HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-07-23 Ordinance��o
V 61
�0
Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5236 (REZ13- 00012)
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE TO REZONE 0.85 ACRES FROM LOW- DENSITY SINGLE - FAMILY (RS -5) ZONE
AND 2.87 ACRES FROM TO LOW- DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY (RM -12) ZONE TO
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC -2) ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF
MUSCATINE AVENUE, WEST OF SCOTT BOULEVARD. (REZ13- 00012)
WHEREAS, the applicant, John Hieronymus, has requested a rezoning of property located north of
Muscatine Avenue and west of Scott Boulevard; .85 acres from Low - Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to
Community Commercial (CC -2) and 2.87 acres from Low - Density Multi - Family RM -12 to Community
Commercial (CC -2); and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan- Southeast District Plan has been amended to indicate that the
subject property is appropriate for Commercial use; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed rezoning and recommended
that the application be denied; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the applicant's request and the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation and has determined that the requested zoning is appropriate and complies
with the amended Comprehensive Plan. .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning
designation of RS -5 and RM -12 to CC -2:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The following described parcel from RM -12 to CC -2:
Commencing at the East Quarter Corner of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth
Principal Meridian; Thence S87 035'12 "W, along the South line of the Northeast One - Quarter of said Section
13, a distance of 50.00 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing S87 °35'12 "W, along said
South line, 279.99 feet; Thence N01 °30'01 "W, 491.13 feet; Thence N88 029'59 "E, 84.56 feet; Thence
Southeasterly, 193.71 feet, along and arc of a 300.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose
190.37 foot chord bears S64 003'30 "E; Thence S82 033'24 "E, 26.78 feet, to a point on the West Line of Parcel
"3" of "Ralston Creek South Property Acquisition" Plat of Survey, as recorded in Plat Book 19, at Page 84, of
the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence 501 °30'01 "E, along said West Line, 394.78
feet, to said POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 2.87 acres, and subject to easements and restrictions of
record.
The following described parcel from RS -5 to CC -2:
Commencing at the East Quarter Corner of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth
Principal Meridian; Thence S87 °35'12 "W, along the South line of the Northeast One - Quarter of said Section
13, a distance of 329.99 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing S87 035'12 "W, along said
South line, 60.01 feet; Thence N01 030'01 "W, 527.19 feet; Thence N44 052'58 "E, 80.43 feet; Thence
S45 °07'02 "E, 122.82 feet; Thence Southeasterly, 2.32 feet, along an arc of a 300.00 foot radius curve,
concave Northeasterly, whose 2.32 foot chord bears S45 020'19 "E; Thence S88 029'59 "W, 84.56 feet; Thence
S01 °30'01 "E, 491.13 feet, to said POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 0.85 acre, and subject to easements
and restrictions of record.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval
and publication of this ordinance by law.
SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same, at the
office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as provided by law.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
7ved by
City Attorney's Office
Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319,356 -5336 (REZ13- 00012)
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE TO REZONE 0.85 ACRES FROM LOW - DENSITY SINGLE - FAMILY (RS -5) ZONE
AND 2.87 ACRES FROM TO LOW - DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY (RM -12) ZONE TO
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC -2) ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF
MUSCATINE AVENUE, WEST OF SCOTT BOULEVARD. (REZ13�0012)
WHEREAS, the applicant, John Hieron mus, has requested a rE
Muscatine Avenue and west of Scott Boulev rd; .85 acres from Low -
Community Commercial (CC -2) and 2.87 cres from Low - Density
Commercial (CC -2); and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan -So theast District Plan ha;
subject property is appropriate for Commercial e; and /
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Com is
that the application be denied; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewe
Commission's recommendation and has determin
with the amended Comprehensive Plan. .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE C
SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described
designation of RS -5 and RM -12 to CC -2:
reviewed
ng of property located north of
sity Single - Family (RS -5) zone to
ulti - Family RM -12 to Community
been amended to indicate that the
rezoning and recommended
the applicant's request and the Planning and Zoning
d that the rJC el zoning is appropriate and complies
I COUNOF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
low is by reclassified from its current zoning
The following described parcel from RM -12 to CC -2:
Commencing at the East Quarter Corner of Section 1 , ownship 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth
Principal Meridian; Thence S87 035'12 "W, along the So th I e of the Northeast One - Quarter of said Section
13, a distance of 50.00 feet, to the POINT OF BE NIN ;Thence continuing S87 035'12 "W, along said
South line, 279.99 feet; Thence N01 030'01 "W, 4 1.13 fe t; Thence N88 °29'59 "E, 84.56 feet; Thence
Southeasterly, 193.71 feet, along and arc of a 0.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose
190.37 foot chord bears S64 °03'30 "E; Thence S8 °33'24 "E, 26 78 feet, to a point on the West Line of Parcel
"3" of "Ralston Creek South Property Acquisitio ' Plat of Surve as recorded in Plat Book 19, at Page 84, of
the Records of the Johnson County Recorder' Office; Thence 01'30'01"E, along said West Line, 394.78
feet, to said POINT OF BEGINNING, contai ing 2.87 acres, an subject to easements and restrictions of
record.
The following described parcel from R -5 to CC -2:
Commencing at the East Quarter Cor r of Section 13, Townshi 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth
Principal Meridian; Thence S87 035'12" along the South line of th Northeast One - Quarter of said Section
13, a distance of 329.99 feet, to thO OINT OF BEGINNING; Then a continuing S87 035'12 "W, along said
South line, 60.01 feet; Thence N 1 °30'01 "W, 527.19 feet; Then a N44 052'58 "E, 80.43 feet; Thence
S45 °07'02 "E, 122.82 feet; Thenc Southeasterly, 2.32 feet, along n arc of a 300.00 foot radius curve,
concave Northeasterly, whose 2. foot chord bears S45 020'19 "E; Thence S88 029'59 "W, 84.56 feet; Thence
S01 030'01 "E, 491.13 feet, to sa. POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 0.85 acre, and subject to easements
and restrictions of record.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval
and publication of this ordinance by law.
SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same, at the
office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as provided by law.
'16
' Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Marian Karr
From: Michael J. Pugh <mpugh @bradleyriley.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:45 PM
To: Bob Miklo; Marian Karr
Cc: Delisa A. Baker
Subject: Hieronymous /Kum n Go
Bob and Marian-
I recently learned that John Hieronymous will be out of the country from June 24th through August 10tH
I respectfully request that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA -13 -0002) and requested rezoning
(REZ13- 00012) be deferred to the Council's August 20th meeting.
Thank you both.
Michael J. Pugh
Attorney
BRADLEY & RILEY PC
ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS
One South Gilbert Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -3914
Phone: (319) 358 -5562
Fax: (319) 358 -5560
Ward I Email I www.bradleyriley.com
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Notice:
Since email messages sent between you and Bradley & Riley PC and its employees are transmitted over the Internet, Bradley & Riley PC cannot assure that such
messages are secure. You should be careful in transmitting information to Bradley & Riley PC that you consider confidential. If you are uncomfortable with such
risks, you may decide not to use e-mail to communicate with Bradley & Riley PC. This message is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18
U.S. C. Sections 2510 -2515, is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and subject to the
attorney - client privilege. It should also not be forwarded to anyone else. If you received this message and are not the addressee, you have received this message
in error. Please notify the person sending the message and destroy your copy. Thank you.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with the requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that (1) any tax advice contained in this
communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein or any attachments hereto.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 6, 2013
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern
RE: Change to REZ13 -00012 Muscatine and Scott Boulevard application
The applicant, John Hieronymus, has requested a change to REZ13- 00012, a
proposal to rezone approximately 3.72 acres of property located at the northwest
corner of the Scott Boulevard- Muscatine Avenue intersection from Low - Density
Multi - Family residential (RM -12) and Low - Density Single - Family residential (RS -5) to
Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1), and rezone approximately 2.23 acres located
immediately to the north on Terrence Lane from RS -5 to RM -12. The applicant now
proposes rezoning the 3.72 -acre property from RM -12 and RS -5 to Community
Commercial (CC -2) zoning. The intended use for the property would still be a gas
station /convenience store. A gas station /convenience store requires a Special
Exception in the CN -1 zone but is an allowed use in the CC -2 zone.
The application also includes a request for an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan future land -use map for the property at the northwest corner of the Muscatine
Avenue -Scott Boulevard intersection from Multi- family to Commercial.
The intent of the CN -1 and CC -2 zone differs in the scale and intensity of activity.
CC -2 zoning provides for major business districts that serve a significant segment of
the entire population, whereas the CN -1 zone is intended to serve the immediate
neighborhood. CC -2 zoning typically features a number of large traffic - generating
uses that require access from major thoroughfares, while development in CN -1
zoning should be more pedestrian- oriented. CC -2 zoning permits most retail -type
stores, restaurants and services such as hair salons, dry cleaners and banks. CN -1
zoning allows smaller -scale retail sales and personal service uses, with the size of
allowed uses restricted to reduce the impact on nearby residential areas.
The proposed change to the application from CN -1 to CC -2 does not address the
issues raised in the May 16 Staff Report (copy attached):
The gas station /convenience store, as proposed, is of an intensity, scale and
design more appropriate for a highway location.
Predominantly residential zoning and development surrounds the subject
property. Although the applicant's family currently owns the residential
property to the west, Comprehensive Plan and zoning decisions should
May 30, 2013
Page 2
consider the long term quality of life for the residential neighborhood, not the
current ownership.
The effects of lighting and signs are of significant concern given the high
visibility of the property at the topographic peak of Scott Boulevard and
Muscatine Avenue, which will make it difficult to screen lighting and signs
associated with a convenience store.
The traffic into and out the subject property will increase considerably when
compared to the residential development previously approved on this
property.
In summary, the proposed CC -2 zone allows more intense commercial uses and has
fewer standards and requirements regarding site design and signs than the
previously proposed CN -1 zoning. In staffs opinion the applicant has not presented
a compelling reason to change the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use
designation of this property from Multi- family Residential to Commercial. The
proposed commercial development is likely to have negative effects on the existing
and future residential uses in this area.
Staff recommends that the request to amend the Southeast District Plan future land -
use map from Multi- family to Neighborhood Commercial and rezoning from RM -12
and RS -5 to CC -2 for approximately 3.72 acres of property located at the northwest
corner of the intersection of Scott Boulevard and Muscatine Avenue be denied.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Revised concept plan
3. Previous staff report
4. Correspond nce
Approved by.
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
� �s
�Q
LLOOS
M-"""i
C.
W
Tw
0
ODO#JWM
1WI
lz� IFI �J LU
s _ ICI :- � cn
O
A
74
OC
V
ca
C
FN
LU
ce
ROes
Ja
ODO#JWM
1WI
lz� IFI �J LU
s _ ICI :- � cn
mum a �o
cancepf WON
°� nr
X0
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ13 -00012 and CPA13 -00002
GENERAL INFORMATION:
E
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Sarah Walz and Andrew Bassman,
Planning Intern
Date: May 16 2013
Applicant: John Hieronymus
3322 Muscatine Avenue
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
j.hieronymus@mchsi.com
Requested Action: Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the
future land -use designation from Multi - family to
Commercial for approx. 3.72 acres at the northwest
corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard,
and rezone the site from RMA 2 and RS -5 to CN -1;
and rezone approx. 2.23 acres adjacent to the north
from RS -5 to RM -12
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Development of a gas station /convenience store and
three 4 -plex buildings multi - family buildings
Northwest corner of the intersection of Muscatine
Avenue and Scott Boulevard
5.95 acres
Undeveloped (RS -5, RM -12)
North: public (P -1)
South: residential (RS -5)
East: residential (RS -5 pending rezoning to RM -12)
West: residential (RS -5)
Southeast District Plan: Multi- family and low -to-
medium density single - family or duplex
April 11, 2013
May 26, 2013
The applicant, John Hieronymus, has requested a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change
the Southeast District Plan future land -use map from Multi- family to Commercial for the northwest
corner of Scott Boulevard and Muscatine Avenue. The applicant has also requested a rezoning
from Low - Density Multi - Family residential (RM -12) and Low - Density Single - Family residential (RS-
5) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) for approximately 3.72 acres of property located at the
northwest corner of the intersection of Scott Boulevard and Muscatine Avenue and a rezoning
2 0
from RS -5 to RM -12 of approximately 2.23 acres of property located immediately to the north on
Terrence Lane. The applicant has indicated that the purpose of the amendments is to allow the
construction of a gas /station convenience store at the Muscatine Avenue -Scott Boulevard
intersection and three 4 -plex buildings on the property immediately to the north. In addition to a
Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning, the gas station will require approval of a Special
Exception by the Board of Adjustment.
The property located at the Muscatine Avenue -Scott Boulevard intersection was rezoned from
RS -5 to RM -12 in January 2011. The rezoning was subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement,
which specified that the applicant would install a sidewalk on the north side of Muscatine Avenue
from Juniper Drive to Scott Boulevard, and that the applicant would build multi - family units (up to
23 townhouse style units) on the property as proposed on the submitted site plan —any substantial
changes would require approval by the Staff Design Review Committee.
A final plat for Terra Verde subdivision was approved for the subject property and property to the
west in April 2011. The approved plat includes 3 multi - family lots (in the same vicinity of the
proposed commercial zone) and 19 single - family lots as shown on the attached plat. If the current
rezoning request is approved, then the property is likely to be replatted to show the change. The
applicant has submitted the attached concept plan showing how that might occur.
The applicant has indicated that they intend to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have
conducted a neighborhood meeting.
ANALYSIS:
Current and Proposed Zoning: RS -5 zoning primarily provides housing opportunities for
individual households. RS -5 zoning can feature some non - residential uses that contribute to the
livability of residential neighborhoods, such as parks, schools, religious institutions and daycare
facilities. RM -12 zoning provides for high- density, single - family housing and low- density multi-
family housing, with the goal of creating diverse housing options. In the RM -12 zoning, the variety
of housing types requires careful attention to site and building design to ensure compatibility with
surrounding housing. No commercial uses are allowed in the RS -5 or RM -12 zone.
The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) zone is "to promote a unified grouping of
small -scale retail sales and personal service uses in a neighborhood shopping area; encourage
neighborhood shopping areas that are conveniently located and that primarily serve nearby
residential neighborhoods; promote pedestrian- oriented development at an intensity level that is
compatible with the surrounding residential areas; and promote principles of site design, building
articulation, scale and proportion that are typical of traditional main street design. Allowed uses
are restricted in size to promote smaller, neighborhood serving businesses and to limit adverse
impacts on nearby residential areas."
The applicant is proposing a Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) rezoning in order to allow a gas
station /convenience store. The Zoning Code categorizes these uses Quick Vehicle Servicing,
which is permitted by special exception only. Sales- Oriented is considered a provisional use in the
CN -1 zone and is limited to 2,400 square feet of gross floor area. The CN -1 zone restricts the
size of allowed uses to limit adverse impacts on nearby residential uses.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Southeast District Plan's future land -use map
(2011) designates the property at the northwest corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott
Boulevard as appropriate for multi - family residential uses, similar to the three other corner
properties at the Muscatine Avenue -Scott Boulevard intersection (the southwest corner is
depicted as single - family residential). Commercial areas within the district are shown in
Sycamore Mall and First Avenue, along Scott Boulevard and north of Highway Six and
PCD \Staff ReportsVez13 -00012 and cpa13 -00002 staff report.doc
O 3 A
V/
Towncrest. A small Neighborhood Commercial area is designated for the far -east boundary of
the district at the intersection of Court Street and Taft Avenue.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for focusing commercial development in defined commercial
centers, including small -scale neighborhood commercial centers. In addition to commercial
centers shown in the Southeast District Plan, established commercial centers serving east Iowa
City are located at the intersection of Court Street and Scott Boulevard (approximately % mile
north of the subject property) and Rochester Avenue and Scott Boulevard.
The applicant has indicated that a CNA zone at this location would be appropriate given that it
is the intersection of two arterial streets and based on the Neighborhood Design Concepts
included in the Comprehensive Plan. The Neighborhood Design Concepts describe
Neighborhood Commercial areas as "providing a focal point and gathering place for the
neighborhood. The businesses within a neighborhood commercial center should provide
shopping opportunities within convenient walking distance for residents in the immediate area.
The design of the neighborhood commercial center should have a pedestrian orientation with
the stores placed close to the street, but with sufficient open space to allow for outdoor cafes
and patios or landscaping. Parking should be located to the rear and sides of the stores with
additional parking on the street." In staff's opinion a stand -a -lone convenience store with
several gas pumps is not what the Comprehensive Plan envisions for Neighborhood
Commercial areas.
Staff believes the neighborhoods in east Iowa City are already well - served by existing
commercially zoned property and there has been no substantive change in conditions to
warrant a change in the Southeast District Plan Map for a commercial zone in this area. The
submitted site plan for the proposed CNA zone shows commercial development that is out of
scale and character with the definition for Neighborhood Commercial zone and does not meet
the intent of a Neighborhood Commercial Area, envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed plan is the sort of large -scale gas station /convenience store that is characteristic
along highways and within much larger commercial areas. The commercial building shown on
the site plan is nearly double the size allowed as a provisional use in the code and includes
none of the pedestrian- oriented or open gathering space amenities envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan. It would essentially be an intensive auto - oriented use located in
residential neighborhood.
The Neighborhood Design Concepts of the Comprehensive Plan (Pages 21 -25) indicate that
intersections of collector and arterial streets are appropriate for multi - family zoning and that
these buildings should be of a similar height and appearance to the surrounding single - family
homes. In general, multi - family zoning is encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan where it has
access to arterial streets and city services such as transit and parks.
