Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-16-2012 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, August 13, 2012 - 5:15 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Helling Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda D. Rezoning Item 1. REZ12-00005/REZ12-00006/SUB12-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Steve Moss for a rezoning of approximately 172 acres of land from Interim Development — Research Park (ID - RP), Planned Development — Mixed Use (OPD-MU), Planned Development — Research Development Park (OPD-RDP), and Planned Development — Office Research Park (OPD-ORP) to approximately 15.8 acres of Planned Development — Highway Commercial (OPD-CH-1), 27.97 acres of Research Development Park, and 129.12 acres to Interim Development — Research Park (ID -RP) for property located west of Highway 1 and north of Interstate 80. 2. REZ12-00014: Discussion of an application submitted by Michelle Wiegand for a rezoning to designate approximately .034 acres of property located at 518 Bowery Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. E. County Rezoning Item CZ12-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Wendae Waite for a rezoning from County A - Agriculture zone to RUB -Residential zone for .46 acres of property located at 3549 Utah Avenue NE. F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: July 30 and August 2, 2012 G. Other H. Adjournment b�lY � �Gf�.� GL 7 v �*� � [ �m f�'�L-�-7 �i�c J ivZQ m �-�t.✓� �L To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: REZ1 2-00005/REZ1 2-00006 & SUB12-00003 Moss Urban Village GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Owners STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Karen Howard Date: August 16, 2012 Steve Moss 3354 Kenruth Circle Iowa City, IA 52240 319-621-0624 Steve Moss (address same as above) Contact Person: Brett Bosworth R&R Realty 1225 Jordan Creek Parkway, Suite 200 West Des Moines, Iowa 50266 Phone: (515)974-5221 Requested Action: Rezoning from ID -RP, OPD-RDP, OPD-ORP, and OPD-MU to ID -RP, RDP, and ID-C and a preliminary sensitive areas development plan and preliminary plat. Purpose: Development of an office park with associated retail and service uses. Location: Northwest of the intersection of Hwy 1 and Interstate 80 Size: Entire property = approximately 171.88 acres; Requested rezoning: Approximately 15.8 acres to OPD-CH-1 Approximately 27.97 acres to RDP Approximately 128.12 acres to ID -RP Existing Land Use and Zoning: Farmland and natural areas surrounding Rapid Creek — ID -RP, OPD-RDP, OPD-ORP, and OPD-MU Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Farmland & rural residential — County -AG South: Interstate 80, Office and Highway commercial uses - CH-1 & CO-1 East: Office and highway commercial uses — ORP, CH-1, CO-1 West: Farmland and rural residential — County R Comprehensive Plan: North Corridor District - Office Research park and associated uses and protection of Rapid Creek floodplain File Date: July 12, 2012 45 Day Limitation Period: (Not yet determined) BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Steve Moss has submitted applications for rezoning approximately 172 acres of land and for a new preliminary plat for his farm property located west of the interchange of Highway 1 and Interstate 80. In 2010, a planned development rezoning and preliminary plat was approved for this same property with similar zoning designations with the intention to development a large Class A office park with complementary retail services. However, the applicant found that without adequate street connectivity from Highway 1 to serve his property and others in the area, development was unlikely to occur. While Oakdale Boulevard will eventually be extended from Highway 1 west to Prairie du Chien Road, its alignment will be largely north of the Rapid Creek floodway and nearly Y mile north of the Interstate 80 interchange. In order to provide for the orderly growth of the employment center located around this interstate interchange, a well-connected pattern of collector and local street connections will be needed. Therefore, the applicant has partnered with R&R Realty Group, office park developers from West Des Moines, to re -design the office park subdivision with the necessary street connections and lot sizes and to revise the zoning accordingly. This development team hired traffic engineers from HR Green to conduct an extensive traffic study, the results of which indicate that two collector street connections from the development to Highway 1 are necessary to accommodate growth of the employment center west of Pearson and in order to maintain traffic flow along Highway 1 and at the interchange. Given that options for these collector streets are limited due to the Rapid Creek stream corridor to the north and the Interstate 80 right-of-way to the south and also for appropriate intersection spacing along the Highway 1 corridor, the collector streets will need to cross property owned by Pearson. These collector streets and the associated local streets within the development will eventually be connected to Oakdale Boulevard, which will serve as the east -west arterial connection from Highway 1 west to Prairie du Chien Road and beyond to Dubuque Street and eventually connect to the segment of Oakdale Boulevard that is in Coralville. The City has long anticipated the expansion of this employment center and the unique advantage that land in this area has for office and research park uses. The Comprehensive Plan states, "The 1-80 interchange with Highway 1 provides one of the few opportunities for office research park development in Iowa City. National Computer Systems (Pearson) and American College Testing are successful examples of this type of development. With the tone set by these two companies and the advantages of interstate exposure, land around this interchange should continue to be preserved for office research park and research development park opportunities." In order to provide the infrastructure necessary for the orderly growth of the city, when the City Council approved the amended large Scale Non -Residential Development Plan for NCS Pearson in 1985, it conditioned its approval on the terms of an agreement between the City and NCS Pearson. One of those terms is as follows: The parties agree that, at such time as it becomes necessary, as determined by the City Council of the City, they shall negotiate the specific location of a street access across NCS' property to provide access from Iowa Highway 1 to property located west of the NCS' property. In anticipation of negotiations with Pearson for street access across their property, Mr. Moss and R&R Equity Partners hired traffic engineering consultants from HR Green, Inc. to conduct a traffic feasibility study, which was completed in early December 2011 and presented to Mr. Jerry Raaz, Vice President of Facilities Management at Pearson at a meeting on December 9. The intent of the feasibility study was to gain understanding and input from the various stakeholders, including both the City of Iowa City and Pearson. Mr. Raaz indicated at that time that Pearson was not willing to review this