The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-01-2010 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, March 29, 2010 - 6:00 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Lobby Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street Thursday, April 1, 2010 - 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. Development/Rezoning Item REZ1 0-00004/SUB1 0-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by the Moss Green Development Corp. for a preliminary plat and a rezoning from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID-ORP) zone to Planned Development Overlay Office Research Park (OPD-ORP) zone for approximately 60.32 acres, Research Development Park (OPD-RDP) zone for approximately 56.48 acres, and Mixed Use (OPD-MU) zone for approximately 24.49 acres, for Moss Green Urban Village, an 18-lot, approximately 235.00-acre office park and mixed use development subdivision located west of North Dodge StreeVHighway 1 and north of Interstate 80. D. Annexation/Rezoning Item ANN10-00002 & REZ10-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Dealer Properties IC, LLC for annexation and rezoning from County Agricultural (A) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 5 acres of property located on the north side of Mormon Trek Blvd, northeast of its intersection with Dane Road. (Indefinite deferral has been requested by applicant.) E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: March 18, 2010 F. Other G. Adjournment Informal Formal To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: REZ1 0-00004/SUB1 0-00005 Moss Green Urban Village GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Owners Contact Person: Phone: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Robert Miklo & Karen Howard Date: April 1 , 2010 Moss Green Development Corporation 3354 Kenruth Circle Iowa City, IA 52240 319-351-8593 Moss Green Development Corporation (address same as above) & Neal Llewellyn & Hills Bank & Trust Co., Trustee of the Otologic Medical Services, PC4019(k) Profit Sharing Plan FBO Guy E. McFarland 2771 Oakdale Blvd., Suite 4 Coralville, Iowa 52241 Wally Pelds 2323 Dixon Street Des Moines, IA 50316 (515)265-8196 Rezoning from ID-ORP to OPD-ORP, OPD-RDP and OPD-MU and preliminary sensitive areas development plan and preliminary plat. Development of an office park and mixed use commercial and residential buildings. Northwest of the intersection of Hwy 1 and Interstate 80 Approximately 60.32 acres for rezoning from ID-ORP to OPD-ORP; approximately 56.48 acres from ID-ORP to OPD- RDP; and approximately 24.49 acres from ID-ORP to OPD-MU. Preliminary Plat contains approximately 243.24 acres (approx. 101.94 acres will remain ID-ORP) Farmland and natural areas surrounding Rapid Creek - ID-ORP 2 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Farmland & rural residential- County-AG South: Farmland & Office Research - ID-ORP & ORP East: Farmland and rural residential - County AG & R West: Farmland and rural residential - County R , Comprehensive Plan: North Corridor District - Office Research park and associated uses and protection of Rapid Creek floodplain File Date: Not yet a complete application 45 Day Limitation Period: (Not yet determined) BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City recently annexed approximately 132 acres of property located north of Interstate 80 and west of Dodge Street (Hwy 1) to accommodate the construction of Oakdale Boulevard to allow access to the proposed Moss Green Urban Village. This proposal includes the 132 acres plus approximately 111 acres that was already within the city limits. The Moss Green Development Corporation, the applicant, is now proposing to rezone the property that they own to a mix of Office Research Park (ORP), Research Development Park (RPD) and Mixed Use (MU). They are also requesting a Planned Development Overlay (OPD) rezoning to allow modification of underlying zoning requirements and to address sensitive areas that are present on the property. Property owned by the Neal Llewellyn and Hills Bank and Trust will remain zoned ID-ORP, since there are no plans to develop this land at present. The applicant is also requesting approval of a preliminary plat for a 243.24-acre, 12-lot industrial and commercial subdivision with several outlots set aside for future development, conservation areas or stormwater management. ANAL YSIS: Rezoning Current 10 zone: The Interim Development (10) zoning is intended to provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and other non-urban uses may continue until infrastructure is in place to serve urban development. Since the construction of Oakdale Boulevard, which will be necessary to gain access to the subject property, is not currently included in the Iowa City Capital Improvement Plan, the applicant proposes to fund and build Oakdale Boulevard, Moss Place and the necessary utilities, including sanitary sewer and water line improvements to make this property suitable for development. The applicant may be able to re-coup some of their costs through rebate of a portion of future property taxes generated by new development within the office research park through an Urban Renewal District and Tax Increment Financing proposal, which is currently being forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. With this commitment to construct the necessary infrastructure it is appropriate to consider rezoning the property for development. Proposed zonina: The applicant is proposing three zoning classifications and a Planned Development Overlay zone. The proposed zoning districts and their compliance with the Comprehensive Plan are discussed below. The proposed Office Research Park (ORP) Zone and the Research Development Park (RDP) Zone are intended to provide areas for the development of large office and research firms and complementary uses, such as hotels and services for area employees and clients. These zones 3 also allow for some light manufacturing and wholesale sales, which would allow a firm the ability to have both the research and the development and production functions located in proximity. Both the RDP and ORP Zones allow the same land uses. However, they differ in scale. The ORP zone is intended for larger entities with a minimum lot size of 7 acres, minimum front setbacks of 150 feet, and side and rear setbacks of 100 feet to promote a campus-like environment. There is no building height limit in the ORP Zone. The RDP provides opportunities for smaller operations with a minimum lot size of 1 acre and a minimum front setback of 20 feet. There is a maximum height limit of 45 feet in the RDP Zone. The attached zoning exhibit indicates that the applicant is proposing approximately 60 acres of the larger-lot ORP zoning adjacent to Interstate 80 where the potentially taller, larger buildings will be visible from the highway. Approximately 56.48 acres of Research Development Park (RDP) zoning is proposed north of the ORP zone and generally through the middle of the property. The applicant is proposing approximately 24 acres of Mixed Use (MU) zoning south of the easternmost intersection of Oakdale Boulevard and Moss Place. The MU zone is intended to provide a transition from commercial and employment centers to less intensive residential uses. The zone permits a mix of uses including lower-scale retail and office uses, and a wide variety of residential uses including detached single family, two-family, attached single family (townhouses), multi-family buildings, and mixed use buildings with residential units located above commercial. The MU zone has no minimum lot size requirements for commercial uses. Residential uses are required to have 1800 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit (for attached units) and 3000 square feet lot area per dwelling unit (for detached single family). Up to 24 dwelling units are allow per acre. The setback requirements are: minimum front setback of 5 feet and a maximum setback of 15 feet; 5 to 7 feet for side and rear setbacks (duplexes and single family require a 20-foot rear setback but these types of dwellings are not anticipated in the area). There is a 35-foot height limit. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: Both the RDP and the ORP zones are compatible with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this area. The plan states that "the 1-80 interchange with Highway 1 provides one of the few opportunities for office research park development in Iowa City. . . With the tone set by [NCS Pearson and ACT] and the advantages of interstate exposure, land around this interchange should continue to be preserved for office research park and research development park opportunities." Although the Comprehensive Plan's land use map does not indicate mixed use in this area, in staff's opinion a mixture of office, retail, related services, and residential uses could complement and support the large office park contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. The residential component has the public benefit of providing potential housing for employees in the office park. If the MU zone is part of master plan for the office park, in staff's opinion a Comprehensive Plan amendment would not be necessary. However, staff questions whether a MU zone would be appropriate in this location if it is not developed in conjunction with the larger office park. Because of environmental constraints of the floodplain in this area, there will be limited nearby residential development that would provide a market for commercial uses. The development of the zone will depend primarily on the market generated by the workers in the proposed office park. The residential uses on the upper floors may also help support commercial uses and services, but in themselves they are not likely to be sufficient