The Southeast District Plan future land -use map shows the 2.23 -acre property to the north as
suitable for low- to medium - density single - family or duplex development. The Southeast District
Plan and Comprehensive Plan include the goal of creating a variety of housing options. For
these reasons, staff believes the proposal to rezone this property to RM -12 for development of
townhouses would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan.
Compatibility with neighborhood: Low - density single - family residential zoning exists to the
south, east and north of the site of the proposed gas station (City Council is now considering a
rezoning request for the property at the northeast corner of Scott Boulevard and American
Legion Road to RM -12). At the time of the 2011 rezoning, staff found the plans for multi - family
housing at the site of the proposed gas station to be compatible with the nearby area. For the
current application, staff believes the request to rezone the 2.23 -acre property to the north to
RM -12 may also be appropriate depending on the outcome of the proposed commercial zoning
P=Staff Reportslrez13 -00012 and cpa13 -00002 staff report.doc
a 4
and the redesign of the previously approved Terra Verde Subdivision. The applicant has
submitted a concept plan for the townhouse -style multi - family development, which staff believes
to be compatible with the future single - family uses planned to the west. However the proposed
multi - family development will need to be considered in the context of what will be developed on
the south side of the proposed Silver Lane. If the commercial zoning is approved there will
need to be some sort of screening provided to buffer the residential from the commercial
directly the south. If the area to the south is developed with multi - family buildings, according to
the current zoning, then site layout of the two multi - family areas will need to be coordinated.
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning to CN -1 is incompatible with the residential
neighborhood for the following reasons:
The establishment of a use as intensive as the proposed gas station /convenience
store in such close proximity to residential uses would generate additional noise, traffic
and light that would, in Staff's view, adversely impact nearby residential property. This
is of significant concern given the high visibility of the property at the topographic peak
of Scott Boulevard and Muscatine Boulevard. The grade of the property will make it
difficult to screen lighting and signs typically associated with convenience stores.
• As stated above, the Neighborhood Design Concepts in the Comprehensive Plan
describe Neighborhood Commercial areas as "providing a focal point and gathering
place for the neighborhood." The applicant has proposed a gas station /convenience
store of an intensity, scale, and design that is more typical in the Highway Commercial
zone. In staff's opinion it would not be in keeping with the described character or scale of
the CN -1 zone or the Neighborhood Design Concepts in the Comprehensive Plan.
Traffic implications: The proposed commercial zone is at the intersection of two arterial
streets that carry approximately 6,000 to 8,100 vehicles per day. The proposed convenience
store is not likely to create a significant contribution to traffic on Muscatine Avenue and Scott
Boulevard, but the number of turning movements into and out the subject property will increase
considerably when compared to the previously approved residential development on this
property. As proposed the convenience store driveway to Muscatine Avenue is too close to the
intersection with Scott Boulevard. If this proposal is approved the driveway would need to be
moved to the west where turning traffic would affect more residential properties.
The Southeast District Plan shows the route for Terrence Lane within the Terra Verde
subdivision as a loop street from Muscatine Avenue along the west side of the site of the
proposed gas station, serving future residential development to the north of the site of the
proposed gas station, and reconnecting to Muscatine Avenue to the west. Instead of accessing
the subdivision from Muscatine Avenue via Terrence Lane, as was originally approved with the
Terra Verde subdivision, the applicant has proposed moving the access point to Scott
Boulevard via a proposed street, Silver Lane. Staff found, after consultation with Transportation
Planners, that street access from Scott Boulevard would meet sight distance requirements and
thus be acceptable.
The proposed Silver Lane would end in a cul -de -sac, which is discouraged by subdivision
regulations unless unusual features preventing extension of the street to the property line or
connection to other streets within the subdivision can be clearly demonstrated. The plan
submitted by the applicant indicates that single - family residential lots would be arrayed around
the cul -de -sac. This layout would impede the future connection of Silver Lane to Muscatine
Avenue to the south. If the concept for the subdivision with access to Scott Boulevard proceeds,
staff recommends changing the layout in this portion of the subdivision and building Silver Lane
in a way that would allow the right -of -way to extend south from the cul -de -sac bulb to Muscatine
PCMStaff Reportslrez13 -00012 and cpa13 -00002 staff report.doc
G 5
Avenue as is provided on the existing approved Terra Verde plat
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the request to amend the Southeast District Plan future land -use map from
Multi- family to Neighborhood Commercial and rezoning from RM -12 and RS -5 to CN -1 for
approximately 3.72 acres of property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Scott
Boulevard and Muscatine Avenue be denied.
Staff recommends deferral of the proposal to rezoning of approximately 2.23 acres of property
from RS -5 to RM -12, until a concept plan is submitted showing how it would coordinate with the
existing multi - family site plan for Terra Verde subdivision.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Previously approved final plat for Terra Verde
3. Concept plan showing how property might be replatted to allow convenience store
4. Photographs and drawings of proposed development
5. Applicant's Narrative for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
6. Correspondence
Approved by: /
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
PCD \Staff Reports\rez13 -00012 and cpa13 -00002 staff report.doc
MO
Rt
V
O
0
V
O �
A0088
G9-
G 4
N
a
_O
L
Z
O
H
O
J
W
H
H
�
O
p
o_
U
74
aw
Q
V
di
_
N
601s38083AIlc
o
M
W
LLI
J
1.
ce
t`
J
I
F-
w i
I�
N
a
_O
L
Z
O
H
O
J
W
H
H
W N E.N., w.I. :-m m Ua. --- - .. - -.. ..
ELI Z
v ~i '� gan Hai N
r U� n Om
Q Q n1 yFg 5
NW �a E .. U
9 Z � Q Z Q U j �' at g a O
LL 20 co
j
16 W„Qy_� ^ 1 ! s S 2# €•lit i
q e $ b : i :: zs 3 , R : s p to# $5s 3t lit
apic 142 11
a IN -111, ps, #
I If s `
O J I I I I na
^ u
Asa
I �
LU
- - --
— — — — usr uw a,xc wmwrourrm a. ssnoxu ••�- f1�Jd0,fS � � �'$
xn.7r
}9 a t#
aa� r• k � ��� 101 8 ;�� ► 1 = I� i �� �kd ��
I
co
y � ;�� -�• `�. M.�r ._...— ..,ate..— _.. —... ]�•• _- � � C —� ��� I
# ! r ► 'Y 7ERREN6E LAtJE
�k `` e ' ��4.y_ , � a' . i � 1 ¢ s,am xo,ao'm•,r eau• c� � � 1:'k
N } g R 4
It A C4
G I'111 a.T�m I E 11 �� I t s e Q�p rF�
fit
Ogg„ CID:
14
- - -- — O e —� — _ 506.5(r
awr v..m„m, loos Mr'
I[ fR 57..77 c .a11f w j k
ON
� � 4i FY a6S ' vix. � � nr,u •mv�si Arm w..a w w .menai w.r a aw. a I j � k
w.s wwrrweyowrr A,roo
IOW rrtu]�x mxnw mwa��]vuwww aMM�»rx � 6a
xw arx x moo ary w ww aavasaH x .�M03 1T � .�Q?I�� d
no
k
EEG
CD
FIV F
LLJ
(L
0
—j
U)
U)
M. KIER
N
I--
$2
LU
>
w
co
X LLI
w
z CL <
< 10 3t
d
0
0
cn
LL, Co >:
>
0�
Z—
LLI co
(1) C)
ZW<
z
w
T-> o
W-j
X (/)
IL
2
0
0
m
a
FIV F
LLJ
(L
0
—j
U)
U)
M. KIER
N
I--
$2
LU
>
w
co
t
P.
d
0
cn
Z—
LLI co
J
z
z
U)
0
m
a
m
ili
LLJ X �z
w w
w
0
(n
z
0
Q
x
200
Co
O:CL
0
LO
well
Go
F
pppp{ss
--LIN
a , .5111 All
r.
g1l. �[
c o
Narrative for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
In connection with their rezoning request, the applicants also request that the Comprehensive
Plan be amended to reflect a Neighborhood Commercial zoning designation for the 2.79 acre
convenience store site. The subject property is located in the center of the Southeast District at
the intersection of two arterial streets, Muscatine /American Legion Road and Scott Boulevard.
Appropriate land uses at the intersection of arterial streets includes a good mix of higher density
residential and neighborhood commercial. The establishment of smaller neighborhood
commercial uses (convenience store) at the intersection of arterial streets is encouraged as part of
the Comprehensive Plan's Neighborhood Design Concepts. A small neighborhood commercial
site will provide shopping opportunities within convenient walking distance for the residents in
the immediate area. Lighting and signage associated with the convenience store will be located,
screened or buffered so it will not detract from nearby residential uses.
The proposed rezoning of 2.79 acres to Neighborhood Commercial is a relatively small
modification to the Comprehensive Plan, but is consistent with the land uses found at other
arterial street intersections within the Southeast District, the Court Street/Scott Boulevard
intersection and the Court Street/Taft Avenue intersection. This intersection includes a nice mix
of low density single family (SW Corner) and planned medium density residential (SE Corner).
The property immediately east of the subject property (NE Corner) is currently being rezoned to
medium density residential (RM -12). The Eastside Growth Area to the south and to the east of
the subject property will bring more residential development to the area. The resulting mixed
use development on the NW Corner of the intersection will include low to medium density,
single family residential development, low density multi - family units and a small neighborhood
commercial area (convenience store) consistent with the Southeast District Plan.
(01391488.DOCX)
n -�
(01391488.DOCX)
E10
1164 Hampton Court
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
May 8, 2013
Planning and Zoning Commission
410 East Washington
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
W
RE: Muscatine Ave., west of Scott Blvd (CPA13- 00012 /REZ13- 00012)
Dear Commission members:
I am writing to express my opposition to the construction of a convenience
store across the street from my backyard. When my husband and I built our
home at 1164 Hampton Court we believed that we were building in a residential
neighborhood. We believed it was a safe neighborhood where our daughters
could walk to school. we believed it was a neighborhood where it would be
quiet at night. We believed that our community of neighbors also valued the
safety and quiet of this peaceful residential neighborhood. For more than
twenty years our neighborhood has been all that we believed it would be when
we built our home here. The construction of a convenience store /gas station
across the street from our backyard will change everything. Increased traffic
and additional light will replace our quiet, peaceful nights. Late -night
business and customers passing through or hanging out will certainly replace
our sense of safety.
I do not wish to see this residential neighborhood rezoned for commercial
use.
Sincerely,
Eileen M. Kjonaas
1164 Hampton Ct.
Iowa City IA 52240
8 May 2013
Planning and Zoning Commission
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City IA 52240
RE: Muscatine Avenue, west of Scott Boulevard (CPA13- 00012/REZ13- 00012)
Dear Commission members:
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to this rezoning request.
My wife, Eileen, and I have lived in Iowa City for forty years. I practiced optometry in the Towncrest
medical center for nearly 35 years until my retirement at the end of 2007. We carefully chose the site for
our current home across from the proposed rezoning. Our goal was to live within the community where I
worked so that I could walk to work, our children could walk to and attend Robert Lucas Elementary
school and Southeast Junior High. In short, when many of my colleagues chose to live out of the city
limits, commute to work and drive their children to school, we chose to be a part of the community where I
worked. The location we chose on Hampton Court was completely surrounded by residential zoning.
The parcel to the north of our home was rezoned in 2011 to RM -12. Although not ideal, this seemed to be
a reasonable compromise enabling the property owner to better utilize this property. Now, a new request
seems to be using the 2011 rezoning as a stepping stone to acquire commercial zoning with plans of
building a convenience store in that location. I feel that such a change will decrease our property value.
Just as importantly, it will add undesirable increases in lighting, noise, and congestion to this area which
will affect our quiet enjoyment of our home and property.
This area of Iowa City has significantly changed over the past forty years. The Towncrest area is now in
the process of revitalization with two recently renovated convenience stores. There is a commercial zone
nearby at Court Street and Scott Boulevard with a convenience store and another retail area with a
convenience store near the intersection of Highway 6 and Scott Boulevard. A commercial zone in this
proposed area could compete with the redevelopment of the Towncrest area, whereas low density multi-
family, especially if designed for age 55 plus residents, could dovetail nicely with the surrounding medical,
shopping, and senior living facilities available in the area.
It is my hope that you will decide against approval of this rezoning request and urge the developer to
move forward with plans to develop this property with the zoning changes approved in 2011. Thank you.
Sincerely,
M le K. Kjona , O.D.
DAVID C. & JOYCE A.STOCHL
1158 HAMPTON CT.
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
319 - 330 -4453
david.stochl @gmaii.com
May 9, 2013
Planning and Zoning Commission
410 East Washington Street
Iowa city, IA 52240
RE: Muscatine Ave., West of Scott Boulevard rezoning request (CPA 13 -00012/REZ13- 00012)
Dear Commission Members:
The purpose of this letter is to voice our opposition to the rezoning request CPA 13- 00012/REZ13 -00012.
My wife and I live directly across Muscatine Ave. from the proposed rezoning site. We purchased our lot
and built our house in 1991 in an area that was zoned residential. Our house faces south and the
majority of our living space, including, the bedrooms, family room, kitchen, dining room, 3 seasons
porch and outside patio face north. We believe that rezoning the land on the north side of Muscatine
Ave. to a commercial status and building a convenience store /gas station whose size will encompass
3.72 acres will create a negative impact for us and for our neighborhood. This negative impact includes
an increase in traffic congestion, additional traffic noise, and extensive light pollution due to the fact
that the convenience store elevation will be higher than our house. A high traffic volume business with
extended hours is sure to affect the safety, quietness and family orientation of our current
neighborhood. We feel that all of these negatives will also create a decrease in our property value and
make our house less marketable in the future.
Currently our area is well served by two major grocery stores and four convenience store /gas stations.
All are located within approximately one mile to the north, south or west of the proposed rezoning site,
thus eliminating the need for an additional business of this type.
It is our hope that the Planning and Zoning Commission will deny approval of this rezoning request and
that the developer will proceed with the existing plan approved in February, 2011. Thank you.
S�in�cjerely�,,,
David C. Stochl
h
Joyce A.Stoc I
Bob Miklo
From:
Bob Roelf <broelf @yahoo.com>
Sent:
Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:20 AM
To:
Bob Miklo
Cc:
SANDMANPAR @aol.com
Subject:
Rezoning of Scott Blvd and American Legion Road to Commercial
Dear Mr. Mikio,
I object to the rezoning of Scott Blvd. and American Legion Road to commercial. This is already a busy
intersection with constant heavy truck traffic. Commercial development will only exacerbate this problem.
Also, this corner contains the large Legacy retirement complex. Commercial activity such as a convenience
store may not be compatible with such an activity.
Thanks for your consideration of my concerns on this matter.
:e-
403 Elmira St.
Iowa City, IA 52245
We are emailing in regard to John Hieronymus' request for rezoning of his
property at the corner of Muscatine Ave. and Scott Blvd.
We would like to express our disapproval of the application as we are home
owners on Hampton Ct. We feel the convenience store at this location would
adversely effect our neighborhood. We are concerned about the lights reflecting
into our development, the noise of semi traffic, the added foot traffic and the
increase in traffic in general. We try to enter onto Scott Blvd at Hampton St, and
often find it difficult now, due to the amount of traffic. This would only make it
worse. The Legacy Gardens facility and the University of Iowa clinic has already
increased traffic in this area, and has created more traffic congestion on Scott
Blvd.
Please forward this to the appropriate party to have our opinion heard.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Chuck and Maggie Brummond
1129 Hampton Ct
Iowa City, Iowa
From: airyoder @aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:17 PM
To: PlanningZoning Public
Subject: Proposed rezoning Scott Boulevard /Muscatine Avenue
Planning and Zoning Commission,
We are writing in regards to the proposed rezoning of the property located at the northwest corner of
the intersection of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard to commercial.
We live on Hampton Court and our backyard backs up to Muscatine Avenue. Our house is five
houses from the corner listed above.
The eastside of Iowa City is where we have lived since 1971 and specifically in our current residence
for 23 years. When we moved to this residence it was only residential or farmland and this was the
reason we loved the area. You felt like you were in the country, but yet were still close to the city.
Through the years, on the southeast corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard, a large
residence complex and other businesses have been built. There was already an increased amount of
traffic on Scott Boulevard from traffic from Interstate 80 and Highway 6, but with all the additions the
traffic and noise has greatly increased. We can't even imagine the extra increase of traffic and noise
this convenience /gas store will bring.
For the type of rezoning that is being proposed for the large convenience /gas store, we are a little
confused as to the need of it, since there' are two other convenience /gas stores located to the north
and south of the proposed location. The addition of this would only bring a higher volume of traffic
and noise to a wonderful part of Iowa City. All this rezoning will only deter from the beauty and
peacefulness of the area.
Please take our thoughts into consideration for the proposed rezoning.
Thank you again,
Dale & Margie Yoder
1161 Hampton Court
Iowa City, IA
06/06/13
Planning and Zoning
410 E Washington St
Iowa City
(319) 356 -5120
The following letter opposes a proposed zoning change.
Planning and Zoning Commission - Iowa -City,
I own a home and live on the East side of town. I am writing to express my concern over the proposed
zoning adjacent to my neighborhood. It is my understanding that this new zoning ordinance will allow
a truck -style convenience store to be built a short distance from my home. The proposed location is on
the corner of Scott Blvd and Muscatine Avenue in Iowa City.
