HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-06-2010 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, May 3, 2010 - 6:00 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Lobby Conference Room
410 E. Washington Street
Thursday, May 6, 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. Rezoning I Development Item:
REZ10-00006 & SUB10-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by TNT Land Development
LLC for a preliminary plat and rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to Planned
Development Overlay - Low Density Single Family (OPD-5) for Terra Verde, a 58-lot, 23.22-acre
residential subdivision located at 2949 Rochester Avenue.
D. Development Items:
1. SUB10-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by the Moss Green Development Corp. for a
preliminary plat for Moss Green Urban Village, an 18-lot, approximately 235-acre office park and
mixed use development subdivision located west of North Dodge Street/Highway 1 and north of
Interstate 80.
2. SUB10-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Steve Kohli Construction, L.C. for a
preliminary plat of Brookwood Pointe, an 80-lot, 21.98-acre residential subdivision located west of
Sycamore Street, north of Terrapin Drive.
E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: April 12 and April 15, 2010
F. Other
G. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Christina Kuecker
Item: REZ10-00006 and SUB1 0-00002 Date: May 6, 2010
Terra Verde
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
TNT Land Development LLC
2779 Muddy Creek Lane
Coralville, IA 52241
Contact Person:
Terry Lavery
Phone:
(319)325-7074
Requested Action:
Rezoning from RS-5 to OPD-5 and Preliminary
Plat for a 58-lot residential subdivision on 23.22
acres of land
Purpose:
Development of Terra Verde subdivision
Location:
2949 Rochester Avenue
Size:
approximately 23.22 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
RS-5 Undeveloped
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North:
South:
East:
West:
undeveloped, ID-RS
Single Family Residential, RS-5
Single Family Residential, RS-5
undeveloped, RS-5
Comprehensive Plan:
Northeast District Plan: Single-family residential
similar to the surrounding housing patterns.
Good potential location for open space in
southeast corner.
Neighborhood Open Space District:
NE-2 Pleasant Hill/Lemme
File Date:
April 2, 2010 (a complete wetland mitigation plan
is required in order to be a complete application)
45 Day Limitation Period:
NA until a complete application is received
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
Public Utilities:
Sanitary Sewer can be extended from previous
development in the area
2
Public Services:
The City will provide Police and Fire protection
and refuse and recycling collection services.
Several Transit routes serve this area including
Rochester with stops on Rochester Avenue and
Amhurst Street, Eastside Express with stops on
Rochester Avenue, and Eastside Loop with stops
on Rochester Avenue and Amhurst Street
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The land under consideration consists of relatively flat land on the northern portion that has
been used for agricultural purposes. The southern portion consists of steeper terrain, a
wooded area, wetlands, and a USGS blue line stream. The area is currently zoned Low
Density Single Family Residential (RS-5). The applicant, TNT Land Development LLC, is
requesting approval for the rezoning of the 23.22 acres from RS-5 to Planned Development
Overlay/Low Density Single-Family Residential (OPD-5) in order to disturb the sensitive
areas on the site, as described below. The applicant is also requesting approval for a
Sensitive Areas Development Plan and the preliminary plat of a 58-lot residential
subdivision with two outlots.
The applicant has indicated that they have used the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have held a
neighborhood meeting.
ANAL YSIS:
Current and Proposed Zoning
The current zoning is RS-5, Low Density Single Family Residential. This allows for single-
family development with minimum lot sizes of 8000 square feet. The proposed rezoning to
OPD-5, Planned Development Overlay Low Density Single Family Residential, does not
change the underlying zoning, but does provide for a Level II Sensitive Areas Review.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan
The land is located within the Pheasant Hill quadrant of the Northeast District Plan. The
Northeast District Plan identifies this land as appropriate for single-family residential,
similar to the housing patterns that surround it, with the possibility of cluster style
development for a portion of the property. The Northeast District Plan also makes note of
the shortage of neighborhood open space in the Pheasant Hill quadrant and identifies this
property as a good potential location for a three to five acre park that would provide
recreation opportunities and preservation of natural areas.
Compatibility with neighborhood
The proposed zoning, Planned Development Overlay Low Density Single-Family Residential
(OPD-5), will allow for a residential development with a maximum density of five dwelling
units per acre. Most of the surrounding land is zoned RS-5 and contains single family
dwellings. Staff believes the proposed subdivision would be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
Subdivision Design
The applicant is also seeking approval for a 58-lot residential subdivision on this property.
The proposed subdivision includes two outlots. Outlot A contains most of the
environmentally sensitive features including a USGS blue line stream, drainage way, steep
and critical slopes, wooded areas, and jurisdictional wetlands. These features are also
present on some of the individual lots (11-13, 22-29, and 42-26). The applicant is
proposing to use Outlot A as a storm water management basin and proposes to mitigate
3
the wetlands off site. A portion of the wooded area will be retained and replacement
trees will be planted to compensate for portions of the wooded areas being removed.
The applicant has proposed a subdivision with varied lot sizes. The proposed lot areas
range from 8,010 square feet to 21,644 square feet, with most of the lots being in the
8,000-10,000 square feet range. The street pattern is laid out in a manner to provide
good connectivity within the subdivision, as well as provide connectivity to future
development to the west.
Outlot 8 is proposed as neighborhood open space to be dedicated to the City. The
subdivision design generally complies with the neighborhood principles of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Design Standards and Required Improvements of the
Subdivision Code.
The applicant has proposed three phased additions. The first phase is the eastern portion
of the subdivision, with the subsequent phases moving westward.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
The property contains a stream corridor, critical slopes, steep slopes, regulated wetlands,
and wooded areas. The applicant is requesting to disturb 48% of the steep slopes, 89%
of the critical slopes, 75% of the wetlands, and 95% of the wooded areas. A Level II
Sensitive Areas Review is required prior to development due to the extent of disturbance
of the environmentally sensitive features. A Level II Sensitive Areas Review is considered
a type of planned development and as such must comply with the applicable approval
criteria for Planned Development Overlay.
Wetlands
For a property containing a regulated wetland, a Wetland Mitigation Plan is required to be
submitted along with a Sensitive Areas Development Plan. The mitigation plan should
delineate the wetlands and the required natural buffer area, and delineate a construction
area limit. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) strongly encourages avoiding delineated
wetland areas and minimizing the impact of development on the wetlands, and therefore
requires thorough investigation and consideration of alternative development design before
compensatory mitigation is considered. The SAO requires an undisturbed, 100-foot
natural buffer between any development activity and a regulated wetland unless said
development activity is exempted.
The applicant is proposing to disturb 75% of the wetlands and will essentially eliminate all
of the wetlands with the construction of the storm water management basin. The
applicant is proposing to mitigate the wetlands off site, but within the Iowa River
watershed. The exact location of the wetland mitigation has not been determined. The
SAO does not require that the mitigation be provided on site, but it does require
submission to and approval by the Army Corps of Engineers for any development activity
within a wetland area and any proposed mitigation. It is staffs understanding that the
Corps is no longer accepting storm water detention combined with wetlands and that the
Corps is also trying to promote larger, regional wetlands with long term professional
management rather than small wetlands with short term amateur management.
Essential public utilities such as storm and sanitary sewers, water mains, gas, telephone
and power lines, and storm water detention facilities are permitted within protected
sensitive areas if they are designed and constructed to minimize their impact upon the
4
protected sensitive areas and associated buffers. Given the topography of this property, it
would be difficult to provide storm water management on this property without disturbing
the wetlands.
The applicant has provided the Army Corps of Engineers with the wetland delineation
report and has indicated that the Corps has accepted the delineation and is waiting to hear
from the EPA, which gets a 21 day period for comment (period to end May 10). After the
delineation is accepted the applicant can submit the proposed mitigation to the Corps.
Staff is also consulting with a wetland specialist to determine if the proposed off site
mitigation is appropriate. She has reviewed the delineation, but cannot make a
recommendation about the mitigation, as the plan has not been submitted.
The mitigation plan is a requirement before the Sensitive Areas Development Plan can be
approved. Section 14-51-6G of the Zoning Code outlines the requirements for
Compensatory Mitigation. Any of the wetlands associated with the stream corridor are
required to be mitigated at a replacement ratio of 3: 1 (replacement to original), the
wooded wetlands at a ratio of 2: 1, and all others at a ratio of 1: 1. These areas need to
be addressed in the Mitigation Plan. The Wetland Mitigation Plan must also include, as
stated in Section 14-51-6G:
· An assessment of the value of the wetland being replaced to determine the
appropriate replacement ratio;
· A clear statement of the goals of the mitigation plan, including specific statements
regarding the expected rate of establishment of a vegetative cover over specified
periods of time;
· Analysis of the soils, substrate, and hydrology of the proposed site of the
constructed or expanded wetland in terms of their suitability to provide a proper
growing medium for the proposed vegetation;
· A list of the plant species to be used, which should include only native,
noninvasive species, and their proposed locations. Transplanting as much of the
native vegetation from the original wetland as possible, as well as the upper 6 to
12 inches of the soil is encouraged; and
· Provisions for monitoring the condition of the new or enhanced wetland area for a
period of 5 years, and identification of the party responsible for replanting in the
event of poor initial growth or predation resulting in a failure of over 30% of the
planted stock. Information collected during the monitoring process must be
submitted to the City annually and include the following:
o Data on plant species diversity and the extent of plant cover established in
the new or enhanced wetland;
o Wildlife presence;
o Data on water regimes, water chemistry, soil conditions, and ground and
surface water interactions; and
o Proposed alterations or corrective measures to address deficiencies identified
in the created or enhanced wetland, such as a failure to establish a
vegetative cover or the presence of invasive or foreign species.
The wetland mitigation plan needs to be submitted before the rezoning can be approved
and Staff recommends that our wetland consultant review the plan prior to the P & Z
vote. Once the City and the Corps approve the mitigation plan, then the mitigation and
development can occur.
5
Stream Corridor
Currently the site includes a blue line stream on the USGS maps. The applicant proposes
essentially to eliminate the blue line stream. South of the proposed development, the
stream was buried in a culvert under Westminster Street. Approximately 150' of the
stream is located on the subject property.
Essential public utilities such as storm and sanitary sewers, water mains, gas, telephone
and power lines, and storm water detention facilities are permitted within protected
sensitive areas if they are designed and constructed to minimize their impact upon the
protected sensitive areas and associated buffers. If the wetland is allowed to be mitigated
off-site, Staff believes that because the portion of the stream south of the property has
already been disturbed and the proposed impact is to provide storm water management,
the proposed disturbance should be permitted.
