The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-03-2011 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, February 28, 2011 - 6:00 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Lobby Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street Thursday, March 3, 2011 - 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. Comprehensive Plan Item Public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Southeast District Plan for property generally located south of Court Street, east of Sycamore Street & First Avenue, north of Highway 6 and west of the city's eastern growth boundary. D. Development Items 1. SUB1 0-00014/SUB1 0-00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Craig Haesemeyer for a preliminary and final plat of Mackinaw Village Part 3, a 13-lot, 7.89 acre residential subdivision located north of Foster Road on Mission Point Road and Algonquin Road. 2. SUB11-00001/SUB11-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Eye Physicians and Surgeons for a preliminary and final plat of EPS First Addition, a 1-lot, .78 acre commercial subdivision located at 2615 Northgate Drive. E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: February 17, 2011 F. Other G. Adjournment Informal Formal To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: SUB1 0-00014/SUB1 0-00015 Mackinaw Village Part 3 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Phone: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: 60 Day Limitation Period: SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: Public Services: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Tabatha Miller, Planning Intern Date: March 3, 2011 Craig Haesemeyer 109 West Main Street State Center, IA 50247 Ben Logsden 319-512-2322 Preliminary and Final Plat 1 3-lot subdivision, including 12 lots with townhomes and one lot with a multifamily building North of Arch Rock Road and east of Mackinaw Village Subdivision Part 2 7.89 acres Undeveloped, zoned OPD5 North: South: East: West: Undeveloped, ID-RM Residential, OPD5 Residential, ID-RS Residential, OPD5 Conservation and cluster development 2-5 units per acre February 22, 2011 April 8, 2011 April 23, 2011 Sanitary sewer and water are available Police, fire protection are provided by the City. The area is also served by the Manville Heights transit routes. Refuse and recycling are provided 2 by a private hauler. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In August 2004 this property was rezoned from Interim Development (ID-RS) to Low Density Planned Development (OPD-5). The rezoning allowed for cluster development to preserve the environmentally sensitive features including the Iowa River corridor and flood plain, wetlands, regulated slopes and woodlands. At the same time, a preliminary plat of Mackinaw Village was approved to allow the subdivision of the property into a 115-lot residential subdivision. The final plat of Mackinaw Village Estates, Part 1, a 14-lot subdivision, and Part 2, a 70-lot subdivision was approved in October 2004. Part 1 is now mostly built and Part 2 is partially complete. However, the preliminary plat for Part 3 expired in August 2006. In August 2008 new subdivision regulations were adopted. The new regulations contained revised standards for street design. The applicant has submitted a preliminary and final plat for Mackinaw Village Part 3, which complies with the new standards where possible. Construction plans have been submitted and are being reviewed by the City Engineer. The City Attorney's Office is reviewing the legal papers. It is anticipated that these plans and documents will be approved by staff prior to City Council consideration of the final plat. The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and has not had discussions with neighborhood representatives. ANALYSIS: Street Design: Mackinaw Village is only accessible by Foster Road, with Algonquin Road and Mackinaw Drive providing access to units in Part 3 of the subdivision. Consistent with the original plat approved in 2004, the preliminary plat shows Algonquin Road to be extended north to the border of the subdivision. Mission Point Road will provide an east-west connection through the center of the subdivision. In 2004 when the Mackinaw Village preliminary plat was originally approved, the City's subdivision regulations only required 50-foot right-of-ways for local streets and 4-foot sidewalks. The City's current subdivision code requires 60-foot right-of-ways for local streets and 5-foot sidewalks. Because the streets and sidewalks are partially built, staff recommends continuing the 50-foot street and 4-foot sidewalk widths, except for Algonquin Road north of Mission Point Road. Algonquin Road will eventually be extended north to connect Foster Road to the Arn Property and then east to connect to Laura Drive. Because this portion of Algonquin Road will serve as a collector street for the northern development, it would be required to comply with the 60-foot street width and 5-foot sidewalk width pursuant to the current subdivision standards. Neighborhood Design and Sensitive Areas: The North District Plan promotes the use of cluster development of this area to preserve the environmentally sensitive features. The plan suggests conservation design development for the steep slopes and woodlands. As a result, an OPD5 zoning designation was approved in 2004, which included approval of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan addressing lot placement and size, tree protection and 3 tree placement, open space, conservation areas, and storm water management. At that time, lots 72-74, 77-75, and 79-82 were also approved for 4-unit townhomes, while lots 71 and 78 were approved for 2-unit townhomes and lot 83 was approved for a 16-unit multifamily building. The approval also included building designs for all lots except lots 79- 81, which are proposed to have 4-unit townhomes with front-facing garages. These lots have a gas pipe line easement on the north side, making a rear lane difficult. As a result, in 2004, the City agreed to allow the front-facing garages and to work with the applicant to modify the building elevations and soften the appearance of the garages to reduce the front yard paving. The Planned Unit Development requires that building designs on these lots are subject to staff approval. Infrastructure fees: Water main extension fees of $395 per acre should be address in the legal papers. There are no Sanitary Sewer fees for this area. Neighborhood Parkland: Per the zoning code, the neighborhood open space requirement for all of Mackinaw Village is 1.77 acres. This requirement was fulfilled during the final plat of Mackinaw Village Part 2 with the dedication of Outlot C, a 1 .8-acre parcel of open space in the northwest area of the subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral pending resolution of deficiencies and discrepancies noted. Upon resolution of these items, staff recommends approval of SUB 10-000 14/SUB 10-00015 the preliminary and final plat of Mackinaw Village Part 3, a 13-lot 7.89 acre residential subdivision located north of Arch Rock Road and east of Mackinaw Village Subdivision Part 2 subject to approval of construction drawing by the Public Works Office and the legal papers by the City Attorney prior to City Council consideration. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: Technical items noted by the City Engineer. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary plat 3. Final Plat ~ ..., Approved by: ,4?;~~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development S:\PCD\Staff Reports\201 0\sub1 0-00014 Mackinaw village pI 3 ~ ~ t3 ~ ~ ~ ~ t3 L/ .... ( N ,... en a: '" c D.. o en a: I C - - --~\J'W~ '\ . ex) ~,\.....~ ~f-)\ ~ c5~. ---.....-, ...~ ~ 010; \, z '- \ >- W ,>O( ~ (f) ..../,' ..~ ~ ~~(O( ~Q) 0:: -' I- an en a: co./' ./---.:c:r- ~_/ D.. -.....J 0 6D- N... ,... :E a: ex: ~ ~ / (/) an C D.. o an .... Q Q Q I Q .... CD :) (I) olS llli:t .... Q Q Q I Q .... CD :) (I) M ;: co a. .. aJ C') co > ~ co c ~ u co :E .. Z o 8 o ... w t- .... (I) II ~~III!!!!III~ Iii ~!!! ~ <( z ~ ::j1- W5 [(1. ~'In !, I I I_ II~ i 1'1 ;lil~11 lit I I ~II u ill HI I ; ,.l,',,,u! ,mm~hL,!;m!!"" I!I ~ ! i!! li1oaj''''''-'U 1111 Ii L~ ;!~ ~ I illl:1 'ttm.-.. IT 111 1 r i~ +n -- ~ E-< -+-' ~ 0) cd 0)0... ~I ....c: Q) E---i I:l.(J cd ........ ~:-;:::: ~> cd ~ -+-' 0.., cd ~ .S ~ 0...1 ~o C) .......... >-. cd ~ 0) ::g >. cd -+-' ~ OJ)~ ~ ..-< . .-< ~<:r: u S cd ~ ..-<......--l ~ cd ..............--l -+-' ~ ~~ B .s 0..."""'- -+-' ;:J ~o cd'+-< ~ 0 ......... ~ ~ .~ () .~ cd . .-< ~] ;:J en Q) ~ <:r: '--' lid i~il I III; I~I ~~I !lli 15 Iii f i ~ , b I ; I (~~\ e ,J dl! I, i in ~~~ ;~ ~ a Ii' . II ~D ii i! i! iI" ~ ~.I~ ~i! il . Drl l.iG. ~~I' '11!t I!~ i &d IJ~.II~ .. @ ~ VI '\..J~Q L-J ..... x QD Q ~." L ~(I~v.. ---l:) <L- ~ ...rL- ~/ "II ~il · '. ..