Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-20-2010 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, May 17, 2010.6:00 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Lobby Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street Thursday, May 20, 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. (To be deferred) D. Rezoning Item: REZ10-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Dealer Properties IC, LLC for a rezoning from Highway Commercial (CH-1) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 22.83- acres of property located west of Mormon Trek Blvd, south of Highway 1, adjacent to City View Drive. (45-day limitation period: June 7) E. Zoning Code Items: 1. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow more flexibility in the application of development standards as they apply to nonconforming developments. 2. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to refine the definition of regulated stream corridors to exclude drainageways that do not have a bed and bank defined by an ordinary high water mark and a definite direction of flow. F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: May 3 and May 6, 2010 G. Other: 1. Presentation of Fair Housing by Kristin Watson (Monday meeting) 2. Presentation of JCCOG Long Range Multi-Modal Transportation Plan by Kent Ralston (Thursday meeting) H. Adjournment Informal Formal Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings June 14 June 17 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 20, 2010 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Christina Kuecker, Associate Planner RE: REZ10-00006/SUB10-00002 Terra Verde At the May 6 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting the decision regarding REZ10- 00006/SUB10-00002 was deferred until a wetland mitigation plan, tree replacement plan, and tree protection plan were submitted by the applicant. The applicant has not submitted the necessary plans. Once the plans have been submitted and reviewed by Staff, this item will be placed back on the agenda and notice will be given to the neighbors. STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Jake Rosenberg, Planning Intern Item: REZ10-00008 Date: May 20, 2009 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Dealer Properties IC, LLC 3401 West 41 sl Street Sioux Falls, SD 57106 Contact Person: David Larsen 277 Hickory St. Kalona, IA 52247 Phone: (319) 656-5271 Requested Action: Rezoning from CH-1 to CI-1 Purpose: To allow use as an auto dealership and collision repair facility Location: Mormon Trek Boulevard and City View Drive Size: 22.38 acres Existing land Use and Zoning: Auto dealership and undeveloped (CH1), undeveloped residential (ID-RS) Surrounding land Use and Zoning: North: Commercial and Airport - CI1 and P1 Residential and Undeveloped - County Ag Rural Residential (R) Office and undeveloped - C01 and CI1 Highway 218 South: East: West: Comprehensive Plan: Intensive Commercial (CI1) or Highway Commercial (CH1) File Date: April 23, 2010 June 7,2010 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Dealer Properties IC, LLC, requests that the subject property located west of Mormon Trek Boulevard at City View Drive be rezoned from Highway Commercial (CH1) to Intensive Commercial (CI1) in order for the property to be used as a car dealership and collision repair facility. Lot 1 of the subject property is developed as a car dealership, Billion Honda. The applicant has indicated that they may also resubdivide the property in the future. The property was annexed into Iowa City in 2003 to support the City's goal of enabling future development of new areas for commercial use adjacent to the airport along the Mormon Trek Boulevard extension. At that time, the property was zoned Highway Commercial (CH1) to permit development of service uses relating to expressways or other major arterial thoroughfares including food, lodging, motor vehicle service and fuel. At the time, auto sales were allowed in the CH1 zone. The zoning code adopted in 2005 limited retail uses in the CH1 zone to those necessary to serve highway traffic, making the existing auto dealership on Lot 1 non-conforming. A Wetland Mitigation Plan and Compensatory Mitigation Plan were required prior to subdivision of the subject property. The plans were approved by the US Army Corp of Engineers and the proposed wetland buffer averaging and reductions are seen in the Final Plat of JJR Davis Addition. Given the extent of surface paving required for an outdoor storage/display lot, the adequacy of existing storm water facilities needs to be verified. The applicant plans to use the "Good Neighbor Policy." ANAL YSIS: Current Zoning: The purpose of the Highway Commercial Zone (CH1) is to permit the development of service uses relating to expressways or along arterial roadways. At certain access points food, lodging, motor vehicle service and fuel can be made conveniently available to the thoroughfare user. The original zoning of the subject property was based on the appropriateness of encouraging the development of highway related uses near the interchange and the possibility of hotels and motels developing in the area. Requested Zoning: The purpose of the Intensive Commercial Zone (CI-1) is to provide areas for those sales and service functions and business whose operations are typically characterized by outdoor display and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles, by outdoor commercial amusement and recreational activities or by activities or operations that are conducted in building or structures not completely enclosed. The types of retail trade in this zone are limited in order to provide opportunities for more land intensive commercial operations and also to prevent conflicts between retail and industrial truck traffic. Special attention must be directed toward buffering negative aspects of allowed uses from adjacent residential zones. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: Provided that concerns about the entranceway to the city are addressed, the Comprehensive Plan supports either highway commercial or intensive commercial development for the subject property. Both CH1 and CI1 are appropriate for the South Central District's future land use scenario. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property and other properties in the vicinity of Highway 1 and Highway 218 as suitable for large lot commercial uses with extensive outdoor storage needs. However because this area serves as an entranceway to the city, the Comprehensive Plan stresses the importance of aesthetics as these intensive commercial properties develop and redevelop. This property is unique in that it is visible from three major arterials - Highway 218, Highway 1 and Mormon Trek Boulevard. The South Central District Plan specifically states that intensive commercial properties on such entranceways are expected to upgrade landscaping and other design features to provide a consistent, attractive streetscape. Staff feels it would be appropriate require a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) that includes standards to ensure the property develops in a way that conforms to the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends a CZA that addresses landscaping, screening, and building and site design (including the location of loading docks, garbage dumpsters, outdoors storage areas and other service areas or equipment) as a condition of approval of this rezoning. Compatibility with neighborhood: Provided that entrance way appearance concerns are addressed and adjacent residential areas are adequately buffered, staff believes the CI1 zone would be compatible with neighboring land uses. The subject property is located adjacent to developed and undeveloped C01 and CI1 zones to the east and the Iowa City Airport to the north. Staff has asked the airport manager to review this proposal and to identify any concerns, such as lighting requirements, that should be address in a CZA. To the west, the property abuts Highway 1 and Highway 218. Residential uses are located to the south. Outlot B of the JJR Davis Addition in which this property is located, contains a storm water management and wetland area that will provide some buffer for the adjacent residential properties. A requirement for enhanced landscaping could further improve the transition from intensive commercial to residential uses. Staff believes that the benefit of the proposed rezoning lies in the clustering of similar retailers such car dealerships. There are a number of car dealerships in the area because the general location offers high visibility, large parcels of land, and access to Highway 218 and Highway 1. Economically, the clustering of various car dealerships lowers shopping costs for consumers and increases sales relative to sales at separate locations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ10-00008, an application to rezone 22.38 acres of land located at Mormon Trek Boulevard and City View Drive, be approved subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement that addresses the following: 1. Landscaping requirements for frontages on the Mormon Trek Boulevard, Highway 218 and Highway 1. 2. Building and site design standards that address the appearance of the development and the location and screening of loading docks, garbage dumpsters, outdoors storage areas and other service areas or equipment. 3. Restrictions on lighting (if any) deemed necessary by the Airport Manager. 4. The provision of adequate buffer from the residential properties located to the south. Attachments: 1 . Location map 2. Aerial photograph Approved by: ~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development S;PCD/Staff Reports/REZ06-00021 CI-1 to CC-2 I \ 00 0 ) I 0 0 i 0 I I ~ 0 lL ~ N ~ ....... .... .. . ----=:-. ...... _.. r- J ~~~l_ I ~,... ---:& ~ 1 (3 ,~~~~ ~~~~~~ <Yo ~,~ ~,,~, v6 0 ~ ~ "~~~~" ~ ]~ ~~~,,~ ~~ ''''', ~"'~ ~,,"" ~~~~~~y ~~"~~~~ ~ ~"Z~~~~~{I,~_.",- .A::"\ ~Y,~~~ "'~""'f~/:t",,~,;, V I' ~~~~~~~:~y, ;, ~~'0." ~~ ~... ~~~~~"~, ."':-:~" I /, -If--. ~~.;.' ,Y.~;~ b' / '1t"<J/, /', '~,~~ ~~~ ~.:r- ex> ;y ~~~~~~~~ lID / '~~~~~,~~ J ,\~~~~, ~ .,,"~ - 11 ..,...,... l ._0 (3 o ,... D. ~ tJ / ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ \.J ~ ........ -.." ~- 1-.... ,... - ~f-..... 0 f- 13 1--- u (I) w1._... '-- ~I \ ~ \ ~ a--- \'If>.I'\..t.-S ~~ -\ ~ ..,... ,... 0 - 0 0 I // V \ ~ l ,-- ,... a: a: ~ \ i Q) .~ Q ~ 0'1"'1 > ~ 0'1"'1 U ~ o "'0 .e ~ ~ Q) ~ ~ c: o E o ~ 00 z o ~ ~ u o ~ ~ ~ ~ rJ) Not to Scale CITY OF IOlfA CITY ~ Mormon Trek Blvd. & City View Dr. REZ10-00008 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 14, 2010 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner RE: Zoning Code amendment - Nonconforming Development Background Nonconforming situations are created when the zoning designation of a property is changed or the zoning regulations are changed such that an existing lawfully established use, structure, lot, or development no longer complies with the zoning regulations. Without provisions in the code to address nonconforming situations, properties would immediately have to be brought into compliance with current regulations and standards. The intent of the nonconforming chapter is to guide future uses and development in a direction consistent with City policy, to protect the character of an area by reducing the potential negative impacts from nonconforming situations, and over time, to bring development into compliance with the City's regulations. There are several types of nonconforming situations. The type that is the subject of this memo is "nonconforming development." Nonconforming development is defined as "an element of a development, such as a parking area, a loading area, outdoor lighting, landscaping, screening, or signage that was established in the conformance with the Zoning Code, but which subsequently, due to a change in the zone or to the requirements of the Zoning Code, is no longer in conformance with one or more of theses requirements." Before the Zoning Code was rewritten in 2005, there were no specific provisions for nonconforming development. For example, if a property had a parking lot was not in compliance with the provisions of the code, it was technically considered a "nonconforming use," and under the strict interpretation of the previous ordinance, if the property owner wanted to build an addition or change the use, the entire parking lot and any other nonconforming site elements would have to be brought into full compliance with the code. In addition, prior to 2005, in commercial zones, outdoor storage and display was prohibited in most instances. However, when the Code was re-written it was acknowledged that there are many commercial uses that need to store bulky items or machinery outdoors and rather than prohibit this type of use of the property, the code was amended to allow outdoor storage and display of merchandise. However, to ensure that outdoor storage and display areas would not block pedestrian routes or become a permanent eyesore as viewed from the Page 2 public street or from the neighboring property, setback, screening and buffering standards were adopted. Similar screening and buffering standards were adopted in 2005 for parking areas, because there were many instances when parking lot pavement extended right to the public sidewalk along street frontages, which resulted in cars extending over the property line into the public right-of-way and blocking pedestrian movement along the sidewalk. With so little green or pervious surface remaining on commercial properties, storm water drainage was also a significant problem in some cases. The new code requires a landscaped buffer between parking areas and public sidewalks and neighboring properties. This landscaped buffer protects pedestrians, softens the edge of parking areas and outdoor storage and display areas as viewed from the public street and neighboring properties and provides a minimal amount of pervious surface to help with storm water drainage. Regulating Nonconforming Development While the aforementioned changes to the zoning code brought the City's regulations in line with current accepted practice with regard to commercial site design, there are many older properties that are noncompliant with these new standards. The provisions in Section 14-4E-8, Nonconforming Development, are intended to provide flexibility and in some cases relief from the current site