Steep and Critical Slopes
There are both steep and critical slopes located on the subject property. There are no
protected (greater than 40%) slopes on the property. The applicant is proposing to
disturb 48% of the steep slopes and 89% of the critical slopes. The grading is being
proposed to address the on-site storm water management.
Wooded Areas
There is 7.69-acre wooded area on the subject property. The applicant is proposing to
disturb 95% of this wooded area. In the RS-5 zone the Sensitive Areas Ordinance
requires that 50% of the wooded area be retained. If it is determined that the required
woodland cannot be retained, replacement trees must be planted. The replacement tree
requirement is one tree for every 200 square feet of required retention area to be
removed. Replacement trees must be approved by the City and should be of the same or
equivalent species as the trees being removed. When it is not feasible to replace trees on-
site, replacement trees may be planted to supplement reforestation of off-site woodlands
as approved by the City.
According to the SAO the applicant is required to retain 3.85 acres (167,541 square feet)
of wooded area, along with a 50' buffer or provide replacement trees. The proposed
disturbance of the wooded area is being caused by the construction and grading of the
streets and storm water management facility. The applicant is proposing to retain .35
acres (15,295 sq ft) of wooded area, along with a 50' buffer. Based on the tree
replacement calculation of one new tree for every 200 square feet of required retention
area to be removed the application is required to replant 762 trees. The applicant
proposes to do this by providing two tiers of evergreen trees as a landscape buffer along
Rochester Avenue (70 trees) and providing at least three trees on every lot (174 trees).
The remaining 518 trees will be planted in Outlots A and B in the areas labeled as tree
replacement areas and along the rear property lines of the individual lots. The applicant
must submit a tree replacement plan that shows approximately where the replacement
trees will be planted.
There is also a grove of trees along Rochester Avenue. The City Forester has identified
several of the trees that must be protected and saved. The applicant must provide a tree
protection plan that shows these trees being protected. The tree protection plan can be
combined with the tree replacement plan.
6
Traffic implications, access, and street design:
The proposed subdivision can will be accessed from the north off Rochester Avenue by
Terrance Court, from the east by an extension of Lower West Branch Road, and from the
south by an extension of Westminster Street. Green Mountain Drive has been extended
to the west property line to provide connectivity to the property to the west when it
develops.
Lower West Branch Road is currently not constructed west of Amhurst Street. The
developer will be responsible for constructing this portion of the Lower West Branch Road.
The Fire Department has also requested that the developer construct a turn around at the
end of Lake Forest Avenue, which is being shown on the plat.
Some of the proposed lots along Rochester Avenue (1-6, 32-37, and 58) are double
fronting lots. The subdivision regulations discourage such lots. If such lots cannot be
avoided the following standards apply:
1 Lots with multiple frontages shall be 125% of the required lot area for the zone.
Corner lots with only two frontages are exempt from this requirement. In this
case, the minimum lot area in the RS-5 zone is 8,000 square feet. Double frontage
lots are required to be 10,000 square feet.
· Lots 1-6 and 32-27 must and do meet this requirement.
2 Double and triple frontage lots where dwellings will have side or rear-building
facades oriented toward an arterial street shall provide a minimum 20-foot wide
landscaped buffer area along the arterial street frontage. The buffer area shall be
planted with a mixture of coniferous and deciduous vegetation and shall be required
along with other public improvements for the property. No solid fences are allowed
within this buffer area. This restriction must be noted in the subdivider's agreement
and on the plat.
· All the lots along Rochester Avenue (1-6,32-27, and 58) must meet this
requirement
· A landscape buffer is shown along Rochester Avenue on the plat.
Two cul-de-sacs are being shown on the plat. Cul-de-sacs are discouraged unless
topography or surrounding development prohibits the roads from going through. The
development south of the proposed subdivision also features cul-de-sacs and back lot lines
currently abut the southern boundary of Terra Verde. In addition, the topography in
Outlot A is quite steep and the feasibility of constructing a road through this area is
questionable. Both cul-de-sacs are designed as low volume cul-de-sacs, providing access
to only 10 lots. Although 11 lots are shown abutting these cul-de-sacs, there is a note on
the plat that requires lots 7 and 52 not to access the cul-de-sac, so only 10 are being
provided driveway access to the cul-de-sac. A low volume cul-de-sac features a 22' wide
pavement width, 50' ROW, and parking on only one side.
At Amhurst Street the ROW width for Lower West Branch Road is 68' and the proposed
ROW width within Terra Verde is 60'. As the developer will be responsible for
constructing Lower West Branch Road from Amhurst Street through the subdivision, staff
recommends it be constructed as if there was a 60' ROW for the entire length. This
provides for a consistent distance between the road paving and the sidewalk the entire
length of the road from Amhurst Street to Terrance Court.
In addition, the City is undertaking a sidewalk infill project in the area and constructing the
sidewalk along Rochester Ave abutting this property.
7
Neighborhood parkland or fees in lieu of
Based on the Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance, a subdivision of this size is required to
dedicate 0.5 acres of open space or pay fees in lieu of dedication. The proposal identifies
Outlot B containing approximately .5 acres as an area to be dedicated to the City. The
Parks and Recreation Commission is reviewing the plat and proposed dedication at their
meeting on May 1 2.
Storm water management
The plan shows a storm water management basin located within proposed Outlot A,
which also includes the proposed wetland mitigation area. As noted above the Army
Corps of Engineers will need to approve the wetland mitigation. In the absence of Corps
approval, the wetland and storm water management will need to be redesigned. As
discussed above under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas, a detailed wetland mitigation
plan is necessary for the City to make this determination.
Infrastructure fees: sanitary sewer and water main
Water main extension fee of $395 per acre is required. The applicant will also be required
to construct Lower West Branch Road and the adjacent sidewalks from Amhurst Street to
the proposed subdivision and to provide an emergency vehicle turn around at the end of
Lake Forest Avenue.
Summary
Given the topography and surrounding development, Staff believes that the general design
of the subdivision is appropriate and is compatible with the neighborhood. However, the
wetlands and other sensitive areas present a challenge. In the absence of a complete
Wetland Mitigation Plan, it is premature to approve the subdivision and rezoning. Based on
cursory review and observations, it is likely reasonable for the storm water management to
be handled in the location of the wetlands, but without the Mitigation Plan a final
determination can not be made.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ10-00006, rezoning of approximately 23.22 acres located at
2949 Rochester Avenue RS-5 to OPD-5 and SUB10-00002, a preliminary plat of Terra
Verde Part 1-3, a 58-lot, approximately 23.22-acre residential subdivision with two
outlots, located at 2949 Rochester Avenue, be deferred pending a wetland mitigation plan
being submitted.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
1) Wetland Mitigation Plan
2) Tree replacement plan
3) Tree protection plan
4) Other deficiencies and discrepancies identified by the City Engineer
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Plat
Approved by: d/fI..tL-~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
~
tj
~
~
~
~
tj
an
C
D-
o
(1)-
a3 E g
Q3E-c:
:t: (I) 0
--.JCf)
en
a:
I
C
-
~-#~r
LJ ro-l
60-
::J
<x:
MO NIV1NnOri N33M~
~ ..,~ t.__\.~,\
-< ! \
os "'''''"-~'''''l \ /" '.,,' ,./'
~ :.., %\ ,/::<', /',
~ - ,.,,'--~~.,""? ~ '"'>'>"" , ' / "', /
o ('''''--, / /~ ,~
u...J / /' '>( "
'-\. //A'/f
" / .. 'I
,/,/ /' -L '// I
. l'"_, / ,..
1 !'~~',"~
\ I
~
N
o
o
o
o
I
o
~
~
~
r:n
..........
\C
o
o
o
o
I
o
~
N
~
Q)
=
=
Q)
<
'-C
Q)
...-
en
Q)
....c=
CJ
~
0\
~
0\
N
..
Z
o
I-f
~
U
o
~
~
f-4
I-f
en
~W!!I
111111
!55.5'5
",'''
!mlll
'--J
&l&l<~ .~p ~i~
111I:1I:1IJ11!ill:I~I!n!
.a=:.a=: ;~~U"g I"~
~
z
;] +~ ~:!
0.... . .S!
3 ;1
"'" ~~~
~ I~~
Q~ .~~
~ 0 E= <r: n~~
~~~~ ~ ~
<r: ~ ::E >--< "i a~'
g:~8~ M ~~~
>--< ",- ~ ~ .~. 100~
E-< >--< '~g ~h
~S,,~ Ill,! ~:~
[f) ~ 80 q I ~&
Q~~>--<i~:~ il~~
z~ ll~g .08
<r: 8. t"'.
~ '" ~!li :U
<r: ,
......:i i! '
O""~II d,:! i I
>-- I,! II!'. " :', ! i g
~ 1'1 ~,~!1I I'!i , i
<r: ~!! :il~gi !!t I I
25 Ii! 1;li~1 'I i!: i i
::s IIi ",nIl! Ii ,Ii! !
>--< a! Ii" Ii"" I
EJ <<I!~ ::'~I! il ~In I
~ 1"1 ,!:~, 11!I!:, ~
0.... II!: Ulii! ~l :!! !l ;
Z
<t:
......:i
0....
I::
z
::>
o
()
I::z
ulil
C(Z~
~QQ
, N1;il'~'
"': I' '5"
~ I I ~i
:CPjo' !.
.~ III
~ , ~
!'!
, ,
~
" 'Ji~
'~Ii! ~
II '
'II ~"
Ilbt\"'ol
I " '"
I ~
'i-
I 1.--~-'cT
I I _~_
: I ~.
I I -II ~I
: I Iii
I I 'I
: I f ~
d'~1
D
~1"1'l.i.~1W
~/[LIIOO"l)/~fI1Iille
~
~
~,!j ~
~$':
~ 0
" ,.,
:! "'
~ u
.11
i :!
--HI
'-ill
'! .
111I!
o
h
.ill
-I I
il
z
<r:
0--.:1
0..
II ~~lIIllmn illllll
6 j ~ U ! l.~
~i~
>-~!z
i~~
!~~
lf~D
w
o
0:
w
>
~
0:
w
I-
~
z
:>
o
~~
02
<z<
;::1:;:
QQQ
)/ U
: ,J CC
~--[
'" ~t
E-<
Z
i::r:l
~ ...~~;!
i::r:l .