- ~.~ · I( 1[-;( '"t~thllllf.rI~II~ [11111111 D ..\" _h~:;:: Ij .,' .... J= It;:::,..-- I t I ";;on '-', - 1,'- Ie II '. lis.' : I .,' = I;:::,.", I .... ft~ 1 :;:: .... - I-.r' ........ ..::f I,..,,-r::F'I=L.. ;$' l ,.~~~ L' ~ -- 'c-' - ,,'7"""''-\/--;;, fCD:~J-::€~.F"l:~' \'+~",: 1'-' :..~_ f-"--f--,-- ~,.~- -CJV~-~J+,---f ~ ~ -~~_\.~ }-f'cf~~"~ '\,I~. ~"~--- ~ --- ~(, ~~--~ !I-~ ~ ("ow -. I ;0ri i .../J. t\ Imn ~ 1'1.... :' '\' .~~'.'l' .Ii!')...' ~i ht. \ .. \ J.f" iii ......1-' ~ } \ -: L , 7. ' "" ,,7, , (.;: ..~ ,.. ,', ': ,..I.."i 1\" <'i.fr 'Lv- \I~' _ ~> ~ ~~r,,~;"Ji ~ 'l 1 \1..., J ,illllll '\lO: "ff ill I.. I,', '~i ~i JriJ! i ~.. " ,,);f._ Ii I - I lit 'r-~r" I~ :l ".'j;]\'a!\I, . \..':~"I · lei i (/"".,,9, .1,: I~!> L'r\\(l~ \.\,~ 7, \ i~1 ,<1 ..: i>}T: ,..., ..::' rj, 1~1~- t.~ II ~"-; ,It /i':::?r-" -lit-- . .~ ~~, : -- r&M Ir~ I .':;-, 6 ~I' r 1::1 .;( ) j '1"11 ll~ \ .. ~rt.'.. ,I ." .. M" ~t\ "~fE:.,'"i. ~'Il.\,.' . -r" 'r ~ .j.(; '1\ ,-E " 'Ie" #h i. 1 " h: " "" : ':':JI-l:::.,I,1[ n ..J. v', ~.... -- "/ ''tC:'':t1. ',\,j \ 4- ro, ~---_ :"~-' _' , I ~"';'" \1- ---r- . - l ch - ~ ~ ~OISIl\ ~~ L- IE II -1= ~ II~I~ I~j I'i !Il If ..I 1-,- \ __ lt~--__---,+:I~I!* t---~:_~ ~'JIt._ ''\'''--1" "\ ~ " --t-=-.. 1\ ,! 1\ \ :: fi 1",--- +~~il H~ ~~~ ~~~ I d~ i ~ ~ ~ nH ~ ;~l ~ ee lf) nIt i ~~ ~U ~ Ulfi5 h~ I;ignll ~ 11I1~i;U!!!!IIIlI! ~"'" "!I"[ '''! z <4<<]"0 · I Q:B I ~ ill i is:> I'W l:l:=t~:1l ~IOl/;zll 6~'j600Lr-tl\-eoo-Lt'tL\L[,(L\:~ ~~~~ ~ -. ~I I' ~ i ~J I ' ~ ::I! J => en z o u ~ ! I~~IIJI ~&l&l~1 m .. "~II ~ 5~~ ~~~~ ! ~ "~~ . L~ ~~ !i !5~<n ~ ~ :;;~" ~! l>'l~tn ;il " E ~~ ~~~n ! i ~~ " I I I ~ I . I . i ~ ; I p ; ! i II~ I ~ ~ ! I~I , "'" g =~I '" "'" ~ri ~i"l III ~ ~~ .. .~ "'. ~ o (I)~ (1)1: ,-a1 ..c~ I- G> as i~ ...- _ 0 '-5- m~~ a.. aI c: .f; :J ,:,,/,0 a; J ~() Q.. (I) ~ c: _ P""I'\ 0 0 as VI- ~ .~ m:=t ~ u.. := :Q .., >"5 - o~ 3:00 m c as c.Q ~ ._.~ 0 ~.~- 0:8 m~ ~~ < I' ~ ~~ ! nd ~ IU; il~ ISISID 1m ~~g I~! ~ -l a. -l <l:: z LL w ~ ...J >tJ:j ;:0:: <C:c 21- :;;:::1- ~~ ::Ell. ~ z :J o U ~z -0 UU) c(zc( 3:J:3: 000 -"",- ~ ~15~ ~I~ ~~i bi o;~~ ~~~ ~~~"' ~o;..~ ~~'lB ~~'"15 15O;~ l;!i15~ ~1i'~1'! ~d: ,,;!l~ J ---~ ln7.1Il'(R)(I.l) .!?tg ~...:o O~ID~ja 'O~:2 .(Q-o Q..~.- ~O.EO ~~.. e:C'i.:~i! :Oo~.g:S.2"C u.,~~~~g :5dO::o::=1:l!! ~Dl-E;8 i ~.ti~~1i.1 ~.~:o ~ ~ ~ Ii X-il1 ~,!!~ 0 .a i ID~""" .: ~ E'5"l .ti~l o 5"MU-" z ,.5 0 il ....'1:J .... I: o!i80'Q.2.! ~~~1tDj-g ~E~W-"Qc 8"'.3__ . lGl:I'U-2g :~~: ~l< .~~~~~~~ -0 ill-i!l o;r" _01:'-(,) II ~i~pH >.ulQ.S~t: UPH8~ _~~~~o~~ "g~ ~I I )j i ~ ~ a i!~ !~ I J J ~ ~ in w~ Ii! U ~Jl e Iii I~ ~~~ !im !II a ~. ~ ~ il i ~ Ih b~ I ~ n~ ~it i I i ~~9 ; To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: SUB11-00001 /SUB11-00002 EPS First Addition GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Phone: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: 60 Day Limitation Period: SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: Public Services: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Tabatha Miller, Planning Intern Date: March 3, 2011 Eye Physicians and Surgeons 540 E. Jefferson Street Iowa City, IA 52245 Shawn Lueth, Shive-Hattery 319-354-3040 Preliminary and Final Plat Re-subdivision of Lot 19 of Highlander Development First Development into 2 lots 2615 Northgate Drive 0.78 acres Office (CO-1) North: South: East: West: Office (CO-1) Commercial (CH-1) Office (CO-1) Commercial (CH-1) Office Research and Development Centers February 10, 2011 March 27, 2011 April 11, 2011 Sanitary sewer and water are available Police and fire protection are provided by the City. The area is also served by the North Dodge transit route. Refuse and Recycling are provided by a private hauler. 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This property consists of Lots 19 of Highlander Development First Addition as recorded in June 1984 by the Johnson County Recorder. At some point after 1984, the western half of Lot 19 was added to Lot 20, creating a larger Lot 20 and a smaller Lot 19. The subject application is requesting a re-subdivision to create a new lot (Lot 1 of EPS First Addition), consisting of the portion of Lot 20 that was formerly a part of Lot 1 9. Lot 1, which currently is used for parking, would be developed in the future. An office building is currently located on the western portion of Lot 20, and parking facilities are located on Lot 19 and the eastern portion of Lot 20. The Attorney's Office is reviewing the legal papers. It is anticipated that these plans and documents will be approved by staff prior to City Council consideration of the final plat. The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have not had discussions with neighborhood representatives. ANAL YSIS: Street Design: There are no streets planned. There are two access points on the property from Northgate Drive, one on the eastern side of Lot 19 and one on the eastern side of Lot 20. No curb cuts are planned for direct access onto Lot 1. Access to the Lot 1 would be via an ingress/egress easement over the eastern portion of Lot 20. Some of the parking for Lot 1 would also be within an easement on Lot 20. Because Lot 1 currently serves as parking for the office building on Lot 20 and there will be a parking easement on Lot 20, the site plan review process for development of Lot 1 would need to address whether the remaining parking on Lot 19 and Lot 20, would be sufficient to meet the requirements for the existing office building. Storm Water Management: Storm water management was addressed in the previous subdivision process. No new storm water facilities are being proposed. Infrastructure fees: Water main extension fees were collected at the time of the original subdivision. No additional fees are required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral pending resolution of deficiencies and discrepancies noted. Upon resolution of these items, staff recommends approval of SUB11-00001 /SUB 11-00002, the preliminary and final plat of EPS First Addition, a 3-lot 0.78 acre subdivision located at 2615 Northgate Drive, subject to approval of the legal papers by the City Attorney prior to City Council consideration. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: 1. The subdivision name should be legally changed to "EPS First Addition (a Re-subdivision of a portion of Lot 19 of Highlander Development First Addition) ". 3 2. The legal papers need to provide and cross-access easement across Lot 20 for access to Lot1. 3. Technical items as noted by the City Engineer. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary plat 3. Final Plat Approved by: ~~ Robert Miklo, ~enior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development S:\PCD\Staff Reports\201 O\sub11 00001 & sub11-0002 eps first addition staff report if) N l- e ~ - e 2 e .--J e I w '1""1 l- f) '1""1 <{ Ia c:t:: rtJ :::>> 0 U) 0.... ~kl c:t:: ~ ol$ ~' 0 '1""1 U \ e \ >- 0. e l- e u a: e I <{ 0 '1""1 '1""1 3: I ,... Ia 0 C 0 :::>> - 0 U) LL 0 >- I- U ~ a. tj a: 0 ~ I ,... C ~ - :r: ~ 0 ~ tj c 0 ~ "'C "'C <( ~ (J) L- a. i..L.. a: (J) 0 0- W .. Z 0 .... 8 0 ...J , W I I- .... U) Cl lli -J di >- c . a:<~ <1-- ~cn() ::Eg:< :Ju..~ Wcno a:a._ a.w z o F (5 o <( l- I/) 0: ii: ao UJ s ~ o ~ . ~~ i llii~ Iii! < ~k jjg I !I~i hi !~ '" ~a ~i! "6 ~tK h. 1m "'! ~,~ ~ ~.< m i Ii; Ion ~.lt <: 'V'~ C2t~ w~ -'t- u_ ", >- D~ :{"~~~~ co l-~ . i(://", :i F~r-'c-,-c::~g~~~~'r-r:,:' --c::::r---i"l ", :1::]_::.._________ C""'"-' ll~~ . NI - I I' - - -. -,. 1 ; '7: ' ':'1'-. ~\I-- ..'''''~.o~''''1 '. ~h~' +- II \ 'L I '---":L1 Y.)n-",..i~'~+ """"""-:S, J: ' . ,',1;. 11: 'Il.:...~'.r- ': \ II" II', 7""", , :' '1 .n ",,,. .' T,., . (I "", '. """ ".11< .. ,L...... p' :.' ..1' ."0'. id!!' ,L~ ;iV~~i~(:~;t~'\~\~~lf!~'!tilj,~ i'L i ,(1" 'II, "",l,,~i " ,,' , 1 L' ,,', '1""" '" ~~~, ",'\ I:, ~i 'li!I~~" '1::r,ll:I;:l~I,;,I"::~~'~li'l i; >j"i! "\IUjJ~g~:~ 1 ,,' 1'1. ." .. ""'1 'I" "- ~'~ . 1'" h, ">> ,!j II i'Ll \11:llr,(I,11 : 1T':' :jid~r'~~ " -, I fj~',,, ',:'" ... ;-i, '~, '" ',0 I ..1:::::-:" i ; r ~ i 1 i \ < : ii, 'I "L :'!L>::;>~_~ ~ 8~ ! :; ',.-;~:;-r -: ~ , , I ., I ,,/_/__~ /.. I ,:" x--~,> i 1 '\'J'-'-/ _, , " ~\\ :-;- \ ~j..- 0 \ --.:---:: ;"'-.~ ~ .-- .;;-' ~ <cC o III J~lI\"rDID:w.~IIQ\!lOo\~[tI"\:ll\Sul"O<lJ. d<IO-II-d1!l..a-WIOIflIO"lIISJH I[UO:lOa ..:J\:w.d\..~~,,\;i\SlJTOlIo\ I , -'1) f -....f ~'" f .:~'.:i j 1:~ """j. . "''''',: ....;.j:; .:;~i i !:~ f:i_F , il (. " ( .,,"'" . ;"':::11""'''''''1' ij ;j if ,} :, :, ,:1..... !J " /' ./ il if i'l " !/ /f J ""''''''''''''1''' /~i o wr!I.Q'tI"""'",,-Ij>'''rvl~lIl'QIIG\:)ojO\06KO''\:ll\l.U-- .. lJl~>o.e lI~ IHl;ldl'~ I bQl!I1UO-~'\"~!C:>OO "'l'OOldl..~[tI"'JoI\!.lJ]1>,,,^:. < 1I11Un- -'Q-:oIJ\,"q.,~~.'I';;~I:Olt.1 !>~"::,I Ill:O' "..t.~'~~:~~{~.