initial feasibility study or enter into any discussions regarding road access until a more detailed traffic impact study was completed. Therefore, Mr. Moss contracted with HR Green to complete a more extensive traffic impact study as requested by Pearson that identified all roadway improvements that would be necessary based on traffic projections for all current and future development in this area, including the Moss property. This traffic study was completed and presented to Pearson, the City of Iowa City, Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC) transportation staff, and the Iowa Department of Transportation on May 5, 2012. The traffic impact study confirmed the basic conclusions of the earlier traffic feasibility study, which indicated that a new street along the south side of the Pearson property and a new street on the north side of the Pearson property, including a new intersection with Highway 1 would be necessary to provide for adequate traffic flow along the Highway 1 corridor, for traffic generated by Pearson, and for the build out of the first 44 acres of the Moss property. Construction of Oakdale Boulevard will be necessary in the long term in order to allow full build out of the Moss property and other properties between Highway 1 and Prairie du Chien Road. City transportation staff have reviewed the traffic study and concur with its conclusions. The City Council adopted a resolution on June 5, 2012 authorizing the City Manager to negotiate with Pearson regarding the specific location of street access across the Pearson property. Those negotiations are ongoing. In the meantime, the applicant has requested consideration of their application for rezoning and a new preliminary plat in order to meet deadlines for grading and installation of infrastructure for the development this fall. However, the applicant recognizes and acknowledges that these applications cannot be approved by the City Council until street access from Highway 1 is resolved. ANALYSIS Rezoning While the applicant's long term intention is to develop the entire property as an office park with supportive retail services in the southeast corner of the property, at this time the applicant is requesting to rezone for development only what is anticipated for the 1s` phase of development, approximately 44 acres located in the east central and southeast portion of the property. The remainder of the property (approximately 128 acres) would be zoned Interim Development — Research Park (ID -RP). This area will be platted as an outlot for future development. The proposed zoning districts and their compliance with the Comprehensive Plan are discussed below. Interim Development Zoning: The Interim Development (ID) zoning is intended to provide for areas of managed growth on which agricultural and other non -urban uses may continue until infrastructure is in place to serve urban development. The applicant is proposing to maintain the Interim Development — Research Park (ID -RP) zoning that is in place on the northern portion of the property and to rezone a significant portion of the remaining property back to ID -RP, which is currently zoned for development. Rezoning approximately 128 acres in the northern and western part of the property back to ID -RP, acknowledges that construction of Oakdale Boulevard is not currently included in a funded year of the Iowa City Capital Improvement Plan. In addition, since Oakdale's future connection to Highway 1 will be about �/2 mile north of Interstate 80, construction of the arterial street at this time may cause out of sequence or "leap frog" development in areas where the City cannot cost-effectively provide services at this time. A fundamental policy in the Comprehensive Plan is to promote compact and contiguous urban growth so streets and public services can be provided in an efficient and logical pattern. The proposed preliminary plat and rezoning pattern acknowledges that a system of collector and local streets need to be constructed with appropriately spaced connections to Highway 1 to allow for efficient urban growth to occur Planned Development Overlay— Highway Commercial: The approximately 28 acres proposed for OPD-CH-1 zoning is located in the southeast corner of the development. The applicant's intention is to zone this area for retail services, such as restaurants, hotel and conference facilities, and retail and personal service uses that would serve the office park uses on the Moss property and other large office uses, such as Pearson and the businesses located in Northgate Corporate Park, which is located across Highway 1 to the east. The City does not have a commercial zoning designation that captures both the unique interstate location of this property and its intended supporting role as an integral part of the future office research park. Staff has recommended that the applicant use the planned development rezoning process to adapt the Highway Commercial Zone to allow the additional commercial uses and the standards for landscaping, building locations, building materials, and signage appropriate to this unique location and purpose. Staff is currently working with the applicant on specific modifications and master planning elements of this commercial area, so we recommend deferring discussion of the details of the planned development until your meeting on September 6. Research Development Park Zoning: For the areas that are not proposed as ID -RP and OPD-CH-1, the applicant is proposing Research Development Park (RDP) zoning. The Research Development Park (RDP) Zone is intended to provide areas for the development of large office and research firms and complementary uses. This zone also allows for some light manufacturing and wholesale sales, which would allow a firm the ability to have both the research and development and the production functions located in proximity. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: The RDP zone is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this area. The plan states that "the I-80 interchange with Highway 1 provides one of the few opportunities for office research park development in Iowa City... With the tone set by [NCS Pearson and ACT] and the advantages of interstate exposure, land around this interchange should continue to be preserved for office research park and research development park opportunities." Although the Comprehensive Plan's land use map does not indicate commercial development in this location, in staff's opinion a mixture of retail, restaurants, personal services, and hotel facilities would complement and support the large office park contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. If the OPD-CH-1 zone is part of a master plan for the office park, in staff's opinion a Comprehensive Plan amendment would not be necessary. To allow the flexibility requested by the applicant and also to allow a sufficient opportunity for public and Commission review, staff recommends that a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) require Planning and Zoning Commission review and approval of final site plans and that these final site plans be compatible with the vision and overall master plan for the