HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-16-2005 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, June 13, 2005 — 7:30 PM
Informal Meeting
Robert A. Lee Community Recreation Center
Meeting Room B
220 S. Gilbert Street
Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 7:30 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order.
B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda.
C. Rezoning Item:
1. REZ03-00019/ SUB03-00024 Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate
Development Co. to rezone approximately 92 acres from Interim Development Residential (ID-
RS) to Low Density Single Family - Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA-5) for property located west
of Kennedy Parkway and east of Camp Cardinal Road. Concurrent with this rezoning, the
applicant has requested a preliminary plat of Cardinal Ridge, an approximate 92-acre, 93-lot
single family residential subdivision. (45-day limitation period: July 10, 2005)
2. REZ05-00003 Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a
rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone and Medium Density Single -Family Residential
(RS-8) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for property located between North Dodge
Street and Dodge Street Court, east of Conklin Lane. (45-day limitation period: June 16, 2005)
D. Vacation Item:
VAC05-00004 Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for vacation of
alleys in Peninsula Neighborhood Second Addition.
E. Consideration of the April 28, 2005 and May 5, 2005 Meeting Minutes
Other Item:
Election of Vice Chair (Informal Meeting)
F. Adjournment
Upcomina Plannina & Zonina Commission Meetinas.
Informal
Jul
4**
July
18
AUgust
1
Au
ust 15
August 29
Formal
July
7
July
21
August
4
August
18
September 1
"Informal Meeting is cancelled due to holiday
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo
Item: REZ03-00019/ SUB03-00024 Date: June 16, 2005
Cardinal Ridge
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Southgate Development
755 Mormon Trek Boulevard
Iowa City, IA 52246
Phone: 337-4195
Requested Action: Rezoning from ID-RS to OSA-5;
Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas
Development Plan approval
Purpose: A 93-lot single-family residential
subdivision
Location: West of the northwest terminus of Kennedy
Parkway, west of the Walnut Ridge
subdivision.
Size: 92.31 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped, ID-RS
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Undeveloped and residential; ID-
RS
South: Undeveloped and residential; ID-
RS
East: Residential; OSA-1 and OPDH-1
West: Undeveloped; ID-ORP
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan identifies this
area as residential, 2-8 dwelling units per
acre.
File Date: May 26, 2005
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The property proposed for development is accessed via the western terminus of Kennedy
Parkway, the collector street that also provides access to the Walnut Ridge subdivision. Camp
Cardinal Boulevard, which will connect Highway 6 in Coralville and Melrose Avenue, is being
K
built to the west of this subdivision and will serve as an arterial street for this portion of the city.
The existing Camp Cardinal Road will become a collector street. The Cardinal Ridge property
has been zoned Interim Development Residential due to the lack of infrastructure to support
residential development; with the Kennedy Parkway extending into this property, infrastructure is
available to support development. There are sensitive environmental features on this property
including wetlands, critical and protected slopes, woodlands, and a stream corridor. The
applicant, Southgate Development, is requesting a rezoning to OSA-5 to allow a 93-lot single
family residential development on a 92.31 acre property. A Sensitive Area Development Plan is
required because the applicant is requesting a reduction of a portion of the required wetland
buffer in two locations and wetland buffer averaging for the wetland located adjacent to the stream
corridor. The plat also contains Outlots E and G that are reserved for future development and
Outlots A, B, C, D and F that will serve as common open space.
ANALYSIS:
REZONING
Comprehensive Plan: A rezoning from ID-RS is appropriate when the infrastructure necessary
for urban development is available to the property. The Comprehensive Plan land use map
identifies this area as appropriate for residential development, 2-8 units per acre. The Clear Creek
Master Plan, which is the planning document guiding the construction of Camp Cardinal
Boulevard, also shows this area as appropriate for residential development. The Comprehensive
Plan states that residential development in the Northwest Planning District will be impacted by the
existence of extensive areas of sensitive environmental features, and the Cardinal Ridge property
is no exception. Because the applicant is requesting modifications to the wetland buffers a
sensitive areas overlay rezoning is required. In Staff's opinion, the underlying density requested,
Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) is appropriate for this property given the collector
street access, environmental characteristics, and Comprehensive Plan guidance for the area.
The area to the east contains the Walnut Ridge development and is zoned OPDH-1 with an
underlying zoning of RR-1. All of the lots in the Walnut Ridge are a minimum of one acre. The
proposed subdivision includes some larger lots adjacent to Walnut Ridge.
Sensitive Areas Overlay Rezoning: The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is to
permit and define the reasonable use of properties that contain sensitive environmental
features and natural resources, and allowing reasonable development while protecting such
resources from damage. The Cardinal Ridge development is designed to primarily develop
land that has been previously disturbed (farmed), thus preserving most of the environmentally
sensitive areas.
Woodlands: Woodlands are defined as any tract of land with a contiguous wooded area not less
than two acres and containing not less than 200 trees per acre. Under the RS-5 zone, at least
50% of the woodlands must be retained. According to a note on the plat this property contains 40
acres of woodland, and 12 acres or 30% of woodland are proposed to be removed. Most of the
tree removal will occur on the edge of the woodland contained on Outlot G. If other portions of
the property are developed in the future, the total tree removal for the Cardinal Ridge property
should not exceed 50%. The plan notes that fencing will be installed to protect the woodlands
during construction. The Sensitive Areas Plan generally complies with the requirements of the
woodland section of the zoning code, however as noted below the plan shows the removal of
some wooded areas within the required protected slope buffers.
S:\PCD\Staff Reports\REZ03.00019Card Ridge pre plat and SAO zoning.doc
3
Stream Corridor: A stream corridor exists along the southern portion of the property, for which a
60-foot wide total buffer is required (30-foot wide stream corridor plus 15 feet of buffer on either
side). The development design includes this stream corridor buffer.
Wetlands: Wetlands are located in the southern portion of the property, generally on the north
side of the stream corridor, with some wetland 'fingers' extending north into drainageways. As
required by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, a wetlands delineation report was prepared by the
wetlands specialist and was accepted by the Army Corps of Engineers. The delineated wetlands
are shown on the plat.
Wetland Mitigation Plan: For properties containing a wetland, a wetland mitigation plan is
required as part of the Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning. The wetland mitigation plan must
include the type and location of erosion control measures, and a stormwater management plan
that addresses stormwater runoff and sedimentation. Subsection G3(c)(3) of the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance contains standards for the discharge of stormwater into the wetland including that the
partial treatment of storm water runoff through the use of constructed wetlands, detention basins,
vegetative filter strips, sediment traps or other means will be considered as part of a mitigation
plan. Because a regional storm water basin is proposed to the west of the Cardinal Ridge
subdivision, there will not be a storm water basin within the subdivision itself. Storm water will be
released directly into the wetlands and stream corridor. The plans submitted provide no
description of erosion control methods around the protected wetlands. There are no
construction limits identified and there are no sediment barriers identified. The mitigation plan
should also address the planting of enhanced vegetative cover with the previously disturbed buffer
areas (per section 14-6K-1 G 3.c.(7)). These items should be address prior to approval.
Wetland Buffer Reduction: A 100-foot buffer around the delineated wetland is required, although
it may be decreased under certain circumstances (See section 14-6K-1 G.3) In a letter dated May
18 (copy attached) the applicant proposes to decrease the buffer to as low as 25 feet where it
would coincide with individual lots adjacent to Outllot D (lots 67 to 70 and lot 76 and 77) and future
lots on Outlot E.
The applicant is also requesting that the wetland buffer be reduced from 100 feet to 50 feet for
the long narrow wetland located between the back of lots 29-30 and the back of lots 62-64.
Based on the information submitted, staff believes that it is reasonable to reduce the wetland
buffer where it coincides with development lots. However staff sees no reason to reduce the
wetland buffer required between lots 29-30 and 62-64 with Outlot C. This Outlot will be private
open space and it will be possible to achieve the full 100 foot buffer around the wetland.
Wetland Buffer Averaging: The applicant has also requested use of the wetland buffer
averaging provision to increase the wetland buffer adjacent to the stream corridor while
decreasing lots 7 and 22 to 25. Staff believes that justifications provided for increasing the wetland
buffer adjacent to the stream corridor but reducing it on the development lots is reasonable.
Slopes: The plat notes the location of steep, critical and protected slopes on the property, and
notes the 50-foot buffer required around the edge of the protected slope. This buffer is required
to minimize slope instability and erosion of protected (40%+) slopes. Portions of the protected
slope buffer are located in development lots. The final plat and OPDH plan should label these as
non -development areas so that future lot owners are aware of the restrictions that apply. The plan
indicates that trees will be removed from portions of the protected slope buffer on lots 51-53 and
Outlot G adjacent to lot 39. The sensitive areas ordinance prohibits the removal of trees with in a
S:\PCD\Staff Reports\REZ03-00019Card Ridge pre plat and SAO zoning.doc
4
protected slope buffer except where necessary for the installation of essential utilities. There are
not utilities in the area proposed for tree removal on lots 51-53. The plan should be revised to
indicate that tree removal will not occur within the protected slope buffer area. The plan does
indicate the need for storm water and sanitary sewer easements on Outlot G and therefore tree
removal may be approved to allow installation of these utilities.