development standards for nonconforming properties as they redevelop, expand, or change uses over time. It is difficult to write standards that will address every situation, because every property has its own unique set of characteristics and constraints. What we have found over the last several years as these new regulations have been applied to various properties is that the Code needs to provide more guidance and flexibility in the following situations: . When there is a new use or an expansion of a use on a site that is so constrained by the existing location of buildings and pavement that there is not enough room to provide landscape buffers, tree islands, etc, without moving building or removing required parking spaces; . When a new use is proposed for a previously developed property that has been vacant for a year or more; . When a new use is proposed for a property where all the principal buildings have been demolished or destroyed, but contains nonconforming development, such as parking lot paving, exterior lighting, signage, etc; and . When there is a change in a use or tenant on a property with multiple buildings or tenant businesses, such as shopping malls and strip commercial centers. Page 3 Zoning Amendments Proposed Attached are changes to the zoning code recommended by staff to address these various situations. The following paragraphs explain the legislative intent behind the changes proposed. ChanQes to subsection 14-4E-8A, General Provisions Paragraph 2 addresses vacant properties. If a new use is proposed for a property that has stood vacant for a year or more, then the property needs to be brought into compliance with the site development standards in the code. However, if there are constraints due to the location of buildings, topography, existing site elements, etc. that make is impractical to fully comply with the ordinance the property owner can apply for a minor modification to adjust or even waive certain standards. Paragraph 3 addresses properties that previously were developed, but where all the principal buildings have been demolished or destroyed. In such a case, there are probably few constraints to bringing the property into compliance and should be treated the same as new development. Paragraph 4 addresses properties that have not been vacant for a year or more, but where a new use or uses are being established. This paragraph addresses properties that have multiple buildings or tenants, such as a shopping mall and also properties that have only one building or one use. If a new use moves into a building in such a case, the property owner is not required to bring the entire property into compliance with all the site development standards. The only site elements that have to be brought into compliance in these situations are required screening along street frontages and along public parks, trails, and the Iowa River; planting any required street trees along the frontage and for multi-family properties planting required "residential trees." In addition, if the property is a commercial property that may generate bicycle traffic, bicycle parking if not already provided will have to be brought into compliance. All other site development standards are allowed to remain noncompliant, including interior parking lot landscaping, screening between properties, driveway width and access points, outdoor lighting, signage, etc. Paragraphs 5 and 6 clarify that if new site elements are being added or constructed on the site they have to be built in compliance with the current ordinance. Subsections B through E address situations where an existing use is being expanded. In most cases, there is a trigger such that if a significant amount of investment is being made to expand the buildings on the site, noncompliant site elements are also expected to be brought into or closer into compliance with current standards in rough proportion to the amount of investment being made to the buildings. We have not experienced problems in the application of these provisions since the new code was adopted, so very few changes are proposed. Page 4 However, staff is suggesting allowing more flexibility in situations where bringing the property into compliance with specific provisions may be impractical or would reduce the ability to use the property. In such a case, standards can be modified or even waived completely by minor modification, which is an administrative procedure and does not require a public hearing or review by the Board of Adjustment or City Council. In order to allow relief through the minor modification process, it will be necessary to add a paragraph to Section 14-4B-1, Minor Modifications as noted in the attached draft amendment. Concluding Remarks The nonconforming section of the zoning ordinance is often the most difficult to understand because there are so many ways that development can vary over time. However, these are important provisions that provide reasonable accommodation and relief to ensure that older properties within the city can redevelop and thrive over time while at the same time ensuring that the negative aspects of nonconforming site elements are mitigated and/or gradually improved to ensure that property values in the vicinity are maintained and neighboring properties are not harmed. Staff finds that the proposed amendments will maintain the core purpose of bringing properties gradually into compliance with current standards over time, but provide additional flexibility and relief from regulations that might otherwise be a deterrent to redevelopment. Approved by: --;yI/~;~-- Jeff Davidson, Director Department of Planning and Community Development Staff recommends amending Section 14-4E-8, Regulation of Nonconforming Development, as follows: 14-4E-8 Re ulation of Nonconforming Development A. General Provisions 1. Except as otherwise restricted, prohibited or allowed in this Article, a use or structure located on a lot that contains nonconforming development may be converted to a different use, enlarged or structurally altered, provided such chanoe in use, enlargement or alteration does not increase or extend the nonconformity and provided nonconforming development is brouoht into compliance or closer into compliance accordino to the provisions of this Section. 2. When a use is proposed for a propertv that contains nonconforming development. but which propertv has been without any principal use for one year or more, the propertv must be brought into compliance with all applicable site development standards as set forth in the base zone and in Chapter 14-5. However, re~uirements or standards that would not be feasible or practical or would undulv reduce the ability to use or re-use the propertv due to topographY, location of existing buildings, or other site constraints, may be modified or waived bv minor modification. The City may also waive or modify bv minor modification any standard that cannot be met due to a conflict with any other re~uirement of this Title. 3. When a use is proposed for a propertv where the principal building(s) have been demolished or destroyed, but that contains nonconformino development. such as parkino lot pavino, exterior lighting, signage, etc, the propertv must be brought into compliance with all applicable site development standards as set forth in the base zone and in Chapter 14-5. 4. For properties where a principal use is converted to a use in another use category or subgroup and the propertv cont;:)ins nonconforming development must be brought into compli;:)nce 'Nith the b;:)se zone ;:)nd site development st;:)nd;:)rds, except ;:)s other.vise 21l1owed in this Title is not in compliance with the followino site development standards, it must be brought into compliance with said standards. However, if meetino these standards or re~uirements would not be feasible or practical or would undulv reduce the ability to use or re-use the property due to topographY, location of existino buildinos, or other site constraints, they may be modified or waived bv minor modification. The City may also waive or modify bv minor modification any of the followino standards that cannot be met due to a conflict with any other reouirement of this Title. (1) Screenino of existing parking, loadino, outdoor storage and displav areas along street-side lot lines according to the applicable screenino standard; (2) Screening of existing oarking, loadin9, outdoor storaqe and disolay areas from the Iowa Riyer or from any Parks and Ooen Soace Use, including trails, according to the aoolicable screening standard: (3) Street and residential tree requirements: (4) Bicycle oarking requirements: 5. Any new site elements being constructed or established on the site, such as new exterior liqhting, new parking areas, new outdoor storage or disolay areas, new signaqe, etc, must comoly with current aoolicable standards. 6. Any nonconforminq site elements that are beinq re-constructed or re- established must be brought into comoliance with the current aoplicable standards. However, requirements or standards that would not be feasible or oractical or would unduly reduce the ability to use or re-use the orooerty due to toooqraohy, location of existing buildings, or other site constraints may be modified or waived by minor modification. The City may also waive or modify by minor modification any standard that cannot be met due to a conflict with any other requirement of this Title. B. Nonconforming Parking and Loading 1. If a non-residential use, which is nonconforming with regard to the required number of parking, stacking, or loading spaces, is modified, expanded or enlarged such that there is an increase in the number of required spaces over the existing situation, only the number of spaces relating to the enlargement need to be provided. These spaces are in addition to any spaces already in existence on the site. 2. If a residential use, which is nonconforming with regard to the required number of parking, stacking, or loading spaces, is changed in any way such that there is an increase in the number of required spaces over the existing situation, the property must be brought into full compliance with the number of spaces required. 3. Any portion of a nonconforming parking area or loading area that is reconstructed or expanded, must be brought into compliance with all applicable construction, design, location, and screening and landscaping requirements. 4. Whenever a use or uses, which are located on a site that is nonconforming with regard to the provisions of Chapter 5, Article A, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, are enlarged by less than 50 percent in total floor area on the property, the property must be brought into compliance with the development standards listed below. a. Applicable perimeter parking lot landscaping and screening requirements. b. Any new parking area must meet all applicable construction, design, location, and landscaping requirements. 5. Whenever a use or uses, which are located on a property that is nonconforming with regard to the provisions of Chapter 5, Article A, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, are enlarged one or more times, the sum total of which increases the total floor area on the property by 50 percent or more, the property must be brought into full compliance with the provisions of Article 14-5A, Parking and Loading Standards, and any applicable parking location and perimeter landscaping and screening requirements of the base zone, except as allowed in paragraph 1, above. The Building Offici;:ll m;:lY modify or ""';:live ;:)ny such requirements th;:lt ;...ould necessitate moving buildings or other perm;:lnent structures on the site. However, reQuirements or standards that would not be feasible or practical or would unduly reduce the ability to use the property due to topographY, location of existinQ buildinQs. or other site constraints may be modified or waived by minor modification. The City may also waive or modify by minor modification any standard that cannot be met due to a conflict with any other reQuirement of this Title. 6. A use that is nonconforming with regard to the required number of parking, stacking, or loading spaces may be converted to a use in another use category or subgroup without full compliance with the number of parking, stacking, or loading spaces, according to the following rules: a. If the number of required spaces for the converted use is more than what was required for the established use, only the number of spaces beyond what was required for the established use need to be provided. These spaces are in addition to any spaces already in existence on the site. b. In addition to any additional spaces required in subparagraph a., as many spaces as the lot will accommodate must be provided, up to the number needed to fully comply with the standard. c. Nonconforming Signs It is the intent of these provisions that nonconforming signs be eliminated over time as set forth below: 1. All lawfully established signs that become nonconforming due to a change in zoning or a change in the development regulations are permitted to remain as nonconforming signs. 2. The owner of a nonconforming sign is required to maintain the sign in such a manner as to avoid it becoming a hazardous sign. 3. Other than for routine maintenance, if a nonconforming sign is changed or altered in any way it must be brought into compliance with the provisions of Article 14-5B, Sign Regulations. However, nonconforming signs that are deemed historic, signs for a historic structure and signs on structures in a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone may qualify for a special exception as described in paragraph 4, below. 4. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow changes to a nonconforming sign, provided the following conditions are met: a. The sign must be located on a property designated as a Historic Landmark, a property registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or on a property listed as a key or contributing property in a Historic Preservation or Historic Conservation Overlay Zone. b. The sign must fall into one of the following categories: (1) The sign is in keeping with the architectural character of an historic structure and is appropriate to a particular period in the structure's history; or (2) The sign is an integral part of a property's historic identity; or (3) The sign makes a significant artistic or historic contribution to the community or neighborhood in which the sign is located. c. At the time of application for the special exception, changes to the subject sign must be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission through a certificate of appropriateness. If the Board of Adjustment grants a special exception for the sign, any subsequent changes to the sign do not have to be approved by the Board of Adjustment, but do require a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. d. If the sign is not maintained according to the provisions of Article 14-5B, Sign Regulations, and becomes hazardous, the City may request that the Board of Adjustment revoke the special exception. . 5. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow repair or reconstruction of a nonconforming sign that has been damaged or destroyed by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy if the following approval criteria are met: a. In order to qualify for this exception, the sign must fall into at least one of the following categories: (1) The subject sign is an integral part of the historic identity of a property or use designated as a Historic Landmark, a property registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or of a property listed as a key or contributing property in a Historic District or Conservation District Overlay Zone; or (2) The sign is an integral part of a property's historic identity such that it is generally recognized and associated with a longstanding business or institution and makes a significant artistic, cultural, or nostalgic contribution to the community or neighborhood. b. The sign must be reconstructed as nearly as possible to its historic design or to the design that is generally recognized and associated with the longstanding business or institution such that it continues to make a significant artistic, cultural or nostalgic contribution to the community or neighborhood. c. The sign must be reconstructed such that it is not a hazardous sign. The sign must be located in a manner that complies with Article 14-50, Intersection Visibility Standards. The Board may require changes to the sign, to its structure or mounting, or its location in order to improve public safety. If the sign is not maintained according to the provision of Article 14-5B, Sign Regulations, and becomes hazardous, the City may request that the Board of Adjustment revoke the special exception. d. If the sign is located on a property designated as a Historic Landmark, a property registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or a property listed as a key or contributing property in a Historic District or Conservation District Overlay Zone, the subject sign must be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission and issued a certificate of appropriateness. If the Board of Adjustment grants a special exception for the sign, any subsequent changes to the sign do not have to be approved by the Board of Adjustment, but do require a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. D. Nonconforming Landscaping/Screening 1. Whenever a use or uses, which are located on a property that is nonconforming with regard to the screening, landscaping, and/or tree standards of this Title, are enlarged one or more times, the sum total of which increases the total floor area on the property by W 25 percent or more, the property must be brought into full compliance with ~n'f ~pplic~ble the followinq screening and landscaping requirements of the b~se zone ~nd of Article 11 18, ~qinor ~qodific~tions, V~ri~nces, Speci~1 Exceptions ~nd Provision~1 Uses: a. Screenino and landscaoino of any outdoor storaoe. work. or disolay areas accordino to the provisions of the aoplicable base zone or as soecified for a oarticular use in Article 14-4B: b. For Ouick Vehicle Servicing Uses and Vehicle Reoair Uses. all vehicular use areas must be screened from the public rioht-of-way to the S2 Standard and to the S3 Standard alono any side or rear lot line that abuts a Residential Zone boundarv: 2. Whenever a use or uses, which are located on a property that is nonconforming with the Street Tree and Residential Tree requirements, are enlarged one or more times, the sum total of which increases the total floor area on the property by W 25 percent or more, In ;;Jddition, such said property must be brought into full compliance with Street Tree and Residential Tree requirements contained in Article 14-5E, Landscaping and Tree Standards. 3. Rules governing the provision of trees and landscaping for nonconforming parking and loading areas are stated in subsection B, above, Nonconforming Parking and Loading. 4. The City may waive any landscaping or screening requirement that cannot be met due to a conflict with any other requirement of this Title. Conflicts '::ith non required clements of ~ development do not qU;;Jlify for this 'Naiver. Requirements or standards that would not be feasible or practical or would unduly reduce the ability to use the property due to toooqraohY. location of existino buildinos. or other site constraints may be modified or waived bv minor modification. E. Nonconforming Outdoor Lighting 1. Any existing light fixture that is nonconforming with regard to how the fixture is aimed must be brought immediately into compliance if it is possible to re- aim the existing fixture. 2. Upon repair, replacement, or relocation of any luminaire, such luminaire must comply with any applicable requirement that it be fully shielded. 3. Whenever a use or uses, which are located on a property that is nonconforming with regard to the provisions of Article 14-5G, Outdoor Lighting Standards, are enlarged by less than 50 percent in total floor area on the property, any new outdoor lighting installed due to the enlargement must fully comply with the Outdoor Lighting Standards. Existing nonconforming lighting may remain, except as specified in paragraphs 1. and 2., above. 4. Whenever a use or uses, which are located on a property that is nonconforming with regard to the provisions of Article 14-5G, Outdoor Lighting Standards, are enlarged one or more times, the sum total of which increases the total floor area on the property by 50 percent or more, the property must be brought into full compliance with the provisions of Article 14-5G, Outdoor Lighting Standards. Staff recommends amending Section 14-48-1, Minor Modifications, as follows: 14-48-1 Minor Modifications The Building Official or designee is empowered to grant minor modifications from certain standards specifically enumerated below. Minor modifications provide a mechanism by which the specified regulations may be modified or waived if the proposed development meets certain criteria and continues to meet the intended purpose of those regulations. Minor modification reviews provide flexibility for unusual situations applicable to the property, for which strict application of the regulations is impractical. The minor modifications listed below may be granted prOVided the approval criteria as set forth in subsection B, below, are met. The approval procedures for minor modifications are set forth in Article 14-8B of this Title, Administrative Approval Procedures. A. Applicability The Building Official may grant the following minor modifications from the requirements of this Title, provided the approval criteria are met. Any requests for modifications that exceed the limitations set forth below and all other requests for modifications of the requirements of this Title require the filing of a special exception or variance application with the Board of Adjustment. 1. The number of required parking spaces for commercial uses may be reduced up to 10 percent. 2. The Building Official in consultation with the Director of Planning and Community Development may approve a minor reduction of up to 50 percent of the total number of parking spaces required, if the uses sharing the parking are not normally open, used, or operated during the same hours. However, this reduction is not allowed for Residential Uses. To qualify for a reduction under this provision, a parking demand analysis must be submitted that provides evidence that the amount of parking proposed for the shared parking area will be sufficient to meet the parking demand. 3. In the CB-5 Zone and CB-10 Zone, a minor modification may be granted exempting up to 30 percent of the total number of dwelling units contained in a building from the minimum parking requirements, provided that those dwelling units are committed to the City's assisted housing program or any other affordable housing program approved by the City. 4. The height of a wall or fence may be increased up to 25 percent, but in no case shall a minor modification allow a fence greater than 8 feet high. 5. The height of a principal or accessory building may be increased up to 10 percent. 6. In cases where due to topography or other site characteristics, a wheelchair ramp cannot meet the limitations placed on its allowed extension into a required setback, this limitation may be modified. 7. Required setbacks from a side lot line may be reduced by up to 2 feet, but in no case shall a required setback from a side lot line be reduced to less than 3 feet, unless the subject side lot line abuts a publiC right-of-way or permanent open space. 8. Other setbacks may be reduced by up to 15 percent of the required setback, but in no case shall a required setback from a rear lot line be reduced to less than 3 feet, unless the subject side lot line abuts a public right-of-way or permanent open space. 9. One space for parking for persons with disabilities may be located in a required front setback for commercial uses in a Commercial Zone, when adjacent to an Residential Zone, where the topography or shape of the lot preclude compliance with the location requirements for off-street parking. 10. The permitted height of a freestanding sign may be increased by up to 10 feet if the property is within 1,000 feet of a divided, limited access highway, and there is a difference in topographical elevations between the property and the highway, such that the visibility of the sign from the highway would be obstructed if the sign were limited to the maximum height permitted by ordinance. 11. One nonresident employee may be approved for a home occupation use. However, nonresident employees are not permitted under any circumstances for the types of medical offices allowed as home occupations. 12. One nonresident employee may be approved for a Bed and Breakfast Homestay or Bed and Breakfast Inn. 13. Modifications to the Driveway Spacing Standards contained in Section 14-5C-4 may be granted, provided there is no feasible alternative to the modification requested and vehicular and/or pedestrian safety will not be compromised due to the modification. The Building Official must obtain approval from the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Community Development prior to granting any such modification. 14. A building addition of less than 500 square feet or an accessory storage building less than 500 square feet in size may be approved for accessory uses within Parks and Open Space Uses without approval from the Board of Adjustment. However, if any such building addition increases the occupancy load of the building, a special exception must be obtained. 15. A building addition of less than 500 square feet or an accessory storage building less than 500 square feet in size may be approved for General Educational Facilities and for Religious/Private Group Assembly Uses without approval from the Board of Adjustment. However, if any such building addition increases the occupancy load of the building, a special exception must be obtained. 16. Modifications to the Multi-Family Site Development Standards contained in Section 14-2B-6 according to the alternate approval criteria set forth in that section. The Building Official must obtain approval from the Design Review Committee and the Director of Planning and Community Development prior to granting any such modification. Such requests shall be approved jointly by the Design Review Committee, the Director of Planning and Community Development, and the Building Official. 17. Modifications to the site development standards contained in Section 14-2C-6, 14-2C-7, 14-2C-8, or 14-2C-9 according to the alternate approval criteria set forth in section 14-2C-10. The Building Official must obtain approval from the Design Review Committee and the Director of Planning and Community Development prior to granting any such modification. 18. Modifications to the site development standards contained in 14-2D-5, Industrial and Research Zone Site Development Standards, and 14-2F-5, Public Zone Site Development Standards, according to the alternate approval criteria set forth in those sections, respectively. The Building Official must obtain approval from the Director of Planning and Community Development prior to granting any such modification. 19. One additional garage entrance/exit to structured parking may be granted according to the provisions of paragraph 14-5A-5F-5, Garage Entrance/Exits. The Building Official must obtain approval from the Director of Planning and Community Development prior to granting any such modification. 20. Freestanding sign in the CB-2 Zone, according to the approval criteria and specifications as stated in Table 5B-4 in Article 14-5B, Sign Regulations. 21. Modifications or waivers of nonconformina develooment according to the orovisions set forth in 14-4E-8. Reaulation of Nonconforming Develooment. B. Approval Criteria The Building Official may approve an application for a minor modification, in whole or in part, with or without conditions, only if the following approval criteria are met. 1. Special circumstances apply to the property, such as size, shape, topography, location, surroundings, or characteristics, or ore-existing site develooment, which make it impractical to comply with the subject regulation or which warrant a modification and/or waiver of te the subject regulation. 2. The minor modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be injurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property is located. 3. The minor modification does not exceed the minor modification standards or allow a use or activity not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject property. 4. The minor modification requested is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation modified. 