to create a demand for commercial uses. As discussed below, under the Planned Development Overlay section of the report, the applicant is requesting a number of modifications to the underlying zoning standards for the ORP, RDP, and MU zones. In general, they are requesting modifications to some minimum setbacks and establishment of certain maximum setbacks with the intent to preserve and protect open space and environmental features, reduce costs for extension of utilities, and create a more urban character with buildings located closer to the street. In addition, they are requesting greater flexibility to increase the height of buildings beyond the limits established in the RDP and MU zoned areas of the development with the 4 intent of encouraging smaller building footprints and preservation of open space. In general, these requests meet the comprehensive plan goals of preservation of open space and environmentally sensitive lands. The Planned Development Overlay (OPD) zone is established to permit flexibility in the use and design of structures and land in situations where conventional development may be inappropriate and where modifications to requirements of the underlying zone will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of the zoning code, inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, or harmful to the surrounding neighborhood. An OPD may also be required if disturbance of certain environmentally sensitive features or required buffers is requested. The applicants have requested a planned development overlay to create more flexibility in zoning standards to meet their goals of preserving more green space in the development and avoiding sensitive environmental features. In addition, they would like some flexibility in the Mixed Use area to allow uses allowed in the Commercial Office (CO-1) Zone. The applicant's statement outlining their intent to make their development a model for green building and site development is attached. Applications for planned developments are to be reviewed for compliance with the standards listed in section 14-3A of the zoning ordinance. Following is staff's analysis regarding these standards. Land Uses Allowed: The planned development encourages a mix of land uses, so it provides flexibility to include other land uses not allowed in the underlying zone. This is the first commercial planned development considered under the City's planned development ordinance. To date, all planned developments have been residential in nature. The ordinance does not allow flexibility in the uses allowed in the RDP and ORP Zones. However, other uses can be considered for commercial zones. In this instance the applicant has requested that in the MU zoned area, land uses allowed in both the Mixed Use and Commercial Office (CO-1) Zone be permitted. There is considerable similarity in the uses allowed in these two zones. However, the Commercial Office zone allows indoor commercial recreational uses, such as fitness centers and movie theaters. In addition, the CO-1 Zone does not have a size limitation on personal service uses and does not have any express restrictions on specialized educational facilities. Given the scale of this overall office park development and the potential for many employees living and working in this area, staff finds that these requests for CO-1 Zone uses and standards are reasonable in addition to the uses allowed in the MU Zone. Staff, however, recommends a restriction on the types of residential dwellings allowed in the MU area. Residential uses in the MU Zone area should be limited to multi-family or townhouse-style attached single family. These are in keeping with the stated objective of compact development, taller buildings and a more urban character. Staff finds that detached single family or duplex development would not be appropriate in this setting and may discourage uses intended for the larger office park. Maximum Residential Densitv The only area of the development that will allow residential uses is the MU zoned area. The maximum residential density allowed in the MU Zone is 24 units per acre of net land area. "Net land area" is defined as total land area minus public and private street rights-of-way. As indicated on the preliminary plat, lots 1 and 12 are proposed for MU zoning. The combined lot area is 21.23 acres resulting in a maximum residential density of 509 units. As it states in the ordinance, "the City will approve a residential density based on the underlying density allowed in the base zone and what is compatible with the natural topography of the site and the surrounding development." Given that a considerable portion of these lots will not be developable and will remain as conservation area, the actual residential density that is possible on the remainder of the property may be less than the maximum allowed. One of the reasons that the applicants have requested 5 modification to the height limit is to allow taller, compact building designs with the potential for multiple floors of apartments. This increase in height may be warranted to provide the opportunity for more residents to support the commercial uses on the lower levels of the building. However, since the applicants do not yet have specific buildings plans and unit counts for these lots, staff recommends that the actual density of units be reviewed by staff and the Commission at the final site plan stage. Dimensional Requirements The planned development ordinance states that "variations in the dimensional requirements of the underlying base zone may be necessary in order to facilitate the provision of desired neighborhood amenities or open space; to preserve or protect natural, historic, or cultural features; to achieve compatibility with surrounding development; or to create a distinctive or innovative neighborhood environment for area residents." The planned development process requires a specific plan with location, dimensions, land uses and elevations drawings showing the general character of the proposed development. This level of planning allows staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council the information necessary to determine if the proposed flexibility being requested is consistent with the underlying zone, the Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding area. At this time the applicant has submitted a concept plan, but given the large scale of the project and that the actual building users have not been identified, the designs are included with the application are intended to convey a general character rather than give specific building designs and locations. Attached is the applicant's preliminary concept plan indicating a possible layout of buildings, parking areas, and green spaces. The applicant is not yet prepared to submit a more specific plan for the Planning and Zoning Commission's review and is unlikely to know specific building and site design details until lots are sold and the end users are identified. To allow the flexibility requested by the applicant and also to allow a sufficient opportunity for public and Commission review, staff recommends that a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) require Planning and Zoning Commission review and approval of final site plans and that these final site plans be compatible with the character established in their preliminary plan. Typically final site plans are administratively approved by staff based on the preliminary development plan. The proposed CZA will allow the applicant to proceed without requiring the level of detail normally reviewed at the preliminary stage. However, it is important to establish some basic parameters for the dimensional requirements. Attached is a table outlining the basic dimensional standards for buildings and parking the applicant has set forth for the development in Moss Green Urban Village. The applicant has identified and is requesting variations in the setback and height requirements for the MU and RDP zones and the setback requirements for the ORP zone as outlined in the table below. Moss-Green Urban Village - Reauested Zoning Reauirement Variations Mixed Use Current Requirement Requested Variation Building Height 35' Minimum 20'; Maximum 60' Front Yard Setback 5'/15' Minimum 10'; Maximum 20' Side Yard Setback 7' 0' Rear Yard Setback 0'/20' Construction Limit Line per SADP RDP Current Requirement Building Height 45' Front Yard Setback 20' Requested Variation Minimum 20'; Maximum 60' Minimum 10'; Maximum 20' 6 ORP Current Requirement Front Yard Setback 150' Side Yard Setback 100' Rear Yard Setback 100' Requested Variation Minimum 20'; Maximum 60' 20' Construction Limit Line; Minimum setback from 1-80: 50' Staff finds that these requests for modifications to the underlying zoning requirements are consistent with the goal of clustering the development in taller buildings on land that was previously farmed in order to preserve the existing woodlands, stream corridor, and slopes. To ensure that the overall character of a "green" development is maintained over time, staff recommends that the location of surface parking areas and parking structures be carefully considered. In general, parking should not be the predominate view from the street and should be set behind or to the side of buildings. Any parking structures planned for this area should be designed with similar quality building materials and fa9ade detailing as area buildings. Streets and traffic circulation: As illustrated on the preliminary plat the proposed Oakdale Boulevard extends from Dodge Street (Hwy. 1) across the Llewellyn/Hills Bank Trust property and then across the Moss property. Moss Place, a local commercial loop street, would intersect Oakdale Boulevard in two places. The concept is for development to occur along both this loop street and along Oakdale