~~O:!.:"::iQ~:roll\JI\m:JD,,", ""'QIOOYI!H:pl ~ Q Z' o~ i=::J ~i58 -1CZ D..c(g -II-Z c((/)J: za:Q U:U:~ (/)0 fh~ Q ~ HWOo-HlI :Jaql.UIlN lUJ!:l 5!OU!11I IJnoSli:!W ! ~loulIll 11~1 WOO",Ultllall'9^14s I ~Z6n'5C'6~C :xlIj I mOnSC'6l& SlrlZS 8MO\ 'A;!,:) .MOI I Il^IJQ 8\lltll.f)JON ttB~ ~-, N ' .i ., :, \'.." r.;:";::;"} ,; !; i :;) J 1 ;"i;) a ." ^ti~.LL'v'I-E]^1 HS O"l o <.f. .....;.7" ~........~ ~CJ L___ Ll..1, ... -.J >- C,.)t:: >- C~1 !::<t U~ o o w --' ~ LL :!C -a:: o co W Lt... = C'-..l N ... S - :;o;z_ -II 'VMOI'AlNnOC> NOSNHOr 'AlIC> 'VMOI ~ -r-: " ~ CD CD g or- !'J iii 0 0 CO ~ ~ 15 ~Q. z 0 0 .. ..J ... z N011100V' 1881:1 8d3 CD ~ c( u ... i ~ fill!! !l/ ftl ~ ftlZ 0 .. ~ ~~ '" Vi '" u: iliiI: 0- 0 ; ~ g- g ~a " ~ ~~ li ~ ~i i ~ i 0 .. .., ... 3 ~ ... 3 ~ ; ni~ m n~~ ~ ~i~g ~2l~ ~I"~ dg I ffi~~ / /11 /' ~~~ / !<ll1o / i<~ / ~~ / au /.. ~~ ,,/ " 5! ... 3 ...~ 1-.. 0", ..Jd ~ / ffi / t / ...N / ~3 Ii, \ // "" ;:' "'" " ~ dlW ~ ~I!!: UI~ U~~ ~If Iii ~~~ i~ l'!il 9 :f 15 ~ ~g~ I !!!~ ~s~ ~~" a ~ ~::f Q~~ i~~ ~" i 1 Itl ~fHU tP c.t- II i~ ~! I j f~ ~ :. ~ Ij Iii~U hu o 6 ~ ~-li ~ !i ~ ~! ill. I I I;i~ I q ill; ~ d ! ~iil ~ I ~ i it, ! ~. ,t',!/ I ! ~l I" f i .i:.~ rll ~ ~ d_ ~h!~ . a I 1;; o~ ^-.' ~ m ~ " ~ ~ I ~"l:01 ~wu. Illo~/ol/w :]lVQ I ~Q.IO III d.l\611O\06srOIl\:lI\'P~OJ,^:d I qoJnl/l'" ~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2011 -7:00 PM - FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Payne STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Sarah Holecek, Christina Kuecker, Loren Ditzler OTHERS PRESENT: Mel Cannon, Sarah Lynch, Karen Michaell, Robert Wolf, Bob Elliot, Andrew Lynch, John Moreland, Reinhard Beichel, Jane Driscoll RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 6-0 (Koppes abstaining) to recommend approval of REZ10-00018, a rezoning of approximately 2.17 acres located at the southwest corner of Taft Avenue and Scott Boulevard from Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) to Planned Development Overlay Low Density Multi-Family (OPD-RM12) and SUB10-00017, a preliminary plat of Windsor Ridge, Part 22, a 2-lot, approximately 5.51-acre subdivision located at Taft Avenue and Court Street subject to the following conditions: . Compliance with the submitted building elevations; . Payment of the fair share of the improvements to Taft Avenue (12.5%) . The maintenance and construction of parking spaces within the city park being the responsibility of the developer and homeowner's association . The replacement of any trees removed in the city park due to the construction of the parking spaces. The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of ANN11-00001/REZ11-00004, an application submitted by ILJ Investments for annexation and rezoning from County Agricultural (A) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 12.65 acres of property located on the north side of Mormon Trek Blvd, northeast of its intersection with Dane Road subject to a 20-foot wide landscape buffer along the north property line that at a minimum meets screening standards and a 30-foot high or less limitation on outdoor lighting. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. Planning and Zoning Commission February 17, 2011 - Formal Page 2 of 16 PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM: Public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to the Southeast District Plan for property generally located south of Court Street, east of Sycamore Street & First Avenue, north of Highway 6, and west of the city's eastern growth boundary. Howard stated that the Southeast District Plan resulted from two years of planning and public input. The redevelopment planning for the Towncrest area was incorporated into the planning process for this district. Howard explained that the Comprehensive Plan is divided into ten planning districts. The Southeast District Plan will be the seventh district plan to be completed. The Southeast District Plan is divided into six sections which have goals and objectives associated with each topic. The goals and objectives were determined through the feedback received at public planning meetings and focus groups, and are intended to incorporate the public input gathered over the last several years. Housinq and Neiqhborhood Quality: For planning purposes, staff divided the Southeast District into several "neighborhoods:" the Court Hill Neighborhood, the Windsor Neighborhood, Towncrest Neighborhood, Village Green Neighborhood, and the growth area outside the city limits. The Court Hill Neighborhood is generally south of Court Street, east of First Avenue, and north of Muscatine Avenue. This neighborhood includes a number of different features, the most prominent of which is probably Ralston Creek. Hy-Vee and the commercial area on the corner near it are valuable assets to the community. This neighborhood has been developed for some time and has nice tree-lined streets and a pleasant neighborhood atmosphere. The Court Hill Trail system, which runs along Ralston Creek, was recently completed through the neighborhood. The City has received a lot of positive public feedback about the trail. The Southeast District Plan includes goals and objectives for completing all aspects of the trail and providing better signage for the neighborhood. The Towncrest Neighborhood is just south of the Court Hill Neighborhood, generally south of Muscatine Avenue and north of the Iowa Interstate Railroad. This neighborhood surrounds the Towncrest commercial area and includes some large institutional uses, such as Mercer Recreation Facility and Southeast Junior High. Howard said this area represents a mix of residential and institutional uses and has a gridded street pattern with small to medium-sized homes along tree-lined streets. There was a lot of discussion about how to improve the Towncrest area in both the larger public workshops and in the planning meetings specifically focused on the commercial area. The main topics of public discussion were the poor management and maintenance of some of the multi-family units in the area and the need to revitalize the Towncrest commercial center. There were discussions about the possibility of new housing opportunities resulting from the revitalization of the Towncrest commercial area. The impacts of the large institutional uses on the surrounding neighborhoods were also a topic of discussion. There were concerns expressed about the traffic resulting from Southeast Junior High and the activities at Mercer Recreational Center. Planning and Zoning Commission February 17,2011 - Formal Page 3 of 16 The Village Green Neighborhood is a unique neighborhood in Iowa City. At the time the area was developed, the idea was to have a single ring-road with single family homes clustered around village greens. As the development extended further south, it changed to a different kind of housing; attached units and condominiums with back-yard ponds and front-yard greens. There are attractive new homes, both single units and attached, still being built in the southern portion of the Village Green Neighborhood near the railroad, and one concern expressed about this neighborhood is the proximity of the industrial area to the residential homes. Howard said that there is a need to ensure a wider and more effective buffer as development occurs along the railroad corridor in new neighborhoods. For existing areas like Village Green, one of the ideas is to grow taller, quick-growing species, such as poplar trees, for screening when the space between the housing and the industrial area is limited. The Windsor Neighborhood represents the far eastern side of the district and is almost to the edge of the city's growth limit. Taft Avenue forms the eastern boundary of the neighborhood, Court Street the northern boundary, American Legion Road is the southern boundary, and Scott Boulevard is the western boundary. Scott Park takes up a large area of the neighborhood and is a prominent feature of the neighborhood. The Windsor Ridge Neighborhood is formed around a central, linear park system which is greatly appreciated by residents of the area. One of the issues with the park and how it was designed with little street frontage and surrounded by private back yards, is that it is not very visible or accessible to the general public and there may be confusion about what is public open space and what is private. People have difficulty distinguishing the park from private back-yards. Howard said that this was lesson that should inform how future neighborhoods are designed with better visibility and access to any public open space. Howard shared a map that showed potential streets in the neighborhood and demonstrated how the streets would fill in as the area is developed back toward Scott Boulevard. Howard said that one of the problems with development at the edge of the city is that property owners or developers sometimes request to have land annexed that is not contiguous to current city limits. If approved, this