office park. The specific wording of the conditional zoning agreement and the list of conditions have yet to be fully developed. Staff anticipates that the details of the conditional zoning agreement and the planned development standards for the commercial area will be drafted for consideration at your September 6 meeting. Streets and traffic circulation: As illustrated on the preliminary plat two new collector streets, Pearson Road and Moss Place, would be constructed across the Pearson property to provide adequate traffic circulation for the area. These new streets would connect with Moss Farm Road, a local commercial street that would eventually be connected to Oakdale Boulevard. The future alignment of Oakdale Boulevard is illustrated on the "Overall Concept Map" in the same location as was approved in the previous plat in 2010. Moss Place would also eventually be extended to intersect with Oakdale Boulevard. However, in this first phase of development all three streets would be stubbed to the boundary of Outlot A and include temporary fire apparatus turnarounds until such time as additional areas are platted for development. As illustrated on the Overall Concept Map, cooperation from the neighboring property owners will be necessary before the development can move forward. As 5 described in the background section of the report, the City is currently negotiating with Pearson regarding the location of streets that would cross the Pearson property. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The subject property contains regulated slopes, woodlands, two stream corridors, wetlands, and potential archeological sites. In order to allow more time to fully delineate the sensitive features, the applicant is proposing to develop the property in phases, with the first phase concentrated in the southeast corner on the previously farmed portions of the property. The remainder of the property would be zoned Interim Development and be platted as an outlot, designated for future development. It should be noted that in the future before Outlot A can be rezoned, platted and developed, all the sensitive areas will need to be fully delineated. For the first phase of development, the applicant has indicated that the only sensitive areas that will be disturbed are a small portion of the woodlands as illustrated on the plat. Since only 20% of woodlands on a property zoned RDP and 70% of the any area zoned Interim Development are required to be retained, the proposed disturbance of these woodlands will be well within their limit of disturbance for the development. A stormwater detention basin is proposed in Outlot A west of Moss Farm Road near the Rapid Creek stream corridor. It appears that some grading will need to occur on Lot 9 to redirect the drainage through a swale between lots 9 and 10, This grading may involve some disturbance of steep or critical slopes located in Lot 9 and some disturbance in the stream corridor buffer is indicated in order to construct the stormwater basin. These issues will need to be more carefully delineated and any discrepancies corrected in the sensitive area information listed on page C1 of the preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan prior to approval of the plat. Section 14- 51-2 D of the zoning code allows for the construction of stream crossings, such as stormwater facilities, bridges, roads and culverts within sensitive areas and buffers, provided that they are designed to minimize any reduction of the flood carrying capacity of the stream and are in compliance with Federal and State regulations. The City Engineer is in the process of reviewing grading and erosion control plans. Corps of Engineers and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) approvals will also be required to allow construction of the bridges and roadways within the floodway. There is some indication that there are potential areas of archeological significance on the property. The State is requiring the applicant to conduct a Phase II archeological study for a portion of the property and a Phase I study for those off -site areas where the new streets would cross the Pearson property. The plat and sensitive areas development plan should be corrected to indicate the presence of sites of potential archeological significance and ensure that the portion of the property that is proposed for development is in compliance with State and Federal regulations. Where protected features and/or their required buffers are incorporated into individual lots, they must be included in a recorded conservation easement or protected by restrictive covenants in the legal papers filed with the City during final plat approval. For the protected sensitive areas located in outlots, there will need to be a legally binding instrument at the time of final plat approval, setting forth the responsible parties and the procedures to be followed for maintaining the areas and for financing maintenance costs over time. Preliminary plat: Subdivision Layout: Moss Urban Village is an approximately 172 acre commercial subdivision, which in the first phase will include 5 lots zoned for office park uses, 4 lots for supportive retail services, and one large outlot reserved for future development. This large -lot subdivision is intended primarily for office and research park uses with complementary retail services, such as retail shops, personal services, restaurants, and hotel facilities. Lots are laid out along three streets, Moss Farm Road, which runs north and south, Moss Place which extends from Highway 1 west near the southern boundary of the Pearson property to access the southeast corner of the Moss property; and Pearson W Road, which also extends west from a new intersection with Highway 1 across the northern boundary of the Pearson property to provide access to the central portion of the Moss property. The concept plan for the overall development indicates how these roadways would be extended in the future to serve the remainder of the property and other properties to the west and north. The concept plan also indicates the future alignment of Oakdale Boulevard. The proposed lot sizes and street layout correspond with the zoning requested. Because a revised preliminary plat was just submitted on August 9, 2012, the City Engineer's office has not had time to complete their review of the submitted documents. This review should be completed prior to Commission's vote on the plat. It is the applicant's intention to correct any omissions or discrepancies prior to the Commission's meeting on September 6. Storm water management: Two stormwater management basins are proposed on Outlot A to serve the first phase of development. Because a revised preliminary plat was just submitted on August 9, 2012, the City Engineer's office has not had time to complete their review of the proposed stormwater facilities. This review should be completed prior to Commission's vote on the plat. Infrastructure necessary to provide electricity, communications, sewer and water must be designed and constructed to City standards. The City Engineer's office is reviewing revised plats and this review should be completed prior to Commission's vote