5. The requested minor modification complies with other applicable statutes, ordinances, laws and regulations. C. Burden of Proof The applicant bears the burden of proof and must support each of the approval criteria by a preponderance of the evidence. D. Precedents The granting of a minor modification is not grounds for granting other minor modifications for the same or differing properties. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 14, 2010 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner RE: Zoning Code amendment - Refining the definition and regulation of stream corridors Currently, the City relies on the blue lines drawn on the U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Maps to determine the location of streams that are regulated under the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. While these maps are a fairly reliable source for determining the suspected location of a stream or drainageway, field verification sometimes reveals a drainageway that does not have the physical and functional characteristics of an actual stream corridor according to definitions accepted by professional hydrologists. In some cases, the maps may simply be outdated and streams may no longer be in the location illustrated on the map. In other instances, the blue lines may have been drawn based on aerial photographs that were not field verified. A drainageway is typically only considered a stream if it has a bed and bank that is defined by an "ordinary high water mark." For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defines "ordinary high water mark" and uses this definition to determine whether a watercourse is worthy of regulation as a stream corridor. The intent of the sensitive areas ordinance is to protect watercourses that provide real value for floodwater conveyance and storage and for protection and enhancement of valuable wildlife habitat that often exists along these corridors. For watercourses that do not provide these values, there is no apparent reason to regulate or preserve these as true stream corridors. Further refining the definition of stream corridor within the City's zoning code will provide the flexibility for developers to design storm water management systems that will provide appropriate drainage and conveyance and storage of storm water for an entire site without being tied to preservation of a "blue line" that does not provide any functional environmental value. It should be noted that refining the definition of stream corridor in the Zoning Code to more closely match the definition used by the U.S. Corp of Engineers will not reduce the protections afforded by the sensitive areas ordinance if there are other environmental features in these locations, such as wetlands or woodlands. Page 2 Recommendation Staff recommends that the Zoning Code be amended by adding a definition of "ordinary high water mark" and refining the definition of "regulated stream corridor" to more closely match the definitions used by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. These proposed additions and changes are noted below: ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK: A line on the bank of a watercourse established by the reqular oresence and action of surface water and indicated by ohysical characteristics such as a clear. natural line imoressed on the bank. shelving. changes in the character of soil. destruction of terrestrial vegetation. the oresence of litter and debris. or by other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding area. The ordinary high water mark defines the bed of a watercourse. STREAM CORRIDOR, REGULATED: Floodways designated on either the current federal emerqency manaqement aqency flood boundary and f100dway maos for Iowa City and Johnson County or the Iowa City (1 inch = 100 foot scale) flood boundary and f100dway maos and watercourses. such as a river, stream or drainageway. which is shown in blue (the blue line) on the current U.s. Geological Survey Quadrangle Maps and has a bed and bank defined by an "ordinary hiqh water mark." as defined in this Title. and a definite direction of flow. either continuously or intermittently. In cases where no f100dway is delineated, the blue line will serve as the center line within a 3D-foot wide stream corridor. Staff also recommends amending paragraph 2 of subsection 14-51-28, Regulated Sensitive Features, as follows: 2. Stream Corridors a. Floodways designated on either the current federal emergency management agency flood boundary and f100dway maps for Iowa City and Johnson County or the Iowa City (1 inch = 100 foot scale) flood boundary and f100dway maps. b. A watercourse. such as a river, stream or drainageway, which is shown in blue (the blue line) on the most current U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Maps. In cases where no f100dway is delineated, the blue line will serve as the center line within a 3D-foot wide stream corridor. If a watercourse is designated a blue line stream. but does not have a bed and bank defined by an "ordinary high water mark." as defined in Article 14-9E. Sensitive Lands Definitions. and a definite direction of flow. either continuously or intermittently. then said watercourse will not be considered a requlated stream corridor. oroYided the absence of these defininq characteristics is verified in the field by a qualified professional (See Section 14-51-7. Stream Corridors. for more information). Page 3 In addition, staff recommends that paragraph C. 1. of Section 14-51-7, Stream Corridors, be amended as follows: C. Environmental Review Required A Sensitive Areas Development Plan for property containing a regulated stream corridor must include evidence demonstrating that all regulations of this Section will be met. Such plan must include the following information: 1. 8. delineation of the regulated stream corridor and the required natural buffer area is reauired. If. in the course of delineatina a blue line stream. it is determined through field verification by a aualified professional. such as a geologist. hYdrologist. or wetland specialist. that the blue line or a portion of a blue line on the current U.S. Geological Survey Ouadranale Maps does not represent a watercourse with a bed and bank defined by an "ordinary high water mark," as defined in this Article, and a definite direction of flow. either continuously or intermittently, then said watercourse or portion of a watercourse will not be considered a reaulated stream corridor for purposes of this Title. In such an event. a report prepared by said aualified professional must be submitted to the City that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the subiect watercourse does not have the aforementioned defining characteristics of a stream corridor. 2. Delineation of a construction area limit and specification of associated restrictions thereof; 3. Information regarding the characteristics of the stream corridor necessary to determine the allowable buffer reduction as provided in subsection D of this section, Stream Corridor Buffer Requirements, if a reduction is requested. Approved by: or< 'r110tWt4-/:(-_ Jeff Davidson, Director Department of Planning and Community Development MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 3,2010 - 6:00 PM -INFORMAL LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Charlie Eastham, Wally Plahutnik, Michelle Payne MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Sara Greenwood Hektoen 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. REZONING/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. Eastham noted that he is on a building committee on a church adjacent to this parcel. Eastham said that the committee has had discussions with the owner (not the applicant) for the past several months about the potential to buy part of this parcel. Eastham said that the talks never went anywhere, and there is no conflict for him, but that he wanted to state the connection publicly. Kuecker explained that the land is for the most part surrounded by single family residential. She said the proposed development is a 58-lot residential development with a large outlot for storm water management and a smaller outlot that is to be dedicated to the City as a public park. The rezoning is required due to the large amount of sensitive areas on the site and the necessity the applicant sees in disturbing them in order to develop the property. Kuecker said that the current zoning is RS-5; however, the rezoning is required to deal with the sensitive areas. Kuecler said the Comprehensive Plan shows this area as residential property and show the outlot area as open space. Staff believes the proposed subdivision is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Kuecker said that the lot sizes vary from 8,000 to 20,000 square feet. The street layout has Planning and Zoning Commission May 3, 2010 - Informal Page 2 of 7 connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods through a connection to Westminster and Lower West Branch Road. The applicant has proposed developing the area in three phases, working from the east to the west. Kuecker said there are steep slopes, critical slopes, wetlands and wooded areas on the property. The applicant has proposed disturbing 48% of the steep slopes, 85% of the critical slopes, 75% of the wetlands, and 95% of the wooded areas. Kuecker said that because of the amount of the proposed disturbance, a Levell! Sensitive Areas Review is required. The sensitive areas ordinance encourages developers to avoid the sensitive areas, and requires a 1 DO-foot natural buffer between the development activity and the regulated wetland. Kuecker stated that the applicant will essentially eliminate the wetlands and replace them with a storm water retention basin. The applicant has proposed off-site wetland mitigation, but has not yet submitted the necessary plans for doing so. The mitigation must be approved by both the City and the Army Corp of Engineers. Kuecker said she has confirmed with the Corp that they no longer accept wetland mitigation and storm water retention being combined in one area. Kuecker said she had outlined in the staff report the general requirements for a mitigation plan. Kuecker noted that there is a blue line stream corridor on site that has been put in a culvert under Westminster. Kuecker said that the applicant has proposed grading on this blue line stream to make it function as a part of their storm water retention system. The applicant also proposes disturbing the steep and critical slopes to grade for the storm water management. The applicant's proposal would disturb 96% of the wooded areas. Code requires that at least 50% of the wooded areas be retained. If that is not possible, however, then replacement trees must be planted in their place. The applicant will have to replant 762 trees if they remove the number they intend to for this development. Kuecker said the applicant intends to have 70 trees along Rochester Avenue and then to plat out at least three trees on every lot. The remaining 518 trees would be planted in Outlots A and B. The applicant must submit a tree replacement plan that shows approximately where the replacement trees will be planted. Kuecker noted that there is a grove of trees in the area and the City Forester has gone out and identified several trees that he believes should be protected and saved. The applicant will have to submit a plan for saving those trees. Kuecker noted that all of these applicant requests are modifications to the sensitive areas requirements. Kuecker said that the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the development cannot be done with a lower level of disturbance. Before staff can recommend approval of this application, the required documentation must be received. The applicant is going to be required to build Lower West Branch Road from Amhurst Street to the subdivision. Kuecker said the right-of-way is already in place. She said that for consistency's sake, staff would like to see Lower West Branch Road constructed as though it is a 60 -foot right-of-way. She said there are two cul-de-sacs in this subdivision, which is generally discouraged unless impossible to avoid due to topography or surrounding development. Kuecker said both cul-de- Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2010 - Informal Page 3 of 7 sacs are caused by topographical features and surrounding development Kuecker said the Parks and Recreation Commission will be reviewing the approximately half- acre portion dedicated as park space on their May 12th meeting. Kuecker said the development plan is generally compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods; however, more information is required before moving forward with this application. Staff recommends deferral. Miklo pointed out that there will be more room between the sidewalk and the road due to the additional right-of-way. Miklo noted that the applicant's engineers and the City engineers have both identified the lowest point of the area, and seek to put the storm water retention there; however, it also happens to be the where the wetlands are located, and thus greatly impacts them. Miklo pointed out that in the past the Corp had allowed wetlands mitigation and storm water retention to be combined; however, the Corp is now moving away from that model. Miklo noted that the documentation required by code has not yet been submitted. Miklo said that a private wetland specialist will be reviewing the mitigation plan when it comes in. Freerks asked if the developer needed to submit something to justify the level of woodland disturbance. Miklo said the test for woodland is not as high as that of wetlands. Miklo said the City Forester has looked at the property. The City Forester acknowledged the woodlands, but observed that it did not have many desirable trees in it. Greenwood Hektoen noted that the code does not really distinguish between pretty trees and ugly trees. Miklo said the Commission has the prerogative of determining if the proposal disturbs too much of the woodlands. Freerks said she has no recollection of ever allowing anything like 95% disturbance of woodlands. Miklo said he did not recall that either. He said he knew there had been a couple of cases where more than 50% was disturbed and this had been mitigated by planting replacement trees. Freerks asked staff to look into that. Koppes asked who would be maintaining the storm water sewer system. Kuecker said it is proposed to be maintained by the homeowners' association. At