> ~-~
i::r:l f~
~ r J ., ~!~
~ .~e
~ 0 ~ <r: n~~
O::~::J~ ~
<r:~~8 ~ ~
g: > 8 >-<- ih ~;~
E=: $ t: ~~~ II~:
~~ ~u IIi,;! ,3~~
2J ~ i5 <r: ~~~. ~~8
~ ~ ~ ~ !ii~ I~;~
<r: ~ ~~5 ~:e ~
~ ~ Sg~ h~
0--.:1
0.. ij I'
>-< III h,;g ~ 11n i I ,I; !~
0:: I'i l,i'il ~ h; II an ~ Win
g ~!I i~i;ll' ~ d lmullil Iii II III ~
:::;s Iii "lill t!' """'''''''''''''''''' "I
~ I!!! I~;m i ! !! I egj'ttmoeW€eoflll UI Id" !1~.;i'l! ~ ~
o..!m mm a I III !hmo."".'rllllll LJ 1m
(..J
In
li)
~
!.i:.'
~
~
,1'1
ii:!i
-j
D
~1,"'Bl\
t'/(I.~/!l
I.
jj , ,I'
""~':;;~~1
l~nH,
"~.~ ~
...5U1l ~
~in
i
'.'q~rr
"---!lih-
, ~. I.
I ~~~
,~ ~m.
.n. ~
I,,! .
~.- !
II ~~lJIllnm !!ll!ll
5 j ~ II g 1"1
E-<
Z
~ i-~ ~.~
0... .-
o . .a!
.....:1 :~
"" -I
> ~"~
"" ~"~
Cl r I ..,. ~~~
~ '~6
c:3 fJ ~ il~.~
W <r: !l1il~.
~ ~ ~
<r:~~8 ~.
g: ~ 8 ~ ~~~
E=: I"""""" ~ t: ~~~
........~~u -~I;
f2 "" il~~~
...... J:: <r: !l1il~.
"" f-'~
UJ 80 u~
Cl r ,"" "........ !..~
z ~ <( h~
<r: ("""""" 8~5
E-< ~ m
<r:
.....:1
0... ~Ig ,I,'
>-< I,! !II~~
~ III ~!~!d
<r: i" ;" !..
Z 'I Ii I
........ li i'!~~1
::::E 'is !illl
~111 il,h;
"" ll!l :""1
~l"-i.l
0...111; j-"'jm
!M III
~i~
>-~!z
i;z~
~UJC5
w
c
a::
~
~
a::
w
f-
~
z
"
o
()
~z
(3ljl
<<z""
1::1:1:
QQQ
1
N I Iii I fi?
'"
1-.,
,
I
.!';
ii!;
\'1
D
~l~'~
.-)-
P:.~[. ".'
i~
''''H''''"'~~ ,,' .". ..;~",,".'."..~~
. . / ,,~
T-=T , " ~,.-
II " ~
-
\
ql,l:
Ill:
\1\,
I \ I ~ .
I jii
II In L ~l Iii II
"" ,!llmm!;", ""Jd in :I!;
III l~u+t"N€"'.1111111 ! 11/::11
" ' ,,- '0 .h.
Iii Imu,.",~.,'1II1111 ) , 1m
I
! ;~. .h' i:~~ ~i I
, ". ~";@J~,,!i "1" 'l' I
~ " I ~ '.~'~;f-! if ;] ~
;; ~; ~ 11 U=~A/ ~ ..i! !~
! ~ ~ !:. .~~h'~' ~:~~ 'l.g
, -" ."~ .'~~\!~.~ e~l~ ! l
p= !~;~ ~~!~~g~' ~~~~ 1~.
~ ~!~ m ~i;;;d!~. !i~~ i;!
~ ~ i" ".'" ~ ~. ~ '5. ~
l~ ! ~~ m ~I~mh;~ ~Uli !~i
B ~ ~~ ~.~ .~h~~h,~ ~
.. ~:i
!~ ~!!
,'e~ ....
i~,~~l.:
;~~i~lh~
I;~~~l~",
'I~Wi!~~;
N~tii~~~
~hil;~~1
n.. ..~.
i
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 3D, 2010
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
RE: SUB10-00005 - Moss Green Urban Village
The Moss Green Development Corporation has submitted revised preliminary plat
documents to the City for review. The City's Engineering Division had not completed their
review at the time this memo was written. However, we anticipate that any outstanding
issues will be resolved by your meeting on Thursday.
Staff have reviewed the location of proposed sewer extensions to the north property line and
have concluded that in order to avoid future disturbance of the Johnson County Heritage
Trust property, the sewer connection should be moved further east. The applicant has
agreed to do so.
Staff will be prepared to discuss these issues and answer any other questions you might
have on Thursday.
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: SUB10-00006
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact Person:
Phone:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
Public Utilities:
Public Services:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Jake Rosenberg, Planning Intern
Date: May 6, 2010
Steve Kohli Construction, L.C.
3129 Dubuque Street NE
Iowa City, IA 52240
Steve Kohli
31 9-936-6880
Preliminary Plat
81-lot single family subdivision
Russell Drive and Terrapin Drive, west of
Sycamore Street
21 .92 acres
Undeveloped, zoned RS-5 and RS-8
North:
South:
East:
West:
Residential, RS-5
Residential, RS-8
Residential, RS-5
Park and undeveloped, P and OPDH-5
Residential
April 13, 2010
May 28, 2010
Sanitary sewer and water are available
Police, fire protection, refuse and recycling are
provided by the City. Two transit routes,
Lakeside and Eastside Loop, serve this area with
a stop located approximately two blocks north on
Sycamore Street.
2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In June 2005 this property was rezoned from Interim Development (ID-RS) to Low Density
Single-Family (RS-5) (the northern 10.92 acres), and Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8)
(the southern 18.34 acres). At the same time a preliminary plat of Brookwood Pointe,
Additions 1-4, was approved to allow the subdivision of the property into a 106 lot
residential subdivision. The final plat of Brookwood Pointe, Addition 1, a 26-lot subdivision,
was also approved in August of 2005 and is now mostly built. The preliminary plat for
Additions 2-4 expired in June 2007.
In August 2008 new subdivision regulations were adopted. The new regulations contained
revised standards for street design. The applicant has submitted a preliminary plat for
Brookwood Pointe, Second-Fifth Addition, which complies with the new standards where
possible.
There is a conditional zoning agreement for this property requiring:
1. Contribution of $2507.08 per acre toward the improvement of Sycamore Street at
the time of final plat approval,
2. The construction of the storm water management facilities on Outlot A with Addition
1 (this has been completed),
3. An easement to facilitate construction of a sanitary sewer line from Southpointe
Subdivision to Sand Hill Estates,
4. A landscape buffer for double fronting lots on Sycamore Street.
These conditions will apply to the final plats of Brookwood Pointe, Second-Fifth Addition.
The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy"
and has not had discussions with neighborhood representatives.
ANALYSIS:
Street Design - Brookwood Pointe is accessible from Sycamore Street to the east from
Terrapin Drive and Russell Drive to the north and south. The preliminary plat shows the
proposed north-south connection of Russell Drive and the continuation of Terrapin Drive. As
proposed, Terrapin Drive will continue west, intersect Russell Drive, curve north, intersect
with Covered Wagon Drive, and terminate in a cul-de-sac. Vesti Lane runs east-west
between Terrapin Drive and Russell Drive. Running parallel to Vesti Lane to the north is
Ashlynd Court which is connected to Russell Drive and terminates in a cul-de-sac. A
sidewalk will connect the end of Ashlynd Court to Sycamore Street. Connecting Vesti Lane
and Ashlynd Court is Brookwood Pointe Terrace, a north-south street providing additional
connectivity within the neighborhood. In Staff's view, the street design adheres to the
Comprehensive Plan and Subdivision Design Standards.
The subdivision code, under which the expired version of Brookwood Pointe was approved,
required 50 foot right-of-ways for local streets. The City's current subdivision code requires
a 60 foot wide right-of-way. The additional space provides sufficient room for sidewalks,
utilities and street trees. Because Vesti Lane has already been started with a 50 foot right-
of-way it is shown as continuing with 50 feet to be consistent with the portion of the street
3
that has already been constructed. Ashlynd Court, Brookwood Pointe Terrace, and Terrapin
Drive are shown with a 60' right-of-way to comply with the subdivision regulations.
Lots 80, 81 and 22 are double-fronting lots along Sycamore Street. The subdivision
regulations discourage such lots, but recognize that on arterial streets they are sometimes
unavoidable. Where such lots are unavoidable, the design standards require that lots with
multiple frontages shall be 125% of the required lot area for the zone. In this case lots
80, 81 and 22 exceed this requirement.
Double frontage lots where dwellings will have side or rear-building facades oriented
toward an arterial street are required to provide a minimum 20-foot wide landscaped
buffer area along the arterial street frontage. The buffer area must be planted with a
mixture of coniferous and deciduous vegetation. In conjunction with this buffer, the
conditional zoning agreement specifies that any fencing be located at least 25 feet west
of Sycamore Street. This restriction must be noted in the subdivider's agreement and on the
plat. Due to the future improvement of South Sycamore Street, the required landscaping
cannot be planted prior to road construction. Instead, the subdivider will be required to
contribute a fee towards a landscape buffer which will be installed when the City rebuilds
Sycamore Street. The legal papers for the final plat should include this requirement.
Phasing - The 2005 preliminary plat for Brookwood Pointe phased development in a pattern
that would have resulted in the Terrapin Drive and Covered Wagon Drive connecting to the
Sand Hill Estates subdivision to the west as part of phase 2 of Brookwood Pointe. This
would have provided sanitary sewer access to the northeast part of Sand Hill Estates, which
is currently undeveloped. With this application the phasing plan would include Vesti Lane as
the second phase, the connection of Terrapin Drive and Covered Wagon Drive would occur
in phase 3. Staff does not object to the revised development phasing provided that there is
an agreement for the instillation of a sanitary sewer connecting Brookwood Point to Sand
Hill Estates. This will need to be addressed in the legal papers for the final plat.
Sensitive Areas -The subject property contains Hydric Soils, which may require basement
sump pumps and street construction that allows proper drainage. This will need to be
addressed with the construction plans at the time of final plat approval. Existence of Hydric
Soils does not necessitate Sensitive Areas Overlay and there are no other sensitive
environmental features identified on the property.
Storm Water Management - A small part of the eastern portion of Brookwood Pointe utilizes
the Sycamore Regional Stormwater System. In lieu of providing storm water management
within this part of the subdivision, the developer is required to pay a fee for use of the
regional stormwater management system. At the time of final plat approval the legal papers
will need to address the payment of this fee.