results in what is sometimes called "leapfrog development." Some of that occurred in the Windsor Neighborhood. Howard said that leapfrogging increases the costs of providing services, extending utilities, and improving or extending city streets. Howard said that residents commented on the fact that American Legion Road has not yet been improved and does not have sidewalks. This leads to a lack of pedestrian friendly connections to other neighborhoods in the area. Howard said that a significant part of the plan concerns the future growth areas of the city. The City likes to have a plan in place for areas directly outside of its boundaries so that if and when a property owner wishes to develop that land and annex into the city there is already a vision for its possible uses. Howard said that people sometimes misunderstand and think that the plan represents an exact design for future streets and home lots. Some are also concerned that the City will come in and develop their property. Howard said that contrary to these concerns, the intent of the district planning process is to provide a concept that incorporates best planning practices, establish goals and objectives, and provide guidance for property owners, developers, and elected officials as land is proposed for urban development. Howard said that the area to the south is intended for industrial land. Specifically, the concept plan for the growth area in the Southeast District includes opportunities for new employment areas in the city as well as a mix of housing, public open space and neighborhood institutions. Howard explained that some higher density housing could be clustered along single loaded streets along park edges to provide better access and views of park land without a loss in residential density potential. Howard also explained that if land to the east of the manufactured housing parks along Scott Boulevard is annexed into the city, the manufactured housing parks would most Planning and Zoning Commission February 17, 2011 - Formal Page 4 of 16 likely have to be annexed as well. Howard said that while there was no intent to change the manufactured housing park, the plan does address what type of development would be appropriate if the property owner or future property owner decides to redevelop the property in the future. Similar to other areas, the plan states that if the area were to redevelop that it would be beneficial to allow a mix of housing types, including high density single family and multi- family. Howard said that another concern for the area is to ensure good street connectivity between neighborhoods to prevent isolated pockets of development that do not have good access to neighborhood services and amenities. The plan map shows how streets could be extended through the manufactured housing park to provide connections to new neighborhoods that develop to the east. Howard said that staff had received a lot of questions about what is meant by the "employment area" shown on the concept plan for the eastside growth area. The plan does not show specific zoning designations for undeveloped areas, but rather outlines a variety of zoning options that would result in a good transition from the industrial zone to the south and the residential uses to the north. A general employment area could be a variety of lower intensity commercial uses, such as: office research, light manufacturing, cottage industries or incubator businesses, restaurants or service businesses, or large institutional uses such as a church, school, or daycare. Commercial: There is quite a bit of commercial development in the Southeast District. The commercial section of the district plan is divided into several sections: the Sycamore Mall/ 1 sl Avenue Commercial Corridor, Towncrest, and some smaller commercial areas along Scott Boulevard and at the corner of Court Street and Taft Avenue. Public comments indicated that residents of the Southeast District appreciated the improvements that had occurred at Sycamore Mall, but wanted to see the area continue to thrive. She said that there had been some concerns expressed about deterioration of some of the properties along First Avenue. Howard said there was an interest in doing some comprehensive planning for this area similar in nature to what had been done at Towncrest. The plan also addresses the issue of Kirkwood Community College and the potential need for expansion of their facilities. Howard said that she would not go into too much detail about the Towncrest area as that plan has already been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and adopted by the City Council. She said that in general it is a plan for revitalization of the Towncrest commercial area that encourages reinvestment and redevelopment. The small commercial area along Scott Boulevard near Highway 6 is sandwiched between industrial areas. Howard said that it may be a place where some limited retail occurs in the future mostly to serve the adjacent employment and industrial areas. Howard said that there is a tiny commercial node at the corner of Court and Taft which calls for a town square model with a green space in the center and neighborhood-oriented commercial spaces and mixed uses. Howard said that the intention was for a primarily residential use with small-scale commercial to serve the neighborhood. The Southeast District contains the largest industrial employment area of the city. The area to the west of Scott Boulevard is largely developed with industrial uses while the area east of Scott Boulevard is still developing. The area is important for industry because it has good access to Planning and Zoning Commission February 17, 2011 - Formal Page 5 of 16 arterial streets and it also has access to the Iowa Interstate Railroad, which is a main east-west freight line. The city's goal is to continue to expand opportunities for new businesses and new employers to move to Iowa City and to reserve sections of industrial land for large users. The plan also calls for continuing to improve surrounding streets to make them conducive to truck traffic. The idea is to extend and expand Taft Avenue to provide a more direct route to Interstate-BO to take some of the pressure off of Scott Boulevard. There is also a marketing focus placed on encouraging green businesses to move to the area. One of the main emphases of the plan is to minimize conflicts between industrial and residential areas, providing better buffers between incompatible uses. One of the main ideas for a buffer is to develop a park along the Snyder Creek watershed that would separate the industrial to the south from the new neighborhoods that might form to the north. This would also be a substantial amenity for residents and for future employees of the businesses in the area. Parks, Trails and Open Space: One area of emphasis is the continued expansion of the trail network. The district has a number of large and small parks. One idea is to make Mercer Park and Scanlon Gym more of a community center, and to upgrade the park facilities. There are also some plans for improvements to Court Hill Park. There was a lot of discussion from the Village Green neighbors about the desire to better coordinate the use of the private greens in their neighborhood. Howard noted that those greens are private pocket parks, not public parks, so that goal would be one for the local homeowner's associations. Scott Park serves as storm-water management for Ralston Creek and provides trail links between the Windsor Neighborhood and the Court Hill Neighborhood. The City would like to continue to develop those trail links. The park system in Windsor Ridge has limited access and visibility for the general public, which could be improved by better signage and trail connections. As the neighborhood south of American Legion Road develops, the plan calls for a new park along Snyder Creek. Streets and Transportation: The plan notes a number of imminent improvements to the arterial street network in the district. The biggest transportation concern expressed for this district was the need for the railroad overpass on First Avenue, and questions about when that was going to occur. Howard said that the overpass is an expensive project, but that the City has secured most of the funding for the project. The hope is that the project will move forward soon. The City has determined that a traffic signal is warranted at the corner of Scott Boulevard and Muscatine Avenue. The Cit~ will be upgrading that intersection in the near future. It is also in the process of upgrading 4201 Street to serve the industrial area. In the long-term, there is a goal to improve Taft Avenue and connect it to Interstate-BO. Transportation objectives in the plan include: making sure that new and improved streets are complete and serve pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicular travel; that as new neighborhoods develop they are served by a well-connected street network. Also that a well-connected trail network is important, with improved opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists. Workshop participants indicated that trails are viewed by the public as transportation corridors not just recreational paths. Plan Map: The plan map outlines what the uses are now and gives a sense of the direction for possibilities in the future. Planning and Zoning Commission February 17, 2011 - Formal Page 6 of 16 Howard asked if the Commission had any questions. Freerks noted that Howard had given the Commission a memo outlining minor changes to the plan that had been made since the last Commission work session. Eastham asked if there was a way to be more specific about school and park locations in the growth area. Howard said that because at this point in time, the City has no way of knowing exactly where a school might be located by the school district, the plan is simply conveying the good planning principle of locating a school central to the new neighborhood that is developing. She said the idea behind locating a school next to the park is demonstrating the principle of shared facilities and enhanced learning environments. The planning for a school site done by the City is intended to indicate sites that would meet good planning principles, of central location and accessibility to area residents. It provides a starting place for discussions with the School District, if a new school is needed in the area in the future. Freerks opened the public hearing. Mel Cannon, 11 08 Village Farm Court, President of Village Green Homeowners' Association, said that he had a question about what the City has in mind for the private green spaces. Howard said the City does not have anything in mind for those spaces because they are private. However, the residents that came to the planning workshops expressed an interest in getting together with other neighbors in the area and seeing if there were more amenities that the neighborhood wanted to add to the greens. Howard said that the only reason the greens are mentioned in the plan is because they are a prominent feature of the neighborhood and there was a need expressed for small centrally located pocket parks or playgrounds. Miklo said that staff had heard from some families that thought it would be nice to have some play equipment for young children and perhaps some park benches. Miklo said that the plan acknowledges that decisions about the private greens would be a function for the homeowners association. Cannon said that he had attended the planning meetings and the issue keeps coming up. He said that the neighborhood association has already conducted their own internal survey and found that there was a concern that playground equipment would attract an outside element and pose a legal liability that the association is unwilling to accept. Cannon said that he wished to convey that their wishes are that nothing be done to the green spaces. Greenwood Hektoen clarified that the green spaces are owned by the homeowners' association and the City has no ownership interest in them. Cannon said that nevertheless this keeps coming up. Howard said that it came up because some Village Green residents brought it up and it is in the plan simply to reflect that public input. She said she recognized that it might represent a minority of Village Green residents. Cannon said that he believes that the people who requested such changes to the greens were probably not actual residents of Village Green, and were likely residents of Village Green South, a nearby neighborhood that has no greens of their own. Howard said that her understanding is that there are actually a number of homeowners' associations for that neighborhood. Cannon said that he represents Parts 1-13, and simply wanted to provide the Commission with clarification on the matter. Sarah Lynch, 1033 Chamberlain Drive, said that she is part of the Chamberlain Drive area that is not included in the homeowners' association Cannon was speaking of. She said that her neighborhood does not have a park within its boundaries, and she really wanted to emphasize for future development how important it is to have parks and or schools in a neighborhood to give children a place to play. Karen Michaell, address unknown, said that she had not heard anything about the Towncrest redevelopment plan since the last Southeast District planning meeting. She said that at that Planning and Zoning Commission February 17, 2011 - Formal Page 7 of 16 meeting there had been a lot of objection to the proposed plan for having a religious institution as the visual anchor for the development. She asked if the plan had moved forward with the Church of the Nazarene as its visual anchor in spite of public input. Miklo explained that the urban renewal plan that was ultimately adopted by the City Council was silent on that type of use and that while the church was located in the area it is not a focal point of the plan. Robert Wolf, 110 Hummingbird Lane, said that he is the owner of Modern Manor, and friend of the owner of the adjacent manufactured home park. He said that between those two manufactured home parks there are close to 500 families that the City is looking to throw out. Howard said that there is no intention of throwing anyone out, and the plan shows the area as manufactured housing. Wolf said that the way Howard was talking earlier it sounded to him like the City intended to tear everything down and start over. Freerks said that the Commission had never discussed that and that was not the intent of the plan at all. Wolf said that the families in the two manufactured homes would like to know different if and when the City does that. Freerks said there are no plans to do that. Bob Elliot, 1108 Dover, asked if Town and Campus would be able to be improved or removed in this plan. Miklo said that the City has been working with the current property owner to improve the management of the complex. The plan talks about the possibility of improving the existing buildings or redeveloping a part or all of the development. Miklo noted that that would depend on the cooperation of the owner. Miklo said that the concern about the physical design of the property is that it is very inward looking with very little exposure to the street. The interior apartments do not have good access to public parking or the streets. The complex has been a policing issue, so the staff has looked into some alternatives that include opening up the site to the public streets and possibly taking some buildings down. Miklo said that what will happen depends a lot on the owner's prerogatives and how they wish to deal with the property. Elliot said that the area has been increasingly problematic, but he is also concerned for the residents of the property who may not be able to afford to live anywhere else. He asked if it was correct that the City helped people who were living at the current Hy-Vee site to relocate when that facility went in. Miklo said that was partially correct. The developer of the property provided funding for residents of that trailer park to relocate and the City administered it; Eagle Foods actually provided that funding. Elliot said that when he moved to Iowa City he actually lived in Town and Campus Apartments and it was a very nice complex, and the courtyard effect was very pleasant. He said that he is concerned about the low-income residents being able to find other suitable housing, and he really feels that it could be a nice complex again if it were improved. Plahutnik asked if it would be out of order for him to make a small comment about the concept of a district plan and Freerks said she did not think it would be. Plahutnik said that the whole concept of the district plan is based on a sort of wish-list that was developed through public input that is combined with best zoning practices with an eye toward the future. He said the concept of a district plan is that if everything worked out just the way we wanted it to, then this is what the residents of that area would like to see. Plahutnik said that bulldozing buildings and specific redevelopment items are not being considered. Rather, the plan represents a wish-list to guide the Commission in its future zoning considerations. The Commission will then be able to ask itself as matters come before it: does this fit in with what the people of Iowa City wish to see for this area and does this fit in with good zoning practices? Freerks noted that in terms of the manufactured housing park there is a plan to widen and expand streets to provide connectivitythroughout neighborhoods, which could result in some dislocation. She reiterated that this is simply a concept that shows what would need to be done if connectivity is a primary goal. Planning and Zoning Commission February 17. 