Several of the lots contain steep and critical slopes (lots 32-37, 39-53, 54-62, 66-74, 76-79, and
80 and 92). The Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires that grading and excavation of steep and
critical slopes should be minimized. For the most part the slopes are at the back of the lots where
little disturbance will be required during construction. The plan includes a note indicating that only
3% of the critical slopes on the property will be disturbed. The plan should report the percentage
of steep slopes to be disturbed. In general, with the exception of the tree removal from the
protected slope buffer on lots 51-53, the Sensitive Areas Development Plan appears to comply
with the requirements for slopes.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Subdivision Design: The plat consists of 93 lots accessed off the extension of Kennedy
Parkway, a collector street, and Camp Cardinal Road, an existing street, a segment of which is
proposed to be reconstructed to a urban street standards. The lots range in size from 17,000-
44,000 square feet in area along the eastern (Walnut Ridge) edge, to 9,000-10,000 square feet
in area. Large amounts of private open space are proposed, primarily along the wetland
corridor in the southern part of the property and the wooded slopes in the northern part of the
property, but also within the development adjacent to all the rear yards (so no rear yard directly
abuts another) and within the Meadowlark Drive loop. A round -a -bout intersection is proposed
at the intersection of Kennedy Parkway and Meadowlark Drive both as a feature of the
development and to deter cut -through traffic between Camp Cardinal Road and Melrose
Avenue. The plat also contains Outlots A, B, C, D and F that will serve as common open space
and Outlots E and G that are reserved for future development. Outlot G is labeled as reserved for
future condominium development. Since the construction of condominiums on this lot will require
a future zoning action this lot should be simply be labeled for future development.
Kennedy Parkway Design: In the Walnut Ridge development, Kennedy Parkway was permitted
to be designed as a 28-foot wide pavement collector street with a sidewalk on one side. The 28-
foot wide street was permitted as a collector street design (rather than the standard 31-feet) due
to parking being prohibited on Kennedy Parkway. The sidewalk on only one side was permitted
by the City Council at the time the preliminary plat was approved, due to the low density of
development, and the opportunity for a private trail system through the development (which was
never constructed, though the option is still there if the home owners association chooses to
construct it). Consistent with urban design standards Kennedy Parkway within Cardinal Ridge will
be 31 feet wide and will have sidewalks on both sides.
Round -A -Bout: A round -a -bout intersection is proposed at the intersection of Kennedy Parkway
and Meadowlark Drive. Designed properly, this can be an attractive addition to the neighborhood,
as well as a good traffic calming device. Staff has reviewed the design with an engineering
consultant and finds the design to be appropriate for this location. Like the private open spaces
within the subdivision a homeowner's association will be responsible for maintenance of the open
space in the center of the round -a -bout.
Camp Cardinal Road Connection: Kennedy Parkway is proposed to connect to Camp Cardinal
S:\PCD\Staff Reports\REZ03-00019Card Ridge pre plat and SAO zoning.doc
5
Road at the west property line. There may be a concern that this connection will result in cut
through traffic using Camp Cardinal Road and Kennedy Parkway between Iowa City and
Coralville. This will be only a temporary situation as the new Camp Cardinal Boulevard, which
should be competed by the fall of 2006, will provide a better connection when it is complete.
Kennedy Parkway and Camp Cardinal Road will serve as collector streets for the adjacent
subdivisions. Because Kennedy Parkway is a collector street (with a traffic level of 2,500 VPD
before secondary access would be required), there are no capacity issues with extending it to
accommodate the Cardinal Ridge development. There are 104 lots in Walnut Ridge, and 93
proposed lots in Cardinal Ridge. This equals 197 lots x 7 trips per day = 1,379 total estimated
trips using Kennedy Parkway. A traffic count from June 2003 found only 555 VPD using
Kennedy Parkway near it's midpoint (near Shagbark Court). This traffic count also found an
85th% speed of southbound traffic of 39 MPH, coming down a grade on Kennedy Parkway. While
the traffic volumes are not high, this speed of traffic would warrant targeted speed enforcement by
the City Police Department. Because Kennedy Parkway is currently a dead-end street, it is safe
to say the speeding vehicles are residents, visitors of residents, or construction vehicles from
homes being built in Walnut Ridge.
Sanitary Sewer: Section 14-7C-2 of the subdivision regulations require that sanitary sewer lines
be extended to the subdivision boundaries and beyond, as necessary to provide for the extension
of sanitary sewer to adjacent properties. This requirement is necessary so as not to deny
essential infrastructure to adjoining properties and to allow the city to grow in an orderly fashion.
Given the topography of this area, the City Engineer has determined that it will be necessary to
provide a sanitary sewer extension to the north and at least one and possibly two extensions to
the south. The plat currently does not show an extension to the north or south.
Because there may be alternative ways to provide sanitary sewer service to the land to the
south, rather than requiring two sewer connections to the south, the City Engineer proposes
that a blanket sanitary sewer easement be granted to cover all portions of Outlot C south of the
east -west sanitary sewer and that one sewer line extension be planned for the eastern ravine.
The blanket easement will provide for the possibility of a second sewer line extension to the
adjacent property to the south. But the provision of at least one extension to the south is
necessary, so the City proposes that the applicant have the option of building the eastern sewer
line to the south at this time or in lieu of building the sewer making payment to the City for the
estimated cost of design and construction of that line. In the event that the property to the
south develops with sewer service from another direction, the amount paid would be refunded.
Without provision of sanitary sewer lines to the adjacent properties, staff would not recommend
approval of the Cardinal Ridge subdivision.
Storm water management: A regional storm water facility will be built upstream along with the
Camp Cardinal Boulevard project. Therefore a storm water facility will not be required within the
Cardinal Ridge subdivision. Storm water will be piped to the stream as discussed above.
Open Space: According to the neighborhood open space formula, 2.17 acres of public open
space or fees in lieu of are required for a subdivision of this size. The Parks and Recreation
Commission is considering requiring the dedication of a portion of Outlot C for an east to west
trail, if it is possible to obtain the cooperation of the Walnut Ridge Home Owners Association and
the University of Iowa to extend the trail to the east to connect to the Clear Creek Trail. If a trail
network is not possible on adjacent properties the Parks and Recreation Commission would want
fees in lieu of dedication of open space within the Cardinal Ridge subdivision, due to the nature of
S:\PCD\Staff Reports\REZ03-00019Card Ridge pre plat and SAO zoning.doc
1.1
the open space not begin suitable for a neighborhood park.
Utility Tap -On Fees: Water main extension fees of $395 per acre are required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ03-00019/SUB03-00024, be deferred pending resolution of the
deficiencies and discrepancies noted below. Upon resolution of the deficiencies and
discrepancies noted below, staff recommends that REZ03-00019/SUB03-00024, a request for a
rezoning from Interim Development Single Family Residential, ID-RS, to Low Density Single
Family / Sensitive Areas Overlay, OSA-5, and the Sensitive Area Development Plan and
preliminary plat for Cardinal Ridge an approximate 92.31 acre, 93-lot residential subdivision
located west of Walnut Ridge, be approved.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
1. The reference to condominium development should be removed form Outlot G. The notes
should read: "reserved for future development".
2. A sanitary sewer line extension should be shown to the north property line.
3. A sanitary sewer line extension should be shown to the south property line or an
alternative agreement should be reached to provide sanitary sewer lines to the property to
the south. A blanket sanitary sewer easement should be shown on the o
4. The required 100 foot wetland buffer should be shown within Outlot C.
5. The wetland mitigation plan should address the items noted in staff report.
6. Kennedy Parkway corner lots should have notes requiring access to local streets.
7. The area of steep slopes to be disturbed should be noted on the plat
8. Woodlands should not be removed from the protected slope buffers on lots 51-53.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat
3. Wetland buffer modification request (dated Ma 18)
Approved by:
Karin ranklin, Director,
Department of Planning and Community Development
S:\PCD\Staff Reports\REZ03-00019Card Ridge pre plat and SAO zoning.doc
Cn
;o o
M
W
N
O
Cl) O
O
C)
W � O J �n
Q twbl L
O v
> s
a
6f/
r
r �r
�4
< o,
d� ° o \ 00
\ _ 70
� a p
� a
e
00
0
04 y
G yW �• Il NqW �
+J
D
cz
0
°YOY lvNgbYJ AYE
^V\J
W
z
O
� a � H
o j--�
V
cc
c O
\ Sl/W/) 3IYt/Odi/O, ADO YMO/ JO .U/o �u
1"�
lii� Oj � 4
ICI
.QPN,
MZI
141
SAO
WSW
46
so
2 88 , u .: ..�•. \ \\ . by /�' i+ss> 11) % p/
48
W . B0
40 . .. i
53
a'
a I / uu �• I 1 g
�, / - 1- N�. 1 � ILO• I I I-�'� r
`,,b. •.Zaw �i �' se � � 1,14 I Id. ,,N.. I I'� '"�:
r
I
ounarmp
u nl ..�, '" I OIIR.OT'A Irsr II lu4r• j� �' I a.r
I mrw s
� • I I I 18 8 �
u"
Irl,
919
/
,� I' IN • u32 'b. I I 4 . i ' i o
Iip• 7
�1 i. I... �14N�,• 1 i.' i'
1v62 (30
• a M� • 1� I,eNwl p.l -ir, 2i' �t � I �}y��prt N.4
• /. / n.la 1 !y'.1 tl..0 I 11 I w,w:.'w
I i �;fi / L�. •29
• i lily I i . //JJr���
I 94
84
GYO M
128• I / °4•n � � .�
Mx—
ovnar•� .