Storm water management facilities were built on Outlot A in Addition 1 of Brookwood
Pointe and will accommodate the remainder of the lots within the Second-Fifth Additions.
Neighborhood parkland - At the time Brookwood Pointe was approved in 2005, the Parks
and Recreation Commission chose to collect fees in lieu of open space because of the
subdivision's proximity to Weatherby Park. The plat will be reviewed by the Parks and
Recreation Commission to confirm that their wish to collect fees in lieu of open space. If
that is the case the legal papers for the final plat should address the fee requirement.
4
Infrastructure fees: sanitary sewer and water main - Water main extension fees of $395 per
acre; sanitary sewer tap-on fees of $1796 per acre and Sycamore Street improvement fees
of $2507.08 per acre need to be included in the legal papers at the final plat approval.
A revise preliminary plat was submitted on April 27. The City Engineer has not yet
completed review of the plat. Approval should be subject to correction of any deficiencies
identified by the City Engineer.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that SUB 10-00006 the preliminary plat of Brookwood Pointe, an 81-lot,
21.98 acre residential subdivision located west of Sycamore Street be approved subject to
an agreement for extension of a sanitary sewer to Sand Hill Estates and approval of the City
Engineer.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary plat
Approved by: ~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
ppdadminlstfrepltemplate.doc
~
XlJ Ii ........ {
t/"r: Oll NOINn
i ! '
IT
Ii. i,
OVOll Nll31S3M
I! I
I
"...
, fL/ "5 -
, ,... I '"tJ
.L c..~ 2 1:
i I! G:Eci:
~
tj
~
~
~
~
tj
. I I I I Ii! I /
I I '! ..i . .......
/ -.
! ! I i I
Nl ~FIIU'4'o'
! . i
I'! ' i \
L-i[II'
--r--r. 1S NI )lSI~'
. I · !:.(1 -~.-
~. /' 11'V~
1- f. '. !
',-' -
l ",I . - -.'
. \ \ i......~L \ / i 0 .. ~~~
..~r ~ +. ." I'~~
...... ~t ~
I. . "... mfV81'101u _ (/l
.... I, ...11 .... ~.....
-- I. ... ... !/~- i- I. 'ffi
.I .... . . / i ~:, .=.~ Vi \;.
I ! ! I .... i '\ i \ ) !
... r i/' l;{ T<>~r~~ ~~~ ~~. t / ", ~
... ,..........~ Li ~~'<~~ \., ~~~'\!!!
,L'-' '""- llO ;.~.~,~~ ~j~~~/.:::'" .
. _ \ I ..' L<~~ >"'~~>0 .' ~ !. ~n ... '" .... !
.... .... ...)..! . .... , ,', '., ::\<<-- 0 ~- ~
... .. ~ ~~: <i~~.. ~ ~ ...! ~ ......
. ~ Lli ~~;'~' ~ ><.i,d-' ~I ~ ~
! I".\' Im?>< """.,. r ~L--
, 1 ~ I~~ ,1I11 I tn1 r" ~u. U ~ !~~~?"~S~ ~~>~<~<">>,~:~ llG 113ssnll ,_
, Ii') !r!i i u ~:illl;I...,.-- i:~<<~ ~~'~ <:<;,,:<.. i
hI.! ...." \ !'-. ?'~~~~; 0<~; ~S\<~~: ..i" ' ...
IllO ~~ON't!l. ! iT r/'+ - I_"'~"~"-u\ : ~I'.= r2:~,.~' ~~~:~~~:fY: ({ \ ...
, ~ {>':.~~<~.'l.,~~~...>~ ~!""'"
! · .! ! I I · ,I i. . ... -:,., J.\."<" 1 / i \ ,iii'
I Ii [.:< .t, ,< "
I !. I l~l iN I, i!,
SIAVO < - ~n_ F '^
· I~ !4) i! I i :1- ,\dOOllVu
::> rt - 'u zl-..
~!:: ~I"" ~
1 (/l i '-- ""-e~
c. (l)~
-c: \J
.......Q
~
I
eX)
C
C.
o
.
,./'
:\
~I-
~
I~
/>
Sycamore
-
.......'"tJO
c:: 0 0
\Jo-c:
~:s:: (j
~:s:U)
i '
L~ UUl
I
1N'o')lf]
II~ ..
I,
...... ~
..
Uu j
1\ ....It
't~"~""^ \.
J ......
....
~ in
~..'. ~~Vj ~
r- ~
r.n 'In
310~1
D l 't J\
:= 1S 3TllO~~OAS.. ..
~. i. 'n ~ ~ ,~... ... ...
i., ~ ~~ .... ~
I. 1 i- <in.. l5- .....
I. ,.. ~ /._ ~I"-I-
~., . I' .. ... <) -"...
- ~..~
;
llO l101AV1
: I I I i I :
)/; \c/ \.....;.!,;~~~
"t; .....) ..{ I"
~ ..~ .~
!l. ''''.. ...
8~ ~........r't"6' ..... -~~'.,'
.", '" ".~."'~,
j ",.. '"
'. )',. f._.
", !'(c, \ \. .....
=-/'1' (\e/ I .~.
" t ....... ", 1~....
....... 25, '" '/ ." ,..
nn >-- ...~:! 1'25..
~'I~ ._,tL , .)1' Ill' ...
l
in
C
C.
o
"'"
~
\5W9!v.<o<,,<f:>
~ \~~"
.., \~ \,/>'
~
.......
\0
Q
Q
Q
Q
I
Q
~
~
~
rJ:J
Q)
...
c:
.'I""l
o
~
't:I
o
o
]
o
o
~
~
..
Z
o
~
~
U
o
~
~
f-l
~
00
~
6k6v-BH:-6 ~ k - DIAO! 'all!^IDJO~
pDOJ ~DP!lo4 OL~Z
6ujJaau!5ua f^
(Q
NOl1100V
VIAOI 'All:) VItIOI)
'3"1 'NOllJn~1SNOJ 11HO~ 3A3lS
HlJlJ 01 ONOJ3S '31NIOd OOOItl~00~8
I 3DVd - lVld A~VNI"m~d
,/.!'" I, Il~. "
/~ t~ \l
~/ f;. .J:.:., . ,
~?i f'7~)..10I-J /~
\J'j ,.VI11,.- f:'
, J't --1 I '<5
,/\,-;,1.1111 9
l;4.t~ ~ 'L ~
i II ~ I. ~.....f.' .....J..... g: ~
l~' il ~ :/J---- ~
iL.! T~.----...j~_.. ~
J h/...~" g
J '~~--------~,~) j"~- ....
f ,- l L_~
-._.;.ilU.....~~f~
I'l' ,=::'.i"
...J....! '~"'-i"- It' ~
_.' " I /'(11I
r ,#f!<~~ "\
~
o
~
.....
Cl
Cl
<:(
~~
5ti:
0...0
::>-f-:..
O:::~
c:::(0
c:=~
~U)
~~
~~
.....J.....
lLJo
0:::0...
0...8
o
S:
::.:::
o
o
0::
co
~~
i~m
Q'8~
~I~ gQ
;~~g~
~iU~
h!~~~
! ~~~gg~
~~~~~~
jo~ ~n
ilh~'1
~''''I''''' ...... - ., 1- - }1 ,
i" ~~~ r--/~
81 ':..~~
i==irL ~~
: ~-I ~
H. : j r8:J,. I
tI =- -H'",~ I
~~~! ""'1" I, ,i! n II n Ii H ! i ' l
!?llC1rz:c,:,IJ I--~!! h" : I ! ~ . II: I m I ~ ;I!!!! I ~!:i
~'x I n I I I ,ri~"!J n~!,
. ,," ~
o ~ 81 i
~- ~ Ii I
~ ~~ ~ w~.
U!i! i ; ~ j; h
<1 "~E Ii; ~~. .
~d ~~n
h ~ ;i~' ~ h
~ . . ij' . . ~
n II~; a~~ I ; !_
~ , ~ '. . ~~~ ~ ~ .~
~ i ~ ' "' I~;~ ~ ~ U
i " . . I ~s h.s . . J
133~lS 3~OW\fJ^S
",","nh"
:~~
~!~
, ",-" --,," ~
~S~
,,. ,".n'-~
"~~
,~.~~w
...l:;u
~~;
~,~~w
Ri>~
g~~
",0
.,- ",-,,',,' ~
,,1:;;u
~~;
,. ".~.~:?-
:~u
~~;
-'Ilia
,vO:-::E~
RVJ~
bg~
N c,_~:~~:.':iw
~~~
93;
" O:';:':.~. ~
''''r~~.:;;,.IJ ---- -- -- -- ;~-7
I "" "" I _pI!
Iii ;"""""""""" lliil;
II >"" ". --1 ,
, 'r. ' // I
, 4~(~> /' ;J
,;// ~~' ~ ./ /' I
. /-'. " '~ /' /'. I
- " / / \r ""..". " .\\\ '.../. ". ~'.
/ ;tk"\ \ '\ '\\\" .- .- -: '
. /.,." \ . \"". 1
~~.. / ~'\l.. .' \~\I \\, \-" _ ~ _)
- '. I i. I I,I ~ '. t
, I' ' I
~I '''-'---1
~ :\II~..-~-J
,----.."1' I '. . .' \
I '" ~! tl,'"~ Ii ". "JJ
," , i.'1 ~I-~MI-I
~ .,11 !s III ' . \
--'::,.11 Q. 'H'.-:----j
;I'!':ir ~.'
-~?J: ~ IIL___-1
-. r'jl I H.'" I
~ ;; , ;I! , ,I
"j' , '__---1
- - - - :f11 I. ',r' " '1
. ""I I
~ ,11,.1' , ,
5~~18.[, 2t~
3^n1G
11;1ssml
~
~
a
i::
.....
Cl
Cl
<::(
I-E
5t
Cl.o
>-.f-
o::~
~~
......V)
~ ~'
......~
-J.....
UJa
0::Q..
Cl.g
a
S::
~
a
a
a:::
co
6~6v-8~~-6l ~ - OhIO! 'all!^loJOO
pOOJ ,\oP!loy OLC;Z
6upaau!6ua f^
(Q
NOI1IOOV
VIIIOI 'AlI:l VIIIOI)
'J" 'NOI1Jn~lSNOJ IlHO~ 3A31S
HHIJ 01 ONOJ3S '31NIOd OOOIll~00~8
Z 3~Vd - lVld A~VNI"llm N
~
r:.....I..... ..... - -, ,- - ~
i " .....;) ~ / ,j
8 :..~/u;I
i----I I'
r--vL . _ _0-_
:-- ~~ ~
H. : j iSJ '!;
t=1 :-IH~
i-----I - - ..
