District Plan. Staff also believed that
a curved road or cul-de-sac would provide a more appropriate transition between the
subdivision and the single-family property to the north.
In response to questions raised by the Commission, the applicant prepared the attached
concept plan for how their proposed layout for Huntington Drive could be extended to
allow development on the properties to the north. Staff believes the concept is
problematic due to the lot configuration and layout of the road. Given these concerns
along with the unusual configuration of lots to the north and the presence of the drainage-
way, there remains some uncertainty about the extent to which these properties can be
developed. For this reason it is the consensus of staff that it would be inappropriate to tie
the rezoning to a concept plan for a through-street. Staff believes it would be more
appropriate to review any such proposal at the plat stage.
In general, staff favors ending Huntington with a traditional cul-de-sac. This would allow
the developer to maintain the 50-foot ROW; extension of Huntington Drive would require
widening Huntington, north of Thames Drive, to a 60-foot right-of-way. This may
decrease the amount of space available to provide an adequate landscaped buffer for
lots that double-front on Taft.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ09-00007, a rezoning of 7.91
acres from Interim Development Single Family (ID-RS) zone to Medium Density Single
Family (RS-8) zone, for property located on Huntington Drive, be deferred until a
landscaping plan for the required buffer from Taft Avenue is submitted for review by the
Commission:
If an acceptable landscaping plan is submitted, Staff would support the RS-8 rezoning for
this property be subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring compliance with the
following:
1. The developer is required to dedicated space along Taft Avenue for right-of-way
and construction easements to allow the improvement of this roadway;
2. Developer agrees to contribute toward the future construction costs of upgrading
October 9, 2009
Page 2
Taft Avenue to City standards, which contribution shall be 12.5% of construction
costs;
3. Lots that double-front on Taft Avenue be a minimum of 140 feet in depth;
4. Substantial compliance with the approved landscaping plan for the buffer area.
ATTACHMENTS:
Concept Plan
Appmvedby: ~~.
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
I i
,
I
II \ ,
I I" '
! Iii i
IQP i I I 10 0
> >_m__u_m_>>>_m__;-LL,_>>>_u;mu_>;_mm;_u_,=,=::::;-==;- >>~ ill L-m-0_mQ>_~
'~, -' , , , " > > ~ L~>> > >_
-- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- ---, / >'
~}\'f'S= [/; - . ,~,,~~ >->" ,'111(1)>
'>\;::; I 'I
>>, >- ~ \ '!
> > >>',>; 1\1
~1;=_I,1
~>,bJ ~
> ~ _Iii
i\ 'iti ' \,.\~ ,/------~ I I: ~
-~ g~ ': // / ..: : I I" f7'p,
~~~)"~', I/'I( ~ I : \\I~oO
2 "~ I I'i 0
1";""'" '. ~~ >/~l!Y.,.~'\ \! I I ,i
:r~:': ::\./\ -~--> '~" 111!~~ ~ \
~"',' \..:, j/ , ,! Ill! 108""
'~'lIN. ' ~ ' I I i 0
',TONE P'LlAR', , '\~'>~) .<b {f'':s,"', I: I I
OliTLOT '8' '\'~~ '\ ~~=:.J} if II \ I ! Oi'
....,."';:,-= '\:: "'-@~,,~ ~J, CO .
~,.,- '.',~'(' . \ " ~;Vc;/ :~ i \.&
..-.'-'.~.>-~-'" !/8~~\ ~~\I ",*~"U/ . i ii 1 0 ~
'~---~--~"~'97\\\\\:~~ Vi I::, b,' G
108 "'~ '\\~ \ ' , ,', ,,'l\\\:~~=: I'~' V - : I II \,
99\ \~ \ ,,\i;, \' !I,I,!
'I' \ ~', , \ ,\ \ \ ! 1'1 I
100 ! 1,~~":'~~ ~:~~~ -=<f~:/ ~ l \\. · ,..' " ~+=-,. /:c c
: ,~p ,,';. __ I 'I ~,~
101 j ! gl. ~ ,~ : \ \t
102' : ',> Sf i I \ i
,i : 1-.3; i~',' . r< ... Sf _ ; ~\ I i
I ' : l:1~, ~~ '''I I
I " ' I,. ',7' Sf I ~I \ i
103 ~e J i 9,J10 SF ~
I !! ,'2 ~~ '" ",..e I ~I I I
, ' , '" \:J~" ~~" i:Ei11 i
, I (',,\ 1WI,1W II 724::l : (?
I ~G ',7 Sf 1.>\ AC I ,I I 0
104 I 'I 91' '. :r, , 7,\ 2 Sf Ii l.---....
I -"< 8,S SF J ~
72 "1" '71 ,m 7,\2Sf :
I \ .. ..... i"-'- 1',N7~.