2011 - Formal Page 8 of 16 Howard said that the plan should be thought of in terms of "what if?" What if someone decides they want to do something different with their land? What if a farmer decides to retire and sells the land to a developer that wants to build homes? The City is trying to put a plan in place so that as land develops the city grows efficiently and cohesively rather than haphazardly. She said that the plan is not a hard and fast road map, rather a long-term vision for the area. Andrew Lynch, 1033 Chamberlain Drive, said that he understands the wish-list concept, but there were some concrete actions that the staff had indicated were in the works, such as the train overpass. Lynch asked staff to give a quick listing of improvements that are planned for the area in the next few years. Howard said that the City Council controls how money is spent and generally capital improvement dollars are spent to improve the infrastructure of the city. Howard said that the improvements along Muscatine Avenue and the Muscatine/Scott Boulevard traffic signal are in the works. Miklo noted that not all of the funding for the overpass has been secured, but that the remaining funds are in the Capital Improvements Plan over the next couple of years. Howard said that because the overpass is such an expensive project, federal funding had to be secured. She noted that the City is in the process of improving 420th Street, though there are no immediate plans to upgrade Taft Avenue. The City owns industrial land in the district and is constructing the necessary infrastructure to make it available for businesses wishing to locate in Iowa City. The City is, of course, involved with the Towncrest revitalization. Lower Muscatine Road in front of Kirkwood Community College is also scheduled to be improved in the next year. Mel Cannon, 1108 Village Farm Court, noted that he had misspoken, clarifying that his homeowners' association actually represented Parts 1-12. He asked if the City allows lighting along trail systems in town. He noted that the plan shows a sidewalk being widened in the northwest corner of Village Green which is currently private property. Cannon said that having the sidewalk widened would be great, especially if some lighting came along with it. Howard said there are typically standards for where lighting is placed; however, Cannon might want to bring it up to Public Works or the City Council. Cannon said that it had been requested before. He said that it is a very long block, and it would be very nice to get an additional streetlight, especially if there is going to be a trail through there. Howard said that her understanding is that if the majority of people along the block-face want an additional street light then there will be a consideration for it. There were no further comments and Freerks closed the public hearing. Freerks said that there is no rush to vote on the matter this evening, but it is a possibility. She noted that there is a related rezoning matter that will be coming up for the Commission. Eastham asked if the document needed to be adopted prior to the rezoning in question and Miklo said that it did not. Howard said that she believes that what is in the District Plan would be consistent with whatever zoning is adopted. Freerks invited a motion. Plahutnik moved to defer amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Southeast District Plan until the March 3rd meeting. Koppes seconded. Freerks invited discussion. Planning and Zoning Commission February 17, 2011 - Formal Page 9 of 16 Eastham said that he had benefited greatly from all of the discussion that had taken place. Eastham said that he had raised some concerns about the need for connective streets for potential residential areas east of Modern Manor, noting that there are 500 very attractive homes in that area. He said he is still not sure how he wants to handle that problem. Eastham said that he also is not sure how to address existing residential units in the Towncrest area in the context of the plan. He said that he had appreciated all of the comments about those issues this evening. Plahutnik asked if any of the Commission members would be in favor of adjusting the language in the Village Green area as concerns the private greens. Koppes said that she would be in favor of deleting that language altogether. Freerks read the passage out loud, and Plahutnik said that in re-reading it he is not uncomfortable with it after all. Koppes maintained that deleting it would clean up the issue of perceived City involvement in those private spaces. Eastham said that he agreed with Koppes, and that plans can represent things that people come to anticipate, expect, or dread. Freerks suggested that specific language changes could be tweaked at an informal meeting. Eastham noted that another member of the public had indicated a desire to see small parks with playground equipment in the area, and wondered if that could be included in the plan somehow. Freerks said she thought that was something that is important to all neighborhoods and is a general aspect of the overall Comprehensive Plan. She said that it was certainly something that can be discussed further.. Freerks thanked the public for sharing their comments. Weitzel said he wished to emphasize that there is a lot of positive in the plan. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM: REZ10-00018/SUB10-00017: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development, Inc., for a rezoning from Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) to Mixed Use (MU) zone and Planned Development Overlay Low Density Multi-Family (OPD/RM-12) zone and preliminary plat for Windsor Ridge Part 22, a 2-lot, 5.51 acre subdivision located at Taft Avenue and Court Street. Greenwood Hektoen noted that the Commission would be momentarily skipping Item D to consider Item E. She explained that Sarah Holecek could then leave following Item E, as Greenwood Hektoen would be recusing herself from that item. Koppes recused herself from the item as well, as she can see the area from her house. Kuecker explained that this is an application to rezone and subdivide this parcel; the subdivision would be into two lots. Lot 2 is proposed for Planned Development Overlay Low Density Multi- Family (RM-12) and the proposed zoning for Lot 1 is Mixed Use (MU). Kuecker said that the Mixed Use plan is not ready to come before the Commission, though the applicant is working with staff to finalize it. The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as a commercial node. When this area was originally rezoned the City Council expressed a desire for the parcel to be a town-square type of development. The market for that kind of commercial zoning is not there at present and the applicant feels the townhouse style units on Lot 2 and the Mixed Use units on Lot 1 would be better for the market there. The current zoning is Neighborhood Commercial which allows small Planning and Zoning Commission February 17, 2011 - Formal Page 10 of 16 scale retail and commercial services that would be common to a neighborhood shopping area. The OPD-RM12 zoning allows for Low-Density Multi-Family; the applicant is proposing four townhouse style buildings of six units each. The Mixed Use zone would allow for up to 35-foot tall buildings, with the ground floor built to commercial standards but could function either as residential or commercial. Kuecker briefly outlined the design details for the Mixed Use townhouse units. The applicant has proposed quite a bit of landscaping on site with a significant landscape buffer between the units and the future improvements on Taft Avenue. She noted that the planting of that landscaping would have to be done concurrent with the Taft improvements, and would have to be worked out between Public Works and the applicant at the time of site plan review. The applicant is proposing the placement of visitor parking along the parkland; that has been approved by the Parks Department so long as the homeowners' association is responsible for the construction, maintenance, upkeep, and snow removal for those parking spaces. Kuecker noted that Cardigan and Raleigh Lane are already private streets for which the homeowners' association is responsible, so the parking could be incorporated into that maintenance plan. Parks Department has also requested that if any of the trees currently planted in the park are removed or damaged they will be replaced with similar trees. Kuecker said that staff has found that the Mixed Use zoning and the RM12 zoning is compatible with the town-square model for this area. The proposed buildings provide a good frontage onto the park. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision and the OPD RM-12 portion of the application subject to the following conditions: . Compliance with the submitted building elevations . Payment of the fair share of the improvements to Taft Avenue (12.5%) . The maintenance and construction of the parking spaces within the city park being the responsibility of the developer and Homeowner's Association . The replacement of any trees removed in the city park due to the construction of the parking spaces. Staff also recommends the deferral of the Mixed Use portion on Lot 1. Kuecker shared a number photographs of different views of the property. Freerks asked if there was sufficient parking provided for the apartments. She said she wanted to make sure that the parking in the park did not become resident parking. Kuecker said that each unit has a two-car garage in the rear with space for two more cars behind it. Weitzel asked if it was correct that the current vision was to have the units as all residential with the idea that the ground-floor units could become commercial if the demand arose. Kuecker said that the applicant has indicated that the present demand is for residential units, though there could be demand for small-scale commercial sometime down the road. Eastham asked what the state of the park-area is at this point. He said his impression of the park is that it is bare ground covered by volunteer grass and weeds. Eastham asked if the designated park area will be the space with the trees. Kuecker said that the area bounded by trees is the park area and has been approved and accepted by Parks and Recreation. Eastham asked if there was then no further need for public money to go into the park area. Kuecker said there may be some funding available for improvements because the developer will have to pay fees in lieu of parkland. There were no further questions for staff and Freerks opened the public hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission February 17, 2011 - Formal Page 11 of 16 The applicant, John Moreland, 960 Arlington, said that he has been involved with this property since 1993. Moreland said that when the property was rezoned to commercial in 1995, he had been fairly certain that Taft Avenue would be paved by the time there was demand for the property. Moreland said there has not been any demand for commercial property in the area. He noted that if the City is going to pave Taft, then, realistically, they will be paving all the way from highway 6 to Herbert Hoover Highway, which will cost millions and millions of dollars. Moreland said that the great expense of the project ensures that it will not happen for quite a long time. Moreland said that he and staff had been working on these plans for at least three months and have had a series of meetings to reach a point where they are all happy about what they have come up with. Moreland said that the commercial part of the project may take a while, but that the Mixed Use zone offers a lot of opportunities and possibilities. Moreland said that they have been working with the Parks Department to ensure that the parkland was ready for the City to take over. He said there had been a neighborhood meeting at Regina which went very well. He said that most of the neighbors expressed a preference for residential over commercial properties for that area. He noted that there was potential for this condominium association to combine with one down the road to keep maintenance costs down for both organizations. Moreland said that he has agreed to install and maintain the parallel parking at the park. He said that since Mixed Use has not been done before in Iowa City, he wants to make sure to take his time and get it right with that portion of the project. Moreland asked that the Commission consider voting on the matter at this meeting. He said that staff is happy with it, and the neighbors are happy with it so he would like to see it passed tonight. Reinhardt Seichel, 4833 Cardigan Lane, said that it is very important to have commercial spaces and preserve room for those commercial spaces. Seichel noted that there are lots of condominiums and families in the area which would provide support for commercial businesses. He said he would like to see a plan for both lots at once. He said he did not think the rezonings should be split, but should be considered simultaneously. He said that he would like to see a long-range concept for the entire property before a decision is made. Moreland said that he understood these concerns, but he has committed to making Lot 1 commercial/residential mixed use. He said the area is already designed, with the road going all the way around the park. Moreland said that he knows the market, and the lots need to be considered as two separate entities. Moreland said that it took several months to get to this month, and staff is happy with the progress that has been made. Moreland said it may take some time to get Lot 1 right, since that has never been done before. Moreland said that they have already sold several units, which is one reason they wish to move forward with the project as soon as possible. He said that the units have been purchased through a state program that assists first-time homebuyers. Moreland said he is committed to putting mixed use and commercial on Lot 1. Holecek noted that staff has suggested deferring consideration for rezoning on Lot 1. Until a rezoning is approved for Lot 1, it will remain zoned commercial. Holecek pointed out that the prior speaker's concern was about the preservation of commercial land. Eastham asked if it was correct that the property to the east of Taft Avenue is in the city's growth area and would likely be annexed once improvements to Taft were made. Kuecker confirmed that the city's growth area extends to approximately one-quarter mile east of Taft. Freerks asked about the flow of a transition from residential to commercial in the mixed use units. She asked if there was a process in place for informing neighbors when changes in ground floor use occur. Miklo said there is no process in place. He said that when residents purchase their units they should be aware that the ground floor units can be either residential or commercial. Miklo noted that the allowable commercial uses are similar to those in the Planning and Zoning Commission February 17, 2011 - Formal Page 12 of 16 Neighborhood Commercial zone, and so should be compatible with residential. He said that he believed that anyone buying into the neighborhood would be aware of that possibility. Freerks noted that often times those kinds of things are forgotten over time. There were no further comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. Freerks invited a motion. Eastham moved to recommend approval of REZ10-00018, a rezoning of approximately 2.17 acres located at the southwest corner of Taft Avenue and Scott Boulevard from Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) to Planned Development Overlay Low Density Multi- Family (OPD-RM12) and SUB10-00017, a preliminary plat of Windsor Ridge, Part 22, a 2- lot, approximately 5.51-acre subdivision located at Taft Avenue and Court Street subject to the following conditions: . Compliance with the submitted building elevations; . Payment of the fair share of the improvements to Taft Avenue (12.5%) . The maintenance and construction of parking spaces within the city park being the responsibility of the developer and homeowner's association . The replacement of any trees removed in the city park due to the construction of the parking spaces. Plahutnik seconded. Freerks invited discussion. Eastham asked staff if the commercial area on the northwest corner of Scott and Court developed after Scott Boulevard was expanded. Miklo said it did. Eastham said that he appreciates the comments about preserving commercial space in the area, but that he is also persuaded that Taft Avenue would need to be improved before the commercial area could be viable. Busard said that when Taft Avenue does get paved there is a good opportunity for future commercial, so he does not think that removing the commercial zoning from this property and making it mixed use will be doing the area a disservice. He said there will be ample opportunity for commercial development as the area grows. Miklo clarified that the Mixed Use zone is considered a commercial zone. Plahutnik said that the Commission is not voting on that commercial zone at this meeting. He noted that the parkland has been dedicated for a long time and was recently accepted by the Parks Department. He said he thinks it makes sense to make use of the park with some residential units in the area, rather than strictly commercial. Freerks said she is happy to see something get started in the area and likes the idea of potentially having mixed use in the area. She said she appreciated the suggestion that the Commission look at the property as a whole rather than in two parts, but felt as though the Commission was doing that even though the votes might take place on different nights. Freerks said she likes the idea of maintaining commercial space in that area, but is comfortable changing Lot 2 to residential. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Koppes abstaining). Eastham moved to defer REZ1 0-00018, a rezoning of approximately 3.34 acres located at the southwest corner of Taft Avenue and Scott Boulevard from neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) to Mixed Use (MU). Planning and Zoning Commission February 17, 2011 - Formal Page 13 of 16 Weitzel seconded. The motion carried 6-0 (Koppes abstaining). Moreland thanked the Commission for voting on the matter, and said that getting the Mixed Use plan right may take a little time. ANNEXATION/REZONING ITEM ANN11-00001/REZ11-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by ILJ Investments for annexation and rezoning from County Agricultural (A) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 12.65 acres of property located on the north side of Mormon Trek Blvd, northeast of its intersection with Dane Road. Freerks thanked those who were waiting for this item for allowing the Commission to consider Item E first. Ditzler noted that the Commission had seen this application before so she would be brief with her comments. Ditzler noted that some questions had been asked at the last meeting about the impact of Intensive Commercial on nearby residences. Ditzler noted that the Commission had received a memo addressing those questions. She offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. Freerks asked if the language could be changed to read that lighting will be restricted to "30-feet or less." Koppes asked if it was correct that the glow from a light cannot go past the property line. Miklo clarified that the glow can cross the property line but must be is limited to one-foot candle. Eastham asked if it was correct that there is no required S3 screening on the south side of the property and Ditzler replied that it was correct. Miklo noted that it may be required on the south side depending on the use that goes in. He said that on the north side staff is recommending adding 1 O-feet to the required buffer area for a total of 20 feet. Eastham asked Greenwood Hektoen if the residential use goes away and becomes a park, then would the lighting and screening restrictions go away as well. Greenwood Hektoen said that the current standards are for property adjacent to residential; if the residential area became parkland then the residential requirements would cease to pertain unless they had been packaged in a conditional zoning agreement. If the conditions are not contained in a conditional zoning agreement, then whatever the zoning in place is at the time of the site approval process is the zoning used for consideration. Plahutnik summed it up as "the CZA holds." Freerks opened the public hearing. Jane Driscoll, spoke on behalf of her grandfather, George Dane. Dane owns the property at 4120 Dane Road SE, just north of the subject property. Driscoll noted that her property is slated to be future parkland. She said that while they know their property is within the city's growth boundary, they do not wish to be annexed at this time. Driscoll said that her family agrees with the staff recommendations as they reflect the use of her property as a residence as well as a park. Driscoll said that her family would like to see the Commercial Office Park (CO-1) zoning designation for the subject property, rather than the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zoning being requested by the applicant. Driscoll noted that the land intensive uses allowed in the CI-1 are -~---------_..-- Planning and Zoning Commission February 17, 2011 - Formal Page 14 of 16 not compatible with residential and less intensive zones such as parks. A CO-1 would serve as a transition to the nearby industrial zone outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, and would be more compatible with the future and current uses of the adjacent property. Busard asked what the City's intention was in improving Mormon Trek. Miklo said that the intention was to improve Mormon Trek to open up this portion of the city to industrial development. This area is generally flat with good access to the transportation system which are good characteristics for industrial land. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Busard moved to approve ANN11-00001/REZ11-00004, an application submitted by ILJ Investments for annexation and rezoning from County Agricultural (A) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 12.65 acres of property located on the north side of Mormon Trek Blvd, northeast of its intersection with Dane Road subject to a 20- foot wide landscape buffer along the north property line that at a minimum meets screening standards and a 30-foot high or less limitation on outdoor lighting. Weitzel seconded. Eastham said that one of the problems he has with this rezoning is that the Comprehensive Plan shows all intensive and commercial property in the area. Eastham asked if there was enough assurance on the part of the Dane family to warrant amending the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the future use of that property as parkland. Greenwood Hektoen said that she believed there was, as the family has dedicated the land to a trust to be held as parkland. She noted that that is a different discussion. Freerks said that revisiting the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the future park use might be a good idea at some point in the future. Freerks said that she believed the restrictions the Commission was placing on the rezoning are going to help alleviate some of the potential problems. She said that while Intensive Commercial might not be ideal for property adjacent a park, it is also not incompatible with it, and there are other things to consider. Weitzel said that the Commission is doing its best to make adjacent land uses compatible with one another. Eastham asked for a review of what the conditions for this rezoning would be. Ditzler said that the conditions are for a 20-foot buffer to the S3 screening standard along the north property line and a restriction to a maximum of 30-foot height for any exterior lighting. Busard said that this rezoning is in line with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that one of the things he wants to make sure of is that the Commission does not wind up placing restrictions to hinder development. He said that the City spent a great deal of money to improve this road, and it seems like some of the actions the Commission is taking in that area could be seen as discouraging development for the sake of one residence. Freerks said she did not think the Commission was discouraging development; rather it was attempting to improve the way development interacts with other properties and future uses. Weitzel said that the existing agreement has to be balanced with future agreements. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission February 17, 2011 - Formal Page15of16 CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: Januarv 20, January 31 and February 3.2011: Weitzel noted a typographical error in the February 3rd minutes. Weitzel moved to approve the minutes as amended. Eastham seconded. The motion carried 7-0. OTHER: None. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham motioned to adjourn. Weitzel seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote. z o U) U) :Ec :Eo:: 00 (,)(,) C)w zo:: zw~ o(,)~ NZO <(N Cc Zz <(W C).... Z.... -<( Z Z <( ..J 0. ..... W .... >< >< >< >< -- >< >< - 0 N M >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - N en :EW T""" T""" ("f) C\l LO LO ("f) 0:::0::: T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WD.. LO LO LO LO LO LO LO ~>< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W J: > ~ <( ::i W W ..J :::> 0::: In ..J ..J J: <( Z ;5 ..J ~ W en J: Z J: :E 0 U <( ::i u ~ i= .., W c :E en en :E z ..,j <( ~ ~ W 0::: J: 0::: W W :::> ~ W <( ~ W D.. Z J: :E en en W D.. ~ <( <( :::> <( 0::: 0 ..J W Z In W LL ~ D.. D.. 3: C) z i= W W :E ..J <( :E 0::: o LL .... >< >< >< >< M >< >< >< - .... 0 >< >< >< >< >< >< >< N - ~ en :EW T""" T""" ("f) C\l LO LO ("f) 0:::0::: T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WD.. LO LO LO LO LO LO LO ~>< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W J: > - ~ W ..J <( ..J W :::> 0::: In ..J ..J J: <( Z ;5 ..J ~ W en J: Z J: :E 0 U <( ::i ~ ~ i= .., W C ~ en en :E z ..,j ~ ~ W 0::: J: 0::: W W :::> ~ W <( ~ W D.. Z J: :E en en W D.. ~ <( jjj <( :::> <( 0::: 0 ..J Z In W LL ~ D.. D.. 3: C) z i= W W :E ..J <( :E 0::: o LL Z E ::J ... o ::J -00 Q) 0 ~Z ... () -- Q) >< g>.o W:;::;E ~Q)Q) CQ)OO:::: c....Q)E..:::: Q) C Ul ('IJ Ul~9o.... Q).o.......Z 0 O::<C""Z " "!:!:!~" XOOZ ;>: W ~