Having recently sold my home at 661 South Governor Street to the City of Iowa City into a Univer-
City program, I am very aware of how the neighborhood's fabric is very important to the harmony of a
neighborhood. The Governor Street home consisted of mixed rental and single family homes. I lived
and raised my young children at that location for 20+ years. The Longfellow School community was
mostly a quiet neighborhood and had great neighbors.
Just this morning I awoke to the sounds of birds outside my window. My home address is 1147
Hampton Court and is a very short distance from the proposed convenience store. Being a cool
morning I rolled over and pulled the covers up as the morning's sun streamed through the window.
Contrasting and projecting myself into the future I can not foresee how an addition of a fuel -stop would
be beneficial to the neighbor hood. The evening's glow of an overhead fuel canopy, and awakening to
hearing "Pump #7 is ready for a fill" would be a stark change from my current morning rise. This
would impact the neighborhood negatively and force property values /resale down. Reducing the
zoning level will allow apartment buildings and stores in among the family homes already here. Any
zoning allowing all night businesses should not be allowed. This will clearly bring more outside
people into the neighborhood — increasing the obvious traffic, noise and crime.
The value of my house is its value for my children and my retirement. Please understand the
incorporation of commercial property next to residential should be reviewed with strong
reflection. Just as near- campus rental effects single - family valuations near campus and all night
business can negatively affect the how we raise a family and effect property values.
If my property declines in value, so does the security of my family. In addition, more crowding, more
traffic, more noise and crime would be extremely upsetting to the many retired families in the
immediate neighborhood.
Impact of commercial properties adjoining residential. Commercial properties such as bars and all
hour business have no place directly adjacent to residential property. Based on a discussion
with neighbors the positive comments have been few. Any survey of the neighborhood by the
developer regarding the expected use and value of a fuel stop should be reviewed as a likely paid
survey with leading questions that would likely favor the developer goal.
You have always been sensitive to the preservation of the unique character of our neighborhoods and
maintaining the family strengths of our community. I urge you to vote against this zoning
issue. Those wishing to build apartments and weighted more highly commercial property, rather than
new homes, have many alternatives more
appropriate than this from which to chose.
If I can help in any way to defeat this proposal, let me know.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
• / / / / /ill ��
Todd Shepherd
Home Owner - Village Green
1147 Hampton Ct.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 2 of 16
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
Comprehensive Plan / Rezonina Items:
A public hearing of an application submitted by John Hieronymus to amend the
Comprehensive Plan - Southeast District Plan to change the land use designation from
multi - family to commercial for property located at the northwest corner of the
intersection of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard.
CPA13- 00002/ REZ13- 00012: Discussion of an application submitted by John Hieronymus
for a rezoning of a total of 5.95 -acres of land located north of Muscatine Avenue, west of
Scott Boulevard, 2.23 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density
Multi - Family (RM -12) zone, 0.85 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to
Community Commercial (CC -2) zone and 2.87 -acres from to Low Density Multi - Family
(RM -12) zone to Community Commercial (CC -2) zone.
Miklo said the proposal has three components. He said the first is to change the Comprehensive
Plan for this area from residential to commercial; the second aspect is to rezone this property
from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) and Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) to Community
Commercial (CC -2), and the third is to rezone the northern part of the property from Low
Density Single Family (RS -5) to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12). Miklo showed the
Commission slides of the property from different perspectives. He showed the Commission a
concept plan of what the applicant proposes if the rezonings are approved.
He said the Comprehensive Plan shows a limited amount of undeveloped land along Scott
Boulevard that is appropriate and zoned for multi - family in this part of the city. He said there are
many commercial areas in the East Side, some of them with convenience stores that are
located within a relatively short distance from the proposed site. He said to change this property
to commercial would displace one of the few suitable locations for multi - family in this part of the
city. He said staff sees no compelling reason why this change should occur.
Miklo said there are also site specific reasons why staff feels that this property should not be
zoned for commercial development. He said the property is located at the highest point of the
neighborhood, making it difficult to screen the property and deal effectively with lighting and
signage. He said the Transportation Planners feel that the amount of turning traffic in this area
will increase substantially compared to what exists with the current residential zoning. He said
for those reasons and for those outlined in the staff report, staff does not recommend that the
Comprehensive Plan be changed in this area; staff recommends that the request for commercial
zoning be denied; and they recommend that the decision be deferred for additional multi - family
zoning depending on what the Commission's decision is for the remainder of the property.
Freerks clarified for the public that at the previous meeting this property had been proposed for
Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) zoning , and that request has now been changed to
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 3 of 16
Community Commercial (CC -2). Miklo explained that the staff had also recommended against
that zoning.
Eastham asked Miklo to point out other places in the city where there are commercial areas that
might fit easily into the Comprehensive Plan's description of a neighborhood commercial area
that would perhaps be appropriate. Miklo named the Walden Square development and Olde
Towne Village, where the residential and commercial areas were designed around each other.
He noted that the commercial areas were planned at the same time the adjacent residential
neighborhood to help assure compatibility.
Martin asked about the multi - family plan in existence for that area. Miklo explained that a couple
years ago there was a rezoning of this property that included a subdivision. He explained how
that plan was configured and said that it was approved at that time. He said that is the zoning
that is in place until the City Council changes it after a recommendation from the Commission.
Freerks opened public hearing.
John Hieronymus of 3322 Muscatine Avenue presented the history and background of his
family's property. He said he worked with a developer for two years on a planned development
for the subject property, but the bank would ultimately not make a loan to the developer
because the appraisals were lower than the cost of the development. He said he then talked to
City staff about how to replat the property and lower the costs. He said Kum and Go
approached him about developing the property on the corner of Scott Boulevard and Muscatine.
He said when they applied for the Neighborhood Commercial rezoning, the staff comments
were negative, mostly due to the size of the proposed building, so they decided to apply for
Community Commercial rezoning.
Kolby Jones of Kum and Go Convenience Stores said they are different than the normal
convenience store, and Iowa City has nothing like it here. He said their new stores are just
under 5,000 square feet because they contain a full service kitchen. He said this new store
would contribute to the tax base and to the economy. He talked about the benefits this store
would provide to customers and to the community and how with their LEED certification, they
can trap all the light onsite.
Eastham asked in reference to the needs analysis the company did as part of the planning for
this proposal how much of the need is reflected for motor vehicle fuel sales and how much for
other things in the store. Jones said the analysis breaks it down into how well they will do inside,
and how well they will do outside. He said the breakdown was an even distribution with inside
and outside sales.
Mike Pugh as a representative Kum and Go said they are seeking a land use amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan, not a text amendment. He said the intersection of Scott and Muscatine
has been designed as arterial streets, and the houses on Muscatine are designed so the backs
of them back up to Muscatine Avenue. He said the City's traffic count for this intersection is
6,000 to 8,OOOcars per day. He said they don't expect additional traffic to be generated here
because Kum and Go is not a destination site. He said this application is a relatively modest
modification request of 3.79 acres to the land use map. He mentioned several areas along or
near the Scott Boulevard corridor that have residential uses with commercial uses mixed into
the development. He said from a planning perspective, it is appropriate to place commercial
uses along arterials.
Pugh said there is a plan in place for what will be built on this site, and there is no uncertainly
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 4 of 16
about what could go there under the Zoning Code in a CC -2 zone. He said the applicant's
expectation is that in addition to the rezoning, he fully expects a Conditional Zoning Agreement
(CZA) stating exactly how this site will be developed. He said they have started a dialogue with
two good neighbor meetings and meetings with City staff. He said what the Commission must
look at is if a convenience store of this nature at the intersection of two arterial streets is
appropriate if it were designed in a certain fashion. He said he thought the real issue was gas
and intensity of use. He claimed they would be having a very different discussion if this was a
small, locally owned grocery store that people could walk to, and that idea is looked upon
favorably at Commission meetings for other sites.
Pugh said he strongly disagrees with the statement in the staff report that the neighborhoods in
Iowa City are already well served by commercially zoned property in the area. He said one of
the frequent complaints about the east side of the city is that you have to drive to get to
something. He said he also takes issue with the statement from the staff report that a
convenience store would essentially be an intensive auto - oriented use located in a residential
neighborhood. He said auto - oriented should be okay because the subject site is on an arterial
intersection. He argued that the area is residential, but not single - family residential, and that
how staff describes it is a bit of a mischaracterization. He said this site has a natural buffer
between the subject property and some of the more single - family areas to the north.
Pugh argued that contrary to the staff's report, the topography of the subject site really doesn't
pose problems that aren't conducive to commercial uses. He said the site from Muscatine
Avenue to the proposed side street falls away nineteen feet, and the parking lot will sit six feet
lower than Muscatine Avenue. He said the tops of the canopies for the gas amenities are fifteen
feet tall, meaning they are nine feet higher than the grade on Muscatine Avenue. He said the
same type of thing happens on the Hampton Court side.
Pugh said that important issues that have been discussed in good neighbor meetings are the
issues of traffic, light, and noise. He said one thing in the application's favor is that all the
houses in Hampton Court back up to Muscatine Avenue. He said there is also fairly mature
landscaping along the backs of those houses to serve as buffer.
Pugh said he has also heard some of the concerns mentioned above when other developments
like Olde Towne Village were done. He said there really isn't a commercial amenity in this area,
which will be growing residentially in the future. He said the applicant would like the Commission
to defer the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan so he and the applicant can develop a
comprehensive CZA that they could present to the Commission and work with staff and the
neighbors and see if there's a way forward where this could potentially work.
Ron Erwin of 1146 Hampton Court said his backyard backs up to Scott Boulevard right at the
intersection with Muscatine. He said there is a tremendous amount of semi traffic moving on
Scott Boulevard. He said he is strongly opposed to the application. He said with this new
development there will be more traffic and there will be the signage and lighting issues. He said
he doesn't see a reason for another business of this type in the area.
Merl Knjeniss of 1164 Hampton Court said his views have already been expressed in a letter to
the Commission, which is in their packet. He said he is definitely opposed to the commercial use
of that property. He said it would damage the property values, the community, and the
Comprehensive Plan.
Margie Yoder of 1161 Hampton Court said she and her husband purchased their property years
ago when there was mostly farmland in this area. She said contrary to what Jones said early,
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 5 of 16
she does think this development would become a destination site. She says there will be much
more traffic, and she doesn't see a need for another such commercial use. She said she is
really, really opposed to this application.
Steve Schallow of 1115 Hampton Court said he hadn't been invited to either of the good
neighbor meetings. He reiterated the comments of others who said there isn't a great need for a
convenience store in that area, with four gas stations within a mile of the subject site and two
grocery stores nearby, as well as two pharmacies and several restaurants. He said he is
concerned about having something built on that high elevation on the corner of Scott and
Muscatine and having more turning traffic because it will become a destination. He said he
agrees with the staff report that this application should be denied.
Todd Shepard of 1147 Hampton Court said he is not in agreement with amending the
Comprehensive Plan in this case. He asked the Commission to review the comments in the
letter he had given them at the start of the meeting.
Dave Stochl of 1151 Hampton Court said he is proposing a denial to the planning and zoning
change and does not support a deferral. He said he has submitted a letter to the Commission.
He said he went to Cedar Rapids last night after he attended the good neighbor meeting and
took pictures of a store that is nearly identical to the one being proposed. He explained how his
house and the neighborhood will be impacted by the lighting of the proposed store and its
location on a higher elevation. He said the additional traffic and the egress and ingress to and
from the store onto Muscatine or Scott will be heavy and unsafe.
Ken Johnson of 3116 Maplewood Lane said he had concerns with the drive to the proposed
store being so close to the intersection, the turn not being readily visible, how fast traffic will be
moving in terms of safety to both drivers and pedestrian, particularly children.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved to recommend deferral of the applicant's request of the amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning item until the Commission's next meeting.
Dyer seconded.
Eastham explained that he could not recommend approval of any rezoning request without a
change in the Comprehensive Plan. He said what he wants most to see is if a corporate
convenience store concept can fit within the Comprehensive Plan's description of a
neighborhood commercial area.
Freerks said that she doesn't see the need to change this particular area. She said this part of
Iowa City which has been planned for and developed with residential in mind. She said to try
and create this kind of change at this point without any good reason put forward is detrimental to
the process of the Comprehensive Plan. She said it doesn't seem sensible to challenge a
developer to come forward and see how they would try to make it work. Eastham said he is not
at all wedded to the success of the motion.
Freerks polled the Commission, and were not four members in favor of deferral.
A vote was taken and the motion was denied 0 -6.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 6 of 16
Eastham moved to recommend approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Southeast District Plan to change the land use designation from multi - family to
commercial property located at the northwest corner of the intersection Muscatine
Avenue and Scott Boulevard.
Swygard seconded.
Swygard said she agreed with a previous comment that this is a designated residential area
with commercial located close by, and she sees no reason to change the Comprehensive Plan.
Martin said putting commercial in that location is moving toward sprawl instead of nurturing what
is already there. She said she lives in that area and finds it quite easy to get to commercial
areas. She said although there is a great arterial intersection at this site, that doesn't necessarily
mean that you have to populate it with a convenience store.
Eastham said the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for those areas is providing focal points and
gathering places for neighborhoods, and the businesses within those area are supposedly there
to provide shopping opportunities within convenient walking distances for residents in the
immediate area; the design of the neighborhood commercial centers are supposed to have a
pedestrian orientation with stores located close to the street and sufficient open space to allow
for outdoor cafes or patios and landscaping; and parking is supposed to be located at the rear
and sides of the store, with additional parking on the street. He said that is the description of
what would have to be located in this area if it's going to be developed as commercial. He said
he can't make a standard convenience store fit into that description. He said he hasn't heard
from anyone tonight that the proposed use in this area has a pedestrian orientation, or meets
any of the other criteria described as above.
Swygard said it was initially Neighborhood Commercial and then since the last Commission
meeting it was changed to Community Commercial, which is for a larger area of population, so
that seems to be even less appropriate for changing the Comprehensive Plan.
Freerks says to change the Comprehensive Plan at this point would have a detrimental effect on
the neighborhood. She said the east side of town does need amenities, but this isn't the place
for this particular amenity. She said she has nothing against Kum and Go, and it seems like a
fine business. She said there's a lot of community input that happens with a Comprehensive
Plan when it's put together and goes through a great deal of thought. She said she hasn't heard
a compelling argument why at this point in time that needs to change. She said she also has
some concerns about traffic.
A vote was taken and the motion was denied 0 -6.
Swygard moved to approve an application for a rezoning of 5.95 acres of land located
north of Muscatine Avenue, west of Scott Boulevard, 2.23 -acres from Low Density Single -
Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone, and 0.85 -acres from Low
Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Community Commercial (CC -2) zone.
There was some confusion about the best way to break out the two motions. On advice of
Greenwood Hektoen, and Miklo, Swygard withdrew her motion.
Theobald moved to approve the change of 0.85 acres from Low Density Single Family
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 7 of 16
(RS -5) to Community Commercial (CC -2) and 2.78 acres from Low Density Multi - Family
(RM -12) zone to Community Commercial (CC -2) zone.
Eastham seconded.
Freerks said she agreed with Eastham's remark earlier that the Commission should not approve
something that they just denied as a Comprehensive Plan change.
A vote was taken and the motion was denied 0 -6.
Martin moved to approve 2.23 acres from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) zone to Low
Density Multi- Family (RM -12) zone.
Miklo mentioned that the staffs recommendation had been for deferral.
There was no second on this motion, and the motion failed.
Theobald moved to defer indefinitely a rezoning of 2.23 acres from Low Density Single
Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) zone.
Eastham seconded.
Freerks said whatever develops in this area needs to connect with what continues on the
corner, and the Commission would like to see something develop there that can integrate into
the neighborhood more than the proposed convenience store.
Eastham said for this specific parcel, the Comprehensive Plan does support multi - family
development, and he would agree to look at that option in the future.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6 -0.
Freerks informed the applicant that they still have the right to bring this before City Council, and
make their case there.
Freerks called for a five - minute recess.
Freerks called the meeting to order.
Rezonina Items
REZ13- 00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction for a
rezoning of 1.05 -acres of land located on First Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue from
Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Planned Development Overlay /Low Density
Multi - Family (OPD /RM -12) zone.
Nagle -Gamm showed a map of the subject site and photos of the property and the
neighborhood, and photos taken from the subject property and from the building to the south.
She reminded the Commission that this item had been deferred at the previous meeting
pending attention to several items that had been identified and answers to several questions the
Commission had.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 8 of 16
Nagle -Gamm summarized the outstanding items. She said the Commission had discussed
moving the building further to the north, and in the latest plan provided by the applicant he has
doubled the size of the buffering between the proposed building and the property line to the
south from ten feet to twenty feet, resulting in a decrease in the buffer on the north end of the
parking and the south end of Hickory Hill Park to seventeen feet, which staff finds to be
reasonable.
Nagle -Gamm said the next issue was the water drainage system. She said Public Works had
expressed concern that not all the storm water on the property was being handled on site, so
they worked with the applicant to create several different iterations of how to improve storm
water management on site. She said the latest site plan submitted by the applicant includes
modifications that would pick up all the storm water from the eaves and the front of the building
and would drain to an inlet near the driveway. She said there's also a new grading plan to direct
storm water to that inlet. She said the applicant has also added storm water tiling along the
sidewalk and the retaining wall on the south end of the building to direct storm water to a newly
created inlet. She said Public Works is now satisfied that storm water will be managed
appropriately on site.
Nagle -Gamm said the Commission had also requested a comparison of the existing building to
the south of the proposed property and the proposed building in terms of height. She showed a
drawing that shows approximately a thirty -six foot difference between the midlines of the roofs
of the two buildings. Freerks asked why the proposed building was dug down so deeply. Miklo
responded that it was in order to get the parking underneath it.