73 i i l___~_ '~o_-_o ~ 7, Sf \ 7,0"" \
- 7~ i' '&~;;:~~' - =~-;l. ::_j__ __---i-+
- - "; I' r----- _ ___ __ : _ \ ~. Sf \
L75! I ! J:>9 ~?~ 111 I ~04Sf I
I -+ I ,I ~"t l.>:f ITJ, Sf , '
: . ': i ."r ;.,'-:-~; I", I
~-----?~ .~ 'I; 8 )~gr; I ~ , ',' Sf
~-.::j7fl' I 67 I',>! Ii ~"'Sf I .. ,.. I I
--~---J ~ / /66 ~ l~W 1:'~' ~ 1 .,. : \ i"
;7 ,/~/l/e465 i'~ }jf~J;~jJft:j~ ;
,.: '/ /6:lJIj~':::-JJj I if':'_ .;\\
hi ,/ 62. ~!/;) //// N:/P/!ff.il.\--mm"~~\ i "II
--
...........
~
-
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 9,2009
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
RE: Amendment to the Zoning Code to allow flexibility in the type of fences allowed
for salvage yards
Salvage yards are uses that required large sites for work areas and outdoor storage of
salvaged materials. Because of the potential negative externalities associated with such
uses, they are only allowed by special exception even in Industrial Zones. The Zoning
Code contains strict requirements for buffering and fencing the outdoor storage areas for
Salvage Operations. One of the special exception requirements is for a solid fence that is
6 to 8 feet tall. The code doesn't leave much leeway for the Board of Adjustment to take
particular site conditions into account. In a recent case, one salvage yard is located next
to another one, so a 8 foot solid fence may not be warranted. To give the Board of
Adjustment some flexibility to judge individual cases on their merits, staff recommends
adding additional language to allow open pattern fencing or semi-opaque fencing, such as
chain link in instances where the salvage materials will not be visible from public streets or
from public view and where nearby uses will not be harmed by a reduced requirement.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that paragraph 14-4B-4C-5, be amended as indicated on the attached
page.
Approved by:
~/",.$.
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
Amend paragraph 14-4B-4C-5 as follows:
5. Salvage Operations
a. The proposed use must be located at least 1,000 feet from any
residentially zoned property.
b. All outdoor storage and work areas must be completely enclosed by a
fence built to at least the S5 standard such that outdoor storage or
salvage operations are not visible from adjacent properties, streets, or
highways (See Article 14-5F, Screening and Buffering Standards).
Salvage materials may not be piled against the fence or piled higher than
the height of the fence. In areas that are not visible from streets or
other public riqhts-of-wav. the Board of Adjustment mav approve a semi-
opaque or open pattern fence in certain situations as described below:
(1) where the view is or will be blocked by a siqnificant chanqe in
grade or by natural or human-made features. such that the
screeninq is effectively provided or the intent of the standard is
met: or
(2) where the adiacent property is unlikely to be developed and is not
likely to be visible to the public: or
(3) where the adiacent property is zoned Industrial and the area on the
adiacent property that abuts the fence is or is likely to be an
outdoor work or storage area rather than a part of the property
that would be highlY visible to the public or to customers or clients
of adjacent businesses.
c. For fire protection, a 15-foot wide, unobstructed firebreak, which
completely surrounds the use, must be established and maintained.
d. The storage of rags, paper and similar combustible waste may not be
stored closer than 100 feet from any property line unless enclosed in a
masonry building of not less than 4-hour, fire-resistive construction.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 9,2009
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
RE: Zoning Code amendment to standardize setback standards for wheelchair ramps
and stoops
The following amendment will correct an error and standardize the language in all base
zones to allow stoops and wheelchair ramps on all types of buildings to extend into
required setbacks according to the same set of rules. Currently, the code refers to a
"dwelling unit," whereas it should just refer to "building," since there is no reason to
make a distinction between different types of buildings with regard to the setback of a
stoop or wheelchair ramp.
Staff recommends that subparagraphs 14-2A-4B-4e., 14-2B-4B-4e., 14-2C-4B-4e; 14-
2D-4B-4d., and 14-2E-4B-4e. be amended as follows:
x. Stoops and wheelchair ramps that function as a means of access to the ground or
first floor of a dwelling unit buildinQ may extend into the rear setback, up to 8 feet
into the required front setback, and into the side setback, provided they are
setback at least 3 feet from any side lot line. In cases where due to topography or
other site characteristics, a wheelchair ramp cannot meet this standard, a Minor
Modification may be requested according to the approval criteria and procedures
for Minor Modifications contained in Chapter 4, Article B of this Title.
Approved by: /'/~ ~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 9,2009
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
RE: Clarification of provisions in Article 14-3A, Planned Development Overlay Zone
In the planned development section of the code, we allow variation from the underlying
base zone standards with regard to uses allowed. It is therefore necessary to provide
minimum standards for all the various residential uses, because any planned
development could contain a variety of residential types regardless of the underlying
zone. Currently, we group Two-Family Uses (duplexes) with Multi-Family Uses and
require that duplexes meet the Multi-Family Site Development Standards. This has
created some problems, because some of the multi-family standards do not make sense
or are impractical for most duplexes. In order to provide more reasonable and applicable
standards for duplexes, staff recommends inserting a separate paragraph that
addresses Two-Family Uses specifically. Since multiple duplexes are often located along
the same street frontage in a planned development, which can result in monotony, there
is one of the multi-family site development standards that should continue to apply for
duplexes and attached single family, the minimum demarcation of building entrances.