Boulevard on portions owned by the Moss Green Development Corporation. The parcels owned by Neal Llewellyn and the Hills Bank Trust property would remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future. A potential street connection from Moss Place to undeveloped property to the west is located south of Outlot E. Staff has requested the applicant to provide additional topographic information for the property to the west of the development to determine if this is the best location for a street connection. It is unknown at this time whether the property to the west will be commercial or residential. In the future if the proposed development on that property is commercial in nature, then a connection to Moss Place will be appropriate. If, however, the development of the neighboring property mirrors the low density residential character of Prairie View Estates, then providing a street connection may not be necessary. Staff recommends that this connection be shown on the map and an escrow established for its future construction at such time as it is warranted. To provide pedestrian circulation between the Office Research Zone (Pearson property) and the Moss Green development, staff recommends that a minimum 8' pedestrian walkway be constructed within a minimum 15-foot easement from Moss Place to the Pearson property located east of the subdivision. This is illustrated on the plat between lots 3 and 4. For Moss Place, the applicant is requesting a number of modifications to the City's collector street standards. Moss Place is designed with a wider r.o.w. and wider sidewalks than is required. Staff finds this to be acceptable, but the final plat and subdivider's agreement should make it clear that the applicant is responsible for these oversize costs. The developer has also requested some underground stormwater catchment chambers to be located in the parkway area between the street pavement and the sidewalk and on-street diagonal parking spaces designed with porous pavement. Staff is in the process of working through the street design elements with the applicant. The City encourages innovative designs and development techniques and features that provide an amenity to future lot owners, employees and visitors. However, given that some of the "green" features included in the public r.o.w. are untested in Iowa City and there are concerns about long term maintenance, the City Engineer's office is still working through the street design elements with the applicant. Revised plans were received on March 26, the City Engineer has not yet had time to adequately review and make recommendations on the requested modifications. 7 Environmentallv Sensitive Areas: Moss Green Urban Village contains regulated slopes, woodlands, a stream corridor and a potential wetland. For the most part the preliminary plat and planned development have been designed to avoid disturbance of the sensitive features. The preliminary plat and sensitive areas plan show outlots C, D and E as being set aside for conservation areas and stormwater management (as disused below some disturbance of the sensitive features within these outlots is being proposed to allow construction of streets and essential public utilities). Outlots A, B, and F are set aside for future development. Outlots A and B are controlled by the owners of the property, Neal Llewellyn and Hills Bank and Trust. The sensitive areas plan addresses the construction of Oakdale Boulevard on Outlots A and B but does not provide details regarding the development of those lots. A rezoning from ID-ORP and a detailed sensitive areas analysis will be required for their development in the future. Outlot B may contain a jurisdictional wetland but a delineation has not been accepted by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and final report has not been submitted to the City. If the potential wetland is determined to be a jurisdiction wetland, a 100 foot buffer will be required around the wetland. Oakdale Boulevard has been located to avoid the wetland and buffer area. Prior to approval of the plat and sensitive areas plan, the wetland delineation must be approved by the Corp of Engineers. If the property owner certifies that no development activity will occur within 150 feet of the potential wetland, the City may waive the delineation requirement provided that the applicant establishes a conservation easement in favor of the City or an approved conservation group. This would not, however, waive the requirement for any necessary Federal permits. In the event that additional wetlands are delineated in the development any approved plans would need to be amended to address those wetlands and buffers. Although outlots C, D and E are being set aside as conservation areas, the sensitive areas plan indicates that there will be removal of woodlands and disturbance of the regulated slopes and the stream corridor on the outlots and within the adjacent right-of-way to allow the construction of Oakdale Boulevard, Moss Place and stormwater management facilities. Section 14-5/-20 of the zoning code allows for the construction of stream crossings, such as bridges, roads and culverts within sensitive areas and buffers, provided that they are designed to minimize any reduction of the flood carrying capacity of the stream and are in compliance with Federal and State regulations. The City Engineer is in the process of reviewing grading and erosion control plans. Corp of Engineers and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) approvals will also be required to allow construction of the bridges and roadways within the floodway. Woodlands, regulated slopes and the stream corridor are also located on lots 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. The applicant has illustrated a construction limit line on the sensitive areas plan to help assure that disturbance of these features is minimized during development. The current draft of the plan shows proposed construction activity on lots 1, 8 and 12 and the east side of Outlot F, which conflict with the required stream corridor buffer. Construction activity and the construction limit line in these areas will need to be moved to coincide with the outer limit of the required buffer. Where protected features and/or their required buffers are incorporated into individual lots, they must be included in a recorded conservation easement or protected by restrictive covenants in the legal papers filed with the City during final plat approval. For the protected sensitive areas located in outlots, there will need to be a legally binding instrument at the time of final plat approval, setting forth the responsible part(ies) and the procedures to be followed for maintaining the areas and for financing maintenance costs over time. A large portion of the property is located within the 1 OO-year floodplain. We have asked the applicant to illustrate the floodplain on the sensitive areas plan and plat. Considerable fill will be 8 necessary to allow Oakdale Boulevard and Moss Place to be elevated above the floodplain. Some of the building sites may also require fill to comply with the floodplain regulations. Staff finds that the sensitive areas plan in general complies with the purpose of the Sensitive Lands and Features Article of the zoning code. The potential wetland and the required 100 foot buffer are not proposed to be disturbed (a wetland delineation is necessary before a complete assessment can be completed). Approximately 85% of the woodlands within the development will be retained. This is well within the minimum woodland retention requirement of the code (20% in the RDP and ORP zones and 10% within the MU zone). The stream corridor and buffer are being disturbed only where necessary to allow the construction of Oakdale Boulevard, Moss Place, and storm water detention facilities. Except for a relatively small area of grading on lots 9 and 11, the only areas where slopes will be graded are where grading is necessary to allow construction of Oakdale Boulevard and Moss Place. As noted at the end of this report there are deficiencies and discrepancies that will need to be corrected in the sensitive areas plan prior to approval. Preliminary plat: Note: As is typical with a development of this size, there were a number of discrepancies and corrections noted on the original plat maps submitted by the applicant. A revised preliminary plat, sensitive areas development plan and planned development plan were received on March 26, the day this report was mailed to the Commission. Staff recommends deferral of the rezoning and the preliminary plat to provide adequate time for Staff to review the revised documents. Following is staffs preliminary analysis of the plat. Subdivision Layout: Moss Green Urban Village is an approximately 243-acre, 12-lot commercial subdivision, with 7 outlots. The property contains sensitive areas, including a stream corridor and extensive woodlands, which are largely being preserved as private open space. This large-lot subdivision is intended primarily for office and research park uses with complementary office, retail, and residential uses. Lots are laid out along a commercial loop street, Moss Place, designed to collector street standards, which intersects in two locations with a proposed segment of Oakdale Boulevard, an arterial street that will provide access to State Highway 1. Lot sizes correspond with the underlying zoning requested. Construction area limit lines have been established to protect extensive woodlands and the Rapid Creek stream corridor and associated sensitive areas. Given the environmental constraints of the property it may be necessary to locate needed parking in structures when enough land is not available to serve the uses proposed at the time of development. Arterial street desiqn: The applicant has