Nagle -Gamm said a question had been raised about trees on subject property. She said the
revised site plan indicates the location and species of trees that exist, and in some areas there
are oak trees, some within the construction zone. She said the City Forester said when he
looked at the property last year when it was initially rezoned from RS -5 to RM -12, there were no
significant trees. Freerks said she thinks there is a difference in how a professional forester
would assess trees and how significant trees are to a person who lives in an area. She asked if
they are not to be salvageable if the Forester doesn't deem them significant. Miklo said the
three oaks to the west of the no construction line could to be preserved as part of the
development.
Nagle -Gamm said another question that was raised was lot coverage ratios and the comparison
between the proposal for the property and the property to the south. She said they looked at the
original site plan for the existing property and determined that the impervious surfaces were
approximately forty percent of the lot as compared to forty -two percent for the proposed
development.
Nagle -Gamm said the applicant was asked to provide a more detailed landscaping plan and
include tree species that were recommended by the Johnson County Heritage Trust, and the
applicant has made adjustments to the plan to include recommended trees and grasses. Miklo
said that three possible invasive species have been removed from the original plan.
Nagle -Gamm said in regard to the question about the purchase agreement, staff received a
copy of it, and it appears to be in order.
Nagle -Gamm showed the Commission proposals that the developer submitted showing how the
building and the retaining walls for the sidewalk would look from First Avenue.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 9 of 16
Nagle -Gamm said staff finds that the applicant has adequately addressed discrepancies and
deficiencies and recommends approval of the item.
Theobald asked for a definition of inlet as pertains to storm water management. Nagle -Gamm
said it's a drainage hole where water will be directed to drain in a pipe on the site.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Jeff Kersbergen of 513 S. First Avenue said he is representing the applicant. He said the
applicant feels this is a good match for the neighborhood.
Ed Wasserman of 555 N. First Avenue said he wants to make clear that the trees he is talking
about are the gigantic trees along the property line that will provide the buffer between the two
properties, not the ones beyond the building in the back of the subject lot. He said with the
current plan, there won't be any trees retained between the buildings, and what he concerned
about and what hasn't been addressed, is the root structure of these trees. He claimed that the
newest elevations submitted show every view but the relevant one with the trees. He said all the
trees will be removed. He said that according to the Comprehensive Plan, there is supposed to
be green space in developments in this zone. He said he is against the building plan that is too
much for the small site and for the slopes.
James Buddenbaum of 557 N. First Avenue said he doesn't agree with the City Forester that
these trees are insignificant because they aren't a museum quality. He said looking south on N.
First Avenue, you would not be able to see his building because the trees are so lush. He said
the eight foot retaining wall will never hold up under the proposed storm water drainage plan,
and the water will never be completely drained off the property. He said they have had severe
drainage problems on their own, similar piece of land. He said they had to replace half the
driveway, dig out grass in order to try and divert drainage along the driveway, put in a conduit
pipe, and it still doesn't work.
Ann Wade of 524 N. First Avenue said she lives directly across from the existing building to the
south of the subject site. She said on her side of the street every one of the houses have had
problems with drainage because of the slope. She said she's also concerned about such a big
building on the subject site because of the slope and the water issues and thinks that a smaller
building won't prevent the flow of water as much.
Walter Seaman of 551 N. First Avenue expressed his support for the people who had spoken
tonight against this rezoning. He said the removal of those trees would be criminal. He said the
proposed building seems out of proportion relative to the size of the lot.
Freerks said it's always difficult to hear that what the Commission approved not so long ago has
water issues and has caused financial problems for residents, and it makes one think about
what happens next door to a property that has similar slopes. She asked the staff if they have
any concern about water issues. Miklo replied that they have come to hear about drainage
problems on the existing property through this process, but they can't speak to why they
occurred. He said staff asked the City Engineers to review the plan for the proposed building
carefully, they said it needed further study, and the last iteration of the plan that they reviewed
was found satisfactory. He said he doesn't think they are capable of answering the questions
comparing this with the problems with the property next door. He said that the Engineering Staff
did closely review this and there will be further review of the retaining wall question when the
building permit is reviewed.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 10 of 16
Greenwood Hektoen said it's the developer's obligation to insure that he installs the proper and
necessary private utilities.
Eastham asked if the Building Code requires a builder to demonstrate that the building won't
have water infiltration into any part of the structure. Staff could answer that question.
Freerks said it seems that some of the trees along the property line are within ten feet of the
property line. Wasserman said that the plans show that no trees will remain along the property
line. Freerks said she thinks it is unfortunate that more small natural areas around town aren't
preserved unless they are examples of stellar trees. She said the Commission doesn't
necessarily have a way to require that people have to preserve them. Wasserman said he
questions what will happen to both properties per the drainage problem when so much of the
root structure will be unearthed for the retaining wall and for the building itself.
Freerks asked Kersbergen if there's a reason none of the trees can be kept. He said he can ask
the applicant. He said the applicant has built a similar structure on a steep, narrow lot, and he
was able to protect the properties that were high above that development, so he's been
successful implementing a plan like this one before.
Martin asked if the applicant had considered building up rather than out. Miklo said there was a
prior plan for townhouses, and it required more grading and bigger retaining walls. Martin asked
if this footprint could be more compact. Miklo said it could be, and that would add a floor to the
building.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved to recommend approval of REZ13- 00004, an application submitted by
Jeff Miller Construction for a rezoning of 1.05 -acres of land located on First Avenue,
north of Rochester Avenue from Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) zone to Planned
Development Overlay /Low Density Multi- Family (OPD /RM -12) zone including a stipulation
that the retaining wall design will need to be certified by a structural engineer before the
permitting process.
Martin seconded.
Martin said she still has concerns about the stability of the building to the south of the subject
property once that ground is disturbed, particularly after looking at the picture where the
proposed building is situated so much lower than the adjacent one.
Freerks said she has concerns about water and drainage. She said she would be willing to ask
for deferral, but she's not sure how much further they'd get with it. She said she thinks there's
value in trying to protect these trees. She said she's not sure she's inclined to support this item.
Theobald said she went out and hiked around the whole subject property, and she would
support requesting that if possible the trees be saved. However, she said the trees weren't in
very good condition, some of them appeared to be volunteers, not pruned properly. She didn't
see any oak trees, so they probably weren't very large, but said they have a very shallow root
system, so any excavation around them would affect them. She said she does see a great value
to trees. She said she's leaning toward supporting the application. She said drainage is an issue
and the day she was there, the ground was very soggy. She said she does like to see storm
water handled in more environmentally friendly ways.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 11 of 16
Martin said the new renderings were striking in that they clearly spelled out how much
impervious area there will be on the subject site, more even than the adjacent site. She said she
is questioning this application more than before, which has nothing to do with the fact of its
location or that it's multi - family.
Theobald said she liked the selection of trees in the new plan.
Swygard said she shared Martin's concern of these buildings being so close together on this
slope and whatever the quality of the trees, they do provide a buffer. She said they've seen this
project grow larger. She said she has been out to the subject site, and something just doesn't
feel right to her about this application.
Eastham said he's inclined vote for approval. He said he doesn't know a way to address the
stability of the building to the south through the Zoning Code. He would be in favor of having the
applicant get an engineering report focusing on that if he knew how to do that. He said he hoped
there were ways for the property owners on the adjacent site to protect themselves. He said he
thinks the applicant and staff have worked very hard together to address the issue of surface
water. He agreed that it would be preferable not to disturb the trees that exist on the subject
property, he thinks that's a solvable problem and he would support a deferment if that's' a
sticking point. He said he doesn't see a reason not to proceed because of the proposed
building's size.
Freerks said she really has concerns about the water, and she thinks there is more that can be
done about the trees, so she's not quite ready to vote for the application.
Dyer said the City Engineers have already approved the storm water system. Miklo explained
that was just for the storm water and didn't deal with the questions that arose about the slope
stability from the adjacent property.
A vote was taken and the motion was denied 2-4 with Eastham and Theobald voting in
favor.
Swygard moved to defer to June 20.
Eastham seconded.
Freerks said the Commission wants to talk about all aspects of water, slope stability and about
the issue of trees and the building placement.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0.
REZ13- 00014: Discussion of an application submitted by Chezik -Bell Properties for a
rezoning of 2.30 -acres of land located southeast of the intersection of Highway 1 and
Sunset Street in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to amend the Conditional Zoning
Agreement regarding setback and landscaping adjacent to Highway 1.
Miklo showed the Commission drawings and photographs of the subject property. He explained
that the Jiffy Lube business has a thirty foot setback, and there's a Conditional Zoning
Agreement that requires a thirty foot setback. He said the application is to reduce that setback
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED
MAY 16 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin,
Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: David Stochl
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
There were none.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
—Z Comprehensive Plan / Rezonino Item
A public hearing of an application submitted by John Hieronymus to amend the
Comprehensive Plan - Southeast District Plan to change the land use designation from
multi - family to commercial for property located at the northwest corner of the
intersection of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard.
Miklo said staff had received a request from the applicant to defer this item until the Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting of June 6th. He said that because there were interested
neighbors present, he would present and abbreviated staff report. The current zoning of the
subject property is low density multi - family (RM -12), and there's a zoning agreement that
provides for up to twenty -three townhouse -style units on this property. He said in order for the
rezoning of the corner property to occur, the Commission would have to amend the
Comprehensive Plan. He showed photos of the neighborhood and explained what kinds of
areas surround it. He said a unique feature of this site is that it is at the highest point in the
neighborhood, so it is highly visible.
Miklo said there was a previously approved plan for this area for a new street, Terrance Lane,
that would loop around and end here near the western edge of the residential development with
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 16, 2013 - Formal
Page 2 of 4
the idea that it could be extended to the south for additional lots in the future. Miklo said this
included the three lots that had the twenty -three townhouse -style units on them. He said the
applicant has submitted a concept plan showing how that would change if the rezoning is
approved and the property is re- subdivided.
Miklo said that staff does not see a compelling reason to change the Comprehensive Plan in
this area. He said there are several commercial areas within a mile of the subject location, and
they all contain convenience stores. He said that staff is not recommending approval of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment or the rezoning to commercial.
Eastham asked if the Commission could get a list of areas that are zoned Neighborhood
Commercial (CN -1) in the area encompassed by the district plan for this neighborhood. Miklo
said he could show that on a map at the next meeting.
Thomas said he would like to see examples of where commercial has been successfully
integrated into areas of residential development like this one.
Freerks opened public hearing.
David Stochl of 1158 Hampton Court said he lives directly south of where the convenience store
is being proposed. He said he built his house in 1991 with the understanding that this was a
residential area. He said there is a convenience store a half mile north, there are two a mile
west and one a mile south, and the area is serviced by two grocery stores. He said from a
noise, traffic and lighting standard, the proposed convenience store would negatively impact the
area. He said the proposed building would be five - thousand square feet, excluding parking
space and gas pumps. He said he would urge the Commission to deny this application.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved that CPA13 -00002 be deferred to the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting of June 6th
Swygard seconded.
A vote was taken the motion carried 7 -0.
CPA13- 00002/ REZ13- 00012: Discussion of an application submitted by John Hieronymus
for a rezoning of a total of 5.95 -acres of land located north of Muscatine Avenue, west of
Scott Boulevard, 2.23 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density
Multi - Family (RM -12) zone, 0.85 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to
Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) zone and 2.87 -acres from to Low Density Multi - Family
(RM -12) zone to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) zone.
(This item was discussed in the comments above.)
Freerks opened public hearing.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved that these items be deferred to the Planning and Zoning
th
Commission meeting of June 6
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 16, 2013 - Formal
Page 2 of 4
the idea that it could be extended to the south for additional lots in the future. Miklo said this
included the three lots that had the twenty -three townhouse -style units on them. He said the
applicant has submitted a concept plan showing how that would change if the rezoning is
approved and the property is re- subdivided.
Miklo said that staff does not see a compelling reason to change the Comprehensive Plan in
this area. He said there are several commercial areas within a mile of the subject location, and
they all contain convenience stores. He said that staff is not recommending approval of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment or the rezoning to commercial.
Eastham asked if the Commission could get a list of areas that are zoned Neighborhood
Commercial (CN -1) in the area encompassed by the district plan for this neighborhood. Miklo
said he could show that on a map at the next meeting.
Thomas said he would like to see examples of where commercial has been successfully
integrated into areas of residential development like this one.
Freerks opened public hearing.
David Stochl of 1158 Hampton Court said he lives directly south of where the convenience store
is being proposed. He said he built his house in 1991 with the understanding that this was a
residential area. He said there is a convenience store a half mile north, there are two a mile
west and one a mile south, and the area is serviced by two grocery stores. He said from a
noise, traffic and lighting standard, the proposed convenience store would negatively impact the
area. He said the proposed building would be five - thousand square feet, excluding parking
space and gas pumps. He said he would urge the Commission to deny this application.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved that CPA13 -00002 be deferred to the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting of June 6 th
Swygard seconded.
A vote was taken the motion carried 7 -0.
CPA13- 00002/ REZ13- 00012: Discussion of an application submitted by John Hieronymus
for a rezoning of a total of 5.95 -acres of land located north of Muscatine Avenue, west of
Scott Boulevard, 2.23 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density
Multi- Family (RM -12) zone, 0.85 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to
Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) zone and 2.87 -acres from to Low Density Multi - Family
(RM -12) zone to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) zone.
(This item was discussed in the comments above.)
Freerks opened public hearing.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved that these items be deferred to the Planning and Zoning
tn
Commission meeting of June 6.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 16, 2013 - Formal
Page 3 of 4
Dyer seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0.
Rezoning Item
REZ13- 00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction for a
rezoning of 1.05 -acres of land located on First Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue from
Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Planned Development Overlay /Low Density
Multi- Family (OPD /RM -12) zone.
Miklo said the applicant is still working on a revised plan and has requested that this item be
deferred to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of June 6th
Freerks opened public hearing.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved to defer REZ13 -00004 to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
of June 6th
Thomas seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0.
Consideration of Meeting Minutes: May 2, 2013
Swygard moved to approve the minutes of May 2, 2013 with corrections.
Theobald seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0.
OTHER
Miklo explained the changes that will be made in the Good Neighborhood Policy and how it will
be reported in the staff report.
ADJOURNMENT:
Eastham moved to adjourn.
Theobald seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 7 -0 vote.
IL
�J-
1 d4;4
Z
10 I
I Q I
IJ I
I W I
I = I
I F § I
O
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I
i
I
I � I
I o I
I O I
LL
W
z
I�I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
II i
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
.%6'S
.o-1
2
O
Q
W
J
W
�Q 1
W >
I
Q
z I�
0 FIE
IN
z �
�LL
NK
IL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
wF
5>
N
zz
np
�N
n'2
�LL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r I
I
I
I
I
J \I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.9 U
Q
z -z z
W
a
0
or
i'
Nn
gz
w3
no
w w n0
Y Y
�e
Z
I ° I
I Q I
I � I
I J I
I w I
I � I
150 i I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
II II
II I
IIIIIIIIIII
li
U
�
w
I I
I I
I I
w
—
=
�101�1�110'
IIIII�IIIII�
0�1I
II I
O
�
�
a
I I
�
I I
CL
Q
�I
I I
I I
Q
—
U
I I
O
II IIIIIIII
W5
N
off
N
Q
IIIIIIIIIII
I'If'ililil
° °
I w O I
111111
IIIIIIIIIIII
I � I
I LL I
�
I a I
�
"J
IIIIIIIiilll
IIIIIIIIIII
I I
J
IIIIIIIIIIII
i i
i i
`�
`�
II�I���I�II�II
IIIIIIIIIIII
I I
II
I
z
1111110
I r
I O
o 1
I O I
I
I
IIIIIIIIIIII
I J
IIIIIIIIIII
I I
I I
I I
I I
IIIIIIIIIIII
IIIII
I
IIIIIII'Illl
IIIII
I
IIIIIIIIIIII
IIIII
II
IIIIIIIIIIII
�IIII
4
Z O
i#
z
O
w o
W N
W
I- 9
0
io
4
fh
4
4
Q
4
N
z
O
H
W
W
aHa G
L�
a
N
,Y,7 I
'NIN„9 -,9L
w
¢
0
N
z
4
0
Nw
oz
lh
Q
2
a
O
>
N
Y
U
J
W
N
J m
o f
m
o
z
v
O
N
W
w
�
Q
4
z
a
z
U
O
O
u
a z
4
Q
F5
a
M
z
w
z
W
2
O
U
4
�
a
LL
i0
U
0
w
r
i
ro
j �
K
2
Z Z
QO
ll
� n
w
w
C
o
'4
in
4
LU
(V
a
z
O
w o
W N
W
I- 9
0
io
4
fh
4
4
Q
4
N
z
O
H
W
W
aHa G
L�
a
N
U)
H
V
w
H
x
u
w
H
d
V
W
w
w
x
,Y,7 I
'NIN„9 -,9L
w
¢
z
z
O
0
Nw
oz
w
Q
2
O
>
N
O
y
U
J
W
J m
o f
o
z
W
O
W
Q
4
z
U
O
O
Q
m
a a
z
w
z
U
4
�
a
0
w
r
i
K
2
CIO
Q
'4
in
LU
a
r
O
~
O
H
>
O
W
J
W
iM
� q
O
O d
0-
V'
O
w
O1
z
w
z
E
�
Y
s
�
pA
�
o
w
m
z
a
C-6
z
r
J
Q
O
W
K
M
W
o
Y
Ow
0 w
U
?