Secondly, it is often the case that a planned development involves multiple buildings on
a common lot, with the intention of selling the dwelling units as condominiums. In such
instances, it is not clear whether a two-unit building should be considered a Two-Family
Use or Attached Single Family. Under the base zone, the side setbacks for a duplex
(two units on one lot) are 5 feet. For attached single family dwellings, where each unit
by definition sits on a separate lot, one of the 5-foot side setbacks is reduced to zero,
while the other is increased from 5 to 10 feet. This difference creates an incentive for
any applicant who wants to put multiple two-unit buildings on one common lot to state
that the condominium buildings they are proposing should be considered duplexes
rather than attached single family, because the required separation between buildings
would be less. Since the planned development process is often used to achieve a
higher number of dwelling units than what would be possible in the underlying zone, staff
believes that the City should not encourage further crowding by allowing a reduced
separation between buildings. Therefore, staff recommends that the ordinance be
clarified to make the separation between buildings 20 feet when multiple two-unit
buildings are proposed on a common lot.
Another issue that needs to be clarified is whether the standard that two-family uses and
attached single family dwellings only be allowed on corner lots in the RS-5 and RS-8
Zones can be waived. Technically, since this is not a dimensional standard, it cannot be
waived through the planned development process as the ordinance is currently written.
Since the planned development section is intended to provide flexibility for well-planned
developments that provide a mix of dwelling types, it may be reasonable to allow this
standard to be waived. However, the conditions under which such a waiver would be
allowed need to be set forth in the ordinance, so that the planned development process
is not merely used as a means to circumvent the base zone requirements.
Page 2
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Article 14-3A, Planned Development Overlay be amended as
indicated on the attached pages.
Approved by:
Atu~-
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
In Article 14-3A, Planned Development Overlay, amend paragraphs 14-3A-4C-1a. and
b., as follows:
a. Single Family and Two Familv Uses
(1) Unless modified as allowed in the following sub-subparagraph ill
below, Attached and Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings must comply
with the Specific Approval Criteria for Attached and Detached Zero
Lot Line Dwellings in the RS-12 Zone as set forth in Article 14-4B,
Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, and Provisional
Uses. Townhouse-style condominiums must also meet these
approval criteria. In addition, the following provisions apply:
(a) Main entrances to dwellino units must be c1earlv demarcated
bv one of the following means: covered porch or canopv:
transom and sidelioht windows: pilasters and pediment: or
other sionificant architectural treatment that emphasizes main
entrances. Simple trim around the doorwav does not meet
this standard.
(b) If multiple townhouse-style condominium buildinos are located
on a common lot. the buildings must be separated bv a
distance of at least 20 feet.
(c) If the underlving base zone is RS-S or RS-8. the reouirement
that Attached Sinole Familv Dwellinos are only allowed on
corner lots with each main entrance oriented toward a
different street applies in all planned developments in order to
encouraoe a mix of residential uses. If multiple Two Family
Uses will be located on a common lot. imaginary lot lines must
be illustrated on the plan for purposes of determining where
the corner units would be located accordino to base zone
standards. This corner lot standard may only be waived if
convincino evidence is submitted that the configuration of the
property or other existino physical condition of the lot makes
the application of this standard impractical. If this standard is
waived the units must be desioned and located in a manner
that prevents monotony by varyino aspects such as facade
detailino. window pattern. buildino materials. and color.
(2) Two Family Uses must comply with the standards for Two-Family
Uses as set forth in Article 14-4B. Minor Modifications. Variances.
Special Exceptions. and Provisional Uses. In addition. the followino
provisions will apply:
(a) Main entrances to dwelling units must be clearly demarcated
by one of the following means: covered porch or canopy:
transom and sidelight windows: pilasters and pediment: or
other significant architectural treatment that emphasizes main
entrances. Simple trim around the doorway does not meet
this standard.
(b) If multiple Two-Family buildinos are located on a common lot
the buildinos must be separated by a distance of at least 20
feet.
(c) If the underlying base zone is RS-5 or RS-8. the re~uirement
that Two Family Uses are only allowed on corner lots with
each main entrance oriented toward a different street applies
in all planned developments in order to encourage a mix of
residential uses. If multiple Two Family Uses will be located on
a common lot imaoinarv lot lines must be illustrated on the
plan for purposes of determining where the corner units would
be located according to base zone standards. This corner lot
standard may only be waived if convincino evidence is
submitted that the configuration of the property or other
existing physical condition of the lot makes the application of
this standard impractical. If this standard is waived the units
must be desioned and located in a manner that prevents
monotony by varvino aspects such as facade detailino. window
pattern. building materials. and color.