... .. I —J L----s'sl�na.arvlas.ulr..--
..... •'•� �.•.•.•... •v . CIRdR'O'.••
...
.. ....
.. ........
.. .... ......... ...... NCee
NrN,N1Nf M I TO - _,9.. Is
rp
Car final. Ride p�
,1
;ARE COS S MATE FOR AREA ILLUSTRA D
FUTUg YES
ARA I I M)
'ARE COST
TU
J'A
720-
;>70
Ga
-7,r,
I
I
HOLLAND & ANDERSON LLP
123 N. Linn St., Suite 300
P.O. Box 2820
Iowa City, IA 52244-2820
Phone: (319) 354-0331
Fax: (319) 354-0559
May 18, 2005
Bob Miklo
Planning & Zoning Department
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
RE: Cardinal Ridge
No:
Dear Bob:
C. Joseph Holland
jholland@icialaw.com
Lars G. Anderson
landerson@icialaw.com
LeAnn Heun
iheun@icialaw.com
This letter is a follow up to the meeting we had on Tuesday, May 17. As you
are aware the Applicant, Southgate Development Company, Inc., is requesting buffer
averaging with respect to certain wetlands delineated within the boundaries of the
proposed Cardinal Ridge subdivision.
I am enclosing a copy of a Memo dated June 8, 2004, from Liz Maas to Scott
and Larry at MMS. I include this in part because it provides information about the
delineated wetlands and because I want to refer to certain identified wetland areas
by the lettering used on the map which is apart of that Memo. From our discussions
on Tuesday I understand that wetlands D and E are the two primary areas we need
to address. The concerns over wetland areas A, B, and C have been largely resolved,
although wetland area B does somewhat figure into this request since future
development may raise the same issue with respect to that area.
In Ms. Maas Memo she indicates a general agreement that these wetland areas
are "of poor quality" or of "lesser quality." According to her memo, Gene Walsh of
the Army Corps. of Engineers indicated a 15 to 20-foot buffer zone around these
particular wetlands would be sufficient.
I am enclosing an excerpt from a June 2003 Wetland Delineation Report by
MMS. (I understand that full report was submitted to the City, but let me know if
that is not correct and I will see that it is.) The "wetland drainageways" referred to
in that excerpt are the areas A-E, inclusive, as labeled in the Maas memo. As this
excerpt indicates, the wetlands along the stream corridor are much higher quality
wetlands and deserving of more protection than the drainageways.
Buffer averaging is allowed where an increased buffer is necessary or desirable
to provide additional protection to one area for esthetic or environmental reasons.
The stream corridor and the "wooded wetland" adjacent to the creek are areas which
are worthy of additional buffering. Those areas are of higher wetland quality.
Southgate is proposing to provide buffers well beyond what is required for the
stream corridor and wooded wetland to protect those valuable natural resources, as
a part of the buffer averaging allowed by Section 16-K-1-(G)(3)(b)(3).
The increased buffering which Southgate proposes for the wetland is as much
as 200 feet, e.g. south of proposed lots 64 and 65, where the buffer requirement in the
Ordinance is only 100 feet. In fact, the buffering exceeds the minimum almost
everywhere in the proposed development. The buffer is maintained at a minimum
at a distance of 100 feet in all areas, except where it is shown on the current
preliminary plat as 52 feet behind lot 22 and 50.87 feet behind lot 24 for wetland areas
E and D. It is also shown as 41.7 feet at the southeasterly edge of outlot E near
wetland area B.
The effect of buffer averaging, as shown on the current plat, is to increase the
total buffer area by almost one acre, as a consequence of the increase in the distance
to the buffer line.
Southgate has made every effort to design this subdivision consistent with
good environmental practices. It could be possible to move certain lots farther to the
south and decrease the buffer (which is shown as Outlot C.) For both environmental
and aesthetic reasons Southgate would prefer not to do this.
The buffer averaging provisions also include aesthetic reasons as a criteria
which make it necessary or desirable to provide additional protection to one area.
By providing additional buffering along the stream corridor this allows for more
open space along the stream corridor. This will be an aesthetic benefit to the
residents of the subdivision, the residents of nearby properties, and to the City as a
whole. This is a goal recognized in the December 21, 2001 Memorandum of
Understanding "Clear Creek Master Plan and Camp Cardinal Road."
There are criteria set out in Section 14-6K-1(G)(3)(b)(4) which do not relate
directly on buffer averaging, but which relate to reduced buffering. While these do
not apply directly, I think that they are helpful in interpreting the intent of the
Ordinance as a whole and in considering whether buffer averaging is appropriate.
Those criteria do address the environmental and aesthetic concern which are matters
which specifically relate to buffer averaging.
The first criteria is "the proposed land use of the property and its potential
impact on the wetland." Obviously, we are dealing with a residential subdivision.
Human activities and the runoff from the properties probably have the biggest long
term impact on the wetland. Obviously, construction disturbances have some
impact. The increase buffering in certain areas will certainly help to minimize or
mitigate the potential impact on the wetlands along the stream corridor.
The second criteria is "the design and layout of the proposed development in
relation to the wetland." As I said earlier, great care has been taken to attempt to
follow the natural topography and to provide greater than required separation
(buffering) between the residential lots and the wetlands along the stream corridor.
The next criteria is "the physical characteristics of the site and the wetland."
As the Maas report noted, the wetlands where the buffer would be reduced as part
of the averaging are low quality wetlands. The site lends itself better to protecting
the higher quality wetlands along the stream corridor by an increased buffer. The
buffer averaging still allows significant protection for even those low quality
wetland.
The final criteria is "any other factor related to the short- or long-term
environmental stability and health of the wetland." It would seem apparent even to
lay people like you or I that the substantially increased buffer, by 100 % in places, will
help accomplish the greatest protection for the wetlands in this area from the effects
of human activity.
In summary, there are many factors which satisfy the provisions of the
Ordinance to allow buffer averaging. We hope that the City staff will agree that the
proposed buffer averaging is appropriate for this subdivision and approve this
request. If you need clarifications or further information please contact me.
Very truly yours,
CJH:jm
cc: Glenn Siders
Karin Franklin
Larry Schnittjer
E
W
WE
ADJ
TO
i
Sheet Title:
a
N
�m ao WETLAND BUFFER EXHIBIT
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
m-
z
Q
x Project Title:
IOWO City, lowo (319) 351-8282
a
co
0 z A
c n CARDINAL RIDGE
0
k
a
Designed by
Drown by
Checked by,
IOWA CITY, IOWA
JEM
I
AA
MMS Consultants, Inc.
1917 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
MEMO
Date: 06/08/04
Project No.
To: Scott and Larry
From: Liz Maas
Re: Cardinal Ridge request for a wetland buffer reduction and averaging
Larry and Scott —
Here is a revised copy of the wetland buffer reduction and averaging request with the revisions you
requested. Please review it when you have a chance and if I need to change other things — please let
me know. I will have it corrected and ready to go whenever you need it.
Liz
REQUEST FOR A WETLAND BUFFER REDUCTION FOR
CARDINAL RIDGE
IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Request to the City of Iowa City for a Wetland Area Buffer Zone Reduction and
averaging for the Cardinal Ridge Subdivision off of Camp Cardinal Road. This proposed
development is in the northwestern quarter of Section 7, Township 79 North, Range 6
West in Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa.
MMS Consultants, Inc., on behalf of our client Southgate Development, would like to
request a wetland buffer reduction. A wetland delineation for this property was
completed and transmitted to the City of Iowa City in 2003. A total of 0.39 acres (16,988
sq.ft.) of palustrine; emergent; broad and narrow -leaved persistent wetland (Wetlands A,
B, C, D and E) and 4.13 acres (179,902 sq.ft.) ofpalustrine; forested; broad-leaved
deciduous (wooded wetland) wetland were delineated.
Area for which a buffer reduction is requested:
Total existing wetland acreage on this property is 4.52 acres. The wetland areas do not
contain species identified by the federal and/or state governments as endangered or
threatened; and do not provide critical or outstanding habitat for any species of that type.
The small drainageway wetland areas that run down slope to join the small blue line
creek do not contain diverse plant associations of infrequent occurrence or of regional
significance and they themselves are not identified as a blue line streams on any USGS
topographical maps (Figure 1). In addition, the wetlands associated with the blue line
stream do not contain diverse plant associations of infrequent occurrence or of regional
significance.
In a year of average precipitation, the wetland area does not contain standing water
throughout the calendar year and does not provide a known habitat for migratory birds of
local or regional significance. Only those portions of wetland immediately adjacent to
the blue line stream have been delineated as wooded wetland.
In addition to the above evidence, on the 19`h of May, 2003 MMS Consultants Inc.
Wetland Specialist Liz Maas met on -site with Julie Tallman from the City of Iowa City
Building Department. At that time, there was agreement that the "emergent" wetland
areas (Wetlands A, B, C, D and E) along the hill slopes were of poor quality and that a
request for a buffer reduction would be considered by the City. Then again on the 18`h of
June, 2003, Liz Maas from MMS Consultants Inc, Julie Tallman, Ron Gaines and John
Yapp from the City of Iowa City met on -site with Gene Walsh from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. Mr. Walsh walked the property with all those in attendance and also
recognized the lesser quality of the hill -slope wetlands and recommended a 15-20 foot
buffer zone around wetlands A, B, C, D and E. Reducing the 100' required buffer to an
averaged 50' buffer does not seem unreasonable.