Q Z
Zi
LL
O
o
NU
Z
ap
O m
J
H
U)
H
V
w
H
x
u
w
H
d
V
W
w
w
x
fY:�F
F-W
cnn
QW
:2im
Qf:�t
HC)
U) C)
QW
�m
Y
O
J _
LL `-
Q II
Z �
N
II
b
(n
z
Z
m
m
Z
W
U
Q
Q
0
O
W
ry
W
LWi
m
(n
W
S
U
U)
Of
O
0
U
tr
O
FW-
w
W
F-
O
Z
Z I[
El
� II
Q
LLJ
a
D
.iE
cz
LL
Q)
Q-
0
U)
L
m
4c
Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5236 (REZ13- 00012)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING 2.3 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED
SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 1 AND SUNSET STREET IN THE
INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI -1) ZONE. (REZ13- 00014)
WHEREAS, the Menards INC., is owner of certain real estate in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone
located southeast of the intersection of Highway 1 and Sunset Street; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan -South Central District Plan indicates that the subject property is
appropriate for Intensive or Highway Commercial development; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan -South Central District Plan states that entranceway aesthetics
need to be considered along Highway 1 West; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to
satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, said property is subject to an existing Conditional Zoning Agreement (Ordinance No. 96-
3736) that requires a minimum 30 -foot front setback; and
WHEREAS, the owner has requested that the existing Conditional Zoning Agreement (Ordinance No 96-
3736) be repealed and replaced with a new Conditional Zoning Agreement; and
WHEREAS, this conditional rezoning would allow the minimum setback along the Highway 1 frontage to
be reduced from 30 feet to 11 feet in exchange for a higher level of screening and landscaping along the
property's frontage with Highway 1 and within the parking area/display area. Other relevant conditions from
the 1996 conditional zoning agreement are included in the new conditional zoning agreement attached
hereto; and
WHEREAS, the applicant agrees to develop the property_ in accordance with the terms and conditions of
the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area of the city.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the rezoning and determined that it
complies with the Comprehensive Plan -South Central District Plan policy for entranceway aesthetics
provided the conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto are met; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. The property described below is hereby zoned Intensive Commercial (CI -1),
subject to the conditions stated in the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lot 1 Westport Plaza —Part Two, Iowa City, Iowa.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning
map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and
publication of the ordinance as approved by law.
SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the
City.
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the
Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage,
approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of 12013.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
App oved by
City Attorney's Office .7
Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5251 (REZ13- 00004)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City "), Menarc/) Inc. (hereinafter "Owner "), and Chezik -Bell Properties, L.C.
(hereinafter "Applicant ").
WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 2.3 acres of property located
southeast of the intersection of Highway 1 and Sunset Street; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property to amend the
Conditional Zoning Agreement by reducing the minimum setback requirement from the Highway
1 right -of -way from 30 feet to 11 feet; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding installation of extensive landscaping along the property's frontage with
Highway 1, side lot lines, and to the northeast and southwest corners of the property, along with
adherence to the other conditions enumerated in the original Conditional Zoning Agreement
(Ordinance No. 96 -3736) and restated in the current CZA, the requested zoning is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are
reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the need for protection of environmentally - sensitive areas; and
WHEREAS, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. MenardAlnc. is the legal title holder of the property legally described as: Lot 1 Westport
Plaza —Part Two, Iowa City, Iowa, Book 38, Page 257 Johnson County Recorder.
2. Chezik -Bell Properties, L.C. has a leasehold interest in the above - described property.
3. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to
the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the South Central District plan. Further,
the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa
City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over
and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the
requested change.
4. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree
that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the
zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions:
a. The development of the subject property shall have no direct vehicular access onto
Highway 1. Access to the subject property shall be through the existing access drives
from adjacent properties.
b. Prior to the issuance of a building permit on the subject property, Owner shall dedicate
to the adjacent property owners a cross - access easement to allow vehicular access
between properties located to the north and south of the subject property. This access
easement shall be shown on all site plans for future development and may be located
through the parking lot aisles.
c. No outdoor storage of merchandise or material, except for that associated with auto
vehicle sales, plant nurseries, and florist shops, shall occur within 100 feet of the
Highway 1 right -of -way. Outdoor storage areas located beyond 100 feet of the
Highway 1 right -of -way shall be screened with a solid wall at least six feet in height. A
planted landscape bed a minimum of 15 feet in depth shall be located adjacent to any
such wall between the wall and the Highway 1 right -of -way, and no parking or paving
shall be allowed within the 15 -foot landscape bed.
d. Loading docks and receiving areas shall not be located on any wall facing Highway 1.
Loading docks in other locations that are visible from Highway 1 shall be screened in
accordance with applicable performance standards set forth in the Iowa City Code of
Ordinances.
e. All parking aisles shall terminate with a landscape bed a minimum of nine feet in
depth. The landscape beds shall be planted with parking lot trees, which may count
towards the parking area trees otherwise required by City ordinances.
f. Only one free - standing sign shall be permitted on the subject property.
g. If signage is to be lighted, it shall be internally illuminated.
h. The parking /display area shall be setback and landscaped in accordance with the
attached landscape plan dated 5/29/13 and marked as revised on 6/11/13. The
minimum setback along the Highway 1 frontage shall be 11 feet, but shall be deeper
on the north and south ends of the parking /display aisle as shown. Landscaping shall
extend along the side lot lines and into the parking lot islands as illustrated on said
landscape plan with use of a minimum of three different species of trees. The attached
landscape plan shall constitute the minimum standard that shall be maintained over
time. Landscaped green space and setback areas may be increased, but shall not be
reduced to less than what is shown on the attached plan.
5. The Owner, Applicant and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are
reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2013), and that
said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change.
6. The Owner, Applicant and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is
transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the
terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
7. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be
a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force
and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the
City of Iowa City.
The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind
all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties.
2
8. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning
Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all
other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
9. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by
reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and
publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense.
Dated this day of
CITY OF IOWA CITY
BY: Matthew J. Hayek, Mayor
Attest:
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
2013.
Menard /Inc.,, pWNt
By: i henn T e,�j gal Es P Mo.,�er
By:
Chezik -Bell Properties, L.C., APPLICANT
This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2013, by Matthew
Hayek and Marian K. Karr as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
y
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
3
CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF WISCONSIN)
) ss:
EAU CLAIRE COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on �v1'1 / q , 2013 by
7herom ✓ Ben as Real j6rA?4C "40elel" of Menar4, Inc.
Notary Public in nd for said County and State
ti r ?° Z _ (Stamp or Seal)
`" F O ...» --zo ' Title (and Rank) Ab � <
•�i'9 F `N�����'
�rrrUpM�����
M7 Co„„*►rr"00 ►r�er�i4he�f� .....: .
4
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
that the
First Consideration 7/23/2013
Voteforpassage: AYES: Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion,
Dickens. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 =356= -5236 (REZ13-00012)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT REGARDING
SETBACK AND LANDSCAPING FOR 2.3 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF
THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 1 AND SUNSET STREET IN THE INTENSIVE
COMMERCIAL (CI -1) ZONE. (REZ13- 00014)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Chezik -Bell Properties, is owner of certain real estate in the Intensive
Commercial (CI -1) zone located on southeast of the intersection of ighway 1 and Sunset Street that is
subject to a conditional zoning agreement equiring a 30 -foot front set ack requirement; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has reques d that the properly be re oned to release this condition from the
zoning requirements, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan- uth Central District
appropriate for Intensive or Highway Comme ial development; ar
WHEREAS, the subject property falls with Subarea B, as gl
Central District Plan, and the Plan states that ntrancewa)
commercial uses in Subarea B develop and rede elop; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) pro 'des that
conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning r uest,
satisfy public needs caused by the requested chan ; an
WHEREAS, the applicant agrees to develop the ro e
maintain a extensive landscaping along the property's r nt
and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement a&
this area of the city.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commi sio
determined that it complies with the Comprehensiv Plan -
aesthetics provided that it meets conditions addr sing SL
plan and additional landscaping in the northeast a southw
indicates that the subject property is
ineated in the Comprehensive Plan -South
:tics need to be considered as intensive-
City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
and above existing regulations, in order to
with a front set -back of 11 feet and plant and
with Highway 1 in accordance with the terms
hereto to ensure appropriate development in
has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and
'outh Central District Plan policy for entranceway
i stantial adherence to the submitted landscape
e t corners of the subject property; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY TH CITY COUN L OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. The property de cribed below is ereby zoned to CIA zone, subject to the
conditions stated in the Conditional Zoning greement attache hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference:
Lot 1 Westport Plaza —Part Two, Iowa qty, Iowa.
SECTION Il. ZONING MAP. The but ing official is hereby authorized) and directed to change the zoning
map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to onform to this amendment upo�i the final passage, approval and
publication of the ordinance as approv by law. l
SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZO ING AGREEMENT. The mayor is h�reby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the onditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the
City.
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATI AND RECORDING. Upon passage and pproval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized And directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the
Office of the County Recor, r, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage,
approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part th reof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VII. EFFECNVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in a ct after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided bj
Passed and approved this
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
day of 2,113.
Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5251 (REZ13- 00004)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City "), Menards Inc. (hereinafter "Owner "), and Chezik -Bell Properties, L.C.
(hereinafter "Applicant ").
WHEREAS, Owner is the leg4l title holder of al
southeast of the intersection of High y 1 and Sunset
WHEREAS, the Owner has re uested the rez
Conditional Zoning Agreement by reduciii the minimum
1 right -of -way from 30 feet to 11 feet; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning o
conditions regarding installation of extensive I.
Highway 1, side lot lines, and to the northeast a
adherence to the other conditions enumerated
(Ordinance No. 96 -3736) and restated in the ci
with the Comprehensive Plan; and
ately 2.3 acres of property located
and
of said property to amend the
ck requirement from the Highway
mmissi n has determined that, with appropriate
indsc ping along the property's frontage with
d s thwest corners of the property, along with
he original Conditional Zoning Agreement
ar nt CZA, the requested zoning is consistent
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provid that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an appli nit's rez ing request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs c used by th requested change; and
WHEREAS, the Owner acknowl dges that cert ain conditions and restrictions are
reasonable to ensure the development f the property is 4onsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the need for protection of envi nmentally- sensitive areas; and
WHEREAS, the Owner agrees to #velop this property in 4ccordance with the terms and
conditions of a Conditional Zoning Pygreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consid�ation of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties
agree as follows: /
1. Menards Inc. is the Ioal title holder of the property legally described as: Lot 1 Westport
Plaza —Part Two, loyfa City, Iowa, Book 38, Page 257 Johnson County Recorder.
2. Chezik -Bell Properties, L.C. has a leasehold interest in the above - described property.
3. The Owner nd Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to
the princip s of the Comprehensive Plan and the South Central District plan. Further,
the parti acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa
City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over
and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the
requested change.
4. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree
that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the
zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions:
a. The development of the subject property shall have no direct vehicular access onto
ighway 1. Access to the subject property shall be through the existing access drives
fro adjacent properties.
b. Prior the issuance of a building permit on the subject property, Owner shall dedicate
to the a 'acent property owners a cross - access easement to allow vehicular access
between p perties located to the north and south of the subject property. This access
easement s II be shown on all site plans for future develo ent and may be located
through the pa 'ng lot aisles.
c. No outdoor stora a of merchandise or material, except f r that associated with auto
vehicle sales, plan nurseries, and florist shops, shall ccur within 100 feet of the
Highway 1 right -of- y. Outdoor storage areas loca d beyond 100 feet of the
Highway 1 right -of -way hall be screened with a solid II at least six feet in height. A
planted landscape bed a inimum of 15 feet in depth hall be located adjacent to any
such wall between the wall nd the Highway 1 right- -way, and no parking or paving
shall be allowed within the 15 oot landscape bed.
d. Loading docks and receiving a as shall not be loc ed on any wall facing Highway 1.
Loading docks in other locations at are visible fr m Highway 1 shall be screened in
accordance with applicable perfo nce standar set forth in the Iowa City Code of
Ordinances.
e. All parking aisles shall terminate wit a land ape bed a minimum of nine feet in
depth. The landscape beds shall be pl ted ith parking lot trees, which may count
towards the parking area trees otherwise q red by City ordinances.
f. Only one free - standing sign shall be permitt d on the subject property.
g. If signage is to be lighted, it shall be intern y 'lluminated.
h. The parking /display area shall be setb k a landscaped in accordance with the
attached landscape plan dated 5/29/ and arked as revised on 6/11/13. The
minimum setback along the Highway frontage all be 11 feet, but shall be deeper
on the north and south ends of the rking /display isle as shown. Landscaping shall
extend along the side lot lines an into the parking of islands as illustrated on said
landscape plan with use of a mini um of three differe species of trees. The attached
landscape plan shall constitute a minimum standard hat shall be maintained over
time. Landscaped green spac and setback areas may increased, but shall not be
reduced to less than what is own on the attached plan.
5. The Owner, Applicant and C' y acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are
reasonable conditions to im ose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2013), and that
said conditions satisfyeloped, needs that are caused by the requested zoning change.
6. The Owner, ApplicaCity acknowledge that in the event the subject property is
transferred, sold, red or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the
terms of this Conditio ing Agreement.
7. The parties ackno`oGledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be
a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force
and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the
City of Iowa City.
The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind
all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties.
2
U)
LW
wlr'
a
0
J
co
W
Y
N
LU
U
•
� I
N
Q
J
0.
0
F-
U)
W
r
O
J
0
U
0
�N ym
�
Jain
a3�g;
Rif
PAN" w
r-
ism
Z'
IN H8,811a a
-� mg, 1 e���:� � � �
� W
a�a
�
■a�
o�m
E
"e1R %oo
LLJ
my
Yam
NOIvo z
o
N
%a
400040a0�wom
€F
`_o
0
�(
/ \�_�
N
a
dog
uyz
=Z N
00 m
U)
LW
wlr'
a
0
J
co
W
Y
N
LU
U
•
� I
N
Q
J
0.
0
F-
U)
W
r
O
J
0
U
0
�
x
a3�g;
Rif
PAN" w
E
19
ism
Z'
IN H8,811a a
-� mg, 1 e���:� � � �
� W
a�a
�
■a�
�gMkNA
"e1R %oo
�'
�
o
N
%a
400040a0�wom
€F
U)
LW
wlr'
a
0
J
co
W
Y
N
LU
U
•
� I
N
Q
J
0.
0
F-
U)
W
r
O
J
0
U
0
� e
�\ (g �.
'03 4,,b',
O �
no v
NN
Q "
0 1( �
o�
��� \ be
�
x
<
yy
N
I
N
� e
�\ (g �.
'03 4,,b',
O �
no v
NN
Q "
0 1( �
o�
��� \ be
&R$vP
Z
fin
V)
~
° th
L U
m
Z
Jig 4 _
W
WQ � Z
�
Z
iY`s- a�Wyqybgy`Y6»
�p�a
�ggt € Yg�g
y
I�y1
Lu
—{
W
V.
H HH19O 99LB
. .$$NNi
fill'ilgi`sfold ii
i i
28'.
ggQ�yay��
Hag
\
gNpR�Rpb�gO�,
yyyyi xx�
® 1
885
NCI VO z
W Z aza °
-
a
s
_�
�gwo0o
O
V J CL
W
w. N
0<0
1
w�-U
M
.Y■ 0
NCO
2
U U)
W
r
O � e
5r
L U
m
X
WQ � Z
�
ti
Lu
—{
Yam $
T
S S> \
\
mU
Y cn
0
NCI VO z
W Z aza °
y
a
3
_�
�gwo0o
N 6
g °�
N
a vx
3�
C
ryryh
kk
kk
Q
3
O � e
a
o<
o o
zz
x'
w;
j
� tt
CC 0
O � 00
O W Jz
�w
LS lJ
5r
L U
m
X
WQ � Z
�
ti
Lu
—{
Yam $
T
S S> \
\
mU
Y cn
0
NCI VO z
W Z aza °
a
3
_�
�gwo0o
g °�
a
o<
o o
zz
x'
w;
j
� tt
CC 0
O � 00
O W Jz
�w
LS lJ
5r
S S> \
\
a vx
ryryh
�
Q
3
3 \
.r
`
It
n
N
\ \
8. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning
Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all
other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
9. The parties agr a that this Conditional Zoning Agreerylent shall be incorporated by
reference into t e ordinance rezoning the subject propert ,and that upon adoption and
publication of th ordinance, this agreement shall be re rded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office t the Applicant's expense.
Dated this day of
CITY OF IOWA CITY
2013.
Menards Inc., OWNER
BY: Matthew J. Hayek, Mayor By:
Attest:
By:
i
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGE
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
ezik -Bell Properties, L.C., APPLICANT
By:
This instrument was acknowledged 7ore me on
Hayek and Marian K. Karr as Mayor a City Clerk, n
Notary Public in
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
P
, 2013, by Matthew
of the City of Iowa City.
for the State of Iowa
CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF WISCONSIN)
) ss:
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ13 -00014
GENERAL INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern
Date: June 6, 2013
Applicant: Chezik -Bell Properties by Jon Bell
2835 Rosebay Court
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52411
217- 242 -6300
jonbell @chezikbell.com
Contact Person:
David Larsen
277 Hickory Street
Kalona, Iowa 52247
319- 656 -5271
Larsen @kctc.com
Property Owner: Menards Inc.