(d) Garaoes and off-street parkino areas must be located and
desioned so that they do not dominate the streetscape
accordino to the standards specified in sub-subparaoraph 14-
3A-4K-1c(2)'
(3) Minimum lot area, lot width, lot frontage, and setbacks required in
the underlying base zone may be reduced in order to provide the
opportunity for a variety of Single Family and Two Family dwelling
types. However, any such modification to the underlying zoning
requirements must be noted on the plan and the development must
comply with the standards listed in subsection E of this section,
Zoning Requirements.
b. TONe FaMiI~,. aREI Multi-Family and GrOUD Livina Uses
If Multi-Family, T':;o Family, or Group Living Uses are proposed, they
must comply with the Multi-Family Site Development Standards set forth
in Article 14-2B, Multi-Family Residential Zones. When located adjacent
to single family and duplex structures, multi-family buildings should be of
a scale, massing and architectural style that is compatible with adjacent
lower density residential development.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 9,2009
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
RE: REZ09-00009 - Request to amend the zoning code to allow specialized
educational facilities in the Intensive Commercial Zone
Background
We have received a request from Judy 0' Donnell to amend the Zoning Code to allow
Specialized Educational Facilities in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Zone. These uses
include schools that focus on non-academic, specialized trade, business or commercial
courses; music schools; drama schools; dance studios; martial arts studios; language
schools and civil service and other short-term, examination prep schools, and similar.
The applicant wants to locate a fencing school on Highland Avenue near Gilbert Street in
the CI-1 Zone. Their letter of request is attached for your review and consideration.
When the zoning code was re-written in 2005, there was an attempt to clean up the CI-1
Zone and eliminate uses that were not compatible with the general purposes of the
zone. The most notable uses that were removed from the zone were grocery stores,
restaurants, medical offices, and residential apartments. Grocery stores, most types of
sales-oriented retail uses, and restaurants are all uses that serve a significant segment
of the total community population, tend to be large traffic generators, and tend to prefer
visible locations in the major business districts in the community. Medical offices
generate traffic similar to retail uses, are allowed in almost all areas of the city and can
afford more prominent locations in office parks, in community commercial and
neighborhood commercial locations and near area hospitals. Due to potential late night
operations, noise, dust and other externalities associated with some uses in the CI-1
Zone, this zone does not tend to provide a healthy residential living environment.
During the process of cleaning up the CI-1 Zone, specialized educational facilities were
also eliminated as an allowed use in the zone. The attached letter from the applicant
describes her rationale for why the City should reconsider allowing these types of uses
in the CI-1 Zone. Following is staff's analysis in response to this request.
Analysis
The purpose of the Intensive Commercial (CI-1 Zone) is largely two-fold. The first
purpose listed below is the one that is explicitly stated in the ordinance, while the second
is one that has become a de facto purpose due to market factors. While there are many
complex reasons that businesses locate where they do, I have tried to group the
currently allowed uses into these general purpose categories to provide some context for
the question about whether specialized educational facilities should be allowed in the CI-
1 Zone. I have also included an "other" group, which includes uses that don't seem to
fall as clearly into the general purposes of the zone, but which are necessary uses in a
community. These are uses that have real or perceived negative externalities that make
finding a location difficult.
Page 2
· Purpose: To reserve space in the community for businesses and recreational uses
that are land intensive and require large outdoor work, storage, display, or activity
areas; or that require large interior spaces, which may result in fewer employees,
clients, and/or participants per square foot of lot area or building area than uses in
other commercial areas. A number of the uses allowed are considered industrial or
quasi-industrial in nature and involve outdoor activities that may produce some
negative externalities, such as noise, dust, or unsightly outdoor storage areas. Many
of these uses provide specialized goods and services, such that they are
destinations rather than relying on visibility from a major traffic corridor. The uses
that are allowed in the CI-1 Zone that meet this purpose include:
o Intensive Animal-Related Commercial (dog daycare; kennels and stables)
(Provisional)
o Outdoor Commercial Recreational Uses (golf driving ranges; miniature golf;
amusement parks; commercial ball field, etc.) (Permitted)
o Indoor Commercial Recreational Uses (fitness centers, gyms; health clubs;
indoor soccer facilities; bowling alleys; amusement arcades; indoor play
parks; indoor theaters) (Permitted)
o Sales-Oriented Retail is limited to sales of buildino supplies; auto supplies;
hardware; paint: floorino: furniture: appliances (Permitted)
o Outdoor Storaoe and Display-Oriented Retail Uses (lumber yards; car
dealerships; sales of landscaping and nursery products; farm and implement
supply; vehicle or equipment rental) (Permitted)
o Quick Vehicle Servicino (gas stations, car washes) (provisional)
o Vehicle Repair (provisional)
o Industrial service uses (building contractor yards; welding shops; machine
shops; repair of tools, motors, heavy machinery; truck repair; towing service;
commercial laundries; schools for industrial trades) (Permitted)
o Warehouse facilities and self-service storaoe (Permitted)
o Wholesale sales (Permitted)
· Purpose. not explicitlv stated in the Code: CI-1 zoned properties may be less costly
to lease or purchase due to a less visible location or a mix of businesses that may
have outdoor work and storage areas or other negative externalities that will
discourage businesses that desire a prominent or more attractive site. These cost
factors make CI-1 Zones attractive to cottage industries, start-up businesses, and
other uses that either cannot compete for commercial property in more prominent
and visible commercial areas or that do not need a prominent or visible location to be
successful. The uses that are allowed in the CI-1 Zone that most closely meet this
purpose include:
o General Office uses (business service USeS and all types of offices, except
medical offices - these would tend to be offices that don't rely on drive-by
traffic for their business or do not need or cannot afford a more prominent
commercial retail location) (permitted)
o Consionment stores (second-hand shops) (permitted)
o Repair-Oriented Retail (repair of consumer goods of all types) (Permitted)
o Lioht and General Manufacturino (provisional - limits size to 5,000 sq. ft., but
can be increased to 15,000 sq. ft. by special exception)
o Daycare (provisional)
o General Animal-related Commercial (Vet clinics; animal grooming)
(provisional)
Page 3
o Community Service Uses (community centers, social service facilities,
vocational training facilities, soup kitchens, public safety facilities, surplus
food distribution centers)(special exception)
o Assisted Group Living (Group Care Facilities) (special exception)
· Other: These other uses tend to be considered less desirable uses and some are
only allowed in a few places in the community.