: '''It..~~
t=J . ~~
Pf:6\~ ijl
PI1.c..EIZr~~~J
I. ~ ~
~ i ~;lln!n!!~
l ;;~LiHII~!II~ ~L
l--~ ~ I!! ~ ! ll. ! ! I ~ ~ ~ l p~ I
~.x I (j I I I
i ·
'1 · ~,
. . ~.
U .:. ~ I"~
5 ~;~g~ ~ h~
! ;a~!~ 1 .~U
.l33}llS ~~ow.\fJ^~.
./'
./'
./'
./'
./'./'./'
/
/
3M'dQ
:rr~S5n~ .
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
\
.......1
-- - - - ---.- _._~--'
/
~
i . d,
! ~ u:
. ~ I~~
!~ i Ji
vI " .~~
~" .. h
~ ;1 ~! !;i
! i! II hI
~ ~. J Jl
-,
L ~~
~cL
k~
~~
i~
~~
E~
:~
i!
lj~
gi~
~~~
m~!l
~~~
~~~
~~i
~~~
~rn~
~~*
!&i"1:t~
~8~
ji~
~ii
,,~~
. ~..
,.1 u
1Jl
~i
,
I
Ie'
"
-1~
~
~
- ~
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 12, 2010 - 6:00 PM -INFORMAL
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Charlie
Eastham, Josh Busard, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Michelle Payne
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Miklo, Karen Howard
OTHERS PRESENT:
None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
DEVELOPMENT/REZONING ITEM:
REZ10-00004/SUB10-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by the Moss Green
Development Corporation for a preliminary plat and a rezoning from Interim Development
Office Research Park (ID-ORP) zone to a 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 approximately 235.00-acre
office park and mixed use development subdivision located west of North Dodge
Street/Highway 1 and north of Interstate 80.
Howard said staff is impressed with the most recent development plan, as it has things more
fleshed out than it had previously. Howard said that corrections have been made to some
errors that were present in the last version, though the delineation of the wetlands is still not
completed. Howard said that the only wetland that has been identified is not in the current
rezoning proposal, and it appears that the plans have successfully avoided disturbing it.
Howard noted that it may ultimately be necessary for the developer to get a permit from the
Army Corp of Engineers before breaking ground, depending on how the analysis of the wetland
area. Howard said the bottom line is that staff is pretty comfortable recommending the rezoning
at this point. She noted that the plan has so much green space set aside that it is unlikely the
plans would need to be altered for wetland mitigation.
Howard said that the developer had complied with the request to add the floodplain elevations
to the sensitive areas map. Eastham asked if the floodplain could simply be put on a separate
map and Miklo said it would be most useful to have it on the same map in order to see if there
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 - Informal
Page 2 of 4
are conflicts with construction activity. Miklo said that for the most part only Oakdale Boulevard
is in the floodplain, which appears to be unavoidable. Howard said the roadway appears to be
above the 500-year floodplain. Eastham said he personally would like to see the roadways built
at 500-years plus one foot. He said that he was concerned that the intersection of Moss Place
and Oakdale Boulevard may have buildings in the 500-year floodplain. Miklo said that if the
Commission wished to require all construction to be one foot above the 500 year floodplain that
could be accomplished through a CZA. Weitzel asked if anyone knew the flood history of the
area. Plahutnik said his experience is that floods come up rapidly and dissipate rapidly in that
area. Eastham said that small watersheds can actually be more dangerous because floods
come up so rapidly. Miklo said that the Rapid Creek floodplain is fairly large, at 28 square
miles.
Howard said that a number of modifications to the underlying zoning standards had been
requested for the planned development portion of the project. Howard said that these requests
had been largely dimensional in nature. Howard said that the developer has requested uses
allowed in the Commercial Office zones be allowed in the Mixed Use zone. She said there is a
great deal of overlap in the two zones, but there are some differences. Howard said she was
not sure the developers were fully aware of some of the size limitations in these zones, and felt
that some of these could pose problems for a development of that scale down the road.
Because of this, staff intends to discuss the matter with the developer prior to the formal
meeting.
There was discussion about the concept plan as a general guide for the development, and what
exactly was meant by the idea of "compliance" with that concept plan. Howard explained that if
details were shifted that did not affect the overall vision of the plan, leeway was generally
granted. She said this is particularly important in this case as the developer did not yet know
who and what would actually be locating their businesses in the development. Greenwood
Hektoen asked if the Commission wished to clarify how much compliance with the concept plan
would be required: "general" or "substantiaL" Freerks said that because the development will
be a long-term one she favored substantial compliance. Miklo said he was concerned that there
was not enough detail on the plan to make substantial compliance realistic. Greenwood
Hektoen suggested the Commission could require substantial compliance for specific elements
they wished to see. Plahutnik said that if the developer complies with its vision statement then
the Commission will get what it wants. Howard noted that the underlying zoning will always
apply. There was general discussion about what specific details the Commission would wish to
see included in the final development that appear on the concept plan, in comparison to what is
required by the underlying codes. No conclusion was reached about "general" versus
"substantial" compliance with specific features of the site plan. Freerks asked that the
Commission address that issue at the formal meeting.
Plahutnik said he understood the City's hesitation to take on the street design proposed for
Moss Place given its somewhat experimental nature. However, he pointed out that the idea
behind this development was to generate tax dollars and it seemed somewhat unfair to
generate tax revenues from these businesses while refusing to plow and maintain the street
upon which they are located. He asked if Public Works was open to more talks on this subject.
Howard explained that the overall problem is that the maintenance plan for the streets and the
division of what would be private and what would be public became so complex that the
applicant's engineer suggested the street be private.
Howard said that the developer had originally requested wider streets throughout but that staff
had suggested narrowing the streets through the Mixed Use zone to lend the urban feel which
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 - Informal
Page 3 of 4
the developer was seeking. The developer will be working with Pearson on the pedestrian
easement to put bollards on the path to deter illegal driving on it.
Howard said that staff suggests the developer is granted credit for their on-street parking
spaces since they are attempting to reduce their footprint.
Staff suggests that if the Commission is concerned about the residential/commercial ratio in the
Mixed Use zone, then they may want to adopt staff's recommendations for 90% commercial and
no more than 10% residential on the ground floor, and a prohibition on detached single family
units. Howard said that percentages can be very tricky given that the actual developer for the
area is still an unknown. Howard said that the Commission can also simply prohibit residential
on the first floor. Miklo noted that the developer does anticipate the market for live/work units.
Howard said the preliminary plat is still being reviewed by the City Engineer. She said that if the
plat is not ready by the formal meeting, staff recommends deferring the plat and making a
recommendation to the City Council on the planned development overlay zoning with the plat
following at the next meeting if the issues have been resolved.
Plahutnik asked if it was possible for the developer not to stub sanitary sewer up to the Johnson
County Heritage Trust property since the Trust's aim is to preserve that property. Miklo said
the concern with that may be that there may be a property beyond the conservation area that
would need sewer service. Miklo said that the difficulty is that the City is somewhat flying blind
because there is no plan for farther north at this point. Plahutnik asked if the subject should be
brought up at the formal meeting. Greenwood Hektoen said she would look into whether the
requirement can be waived or not. Freerks asked staff to look into other alternatives as well.
Howard noted that the northern portion of the property is not being rezoned at this time so there
will be an opportunity to look at this question more closely in the future.
Howard asked if there were any questions on the recommendations. Eastham asked where the
concept plan was referred to in the recommendations, and Howard said it was the first bullet
point. Discussion resumed as to whether the word "general" should be inserted. Howard noted
that the plan will go back before a public process prior to development. Freerks asked for
alternative wording regarding the residential percentages in the Mixed Use zone. Eastham
asked for wording to be proposed for the 500-year floodplain to be used rather than the 100-
year floodplain. Howard said she would like to discuss some of these issues with the applicant.
Freerks requested that Howard relay the outcome of those discussions to the Commission prior
to the meeting if possible. Howard said that the developer would like to see the process move
forward for marketing reasons. She said that the modifications she had suggested for the Mixed
Use zone are above and beyond what the developer may have considered and would benefit
the developer to adopt. Greenwood Hektoen reminded the Commission that they would again
have the opportunity to vet the plan. Howard said that one way of looking at this is that while
the developer would be getting "extras" through the planned development process, they are also
giving many "extras" in terms of amenities and green space, and therefore the Commission
must decide if it is worth it to place additional restrictions that would place additional limits to the
underlying zoning. Howard noted that the developer is reserving 80% of the green space and is
only required to reserve 20%. Howard said there would need to be a public reason to impose
another standard. Freerks said that because this will be a long-term development, it is
important that the overall vision is retained. Howard pointed out that the underlying zoning
requirements will still be in place.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:53 p.m.
z
Q
U)
U)
:Ec
:EO::
00
UU
"w
zO::
-wo
zu~
Ozo
Nc:(N
CC
ZZ
C:(W
"I-
Z~
Z
Z
c:(
...J
a.
C)
Z
~
W
W
::E
...J
<1:
::E
0:::
o
u.
~ X X X X X X W
~ -
0
CIO W
~ - X X X X X X
- 0
M
oqo X X X X X X X
-
N
~
~ X X X X X X x
~
en
::EW ...... ...... ('t) N 0 0 ('t)
o:::~ ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
- - - - - - -
Wo. LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
....>< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W
W J: >
....
01( :J W W ...J
::::) 0::: ~ ...J ...J
J: 01( Z ...J ~
W
en J: Z J: ::E
0 () <1: :J () ':i: ~
.., W
C ~ u) u) ::E z ,.j
~ .... W
0::: J: 0::: W W ::::) ~
W <1: .... W a. Z J:
::E en ~ W a. ~ <1: jjj
01( ::::) 0::: 0 ...J
Z m W u. ~ a. a. 3:
C)
Z
~
W
W
::E
...J
<1:
::E
0:::
o
u.