The attached Figure 2 depicts the proposed buffer zones. A 50' buffer zone surrounding
the hill -slope wetland labeled "A" would be approximately 1.34 acres in size. MMS
proposes an averaged 2.38 acre buffer zone as shown in the attached drawing. The
remaining hill slope wetlands and wooded wetland areas along the creek will be buffered
by a proposed 9.26 acre buffer zone; compared to a 50' buffer which would be 8.52
acres. In total, an 11.64 acre buffer zone is proposed instead of a 50' buffer which would
be 9.86 acres. This proposal provides an additional 1.78 acres of buffer. Based on these
considerations, MMS Consultants Inc. would like to request both a 50' buffer reduction
and buffer averaging for this project.
WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT
CARDINAL RIDGE
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Prepared For:
Southgate Development
and
The United States Army Corps of Engineers
Prepared By:
MMS Consultants Inc.
1917 Gilbert Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
MMS Project No. 2265-138
June, 2003
Vegetation
Much of the natural vegetation of this site has been converted to agricultural use.
However, it is evident from the site photographs that the wetland drainageways have not
been recently planted. The upland agricultural areas investigated also support upland
weed species such as smooth brome (Bromus inermis), various foxtail species
(Alopecurus spp.), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), Canadian thistle and rough cockle-
bur (Xanthium stnimarium). In the upland fencerows, upland tree, shrub and vine species
include common hackbeny (Celtis occidentalis), red mulberry (Monrs rubra), choke
cherry (Prunus virginiana), Tartarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), morning glory
(Ipomoea purpurea), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).
The wetland drainageways having been constantly disturbed by adjacent planting and
harvesting do not support as wide a vegetative variety as that found within the wetlands
adjacent to the creek. Instead herb species within the drainageways include reed canary
grass (Phalaris arundinaceae), tussock sedge (Carex stricta), and Ohio goldenrod
(Solidago ohioensis). Wetland tree, shrub and vine species include American elm
(Ulmus americana), silky dogwood (Corpus amomum), and black willow (Salix nigra).
In comparison, the wetland area adjacent to the creek supports hydrophytic (water -
loving) herb species, such as reed canary grass (Phalaris anmdinaceae), Ohio goldenrod
(Solidago ohioensis), common blue violet (Viola papilionacea), clearweed (Pilea
pumila), joe pye weed (Eupatoriadelphus maculatus), boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum)
and jewelweed (Impatiens capensis). Hydrophytic shrub species include common
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) and silky dogwood (Cornus amomum). Hydrophytic
tree species are also found within the creek wetland boundaries, these include American
elm (Ulmus americans), slippery elm (Ulmus ncbra), green ash (Fraxinus pensylvanica),
black willow (Salix nigra), .box elder (Ater negundo), sugar maple (Ater saccharinum),
and Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides).
Hydrology
Since the entire property drains to the federally regulated creek along the southern
boundary of the property; overall hydrology of this site is dominated by drainage of the
south facing slopes. The four small agricultural drainageways that lie between the rolling
topography of the property drain to the creek. The drainageway wetlands flow either
directly to the creek by washouts or are directly adjacent to the wetland area associated
with the creek. In order to have a complete understanding of the different wetland areas,
specific hydrology is discussed below. In addition, the drainageways and wetlands within
them are labeled and identified in Figure 4.
Drainageway 1
The most westerly drainageway, Drainageway 1, contains two pockets of wetland
(Wetlands A and B). One sits on the northern end of the drainageway and is connected to
a second, more southerly wetland by a washout ditch. The second wetland pocket is
directly adjacent to the wetland surrounding the creek.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ05-00003 North Dodge Street
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact Person:
Phone:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Prepared by: Robert Miklo
Date: June 16, 2005
Southgate Companies
P.O. Box 1907
Iowa City, IA 52244-1907
Glenn Siders
337-4195
Rezoning from RS-8 and CI-1 to CC-2
Development of mixed used building and
bank
1126, 1128 and 1425 N. Dodge Street
2.19 acres
Commercial building and vacant
North:
Residential — RS-5
South:
Residential — RS-8
East:
Undeveloped — RS-8
West:
Cemetery and Commercial —
CC-2 and CNA
Mixed Use
March 1, 2005
Waived to June 16
An approximate 1 acre portion of this property with frontage on North Dodge Street (Hwy. 1) is
zoned Intensive Commercial (CI-1) and contains a commercial building and parking lot. The CI-1
zone is intended to provide areas for sales and service businesses that are typically characterized
by outdoor display, storage and/or sale of merchandise, repair of motor vehicles, outdoor
commercial amusement and recreational activities or by activities conducted in buildings or
structures not completely enclosed. The remaining approximate 1.25-acre portion of the property
with frontage on Dodge Street, Conklin Lane and North Dodge Street Court, is zoned Medium
Density Single -Family Residential (RS-8) and until recently contained two houses. The RS-8 zone
2
is intended to provide for development of small lot single-family dwellings. Duplexes are allowed
as provisional uses on lots with a minimum lot area of 8,700 square feet.
The proposed Community Commercial (CC-2) zone is intended to provide for major business
districts to serve a significant segment of the total community. In addition to a variety of retail
uses, these centers may typically feature large traffic generators requiring access from major
thoroughfares.
ANALYSIS:
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The North District Plan states: ...the plan
designates the area directly east of Dubuque Road and Conklin Lane as appropriate for a
mixture of residential and commercial development. Careful consideration must be given to the
design of any development in these areas to assure that it is compatible with the adjacent
residential neighborhoods. Development ideally will be mixed use with a residential component
facing Dodge Street Court. Vehicular access for commercial uses will be limited to the current
curb cut on Dodge Street. This will require shared access for these properties. If it is not
possible to achieve a mixed use development adjacent to Dodge Street Court the preferred use
is residential similar to the existing residential development in the area."
Appendix B of the plan defines Mixed Use as: Areas intended for development that combines
commercial and residential uses in a single building. The commercial component should
emphasize locally oriented retail, service, and office uses that will compatible with surrounding
residential development. Commercial uses will typically be located on the ground floor with
housing above. Development is intended to be pedestrian -oriented with buildings close to and
oriented to the sidewalk.
The applicant has submitted a concept site plan, which illustrates their intent for development of
the property if the rezoning is approved. The concept plan does illustrate some of the elements
envisioned by the North District Plan for the area. A mixed use commercial/residential building
is proposed in the north east corner of the property. A bank with drive -through lanes is
illustrated in western portion of the property. A landscaped berm and brick wall are proposed
to screen the commercial development from the dwellings on North Dodge Street Court.
Proposed Conditional Zoning Agreement: Given the expectations outlined in the North
District Plan and the fact that there are existing homes and the potential for further residential
development directly across Dodge Street Court and to the east of this property - in staff's
opinion any commercial rezoning should be subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA).
The CZA should spell out requirements for development of this property that are in addition to
the requirements of the CC-2 zone. Staff recommends that the CZA address the following
issues based on the need to provide a good buffer for the residential zone to the south and east
and to document some of the elements shown on the applicant's concept plan:
Building design: Brick buildings limited. to 2 stories and featuring store front windows, canopies
or awnings and upper story fenestration as illustrated on the elevation drawings submitted.
Staff has requested an elevation of the east side of the building which will be visible from Dodge
Street and the adjacent residential zone.
Pedestrian access: Sidewalks are required between the Dodge Street public sidewalk and the
proposed buildings. We recommend that a sidewalk be provided between Dodge Street Court
and the two story commercial building. The landscape strip between the residential and
commercial parking may be a good location for this sidewalk. A sidewalk will be required in the
right-of-way adjacent to Conklin Lane and Dodge Street Court, The City will construct the
sidewalk on Dodge Street as part of the reconstruction project currently underway.
3
Landscaping and screening: To create an adequate buffer along Dodge Street Court, the City
Forester recommends that white pines be planted 35 feet on center within the 20 foot setback.
He also recommends crab apple trees be planted 30 feet on center within the street right-of-
way between the sidewalk and the curb. He suggested red splendor or prairie fire. There may
be other species of trees that meet the objective of creating a screen between the residential
area the commercial development but also provide more variety.
The applicant's plan includes an 8-foot high masonry wall on top of a 2-foot high berm along
Dodge Street Court. This will result in a 10 foot high barrier between the Dodge Street Court
and the commercial development. In lieu of such a large wall staff recommends that the wall be
5 feet high with some articulation such as taller piers and decorative brick work. The wall at the
Ardenia Condominiums at the corner of Kirkwood Avenue and Marcy Street is a good model
(photo attached). With this design and the trees recommended by the City Forester, a more
open and pleasant pedestrian environment could be created. The zoning code requires that the
parking area for the apartments be screened, so we would recommend that the wall be
continued to the residential driveway. Evergreens would be appropriate at the south end of the
garage.
Street trees are required at a ratio of 1 tree for every 60 feet of street frontage along Dodge
Street and Conklin Lane. These trees should be planted on the property rather than in the
street right of way. The screening trees on Dodge Street Court will satisfy the street tree
requirements along that street.
Signs: Staff recommends that other than signs permitted on the buildings, that signs be limited
to two monument signs on Dodge Street. If one of the monument signs is located at the corner
of Dodge and Conklin Lane it should be no farther than 20 feet back from the Dodge Street
right-of-way. We recommend that no signs be permitted on the south side of either building, on
the west and east side of the bank building within 50 feet of Dodge Street Court right-of-way, or
on the east side of the two story building within 200 feet of Dodge Street Court — again, this is
to help make this commercial development compatible with the adjacent residential zone.