on the plat. Off -Site Improvements As noted in the background section of this report, fairly extensive off -site improvements will be necessary to allow expansion of the important employment center that surrounds the Highway 1/Interstate 80 interchange. As noted in the Comprehensive Plan, this area is uniquely suitable for this type of development. A traffic study was completed that indicates that if two collector streets are constructed from Highway 1 west to the Moss property, they would provide adequate traffic circulation for the new uses proposed, would help to better distribute the traffic from Pearson and allow traffic to move more smoothly along the Highway 1 corridor for all users within the corridor. The off -site improvements are illustrated on page C5 of the submitted documents. These are shown in concept only. The exact alignment of the roadways, water and sewer lines will need to be determined through survey work conducted on -site. Any sensitive features located in the off -site locations will also need to be delineated and any proposed disturbance noted. Until an agreement is reached with Pearson the sensitive areas delineation and roadway alignment survey work cannot commence. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral pending resolution of omissions, deficiencies and discrepancies. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to make these corrections and to work out specific standards, allowances, and restrictions for the portion of the property proposed for rezoning to Planned Development Overlay — Highway Commercial and for the general site standards for the remainder of the office park to ensure that development proceeds according to the vision set forth by the applicant for a Class A Office park with supportive retail services. These allowances, standards, and restrictions will be presented to the Commission for their consideration at the next meeting on September 6. ATTACHMENTS: 7 1. Location Map 2. Overall Concept Plan 3. Stormwater Exhibit 4. Utilities Plan 5. Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan 6. Concept Plan for Off -site Improvements 7. Grading Plan S. Applicant's Statement of Intent Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development A?C+III „- usu+t � rcRi Moss Urban Village — Application for Rezoning 5. Purpose for the rezoning; We are requesting the current Plat]PUD to be re -zoned in order to better accommodate and further support future office and retail development to meet the demand of the Iowa City corridor. Our overall plan would be to develop a park that is similar to what R&R Realty Group has established in West Des Moines with Three Fountains Office Park and Country Club Office Park. Our re- zoning plan will complement the current office and retail development adjacent to the Moss Urban Development. There is a critical need for Iowa City to provide a professional office park that will cater to the needs of existing businesses and provide high -quality opportunities for emerging businesses. If there are no quality options for companies to locate their business, they will be forced to look for options within other markets and/or other states. Development quality would be Class A Office with limited retail services to support and attract companies to the area. Our plan would be to offer both single -story and multi -story office facilities that can accommodate small - sized to large -sized companies. Our lot dimensions are comparable to those currently existing in the Des Moines market. R&R Realty Group has been successful in attracting and retaining over 400 companies and managing over 6 million square feet of commercial, retail and multi -family property. In phase one, we would be anticipating 10.000 of office space per acre for the RDP zoning and approximately 130,000 SF of retail and hospitality. As indicated in the preliminary plat, phase one would be approximately 42 acres and would provide much of the initial support retail that was mentioned above for the overall development. Timeframe for development will be dependent on the economy, but would anticipate a buildout period of 10 to 15 years for phase one. CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: August 16, 2012 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Re: Designation of 518 Bowery Street as a local Historic Landmark Background: Michelle Wiegand has requested that her property at 518 Bowery Street be designated as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. The enclosed Iowa Site Inventory Form provides a detailed discussion of the building's history and architecture. Indications are that the building was built sometime between 1856 and 1864. It served as a grocery store for much of its existence. Historic Preservation Commission Review: The Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission met on August 9, 2012 and conducted a public hearing where they reviewed and evaluated the historic significance of 518 Bowery Street. The Commission determined that the property meets the requirements for a landmark and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the designation of 518 Bowery Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. The attached form from the State Historical Society of Iowa indicates that 518 Bowery Street is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, providing further indication of its historic significance. Designation of the property as an Iowa City Historic Landmark will require Historic Preservation Commission approval of any significant changes to the exterior of the building. Landmark status will also make the property eligible for special exceptions (Section 14-213-8 of the zoning code) that would allow the Board of Adjustment to waive or modify certain zoning requirements to help support the continued use of historic buildings. Planning and Zoning Commission Review: Landmark Designation is a zoning overlay and therefore requires a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council. The Commission's role is to review the proposed designation based on its relationship to the Comprehensive Plan and proposed public improvements and plans for renewal of the area involved. There are two specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan that appear to apply to this proposal: 1) the Central District Plan- pages 13-22 and the Historic Preservation Plan. The Central Planning District Plan identifies the neighborhood containing 518 Bowery Street as an area of high -density multi -family residential development where living conditions are less than ideal due to lack of adequate pedestrian amenities, recreational opportunities and with little usable open space for residents. To ameliorate these conditions that plan discusses scenarios that would use zoning incentives to encourage redevelopment perhaps even at a higher density, but with usable green open space, better parking facilities and safer pedestrian and bicycle routes. In staff's opinion, preservation of 518 Bowery Street would not be in conflict with plans for redevelopment of this area. The property contains only 1,470 square feet and is insufficient in size to redevelop without being combined with adjacent properties. Its location on corner lot adjacent to an alley would allow it to remain if the adjacent properties were to redevelop. If it was located on an interior lot it would be more difficult to preserve while allowing redevelopment of adjacent properties. There are other existing historic properties that have been preserved in this neighborhood, including the C.D. Close Mansion at 538 Gilbert Street, one block to the west of 518 Bowery Street. August 10, 2012 Page 2 The Historic Preservation element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the identification and preservation of historic resources significant to Iowa City's past. Research conducted on behalf of the applicant reveals that this property may date to the Civil War Era. It is one of the few remaining examples of a neighborhood grocery store, a building form that was once common in Iowa City. As noted, the Historic Preservation Commission and The State Historical Society have determined that it is worthy of preservation. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that REZ12-00014 an application to designate 518 Bowery Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark be approved. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Iowa Site Inventory Form 3. State Historical Society of Iowa Eligibility Review Approved by: Jeff Davidson, Director Department of Planning and Community Development Wl 0 0 RT N W ce i I i I i 1.� NOSM-10P � I I N Rlff� VIVA L 0 co ro 00 N Z O r a U O J W H M STATE HISTORICAL SOCILTYof OWA A Division of the Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs ELIGIBILITY REVIEW NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Review Date: 06/20/2012 Property Information: Name of Property: Historic District: Multiple Property Form: Address: City & County: Eligibility: ❑ Insufficient documentation was provide(] for our review. Please provide the information requested in the "Additional Comments" section, below. ❑ This property is considered not eligible for individual listing on the National Register of Historic Places or is "non- contributing" in a listed or eligible historic district. See "Additional Comments" below. ® This property is considered individually eligible for listing on the National Register of I-listoric Places. National Register Criteria: A ® B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ ❑ This property is considered "contributing" in a National Register-listecl or eligible historic district. National Register Criteria: A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ Be advised that this determination is preliminary and based .solely on the infornation provided at the time of the review. Additional research and documentation may be needed to actually nominate an "eligible" or "contributing"property to the National Register. That research may ultimately prove that the property is not, ne fact, eligible for listing. Additional research may also prove thal properties with a preliminay determination of "not eligible" a- "non-contributing" are, in fact, eligible. Additional Comments: This building was constructed c. 1856 and for approximately 80 years was operated as'a grocery store. While some alterations have been made to the building (such as the stucco and the addition on the rear), research suggests these changes took place during the period of significance. As a building dating to the mid -nineteenth century and one with an unusual false front with rounded top, this property is a rare survival of a type of small retail store that dominated towns and cities in Iowa. Staff reviewed a draft National Register nomination in June 2012 and concur that this building is likely eligible for the National Register under Criterion A for local significance. With additional research, it may be possible to make a case for Criterion B. Reviewed by: Ralph J. Christian, I-listorian Paula A. Molu, Architectural Historian 600 P.Asr LoatSI S'1'Rr;I71, DES MOINfS, 1A 50319-0290 P: (515)281-8743 F. (515) 282-0502 r CITY OF IOWA CITY WI MEMORANDUM To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern Date: August 16, 2012 Re: County rezoning (CZ12-00001) 3549 Utah Ave. NE Background: The applicant has requested rezoning a .46-acre lot located at 3549 Utah Ave. NE in Fringe A from A -Agricultural to RUB -Residential. The lot is located on the west side of Utah Ave. NE —about 700 feet south of the intersection of Utah Ave. NE and Fairview Cemetery Rd. NE in Scott Township. There are six other residential lots to the north. This strip of residential uses is surrounded by agricultural uses. The applicant intends to tear down the existing house and build a new house. The lot was created and the house was built before the County subdivision code was adopted, which makes the house a legal, non -conforming use. The rezoning would bring the use and the zoning district into conformance. While zoning regulation in the Fringe Area is the County's prerogative, the Fringe Area Agreement allows the City to review and comment on the application. Fringe Area Agreement: The lot is located within Fringe Area A, but outside of the Iowa City growth area and outside of the County's North Corridor. Residential uses are preferred in the County's North Corridor. On the balance of land outside the County's North Corridor, agricultural uses are preferred. Therefore, a strict reading of the Fringe Area Agreement would lead to the conclusion that this area should not be zoned for residential uses. However, the rezoning proposal would not result in an increase in residential development. Also, the subject property is situated in a group of existing single-family residences. Given the unique circumstances, staff recommends approval of the rezoning. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends a letter be forwarded to the Johnson County Board of Adjustment recommending approval of the rezoning request of the lot at 3549 Utah Ave. NE. Attachment Location map Approved by: l Robert Miklo, Senior Planner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY JULY 30, 2012 — 5:15 PM — INFORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: Paula Swygard, Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Discussion of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code, defining Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems and establishing regulations to allow these systems as accessory uses in certain zones by special exception. Howard said there hasn't been a lot of interest in wind turbines for Iowa City, as it is not a particularly windy part of the state. She said a couple local businesses had approached the City in the last several years about using wind turbines, but in the end, discovered that it wasn't a good idea for them. She said that recently Pearson actually purchased a wind turbine and would like to put it on their property, so the City told them it would be put on the top of the legislative priority list. She said that Johnson County recently adopted an ordinance for small wind energy systems that are accessory to whatever the use is on the site. She said this proposed amendment is in the accessory uses part of the Code because wind energy systems