the time of the final plat, the applicant would have to the documents creating a homeowners' association in place. Koppes said this was a particularly large and complicated area to make the homeowners' association responsible for. Miklo said that long-term most people want to have trees on their properties so there is an incentive to care for trees on their lots. He encouraged the Commissioners to look through the code on woodlands as the test is not as stringent as it is for other sensitive areas. Eastham asked if code allows a wetland to function as a storm water mitigation system if the wetland is not actually modified. Miklo said that would be difficult to do with no modification whatsoever, although that may be more of an engineering question, Miklo advised. Kuecker said that it has been determined that grading and piping will be required. Eastham asked if there have been discussions regarding alternative ways of doing this development, such as not extending Westminster and/or leaving the southern portion largely undisturbed. Miklo said that there had been discussions of clustering to avoid sensitive areas. Miklo said the applicant chose not to pursue that line of thinking, as that was not the type of housing he wished to build. Miklo said that not extending Westminster had not been considered, as it is shown as a through-street in the Comprehensive Plan. Eastham asked about the possibility of having Green Mountain extended. Miklo said the idea was to avoid double-fronting lots. Kuecker explained that block lengths cannot be more than 600 feet. Miklo Planning and Zoning Commission May 3, 2010 - Informal Page 4 of 7 added that even more grading would be required. Plahutnik said he was concerned with connectivity of the cul-de-sac on the east. Eastham said he was not. Payne asked if it was possible to curve the road to avoid the cul-de-sac. Plahutnik said that what he did not like is that there is almost a private park for the enjoyment of just two lots on the subdivision. Greenwood Hektoen noted that one of the outlots is for the homeowners' association, not the public. Miklo explained that one of the early concepts had the entire subdivision oriented in more of an east-west direction. Payne noted some typos in the staff report. Eastham said he would like some sense of whether it was possible to leave the sensitive areas intact and to use them as a storm water system without a tremendous amount of modification. Miklo said he suspects the engineers will say there is not a way to do that, but he would ask them. Eastham said that at one point he was looking at changing the alignment of Westminster to avoid the wetlands, though he now thinks that is not possible. Freerks asked Kuecker to address the change in policy by the Corp of Engineers regarding the combination of wetland mitigation and storm water retention. Kuecker said the change had been made within the last few months. She said that that model has not been successful. Miklo said that the Corp now feels a larger, healthier wetland made of wetland banks may be a better model than having smaller wetlands sprinkled throughout the community. Freerks asked if off- site wetland mitigation had been successful in the past. Miklo said he did not recall an instance of it. Eastham asked who had to pay if the wetland mitigation system went awry. Kuecker said that a permit-holder would be identified in the application to the Corp and they would be responsible for the wetland maintenance. Eastham asked what size wetland the applicant will be required to establish. Kuecker said staff could only estimate until it receives the wetland mitigation plan. DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: SUB10-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by the Moss Green Development Corp. for a preliminary plat for Moss Green Urban Village, an 1S-lot, approximately 235- acre office park and mixed use development subdivision located west of North Dodge Street/Highway 1 and north of Interstate SO. Miklo said there are still some technical items being worked out on the plat. He said he hoped they would be resolved by Thursday; if not, staff would recommend deferral. Miklo said that they will give the Commission a report on Thursday as to whether or not the City Engineer has signed off on it. SUB10-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Steve Kohli Construction, L.C. for a preliminary plat of Brookwood Pointe, an SO-lot, 21.gS-acre residential subdivision located west of Sycamore Street, north of Terrapin Drive. Miklo noted that this subdivision was approved back in 2005, but that the preliminary plat for Additions 2-5 expired. In 2008, the subdivision code was changed. Miklo said that the plat is largely the same, but has been updated somewhat to accommodate the changes in code. Miklo said the biggest changes are the wider street right-of-ways and the addition of a street to Planning and Zoning Commission May 3, 2010 - Informal Page 5 of 7 encourage connectivity. Miklo said there has also been a change in the phasing of the development, to which staff does not object. Miklo said there is a slight concern about the effect the change in phasing could have on a neighboring development's ability to have sanitary sewer. Miklo explained that there are hydric soils on the site which could require extra consideration in street designs and basements. Storm water management was installed for most of the subdivision during Phase 1; a small area of the development drains into the Sycamore East Regional Basin, which was constructed by the City to drain this fairly flat area. The City then collects a fee for the management of the system. Miklo said that Sycamore Street is supposed to undergo construction this year. There is a conditional zoning agreement in place for this property which states that 12% of the costs of Sycamore Street will be absorbed by the developer. Miklo noted that there are a few double-fronting lots in the development. Those three lots are required to have an extra landscape easement at the back. Miklo said that the final plat will contain an agreement for the developer to pay a fee and the City will put the landscaping in when Sycamore Street is completed. Parks and Recreation had opted to accept fees in lieu of land when the plat was approved five years ago; staff expects the same response this time around as Wetherby Park is very nearby. Miklo noted that the City Engineer is still reviewing the plans. Staff anticipates that all issues will have been resolved by the formal meeting; however, if they are not, staff would recommend deferral. If outstanding deficiencies are corrected, then staff would recommend approval subject to an agreement regarding an extension to the sewer. Koppes asked when the Russell Drive extension was planned. Miklo said he believed part of it was in Phase 2 and part in Phase 5. Eastham asked for clarification on where the access point to Wetherby Park would be. OTHER: Payne shared some information from a conference. She attended two training sessions for Planning Commissioners. One was a basic seminar on the duties of a Planning Commissioner. The other seminar dealt with reaching consensus among Commissioners. She said that the basic idea was that Commissions should reach a consensus about everything all of the time if possible. Payne said that she learned that some towns/cities have no term limits, so there are people who have been on Commissions for 35-40 years. She noted that several commissioners at the training expressed disappointment in their city staff. She said that Iowa City is very lucky to have such an amazing staff. She said that there were some sessions specifically geared toward college towns. She mentioned a project with the University of Minnesota that partnered with neighborhood associations adjacent to the campus to discuss the issue of off-campus student living. One of the sessions she attended focused on "green streets," which discussed bicycles and vehicles sharing streets. Payne said that a lane of traffic would sometimes be turned into a lane Planning and Zoning Commission May 3, 2010 - Informal Page 6 of 7 just for two-way bicycle traffic, with a landscape buffer separating the bike lane from the car lanes. Another seminar she attended concerned updates in planning law from the last year, which was a very popular seminar and was very interesting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:59 p.m. z Q U) U) ::Ec ::EO:: 00 (,)(,) (!)W zO:: -We:> z(,)~ Oze:> Ne:(N CC Zz e:(W (!)t- ~!:;( Z Z e:( -J a. It) W ~ X X X - X X X ~ 0 ~ X X X X X X w ~ - 0 co W ~ - X X X X X X - 0 M ~ X X X X X X X C"II ~ ~ X X X X X X >< ~ en ::EW ..- ..- C'? N 0 0 C'? D::~ ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- - - - - - - - Wa.. 1.O 1.O 1.O 1.O 1.O 1.O 1.O 1-)( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W J: >- l- e:( ::i W W ...J :::J D:: III ...J ...J J: <1: z ~ ...J ~ W en J: Z J: ::E 0 u <1: ::i ~ ~ i= .., W C ~ en en ::E z ..,j ~ u.i I- W D:: J: D:: W :::J ~ W <1: I- W a.. Z J: ::E en ~ W a.. ~ <1: jjj <1: :::J D:: 0 ...J Z III W u.. ~ D- o.. 3: C) z i= W W ::E ...J <1: ::E D:: o u.. M X X X X X X W - - It) 0 C"II W ~ X X X X - X X ~ 0 C) W W C"II X X X X - X - - 0 0 M ~ X X X X X X W - - C"II 0 en ::EW ..- ..- C'? N 0 0 C'? D::~ ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- - - - - - - - Wa.. 1.O 1.O 1.O 1.O 1.O 1.O 1.O 1-)( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W J: >- I- <1: ::i W W ...J :::J D:: III ...J ...J J: <1: z ~ ..J ~ W en J: Z J: ::E 0 U <1: ::i u ~ i= .., W C ::E en en ::E z ..,j <1: ~ u.i I- W D:: J: D:: W :::J ~ W <1: I- W a.. Z J: ::E en ~ W a.. ~ <1: jjj <1: :::J D:: 0 ..J Z III W u.. ~ a.. a.. 3: C) z i= W W ::E ...J <1: ::E D:: o u.. Z MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2010 - 7:00 PM - FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARV A THALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Jacob Rosenberg, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Terry Lavery, Duane Musser, Ron Amelon, Toni Rubin, Mark Rushton, Becky Schaffner, Jennifer Coleman, Wally Pelds, Steve Kohli RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of SUB10-00005, 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, subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to City Council consideration. The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of SUB10-00006.i. an application submitted by Steve Kohli Construction, L.C. for a preliminary plat of Brookwood Pointe, an 80-lot, 21.g8-acre residential subdivision located west of Sycamore Street, north of Terrapin Drive. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 - Formal Page 2 of 15 REZONINGIDEVElOPMENT 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. Eastham stated that he believed he had a conflict with this application as he is on the building committee for a church that has an interest in property adjoining the applicant's property. He abstained from consideration of this application. Kuecker stated that the areas to the east and south of the subject property are single family residential; the properties to the west and north are undeveloped. Kuecker said that the street network designed for the subdivision generally complies with the subdivision code and the neighborhood design standards. She said that the proposed lot sizes range from approximately 8,000 to 20,000 square feet. Kuecker said the single family nature of the subdivision is compatible with the surrounding developments, and with the Comprehensive Plan's vision for the area. The plat proposes open space in the southeast area of the property, which is also compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The half-acre portion of the property that is to be dedicated to the City as open space will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission at their next meeting. Kuecker said that Outlot A is proposed as a storm water management retention basin for the subdivision. Kuecker said the rezoning request is due to the sensitive areas on the lot. She said there are steep and critical slopes, a wooded area, wetlands, and a blue line USGS stream on the site. Kuecker said that the applicant is proposing to disturb most of these sensitive areas in order to provide the necessary storm water management for the site. Kuecker said that the required Wetland Mitigation Plan for the disturbance of the wetlands has not yet been received by staff. Until this mitigation plan is reviewed, staff cannot make a determination as to whether the proposed amount of disturbance is justified or not. Kuecker said that the mitigation plan would outline where the mitigation would be located and to what standards it is being built. The plan must be approved by both the City and the Army Corp of Engineers. No determination can be made on the application without it. Kuecker explained that there is approximately 150 feet of stream corridor located on this property, which extend essentially from the current dead-end of Westminster northward. To the south of this property, the stream has been contained in a culvert running underneath Westminster. Kuecker stated that the exact location of the stream must be shown on the wetland mitigation plan as the stream corridor must also be mitigated to the requirements of the Army Corp and City code. Kuecker stated that there are a number of steep slopes on the property.' She explained that in order to build the storm water detention and to build streets to City standards many of these slopes will have to be disturbed. Kuecker said that it is ultimately up to the Commission and City Council to determine if the disturbance level of these slopes is justified for the development of the area. Kuecker said that there is a 7.69-acre wooded area on the property; the applicant is proposing to disturb 95% of it. Kuecker said that the RS-5 zone allows disturbance of up to 50% of a wooded area. If it is determined that less than 50% of the woodland area can be retained, then code requires replacement trees to be planted at a ratio of one tree for every 200 square feet of Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 - Formal Page 3 of 15 the required wooded area that was not retained. Kuecker stated that the replacement trees must be approved by the City. The City Forester has identified a grove of trees on the property near Rochester Avenue, and has specified several trees that he would like to see protected and saved. The applicant will be required