Z
N W
~ X X X X - X X
~ 0
en W W
~ X X X X - X -
M 0 0
~ X X X X X X W
- -
N 0
en
::EW ...... ...... ('t) N 0 0 ('t)
o:::~ ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
- - - - - - -
Wo. LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
....>< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W
W J: >
- .... W ...J
<1: ...J W
::::) 0::: m ...J ...J
J: 01( Z ~ ...J ~
W
en J: Z J: ::E
0 () <1: :J () ':i: ~
.., W
C ::E u) u) ::E z ..i
01( ~ W .... W
0::: J: 0::: W ::::) ~
W 01( .... W a. Z J:
::E en en W a. ~ <1: jjj
<1: ::::) <1: 0::: 0 ...J
Z m W u. ~ a. a. 3:
E
:::::l
'-
o
:::::l
,,0
Q) 0
~ Z '-
c..> -- Q)
X g'.o
UJ:.;:::;E
~Q)Q)
CQ)"""
c-Q)E":::
Q) C en ro
en~:9o-
Q).o.....zo
O:<tll IIZ
II II ~:2: I:
XOOZ:
:>:
UJ
~
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 15, 2010 -7:00 PM - FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMAJ. HARVAT HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks,
Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Elizabeth Koppes
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT:
Wally Pelds
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 6-0 (Koppes absent) to recommend approval of the Planned
Development Overlay rezoning, REZ10-00004 for:
· 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;
This approval is subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) for specific
restrictions or allowances noted in the Planned Development Rezoning ordinance and
plan and preliminary plat as set forth below:
· Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the final OPD site plans is required.
Site plans will be reviewed for general compliance with the master plan as
submitted to the City on April 1, 2010, which shall be attached to and recorded
with the preliminary planned development plan;
. Detached Single Family Dwellings, Two Family Dwellings, and two-unit Attached
Single Family Dwellings are prohibited;
· Modifications to the underlying zoning standards are allowed as noted in the staff
report dated April 1, 2010, and as adjusted and noted in the April 14, 2010, memo;
· On property zoned OPD-MU Zone, uses allowed in the Commercial Office Zone are
also allowed;
· Moss Place will be constructed and platted as a private street with a public and
emergency access easement extending over the entire length and width of the
right-of-way;
· Moss Place must be built to the City's minimum construction standards and
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 - Formal
Page 2 of 12
inspected by the City prior to being open to the public; and
. On-street diagonal parking will be allowed along the frontage of lots 1-4 and lots
10-12 on Moss Place. Said on-street parking spaces will count toward the number
of parking spaces required for development on these lots;
. There will be no size limitation for personal service-oriented uses;
. The maximum size for sales-oriented retail uses will be increased to allow uses of
up to 10,000 square feet;
. There will be no size limitations for eating establishments;
· The building articulation standard in the CB-5/CB-10 zones 14-2C-8M will be
substituted for the building scale standard in the Mixed Use Zone, 14-2C-9G;
. For buildings located in the Mixed Use Zone, residential uses are not allowed
within the first 30 feet of building depth, as measured from the front building wall
facing Moss Place; residential entrances, stairwells, lobbies, elevators and other
building features that provide access and safety for residents are not included in
this restriction; In addition, up to 25% of the length of the ground-level frontage of
a building that faces Moss Place may include live-work units that include both
commercial and residential functions; live-work units that do not include any
residential functions on the ground-level floor do not count toward the limit.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called border at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
DEVELOPMENT/REZONING ITEM:
REZ10-00004/SUB10-00005: 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 a 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
Street/Highway 1 and north of Interstate 80.
Howard explained that the subject property is currently zoned ID-ORP. The applicant is
planning to build an extension of Oakdale Boulevard across the property in order to facilitate
development of the property. Howard said that the area south of the roadway is intended to be
a planned development. which means the developer is asking for some adjustments to the
underlying zoning, and has a conceptual master plan that they would like to use to guide their
development.
Howard noted that the applicant had submitted a more detailed master plan at the last meeting.
She said that staff has reviewed the documents and believes it to be a much more developed
concept than that which was previously submitted. Howard said that if the general plan is
followed, the resulting development will be a very nice one. Howard pointed out the Mixed Use
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 - Formal
Page 3 of 12
area of the development that is intended for Lots 1 and 12 of the subdivision. She also noted
the sites intended for Research Development Park and Office Research Park.
Howard stated that the developers have highlighted a number of green features that they would
like to incorporate into the development. She said that the developers would be best able to
answer any questions the Commission might have about that green concept.
Howard referred Commissioners to the memo that had just been sent to them regarding the
planned development. Howard said that the developer is requesting a much higher density than
is typical for the Mixed Use zone, which typically has a low-density, low-scale character.
Howard said that the Mixed Use zone is the closest zone that the City has for what the
developer envisions for the area. Their vision includes a mix of uses to provide services and
commercial businesses for the larger office park that is planned for the area, as well as to
provide some residential housing for people working on site. Howard said that because the
developer is asking for adjustments to the height and scale requirements, staff feels that the
other characteristics of the Mixed Use zone should also be adjusted. Howard explained that in
the underlying zoning for the Mixed Use zone there are size limitations; those limitations are
proportional to a smaller scale development. In order to make those limitations more in tune
with the proposed development, they may need to be adjusted for a larger scale development.
Howard said her memo contained suggestions for other possible modifications to the Mixed Use
zone. She noted that the developer had asked for a waiver of the size limitations for personal-
service oriented retail uses, such as banks, dry cleaners, salons, etc. Howard said the
developer has asked for an increase in the maximum size for sales-oriented retail uses, to allow
for uses of up to 10,000 square feet. They have also asked that there be no size limitation on
eating establishments in the Mixed Use zone; the current limit is for a maximum occupancy of
100. Howard noted that the developer's vision does not include drive-through restaurants,
which is part of the idea behind the occupancy limitations in the Mixed Use zone. The
developers have asked that the building articulation standards for the downtown CB-5 and CB-
10 zones be substituted for the building scale standard that is in the Mixed Use zone. This
would allow for better proportionality; the buildings would be articulated to a 50-foot module
rather than a 3D-foot module. Staff finds the requests to be reasonable, as it is their analysis
that the Mixed Use zone is intended to ensure that smaller uses can be comfortably located in
the same area. However, staff recommends that single family and duplex uses are not allowed
in this development, and that higher density uses are the residential focus.
Howard said that the scale of residential uses to commercial uses in the Mixed Use area has
been an ongoing topic of discussion in Planning and Zoning meetings. Staff recommends that
there be a prohibition on detached single-family dwellings, two-unit detached single family
dwellings, and duplexes. She noted that some Commissioners have expressed concern about
the amount of residential that will be allowed, not wanting the area to become predominately
residential. Howard said that she believes the applicant agrees with that sentiment, and that the
intention of the Mixed Use area is to encourage a vibrant commercial area to serve the larger
development. The developer is open to having a restriction on the amount of first floor
residential development permitted; including the options outlined in Howard's memo. She said
that the downtown zones have a storefront module with a requirement that the first 30 feet from
the front building wall back has to be commercial space. This creates storefronts along the
street, and then anything behind that could be more residential. Howard said the developer
anticipates a possible demand for live-work units, and would like the flexibility to allow those to
be on the fronts of the buildings. Howard said typically live-work units have commercial on the
first floor and residential above. However, there are examples of successful incorporation of
residential aspects on the first floor. Howard said that staff found the developer's' request to be
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 - Formal
Page 4 of 12
reasonable.
Howard noted that there had been a great deal of discussion about the roadway at the last
Commission meeting. She said that there were questions of how the developer could
incorporate some new techniques into their street right-of-way for storm-water management,
geo-thermal systems, and on-street parking. Howard said that Public Works felt that because
there would be so many elements incorporated into the street right-of-way, it might be best for
the street to be a private one. Howard said this would allow the developer to include all of these
unique elements in their street right-of-way, and there would be a public access easement over
the street right-of-way and sidewalks. The developer would remain responsible for the
maintenance of the streets, snow-plowing, etc. The developer has requested a 50-foot right-of-
way through the Mixed Use area and the first RDP lots, in order to build closer to the street and
create an urban streetscape. The right-of-way would then widen out in the ORP lots to a gO-foot
right-of-way, allowing larger area for the street trees and the sidewalks. Howard said the
collector-width street standard would remain the same at 31-feet. Howard said that the
developer has suggested an 8-foot wide walk with cement bollards to prevent people from
driving on the pedestrian easement to and through the Pearson property.
Howard noted that the developer had drawn the SOD-year and 1 DO-year floodplains on the
sensitive areas plan, per the Commission's request. Howard said that it the plans for the
development have all of the buildings located outside of both floodplains. Howard said that it
appears that the roadway is also at or above the SOD-year floodplain in all areas except where it
intersects with Highway 1, which is itself below the floodplain.
Howard summarized by saying that staff feels the zoning portion of the planned development is
ready for the Commission's recommendation, though the modifications and special conditions
should be spelled out in the ordinance. Howard said that the preliminary plat is being reviewed
by City engineers and while there are some technical deficiencies, there is nothing that is a red
flag. Until those issues are worked out, staff recommends deferral on the preliminary plat.
Howard offered to answer Commission questions.
Payne asked about the size limitations. Payne noted that size limitations of up to 5,000 feet are
authorized by special exception only. She asked if the special exception requirement can
simply be ignored by the Commission, and the exception granted directly. Howard said that
through the planned development process the Commission is allowed to adjust and modify the
underlying zoning standards, and so the special exception requirement could also be modified
or eliminated. Howard said that the developer wants the uses allowed in the Mixed Use zone,
but of the scale that fits their master plan. Howard said the planned development would
become the zoning for the property, and would be incorporated by ordinance.
Plahutnik asked staff for the typical size of a big box store. Miklo said that big box stores are
typically over 50,000 square feet in size, and not really comparable to the scale of development
being proposed here. Miklo said thaUor reference the Ace Hardware Store on Dodge Street is
approximately 20,000 square feet.
Plahutnik said he had asked a question at the informal meeting about stubbing the sewer and
water to the land to the north. He said there had been questions regarding whether or not it was
feasible not to do that, or whether that is in fact mandatory. Howard said she believed that still
needed to be addressed through the platting process. Miklo said that the most recent plans do
not stub the sewer and water directly into the conservation area. He said the engineers are still
exploring whether there needs to be a stub to serve properties beyond that. Howard pointed out
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 - Formal
Page 5 of 12
on the map two areas where the most recent plans have stubbing. Freerks said she thought it
would be good for Plahutnik to explain publicly at this meeting what his concerns were so that it
can have an impact on what the Commission sees later with the final plat.
There were no further questions for staff and Freerks opened the public hearing.