o Adult Businesses (provisional)
o Heavv Manufacturing (limited to concrete batch/mix plants) (special
exception)
o Homeless shelters (special exception)
o Detention Facilities (special exception)
o Communication Towers (special exception)
o Salvage Operations (special exception)
After careful consideration, staff finds that Specialized Educational Facilities may be
appropriate for consideration in the CI-1 Zone for the following reasons:
· Specialized schools might be land-intensive - needing either large indoor or
outdoor spaces, which may make it difficult to find buildings or properties that suit
their needs or to compete for land in more prominent retail commercial areas or
downtown; and
· They are specialized uses that are destinations rather than relying on drive-by
traffic for their business and therefore do not need a more visible or prominent
location.
Staff also finds that there are a number of uses currently allowed in the CI-1 Zone that
have similarities to Specialized Educational Facilities. These include:
· Indoor Commercial Recreational Uses - It is difficult to distinguish how the
impacts of indoor commercial recreational uses would differ from specialized
educational facilities, particularly those focused on learning recreational or
physical activities - such as dance and martial arts schools. In fact, health clubs,
which are categorized as indoor commercial recreational uses may offer classes
in a variety of activities including martial arts, dance, yoga, and other specialized
skills that if offered on their own under a separate roof, might be categorized as
specialized educational facilities.
· Community Service Uses - this use category allows a wide variety of uses
including community centers, youth club facilities; vocational training for the
physically or mentally disabled, which may draw similar clientele and have similar
traffic generation to specialized educational facilities.
· Office Uses - schools that provide instruction for specific trades, business
courses, test prep courses, and driving schools would be similar to many office
uses.
· Daycare Uses - schools that offer classes for children or younger students would
have similar concerns with regard to safe drop-off/pick-up areas and traffic
circulation as would specialized educational facilities that focus on classes for
youth, such as dance studios.
Because there are a broad range of uses allowed in the CI-1 Zone, each area of CI-1
zoning tends to have its own distinct character. There are many locations where
specialized educational facilities may easily coexist with other CI-1 uses. However, there
is a concern that specialized educational facilities may not be compatible with the
character of some CI-1 zones, particularly if the specific area includes uses that tend to
Page 4
create negative externalities, such as outdoor work activities and storage areas that may
be noisy, dusty, or contain machinery that causes repetitive vibrations. There may also
be instances where operators and clients of certain schools of specialized instruction
have higher expectations for property appearance than what is found in some CI-1
locations. As consequence, there may be instances where it is inadvisable for a
specialized educational facility to be established due to the negative externalities from
surrounding uses that pose significant health or safety concerns for the clients of the
facility. Therefore, staff recommends that specialized educational facilities be allowed in
the CI-1 Zone by special exception, so that such uses are considered carefully on a
case-by-case basis by the Board of Adjustment.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Table 2C-1, Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones, be amended
to indicate that Specialized Educational Facilities are allowed by Special Exception in the CI-1
Zone; and that subsection 14-48-40 be amended by inserting the following paragraph, which
sets forth the specific approval criteria for Specialized Educational Facilities in the CI-1 Zone.
Specialized Educational Facilities in the CI.1 Zone
The use will be functionally compatible with surroundina uses. such that the health and
safety of clients/students are not compromised. The Board will consider factors such
as the types of businesses that predominate in the immediate vicinity. whether there
are any sianificant neaative externalities created by these uses. such as excessive
noise. dust. or vibrations from outdoor work areas that may pose a health or safetv risk
to clients/students of the proposed use: and where such neaative externalities exist.
whether the buildina(s) and site can and will be desianed to mitiaate the harmful
effects.
The Commission should also note that the general approval criteria that apply to all
special exceptions would also be used by the Board of Adjustment to determine if a
particular location was acceptable for the proposed use. These criteria are listed in
section 14-4B-3 of the Zoning Code and are copied below for ease of your review.