Lighting: Staff has requested more specific information about the site lighting plan including
any lighting proposed for the residential parking area. Our goal is to minimize effects on the
adjacent residential zone. Any lighting under the bank drive -through canopy should be
recessed into the underside of the canopy to avoid glare.
Street improvement: Because it will provide access to the multi -family residential parking area,
Dodge Street Court will need to be brought up to City standards. Staff recommends that the
applicant be required to pay for half the cost of the street adjacent to their property. The City
would pay for the other half. Additional right-of-way will be necessary to bring the street right-
of-way width to 50 feet.
Access: The North District Plan states that commercial access will be limited to one curb cut
onto Dodge Street. The applicant's concept plan includes a drive -through bank exit onto Dodge
Street Court, a residential street. Given the specificity of the District Plan regarding no
commercial access to Dodge Street Court, staff does not feel we have the latitude to
recommend something expressly contrary to the Plan.
Sensitive Areas: Although there is a wooded ravine to the east of this property and some mature
trees associated with the houses that were located on Conklin Lane, there are no known sensitive
areas regulated by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance on this property. Many of the trees will be
removed for the Dodge Street reconstruction project currently underway. The applicant's plan
would result in the removal of the remaining trees.
4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ05-00003 an application to rezone 2.19 acres form RS-8 and
CI-1 to CC-2 be approved subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement which requires adherence
to the principles of the North District Plan as discussed above.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Applicant's Concept Plan
3. Suggested buffer wall design
Approved by:�LL�c
Karin Fr nklin, Director
Depa ent of Planning and Community Development
1�
�E3
a�
o
U CL
..
z0 o
Utn
�r
O
2
75
c
CA
E co
CL 2
0
Lu
>
o a)
z 0 2
<
c
Z3
,— Cp
CL
(D
0 U)
0 I-z
��'k�m1i� 77"..
�k f f4
No
t t j S f 1 f A nA.
+iQ �
01,
r
�..®, CITY OF IOWA CITY
S.
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 26, 2005
To: Planning &Zoning Commission
cc,+
From: Karin Franklin, Director, P D
Re: VAC05-00004 Peninsula Phase II -alleys
To facilitate installation of utilities, the Peninsula Development L.L.C. has requested the
vacation of the alleys platted in Phase II such that these alleys will become private alleys rather
than public alleys. We recommend approval of this request.
In the platting of Phase II, 3 foot utility easements were provided at the rear of lots abutting
alleys to enable the installation of gas and electric utilities. Presumably space within the alley
abutting this 3 feet was expected to be provided for the actual installation of the utilities. We
have been informed by representatives of MidAmerican Energy Co. that the company policy at
this time is to avoid placement of utilities in public rights -of -way since any future relocations of
those utilities would be at the cost of the utility company, according tb City policy. So the
resolution of this is to transfer ownership of the alleys from the City to the developer and retain
easements over the alleys for public access, emergency services, and garbage pick-up and
establish a hold -harmless provision in the easement such that the public does not incur costs for
pavement repair caused by the provision of the public services.
As public alleys, the rights -of -way were open for all of the uses and services noted above; snow
removal was the responsibility of the abutting owners; and the City (public) was responsible for
the pavement for its life (approximately 20 years). As private alleys, the uses and services will
remain the same; snow removal responsibilities will remain the same; the public will have no
pavement maintenance responsibilities; and an easement will be granted by the developer to
MidAmerican for space in the alley abutting the 3 foot easement for installation of utilities.
Cc Barry Kemper, Peninsula Development L.L.C.
Aaron Cooper, MidAmerican Energy
Ron Knoche
Brian Boelk
i
Ilia,
LL
Ism
Oilyg s Pt
�C
"EY rrtE So
O � cF 58i=� �CF6g Rs�6 1 11
O < b5 �LE E6��A �✓gE` F•
e
0 Li .W Wtliz, r gie �
LiJ
z z .� :�•L sgSBa>y`� v�V gay
C)
Z e8 t �EfizXEb o
W
r l vy'S�S� Q ep5
L1J a S�?k!`YasE` IM.
1 I
h8M1 „ I I r
1 d���i� h/ L
ill
,IV
ill NV
€o�
i a
a19
=i
is
�
M
i Y �
i
i
t
8 aaaaaaa
- - - - - - - - - - ®D��00a
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _u _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
o ��a
- - -
i
2
e
9V4b
€-6
�
/ d�
�
�
P
�a'
Q
MINUTES PREUMINARY
PLANNING and ZONING PUBLIC HEARING
APRIL 28, 2005
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Anciaux, Beth Koppes, Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dean Shannon
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Mitch Behr
OTHERS PRESENT: Barbara Buss, Dennis Nowatny, John Kammermeyer, Craig Dahlen,
Glenn Siders, Gary Kleinfelder, Pam Ehrhardt, Steve Gordon, Ed Jones,
Cecile Kuenzli, Scott Hochstasser, Dan Smith, Charles Eastham, Larry
Svoboda, Gary Moore, Bob Welsh, Lori Dahlen, Larry Schnittjer, Joe
Holland, Mike Pugh, Ann Bovbjerg, Mark McCalhon, Patti Santangelo,
Mike McLaughlin
CALL TO ORDER:
Brooks called the public hearing to order at 7:32 pm.
OPENING REMARKS:
Chairperson Brooks said the purpose of this meeting was to hold a public comment hearing on
the new Zoning Code for the City of Iowa City. A draft of proposed changes to the Zoning Code
had been made available to the public in February, 2005. Since that time, P&Z staff had attended
numerous civic group meetings to present information on the proposed changes and three public
informational open houses had been held during which time the public had been invited to attend
to meet one-on-one with staff and Commission members to ask questions and discuss
areas/issues that needed clarification. All of those comments along with any additional Public
Review Draft Comment Sheets received would be entered into the public record and would
become part of the Commission's deliberation process as they moved through the adoption of the
new Zoning Code. A copy of the proposed Code was available on the City's web page as well as
on a CD or in hard copy format from the Planning and Community Development office.
Brooks said this would be the first of at -least two public hearings before the Commission. All
commentary received would be considered and utilized in the process of developing the final
Code which would be voted on by the Commission and then sent to City Council for their review.
The Council would also hold a series of public hearings before the Code was adopted. This
public hearing would go until 10:00 pm. Persons were requested to limit their comments to five
minutes to provide everyone an opportunity to speak. If all persons had had the opportunity to
speak, persons would be welcome to speak a second time for an additional 3-5 minutes.
Brooks said the Commission had already received a large amount of public input in the form of
letters, a -mails and comments during the public informational meetings. There were several
items which the Commission would be directing staff to review further and provide suggested
changes or revisions to the proposed Code for re -consideration by the Commission. Potential re -
review items included the location of shelters in certain neighborhoods and ways to keep existing
duplexes in certain zones conforming with the proposed changes in the Code.
Planning and Zoning Public Hearing
April 28, 2005
Page 2 of 20
Motion: Anciaux made a motion to accept and put into record all correspondence received to
date. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Barbara Buss, 718 S. Summit, said she was there to urge the Commission's support for the
proposed changes to the Code. She thanked Karen and Staff for the careful way the proposals
had been made with special consideration for public input. She felt the specific proposals spoke
to the common interest of the community. Two groups, homeowners and landlords, would speak
before the Commission. Each would speak in its own self interest as property owners. It would
be up to the Commission to decide which of those self interest's best coincided with the interests
of the City. Homeowners were persons who owned property as their home, their largest financial
asset was the equity in their homes. Their interests would be to protect the value of their
investment by maintaining their property and the neighborhood in which it was located. The
stability of Iowa City's neighborhood followed from the pursuit of that self interest. Landlords, who
owned rental property but had little interest beyond the revenue from their property. This group
did not include the many landlords with a sense of civic responsibility. They also had a significant
investment in the property they owned. Their interests in maintaining the value of their investment
did not extend to any interest in preserving the quality of the neighborhood of which their property
was a part. Iowa City had a large population of short term residents who did not make significant
financial or emotional commitments to the places they lived. This lack of commitment on the part
of the tenants allowed landlords to disregard neighborhoods. This disregard furthered the self
interest of the landlord group by devaluing the property in these neighborhoods for homeowners.
Buss said it was often taken for granted that there was a presumption in favor of property rights
as belonging strictly to the person who owned the property. It went without saying that you could
not keep an elephant in your backyard just because you owned the backyard.
She quoted from Eric Freifogal, Professor of Law, University of Law. "American's have largely
forgotten the links between property rights and the common good. Dominant myths not
withstanding, it has been clear for generations that the only sound way to justify private rights in
land is to point to the contributions property makes for the common good."
Buss said she felt the proposed revisions spoke to the common good. She, as a homeowner,
cared very much about her neighborhood and about Iowa City as a place of neighborhoods and
hoped that the Commission would act in support of the common good by supporting the proposed
revisions.