C/o Timothy Enyeart, Legal Department
4777 Menards Drive
Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54703
715- 876 -2776
tenyeart@menard- inc.com
Requested Action:
Amend the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached
to the current CI -1 zoning
Purpose: To reduce the front setback from 30 feet, as
specified in the CZA, to 11 feet, in exchange for
more extensive landscaping within the front setback
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Highway 1 West and Sunset Street
2.3 acres
Undeveloped, commercial (CI -1)
West: Highway 1 and residential, Cl-, RS -5 and
RM -12
East: Undeveloped and Iowa City Municipal Airport,
CI -1 and P1
North: Undeveloped, CIA
South: University of Iowa Studio Arts campus,
commercial, CIA
South Central District Plan— Intensive or Highway
Commercial
File Date: May 7, 2013
2
45 Day Limitation Period: July 1, 2013
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Chezik -Bell Properties, has requested an amendment to the Conditional Zoning
Agreement (CZA) attached to the current Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zoning for an undeveloped,
2.3 -acre property located on the south side of Highway 1 West, east of Sunset Street. The CZA
requires a 30 -foot front setback from the Highway 1 right -of -way, with ground cover within the
setback. The applicant has proposed reducing the front setback to 11 feet in exchange for more
extensive landscaping along the property's frontage with Highway 1.
The applicant has indicated the property will be used for an auto dealership. The concept plan
submitted by the applicant shows that the reduced setback requirement would allow the space to
be used as an auto display area. The applicant has stated that the irregular shape of the lot
restricts the display space available to the point where an auto sales lot would not be able to
function if the 30 foot setback is not reduced. The applicant also pointed out that the property at
809 Highway 1 West, also used for an auto dealership, was allowed to reduce the front setback
from 30 feet to 11 feet subject to more extensive landscaping.
The subject property was rezoned in 1996 from General Industrial (1 -1) to CI -1, subject to a CZA.
At the time, City policy called for preserved and enhanced entrances to Iowa City. The CZA
specifically identified Highway 1 as a primary entrance to Iowa City from the southwest. The
conditions included measures to lessen the impact of the development on surrounding areas and
allow for coordinated development of properties in the area. In addition to the 30 -foot front
setback, the conditions prevented direct vehicular access from Highway 1 to the subject property,
limited outdoor storage within 100 feet of the Highway 1 right -of -way to that associated with auto
sales and plant nurseries, required an access easement between nearby properties and the
subject property, and allowed just one free - standing sign on the subject property.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: CI -1 zoning provides areas for light industrial uses — businesses with operations
typically characterized by outdoor storage and display of merchandise, and repair and sales of
large equipment or motor vehicles. The types of retail uses allowed in this zone are limited in
order to create opportunities for more land- intensive commercial uses. Typical uses found in CIA
zoning include vehicle -sales lots, mechanics, warehousing and contractor's yards.
Dimensional requirements for CI -1 zoning require a minimum front setback of 10 feet (CZA
requires 30 feet for this and other properties in the area) and no minimum requirements for side
and rear setbacks. There are no requirements for building size in the CI -1 zoning, apart from a
maximum height of 35 feet and a maximum floor -area ratio of 1 (floor area within building divided
by total area of the lot).
A concept plan submitted by the applicant shows the building footprint, positioned at the rear of
the lot, would be approximately 10,150 square feet (building height has not been specified). In
addition, the Zoning Code requires one parking space per 500 square feet of floor area (20
parking spaces, if the building has one floor). Therefore, setbacks, building size and parking
spaces, as indicated on the concept plan, would meet requirements for the CI -1 zone. But it does
not appear the building size and parking requirements would limit the amount of display space
available, as stated by the applicant.
When considering the applicants request to reduce the setback in exchange for more extensive
landscaping, staff notes that the front property line is already set back approximately 60 feet from
the Highway 1 roadway due to the extensive right -of -way width in this area. There is also a
PCD \Staff Reportskez13 -00014 chezik -bell hwy 1.doc
�3
notable change in grade, a decline of approximately 10 feet, from the roadway to the property line
that acts as a sort of natural buffer. The incline of the slope begins close to the front property line.
In staffs view, what would be, in effect, a 90 -foot setback from the roadway (60 feet within the
right -of -way plus 30 feet on the subject property), covered with grass, would be less- aesthetically
pleasing than the proposed 11 foot setback with extensive landscaping.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The South Central District Plan future land -use map
depicts the subject property as appropriate for Intensive or Highway Commercial development.
The subject property falls within Subarea B. The plan addresses intensive commercial uses in
Subarea B, and states that entranceway aesthetics need to be considered as these intensive
commercial properties develop and redevelop. Extensive landscaping along the frontage of the
property would likely add to the visual appeal of the property. Thus, staff believes that with more
extensive landscaping than would otherwise be required, even the reduced setback proposed
by the applicant would meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant has submitted the attached landscape plan depicting ornamental trees and
shrubs within the proposed 11 foot setback. Based on staff's recommendation the plan shows
the landscaping treatment extending along the sides of the property for a distance of
approximately 100 feet. There are two approximately 30 by 30 foot wide lawn areas shown in
the northwest and southwest corners of the property where the 30 foot setback area is shown
as remaining on the applicant's landscape plan. To assure that these areas are not converted
in additional paving staff recommends that landscaping be added to those two areas.
Access and street design: The property does not have direct vehicular access from Highway 1.
Vehicular access to the property from Highway 1 is provided between the properties located at
1335 Highway 1 and 1411 Highway 1. The property at 1335 Highway 1 features a drive running
northwest - southeast across the property. The property at 1335 Highway 1 abides by the 30 -foot
setback. The concept plan shows an aisle on the subject property connecting to the drive across
1335 Highway 1. The reduced setback would not interfere with vehicular access to the subject
property. There are no sidewalks along this section of Highway 1.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ13- 00014, a proposal to amend the Conditional Zoning
Agreement attached to the current CI -1 zoning by reducing the required front setback from 30 feet
to 11 feet, subject to adherence to the attached landscape plan showing more extensive
landscaping in the remaining areas of the frontage including extension of the landscaping to the
side lot lines as shown on the attached plan and subject to additional landscaping in the northeast
and southwest corners of the property.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Concept Plan
3. Applicant's statement as to why change is warranted
Approved by: /- d'y-- x— /l�Lt�
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
PCMStaff Reports\rez13 -00014 chezik -bell hwy 1.doc
.. ...... . ..
N
LU
ce
�. v
Jr v�jb0
... ..... ... ...
4-P
— T
4-J
V)
Is ------
Qs
---- --------
cz
Ir
FM
Ul
9
. . ....
430 -- - - — - -- -
1
�l
N= \
N 55
a �
OO OO QO
s\
p Q
N
$i� rr� D
Oo
g?
D
g
D
Z N
2Z
OZ
NO
n
0
9
m
0
z
:.
d \
SfjggiN fly♦
3 i_ mti
8 3 se n
e_�y
mn c Cs�z
Ul
�.
g
£N
D
7C
-I WDm
A
'��'Dr�i �Zm
2
W
V)
-C mV r
r
W
� N
to c-f O m m
po
4A
Vo
A
20
p ¢�
r
u
N
R°
\ \ \ q S
\ �F'Nfgyf0
\
\
M
\
\
� \
N 55
a �
OO OO QO
p Q
N
$i� rr� D
Oo
g?
D
g
D
Z N
2Z
OZ
NO
n
r-
0
R�m �
t x
x l
f Y
a
�a
oA i
g?
g
0 DZD V Z
0
9
m
0
z
N O- v 1.
Z
1 o�IU)
m \!�]
Z
nT
D r
m-0
T�
3 i_ mti
8 3 se n
e_�y
mn c Cs�z
Ul
-
g
£N
7C
-I WDm
A
'��'Dr�i �Zm
2
W
V)
-C mV r
r
W
� N
to c-f O m m
N
4A
9
A
N
R°
V
m
to
�m
O � N
�O�
,Z7 m
0
V
_rte
0 > -0
*Nm
;o
m
D
/v
O
z 7r Z
�pFn a
0
�;a� 0
SB�� ❑a %9I ®a�ir���g +i
;8g 9 6 m
181.1 m i F $$£ °{ -use e�N�ss$e€ z
ig 29
$g ya migN
w g
aka 1 Run
mom
oA i
g?
g
0 DZD V Z
0
9
m
0
z
N O- v 1.
Z
1 o�IU)
m \!�]
Z
nT
D r
m-0
T�
3 i_ mti
8 3 se n
e_�y
mn c Cs�z
Ul
-
g
£N
7C
-I WDm
S�
'��'Dr�i �Zm
2
W
V)
-C mV r
r
W
� N
to c-f O m m
Applicant's Statement as to change in Zoning Agreement
Item # 5 from Application
To whom it may concern:
This Application and Statement is to not change the zoning designation CI -1, but
only to make a change to the Conditional Zoning Agreement associated with Lot 1
WESTORT PLAZA - -- -Part Two, Iowa City, Iowa found starting at Vol. or Book 2139
Page 193. Actual page of change is found at Vol. or Book 2139 page 195 4t ", item
Paragraph h., which reads "There shall be a 30 foot setback from the Highway 1
right -of -way, which setback shall be landscaped with ground cover such as grass.
No parking or paving other than sidewalks shall be allowed within this 30 —foot
setback." Our request is to change the "30 foot" to "11 foot ", and in exchange to
implement a more advanced and detailed landscaping plan, which landscape plan
will be contained within the 11 foot area, just like Nissan Auto dealership ( shown
in photos attached and similar landscape plan attached). The Nissan dealership
was allowed a similar arrangement where in exchange for other consideration
they could implement an Eleven foot setback with and more detailed an advanced
landscape plan.
It is our view that this allowance or change is warranted due to the fact a nearby
property on Highway One was allowed a similar change to incorporate advanced
and a more detailed landscape plan in exchange for a consideration.
Factors to be considered for change:
1. The shape of Lot 1 presents design issues not normally found, and is
difficult because of its shape to get the required number of parking
spaces and size of building.
2. The Use of the property is for a car dealership, and currently if a 11 ft
setback is not allowed there will not be enough spaces per
manufactures desired number of parking spaces, on the lot as needed.
As a result the purchase of the dealership will not be able to be
completed.
Q- 0
3. Pushing the building back further on the lot cramps the ability to get
parking, fire trucks and further inhibits and restricts the size of the
building.
4. Every square inch is going to be needed to make this property viable and
useable. We need every possible space that is available in order to not
cramp the dealership out of being productive.
It is our intent to be compliant in every way. Our use fits into the comprehensive
plan as well as the current zone of CI -1.
Please notice pictures of nearby properties. Our intent is to develop an attractive
landscape plan and building in order to become an asset to the entrance into the
City on Highway One.
On behalf of Jon Bell Applicant
David Larsen
Contact Person
Bob Miklo
From: Bob Miklo
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 10:14 AM
To: 'Mary Hitchcock'
Subject: RE: REZ13 -00014 Chezik -Bell Application
Mary,
Thank you for your comments regarding the proposed amendments to the Conditional Zoning Agreement. I will pass
them onto the Planning and Zoning Commission. See comments below in blue ink regarding the easement. The City
Engineer is reviewing the drainage question. I will let you know what I find out.
:••
From: Mary Hitchcock [ mailto :Mary_Hitchcock @hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 8:50 AM
To: Bob Miklo
Cc: Chuck Meardon
Subject: REZ13 -00014 Chezik -Bell Application
Department of Planning & Community Development.
Att: Bob Miklo
RE: REZ13 -00014 Chezik -Bell Application
The Ruppert Family, adjacent property owners who farmed this parcel for many years before selling it
to the Menard's company a decade ago, note with concern two problems.
1. The roadway easement through our adjoining parcel which was planned to connect with the intersection
of Highway 1 and Sunset Street ends at this parcel's eastern property line. It is totally blocked by the new
building and does not appear elsewhere on the map. Years ago the City insisted the continuation of this
easement, through this site, was a necessary part of the development in this area. Relocation of this
easement was denied to us at that time. Nothing has changed. The easement must be added to this plan
in the location originally designated. Yes, the easement is still required and will need to be included before a
site plan or building permit can be issued for this property. The purpose of the plan attached to the letter was
to illustrate the applicants proposal for landscaping - it is not a full site plan.
2. This 2.3 acre parcel is currently well below the grade of the University Arts parking lot. A great deal of
rain runs off from the Arts parking lot and collects on this parcel and yet there appears no provision for water
retention. The plan must be adjusted to prevent water from this area from flowing onto the adjacent
Ruppert Family parcel. I have asked the City Engineer to review this question.
Thank you for addressing these points.
Sincerely
Mary Hitchcock, Executive Director
Ruppert Family LLC 319 - 855 -4300
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 11 of 16
Martin said the new renderings were striking in that they clearly spelled out how much
impervious area there will be on the subject site, more even than the adjacent site. She said she
is questioning this application more than before, which has nothing to do with the fact of its
location or that it's multi - family.
Theobald said she liked the selection of trees in the new plan.
Swygard said she shared Martin's concern of these buildings being so close together on this
slope and whatever the quality of the trees, they do provide a buffer. She said they've seen this
project grow larger. She said she has been out to the subject site, and something just doesn't
feel right to her about this application.
Eastham said he's inclined vote for approval. He said he doesn't know a way to address the
stability of the building to the south through the Zoning Code. He would be in favor of having the
applicant get an engineering report focusing on that if he knew how to do that. He said he hoped
there were ways for the property owners on the adjacent site to protect themselves. He said he
thinks the applicant and staff have worked very hard together to address the issue of surface
water. He agreed that it would be preferable not to disturb the trees that exist on the subject
property, he thinks that's a solvable problem and he would support a deferment if that's' a
sticking point. He said he doesn't see a reason not to proceed because of the proposed
building's size.
Freerks said she really has concerns about the water, and she thinks there is more that can be
done about the trees, so she's not quite ready to vote for the application.
Dyer said the City Engineers have already approved the storm water system. Miklo explained
that was just for the storm water and didn't deal with the questions that arose about the slope
stability from the adjacent property.
A vote was taken and the motion was denied 2-4 with Eastham and Theobald voting in
favor.
Swygard moved to defer to June 20.
Eastham seconded.
Freerks said the Commission wants to talk about all aspects of water, slope stability and about
the issue of trees and the building placement.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0.
REZ13- 00014: Discussion of an application submitted by Chezik -Bell Properties for a
rezoning of 2.30 -acres of land located southeast of the intersection of Highway 1 and
Sunset Street in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to amend the Conditional Zoning
Agreement regarding setback and landscaping adjacent to Highway 1.
Miklo showed the Commission drawings and photographs of the subject property. He explained
that the Jiffy Lube business has a thirty foot setback, and there's a Conditional Zoning
Agreement that requires a thirty foot setback. He said the application is to reduce that setback
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 12 of 16
to eleven feet, and in lieu of the grass setback, which is all that's required, the applicant is
proposing more extensive landscaping.
He said staff feels that the enhanced landscaping may result in a better looking entrance to the
city than the thirty foot setback would. He said they are also recommending landscaping in two
corner areas. He said the applicant submitted a new drawing proposing paving one more space
on each end and planting some day lilies in the remaining areas. He said the Commission will
have to decide if that's acceptable or whether they would rather see the larger landscaping
island that was shown in the original plan, preferably with bushes or shrubs as recommended by
staff.
Eastham said in the new site plan the driveway to the adjacent lot is shown as curved as
opposed to straight. Miklo said it wasn't shown on the original plan, but it's a requirement that
can't be waived. He said this addresses the issue of the easement raised by Mary Hitchcock,
but the issue of storm water will need to be addressed at the time of any site plan approval.
Eastham asked if the reduction in setback is only if the property is developed as a car
dealership according to the site plan before the Commission. Miklo said it could be used for
another use, but staff is recommending that this new site plan be a condition of approval in
terms of what happens in those thirty feet.
Theobald said the crabapple species shown on the plan is susceptible to disease. Miklo said
the Commission can make an alternative tree selection a condition of approval.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Dave Larsen said he was here on behalf of the Chezik -Bell properties.
Eastham said he would like to hear the applicant's rationale for changing staff's
recommendation. Larsen said staff told the applicant that they wanted to implement that
easement and put it on the plan, so they did, but then realized that some of the measurements
were incorrect, and they also wanted to better define what had been designed as a general
area, so they trimmed it up but still left room for more landscaping. He agreed to change the
tree that Theobald had referred to.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Martin moved to recommend approval of REZ13- 00014, an application submitted by
Chezik -Bell Properties for a rezoning of 2.30 -acres of land located southeast of the
intersection of Highway 1 and Sunset Street in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to
amend the Conditional Zoning Agreement regarding setback and landscaping adjacent to
Highway 1 referencing the plan of June 6, 2013, using the larger, corner landscape area
and replacement crabapple trees.
Eastham seconded.
Freerks said she thinks this continues what has gone before, and it's is a great solution.
Eastham agreed that this does continue earlier decisions by Commissions and Councils to pay
attention to the appearance of developments along Highway 1 as a main entrance into the city.
He said reducing the buffer area and increasing the plantings will all work toward that end.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 13 of 16
Theobald said her only concern is the lack of diversity in the landscaping of all the businesses
along this route. She said it's all of the same pattern. She said a disease could be a disaster if
all the trees along a long expanse are the same.
Theobald moved to amend Martin's motion by deleting "and replacement crabapple
trees" and adding "and replacement trees of three different varieties."
Eastham seconded.
A vote was taken and the amendment carried 6 -0.
A vote was taken and the amended motion carried 6 -0.
Zoninq Code Amendment Items:
Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to allow Schools of Generalized
Instruction by special exception in the Community Commercial (CC -2) Zone.