to provide a tree protection plan to the City Forester and City staff. Kuecker noted that she had discussed the subdivision and lot design at length with the Commission at the informal meeting. She stated that all of the streets and lots in the subdivision do meet the requirements of City code. She noted that there are two cul-de-sacs planned for the subdivision; cul-de-sacs are generally discouraged by City code unless they are found to be unavoidable due to topographical issues or issues that arise because of adjacent developments. Kuecker said that the developer and his engineers intend to discuss with the Commission why neither cul-de-sac can be eliminated. Kuecker stated that the overall neighborhood design seems appropriate and seems to meet requirements of the code. However, without the Wetland Mitigation Plan and other crucial information on the sensitive areas, staff cannot make a final determination on the plan. As a result, staff is recommending deferral of this application until this information is submitted and reviewed by staff and other relevant agencies. Kuecker noted that the Commission had raised questions at the informal meeting regarding whether or not off-site wetland mitigation had been seen before in a subdivision, as well as whether there was precedent for disturbance of more than 50% of a wooded area. Kuecker said that staff could not think of another instance of off-site wetland mitigation, though there were instances where wetlands were mitigated to other areas of an applicant's subdivision. She said that in all instances those wetlands remained under the control of the same property owner or homeowner's association. Kuecker said that there had been at least two instances where more than 50% of a wooded area had been disturbed: 1) Oakmont Estates, off of Foster Road, disturbed 68% of the wooded area and had to plant 102 replacement trees, and 2) Walnut Ridge Parts 9 & 10 disturbed just over 50% and had to plant 82 replacement trees. Kuecker presented a number of photographs of the property, and offered to answer any questions Commissioners might have. Freerks noted that the code called for replacement trees to be the same or equivalent species as those removed. She asked if there were a great deal of evergreen trees being removed as the replacement plan calls for a large evergreen buffer. Kuecker said that there were not a lot of evergreens on the property at present. Freerks asked if it was the case that the trees for the buffer would not be counted as replacement trees, since they were of a different species than what was being removed. Miklo said that the in the past the standard has been somewhat liberally applied and that it has been acceptable to have only a majority of the trees be of a similar species to what was taken out. He said that the primary concern is that poor quality trees are not used as replacements for the wooded area that has been removed. Miklo noted that evergreen trees are generally encouraged and supported when used as a buffer, and the design calls for a buffer from Rochester Avenue. Miklo said the two types of evergreens found in the replacement plan were recommended by the City Forester. There were no further questions for staff and the public hearing was opened. Terry Lavery, 2779 Muddy Creek, Coralville, identified himself as the developer and builder for Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 - Formal Page 4 of 15 the property, along with Toni Rubin, his development partner. He noted that Duane Musser and Ron Amelon of MMS Engineering had been working on the project for some time and would be addressing the Commission later in the meeting. Lavery said he had been doing planned developments and building single family homes and condominiums for over 20 years. He is originally from Wheaton, Illinois, and had been living and building in Coralville for the last eight years. Lavery said that some of his past projects include Terra Woods and Terra Ridge in Coralville, single-family, duplex and condominium developments. Lavery said that 23 of the homes he has built in Terra Ridge have been built with geothermal heating and cooling systems. He said that when he develops he does all of the building himself, and does not sell lots within his developments to other builders. He said that he also does all of the landscaping so that he has full control of the development. Terra Verde has 58 home sites, Lavery said. He said that he would be doing the development with all-green, geo-thermal heating/cooling systems. He said that there really is great demand for this, and buyers want to see renewable energy used in their heating and cooling systems. Lavery said this type of system has no carbon footprint whatsoever, and saves consumers 70% on their monthly heating and cooling costs. Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, said that the development involves a 23-acre tract. Musser shared aerial photographs of the property spanning every ten years from the 1930's to the present day. He explained that the area was primarily farmland and pasture ground until approximately the 1980's. At that time, Musser said, it seems as though the wooded area established itself on the property. Musser said that MMS and the City Forester have found the wooded area to be about 80% box elder trees, 15% choke cherry trees, and 5% silver maple trees. Musser said that the replacement plan does not call for any of these tree types because they are not on the City's list of approved replacement species. He said that the developer wishes to replace the current trees with hardwoods and oaks, rather than the invasive species found in the wooded area presently. Musser stated that the most recent USGS stream mapping for the area was done in 1993. He said that the blue line stream is identified on that map, but noted that it has been in a pipe in a culvert adjacent to the proposed site since 1975 when Westminster was platted and built to the south of the subject property. Musser explained that the 150 foot tip of the stream on the subject property has been cut off and piped down to Court Street since that time. The proposed development is surrounded by existing developments to the east and the south. Musser said that the development to the east was platted in 1971 as Oakwoods Addition. The City did not have a storm water management requirement in place until 1977, so there was no storm water management for that development. Musser said that they believe that there are two storm sewers dumping onto the subject property from Oakwood. Musser said that MMS has developed a theory that due to the excessive water and runoff from the Oakwood development, the wooded area developed from scrub trees after several failed measures by the then-property owner to return that portion of the property to useable land. Musser said that the design process for this development had begun back in October 2009, and that MMS and the developer have spent the last six months progressing through a series of designs, studies, and meetings with City staff. Musser said that all of these discussions and designs were made with full awareness of the difficulties of designing this RS-5 development in a property with these sensitive areas. He said there had been six different versions of the concept plan by the time the plat was filed on March 11, 2010. Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 - Formal Page 5 of 15 Musser stated that several factors contribute to the design. He said the development is essentially landlocked by other developments on three different sides, which means that access points to the site are predetermined. The storm water management is in the lowest portion of the property, as is required by the design elements. There is a 50-foot elevation change in the 20-acres from the edge of Westminster up to Rochester Avenue. Musser said this was a pretty drastic elevation change when trying to build streets to City standards, given that local streets can only be designed to a maximum of a 12% grade (which is the grade used in this design.) He said these factors drive the need to impact the sensitive areas, the wooded areas, and the wetlands. Musser said the City is requiring that Westminster be connected as part of this development. He said Westminster comes into the site right at the lowest elevation, where the water comes into the wooded area. Musser said that if the street is placed there and is graded at 12%, then there is no way to avoid disturbing the trees and the wetlands. Musser said that the only way not to disturb the sensitive areas would be to avoid pushing Westminster through and by not building the storm water management. Both of those City requirements mandate the disturbance of the sensitive areas; there is no way around it, Musser said. Musser stated that the current design calls for 58 single-family lots with a density of 2.5 units per acre. He pointed out that there is a neighborhood park in the development as shown in the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission had determined the exact location of the parkland, and the developer had accommodated those wishes. Musser noted that the park will be next to an outlot owned by the homeowners' association and will serve as the storm water management area. Musser said the replacement tree plan was submitted to staff late today. The trees will be installed after construction. Musser said there are basically three ridges and two valleys with waterways running north and south through the site. He said it is these topographical considerations which drive the street configuration and the necessity of the two cul-de-sacs. Musser said that each cul-de-sac is necessitated by a ridge. He pointed out that there is a portion of Lower West Branch Road that should have been built or at least paid for by the Oakwood developer, but for which no money was ever collected. Musser stated that Lavery has agreed to work with the neighbors and the City to install, at his cost, that portion of the street and the sidewalks. Musser said that Lavery is meeting with the neighbors to try to save as many of their trees and plantings as possible when the street is pushed through. Musser said that the neighbors had essentially been using that area as an extension of their yards since their homes were built in the 1980's. Musser explained that this street will be constructed entirely at the developer's expense, and will become the main access point in the first phase of development. Musser noted that the cul-de-sacs will be low-volume cul-de-sacs, with less than ten dwellings having access to them. Both cul-de-sacs sit considerably higher than Westminster, making it impossible to tie them into that street. Musser said that the Army Corp of Engineers has recently changed its thinking on wetland mitigation. MMS has done several projects in Iowa City where the wetland mitigation was incorporated in the water detention facility. The Corp has since determined that these two features do not mix well, and do not result in a good end-product. As a result, the Corp is pushing for wetland banks and advocating off-development wetland mitigation sites. Musser said he is working with a property owner just past Country Club Estates on a farm in Johnson County. He said the farm has a pond with a waterway stream channel coming out of it. Musser said that approximately four acres are needed to create the different types of wetlands required by city code. Musser said that Lavery and he will be meeting with this property owner tomorrow and will discuss the preliminary costs and design involved. He said he hoped to have that Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 - Formal Page 6 of 15 settled quickly. Musser said that the delineation has been submitted to staff and the Corp. He said that the Corp has 21 days from submission to review and comment on the delineation; if nothing is heard in that time then it is considered approved. Musser said that they do not anticipate hearing anything on their delineation, and the 21-day period ends May 10th. Musser said the general plan in working with the farmer with the stream corridor is that there may be a possibility of creating a wetland bank out there, adding acres to it as needed. He said that the Corp is interested in seeing a shift to this model, hoping to see a large wetland system that will work well with establishing and maintaining wild and plant life. Musser noted that a good neighbor meeting was held, and that approximately 25 people had attended. Musser said that valuable feedback was received and the developer was able to answer a lot of questions regarding water issues and concerns about the wooded area. He said that there was a lot of good communication at that meeting. Ron Amelon, MMS Consulting, addressed the water retention issues. Amelon passed around a drainage exhibit. He noted that 7.95 acres drain directly from the development to the basin; 17.29 acres of the off-site area of the Oakwoods development that drain down toward and through the basin; 10.82 acres in the development drain to the detention basin through a storm- sewer system - not all of the runoff from a 1 DO-year storm will make it to the detention basin; anything that exceeds the capacity of the storm-sewer pipes will run down Westminster to the south. Amelon noted that 3.65 acres will just drain directly to the south and will not drain through the basin. Amelon pointed out that there is a 24-inch diameter storm-sewer and a 15- inch diameter storm-sewer that drain from the existing Oakwoods subdivision to the east of the subject property; that is where the majority of the runoff from that off-site area enters onto the developer's property. Amelon stated that the detention basin is built so that water is picked up and detained from that off-site area that drains through the wetlands. He noted that without this system, water would just pass through the subdivision without being subject to a controlled release rate. He said he wanted to make clear that impacting the wetlands is a necessity of having the storm water detention basin in the most effective area. Amelon commented that the current calculation for the 1 DO-year flow rate to that 36-inch pipe on Westminster was 120 cubic feet per second; after development and the implementation of the storm water system and basin, the flow rate will be 55 cubic feet per second. Amelon noted that this was half the rate it would be prior to development, and that the City's