Approval Criteria
In order to grant a special exception, the Board must find that the applicant meets the
specific approval criteria set forth in this Title with respect to the speCific proposed
exception. The Board must also find that the applicant meets the following general
approval criteria or that the following criteria do not apply:
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare;
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or
impair property values in the neighborhood;
3. Establishment of the speCific proposed exception will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses
permitted in the district in which such property is located;
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided;
Page 5
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets;
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being
considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the
applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located;
7. The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City,
as amended.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application materials
Approved by:
~~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
Judy O'Donnell
16 South View Dr N E
Iowa City, IA 52240
September 23, 2009
To City Staff and Planning & Zoning Commission:
This application is to request that a zoning amendment be adopted that
would permit Schools of Specialized Instruction in CI-1 zones. Currently,
Schools of Specialized Instruction are not permitted in CI-1 zones, but
Indoor Commercial Recreational Uses are allowed.
It is my understanding that CI-1 zones are purposed for those activities
and uses that require either more land or large interior spaces. The zone
is supposed to create a buffer between more highly trafficked retail
commercial areas and industrial areas. Rental prices tend to be less in
the. CI-1 zone so that they provide an area where new businesses have
an opportunity to get started.
Examples of Schools of Specialized Instruction include dance schools,
martial arts studios, and drama schools. After speaking with my realtor
and City staff in the Housing and Inspection Services Department, I was
informed that the center I wish to open to teach both adults and children
the Olympic sport of fencing would be classified as a School of
Specialized Instruction. It is my understanding that my use would be
classified in this category rather than an Indoor Commercial Recreational
Use (the category that health clubs and gyms fall into) because a fencing
school most closely compares to the examples listed for Schools of
Specialized Instruction.
However, fencing schools require a large amount of interior space
because of the nature of the sport. Fencing strips are approximately 60ft
long by 6ft wide. Additionally, about 10ft of space between the strips is
necessary for the safety of the participants. In order to have a fl;iflction~1
school, I will need several strips set up plus a large area to give.O.lass~s.
The space requirements for this sport cannot currently be met ~Zit/1in tHe
allowable zones in Iowa City at a lease price that would make it.p.oss(~e
to run such a business. A School of Specialized Instruction does lflot ::::;: in
-- h~~ ~!.;~ ~:J
need retail visibility, and typically cannot afford the rent require~tA a :::;
retail area. ~;. l~
Allowing Schools of Specialized Instruction in CI-1 zones would have
no adverse effects on surrounding properties. Unlike the allowed
Commercial I ndoor Recreational businesses, which impact the area
because they are so busy throughout the day, Schools of Specialized
Instruction tend to hold activities primarily in the evenings and on
weekends when surrounding businesses in a CI-1 zone would typically
be closed. Traffic caused by a School of Specialized Instruction is fairly
minimal, as class sizes are usually small. A School of Specialized
Instruction in a CI-1 zone would be a low intensity use that requires a
large amount of space.
Since the CI-1 zone does permit health clubs and gyms - uses which
are very similar to many Schools of Specialized Instruction - the
compatibility seems the same. Nothing about including a School of
Specialized Instruction in a CI-1 zone seems incompatible with the
Comprehensive plan for the Central Planning District.
Indeed, making it possible for new Schools of Speciailized Instruction
to open in CI-1 zones would be providing a use that would be attractive
to nearby residents as well as the rest of Iowa City. For example, my
proposed fencing center, if permitted at 415 Highland, would be the first
site dedicated to the sport of fencing in the entire state of Iowa.
If you have further questions or need more details about the nature of
a fencing school or my specific business plan, please don't hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Judy O'Donnell
(319) 358-6362
.-
/.'"
'-''' Il-;'~'.?-,~
I j
,-,.)
5~
""-41
. fll
c~
r-J
rn
-..., ...........
;~ ;~~
:;:.
\.,n
...r.::
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 -7:00 PM - FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ann Freerks, Tim Weitzel, Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham,
Michelle Payne
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Miklo, Sarah Walz, Sarah Holocek
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Moreland
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REZONING ITEM:
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 applicant has
requested that this item be deferred indefinitely.
Eastham stated that he would be abstaining from discussions on this matter due to a potential
conflict of interest.
Miklo said that a motion to defer the item indefinitely would be in order. Freerks asked if there
was any additional information on the application. Miklo said his understanding is that there is
still some negotiation going on between the property owner and the homeowners' association to
the south regarding drainage issues.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
-------_-."-~"
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 17, 2009 - Formal
Page 2 of 6
Holecek noted that any comments in the public hearing should speak to the deferral rather than
the details of the case.
No one wished to speak on the issue and the public hearing was closed.
Weitzel moved to defer REZ09-00003 indefinitely.
Payne seconded.
The motion carried 4-0 (Eastham abstaining; Koppes and Plahutnik absent).
REZ09-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development, Inc., for
a rezoning from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Medium
Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone for approximately 7.91 acres of property
located on Huntington Drive, west of Taft Avenue. The 45-day limitation period is
October 9, 2009.