Dennis Nowatny, 511 Washington Street, said he lived in commercial property and had rental
properties across the street from him. Goals for the Code had been to simplify the Code and get
more affordable housing in Iowa City. The Code had doubled from 200 to 400 pages. CB-2
zoned property owners were notified that the two major CB-2 zoned areas would be split into six
pieces. That would not simplify the Code. Pagglia Pizza and the old house on Bloomington
Street would become non -conforming heights because they were higher than 37-feet. The R/O
zoned area on Washington Street would also become nonconforming as they were more or less
35-feet in height. 35-feet seemed to be a suburban height limit and did not fit with some of the
neighborhoods and homes closer to the downtown area.
Affordable housing. The east -side of downtown was zoned RNC-20 and were allowed to have 5-
bedrooms in those houses. On P. 394, definitions, in the Code, only 4 bedrooms would be
permitted which would cut away another bedroom and its use. 10-years ago when RM-12 had
Planning and Zoning Public Hearing
April 28, 2005
Page 3 of 20
been downzoned to RNC-12, four to three bedrooms, the use of one bedroom had been lost.
City Council had provided assurances the change would be reversed, it had never happened.
CB-2 to R/O reduced the usable lot size by %2. Currently CB-2 could build lot to lot, 100-foot
height. R/O cut down to %2 lot build on and cut 2/3 of height from 100-feet to 37-feet. He'd prefer
to see the R/O and CB-2 zones merged into the CB-5 zoning. Keep the older building usable as
they had been in the past.
John Kammermeyer, 116 Fearson Avenue, said he'd served on a committee in the 1970's-80's
that had spent over 6-months revising the Comprehensive Plan. It asked too much of the
Commission, Council and the public to comprehend the new Code.
• The revision should have been done in stages looking at residential zones, commercial, etc.
• Opposed to the design regulations that had crept into the Code.
• Need less zones rather than more zones, the zones needed to be more flexible.
• Simplify not complicate the Code; pages doubled in quantity.
• Less regulations rather than more.
• Avoid at all costs making properties non -conforming or taking value away from property.
Comprehensive Plan should be looked at as a broad brush overview document and not adhered
to rigidly. Looked at and revamped every 5-years. One of their major principles had been with
any change in zoning or Comprehensive Plan to minimize making a property non -conforming; to
not take value away from property. He felt there would be major non -conformities arise with the
proposed new regulations.
Kammermeyer said his analogy was "For development in the City of Iowa City, we are slowly
hemorrhaging to Coralville and North Liberty. They are more flexible in their regulations for
development." Iowa City needed to look at that or they would be left in the dust.
Craig Dahlen, 2018 Waterfront Drive, one of two current managers of the Hilltop Mobile Home
Park. He felt it would be wrong to change the property from exceptional zoning to provisional
zoning because that would be taking away the voice of the people. The shelter house wished to
build on Waterfront Drive. Hilltop Mobile Home Park and thirteen businesses along Waterfront
Drive did not wish them to build there. There were many voices opposing each other right now,
he felt those voices needed be heard. If it went to provisional zoning those voices would be taken
away. Dahlen read Shelter House Rules for Guardians of Dependents, Rule #8. It stated that the
Shelter House might have occasion in which clients of Shelter House might be on the State's Sex
Offender list. It was the guardian's responsibility to provide care and supervision for the well-
being and safety of dependants.
Dahlen said the potential was to have sex offenders staying at the Shelter House both day and
night. Currently at the Mobile Home Park they had 85 children and there were 60 children across
the street at Ha -Cap, which meant 145 children were also there day and night. The House of
Representatives had passed a bill that sex offenders could not live within 1,000 feet of a school or
day-care center. If they felt it was an important issue, why didn't the City give it the same
consideration? Dahlen urged the Commission to keep the zoning as Exceptional Zoning.
Glenn Siders, PO Box 1907, said he represented the Land Development Council (LDC), an
organization conformed primarily of the development community in this area. Their membership
expanded to include home builders, realtors, construction industry, financiers, suppliers and
retailers. Their membership represented over 1,000 businesses. Their group had formed one-
year ago when they learned that the zoning code was becoming more than what they'd
anticipated it to be. Based on The Duncan and Associates Report issued 4-years ago, the LDC
Planning and Zoning Public Hearing
April 28, 2005
Page 4 of 20
had thought that the Zoning Ordinance would be reviewed, critiqued, amended, some problematic
areas changed and enhanced and see more flexibility. The current product was 423 pages of
redesigned codifications. They were opposed to many things in the ordinance, it was impossible
to read it page -by -page. They objected to the public hearing being the first opportunity which
allowed them to have oral presentation before the Commission. Siders said the LDC had
condensed their concerns to a few problematic areas.
Design Elements: It was their opinion that the market should bear the design of a home. When a
homeowner purchased a lot and built a property, they should be able to build what they wanted.
Siders said the argument was frequently heard now that there was not a flexibility that existed or
the opportunity now for people to build what they wanted. There were different markets and
neighborhoods available with different types of construction which documented what the people
wanted to buy and at affordability that they would buy. Siders said if the City wished to
incorporate standards for development of property, such as alleys, then the City needed to step
up and take the responsibility to maintain those alleys. He did not think that that responsibility
should be passed on to the homeowners. He didn't see that opportunity in the proposed
ordinance, he saw the opposite. Siders said the LDC commentary would primarily be directed
toward the residential and not commercial aspect of the proposed changes.
Gary Kleinfelder, 1131 E. Washington Street. Approximately one-year ago he was considering
redeveloping two properties in the RS-8 zone that were across the street from him. He'd spoken
with Staff, who'd suggested that some changes would be proposed for the RS-8 zone. He'd been
told that in the new subdivisions zoned RS-8 basically all that had been built were duplexes. The
City wished more of a mix of housing so the Code revision would be changed. However under
the proposed changes, duplex standards would be applied to all current existing RS-8 zones. His
concern was with the non -conformity issue. He'd just completed two duplexes which under the
zoning proposal would become non -conforming. Brand new buildings built as condominiums for
future marketability, 3-bedroom units with the potential for a fourth in the basement. If they were
sold to a family who wished to install the fourth bedroom or a bath in the basement, they would be
denied a permit.
Kleinfelder said currently there were probably less than 1 % of duplexes in Iowa City in existing
duplex zones that met the standards in the proposed Code. Kleinfelder said he was waiting to
hear why a huge block of properties would be made non -conforming and why certain types of
improvements could not be made to them and hoped that this situation could -be addressed in an
equitable manner.
Pam Ehrhardt, 1029 E. Court Street, said she personally wished to thank each Commission
member and the Planning Staff for the tremendous amount of work, the time invested and
thoughtful considerations put into the proposed Code revisions. She said there might be a
struggle now but for years to come citizens as well as developers would thank them for the
revisions of the Code. She wished to speak in support of three areas.
Allowing duplexes onlv on corner lots in RS-8 zones would encourage a good mix of single-family
homes and duplexes in the development area. It would avoid what had occurred in the
Longfellow Manor where all the homes were duplexes and unlike the rest of the neighborhood
where all the homes were a good mix.
Design standards for narrow lots. There seemed to be a trend toward increasing urban density
by using narrower lots. She felt it was imperative that there be a design standard to avoid having
blocks of a wall of 2-door garages which was not a welcoming entrance to homes.
Planning and Zoning Public Hearing
April 28, 2005
Page 5 of 20
Good Neighbor Policy mandatory. There had been many instances when the good neighbor
policy had worked and the developer had met with the entire neighborhood. Listening to and
discussing with each other had worked very well. There had also been instances where
developers had ignored this policy and hostilities and mistrust had developed.
Steve Gordon, 1718 Timber Hills Dr, Coralville. Land Development Council (LDC) representative.
The proposed Zoning Code was a large document which covered many complex issues. A large
part of the code as written would serve the citizens of Iowa City well, the LDC planned to focus on
areas which they felt would place an undue burden on future homeowners and renters. One of
their basic philosophies was that the market should drive individual housing choices. They were
opposed to design standards. The concept of new urbanism or traditional neighborhood was a
relatively new development philosophy which placed a large emphasis on architectural and
design features of a dwelling and the placement of various structures within the development.
The LDC felt the choice of design should market driven and not mandated. They felt that a lot of
new urbanism concepts had been mandated within the Code. They also felt that a lot of the
changes in the proposed code would decrease the availability and make it more difficult to
provide market rate affordable housing in Iowa City.
Residential Zones
RS-5 Zone: Minimum lot size increased from 60-feet to 70-feet. Density bonus back to 60-feet if
certain design standards are met. Don't feel is a bonus as 60-foot lots currently allowed in RS-5.
Design standards, P. 18, #6 require an alley unless criteria are met. Proposed changes will mean
that a lot of the current, attractive, comfortable housing designs will no longer be allowed. 50%
requirement will be especially burdensome and eliminate many current popular house plans
potentially forcing houses to be larger and more expensive.
LDC recommends minimum lot size of 60-feet per current code and garage standards removed.
There would be a second density bonus for 50-foot lots allowed if criteria met.
LDC propose bonus be lowered to 45-foot lots if alleys or rear lanes are used.
RS-8 Zone: Minimum lot size increased from 45-feet to 55-feet. Density bonus allowed for 40-
foot lot.
LDC propose minimum lot size remain at 45-feet per current code, density bonus be changed to
allow 35-foot lot if alley or rear lane used.
RS-12 Zone: Minimum lot size increased from 45-feet to 55-feet. Density bonus allowed for 30-
foot lot.
LDC propose minimum lot size remain at 45-feet as per current code.
P18, #6 — Garage Design Standard. LDC propose this section be removed.