allowable rate is set considerably higher at 74 cubic feet per second. This should greatly alleviate some of the downstream flooding concerns that residents have noted. Terry Lavery, 2779 Muddy Creek, Coralville, stated that as a developer he is required to build that detention, and because of this he is forced to reshape that section of his property. This has the result of eliminating the vast majority of the trees in that area. Lavery said that he will be replacing those trees, dispersing through the subdivision approximately 832 trees. He said the replacement trees will be of species approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission. He said that both his landscaping consultant and the Parks Department have walked the existing wooded area and found the current trees and brush trees to consist of box elder, choke cherry and silver maple. Lavery noted that there are no existing hardwoods or oaks in the area. He said that quality trees can be found on the property near Rochester Avenue, and that those trees will be saved and protected as directed by the City Forester. Lavery said that there will be approximately seven trees per lot dispersed throughout the development, which will create a wooded environment much different than the open farmland currently on the property. He advised Commissioners to visit his past projects so that they can see the kind of environment he Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 - Formal Page 7 of 15 creates when doing a subdivision. Lavery said he really believes that he will be upgrading the environmental features of the property through his development efforts. Toni Rubin, 2131 Lindsay, Coralville, identified herself as a partner in TNT Land Development and a realtor with Lepic-Kreoger Realtors. Rubin said that they believe Terra Verde will be the first all-geo-thermal, clean energy residential development with a complete list of optional green features. Rubin said she realized that the term "green" has been greatly over-utilized and diluted. She said that as a licensed green realtor, she has completed a rigorous training focused on the tangible difference between what is broadly called "green", and what actually constitutes a green building that is designed and constructed with an emphasis on conservation of resources, energy efficiency, and healthy interior spaces. Rubin said that TNT has done extensive research on top-of-the-line, safe and natural interior features, and have assembled a large selection of options for homeowners to choose from, including: flooring, insulation, finishes, cabinetry, countertops, lighting, appliances, etc. Rubin said they also have a commitment to using local suppliers and sub-contractors. She said they would be happy to share their research with the Commission. Rubin assured the Commission that they are committed to working with neighbors and the City to build a one-of-a-kind residential development that all stakeholders will be proud of. She invited interested parties to visit Terra Ridge to see the beautiful environment created when a builder's vision is aligned with the highest good for the community. Rubin said that Terra Verde will offer quality homes at a reasonable price, homes that have sustainable and life-building features and will benefit all of Iowa City. Freerks invited anyone else wishing to speak to this issue to come to the podium. Mark Rushton, 3058 Hastings, described his street as being at the south end of Outlot A for the proposed subdivision. Rushton said he has lived at the property for three years, and has always had storm drainage issues in the area behind his home. He said that the storm water runoff comes from Amhurst and flows down Lake Forest behind the homes on Hastings. Rushton said that during especially heavy downpours there is visible erosion and water pools 20-25 feet up into his backyard. Rushton said the City's current system cannot handle the amount of water being drained from the area. He said that approximately the final 50 feet of his backyard is virtually unusable because it is constantly too wet. He said that for drainage issues alone, this proposed development is of great interest to him, and he is inclined to view it favorably. Rushton said that he is also in favor of the reduction of box elder and silver maple trees that would result from the proposed development. Rushton said that there is a great proliferation of box elder bugs in the neighborhood which creates a nuisance at the end of the summer. He said that many neighbors would view with favor the eradication of trees that contribute to this proliferation. Becky Schaffner, 3230 Lake Forest Avenue, said that she does not consider herself either for or against the development; rather, she has some questions about it. Schaffner said that her backyard overlooks the wetland, and while she is trying to keep an open mind to the positive effects the development might have, she has concerns about the loss of a wetland and a woodland in the city. She said that the sensitive areas are home to foxes, wild turkeys, and rare woodland plants, and she hates to see the area "leveled." Schaffner said that she thinks it is great that some of the trees are being replaced, but that she is concerned about what appears to be a lack of dispersal of the replacement trees. She said the plans appear to load the trees Planning and Zoning Commission May 6,2010 - Formal Page 8 of 15 heavily around the perimeter of the development in rows, leaving a great deal of bare space. Schaffner asked if there was a plausible plan that could maintain as much of the current natural habitat and the look and feel of an urban woodland/wetland as possible. Schaffner asked if the streams could be deepened and widened and a natural pond put in, rather than a concrete detention basin. She said that the maintenance of a natural look and feel for the area that still allowed for mitigation of the drainage issues, even at the cost of a few housing lots, was what would be most desirable. Jennifer Coleman, 142 North Westminster Street, said that she lives near the dead-end of Westminster. Coleman said that she and her husband had concerns about the runoff. Coleman said that they had been living in their home for about four and a half years. She said that from the outset they have had multiple water issues, with their basement repeatedly flooding and their sump pump running on a virtually non-stop basis even during the winter. Coleman said there is a constant stream of water running beneath their house. She said they had spent $16,000 trying unsuccessfully to resolve the problem, and had had to acquire an additional loan from the City to excavate around their house, re-grade, put in drainage tile and replace their sump pumps. Coleman said there is a great deal of water that that runs down Westminster, even during the winter, and that the constant freezing and thawing of the excess water causes problems with driveway and sidewalk heaving. Coleman said the water issue is a constant battle for them. She said they are really excited to hear about the retention basin and drainage system, she also wants to make sure that whatever is done does not have a negative impact on the existing neighborhoods. Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, noted that the proposed detention is a dry-bottom basin; there is not enough area available to create a wet-bottom basin that could be a livable, viable pond system. Plahutnik asked Musser to explain what a dry-bottom basin is. Musser explained that a dry-bottom basin is dry when it is not raining and when there is no water coming to it from the storm-sewer system. Musser explained that this would not be made of concrete; rather, it would be an earthen basin that is seeded and controlled by the developer until some point when the homeowner's association takes over the open spaces. Musser said the basin will fill up slowly during a rain event and then will be released at a slower rate into the existing 36-inch storm sewer. Musser said that the proposed design will benefit those neighbors in the area who have constant water/runoff issues. Musser did note that if a rain event exceeds the 1 DO-year flow, there will be overflow, and an emergency spillway has been designed for such an event. The design calls for the emergency spillway to dump into the street and be controlled by the curb and gutters. All City engineering requirements have been met or exceeded in this water detention design. Musser noted that Lake Forest Avenue cannot be pushed through to Westminster, without exacerbating current water detention issues. Musser said that a good compromise had been worked out with the City to create a permanent turn-around for snow and emergency vehicles. Musser said that they believe their design meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Musser said he believes that City staff and planners always intended for Westminster to be a through- street, designed for local traffic. Freerks invited questions from the Commission. Plahutnik said it seems to him that if one looked from Lake Forest Avenue to the west the view would be a downward slope to a grassy depression, and Outlot B rises up and will become parkland with some open areas and some wooded area. Musser said that was correct. Musser Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 - Formal Page 9 of 15 said the storm water management will be built right away in Phase 1. Musser said that Phase 1 would include the 17 lots on the low volume cul-de-sac coming off of Lower West Branch Road. At that time the storm water detention basin will be graded; once it is seeded and established the trees shown in Phase 1 will be installed. Musser said that the trees obviously will be smaller than the current trees, and that the view from Schaffner's home would be one of looking through the immature trees to the open, grassy depression; from there she will see the City park. Parks and Recreation requested that the park be left open for future design, though they are allowing the developer to line the right-of-way with some trees. Becky Schaffner, 3230 Lake Forest Avenue, asked Musser to briefly explain why the trees cannot be more widely dispersed, and also why a wet bottom basin would not work for the development. Musser said that the Engineering Department would not allow the developer to plant trees in the required storm water area. Musser said that they are bringing the trees to the high-water mark of that basin and getting as close to the basin as they can with their replacement trees. Musser said that with Westminster becoming a through-street, 40-50% of the wetlands are automatically impacted, as are 40% of the existing trees. Musser said the remaining impact is a result of the storm water management. Musser said that with a 12% maximum grade, the streets cannot rise fast enough to save any of the trees. The necessary storm water volume cannot be created without basically reshaping and regarding that area. Freerks noted that many of the trees that are being taken out are on proposed lots. Musser said that was correct, but there is a lot of grading that needs to be done to those lots to carry water, to build roads, and to make the lots buildable. Payne said part of what she understood Schaffner to be asking was whether the stream that runs behind her house could be widened to facilitate the creation of a pond. Musser said the existing stream will be impacted because of the detention basin. He said that Westminster will be pushed through directly into the stream corridor; there is no way not to impact it. If there were no storm water management requirements, then all of the sensitive areas could remain untouched, Musser said. However, he said he cannot build the detention basin anywhere else on the site while meeting the design requirements; and even if he could, he would then not be able to protect the downstream neighbors. Freerks said that there are a number of solutions. Weitzel said that it is obvious that the developer is interested in a certain aesthetic, and it is clear that MMS has put a lot of thought into the project. He asked if there were other ways to design the visual-scape so that it is less changed, or more pleasing, even given the constraints of the road, the topography, and the storm water detention requirements. Musser said that there have been several designs and a lot of consideration put into this project over the last six months. He said the current proposal best serves the purposes of the land, the developer, the City, and the future residents. There were no further questions from the Commission, and no one else wished to speak to the issue. The public hearing was closed. Payne motioned to defer REZ10-00006 &SUB10-00002, an application submitted by TNT Land Development LLC for a preliminary plat and rezoning fro Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay - Low Density Single Family (OPD-5) for Terra Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 - Formal Page 10 of 15 Verde, a 58-lot, 23.22-acre residential subdivision located at 2949 Rochester Avenue. Plahutnik seconded. Freerks invited discussion. Freeks noted that as the Commission is awaiting vital information it cannot make a decision on the application until it is submitted. Payne amended her motion to clarify that the deferral is until the May 20th meeting, pending receipt of all outstanding required documentation. Plahutnik seconded. A vote was taken and the amendment passed 6-0 (Eastham abstaining). Weitzel said that given the technical deficiencies and the documentation still pending, there is no way the Commission could vote on the matter tonight, so deferral is entirely appropriate. Weitzel asked if further discussion should take place tonight, or wait until the next meeting. Freerks said it might be helpful to have the discussions tonight so that the applicant has clear understanding and direction for possible improvements, concerns, etc. Weitzel said there are considerable design challenges on this project. He said he was not sure if there was any way to do a development like this without manifesting some sort of visual change. He said that there is, however, clearly an attempt on the developer's part to make an appealing visual-scape even if it is not exactly the same as it was before development. Payne said that because there will be higher quality trees and better maintenance of the green spaces, the land probably will eventually be more attractive than it is