can never be principle uses. Howard said that in writing this proposed amendment, staff looked to the Johnson County ordinance and one used by West Des Moines, as well as a number of publications about the externalities of wind turbines, in order to make sure they work for the companies who want to put them up and also protect the public health and safety. Dyer asked if the proposed amendment has differences from the West Des Moines and Johnson County ordinances. Howard said most of the provisions were based on West Des Moines, as that is a city, and Johnson County also covers rural areas. She said the proposed Planning and Zoning Commission July 30, 2012 - Informal Page 2 of 6 amendment is tailored to the city's specific zoning districts. She said wind turbines would be allowed as building mounted, which are short ones that can only be ten feet above the building. She said staff is suggesting several commercial zones where that type might be allowed. She said at this point they recommend allowing free-standing towers in the industrial zones, the research park zones, public zones, and interim development zones. Dyer asked about the restrictions on proximity to schools. Howard explained that if the towers are less than forty-five feet high they have to meet all restrictions as outlined in the staff report, but they do not have to go through a special exception process. She said that if they are within 300 feet of a residential zone boundary, they would have to get a special exception, which would cover all schools. She said if they are above forty-five feet high they are allowed in industrial zones, research park and public zones and interim development zones, and they would need a special exception. Eastham asked if the height standards would apply if an applicant sought a special exception. Howard replied that all the standards apply to everything, regardless of whether or not it goes through a special exception, but that the taller turbines come under more scrutiny through the special exception process. Freerks asked if the university didn't abide by the regulations for their wind turbine because there weren't any regulations in place. Howard said that was true, and in addition, the university is not subject to local zoning regulations. She said the county, city and school district would all have to abide by the proposed regulations. Martin asked why the wind turbines didn't work out for the companies that inquired about them in the past two years. Howard said the financial payback was not enough unless they got an industrial scale wind turbine, and those are really only appropriate in rural areas because of vibrations, setback requirements and the shadow flicker. Martin asked if Pearson intends to sell excess energy. Howard said they intend to generate energy just for their own use. Thomas asked about the wind turbine at the East Side Recycling Center. Howard said it was too small to really generate any energy and was mostly there for educational purposes. Eastham asked what size wind turbine Pearson wants. Howard replied that they want something about 145 feet tall, so they would need a special exception. Thomas asked if a shadow flicker restrictions would apply to a commercial office building. Howard said that would only apply in residential zones. Thomas asked if it shouldn't also apply to a commercial office building. Howard said she surmised from her research that the shadow flicker tends to only be a problem on the really large industrial scale turbines because the blades are turning fairly slowly. She said on the smaller ones that turn faster, you don't get the shadows that you would on a larger one. Eastham asked how shadow flicker is measured. Howard said she wasn't sure. She said she will try to do more research on that as well as calling West Des Moines. Eastham asked how the applicant would show that the performance standard is met. Howard said her understanding is that the industry has a way to measure that, so their manufacturer would know if the standard had been met. She said it is her understanding that because the Planning and Zoning Commission July 30, 2012 - Informal Page 3 of 6 smaller turbines are sold more widely than the larger ones, they have already been tested and have an engineers' stamp on them. Eastham said in the proposed amendment it states that it is highly recommended that a feasibility study be done and asked what happens if the applicant doesn't do one. Howard replied that it is not a requirement and that it is written to protect the applicant should their project not be able to pay for itself. Eastham asked how the requirement in the proposed amendment that the generated capacity cannot exceed the anticipated energy needs for on -site consumption can be shown by the applicant. Howard said the applicant would have to characterize what their anticipated energy needs are. She said the language may seem vague, but she doesn't know if it's any different from some other standards in the Code. Eastham suggested that she make a comment to that effect in the staff comments during the formal meeting. Miklo reminded Eastham that the Board of Adjustment will review these applications so that will be an opportunity for some adjustments if the Board deems it necessary. Howard said she thinks they will have some sense of things being out of scale, for instance, if a very small company requests a 150 foot wind turbine. Eastham asked if this approach would let a company satisfy their power needs if they had two separate locations. Howard explained that this ordinance would not allow a company to sell their excess power. Eastham questioned the language in Section 6 regarding distances between City property lines. Howard explained that they don't want someone putting up a wind turbine where a street is planned or where a trail is to be extended. Miklo reiterated that the more subjective terms are reviewed by the Board of Adjustment, and they are charged with making decisions and bringing some judgment to cases. Howard said that the cell tower regulations are quite similar to the proposed regulations. REZONING ITEMS REZ12-00011: An application submitted by Southgate Development Services for a rezoning from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID-ORP) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM12) zone for approximately 27.68 acres of property located at Camp Cardinal Boulevard, south of Preston Lane. (Applicant has requested deferral to September 20.) REZ12-00012: An application submitted by Southgate Development Services for a rezoning from Interim Development Multifamily (ID-RM) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM12) zone for approximately 13.90-acres of property located at S. Gilbert Street and McCollister Boulevard. (Applicant has requested indefinite deferral.) Miklo said they have received a Comprehensive Plan amendment application to go along with Planning and Zoning Commission July 30, 2012 - Informal Page 4 of 6 REZ12-00011, which the Commission felt was a good idea the last time they met. He said on REZ12-00012 there was a neighborhood meeting, and the applicant is trying to develop some criteria, if not a concept plan, that would