P18, #3 — Single Family Dwelling will allow only one car to be parked in front setback area.
Persons w/ 2-car garage can have only one vehicle parked in driveway.
LDC feel in un-enforceable; should be removed from code.
Minimum front yard setback reduced to 15-feet in all residential zones. Utility easements typically
located in first 15-feet of front yard. All front yard landscaping and trees would be in easement
and not likely to be repaired in event that easement space is needed for public repair.
LDC feel 20-foot setback more desirable. They propose and support a minimum setback of 25-
feet which would allow for larger front yards and enhanced landscaping.
Planning and Zoning Public Hearing
April 28, 2005
Page 6 of 20
Proposed setback of 15-feet and required garage setback of 25-feet, not all persons will wish to
design a home with a garage set -back 10-feet from front fagade of home. Streetscape with some
houses set back 15-feet and some 25-feet or further which would not make an attractive
streetscape.
Duplexes and Attached Single -Family f0-lot linel
RS-8 Zone: In proposed Code would only allow on corner lots and must meet design standards
listed on pp. 169 and 175-176. LDC feels the design standards are unreasonable and will drive
the cost of construction and ultimately the price to the consumer up.
LCD propose that the design standards be removed and that duplexes and 0-lot line dwellings be
allowed by right within the zone per the current code and not just on corner lots. These types of
units have become a staple for quality, market -rate affordable housing in Iowa City and
surrounding standards.
RS-5 Zone: Same design standards and placement restrictions apply to duplexes and 0-lot line
dwellings.
LDC feels restricting these units to corner lots and having each unit a different street is
acceptable in this zone. All other design requirements should be removed.
RS-12 Zone: Duplexes and attached Single -Family are allowed anywhere within the zone. The
same design criteria would apply.
LDC feels the design criteria should be removed. P. 171 requires additional design criteria if
there are 4 or more attached units. LDC feels these requirements should be removed as they
would further drive up the cost of housing.
P. 172 — Maintenance. It would be required to secure an access or maintenance easement for all
lots that abut the 0-lot line side of a dwelling. This would be required to be recorded on the deed
before the issuance of a building or occupancy permit. This would allow both sides of a 0-lot line
unit to have an access easement to work on the side of their home that would be next to the other
unit. It is not possible to deed over the property to the consumer before you build it; LDC feels
this requirement can not be met.
LDC propose the access and maintenance rights be secured in the covenants of the subdivision
as is the current common practice and this requirement be removed.
Multi -Family Zones.
Parking would only be allowed behind principle buildings and concealed from view of fronting
streets. The current Code does not allow parking in the front yard set -back area but allows
flexibility to deal with lot topography and corner lots.
LDC propose that parking be prohibited in front -yard setbacks but not required to be behind
buildings as per the proposed code.
P. 28 #3-C — requires that more than one building on a lot must be designed to preserve privacy.
Proposed Code indicates this can be achieved by placement of windows to prevent direct views
into windows of adjacent buildings and units. Are no criteria as to exactly what this means.
Windows are dictated by safety standards and live -ability issues. If two multi -family buildings are
parallel to each other, does this mean that one of the walls of one of the buildings can contain no
windows?
LDC feels this section needs to be better defined and would recommend that it be removed.
Planning and Zoning Public Hearing
April 28, 2005
Page 7 of 20
The same section prohibits balconies and air-conditioning units from being located along a
building wall that is within 20-feet of a building wall of an adjacent building on the same lot if that
wall contains a window or door openings. By design, balconies or air conditioning units are within
20-feet of the walls or window or door -opening that they serve.
LDC questions why is privacy more important for the adjacent building but not for the building the
units are on and that they serve. LDC feels this is an unreasonable requirement and if balconies
and air-conditioning units are truly a menace to privacy, they should be eliminated all together.
LCD recommends that this requirement be removed.
P. 40 #3-B requires an S-2 landscape screening standard between any parking areas where
headlights will shine on a wall containing ground level windows. The examples used for
acceptable parking configurations on P. 39 have entire building facades that would require the S-
2 screening which requires a landscape screen that ranges from 2-feet to 4-feet in height, and at -
least 1/3 of the shrubs must grow to a height of no less than 4-feet. LDC feels having entire
facades of buildings where tenants park and enter the building shrouded by 4-foot tall shrubs
poses a serious safety concern. LDC recommends this requirement be removed.
P. 41 #6 requires entrance doors to individual units located above ground level must be accessed
from an enclosed lobby or corridor. There are many good apartment building designs that utilize
covered stairways and landings to access upper level units. LDC feels this requirement is too
restrictive and should be removed.
P. 41 Section E — Design Standards. These types of design standards lead to increased
construction costs and ultimately higher costs for the residents.
P. 42 — Central Planning District Design Standards are very restrictive. They take up five -pages.
The Central Planning District is meant to preserve the historic character of the District, it is a wide
reaching district that includes many acres of undeveloped land in the northern part of the city.
LDC feels the established historic districts can accomplish the preservation and historic feel of
their specific neighborhoods. To have such restrictive detailed design standards over such a
large area including large areas of undeveloped land is unwarranted.
Commercial Zones
CN-1 Zone. The requirements on P. 68 do not seem feasible or conducive to commercial uses.
The build -to line is set at 5-feet back from the front property line. At least 65% of the build -to line
must contain a building which means on a 100-foot wide lot, at -least 65-feet of the lot will contain
a building that is no more that 5-feet back from the property line. The first 15-feet of a front lot is
usually reserved for utility easements. To meet this requirement in areas already developed, the
utilities would have to be moved; in undeveloped areas they would need to be placed in a location
different from current practices. The LDC question if the City Engineering Department and local
utilities have been consulted regarding this issue.
The requirement will force parking to the rear of the lot or behind commercial uses. The LDC feels
that clearly would not be conducive to a small business trying to provide convenience to its
customers. In most successful CN-1 zoned projects around Iowa City the building isolated on the
side or rear of the lot and the parking is located so customers have convenient, easy access to
the business. The LDC feels that the Code is trying to address a problem that does not exist.
By definition in the proposed Code, a CN-1 zone has direct access to an arterial street. The
proposed Code will put buildings 5-foot back from the right-of-way line on the City's busiest
Planning and Zoning Public Hearing
April 28, 2005
Page 8 of 20
streets. The opinion of the LDC is that this will jeopardize the safety of both vehicles and
pedestrians and would not be aesthetically pleasing.
P. 71 Section L — O, Building Architectural Standards. The LDC propose that these be removed
or modified to be less restrictive.
CB-5 and CB-10 zones have the same design standards found in the CN-1 zone. Certain design
standards seem appropriate in these zones because of the unique nature of our downtown and
the desire to preserve that nature. It needs to be certain that the requirements encourage and
promote the revitalization and business health of these areas and are not a deterrent.
Planned Development Overlay Zone. As mentioned in the description the OPD zone should
permit flexibility in the use and design of structures and land. Flexibility is the key word. As with
residential zones, the LDC feels that certain design standards are mandated which takes away
from the flexibility and creativity that should be allowed. The OPD zoning process should be a
tool where the City and developers have an opportunity to be creative and find new and
innovative ways to develop property. Restrictions included:
• Attached single family uses must comply with the design standards for an RS-12 zone.
• Design standards limit housing to certain -craftsman neo-traditional look
• Multi family & duplex uses must comply with design standards of multi -family zones, very
limiting.
• All commercial development must comply with CN-1 standards, not feasible in a lot of areas
• Undue emphasis placed on pedestrian oriented street frontages with limited interruption from
driveways. Design feature found in new urbanism but not necessarily a desire feature in all
development design in all situations.
• Alleys or rear lane access are required on all lots if the lot dimension is reduced unless the
garage standards met.
P. 113 Section 2-C. #1, states that private streets are discouraged. Throughout the proposed
Code the use of alleys and private rear lanes is encouraged and sometimes required. It is the
assumption of the LDC that alleys and rear lanes are considered private streets as there is no
provision in the Code for these to be dedicated to the City.
Section 2-C, #3 The developer must submit legally binding papers setting forth the procedure for
maintaining private streets and providing garbage and snow removal and how these services will
be paid for. The proposed code requires rear alleys and lanes but makes the upkeep and routine
maintenance the responsibility of the residents, thus further affecting the affordability of housing.
The LDC believes at a minimum that if the City is going to require alleys they should also take the
responsibility for routine maintenance and long term care of those alleys.
Ed Jones, 1047 Scott Park Drive, said property rights are absolutely critical. It seems the City of
Iowa City does not seem to care about the individuals who buy property and what they should be
allowed to do with it. Jones said he very much resists the proposed changes to the Code. The
design issue is so subjective that in a lot of cases the citizen does not know what his/her rights
are and they are interpreted by the government. Jones said this is too cumbersome. He'd just
finished a project and found the coordination with the City to be cumbersome to deal with.
Sometimes City Staff's decisions were much more restrictive than the Code. There needed to be
a rule of law that stated that both parties are aware of what the criteria are. That is not the case
now; the proposed Code will make it more restrictive. Jones said The free market system is the
most efficient way to supply the needs of the citizens. Government has not proven it can do that.
Planning and Zoning Public Hearing
April 28, 2005
Page 9 of 20
Cecile Kuenzli, 705 S. Summit Street, thanked the Commission for having undertaken this
project. She had done some reading and it seemed as if Staff were trying to simplify the process,
consolidate things and put them in places where a person didn't have to flip through the Code
book sixteen different places to find the information pertaining to a single topic. She felt that was
a lot of work that had to be done, Staff had done it and she felt it was a wonderful job that Staff
was doing for the public. She would be speaking in favor of adopting the new zoning code.