indicated that Oakdale Boulevard will be designed as a 4- lane arterial street with a planted median within a 110' r.o.w. A ten-foot sidewalk is planned on the south side and a 5' walk on the north. Oakdale Boulevard will cross Rapid Creek in three different locations. The City Engineer's office is reviewing the plat and the construction plans for the street and the bridge designs to ensure that they meet City standards. The City's transportation planning division has trip generation estimates for the area shown on the Moss Green Urban Village - Planned Development Preliminary Plan. The estimates are based, in part, on employment and residential unit estimates provided to staff from Wally Pelds, the applicant's engineer. According to the information provided, the Oakdale Boulevard extension to Highway 1 would likely necessitate a four-lane arterial cross-section upon build-out of the development. This takes into account the approximately 16,000 vehicles per day that were estimated to be generated by the Moss Green development as well as future through-traffic anticipated within the corridor. It should be noted that there may be other modifications to the Oakdale Boulevard / Highway 1 intersection necessary as a result of the development. These modifications would be under the purview of the Iowa Department of Transportation and the City of Iowa City and may include improvements such as dedicated left and right turn-lanes at the Oakdale Boulevard extension, and full signalization of the future intersection. The applicant will 9 also need a permit from the Iowa DOT to establish the connection of the future Oakdale Boulevard with Highway 1. Necessary improvements to the Oakdale Boulevard / Highway 1 intersection will be clarified as the applicant prepares information for the Iowa DOT permit. Since the construction of Oakdale Boulevard is not currently included in the City's Capital Improvements Budget, the cost for construction of the arterial street shall be borne by the developer. The applicant and the City are working through the details of an urban renewal plan and potential TIF agreement through which the developer may re-coup these costs as development occurs over time and new property taxes are generated. Since Oakdale Boulevard will cross property not owned by the developer, the subdivider's agreement, dedication and consent and other legal papers will need to be executed by both the developer and the intervening property owners to ensure that Oakdale Boulevard may be final platted, constructed and dedicated to the City upon completion. Street connectivity and block lenqth: The subject property is located west of land that is already developed with a large office use (Pearson). No public street connection is provided through the Pearson property, so it is not possible for a street connection from the Moss Green property. However, staff recommends a pedestrian connection from the Moss Green development to Pearson. Moss Green Urban Village will rely on the Oakdale Boulevard for a vehicular connection to Hwy 1 to the east. To the west, there is undeveloped land. A street connection is possible. However, as noted above, a street connection mayor may not be appropriate depending on the land uses proposed for the adjacent property. If a vehicular connections is not deemed necessary in the future, at a minimum there should be a pedestrian walkway constructed within the r.o.w that has been reserved on the plat. The development is planned for large-lot commercial development so the long block length is warranted with the connections noted above. Storm water manaaement: Two large stormwater management basins are proposed on outlots D and E. The applicant is also proposing a linear stormwater and constructed wetland easement on the south side of Oakdale Boulevard. Because a revised preliminary plat was submitted on March 26, the City Engineer has not had time to complete review of the proposed stormwater facilities. This review should be completed prior to Commission's vote on the plat. Enerqy and Communications Distribution Systems. Sanitary Sewers. and Water Systems: Infrastructure necessary to provide electricity, communications, sewer and water must be designed and constructed to City standards. Costs for these systems and required connections is the responsibility of the developer. The City Engineer's office is reviewing revised plats and this review should be completed prior to Commission's vote on the plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral pending resolution of deficiencies and discrepancies noted. Upon resolution of these items staff recommends that REZ10-00004 a rezoning of: . approximately 60.32 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (ID-RP), to Overlay Planned Development-Office Research Park, OPD-ORP . approximately 56.48 acres of land from Interim Development- Research Park (ID-RP) to Overlay Planned Development-Research Development Park (OPD-RDP); and . approximately 24.49 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (ID-RP) to Overlay Planned Development-Mixed Use, OPD-MU, be approved subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) or specific restrictions noted on the Planned Development Plan and plat requiring Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the final OPD site plans as 10 development occurs and a prohibition of Detached Single Family Dwellings, Two Family Dwellings, and two-unit Attached Single Family Dwellings. Upon resolution of deficiencies and discrepancies, staff recommends approval of SUB10-00005, a preliminary plat for a12-lot, approximately 243-acre property located northwest of the interchange of State Highway 1 with Interstate 80. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: 1. Various deficiencies and discrepancies noted by the City Engineer (Revised plats and plans received March 26 and have not yet been revi'ewed.) 2. Final Wetland Delineation Report has not been submitted. (Must be approved by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers). 3. A construction limit line should be shown on lot 8 and Outlot D along the east side of the area to be disturbed for the construction of Moss Place. 4. The sensitive areas plan shows proposed construction activity on lots 1, 8 and 12 and the east side of Outlot F which would conflict with the required stream corridor buffer. Construction activity and the construction limit line in these areas will need to be moved to coincide with the outer limit of the required buffer. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Preliminary plat 3. Sensitive areas development plan 4. Preliminary planned development plan 5. Applicant's intent ~ment and drawings ~ Approved by: - !,~~/c.:.. Jeff Davidson, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development ~ tj ~ ~ ~ ~ tj >- ~ u <( ~ o , , , / a.n <:> <:> <:> <:> I <:> ~ ~ p 00 ........... 'l::t <:> <:> <:> <:> I <:> ~ N ~ ""1.- J~ /",0 I 0"""'"""" J /"""'"""""""""'"""""" /"" iv'\ I \ I L1- o >- ~ u o CO I Ii-! J, "TI:~"~ "l""~~~ ~ ~ >a ~ t .~ ~ . . z o Ii-! ~ U o ~ ~ R 1-04 en (]) 0) o > <( C I ~ E @-o :s ~ ' r- O)~ '"-c- ~cu ~r8 ~ V'l I > o 0 ~ l l' I' il., ! "~I" ,I Ii! , . i lU (!) ,I ni' <!i ~_ & <( I' . --.J ,! dl :11 ~ 0 ~ H f'lll ' . ZCl.~ :i' II I' , HI, <(ltl.Q :> !i "i ! 0: ;t ~ ~:E ' jl ~llli n ~, :::> Cr."'" I !I' C'SU ! lb.! QJCO a. II 1 ~~~ ~. ! _ j, 0' 0> .Q <;J! N' "" '1'1 "" ::: ! 0 :< b I a' ? f ~I , " f ,," HI I nil! II! ill !"ll,llll! '1,1 l hal fIJi' II .11 " ~~ r~ -~ -~ ! ,I Illl Ill! ~ wljlld;! iii I II:! hi ",~ ..... '.....,. "' ... ''''. rJ"'"," ' 0' tld g!" 'rl ,..-- . rill h ; ~ III = !If o! ; ~lill gl!:j 001 . , o ~ o .. 2 fi' o~:3 "00< z<(u Nz20C 2,,~ oz" ~Q': ~~~ g::~c( ~!Il ~lq 6f; l; /,- - . i; ! ~ o Uw ow ffi! ffi ~5~ ~~ ~ffi~~~ ~~ ~~~~uJ ~~m ~~ffi~~ ~g~~~~~~~ iJl.o."~~~ 'I 000 ~~ ~ ff @ :::; a:::i z I- c[:l Iz~a:: gw~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ (!I:::!~U::~~~~~~ +0:. ~.~~ Zu ~ ~~ ~ffi~ffi ~~~~ a:: ~ 15c:::E::UlJ 8 ~ ~~8~g~~ ~~~~~~~ .. ~ ffi~ ~ ~ .0 <l "'" ,::: o CO !! ii !i I, l "' . ., Ii ~"I' " II !f l~l @2 gt'i ~~ ~n ~I J~~ ;!~ ~j~ ~~ ~~~ il I!; o!' II- ,! m ,I 'll' .! !. 't!~ fM I" !l, dllil I!, "I 1;;3~ ~ ,',l t b!I!'''' "u s,.! II! gill.,.! !lllliil ~h8 Zi!~~ W I- ~ C/) ~ W I- Z > I ~l'll I>! i !~ ill fl. "II! Ill' "HI H!il I ) j j. Ih, jl! II ~ IF Ill,.!,!~ Mi:! . 1110$ ~ ~ l!I I ,J:!iH w ~ ~ w ~~ @g ~~ ffi uj;~ g~ ~~~~~ ~~ffi ~~~~~ g;~~~~25~ffi~ ([:;:J>C>;n.....z>;') U I (/):::10 <.jg3~<Il....tiitii~ 01 .g"~ ~ g~ ~ !~ ~ ~. w~ z " ~~w~~~ ~~~ ~l5~~~~ ~iil~ g~~~~~~~~~ u~&ff~~~:rbb I it.Ooo ::: I I ,. ~ I i i i i i i i ! o ~ ~~ ~ffi~ffi ~~i~ 0: g g@~~~~~ :i ~~88~:r:il ~ f:l~~~~~ i! ~ _()V}U):r::i~ ~~ ~:n H<Hl1Sl.9::: I! !i ~o I! .1 ~! l' ,'" " III If p il !li !! ~!! ,- ~I' ..~ ..; I ~I M I' I!, .! I!.i '11 2'"" Ii !ll h l!! Ii, !I' gl~ 1 ~ il1illgl ~,! II! 'I'! " 1';11';; ilb .m j ; f f I :n ! J tu ;1 f ~!" II; . :.: U ~ ~~~ ii I flh fIlIi llm I j I i {" ilJ < llh I I! 1'1',1 i'l i .'11' tIll! .1 fll HIPIUJII !JIll .Il"! III illl 1I'I':!! . l'll ~ ,I,ll,' .111 ! ' 1',' ~,I~ ill p!!! <-.J ,J/j, HI! I e:~ " cd' \ " , ~ .;\ '..... . . .... ._.,.-~ Ii' ~ ~ " 2w ~ ~p i~w~l" ~~~ ~~5~si ~~~ ~~M~i~~b~~ UI:.f::::::~ _;t~ c o ~~ ~ffii~ ~~I~ ~ ~ 150::l::&llJ 8 ~ 8~55~~~ >- ~:sou~~fD ~ f~~ti~~~ .. D: _Uu)!!! Cl-.e: o ~ ...::;u:: ffiz ~~ H<l<l~'~ I C o 0.. C ([) g 0)0- Oo~ :=([)<( > ~ Co..~ 0+-0 r"\ C ' ~ ([) -,,- '- ... ~~ ::J C >- ."" . Cl-~~~ C 0.. -'I' U'li ([) 0 Iii I '/,' , !. ([) ([) <( /i {:;If"> / '- ,41.: 'l,11/ / 0) > ~fW' ?j!i.jf / ( V) ([) ~~;;%~ m ( \; V) 0 UJ?///I'i/! / O -,,/1 I IlL' ""7""i j/ If/I) 2 V '-'1 I;' ([) ,.1, " .~'::;':'....- - C C o 0.. I Ii I( !I II II iil !f II! II j,1 d -t' '~ n !~ ,. II' I~ I 1,1 !"I !il ill ll~ ,Iii M i-Ii m !Ill .