Walz outlined the location of the property. Eastham asked Walz what the future plan is for
Colchester Drive, a road to the west of the property. Walz explained that Colchester would
intersect Thames. The current zoning is Interim Development Single Family Residential (ID-RS)
and the proposed zoning is Medium Density Single Family (RS-8), Walz said. She corrected
the staff report by saying that the RS-8 zone allows for small-lot single-family, but that two
corner lots in the development are also large enough to be eligible for duplexes. Walz said that
the Northeast District plan shows the area north of Thames as appropriate for large-lot single
family housing. That plan considered large lots with access along a rear alley that would have
been along the creek. The intention of that plan was to minimize the impact of Taft Avenue on
future residential development. Walz said that at some point Taft Avenue will be improved and
will serve as an arterial street and that given the industrial property to the south it will carry
significant truck traffic. Walz said that Staff has been concerned with providing a landscape
buffer there for these properties.
Walz said the Northeast District Plan depicted the area south of Thames Drive as small lots
served off an alley that runs between lots. Walz said this plan was created prior to the
development of Windsor Heights Part 21 to the south. The Northeast District Plan had
conceived of a public street running along the creek rather than between developed lots. Walz
said that Staff does think it is important to have single-loaded streets at least along that portion
of the creek to open access to the park. Staff has asked the applicant to consider curving the
road to make a better transition to the single family home nearby and to provide a single-loaded
street toward the park that will eventually be located in Stone bridge Estates. Staff has also
asked the applicant to present a very thorough landscaping plan for the buffer area. Because
the buffer cannot be installed until improvements are made to Taft Avenue, Staff will be asking
the applicant to set escrow money for those improvements.
Staff recommends that REZ09-00007, a rezoning for 7.91 acres from Interim Development
Single family (ID-RS) zone to Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) zone for the property at
Huntington Drive be deferred until the street layout is addressed and a detailed landscaping
plan is provided for review by the Commission. Walz said that if these two issues are resolved,
Staff recommends approval for this rezoning subject to a conditional zoning agreement
requiring:
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 17, 2009 - Formal
Page 3 of 6
1. the developer to dedicate space along Taft Avenue for right-of-way and construction
easements to allow the improvement of Taft Avenue;
2. general conformance with the concept plan with regard to lot depths and street layout;
and
3. substantial compliance with a landscaping plan for the buffer area.
Freerks asked if there were questions for Staff.
Busard asked if Huntington Drive would cross back over the creek or run along the length of the
creek. Walz said it would stay on the east side of the creek. Payne asked if it would eventually
get all the way up to lower West Branch Road on that side of the creek and Walz said that it
would. Miklo said it would either do that or curve back in to the east. Payne observed that the
road curvature is basically to get around the already existing lot. Miklo said that the anticipation
is that if that large lot is annexed in the future it could be subdivided as well. Miklo said that
continuing the street straight north would run it awfully close to that existing house. Eastham
asked if there was enough room between the existing house and the creek bed for a street.
Miklo said Staff would anticipate that it would be annexed before it is developed because the
property goes basically to the creek. Miklo said the extension of that street would depend on
the property owner participating in some kind of development. Eastham asked if Staff had
looked to see if Huntington can be rerouted to the east and still allow for the same number of
single-family lots as proposed by the developer. Freerks said there is no guarantee that
someone can put in as many lots as they want. Eastham said he was aware of that but that he
was trying to get an idea of how the proposed street alignment could change the developer's
plan. Miklo said there was potential for the plan to be diminished by one or two lots if the street
was realigned.
There were no further questions and the public hearing was opened.
John Moreland, 960 Arlington Drive, introduced himself as one of the developers of Arlington.
He said that he and his partners have developed nearly all of the land to the north and south of
the proposed development. He said that due to the nature of Taft Avenue as an arterial street
there is no demand for large single family lots along the road. He said he is attempting to come
up with something more affordable for families. He said that they have been working with staff
and had gone from an original plan for multi-family units to small-lot single-family units.
Moreland said he has no problem with putting a buffer along Taft Avenue. He said that they
would also be willing to try to curve the street as close to the creek as possible without taking
out a bunch of lots. Moreland said having to reduce the number of lots would severely hamper
their efforts to keep the housing affordable in this development. Moreland said that it is crazy to
change the plan so much because of one man's home. He said that they think they can
reconfigure the road and get as much buffer as possible on the Taft side. What the applicant
does not want to do is to be required to have a single-loaded street because that will take the
affordability right out of the project. Moreland said the applicant would resubmit and do their
best to cut the size of the lots on the west side of the creek so that there could be a deeper
buffer from Taft, but that they still have to be able to put a house on it. Moreland said that due
to the amount of traffic on Taft, the best use of the land will be for first-time homebuyers who
just want to get into a single-family home at a good price.
Freerks asked Moreland if he had talked to the neighbor to the north. Moreland said someday
the man will probably sell it and that his guess is that anyone who buys it will continue on with
the kind of development Moreland is proposing. Moreland said along busy roads like Taft and
Scott Boulevard lower priced housing is the way to go. Freerks asked if Moreland had talked to
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 17, 2009 - Formal
Page 4 of 6
the property owner about the proposal. Moreland said they had not talked to him about buying
his property. Freerks asked if he had talked to him about the way the road is proposed to be
developed. Moreland said he had not because he knows the man personally and he believes
he is probably very pleased that they are trying for single-family development rather than a
zoning like RM-12, multi-family.
There were no further comments on this issue and the public hearing was closed.