address the concerns of the neighborhood, the City and the developer. C�Y1:m Eastham said he had reviewed the Commission's decision in May to recommend approval of an application submitted by Southgate Development for the rezoning of property on Walden Road as well as City Council's comments about the application on first reading. He said he wasn't happy with what he would have been able to say to the people attending the Council meeting who were concerned about the storm water run-off into their back yards. He said because this will undoubtedly come back at the preliminary plat stage and the Commission will have to make a decision about the efficacy of the proposed storm water management system, he wants to see if there is interest in discussing any outstanding questions Commission members may have. He said he believes the two main concerns the residents had were if the storm water from the proposed rezoning would increase storm water on their properties and how to fix the existing storm water run-off problem in their backyards. Freerks said she wasn't sure how much they could legally discuss this issue without the applicant being present. Eastham replied that the issues in this case are similar to other cases they have had, and he sees this as more of a general discussion about storm water management for a parcel that has a rezoning request and storm water issues on adjoining properties which may or may not be exacerbated by the current application. He said that a question he has heard asked in different contexts and for different applications is what the available recourse will be in 20 years if the design doesn't work or isn't maintained. Freerks said it is her understanding that the applicant has to come up with an engineer - approved plan before the Commission approves the preliminary plat that shows that this will not be detrimental to any adjoining properties. Holecek said they would have to comply with the City design standards and the plan would have to be approved by the City Engineer per the Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). Howard said at the rezoning stage nothing has been engineered yet. She said at the preliminary plat stage the applicant has to present storm water calculations and a design to the Public Works Department that have to meet certain specific parameters regarding detention and release rates. Freerks asked if a property can be rezoned but in order to actually put something on that property the applicant has to show that it abides by all the rules and regulations. Howard said it would be unusual to have that conversation at a rezoning stage. Thomas said his concern with the Southgate application is that there was an existing flooding situation and that there hadn't been investigations into why that was happening and if the storm water system in place was working properly. Freerks said that unfortunately that happens in many places. Thomas said that in the case referred to there was overland flow coming down through private Planning and Zoning Commission July 30, 2012 - Informal Page 5 of 6 property to an existing drain. Howard said it was pooling at the bottom of the hill because their lots were sloped Miklo said that if they were to ask the City Engineers, they would probably say this was a poorly designed system and in terms of the flooding that's occurring to the south the new design will intercept it and improve it because there will be a basin that will prevent the water from running directly to the south. Freerks said that the Commission can't fix the many existing problems but has to ensure that what is done now is done with better standards. Howard explained that there are better standards that apply now than when these properties being discussed were built. Eastham said he wants to know what he can tell people can and can't be done to fix their existing situations. He asked what happens in ten years if the proposed systems fail. Howard says that the property owners would then contact the City and the City would then go out to inspect the properties. Holecek cited a recent incident where a neighborhood had built structures and planted landscaping since the initial calculations were done that impeded storm water flow, and the City went in and fixed it by redirecting the water. Eastham said in some situations, then, the City would have the authority ten years from now to fix and existing system that isn't working or to redesign it. Freerks said that is something that might get on City Council's priority list depending on the cost and the push from the people affected. She said that perhaps Public Works could talk to the Commission in general terms about proper storm water management engineering sometime in the next six months. ADJOURNMENT: Thomas moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote. z O in �0 20 OU U u! Z w 04 Z Z N N a 06 z tow z~ za z a J a O z F w w 2 Q O w ;xxxlxxxx n 04 X X X I X X X o r gxxxixxxx I- x x x i x1xxx 0-XXIXxxx � xxLO ox:xxx Mxxx0ixxx x x X X I X x x M `'xxxx I XXX N N 2xxxxixxx N W " X X X X I x x X LU (O co M N n to In M v> w O. F-X ��n 00000000 In m In(n w n: U 2vaimad QYY z 4 Q aw w2�I-W(L x�w 02F 2wmwa QYaKOa =w z 0 wti Y 2 fn i-�i O z P w w J Q O w z M X X X I X Q X 1OXXIXXOO oxXxixxXx mxxo;xxxx n Nxxxx1XXX N M Zxxxxixxx N U) 2w(O(OMNI`nu7M FX00000000 w w_ J w J } Q Z = W Z 0 V zf'Oa=� Q w= Oo H UQY�ZQNW a x XLLJ N nwviwair00~ o< Z>- W W x E E � 7 O O O O jZ O O �Z U O U p 4� N T N A C N E C N E <° (D <z a a d¢ 1i Z a-¢ n it u It w:2 u It w 2 XOOz XOOz Y Y PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 2, 2012 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: Paula Swygard, Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, defining Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems and establishing regulations to allow these systems as accessory uses in certain zones by special exception as detailed in the staff memorandum of August 2, 2012. 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. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, defining Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems and establishing regulations to allow these systems as accessory uses in certain zones by special exception. Howard responded to the Commission's questions from the informal meeting of July 30'", 2012, regarding the Code language itself and potential for shadow flicker from wind turbines. She referred to literature she passed out to the Commission indicating that shadow flicker is typically only a concern for to utility -scaled wind turbines, not the small wind energy systems under consideration with these code amendments. She recommended that the Commission either remove the provision regarding shadow flicker from the proposed code language or leave it in to give a greater level of scrutiny to this concern when it is near a residential zone. She noted that it should not be difficult for an applicant to demonstrate that the turbine doesn't create shadow flicker. Howard explained that currently small wind energy systems are not allowed in Iowa City as Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2012 - Formal Page 2 of 5 either principal or accessory uses. She said