~- ilg~ 1M i ill! d [~ . ;i ~ ~ , i'i n : J H ~ I . <~ h F !It i ,'iJ h f. lh~ ;j'j ,"! Ilf dl'!f!lf, I'j ~! ';j p. I 'i ;;If Uf !H fft'!'li 1i.!1 uJ ff~ filii!,' II! I I * ht. t ~ iHf It 1.1 j'lfP,!( ..J ~~'l ~'i m .i.~i!l ! fiff iti im IW,HIi ~Ii'f, t~1 it]1 tp II~' i mil nit uiI HhHfI u ! lI~ 'I~i lei:: .'.' U)ao~.i -g.Jil ..52~ ;. ~UU ~W.! '6UI! "'em "I:: ,;": ::::I .;:. ..., " I i I , f { d hJ !I IIa~11 h I&.~ e I~ r i~1 1m am ~I ~~ii lmt ili ~ 1?!.!.!.! lllJJli iil 4!l tJ en ~UH ~ I l(l uf aJ ~ ~ g"" en...l ~ "J <.> I EI '5>1 uUU alUn .... UI ::SJ ~J ~J E~m ]im} al !H ~I ",I al' ~~ i- ~CI ~ ~ ~ \ \ \ \ \ 'I "I I i i i I -(,,-1 I i 1$ ii' ~ 4( ~ ~ ~ ~ i i i i i i i i i i i j i i I i i I '" 2 ~ ~ ~ :S:i:i~ ~~Q ~ ~M I,; m~~ Q - I MQ " , ~ I ~ g I " I :::E . I ~ I " j I ~ ~ ~~ ~~z ~~ ~tt~~~ ~~ ~I~~~ ~Sffi ~~ffi~~ ~~i~~~~~5 ~~'o.i;;5iH "I gou ~w ~g ~ n:=!i z I- ~ ~~a: ~w~ ~~~(/)~ ~~~ ~~~~i~~e~ ~~~~~~~~~ +.ooom c, ZU ~ ~5 5ffiffi~ ~~!i~ ~~~~w 8 ~ ~~o'o'2~~ Ii ~:5~~a:Q.fil ~ ~~t;t~~~ C:i ~ ~5~~~::l~ zc ~~ eo44'&'~ I! ii " I, t 'I" II G I '! i! II n ~i II' '1'1 "I ~!I! !~ ~Ii ~' -I ~g i", I! ~i! I' If ,I M ~! n h ~I! ih ill 1'1 .1, '~'I!, h. 0'. II' 1~!li! Ii,! !~ ." B~ III I NfERSTATE 80- a ARCHIT[C1URf IANO PI ANNING INTfRfORARC.IITfCHiRf lMm$CAPf ARCHlrf(:IU.n: Moss green Urban Village Applicant's Statement for Rezoning Proposed alongside this application for rezoning is the progressive, 170-acres, mixed-use project to be known as Moss green Urban Village. The first of its kind in Iowa, Moss green Urban Village promises not only thoughtful planning and innovation, but also environmentally conscious design, green building techniques, and fresh technology implementations. Currently the subject site is zoned ID-ORP. With this application, We are requesting that the entire 170- acres be rezoned to Planned Development Overlay Zoning. OPD zoning is ideally suited for a project such as Moss green Urban Village. Construction is specifically intended to occur within those areas currently being farmed. This will create minimal impact on wooded areas, respect the existing land features and protect sensitive areas. OPD Zoning will further provide the necessary flexibility in design considerations such as land use, building placement, parking and purposeful use of open space. Along with the request for rezoning we are asking for a building height and setback variance within the OPD for the Moss green Urban Village. This project is to be developed using a conservation development approach and to limit the disturbed areas. This can be achieved by building up rather than out. Buildings are to be located closer to the right-of-way to shorten proposed utilities, and parking ramps are encouraged, to minimize the impervious footprint. Moss green Urban Village Legal Descriptions Moss green Urban Village A part of the subdivision of the Northeast One-Quarter of Section 35, Township 80 North, Range 6 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa, as recorded in Plat Book 1 at Page 11 in the Records of the Johnson County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, more particularly described as follows: lots Four (4), Five (5) and Ten (10) and the South nine (9) acres of lot Six (6), and the South 12-1/2 acres of lot Eight (8), all of the subdivision of Northeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 80 North, Range 6 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa, containing 60.67 acres, more or less. And All of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, a part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter lying North of the Interstate 80 Right-of-Way line and the East 63.75 acres of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter lying North of the Interstate 80 Right-of-Way line, all of said Section 35, Township 80 North, Range 6 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa, being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the East Quarter Corner of Section 35, Township 80 North, Range 6 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; THENCE South 00046'46" East, a distance of 1,980.54 feet to the North Right-of-Way line of Interstate 80; THENCE South 8r24'15" West, along the North Right-of-Way line of Interstate 80, a distance of 646.23 feet; THENCE continuing west along the North Right-of-Way line of Interstate 80, North 88011'05" West, a distance of 1,731.77 feet; THENCE North 00054'55" West, a distance of 2,023.65 feet to the North line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 35, Township 80 North, Range 6 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; THENCE South 89041'57" East, along said North line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 80 North, Range 6 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa, a distance of 2,376.88 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 111.22 acres, more or less. And The Southwest Quarter of the of the Northwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 80 North, Range 6 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa and that portion of The Southeast Quarter of the of the Northwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 80 North, Range 6 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa lying West of Iowa Highway 1 (North Dodge Street) containing 71.35 acres, more or less. Moss green Urban Village Requested Zoning Requirement Variations and Development Guidelines Mixed Use Current Requirement Requested Variation/Guideline Lots 1 and 12 Building Height 35' 20' min. 60' max. Front Yard Setback 5'/15' 10'min. 20' max. Side Yard Setback 7' A' Rear Yard Setback 0'/20' Construction Limit Line per SAPO RDP Current Requirement Requested Variation Lots 2, 3, 4, 7, 10 and 11 Building Height 45' 20' min. 60' max. Front Yard Setback 20' 10'min. 20' max. Side Yard Setback A' A' Rear Yard Setback A' Construction Limit Line per SAPO ORP Current Requirement Requested Variation Lots 5, 6, 8 and 9 Building Height None None Front Yard Setback 150' 20' min. 60' max. Side Yard Setback lOa' 20' Rear Yard Setback lOa' Construction Limit Line per SAPO Intestate 80 Setback lOa' 50' ParkinR GaraRe/Lot Guidelines Current Requirement Requested Variation All Lots Parking Garage Height None Comply with Zones listed above Front Yard Setback - Must be located behind or adjacent to the proposed building. No parking lots allowed closer to right-of-way line than the front setback of the proposed building(s). Side Yard Setback - la' Rear Yard Setback - Construction Limit Line per SAPO Intestate 80 Setback - 30' PROJECT INTENT With Moss green Urban Village, the objective will be to create a unique, pedestrian- friendly business, research, commerce, and education community that will employ a comprehensive, holistic approach to sustainability. By using green construction and infrastructure, the environment will take top priority in this sustainable futures development. DESIGN CONCEPT Moss green Urban Village will consist ofthree distinct, yet tightly interwoven localities: an Office Research Park zone, Research Development Park zone and a Mixed-Use Village Area. · Mixed-Use Village Area (24.49 Ac.) The vision for buildings in this area features ground-floor retail spaces, with professional office spaces and apartments in the levels moving upward. Living spaces could extend to the ground level as well. Permissible uses within this area will comply with those listed in the City's ordinances for Mixed Use Zones (MU) and Commercial Office Zones (CO-1). · Research Development Park (56.48 Ac.) The central portion of the development is a natural fit for a Research Development Park. This area will allow for support companies to the ORP zone to be located in close proximity for efficient business operations. Most of the buildings are expected to be build to suit. Permissible uses within this area will comply with those listed in the City's ordinances for Research Development Park Zones (RDP). · Office Research Park (60.32 Ac.) The largest portion in terms of development area, the office park will accommodate any new business, from small, start-up companies, to large employer companies. Permissible uses shall comply with those listed in the City's ordinances for Office Research Parks Zones (ORP). · Future Development Space (101.94 Ac.) With uncertainty as to how the northern and eastern areas will develop, we have chosen to not request a zoning change. BUILDING GREEN Collaboration in managing environmental and energy issues will be encouraged among entities owning property and building in Moss green Urban Village. The United States Green Building Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED~) Bronze level certification will be recommended, although development will not be limited to this metric if newer models, metrics or measures are approved for use by a "Green Review Committee. " This committee, appointed collaboratively by the City of Iowa City and the Developer, will be established to review all construction projects brought to Iowa City. The committee will encourage environmental stewardship through eco-friendly practices such as incorporation of green roofs, community composting, rainwater irrigation, gray-water recycling, on-site waste management, lighting enhanced with photovoltaic cells, use of glass-phalt or similar recycled product on bike trails and sidewalks, use of native plantings, and smart site management to minimize grading impact to the native soils. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE Green infrastructure will integrate functions and make life-giving processes visibility and meaning within the development. Parks, trails, greenways, and other open spaces will be designed to link communities within a regional landscape matrix, thus preserving open space as an integral part of new development. This linking will also serve as a regenerative solution to urban challenges associated with storm water management. For example, infiltration, underground chambers, and underground storage units will be utilized in order to clean, contain and harvest rain water for reuse in irrigation. Finally, design and layout will be intentional and particular. To limit soil contamination, new technology pipe will be specified for sanitary sewer. To minimize change to natural topography, soils, and vegetation, the proposed roadway alignment will be carefully planned to make the least impact on the environment, yet remain practical and functional for its end users. GREEN DEVELOPMENT Utilizing three bridge crossings, the major efforts have been taken for ecological preservation, with special attention being paid to the sensitive areas such as the existing features of Rapid Creek as well as floodways, trees and woodland areas. Open spaces will feature park like areas within the lOO-year floodway, a potential amphitheater and meandering walking/biking trails. ',..\ ~ I ~ ('.' ,( ,. '.~ \.\ .r ;~~tt: '1 \. 1 '/. 'Ie. '!!"':f.." ", ~ - 1, iFl~";' 'f, .~....:~ Jl J."'.~;~"1'1.4 : II >!H \~ ,~ il" K .:t, ~., ...;!.: h~. .;! ~ ,I ' .~'."--+' "r1j1 ' ,~ i. 4 1\,~ 4r', ~ 1 ' )f "':1' ,.., j t, \. 't..: i:1~" Ij'<~~: ~ .'. ~ ,.'.....1 '-.J ,J '.~ q ~ jT~.;i ..... '~' I 'I,., : i .,1_, , "1 . . , ',' '., ':~t ,,' " \ J .. f .. o -::C'") ~- -! ~-< -Jr-, --1'" ..- :-<~ 0:=0 -;.':" :aE '~'r" J~ ,...., c:::::. - c:::::. .:J: :no. ::::0 q......'::,'1\'l Ii u - -0 =:: r- m r-, .~~~-l<;;!t.~ - "'- co , r-..:l = = -- i:' t.:'""'~}f'!'-g ::::0 I U - r ~ m .r- 0 co ",rn -- i- 1''"'M1 i i I S~1 '\4>;~Y \-' .e' \ t \ -n -- r rn CJ MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 18,2010 -7:00 PM - FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMAJ. HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Josh Busard STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Jake Rosenberg, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Glenn Meisner, Wally Pelds RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 6-0 (Busard absent) to recommend approval of ANN10-00001 and REZ10-00002, an application for annexation and rezoning of 1.66 acres of land from County Agricultural (A) to Institutional Public (P-2) zone located at 4265 Oak Crest Hill Road SE, subject to severance of the right-of-way of the railroad by the city of Hills, and the consent of the Crandic Railroad. The Commission voted 6-0 (Busard absent) to recommend approval of the Moss Green Urban Village Urban Renewal Plan for approximately 243 acres of property located north of Interstate 80, west of Highway 1. 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. ANNEXATION/REZONING ITEM: ANN10-00001 & REZ10-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Johnson County Agricultural Extension District for annexation and rezoning from County Agricultural (A) zone to Institutional Public (P-2) zone for approximately 1.66 acres of property located west of Old Highway 218 (Oak Crest Hill Road SE) north of the Johnson County Fairgrounds. Miklo pointed out the current city limits on a map, noting that they end east of the subject property. He stated that there was a recent subdivision that split this tract off from the fairgrounds. Miklo said the Iowa State Extension Service purchased the property and wants to build an office building on the site. Miklo said the Extension is seeking annexation because they would rather have City water than have to rely on a well for the property. Planning and Zoning Commission March 18, 2010 - Formal Page 2 of 9 Miklo said there are three factors to consider when reviewing applications for annexations. The first consideration is whether the property falls into the range of the City's long-range growth boundary. Miklo said that in this the property lies well within the growth area. The second issue is whether the development of the area will fill an identified need without imposing an undue burden on the City. Miklo said that this area can be served by City water and sewer service. He said there is territory directly to the east for which the City already provides police and fire protection. He said that providing those services can be accomplished without imposing an undue burden on the City. Miklo said that municipal sanitary sewer is not currently provided to that area so the property would rely on a private, on-site, septic system until such time as the sewer system is extended to that area. Miklo said City services will not be burdened by the annexation. The third test for annexation is whether or not the development is in the City's best interest. Miklo noted that the entire area is within the City's growth area, so it is the City's intention to annex that area eventually and control it through zoning. Miklo said that the proposal is to zone the property P-2, Institutional Public, a zone intended for any property owned by the state or federal governments, or any branches thereof. Miklo said there really is not a choice in how to zone it in that the zoning code requires anything owned by the state to be zoned P-2. Miklo said that this property currently has access by easement to an entrance to Highway 1 via the fairgrounds. Miklo said that would not change with this annexation; no new access would be permitted to Old Highway 218. The property would be accessed from the driveway on the fairgrounds property. Miklo shared several Power Point images of the property from different viewpoints. Staff is recommending approval of this application, Miklo said. He noted that the City of Hills, which has the railroad right-of-way within its boundary, is in the process of de-annexing that right-of-way. He said the measure had been approved by the Hills City Council in December, but has not yet been filed. Miklo said staff is working with Hills to have that process completed. Miklo said that the process must be completed before this property can be officially annexed. Miklo said the City must also receive written consent from the railroad; verbal consent has already been given. If the Commission chooses to recommend approval of the annexation, Miklo said, the matter would not go before City Council until those two conditions are fulfilled. Miklo offered to answer questions from the Commission. Eastham asked if the City has the ability to regularly monitor and regulate septic systems such as the one the subject property would be using. Miklo said that septic systems are regulated by the County Health Department. Miklo said that the City's requirements are that once a municipal sewer is within 300 feet of the property, the owner can be required to hook into the system. Miklo said this is typically done when there has been some sort of issue with the system not functioning properly; for example, if a property owner seeks a permit to have work done on the system, the City might instead require the owner to hook up to the City sewer system at the property owner's expense. Freerks said she knows the staff report addressed the issues of snow removal and maintenance expenses resulting from the annexation, but she asked if Miklo would speak a bit to how that would work. Miklo said that the entire stretch of Old Highway 218 is within the County's jurisdiction and is maintained by them; however, Iowa City provides snow removal. Miklo said the City is in discussions with the County to have the County continue to maintain the small portion of Old Highway 218 that would fall into the City's domain through this annexation. Miklo Planning and Zoning Commission March 18, 2010 - Formal Page 3 of 9 said that if and when the city annexed the rest of that area, it would take over those maintenance responsibilities. He said there would be discussions with the County Engineer and the Board of Supervisors on this issue. Koppes said she understood the area would be zoned P-2, but she wondered if there was any specific zone the Commission might be familiar with that would be similar to that zoning. Miklo said that the use being proposed would be closest to an office use, and will have a parking requirement and some landscape requirements. He said those requirements will not be as in- depth as they would be if the property was privately owned. He said the site plan approval process would still be in place. Koppes asked if they would be required to follow any other City policies, or if the requirements would be limited to the site plan process. Miklo said he believed the property would be exempt from most City regulations. He said that in most cases there are good relationships among government agencies and they agree to follow the City codes; they just are not necessarily required to. Payne asked if it was correct that the property would not actually add anything to the tax base; Miklo said that was correct. Freerks opened the public hearing. Glenn Meisner, MMS Consultants (no address given), said that he is the engineer and surveyor for this project. He said that Miklo had done a nice job of summarizing what the purpose of the annexation and rezoning would be. Meisner said that the property has been platted and that they are trying to annex to the City so they can have public water rather than a well. He offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. There were no questions for Meisner. There was no else who wished to speak to this issue and the public hearing was closed. Freerks noted that the Commission did not necessarily have to vote on this matter tonight. Payne made a motion for approval of ANN10-00001 and REZ10-00002, an application for annexation and rezoning to the city of Iowa City approximately 1.66 acres of land from County Agricultural (A) to Institutional Public (P-2) zone located at 4265 Oak Crest Hill Road SE, subject to severance of the right-of-way of the railroad by the city of Hills, and consent of the CRANDIC Railroad. Weitzel seconded. Freerks invited