Miklo said Schools of Generalized Instruction are grade schools and high schools that aren't
allowed in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone to avoid conflicts with school traffic and
retail areas. He said there are CC -2 zones within the city that aren't of a great retail nature, as
well as parts of shopping centers that schools might fit in. He said staff is recommending an
amendment of the Zoning Code to allow the Board of Adjustment on a case by case basis to
consider Schools of Generalized Construction in the (CC -2) zone with the criteria specified in
the staff report that the Board would look at the character of the area and whether it would be
displacing retail; that there's adequate drop -off and pick -up areas to provide for safety; and that
there is adequate pedestrian access for school children.
Eastham asked if a consideration would be the number of students at a location. Miklo said the
Board of Adjustment could look at the specifics and could put conditions on or deny a proposal.
Eastham asked if that could be adjusted in the future if the school attendance grows. Miklo said
that generally a special exception approves a size or a plan, and if the applicant wants to
expand that, they would need to come back before the Board and amend the special exception.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Craig Nierman said he was here on behalf of Parkview Church. He said they had identified the
Southeast Side Neighborhood as one that needed encouragement and outreach. He said they
tried bussing children to their facility on Foster Road, but that was not successful, so they
currently lease a portion of the old Best Buy building. He said the plan is to start a school
beginning with kindergarten and first grade and then increasing grade level each year. He said
for this school to be viable, they need to use an existing building.
Wisdom Nwafor of Parkview Church explained how this school will function.
Swygard asked if this school will be accredited by the State. Nwafor said they plan on getting
that accreditation after the school grows, but they do have regulations they have to comply with.
Eastham asked if the Zoning Code required Schools of Generalized Instruction to be accredited.
Greenwood Hektoen said it does not.
Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5240
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW SCHOOLS OF GENERALIZED
INSTRUCTION BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC -2) ZONE.
WHEREAS, General Educational Facilities are currently not permitted in the CC -2 zone; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the CC -2 zone is to provide for major business districts serving a significant
segment of the total community population with large traffic- generating uses; and
WHEREAS, CC -2 zones serve primarily as retail centers, but in some locations educational facilities
could be a compatible use; and
WHEREAS, allowing General Educational Facilities in the CC -2 zone by Special Exception will provide
for review by the Board of Adjustment to consider the compatibility of the use for the specific commercial
location, based on factors such as traffic patterns and provision of safe pedestrian access to the school; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the ordinance and recommended that
the proposal be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows:
A. Amend Table 2C -1, Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones, by labeling Educational Facilities,
General as "S" in the column for the CC -2 Zone.
B. Insert a new paragraph 8 within Subsection 14 -4B4D as follows, and re- number subsequent
paragraphs accordingly:
8. General Education Facilities in the CC -2 Zone:
a. The use will be functionally compatible with surrounding uses and will not inhibit retail and
service uses for which the zone is primarily intended. The Board may consider such factors
as siteyayout, size and scale of the development, and traffic circulation.
b. The use must provide a drop- off /pick -up area in a location that is convenient to, or has good
pedestrian access to, the entrance to the facility. The drop- off /pick -up area must contain
sufficient stacking spaces and /or parking spaces to ensure that traffic does not stack into
adjacent streets or other public rights -of -way.
c. The site must be designed to promote safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular
circulation to the school according to the standards set forth in subsection 14- 2C-6F,
Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Vehicular Circulation. Pedestrian walkways must be established
connecting the main entrance(s) of the school to adjacent public sidewalks and trails.
SECTION Il. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of 2013.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
First Consideration 7/23/2013
that the
Voteforpassage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens,
Dobyns. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
4�
Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5240
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW CHOOLS OF GENERALIZED
INSTRUCTION BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN THE COMMUNITY COMME CIAL (CC -2) ZONE.
WHEREAS, General Educational Facilities are currently not permitte in the CC -2 zone; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the CC zone is to provide for major b siness districts serving a significant
segment of the total community popula ion with large traffic- generatin ses; and
WHEREAS, CC -2 zones serve pr arily as retail centers, but n some locations educational facilities
could be a compatible use; and
WHEREAS, allowing General Educ ional Facilities in the C -2 zone by Special Exception will provide
for review by the Board of Adjustment t consider the compat' ility of the use for the specific commercial
location, based on factors such as traffic p tterns and provisio of safe pedestrian access to the school; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning ommission has r viewed the ordinance and recommended that
the proposal be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINE Vityo ITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of ta City, Iowa is hereby amen ded as follows:
A. Amend Table 2C -1, Principal Uses Almercial Zones, by labeling Educational Facilities,
General as "S" in the column for the C
B. Insert a new paragraph 8 within SuJ6sectiolQ 14 -46-4D as follows, and re- number subsequent
paragraphs accordingly: �� \
8. General Education Facilities in Ye CC -2 Zone.
a. The use will be function ly compatible w h surrounding uses and will not inhibit retail and
service uses for which a zone is primaril intended. The Board may consider such factors
as site layout, size an scale of the develop nt, and traffic circulation.
b. The use must provi a drop- off /pick -up are in a location that is convenient to or has good
a
pedestrian acces to the entrance to the f ility. The drop -off /pick -up area must contain
sufficient stackin spaces and /or parking spades to ensure that traffic does not stack into
adjacent street or other public rights -of -way.
c. The site must a designed to promote safe and
circulation t the school according to the sty
Pedestrian, icycle, and Vehicular Circulation.
connectin the main entrance(s) of the school to
All ordinances and parts of ordi
nt pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular
set forth in subsection 14- 2C-6F,
an walkways must be established
public sidewalks and trails.
in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed. '
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. -
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its finat-passagw, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of 12013.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 6, 2013
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
RE: General Educational Facilities (primary and secondary schools) in the CC -2
Zone
Proposed Zoning Code Amendment
Steve Kholi, on behalf of Faith Academy, has requested that the Zoning Code be
amended to allow General Educational Facilities (primary and secondary schools) in
the Community Commercial (CC -2) Zone (see attached written request).
General Educational Facilities are defined as elementary and secondary schools
below university grade (ordinarily grades one through 12), including denominational
and sectarian schools, kindergarten and military academies. Such schools are
currently allowed as provisional uses in the Commercial Office (CO -1) and Mixed
Use (MU) zones. They are permitted in the Central Business (CB -2, CB -5 and CB-
10) zones. They are not permitted the other commercial zones, including the CC -2
Zone.
The Intent of the CC -2 Zone is to provide for major business districts to serve a
significant segment of the total community population. In addition to a variety of retail
goods and services, these centers typically feature a number of large traffic
generators requiring access form major thoroughfares. Although CC -2 zones
primarily serve as retail centers, staff believes that in some locations, educational
facilities could be a compatible use.
Allowing General Educational Facilities in the CC -2 zone by special exception would
provide for review by the Board of Adjustment to consider the compatibility of the
use for the specific commercial location. Factors such a traffic patterns and
provision of safe pedestrian access to the school could be considered by the Board.
Staff recommends that in addition to the general approval criteria considered by the
Board of Adjustment for all special exceptions, the following specific approval criteria
apply:
a. The use will be functionally compatible with surrounding uses and will
not inhibit retail and services uses for which the zone in is primarily
intended. The Board will consider such factors as size and scale of the
development and projected traffic generation.
b. The use must provide a drop -off /pick -up area in a location that is
convenient to or has good pedestrian access to the entrance to the
Page 2
facility. This drop- off /pick -up area must contain sufficient stacking
spaces and /or parking spaces to ensure that traffic does not stack into
adjacent streets or other public rights -of -way.
c. A sidewalk must be constructed connecting the main entrance of the
center to the adjacent public right -of -way. Pedestrian access must be
clearly separated or distinguished from vehicular circulation areas to
minimize the extent to which users of the facility are required to walk
across drives or aisles to gain access to the facility.
The City Attorney has yet to review this draft and may offer revision prior to
Thursday's meeting.
Recommendation
Staff recommends amending the Zoning Code to allow General Educational
Facilities by special exception in the CC -2 zone as indicated above, subject to
approval of code language by the City Attorney.
Approved by: d�
Jeff Davidson, Director
Department of Planning and Community Development
Request for Zoning Code Amendment
We request an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow General Educational Uses in the
CC -2 Zone.
Reason for request:
The Zoning Code needs to be adjusted to improve the educational opportunities of
students in the Broadway neighborhood. Thus, it is essential that the Broadway
neighborhood receive an injection of new educational resources.
In targeting this specific neighborhood we understand that it vitally critical that any
educational facility be within easy walking distance of the students' homes.
It is not financially viable to construct a new facility within the neighborhood we are
trying to serve. Accordingly, we must rely on pre- existing structures, which are
exclusively in areas zoned for commercial use. Put another way, the absence of a zoning
code amendment will preclude these impoverished students from reaching their
educational potential.
Compatibility with existing CC -2 uses:
While it has been traditional in Iowa City that schools are located in residential;zones- - -it
is not universal nor has it always been so. .1 would point out that SE Junior high is
bounded on the south by commercial zoning and Horace Mann at Dodge and:Ghurcli�oth
educate students to no adverse effect.
Critical issues effecting compatibility:
Traffic: In canvassing the area for suitable facilities one of our major concerns was traffic
and the safety of students regarding pick up and drop off. Traffic on site can easily be
controlled by critical placement of ingress /egress driveways. In addition those possible
sites located along HWY 6 are fronted with access roads. As noted above the primary
purpose of our request to assist the Broadway Neighborhood in their educational needs
and as such realize that any facility must be within walking distance and so we expect
very little vehicular traffic. We would also note the area is serviced by a very
comprehensive system of walkways and side walks.
The proposed interim location (1030 Cross park Ave.) is immediately across the street
from apartment complexes, so it already is, in a de facto sense, a residential area. The
large parking lot is used almost exclusively for The Spot (interim location), so it serves as
a "safe harbor" for picking up and dropping off students as well as limited outdoor
activities.
Outdoor Activity Areas:
Playground, activity areas are a very important criteria for our facility to be student
friendly. Preschool regulations require 100 sq.ft. Per child on the playground. Private
schools in general and Faith in particular have a much lower enrollment than public
schools and will naturally require much less activity areas, adequate activity areas will
have to be decided upon on a case by case basis. The current location (1030 Crosspark)
X
F
has abundant outdoor activity area in paved area behind Pepperwood Mall and green
space behind the old Mayor's youth facility.
Safety and Security:
Fortunately, CC -2 areas generally have more than adequate outdoor lighting for both
visual and security reasons.
Internally, standard security protocol will be enacted. These actions include but not
limited to: Building Entrance security, signin/signout. Recorded visitor sign in, etc.
Additionally, students will be required to wear uniforms, making non student interlopers
immediately visible.
We believe allowing a General Education Use in the CC -2 zone would not adversely
affect any existing businesses in the proposed area and conversely, any existing
businesses would not adversely effect an educational institution in the area.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 13 of 16
Theobald said her only concern is the lack of diversity in the landscaping of all the businesses
along this route. She said it's all of the same pattern. She said a disease could be a disaster if
all the trees along a long expanse are the same.
Theobald moved to amend Martin's motion by deleting "and replacement crabapple
trees" and adding "and replacement trees of three different varieties."
Eastham seconded.
A vote was taken and the amendment carried 6 -0.
A vote was taken and the amended motion carried 6 -0
Zoning Code Amendment Items:
-�1 Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to allow Schools of Generalized
Instruction by special exception in the Community Commercial (CC -2) Zone.
Miklo said Schools of Generalized Instruction are grade schools and high schools that aren't
allowed in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone to avoid conflicts with school traffic and
retail areas. He said there are CC -2 zones within the city that aren't of a great retail nature, as
well as parts of shopping centers that schools might fit in. He said staff is recommending an
amendment of the Zoning Code to allow the Board of Adjustment on a case by case basis to
consider Schools of Generalized Construction in the (CC -2) zone with the criteria specified in
the staff report that the Board would look at the character of the area and whether it would be
displacing retail; that there's adequate drop -off and pick -up areas to provide for safety; and that
there is adequate pedestrian access for school children.
Eastham asked if a consideration would be the number of students at a location. Miklo said the
Board of Adjustment could look at the specifics and could put conditions on or deny a proposal.
Eastham asked if that could be adjusted in the future if the school attendance grows. Miklo said
that generally a special exception approves a size or a plan, and if the applicant wants to
expand that, they would need to come back before the Board and amend the special exception.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Craig Nierman said he was here on behalf of Parkview Church. He said they had identified the
Southeast Side Neighborhood as one that needed encouragement and outreach. He said they
tried bussing children to their facility on Foster Road, but that was not successful, so they
currently lease a portion of the old Best Buy building. He said the plan is to start a school
beginning with kindergarten and first grade and then increasing grade level each year. He said
for this school to be viable, they need to use an existing building.
Wisdom Nwafor of Parkview Church explained how this school will function.
Swygard asked if this school will be accredited by the State. Nwafor said they plan on getting
that accreditation after the school grows, but they do have regulations they have to comply with.
Eastham asked if the Zoning Code required Schools of Generalized Instruction to be accredited.
Greenwood Hektoen said it does not.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 14 of 16
Steve Kohli of 3129 Dubuque Street reminded the Commission that staff has structured this
amendment to function on a case by case basis.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to
allow Schools of Generalized Instruction by special exception in the Community
Commercial (CC -2) Zone.
Martin seconded.
Freerks said she was all in favor of having smaller schools peppered throughout the community
that can offer something in the community, in the neighborhood, nearby, or in a commercial
area, re -using structures that otherwise might go unused.
Martin said she thinks this is a brilliant idea to re -use this structure, and it makes so much
sense.
Eastham said although he's supportive of the type of school being proposed, he thinks one the
Commission's responsibilities is to make sure that student safety is considered as well as
surrounding users being considered in terms of a specific location and intensity of use at that
location. He commended both the staff and the applicant for recognizing that those concerns of
safety and access are very real.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0.
Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to modify the regulations regarding
the spacing of drinking establishments so that the 600 -foot spacing rule would only
apply to the University Impact Area and the Riverfront Crossings District.
Miklo said staff feels these regulations have been effective in preventing additional bars from
opening. He said the ordinance was primarily concerned about downtown, but it applied.
citywide. He said there are some areas where the City has been told by potential
restaurant/bars that this has been problematic. He said the City Council asked staff to look at
this question and staff is comfortable recommending this change for areas outside the
University Impact Area and Riverfront Crossings.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to
modify the regulations regarding the spacing of drinking establishments so that the 500 -
foot spacing rule would only apply to the University Impact Area and the Riverfront
Crossings District.
Martin seconded.
w
@ p
C
Y
~
c
T
m a)
c
N a
2
COL
-0 N
y
m
c
a
v o
N
y
7 N
V 1p
-Op 'O C
N Y
U
C i
C T
aJ+
N L N Co
N
'E
> v U
O O C
V 7
V1
L a
l.i N
O
I o
N y
L
y
a0+
N p
N
N
Q d
U
W —_ O A
L -p
m
vYi 7 r'
Q
O
N C
i.m
E
3-p
O vi
" o
• v
u
wa
L =
41
w
Y C
O
Y
N
J W Gl
Yo
OD
J
N
vYi
rn t °
O
O C c
u^
L
u
9 C
O
= a) O p
Y
p
0 1]
O M
N
y (D
E o
-C w
o �'
v
a°
3
L
a
O w
JO
L vN
E0
E
�o
> d
O
Y
T y d d
J
cob
aw0'w
eo'
g
3
>>
-5o=
>oa
m m
�
ate-„
v
-�"
d y
N N=
a+ >
0 0> L
— c
GJ
E=
O
V— C 7
v
vi
7 01 y C v
O
o°
X V
a
p O
L
J
Q
X N O O
Vi W a
y
L
c =_
J W L
o LT 3
a W IQ
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
V
GJ
N
O
L
O
G
_
u
C 0 N O! T
E o
-O p L L
t0 L
L C «.
3
L
p a
010 0-0
1�l E p Y
v Y Y
V d
N
V
Y 'O
C C CU
p N
T �C O Y
U
O) m y
yU,
r
O
-0 Y
-p
V L
o
0 !n
c o C 0. CL
Yp N aw
N
V
J H
0
d)
CL M Z E v
—
E - c
T
E
L
N i
ry
N
^
v
-•
c
Q
O
J= E w
-L' pL E
7
N
—__
a
C Q) -o N
L"3u3u
E
v-
Nw
3 nor
u)' �c�
a
a+
Y
Y O Y U C O
w
3 N U
C m p
yY
J
0-0 O -> O
O)
d
Y C m Y
W N>
« N Y > r
w
v
V O
!
it N N>
N
L-
-p -° E
r N O
0) y
C
CL
fO ` ,L
u, Y
(O Y
N
d E
N 'D
CL
O
00
O Y O~
V
E 3 Y
'v
!6y Y L
u
v
c l7 c N v Vp..
a�
J c c v
v rn v
W 4)>
J
J
O J v 'N O)
•
7 0 0 W L
'O
C L L i m
L
O
6
Y E T G/ C
r
V Y L
H CL
A R N u
V 7!