presently. Payne said that it sounds as though the drainage will be much better for the entire neighborhood as a result of this development, which would be a huge improvement for the area. Plahuntik said it sounds as though staff and the development team have worked very hard on this project. He said that if MMS Consultants could make water flow somewhere other than a low spot, they truly would have a gold mine on their hands. Plahutnik said he hoped the neighbors were happy with all of the improvements and changes that will be made as a result of the development. However, in the end, this is someone else's property and they get to do with it as they choose as long as it meets code. Plahutnik said that he is essentially supportive of the project thus far, pending the outcome of the mitigation plans. Freerks said she had taken a good look at the sensitive areas ordinance in considering this application. She said that she agrees that some improvement to the area could result from the development, particularly in the area of drainage issues. However, she said she has to think that a little more can be done in terms of preserving woodlands and wetlands. She said that removal of 95% of the woodlands is concerning to her. She said that she understands there will be impact on the sensitive areas if any development is done; however, she has concerns about the degree of the impact. She said she also had concerns about the parkland. She asked when that would be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Miklo said the parkland will be reviewed by that commission on May 12th. Miklo noted that it was the Director of Parks and Recreation that chose that site for the park, though there was some debate within the department over the location. Freerks said she takes the sensitive areas seriously and she Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 - Formal Page 11 of 15 thinks that the ordinance is there for a reason, and whether the trees are termed "junk trees" or "scrub trees" they are a part of an existing environment and that should be taken into consideration. Weitzel said he too was concerned about that at first; however, as it turns out the wooded area is just a 30-year growth of low-quality trees. Freerks acknowledged that fact, but pointed out that it did fall into the category of'woodlands," and therefore should be considered as such. Weitzel commented that perhaps the Commission could request that additional trees be planted. Payne said the staff report indicated that the applicant was only required to put in 762 replacement trees, but the applicant said they were actually putting in 832 trees. Miklo said that he believed the change in figures is a result in change to the plans, and does not actually indicate that the developer is putting in more trees than is required. A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 6-0 (Eastham abstaining). DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: 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. Miklo noted that this application had been deferred at the Commission's previous meeting due to a number of technical deficiencies on the plat. The Public Works Department has not yet signed off on the most recently submitted version of the plat. As a result, Miklo recommended that any approval of this application be subject to the approval of the City Engineer before this goes before the City Council. Miklo said that typically, staff prefers to have everything in order prior to the Commission taking a vote; however, Engineering has indicated that the few items that had not been corrected at their most recent review were fairly minor and could be corrected prior to the City Council meeting. Miklo said that one of the issues had concerned the need to provide for sanitary sewer to the north of the development and the concern that the sewer not go through the conservation area adjacent to the property. Miklo said that consultations had resulted in a more suitable location for the sanitary sewer line, resolving the need to take the line through the conservation area. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the approval of the plat by the City Engineer prior to the application going before City Council. Miklo offered to answer any questions the Commission might have; there were none. Freerks opened the public hearing. Wally Pelds, 2323 Dixon Street, Des Moines, of Pelds Engineering and Eco-4 Partners, spoke on behalf of Steve Moss, Dave Moss, Moss Family Farms, and Moss Green Development Corporation. Pelds said that the platting is down to its final stages. He said there were some labeling deficiencies that resulted from moving the sanitary sewer line so as to alleviate pressure on the conservation area, as well as a small number of other mislabelings. Pelds said that the project is so big that they run into problems coordinating the mapping in the correct scales. Pelds said he was happy to answer any questions from the Commission. He said that on May 10 they would be presenting the Planned Development Overlay to the City Council, and are very excited about that. Weitzel thanked Pelds for being willing to work with the conservation area to alleviate the Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 - Formal Page 12 of 15 pressure for development that might have resulted from sanitary sewer lines running through their property. Pelds said it had been their pleasure. There were no further comments on the matter and the public hearing was closed. Weitzel moved to approve SUB10-0000S, an application submitted by the Moss Green Development Corp. for a preliminary plat for Moss Green Urban Village, subject to approval by the City Engineer. Eastham seconded. Freerks invited discussion. She noted that everything seemed to be in order and she said she was excited to see the project move along. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. SUB10-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Steve Kohli Construction, L.C. for a preliminary plat of Brookwood Pointe, an 80-lot, 21.g8-acre residential subdivision located west of Sycamore Street, north of Terrapin Drive. Rosenberg noted that in June 2005 this property had been zoned RS-5 in the northern portion and RS-8 in the southern portion. The residential zoning complies with the Comprehensive Plan. To the north is RS-5, to the south is RS-8, and to the east is low-density residential. Wetherby Park and an undeveloped low-density residential development are to the west of the subject property. Rosenberg said that sanitary sewer will be available to the subdivision and will be extended with a per-acre fee during final platting. The City will provide essential services such as police/fire protection, refuse and transit. At the time of its most recent rezoning, a preliminary plat for Brookwood Pointe Additions 1 through 4 was approved. A final plat of Brookwood Pointe Addition 1 was approved in August 2005 and has been mostly built out. Rosenberg stated that the preliminary plant for Additions 2 through 4 expired in June 2007. Rosenberg explained that in August 2008 new subdivision regulations were adopted which contained revised standards for street design. The applicant has submitted a preliminary plat for Brookwood Pointe Additions 2 through 5 which complies with these new standards where it is possible to do so. Rosenberg noted that there is a conditional zoning agreement attached to this property, the requirements of which will apply to the final plat of Brookwood Pointe Additions 2 through 5: 1) The contribution of a per-acre fee for the improvement of Sycamore Street at the time of final plat approval; 2) Construction of storm water management facilities on Outlot A during the construction of Addition 1 (completed); 3) An easement to facilitate construction of a sanitary sewer line from Southpointe Subdivision to Sand Hill Estates; Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 - Formal Page 13 of 15 4) A landscape buffer for double-fronting lots on Sycamore Street. Rosenberg stated that Brookwood Pointe is accessible from Sycamore Street to the east and from Terrapin and Russell Drive to the north and south. The new streets include: Vesti Lane, Brookwood Pointe terrace, and Ashlynd Court. Rosenberg said that in staff's view the street design complies with the Comprehensive Plan and the subdivision design standards. The expired subdivision code required 50-foot right-of-ways, whereas the new code requires 60- foot right-of-ways. Rosenberg said that Vesti Lane will be allowed to continue as a 50-foot right- of-way. All other streets will comply with the requirements of the current subdivision code. Rosenberg explained that there are three double-fronting lots along Sycamore Street which also front along Ashlynd Court. In the event of double-fronting lots, larger lots are required to provide additional buffer. Under the conditional zoning agreement, there must be at least 20-feet of landscaped buffer along Sycamore Street, with any fencing 25 feet from the street. Rosenberg explained that Sycamore Street is slated to be improved and that staff does not want buffer trees planted prior to that improvement. As a result, the subdivider will be required to pay a fee for the landscape buffer to be installed after the improvements to Sycamore. Rosenberg said that the phasing of the project has been changed from the original plat; however, staff does not object to the revised phasing provided there is an agreement for the installation of a sanitary sewer connecting Brookwood Pointe to Sandhill Estates. The developer will be required to pay a fee for the small portion of Brookwood Pointe that USeS the Sycamore Regional Stormwater Sewer. All other storm water management is handled by Outlot A in Addition 1. Rosenberg explained that when Brookwood Pointe opened in 2005, the Parks and Recreation Commission opted to collect fees in lieu of open space because of the development's proximity to Wetherby Park. The commission will review the plat again to make sure that is still the desired course of action. A revised preliminary plat was submitted on April 27th. The City Engineer has not yet completed a review of the plat. Rosenberg said that approval should be subject to the correction of any deficiencies identified by the City Engineer. Staff recommends that SUB1 0-00006 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. Koppes asked when Parks and Recreation would be reviewing the plat. Miklo replied that they would review it the following week. Rosenberg said it is the fee that will be paid during the final plat process. Eastham asked how the storm water drainage from this subdivision works. Miklo explained that the water is piped into the retention basin on Outlot A. Eastham asked where the Outlot drains to. Miklo said he is not sure, but that he believes it drains to the southwest. The public hearing was opened. Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 - Formal Page 14 of 15 Steve Kohli, 3129 Dubuque Street, explained that he had built a 3-acre pond approximately eight years ago, along which there is a drainage way to the Iowa River. He explained that his drainage system involves both a dry-bottom basin and a wet-bottom basin. He said that they have had absolutely no water issues in any of the homes they have built in that area. He noted that while they did not hold good neighbor meetings this time around, they had held them at the time the original platting was done. He said that because the plat is essentially the same, and because all feedback was positive the last time around, the good neighbor meetings had just fallen through the cracks this time. He said that in working in the area he had discussed the issue with neighbors, but that really the most common response was a desire to have neighbors quickly. There were no questions from the Commission and the public hearing was closed. Busard motioned to approve SUB10-00006, an application submitted by Steve Kohli Construction, L.C. for a preliminary plat of Brookwood Pointe, an 80-lot, 21.g8-acre residential subdivision located west of Sycamore Street, north of Terrapin Drive. Plahutnik seconded. Koppes said her only concern with this development is that Russell could become a fast route as it is the only street besides Sycamore that goes north-south. She said that if it did she knew there could be traffic calming measures taken, but it was a concern for her. Freerks noted that there are a couple of curves in there to slow things down. Freerks said she was happy to see the area filling in. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: April 12, 2010 and April 15. 2010: Busard motioned to approve the minutes. Plahutnik seconded. The minutes were approved 7-0. OTHER: There was some discussion of dates when Commissioners would not be available over the summer. Plahutnik, Payne and Koppes all said they would not be present at the June 28th meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel motioned to adjourn. Payne seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote at 8:30 p.m. z o en ~ ~c ~o::: 00 00 C)w zO::: -wo zO"'"" Ozo Nc:(N CC ZZ C:(W C)1- ~~ Z Z c:( ..J C. co X X X X X X >< - U) U) w ..... X X X -. X X X ~ 0 ..... X X X X X X w ~ -. 0 CIO W ..... -. X X X X X X - 0 M :! x x x x x x X N ..... N X X X X X X >< - ..... en :e:W ...- ...- M N 0 0 M Dd~ ...- ...- ...- ...- ...- ...- ...- -. -. -. -. -. -. -. WD.. LO LO LO LO LO LO LO 1-)( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W ::I: > - I- W ..J <( ..J W :J 0::: ~ ..J ~ ::I: <( Z ..J W en ::I: z ::I: :e: 0 0 <( ::::i ~ ~ i= ""') W C ~ en en :E z .J' ~ I- W 0::: ::I: 0::: W W :J ~ W <( I- W D.. Z ::I: :E en ~ W D.. ~ <( w <( :J 0::: 0 ..J Z CD W U. ~ D.. D.. 3: C> z i= W W :e: ..J <( :E 0::: o u. M X X X X X X w u:s - 0 N W ..... X X X X -. X X ~ 0 0) w w ~ x x x x -. x -. M 0 0 ..... X X X X X X w - -. N 0 en :EW ...- ...- ("I") N 0 0 ("I") o:::~ ...- ...- ...- ...- ...- ...- ...- -. -. -. -. -. -. -. WD.. LO LO LO LO LO LO LO 1-)( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W ::I: > I- <( ::::i W W ..J :J 0::: CD ..J :a! ::I: <( z r:5 ..J W 3: en ::I: z ::I: :E 0 0 <( ::::i ~ ~ i= ""') W C ~ en en :E z .J' ~ u.i I- W 0::: ::I: 0::: W :J ~ W <( I- W D.. Z ::I: ~ en ~ W D.. ~ <( W :J 0::: 0 ..J Z CD W u. ~ D.. D.. 3: C> z i= W W :E ..J <( :E 0::: o u. Z E :J ... o :J -00 (]) 0 ~Z ... u -- (]) >< OJ.o WEE :;::,(])(]) C(])-=::: C-(])E~ (]) C en co en~:90- (]).o.......Zo O::<!:III1Z II II w:2 II xooz! :>-: W ~