Payne made a motion to defer REZ09-00007, an application by Arlington Development for
the rezoning on Huntington Drive west of Taft Avenue.
Eastham seconded.
Freerks said she thought it might be advisable for the developer to discuss the proposal with the
owner of the existing home, and said that it might be nice for the Commission to actually hear
from that property owner.
Busard said he is concerned that the Commission is trying to determine the fate of Huntington
Drive without really knowing what is going to happen to the north. Busard said further
consideration has to be given as to how the existing lot will fit in with the proposal.
Eastham said that his view is that the Comprehensive Plan does support smaller lot
development in this area, especially along an arterial street. Eastham said that a landscape
buffer between Taft and the homes to be built is certainly desirable. He said that getting a
residential street in such a narrow corridor as proposed by Staff between the existing home and
the creek is not an easy thing to do. Eastham said that he did not quite understand the concern
about not knowing the future plans for the property to the north.
Busard clarified that his question was what will happen to the road after it curves along the
street, what the plan for that road would be.
Miklo said that the goal is not to have Huntington follow the creek for the entire subdivision,
rather to start curving it at some point so that when it does come near the neighbor's property it
can curve as far from the property as possible.
Eastham asked if the goal with Huntington's alignment was to not get close to the existing
house or to provide good alignment for future subdivisions. Miklo and Freerks replied that it was
to do both. Miklo added that it was also intended to provide good access to parklands, as Walz
had indicated earlier. Freerks said she is sure there are multiple solutions to this problem.
Miklo said a cul-de-sac configuration had been considered.
A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried on a 5-0 vote (Koppes and Plahutnik
absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 3.2009:
Eastham motioned to approve the minutes.
Weitzel seconded.
The minutes were approved 5-0 (Koppes and Plahutnik absent).
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 17, 2009 - Formal
Page 5 of 6
OTHER:
Freerks noted that the 7:00 p.m. start time seemed to be working well for Commissioners and
Staff.
ADJOURNMENT:
Payne motioned to adjourn.
Eastham seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 (Koppes and Plahutnik absent) vote at 7:40 p.m.
z
Q
en
~
:!!:c
:!!:D::
00
UU
C)W
zD::
-wen
zuo
OzO
N<(N
CC
ZZ
<(W
C)I-
Zl-
-<(
Z
Z
<(
..J
c..
.... W W
't'"" - -
- >< >< >< 0 >< 0 ><
en
C") W
-
- >< >< >< >< 0 >< ><
en
0
~ >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
CO
CD
't'"" >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
....
CO ill
't'"" >< -- >< >< >< >< ><
CD 0
't'"" ill ill
N -- >< >< >< >< -- ><
- 0 0
It)
.... >< >< ill >< >< >< ><
LO --
0
CD ill
't'"" >< >< >< >< >< -- ><
~ 0
N >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
~
It) >< >< >< >< >< ill ><
- --
C") 0
It) >< >< >< >< ill >< ><
- --
N 0
It) ill
't'"" >< >< >< -- >< >< ><
-- 0
't'""
en
W
:EO:: ...... ...... M N 0 0 M
0:: a.. ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
W>< -- -- -- -- -- -- --
l{) l{) l{) l{) l{) l{) l{)
I-W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W J: >-
I-
<C :J W W ...J
:J 0:: OJ ...J ...J
J: <C z ~ ...J <C
W 3:
en J: Z J: :E
0 U <C :J u ~ i=
..., W
Cl :E en :E z ...i
<C ~ en I- W
0:: J: 0:: W W :J N
W <C I- W a.. Z J: !::
:E en en W a.. ~ <C
<C :J <C 0:: 0 ...J W
Z OJ W U. ~ a.. a.. 3:
C)
z
i=
W
W
:E
...J
<C
:E
0::
o
u.
C") ill
't'"" >< >< >< >< >< >< --
- 0
....
0
C") >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
C")
N >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
C")
N >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
--
N
N ill ill ill
't'"" -- >< >< -- >< >< --
- 0 0 0
't'""
en
W
:EO:: ...... ...... M N 0 0 M
0:: a.. ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
W>< -- -- -- -- -- -- --
l{) l{) l{) l{) l{) l{) l{)
I-W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W J: >-
- I- W ...J
<( ...J W
:J 0:: OJ ...J ...J
J: <C z ~ ...J <C
W 3:
en J: Z J: :E
0 U <C :J u ~ i=
..., W
Cl :E en en :E z ...i
<C ~ u.i I- W
t:t:: J: 0:: W :J ~
W <C I- W a.. Z J:
:E en en W a.. ~ <C
<C :J <C 0:: 0 ...J W
Z OJ W u. ~ a.. a.. 3:
C)
z
i=
W
W
:E
...J
<C
:E
0::
o
u.
Z
E
:J
.....
o
:J
-00
C1l 0
en Z .....
:J __ C1l
(.) 0).0
t.ij.~ E
~a5C1l
..........CC1l~
~ ~ ~ E CO
en en.o 0"'"
~.o<(Z~
Cl.. <( II 11
II 11 UJ 11
--~,
XOOZl
:>.:
UJ
~