discussion. Freerks said she definitely feels the property meets the criteria of the annexation considerations and she will be voting in favor of the application. There were no further comments from the Commission. A vote was taken and the motion carried on a 6-0 vote (Busard absent). ANN10-00002 & REZ10-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Dealer Properties IC, LLC for annexation and rezoning from County Agricultural (A) zone to Planning and Zoning Commission March 18, 2010 - Formal Page 4 of9 Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 5 acres of property located on the north side of Mormon Trek Boulevard, northeast of its intersection with Dane Road. Miklo said that staff had received a request for deferral of this application. Freerks asked if a public hearing needed to be opened for this item. Greenwood Hektoen advised that since the item had been advertised the Commission could give the public the opportunity to speak if there was anyone present who wished to do so. Freerks opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to comment on the matter and the public hearing was closed. Eastham motioned to defer this item. Payne seconded. Freerks invited discussion. Eastham said he would like to note that the Commission did receive two written comments on this item for consideration when the matter comes back before them. A vote was taken and the motion to defer was passed 6-0 (Busard absent). URBAN RENEWAL ITEM: Discussion of proposed Moss Green Urban Village Urban Renewal Plan for approximately 243 acres of property located north of Interstate 80, west of Highway 1. Miklo noted that Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator for the City of Iowa City, would be presenting the staff report on this matter. Wendy Ford said that on Tuesday, March 16th, the City Council Economic Development Committee reviewed this matter and voted 3-0 in support of the item; they recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission also approve the item. Ford said that the Economic Development Division is charged with helping to build the tax base in Iowa City, and to help lure employment opportunities to the community. Ford said that over the years there have been a number of projects that have required some public assistance. She said that the project before the Commission was one of those kinds of projects. She said that Steve Moss was present for the meeting, and that he and his development group have been working on ways to access their property just west of the Pearson Educational Center, north of Interstate 80. She said the development of this property would add to the tax base and provide job opportunities to citizens of Iowa City. Ford said access has been a continual challenge in attempts to develop the property. Before land can be sold. Ford said, the property must be subdivided, and before a property can be subdivided, there must be access to the property. Ford said that Moss had approached the City to see about ways to partner in order to gain access to the property. Ford said Moss has been working on this problem for many years. Ford said that before the City could use tax dollars in a public/private partnership, an Urban Renewal Plan must be created. In reviewing the Urban Renewal Plan, Ford said, the Planning and Zoning Commission March 18, 2010 - Formal Page 5 of 9 Comprehensive Plan and its overarching goals must be taken into account. Ford said that staff feels this Urban Renewal Plan is in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan. Ford said that the property tax base would be increased and diversified, and new areas to encourage the retention and recruitment of business would become available if this partnership was developed. Ford said the plan would increase employment opportunities and would provide areas suitable for future light industrial and commercial development. Ford said it would provide more opportunities for the Economic Development Division to work and partner with the Iowa City Area Development Group, our link to state dollars that are matched by local dollars to incent development. In doing all of this, Ford said, the economic health of the community would be improved and, ideally, some property tax relief would be provided to its citizens. Ford said that the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as suitable for office and research park development. Ford said this property is especially good for such uses because of its proximity to the interstate and the exposure it provides. Opening this area to development would be very beneficial to the city as a whole, Ford said. Ford explained that Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a complicated economic development tool. In simple terms, it takes the difference between the base value of a property and the value created by the improvement of the area and applies the increase in property taxes gained to finance projects in the development. Ford said that setting up an Urban Renewal Plan is the first step in creating a public/private partnership designed to meet these goals. City Council acts as a steward to the partnership and developers are held to performance measures that benefit the community as a whole. Each TIF agreement, whether for building a new road or bringing a new business in, would be negotiated in a separate development agreement under the umbrella of the Urban Renewal Plan, which would serve as the overarching guide. Ford said what was before the Commission this evening is the Urban Renewal Plan, not any specifically negotiated development agreement. She said the Urban Renewal Plan would set the stage to make that kind of an agreement possible. Ford cautioned that any numbers she would be presenting should be considered "back of the envelope" calculations as she did not have all of the necessary numbers available to her at this time and is not an expert in property taxes and the extrapolation of their future values. She said that the property in this area currently brings in approximately $4,000 per year to the taxing entities: Iowa City, Johnson County, and the Iowa City Community School District. She said the goal is to attempt to determine the jump in value from inaccessible agricultural land to an accessible, developed property with $10 million worth of infrastructure invested in it. Ford said that the developers have a plan for developing out 150 acres of the property with buildings similar to those on the other side of Highway 1, but with a higher density. Ford said the developer estimates that the taxable value of the land alone would go to approximately $26 million. Ford said this jump in value represents the difference between having inaccessible land and having land that has a road to it and has been subdivided. Ford said that the developers' ultimate plans are to build out over other next decade to a total assessed valuation of $200 million or more. Ford said that it could not be determined how long that would actually take or if the valuations would ever come up to the developers' expectations. She said that a prorated formula would be used to estimate the available TIF increment. Koppes said she has a question about the term "inaccessible." She said that there is currently an easement in place and so she wondered if "inaccessible" was an appropriate term to describe the property. Miklo explained that the property is inaccessible to the general public for travel; it is accessible only to the owner for agricultural purposes. Koppes said she had found Planning and Zoning Commission March 18, 2010 - Formal Page 6 of 9 the wording confusing. Freerks asked if the Moen Building, another TIF project, would be paid off well in advance. She said that could make this a less difficult pill to swallow because it would help to alleviate concerns that the City is taking on too much TIF. She noted that she did look at the figures available on-line and that it appears that Iowa City is not really over-selling TIF districts as some communities are. Ford said that the on-line figures were a couple of years old, but that they were similar to current ones. Ford said that the Moen project was different than any other TIF that has been or will be done in that the City took a huge risk on that project. For that project, the City took on the upfront risk, whereas in all other TIF projects, it is the developer who takes on the upfront risk and the City pays back rebates if the risk pays off. She said there has to be an improvement in valuation and assessed taxes in order for there to be funds to rebate to the developer. Freerks asked how the point in time for the baseline valuation was determined. Ford said that there is a set deadline each year, and that there are questions about the original valuation rate and time that she needs to clear up for herself before she answers that question. Eastham asked if the plan was to use TIF financing to construct all of the Oakdale Boulevard extension from Highway 1 to the western boundary. Ford said that the developer would build the public roads and then be rebated out of the TIF for having taken on that risk. Greenwood Hektoen clarified that there is no upfront payment by the City. Only if the property is developed and generates enough taxes will the developer receive a rebate to pay themselves back for their investments. Ford said that who will pay for which roads has not been spelled out yet. She said that the developer would do it in phases such that they could get access and be able to show the ability to develop. Eastham asked if it was correct that the state provides some funding to school districts that are deprived of tax revenue due to TIFs. Ford said that was correct, though she said she did not know if the state replaces 100% of the taxes that would normally flow to the school district. Greenwood