Wally Pelds, Pelds Engineering/ECO-4, spoke on behalf of Steve Moss, David Moss, Moss
Family Farms, and the Moss Green Development Corporation. Pelds said staff had done an
excellent job of presenting the project. Pelds said that the requests for modifications had been
made because of specific ideas the developer would like to bring to the area. Pelds said that
the request for modification to the maximum restaurant size was made because a couple of the
restaurants they are talking to have more than 250 seats, and the zoning limits occupancy to
125. Pelds said that they had been in discussions with nationwide brands of restaurants and
that 125 was a much more intimate restaurant than those being proposed. Pelds said there is
also a pharmacy hoping to locate in the development which needs at least 10,000 square feet.
He said this pharmacy is modeled after downtown city pharmacies such as can be found in
Seattle, Dallas and Chicago. Pelds said Howard was correct in her assessment that the
developers do not want the Mixed Use residential portion of the development to become an
apartment building. He said the first 3D-feet would have to be retail regardless, and condos
looking out the back over the parking lot and green spaces could be a good fit for the
development. He said they have come up with a very unique plan with great ideas, and they
are excited to present them to the Commission.
Pelds said that concerning the sewer issue, the plans call for going around the conservation
area. Pelds said that in regard to the plat, the developers have changed to the option of having
a private street, and because of this, had only today received the engineers' comments. He
said they are still working through some of the items flagged by the engineers, but hopes to
have them all resolved by the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Pelds offered to answer any questions the Commission might have.
Eastham asked if the applicant agrees that the concept plan presented earlier will be
incorporated into the development standards for the area and will be adhered to going forward.
Pelds said that was absolutely the case.
Plahutnik said that Pelds had probably already realized that zoning is a very clumsy tool. He
noted that the Commission zones for the property, not just the project proposed. Plahutnik said
that he personally loves the project. However, the developers could win the lottery tomorrow
and decide they would rather go to the Bahamas and sell the land. Plahutnik said that this is
why it is the property that must be considered above and beyond the proposed project. He said
that if Pelds had ideas or creative solutions to the issues brought up concerning the residential
zoning, he would like him to let the Commission know. Pelds said they had given the matter a
lot of consideration, because they do not want apartment buildings there; that would run counter
to their vision. Pelds said that if the conceptual plan is adopted as the guide for the
development, then the vision of the first level of the building as all retail will be realized. Pelds
said they like the idea of an element or two of residential in the buildings, but they do not want
apartment buildings. Pelds said that the Moss family has been very explicit that they want this
development to be a showcase for Iowa City. He said that they are being inundated with
requests from across the nation to be a part of this project. He said that it has been awhile
since Iowa City had development of this scale for commercial and office space, and people are
very excited. Pelds said that if a Microsoft or Google locates on the site, then there will
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 - Formal
Page 6 of 12
immediately be five ancillary businesses that want to locate in the office park as well. Pelds
said that great thought has gone into the development, and that the Moss family has given very
explicit direction on the project. He said they would like to continue the legacy begun by their
dairy farms with a showcase development the likes of which has not been seen in the area.
Payne noted that mention had been made of permeable pavement. She said that the area does
not have a lot of experience with permeable pavement and she asked how well it holds up
during harsh winters. Pelds said that their model includes using permeable or porous asphalt.
He said that permeable concrete started out great as a model, but that it is now being shown to
fail in five to seven years. He said this is one of the reasons for going private with the cross-
street; the obligation to replace and repair the street would fall on the association rather than the
City. Pelds said the development is using a two-foot strip of porous asphalt. He said that he
had seen demonstrations of porous asphalt reacting like a sponge to water that would normally
run into the gutters. He said that they hope to showcase those strips in the parking stalls with
the in-street storm-water retention and treatment systems. He said their planning includes
concerns for water quality as well as quantity. He said the systems will filter the water before
returning it to Rapid Creek. Pelds said Public Works had been hesitant to allow the ideas on
public streets as they had not done anything like it before. Payne asked if this was something
quite new, and Pelds said that it is. Payne said she had heard that permeable pavement
needed to be swept frequently or it clogs. Pelds said this was correct. He said a modified collar
is put on a street sweeper to suck the mud and sand from the pavement. Pelds said that these
strips will be the last thing to be poured, once the drainage system has been put in place and
stabilized. Pelds said the entire substructure is filled with rock and the underground storm-water
chambers will be placed under the parking stalls. He said that there is a very successful
example of this in a Kohl's parking lot in West Des Moines near Jordan Creek Mall. He said it is
a cost-savings mechanism because it does not require above ground storm-water retention and
also keeps mosquitoes away. Pelds noted that wetlands do not become as much of a mosquito
magnet as a stagnant retention pond does.
There were no further questions for Pelds.
There were no further public comments on this matter and the public hearing was closed.
Freerks noted that in making a motion, one should consider that there are technical difficulties
with the plat, so it should be deferred.
Payne motioned to defer the preliminary plat.
Weitzel seconded.
Eastham asked if just the plat was being deferred or if the entire rezoning was being deferred as
well. Payne said it was just the plat.
There was no further discussion on the motion and a vote was taken.
The motion carried 6-0 (Koppes absent), deferring SUB10-00005 until the next meeting.
Freerks asked for a motion for the rest of the application. Payne said she had a question about
that. She said that the fourth bullet in the staff recommendations says that a master plan was
submitted to the City on April 1 0, 2010. She asked if she needed to state each of the items in
the recommendation when making the motion. Miklo said she could refer to the written
recommendation to get it into the record. Greenwood Hektoen said there are a lot of different
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 - Formal
Page 7 of 12
recommendations so the motion should probably refer to the date of the memo being cited.
Freerks said she did not think it would hurt to go through the recommendations as the matter
was fairly complex. Howard said there are things in the April 14th memo that staff thinks should
be added to the staff recommendations. Howard noted that the Commission had discussed
adding the word "general" to the description of the compliance with the master plan that would
be required. Freerks said the discussion was whether the compliance needed to be substantial
or general.
Payne motioned to approve the planned development overlay rezoning, REZ1 0-00004 for:
. Approximately 60.32 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (10-
RP), to Overlay Planned Development-Office Research Park, OPD-ORP
. Approximately 56.48 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (10-
RP) to Overlay Planned Development-Research Development Park (OPD-RDP);
and
. Approximately 24.49 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (10-
RP) to Overlay Planned Development-Mixed Use, OPD-MU.
This approval is subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) for specific
restrictions or allowances noted on the Planned Development Plan and preliminary plat
as set forth below:
. Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the final OPD site plans is required.
Site plans will be reviewed for general compliance with the master plan as
submitted to the City on April 1, 2010, which shall be attached to and recorded
with the preliminary planned development plan;
. Detached Single Family Dwellings, Two Family Dwellings, and two-unit Attached
Single Family Dwellings are prohibited;
. Modifications to the underlying zoning standards are allowed as noted in the staff
report dated April 1, 2010, and as adjusted and noted in the April 14, 2010, memo;
. On property zoned OPD-MU Zone, uses allowed in the Commercial Office Zone are
also allowed;
. Moss Place will be constructed and platted as a private street with a public and
emergency access easement extending over the entire length and width of the
right-of-way;
. Moss Place must be built to the City's minimum construction standards and
inspected by the City prior to being open to the public; and
. On-street diagonal parking will be allowed along the frontage of lots 1-4 and lots
10-12 on Moss Place. Said on-street parking spaces will count toward the number
of parking spaces required for development on these lots;
. There will be no size limitation for personal service-oriented uses;
. The maximum size for sales-oriented retail uses will be increased to allow uses of
up to 10,000 square feet;
. There will be no size limitations for eating establishments;
. The building articulation standard in the CB-5/CB-10 zones 14-2C-8M will be
substituted for the building scale standard in the Mixed Use Zone, 14-2C-9G;
. For buildings located in the Mixed Use Zone, residential uses are not allowed
within the first 30 feet of building depth, as measured from the front building wall
facing Moss Place; residential entrances, stairwells, lobbies, elevators and other
building features that provide access and safety for residents are not included in
this restriction; In addition, up to 25% of the length of the ground-level frontage of
a building that faces Moss Place may include live-work units that include both
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 - Formal
Page 8 of 12
commercial and residential functions; live-work units that do not include any
residential functions on the ground-level floor do not count toward the limit.
Plahutnik seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Eastham asked that it be noted that the modifications outlined in the notion for the Mixed Use
Zone were those found in the staff memo dated April 14, 2010. Eastham said that Payne's
wording did not clearly state that the modifications in the April 14th memo apply to the Mixed
Use Zone only. He said that while that is understood by all present, it should be stated for the
record.
Plahutnik said that the Johnson County Heritage Trust has a property to the north of the subject
property that they are very interested in conserving for future generations. Because Iowa City
requires that sewer lines be stubbed to the property lines to facilitate future development, he
had hoped that either the developer or the Commission could make arrangements to avoid
stubbing on the Trust's property. The idea would be to not make their property more attractive
for development. since their goal is conservation. Plahutnik said it seems as though both the
developer and the Commission are looking at things with that kind of idea in mind, so he saw no
need for specific action on that front at the present time.
Greenwood Hektoen asked for clarification on whether there had been a second on the motion.
Freerks informed her that Plahutnik had seconded.
Eastham said he would like to add an amendment to the motion placing additional
restrictions on the CZA so that all arterial, residential and collector streets and inhabited
building levels are built to the 500-year plus one-foot FEMA floodplain level for this
development.
Weitzel seconded.
Eastham said he was not sure exactly what wording would be required to do that. Payne asked
if that was not already a requirement of the code. Howard said code requires building above the
1 DO-year flood level. Howard said that the Commission should be cautious not to restrict the
intersection of Highway 1 and Oakdale Boulevard. Freerks asked Eastham to repeat the types
of places he was interested in seeing this restriction applied to. Eastham said his interest is in
making sure that any elevation for road surface or building entrance level that is required to be
above a floodplain elevation is above the 500-year plus one foot mark. Busard asked if
Eastham was asking that even roads had to be at 500-year plus one-foot levels. Eastham said
he was; particularly the arterial and collector streets. Payne asked if he meant this should be
the case even in those places where the roads and buildings are not in the floodplain. Eastham
said that he meant only where the road/property passes through the floodplain. Busard said
that would be adding a lot of engineering to this, especially if the applicant had not already been
planning to do this.
Busard said he almost wished the public hearing could be opened again to hear what the
applicant had to say about that prior to making his decision. Busard said that it makes sense
that the buildings should be above the 500 year floodplain, but that in looking at the plat, it does
not appear that any buildings are in the 500-year floodplain. He said that roads were a little
different. Eastham said that in the past the applicant had indicated that they intended to build
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 - Formal
Page 9 of 12
the roadways to the 500-foot elevation.