F
N E
V
N JO
.i' N U/ N
�E
uE33
riu'3��3
ri¢mmu
:0b D �� v<
� 4yd`
07 � +o
O —^
Y
3 E c ° N
d v m C C C Q r N to
O O +' N v °> t O O- +N+
O L N ,3 v j j N
m Y v= CL Lo t N 3 - D
3 a O Y ±' 0 3 a Y v
3 m Q v a m m c ° O v Y
O N C �_^ 7 E 3 r- O C N •-
V Y p L Y =. O N i� N L— aj
C m 0 v rCO v 0 H N N C C> a
`a'C+ V a rpt Nov O m 01 ro
VI L Y L 3
t•� p, 0 j'a O Q N YO r Q O 3
O
LD
N GJ 0
C 7° O Y N Q aN+ a w O
e4 E p O Y rn rn '^ v 3 01 l7 �'
v 'O N 0 C L 0 0 0 3 L v
L6 ..O Q L ++ Y N I N L L Y a
O
Fl
ON
2
i'
L
L
3
Y
L
Y
Y
N
•�
L
•E
C Y
C
E
m
L r6
U
,
Y
v
C
(L)
y
^ p
0 YO
QYE�
CL Y
Y
n
N
L
Y
N v
N
Y
i�l v C
O
C v
T
Oi
L
c C
�s L-a
va
L
Y
Y
v u C Q N
N v .
p Ln L N c
jj t L
yL. L O v( { N ro m 3 V
rY0 Y CL aL.+ N f N °
aL+ > d N m= 0 v
Qu olo o o aa,
v> Q O 7
v `` i N
E C Ol
N F (0 O 3 O C
O N O V ` C O -p L
Ol N r0 O N N
O •a
s¢ 3 a ( Q E
O� o Y v P 3° v E o
v R a T m C N V
u v o E f r E Y v v m
VJ a C -p rNa L C
�¢v °3cE
CL
N N J y a O
v a 7 3
V.� = =v� v�LLav= 0
E a;
a 01
3 °
O N p
s
3 a
N v
O
OC C
Y
V TY
o
7 C
° r-
0
3
? N
c
°- v o
m Q
.vo 0 3
O L Y
3 3 �
y O
c s
LL a
Y_
Y 3
Q v+
v Q
N
n
a •°
p a
C j a
Y a
M ° C
a
E
m
l7 O
v
t
0
c
C
(L)
T
O — V
Y °
cn M
v Y
n
N
C j Q
C p
V
v
O"
O E
Oi
a)
01
O O
3
s ��r
wm °'O
°
C
=
p — 01
3
>.o 0
o v
'�z�3vvQj
Y N
N7
Q t"a '0 Qj
O
+"C+
C y
C
o
L.L
3 V N
0
N
N
V
Ul
c
O
Q
Q
7
E
v
L p
Y
Ul v
a N
O L
Y
Q�
a v
o E
4e M
Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDNANCE AMENDING TITLE 14: ZONING CODE TO MODIFY THE REGULATIONS
REGARDING THE SPACING OF DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS SO THAT THE 500 -FOOT
SPACING RULE WOULD ONLY APPLY TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY
IMPACT AREA AND THE RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, studies show that the increase in the concentration of alcohol - related uses is
correlated to the overconsumption of alcohol and prevalence of underage drinking; and
WHEREAS, studies also show that an increase in the concentration of alcohol - related uses
contributes to an increase in violence and crime; and
WHEREAS, in 2009 the City established spacing requirements for drinking establishments
throughout Iowa City; and
WHEREAS, due to the negative externalities associated with a concentration of drinking
establishments such as bars and pubs, it is in the public interest to prevent further
concentration of these types of uses in locations within and near downtown Iowa City and the
University of Iowa campus where the demand for these types of land uses is highest; and
WHEREAS, a concentration of drinking establishments outside the central city and the
University Impact Area has not occurred and is less likely to occur such that spacing
requirements for drinking establishments is not necessary and may be unduly restricting
economic development opportunities in outlying commercial areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as
follows:
A. Deleting subparagraph 14- 413- 413-9e. and substituting in lieu thereof:
e. In any CN -1 Zone within the University Impact Area, as illustrated on Map 213.1 within
Section 14 -213-6, or the Riverfront Crossings District, as illustrated in Figure 2C.8
within Section 14- 2C -11, a Drinking Establishment, as defined in this Title, must be
separated by a minimum distance of 500 feet from any other Drinking Establishment.
Distance shall be measured along a straight line from the nearest property line (or
nearest point of the leased building space) of the proposed use to the nearest
property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of any other Drinking
Establishment. For example, in the case of a Drinking Establishment that is located
on a lot with multiple leased spaces, such as a shopping mall, the distance is
measured from the nearest point of the leased building space occupied by a Drinking
Establishment to the nearest property line or leased building space of any other
Drinking Establishment.
B. Deleting paragraph 14- 4B -4B -10 and substituting in lieu thereof:
10. Drinking Establishments in the CH -1, CC -2, CB -2, CB -5, CB -10 Zones
Within the University Impact Area, as illustrated on Map 2B.1 within Section 14 -213-6
or the Riverfront Crossings District, as illustrated in Figure 2C.8 within Section 14-
2C-11 a Drinking Establishment, as defined in this Title, must be separated by a
minimum distance of 500 feet from any other Drinking Establishment. Distance shall
be measured along a straight line from the nearest property line (or nearest point of
Ordinance No.
Page 2
the leased building space) of the proposed use to the nearest property line (or
nearest point of the leased building space) of any other Drinking Establishment. For
example, in the case of a Drinking Establishment that is located on a lot with multiple
leased building spaces, such as a shopping mall, the distance is measured from the
nearest point of the leased building space occupied by a Drinking Establishment to
the nearest property line or leased building space of any other Drinking
Establishment.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions
of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication.
Passed and approved this day of 12013.
MAYOR Approved by r l /
ATTEST: Gl,� C-4 1 9'det
CITY CLERK City Attorney's Office &112 -113
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
First Consideration 7/23/2013
Vote for passage: AYES: Payne, Throgmorton,
NAYS: Mims. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
that the
Champion, Dickens, Dobyns,Hayek.
C7
Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, Ik52240
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDNANCE AMENDING TITLE 14: ZONING CODE TO MODIFY THE REGULATIONS
REGARDING THE SPACING OF DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS SO THAT, THE *,SOO-FOOT
SPACING RULE WOULD ONLY APPLY TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY
IMPACT AREA AND THE RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS DI TRICT.
WHEREAS, studies show that the increase in the co centration of alcohol - related uses is
correlated to the overconsumption of alcohol and prevale ce of underage drinking; and
WHEREAS, studies "also show that an increase in th concentration of alcohol - related uses
contributes to an increas)p in violence and crime; and
WHEREAS, in 2009 f
throughout Iowa City; and
City established spacing requirements for drinking establishments
WHEREAS, due to the negative externalities
establishments such as s and pubs, it is
concentration of these types uses in locations
University of Iowa campus whe the demand for t
WHEREAS, a concentration f drinking esta
University Impact Area has not ccurred and
requirements for drinking establis ents is n
as ociated with a concentration of drinking
i the public interest to prevent further
Ni hin and near downtown Iowa City and the
i se types of land uses is highest; and
lishments outside the central city and the
is less likely to occur such that spacing
necessary and may be unduly restricting
economic development opportunities I outlying ommercial areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAI ED B THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances
follows:
A. Deleting subparagraph 14 -413-4
e. In any CN -1 Zone within the
Section 14 -213-6, or the Riv
within Section 14- 2C -11, a I
separated by a minimum di
Distance shall be measur d
nearest point of the lea c
property line (or nearest Do
Establishment. For e
on a lot with multip
measured from the n
Establishment to th'y
Drinking Establishme
City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as
d substituting in lieu thereof:
U ivershy Impact Area, as illustrated on Map 213.1 within
�rfront C District, as illustrated in Figure 2C.8
rinking E ablishment, as defined in this Title, must be
Lance of 50 feet from any other Drinking Establishment.
along a str ' ht line from the nearest property line (or
I building spa e) of the proposed use to the nearest
int of the leas building space) of any other Drinking
in the case of Drinking Establishment that is located
ed spaces, such s a shopping mail, the distance is
point of the leased uilding space occupied by a Drinking
st property line or ased building space of any other
B. Deleting paragraph 14 413-413-10 and substituting in lieu hereof:
10. Drinking Establi .tments in the CH -1, CC -2, CB -2, B -5, CB -10 Zones
Within the Univ sity Impact Area, as illustrated on Map 2B.1 within Section 14 -213-6
or the Riverfro t Crossings District, as illustrated in Fire 2C.8 within Section 14-
2C-11 a Dri ing Establishment, as defined in this Title, must be separated by a
minimum distance of 500 feet from any other Drinking Establishment. Distance shall
be measured along a straight line from the nearest property line (or nearest point of
t
Ordinance No.
Page 2
the leased building space) of the proposed use to the nearest property line (or
nearest point of the leased building space) of any other Drinking Establishment. For
example, in the case of a Drinking Establishmel that is located on a lot with multiple
leased building spac s, such as a shopping nn I, the distance is measured from the
nearest point of the I ased building space oc pied by a Drinking Establishment to
the nearest propert line or leased bui ing space of any other Drinking
Establishment.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All or finances and parts f ordinances in conflict with the provisions
of this Ordinance are hereby repeale
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. I
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitut
Ordinance as a whole or any sec
unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE
approval and publication.
any section, Rfovision or part of the Ordinance shall be
nal, such a udication shall not affect the validity of the
Jon, provisiqh or part thereof not adjudged invalid or
Passed and approved this day of
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Ord4ance shall be in effect after its final passage,
2013.
Approved by
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 31, 2013
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
RE: Zoning Code Amendment to Modify the Drinking Establishment Spacing Requirements
Background
In 2009, due to the concentration of drinking establishments in downtown Iowa City and in
commercial areas within proximity of the University of Iowa campus and the resulting increase in
underage drinking, violence and crime, the City Council adopted a minimum spacing
requirement of 500 feet between drinking establishments (bars).
The concentration of bars in downtown Iowa City is largely a consequence of the proximity of
the downtown to the University of Iowa campus combined with the increase in available
storefronts that occurred after the Coral Ridge Mall opened in 1999. Since its passage in 2009,
the drinking establishment spacing ordinance has achieved the goal of preventing further
concentration of bars in the downtown area. In addition, the community has benefited from the
opportunity created by the ordinance for a greater mix of businesses downtown as a few
nonconforming bars have gone out of business and have been replaced by retail and office
uses.
It has come to our attention, however, that the broad application of the 500 -foot spacing
requirement to outlying commercial areas may be unduly restricting economic development
opportunities in areas where an unhealthy concentration of drinking establishments is unlikely to
occur. For example, sit -down restaurants are an important element in creating neighborhood -
serving commercial areas. Many if not most restaurants of this type have liquor licenses. Since
many of the outlying commercial areas are fairly compact in size, the 500 -foot spacing
requirement presents an obstacle to development if more than one or two restaurants would like
locate in the same commercial area and stay open late during bar hours (midnight to 2:00 AM).
Discussion of Solutions
Given the low risk that outlying commercial areas will experience the same market conditions
that created the concentration of bars downtown, staff recommends amending the zoning
ordinance so that the 500 -foot spacing rule only applies in downtown areas and in areas
proximate to the University of Iowa campus.
The zoning ordinance already designates a specific part of the city as a "University Impact
Area." In addition, the Riverfront Crossings District is the area where the downtown is intended
to grow in the future and will likely contain a considerable amount of university student housing
due to its proximity on both the east and west sides of the Iowa River to the university campus.
Therefore, staff recommends maintaining the 500 -foot drinking establishment spacing rule in the
University Impact Area and the entirety of the Riverfront Crossings District and eliminating the
spacing requirement in all other areas of the city.
Page 2
Recommendation
Staff recommends amending the Zoning Code as indicated below. New language is underlined.
Language to be deleted is indicated with strike - through notation.
Amend paragraph 14- 4B- 4B -9e. as follows:
e. In the any CN -1 Zone that is within the University Impact Area, as illustrated on Map
26.1 within Section 14 -213-6 and /or the Riverfront Crossings District, as illustrated in
Figure 2C.8 within Section 14- 2C -11, a Drinking Establishment, as defined in this
Title, must be separated by a minimum distance of 500 feet from any other Drinking
Establishment. Distance shall be measured along a straight line from the nearest
property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of the proposed use to the
nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of any other
Drinking Establishment. For example, in the case of a Drinking Establishment that is
located on a lot with multiple leased spaces, such as a shopping mall, the distance is
measured from the nearest point of the leased building space occupied by a Drinking
Establishment to the nearest property line or leased building space of any other
Drinking Establishment.
Amend paragraph 14- 4B -48 -10 as follows:
10. Drinking Establishments in the CH -1, CC -2, CB -2, CB -5, CB -10 Zones
Within the University Impact Area, as illustrated on Map 213.1 within Section 14 -213-6
and /or the Riverfront Crossings District, as illustrated in Figure 2C.8 within Section
14 -2C -11 a Drinking Establishment, as defined in this Title, must be separated by a
minimum distance of 500 feet from any other Drinking Establishment. Distance shall
be measured along a straight line from the nearest property line (or nearest point of
the leased building space) of the proposed use to the nearest property line (or
nearest point of the leased building space) of any other Drinking Establishment. For
example, in the case of a Drinking Establishment that is located on a lot with multiple
leased building spaces, such as a shopping mall, the distance is measured from the
nearest point of the leased building space occupied by a Drinking Establishment to
the nearest property line or leased building space of any other Drinking
Establishment.
Approved by: / `,-/
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 14 of 16
Steve Kohli of 3129 Dubuque Street reminded the Commission that staff has structured this
amendment to function on a case by case basis.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to
allow Schools of Generalized Instruction by special exception in the Community
Commercial (CC -2) Zone.
Martin seconded.
Freerks said she was all in favor of having smaller schools peppered throughout the community
that can offer something in the community, in the neighborhood, nearby, or in a commercial
area, re -using structures that otherwise might go unused.
Martin said she thinks this is a brilliant idea to re -use this structure, and it makes so much
sense.
Eastham said although he's supportive of the type of school being proposed, he thinks one the
Commission's responsibilities is to make sure that student safety is considered as well as
surrounding users being considered in terms of a specific location and intensity of use at that
location. He commended both the staff and the applicant for recognizing that those concerns of
safety and access are very real.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0.
Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to modify the regulations regarding
—� the spacing of drinking establishments so that the 500 -foot spacing rule would only
apply to the University Impact Area and the Riverfront Crossings District.
Miklo said staff feels these regulations have been effective in preventing additional bars from
opening. He said the ordinance was primarily concerned about downtown, but it applied
citywide. He said there are some areas where the City has been told by potential
restaurant/bars that this has been problematic. He said the City Council asked staff to look at
this question and staff is comfortable recommending this change for areas outside the
University Impact Area and Riverfront Crossings.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to
modify the regulations regarding the spacing of drinking establishments so that the 500 -
foot spacing rule would only apply to the University Impact Area and the Riverfront
Crossings District.
Martin seconded.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 15 of 16
Freerks said this is how they work with the Code to try to fine tune it in ways that work for the
community, and she thinks this is an example of that. She said she will be voting for it.
Theobald said she will be strongly opposed to it. She said she taught "Alcohol in Your College
Experience" at the University, and said the research shows that controlling the environment in
which the individual is drinking has the largest impact on both the individual and the community.
She said research shows that controlling the number of drinking establishments is not effective
at all in reducing problem drinking. She said in the class she taught, the largest category shared
by the most students was near -death experiences. She said she feels it's not that large of a
community, and there are plenty of drinking establishments. She says she looks at the
University Impact Area as the entire community.
Swygard asked if there have been the same type of problems outside of the impact area but
where there are still establishments serving drinks. Miklo said if an establishment closes at or
before midnight, they are considered a restaurant, and if they are open past midnight they are
considered alcohol - related.
Freerks said she lives close to downtown and has seen some incredible alcohol - related sights,
but she said most of those people get their alcohol at home, so she thinks it goes well beyond
establishments serving alcohol. Theobald said there are livability standards in a community and
one of those is measured by how many drinking establishments, both in -house and out of house
a community has.
Eastham said he is uncertain about what actually clearly contributes to young people over using
alcohol, and certainly one of those factors is access. He said he is less inclined to restrict the
use of the 500 foot rule to just a smaller area of the community.
A vote was taken and the motion was denied 2-4 with Freerks and Martin opposed
Consideration of Meeting Minutes: May 16, 2013
Eastham moved to approve the minutes of May 16, 2013.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0.
OTHER
ADJOURNMENT:
Martin moved to adjourn.
Swygard seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6 -0 vote.
Prepared by: Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5030
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, CHAPTER 5, PROHIBITIONS AND
RESTRICTIONS, SECTION 8, PERSONS UNDER THE LEGAL AGE IN LICENSED OR PERMITTED
ESTABLISHMENTS, SUBSECTION B, TO MODIFY THE CALCULATION OF TICKET SALES FOR
EXCEPTION CERTIFICATE PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, under the current ordinance, ticket sales for theater performances on stage are counted
as non - alcohol sales for exception certificate purposes; and
WHEREAS, ticket sales for viewing films at a movie theater would be counted as alcohol sales,
because they are not performed, "on stage"
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to foster movie theaters, while preserving the significant gains the
Under 21 ordinance has generated; and
WHEREAS, the continuing requirement that the "entire audience area is consistent with traditional
theater seating" should discourage gamesmanship: and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS.
TITLE 4, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, CHAPTER 5, PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS,
SECTION 8, PERSONS UNDER THE LEGAL AGE IN LICENSED OR PERMITTED
ESTABLISHMENTS, SUBSECTION B, PARAGRAPH (3)(a) is hereby amended by deleting the
words, "on stage ", leaving the fourth sentence to read as follows:
Ticket sales for any event performed in a theater in which the entire audience area is
consistent with traditional theater seating shall be counted as nonalcohol sales.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication.
Passed and approved this day of 2013.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Appr ved by
City Attorney's Office
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
First Consideration 7/23/2013
Vote for passage: AYES: Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion,
Dickens. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published