Hektoen clarified that the Urban Renewal Plan was simply a concept plan and that when it came to specifics there would be a separate development agreement for each item. Ford said those agreements would go before the Economic Development Committee and then on to City Council. Eastham said that it is his understanding that the Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to City Council about whether the specific Urban Renewal Plan before them is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. Eastham said that there is an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan entitled "Economic Development Policies, Strategies and Actions of the City of Iowa City." Eastham said that this appendix contains a set of guidelines for the Council to follow in the case of providing assistance to specific businesses. Eastham asked if that appendix should be considered as a part of the Comprehensive Plan. Greenwood Hektoen said that it should be. Freerks asked when City staff would meet with the school district and the County in order to discuss some of these items. Ford said there is a meeting scheduled for March 26th at 10:00 a.m. in the City Manager's Conference Room. Eastham said that if the appendix is part of the Comprehensive Plan then his job is to see if the Urban Renewal Plan is in compliance with that appendix. He said that the Urban Renewal Plan does not reference the appendix at all. Eastham said that the appendix provides specific guidelines for instances in which public money is being used to assist private businesses. Eastham said that he thought perhaps the Urban Renewal Plan should contain more specific Planning and Zoning Commission March 18, 2010 - Formal Page 7 of9 language to indicate that it will follow the guidelines specified in that document. Ford said she did not see any reason why it could not. Greenwood Hektoen said she thought those things would be considered at the time an agreement was entered into. Freerks said that might be something the City Council would want to put in. Greenwood Hektoen asked Eastham if there was something specific that he would like to see in the Urban Renewal Plan. Eastham said that he personally would like to see a reference to the "Economic Development Policies, Strategies and Actions of the City of Iowa City" in the Urban Renewal Plan. Greenwood Hektoen said that if it has been determined that the appendix is part of the Comprehensive Plan, then a reference to the Comprehensive Plan should be sufficient. Greenwood Hektoen asked Eastham if he found the plan to be out of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He replied that the way it presently reads leaves questions about that for him. Greenwood Hektoen advised Eastham to be very clear and specific about any changes he might like to see. Freerks opened the public hearing. Wally Pelds, ECO for Partners (no address given), represented the applicant. He said that they are very excited about their project. He said this is just one of many steps that will come before the Commission in the long process of developing this property. Pelds said that this is a first step in helping the developers to get over the biggest hurdle to developing their property, which is access. Pelds said that the developer's projected numbers are generally conservative, because they like to under promise and over deliver. Pelds said that they estimate $85 million in tax revenue for the City over the next 20 years. He said this was very exciting, and that if their numbers are correct, the fully developed park could mean about a 10% increase to the City's general fund. He said the project is a win-win proposition. There were no questions for Pelds. No one else wished to speak about the issue and the public hearing was closed. Freerks invited a motion. Payne motioned to recommend approval of the Moss Green Urban Village Urban Renewal Plan for approximately 243 acres of property located north of Interstate 80, west of Highway 1. Koppes seconded. Freerks invited discussion. Eastham said that in general the plan is well thought out and appropriate, and is in conformity to the Comprehensive Plan. He said that the area that is more problematic for him is that when contemplating using public funds for private enterprise, policies that are in place to govern that situation should be very clearly referenced in the Urban Renewal Plan. Eastham said that his mind would be eased by the addition of just a few words addressing the existence of the appendix and the intentions to follow it. Koppes asked Eastham to clarify what the guidelines in the appendix are. Eastham said that the guidelines were available on the internet, and he briefly summarized the points of primary interest to him for Koppes. Freerks said she was not sure it was the Commission's place to tinker with this document. Greenwood Hektoen said that they could if they wished. Miklo advised that the Commission could add a qualifier concerning "the guidelines contained in the Planning and Zoning Commission March 18,2010 - Formal Page 8 of9 Comprehensive Plan or any amendments thereto." Freerks said that she just is not sure if additional language is necessary and that because she is not familiar enough with the document Eastham is describing she feels uncomfortable adding language from it at this time. She said that she might be more comfortable deferring and having some time to think about it if there was something Eastham adamantly wished to have included. Koppes said that there is already a requirement that the appendix be taken into consideration, so adding language concerning it does not really do anything more than to re-emphasize it. Freerks asked if there were four people who wished to add language. Weitzel said that he appreciates the notion of putting accountability into the whole process, but he feels that if the requirement is already there then it does not need restating. Plahutnik said that the term "qualifying businesses" means that all of the necessary requirements are already included. Eastham said he did not necessarily disagree with that interpretation. Freerks said she had done quite a bit of reading about Iowa City's TIF and that she felt like Iowa City is pretty careful and requires a great deal of accountability with its TIFs. Freerks noted that there were not four members interested in adding the language suggested by Eastham, and invited more discussion. Eastham asked if it was correct that the Urban Renewal plan only lasts for 20 years, or if it was the TIF district that lasts for 20 years. Ford said that an Urban Renewal Plan that is formulated for economic development has a 20 year life; one that is formulated for slum and blight and/or economic development has an unlimited sunset; one that is done for housing has a 10 year limit on it. Greenwood Hektoen said according to her understanding, those limits are for the TIF agreement, not for the plan itself. Ford said agreements typically have a life of 5-7 years for specific projects within that district. Payne asked if that meant that the developer could potentially be totally rebated in 5-7 years. Ford said that was correct. Payne asked if it was correct that all of the other taxing entities start getting their money once the developer is fully rebated. Ford said that was correct. Payne noted that it is possible then, that it could be less than 20 years before the TIF money began flowing to the rest of the community. Freerks said that she believes this project will not divert growth in another area. She said she thinks this is a unique property and a unique space that will offer Iowa City something that it does not have along the interstate. She said there is potential here to gain quite a bit of tax dollars over time and to bring jobs in as well. She said she believes the plan conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. Eastham said he too would be voting in favor of the plan. He said that the Comprehensive Plan's guidelines for using public funds for private business are fairly restrictive and well thought out. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Busard absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: February 1 and February 4.2010: Payne offered a typographical correction to the minutes. Koppes motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Payne seconded. The minutes were approved 6-0 (Busard absent). ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel motioned to adjourn. Koppes seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Busard absent) at 8:02 p.m. z o U) ~ :2c :20::: 00 UU C)w zO::: -wo zU- OZo N<(N CC ZZ <(w C).... ~~ z z <( ...J Q. co W Of"" -- >< >< >< >< >< >< -- 0 C"') ~ >< >< >< >< >< >< >< N Of"" N >< >< >< >< >< >< >< -- .... en :eW ..- ..- (V) C'\l 0 0 (V) 0::0:: ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- wo. l!) l!) l!) l!) l!) l!) l!) t->< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W J: > - t- W ...J <C ...J W ::> 0:: m ...J ...J J: <C z ~ ...J ~ W en J: z J: :e 0 () <C :J ~ ~ t= .., en W C :e en :E z .J' <C ~ t- W 0:: J: 0:: W W ::> ~ W <C t- W 0. Z J: :E en ~ W 0. ~ <C jjj <C ::> 0:: 0 ...J Z m W u. ~ 0. 0. ~ " z t= W W :E ...J <C :E 0:: o u. Of"" >< >< >< >< >< >< w -- -- N 0 en :EW ..- ..- (V) C'\l 0 0 (V) o::e: ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- wo. l!) l!) l!) l!) l!) l!) l!) t->< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W J: > t- <C :J W W ...J ::> 0:: m ...J ...J J: <C z ~ ...J ~ W en J: z J: :E 0 () <C :J () ~ t= .., W c :f en en :E z .J' ~ t- W 0:: J: 0:: W W ::> ~ W <C t- W 0. Z J: :E en ~ W 0. ~ <C jjj <C ::> 0:: 0 ...J Z m W u. ~ 0. 0. ~ " z t= W W :E ...J <C :e 0:: o u. z E :::l .... o :::l -00 Q) 0 ~z .... u --- Q) X g>..o UJ~E ::;:'Q)Q) ..... C Q) ""'" c.....Q)E..::: Q) C en CO en ~..o<( 0 ..... Q)..o zo O:<(III1Z II II UJ ~ 1/ xoozi ::>: UJ ~