they are becoming more common in some parts of Iowa but there hasn't been a lot of call for them in Iowa City since the wind patterns in this area are not as consistent for producing wind energy. She said that the City is interested in allowing this type of energy generation in places where it is feasible and noted that there have been a few companies that have inquired about installing such systems. She said there are also wind turbines that can be placed on the tops of buildings, but they are generally limited to new buildings that can structurally handle those systems. She said although she doesn't anticipate a large demand for wind turbines in Iowa City, the City would like to be green -energy friendly. She said that Pearson would like to put a wind turbine on their property that is zoned for Office Research Park. She said in industrial areas and office research parks where the property is one acre or more, free-standing wind energy systems would be appropriate. She said staff is recommending allowing small wind energy systems as accessory uses that would generate power for the applicant's business only and would not generate power for other users. Howard said that staff has referred to Johnson County's recently adopted small wind energy ordinance as well as West Des Moines' ordinance and used many of the standards in those two codes for the proposed amendment. She said they have suggested a list of definitions that describe the component parts of small wind energy systems and a set of rules including setback, insurance, siting standards, and removal. She said they are recommending that towers over forty-five feet be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment, as they would have a greater impact on the neighboring area than the shorter towers. Freerks asked if no matter the height or size of the tower, it can't exceed 50 decibels. Howard answered that there are noise controls and setback requirements, and in order to qualify as a small energy system they can't generate more than 100 kilowatts of power. She said that all the turbines have to meet all the performance standards but there are height differences based on the size of the lot: lots of 1-3 acres can have a maximum tower height of sixty-five feet, 3-7 acres can have a maximum of eighty feet, for lots more than seven acres but less than fifteen the maximum of one -hundred feet, and for lots more than fifteen acres the maximum height is 150 feet. Thomas asked what issues have come up with wind power systems Howard said she isn't aware of any concerns related to the small systems that are not addressed with the standards suggested in the code amendments. Eastham asked how the Code requirements give the City control over or information about how safe the proposed tower is at the time of installation. He said he is particularly concerned about potential collapse. Howard said when the application is submitted, the applicant would have to show how it meets all the City standards and would go through the same procedures that is required for a building. She said that the proposed amendment reads that "applications for any Small Wind Energy Conversion System (SWECS) shall be accompanied by standard drawings of the wind turbine structure including the tower, base and footings; an engineering analysis of all the components of the SWECS showing compliance with the applicable regulations and certificated by an Iowa licensed professional engineer also need to be submitted." Eastham asked if Howard thought those applicable regulations are clear enough in terms of ability to withstand high wind conditions. Eastham said in Iowa City there have been flat winds that have downed utility poles and he asked if there would be something different about towers to prevent that from happening. Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2012 - Formal Page 3 of 5 Howard said that her understanding is that these systems are required to be able to withstand hurricane -force winds and to be mounted in a concrete foundation. She said the turbines themselves have an automatic breaking system that will shut them off if the wind becomes too strong. Freerks opened public hearing. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to approve amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, defining Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems and establishing regulations to allow these systems as accessory uses in certain zones by special exception as detailed in the staff memorandum of August 2, 2012. Martin seconded. Thomas suggested keeping shadow flicker in the amendment just as assurance should there be any issues. Freerks agreed, saying that just like anything else in the Code, they can look at this at a later time and determine whether to alter it if there are issues. Eastham said it's important that the staff indicated that there are accepted methods for calculating shadow flicker for any given tower height, latitude and blade dimensions. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. REZONING ITEM REZ12-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Services for a rezoning from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID-ORP) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM12) zone for approximately 27.68 acres of property located at Camp Cardinal Boulevard, south of Preston Lane. (Applicant has requested deferral to September 20.) Eastham moved to defer the item to the meeting of September 20th. Thomas seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. REZONING ITEM REZ12-00012: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Services for a rezoning from Interim Development Multifamily (ID-RM) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM12) zone for approximately 13.90-acres of property located at S. Gilbert Street and McCollister Boulevard. (Applicant has requested indefinite deferral) Eastham moved to defer the item indefinitely Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2012 - Formal Page 4 of 5 Thomas seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: July 19th, 2012: Martin moved to approve the minutes. Eastham seconded. The motion carried 5-0. OTHER: Eastham asked that a correction be made in the City Council packet regarding his recusal on CPA 12-00002/R EZ 12-00010NAC 12-00004. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Thomas seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote. z O ¢cf) G O U z E 0 06 z E z Q J a O Z W w w W VoE Q N Q 0 � Z W O LL E Q �0xx x0x0 o� ;xxxxxxx n NxxxixxXo t0 n O_ X x x i x x x X f0 n Nxxx;xxxx N Q X X I X X X X XXOXIXXX NLLJ M X X x I i X X X X X X X I X X X M N N � X X X X X X X N llxxxxixXX CO 0 M N Lo to M wa LO LO E X o o o o o 000 w a E w y J U Q Y N a Q w wit-wmEa5N- S 0 Tw? w m w a Q>-¢ w O Q = w z 0W U. Y E Un E3 z ui w w J Q O LL z -TIM O n>CXX I XIXI (D0xx xx00 �XXXIXXXX E2Xx01XXXX MXXXQiXxX n N X X X X I X X X N M C xxx 14 N � UJ c0 'Y h to (Y) LO �K00000000 W w W J z Y a z= w= a z a 0" Q w X O' LL U Q Y h N J wOFwWa�CQ7�IN- wwcnwa� Q>-<w =w z O w LL Y m w I- �: E E O O O O O � O O O z Z U p U p `a-1 N 1 N C O C N c N E (D c N E O N O N a)-aO �.n¢Z (D <Z d¢ �� It a¢ a II It W2i 11 II W2E x0ooz xooz Y Y