Miklo said that even though the public hearing has been closed, the Commission can still ask a
question of the applicant. Freerks said that is rather rare, but said that as no one else was
present and waiting to speak she would allow it. She asked Greenwood Hektoen if she could
invite Pelds back to the microphone. Greenwood Hektoen said that if discussion among the
Commission indicates an interest in finding that out then it is okay. Freerks said that it is
nothing the Commission would be comfortable answering on their own at this point. She said
she too had concerns about the degree of engineering involved in something like that.
Pelds said he would have a little bit of concern with Eastham's amendment because
Engineering had asked them to go to one-foot above the 1 OO-year floodplain, which, he said, is
just above the 500-year floodplain. Pelds said that FEMA had just updated the highway corridor
in 2007 based on the rain gauge data they had. Pelds said that it was his recollection that
Highway 1 did not go under water during the 2008 floods. Pelds said that changing the
requirement to the 500-year plus one foot level would substantially change his construction
drawings that they have been working on for two months now. He said they have been working
closely with the engineers and they have been sensitive to this flood issue. Pelds said that his
computer simulations indicate that all 26 miles of the stream corridor would have to be paved
before the flood level would rise to the 500 year mark, or there would have to be an inundation
of 27 inches of rain within a 24-hour period; which would be rain at the level of a tropical
monsoon and would break every record for rainfall ever held in the state of Iowa. Pelds said he
would be strongly opposed to this amendment.
Miklo said the conversation needed to be limited to question and answer since the public
hearing had been closed. Freerks agreed. Pelds noted that the amendment had not been
brought up during the public hearing and he felt he needed to fully address the issue to the
Commission to register his opposition to it. Freerks asked Pelds if he had any problems
applying the amendment only to building entrances rather than roadways, and he said he did
not. Busard said it looked as though all of the building entrances were already out of the 500-
year floodplain. Busard said that it was his opinion that if the City Engineers agreed with the
plans for the roadways it was not really the Commission's place to disagree with that expertise.
Eastham said that it was his understanding that the CZA establishes what the floodplain
elevation will be when the final plat is actually approved. Miklo said the floodplain elevation is
established by FEMA. Eastham said the existing requirement will use the 1 OO-year elevation
unless the CZA requires more. Miklo reiterated that the plans do not show any buildings within
the 500-year floodplain. Freerks noted that the plan could change. Miklo said that if it did
change, then it would have to come back before the Commission anyway. Payne pointed out
that every building in the development will come before the Commission regardless. Miklo said
that was correct and if at any time a building shifted so that it was located in the floodplain the
Commission could disallow it. Busard asked what changes Freerks and Miklo were referring to
as the plat was not being adopted. Freerks said the Commission could either proactively set the
limits, as suggested by Eastham, or wait until it became an issue on a case by case basis.
Howard noted that the floodplain ordinance has very technical definitions of the floor and how it
has to be one-foot above; she suggested that the Commission might want to mimic the
language found in the ordinance.
Eastham asked if the floodplain ordinance only applied to buildings. Miklo said that it applies to
both buildings and streets, but that right now it requires streets and buildings to be built to one-
foot above the 1 OO-year flood level, not the 500-year flood level. Miklo said it sounds as though
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 - Formal
Page 10 of 12
the applicant is amenable to a requirement for buildings to be one-foot above the 500 year
floodplain. Eastham said that his point is primarily that they are approving zoning for the
property; not necessarily a specific site plan. Plahutnik noted that the floodplain in question was
strictly for Rapid Creek, so that even with very heavy rains, if the roads flooded the water would
very quickly continue to flow on down the river and be gone. He said the back-up would not be
severe like that around the Iowa River and its surrounding creeks. Plahutnik asked about the
elevations in order to determine the likelihood of prolonged flooding for the area. Pelds said that
the 500-year flood elevation is 664 at the far western end and graduates up to about 672 feet.
Eastham asked what the difference between the 100-year elevation and the 500-year elevation
was. Pelds said that it varies; in some places in the drainage shed it is 2 inches and in some
places it is 8 inches. Pelds said there is a great drop after Prairie du Chein. Plahutnik said that
this shows that any flooding would be transient flooding from the watershed. He said this might
bring some perspective because flooding typically brings to mind events like that which occurred
on the Coralville Strip in which water stood for a month. Busard said that the outlots have a 5-
acre wetland that will also help manage and detain storm-water, in addition to all of the other
measures taken on the property to avoid flooding.
Greenwood Hektoen said she was concerned that the Commission is taking additional evidence
outside of the public hearing. She said that if this is something they need to explore further then
a public hearing might need to be opened. Howard said that this issue could also be explored
at the platting stage. Greenwood Hektoen said she did not want the Commissioners
considering additional evidence that was not presented during the public hearing.
Miklo pointed out that unless the Commission included a provision in the CZA to do so, then the
issue could not be addressed at the platting stage. Miklo said that staff had had a similar
discussion with their engineers. Miklo said that the issue with creek floods is that they tend to
come and go quickly, unlike a river flood which may affect a large area for a great amount of
time. Miklo said that when staff discussed the issue with the City Engineers, they found them to
be comfortable with the streets at about a 500-year floodplain level. Eastham pointed out that
the engineers had been comfortable with the streets at about a 500-year flood level, but the
applicant is saying that they want to engineer the streets so that they'll be at the 1 OO-year flood
level. Miklo pointed out that they would actually be one foot above the 1 OO-year flood level.
Howard said that this was a minimum. Miklo said that in some places they will be out of the
floodplain altogether. Howard said it was found that there was not much difference for the most
part in the 1 OO-year floodplain and the 500-year floodplain for the area. Freerks said it comes
down to whether or not the Commission wants to put something in place now or wait and do so
when it comes to plat, or whether they do not wish to include it at all.
Eastham repeated the amendment per Busard's request. Busard asked if this effectively meant
that all arterial streets, including Oakdale Boulevard would have to be one-foot above the 500
year floodplain. Eastham said that he understood staff's point that in many instances the actual
difference between these two flood levels is quite small. Weitzel said he had seconded the
motion because he wanted to hear the discussion on whether this was worth pursuing, and as
yet he is not convinced that it is. Busard said that he was not going to vote for it. Eastham said
he certainly understood the difference in intensity and duration between flooding in major
arterial systems and minor creek systems. He said he is also cognizant that the flooded streets
in Iowa City had been designed for a 1 OO-year occurrence. Eastham said he is not certain
about the best way to go about evaluating that hazard. He said his general purpose is to try to
address potential problems for this particular project as well as more broadly for small
watershed areas. Freerks said she is not interested in looking at the roadway elevations at this
time; though she would consider looking at building elevations to the 500-year standard.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 - Formal
Page 11 of 12
Freerks said she was not in favor of the amendment.
A vote was taken and the amendment failed 1-5 (Eastham voting in favor; Koppes
absent).
Freerks invited discussion on the original motion. Busard asked if the Commission had ever
decided on implementing a ratio of commercial to residential build-out. Freerks said the
compromise was what staff had proposed. She said the Mixed Use is a bit of an experiment
and she is fine with seeing it stretched a little bit. She said she thinks the development will be
great for the community and she would like to see it happen sooner rather than later. She said
she would like to put in a plug for local businesses as Pelds had mentioned the interest of
national chains.
Eastham said he too thinks the development is wonderful; a great concept with the potential for
substantial economic impact. He commended the development team and owners for working
so diligently and being so innovative.
Weitzel said it is remarkable to see a developer trying to do new and innovative things and
finding solutions to long-range problems, all the while shouldering the bulk of the financial
burden to do it.
Busard said it is a grand plan and he hopes that it works out well so that this type of
development does not just go by the wayside.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Koppes absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: March 29, 2010 (informal) and April 1, 2010:
Plahutnik motioned to approve the minutes.
Payne seconded.
The minutes were approved 6-0 (Koppes absent).
OTHER:
Payne said she had learned some things at a recent conference that she would like to share
with Commissioners at an informal meeting sometime in the near future.
ADJOURNMENT:
Weitzel motioned to adjourn.
Payne seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Koppes absent) at 8:11 p.m.
z
o
en
~
:eO
:eo:::
00
uu
C)w
zO:::
-wo
zu~
Ozo
N<(N
00
ZZ
<(w
C)1-
z~
Z
Z
<(
.J
a.
It) w
or- X X X - X X X
~ 0
or- X X X X X X w
~ -
0
co W
or- - X X X X X X
- 0
M
~ X X X X X X X
N
or-
N X X X X X X x
-
or-
en
::IEW ..- ..- C") N 0 0 C")
D::~ ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..-
- - - - - it> -
WD.. LO LO LO LO LO LO
I-X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W
W J: >-
I-
<C ::i W W ..J
:J D:: ~ ..J ci!
J: <C z ..J
W 3:
en J: z J: ::IE
0 (.) <C ::i ~ ~ i=
.., W
C ~ ui ui ::IE z ...i
~ W- I- W
D:: J: D:: W :J J::!
W <C I- W D.. Z J:
~ en en W D.. ~ <C W
:J <C D:: 0 ..J
Z m W LL ~ D.. D.. 3:
C)
z
i=
W
W
::IE
..J
<C
::IE
D::
o
LL
N W
or- X X X X - X X
~ 0
(7) w W
N X X X X - X -
- 0 0
M
or- X X X X X X w
- -
N 0
en
::IEW ..- ..- C") N 0 0 C")
D::~ ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..-
- - - - - - -
WD.. LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
I-X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W
W J: >-
I-
<C ::i W W ..J
:J D:: m ..J ..J
J: <C z ~ ..J ~
W
en J: z J: ::IE
0 (.) <C ::i (.) ~ i=
.., W
C ~ ui ui ::IE z ...i
~ W- I- W
D:: J: D:: W :J J::!
W <C I- W D.. Z J:
::IE en en W D.. ~ <C W
<C :J <C D:: 0 ..J
Z m W LL ~ D.. D.. 3:
C)
z
i=
W
W
::IE
..J
<C
::IE
D::
o
LL
Z
E
::l
....
o
::l
-00
cu 0
~z ....
u - cu
>< 0>.0
llJEE
':;::>cucu
ccu"""
'E-cuE":::
cuc(/) ro
(/)~:Slo-
cu.o.......zo
ct c:x:: II II Z
II II ~:2: II
XOOZ
:>:
llJ
~