Kuenzli said as she wandered around Iowa City, she found that too much of the new construction
was both faceless and graceless. Construction where garages were the main feature, where
concrete driveways dwarfed the lawn or sidewalk, where you had to look hard to find a front entry
because it was recessed so far it could barely be detected. There was the same lack of
landscaping, the same roof lines, the same neutral colors and the same building materials.
Same, same, same meant boring. She felt there was not much choice when someone wanted to
buy a new house in Iowa City. Much of it looked the same.
In the last 10-years various family events had taken her all over the nation and everywhere she
went she was interested in what was going on in terms of new construction. She frequently found
herself saying, "That is so interesting, why can't we do that in Iowa City." Kuenzli said she felt the
proposed Zoning Code would enable things that were more interesting to be done. Cities that
were attractive had a lot of regulations that encouraged good design. Portland, Boulder and New
Haven, CT, had made great comebacks. They were cities where there was a lot of regulation
and regulation specifically concerning design. She didn't think we needed to fear change in Iowa
City. She felt that the change the Zoning Code would represent might result in a better housing
product and in a more desirable community for all Iowa Citians.
Scott Hochstasser, 3727 Forrest Gate Drive, said he didn't live or own property in Iowa City. He
was a professional land use planner. He practiced planning on the west coast in the state of
California. Hochstasser said he'd lived in Iowa City for eight years. He'd watched the
development boom and the economy grow. Ours was an incredibly vital and incredibly amazing
community. He felt that the consultant and Staff had done a fantastic job of trying to mitigate and
mediate the issues that were being heard between the development community and the people
who wanted to preserve or protect the City to keep a viable and sustainable community for the
future.
Hochstasser said a number of years ago, as an adjunct professor he'd sent a team of graduate
students from the University to the City Council with a report of findings about barriers to
affordable housing in Iowa City. He was very pleased to see that the proposed new regulations
would actually lower some of those barriers and allow for future affordable housing development -
- real affordable housing development.
Hochstasser said he'd like to say that the planning process is just that, it is a process. A lot of
discussion would be heard yet this evening. He'd been looking across the tops of heads
searching for an empty chair to sit in and had taken note that many of the heads had less hair or
graying hair. He felt that the way the process was going, most of the people in the room would
not even see the Code implemented or feel the effects of it. However, the process would
continue. He felt that the Zoning Code, by being more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
would take the City of Iowa City forward in a much more complete and well designed way.
Dan Smith, 905 Wylde Green Road, representative of the Land Development Council.
Planning and Zoning Public Hearing
April 28, 2005
Page 10 of 20
Chapter 8 — Review and Approval Processes and Procedures
Smith thanked the Commission, Bob Miklo, Karen Franklin and all others in the Planning
Department who'd been working on the Code for such a long time.
Neighborhood Meeting —Mandated, Chapter 14 8 B, #7 , PP 352-353
Said the LDC felt this was an unnecessary provision for a variety of reasons including the
significant delay that it would impose upon the development process. As everyone knew, time
was money. Such a delay with such onerous uncertainty as to how the reporting requirements
would be used and if they would be used in the future process of a planned development or for an
up -zoning. It would be a significant cost and delay built into process from the start.
The LDC encouraged neighborhood meetings. They felt it was the best practice and encouraged
their members to do so. However as the Commission had seen on many occasions, numerous
neighborhood meetings had been held and there was still contention and dispute. It would never
go away. The State Code recognized that. That was why there was the public hearing process
both at Planning and Zoning and at the City Council levels. Smith said the mandatory
neighborhood meeting created the presumption of disapproval. The LDC wished to see the
presumption that when a developer came to Staff or before the Commission that their proposal
would meet the Code be built into the Code more often. The clearer it was in the Code, the
easier it would be to read and therefore enjoy that presumption.
Performance Guarantees, Chapter14 8 B, #9. Smith said it was unnecessary to include the
performance guarantees in the Zoning Code as it was already included in the Building Code. It
was problematic from a couple of different perspectives, the most important being that it could be
nearly impossible to secure the money for a project from a lending institution. If a development
loan was taken out, the City was asking a lender to securitize another loan on the same
underlying assets which simply could not be done. The Building Department already had
performance guarantees and they had the ultimate power to withhold building permits or to grant
them. If there was something that needed to be done the City already had the authority to
accomplish that.
Chapter 14 8 D, #7, P. 378 Planned Development Rezoning and the language that talked about
the character of the development. Once approval for a planned development had been received,
if certain things were changed such as street -lay out and character of the development. Smith
said reading the Code as someone who would be liable for that Code and responsible for it, the
language was too arbitrary, too open for interpretation and far too subjective. It could easily lead
to an abuse by making exactions of a developer that are not listed in the Code and thereby
starting the whole planned development process over again anew.
Smith said the LDC looked forward to working with the Council.
Charlie Eastham, President of Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship. The Housing Fellowship
was an affordable housing developer. They generally supported the efforts the City was making
in proposing the revisions to the Zoning Code. They were particularly pleased about providing
more flexibility in all residential zones for smaller lot sizes which would help the Fellowship to
meet some of their goals in providing affordable housing in newer developments.
He requested that the Good Neighbor / Neighborhood meetings be re -worked to provide for a
greater possibility of participation by people interested in or who would be living in the proposed
development. In his experience in two separate instances they'd tried to obtain rezoning for
affordable housing development. They'd initiated neighborhood meetings in both re -zoning
Planning and Zoning Public Hearing
April 28, 2005
Page 11 of 20
requests and had found that there was a lot of opposition to the meetings. However, there had
been participation in the public hearings before the Commission and the Council by persons who
would be living in the proposed residential developments. Eastham said it might mean a few
more hearings but there would be a lot to be gained by obtaining participation by people who
would benefit from the proposed housing and/or who would be interested in living in the proposed
housing.
Eastham said generally he felt this was a good effort and a good start. He felt overall the
comments and comments about the design standards were well taken, there were some things
hopefully to be worked out over the long run. Eastham said he hoped Staff and the Commission
would continue in their efforts.
Larry Svoboda, resident of Coralville, property owner in Iowa City. When he'd first moved to Iowa
City it had been going through the urban renewal process. The general housing and most
construction in Iowa City was fairly unsophisticated, he thought the builders in Iowa City were
also unsophisticated because everything being constructed was not too nice to look at. Over the
years he'd built a building himself and had gone through a learning process, and decided that we
needed more design and sophistication in the buildings being built in Iowa City. He'd recently
served on a design review committee that had put together a proposed ordinance for Iowa City.
They'd created a menu and list of building features whereby the builder could select from the
menu certain building amenities. When a total of xx points was reached, the builder could get a
building permit and proceed. Svoboda felt that had been a good approach as it gave the builder
the choice of what he could do to improve the design of his building, based on the builder's
choice — not the City's choice. Svoboda said it had been a start. He'd pushed for dental
moldings, cross —heads, things to add to the building's design but he'd not been too successful on
the committee design enhancements.
Svoboda said it seemed that anything that was historic in nature had been over -represented on
that committee. He'd watched this process become an ugly two headed monster which had gone
from the ability of the designer and builder as to what they'd like to do to strictly what the City
wished to see. He felt there was an over -emphasis on historic features on a building and nothing
else counted. He felt there were other types of building features that were equally important
which improved the value of the community as well.
P. 44 , Central Planning District, as an example of being overly restrictive, "the exterior wall
material of a building must consist of clap -board style siding, wall shingles, brick, stone or
stucco." Svoboda said the proposed Code would make the new Tower building non -conforming
as that building was constructed mostly of glass. He suggested if that was the approach the City
wished to take, they should list certain items they did not wish to see instead of only items that
they did wish to see which would give more latitude to the builder. Svoboda said he'd like to see
this go back to a common ground.
He felt there were two good arguments at hand. The homeowners had a legitimate argument that
they didn't wish to see the City deteriorate with poor style and buildings. The building owner and
developer had to have the latitude to pick their own design within a parameter that the initial
Committee had tried to establish. Svoboda said he'd like to know what had happened to the
proposal created by the Committee he'd served on.
Gary Moore, 2018 Waterfront Drive, said many of his neighbors were very concerned about the
situation. His was a unique perspective as he was a Salvation Army soldier and had also driven
Planning and Zoning Public Hearing
April 28, 2005
Page 12 of 20
school buses. Moore said within 50- or 60-feet of where people stopped for the shelter was the
school bus stop where 85 children were picked up. The last 5 or 6 children who were picked up
at the bus stop were special education children who would be very vulnerable to anyone from the
homeless shelter. There was a need for a homeless shelter, his suggestion was to place it
further down where there was more industrial development and no residential area near it. Of the
homeless persons who ate dinner at the Salvation Army's site, currently there were six registered
child molesters. That was his main concern; his neighbors were also upset about values. He felt
that the proposed site for the shelter was a very dangerous and inappropriate place, too close to
residential. It needed to be much further from the residential area. Moore said he was in a 'torn'
position as he knew from his work with the Salvation Army that there was a need for a homeless
shelter but the proposed location would be too risky for the children and the neighbors.
Bob Welsh, said on P. 1 of the Code the purpose was stated. He hoped that everyone in the
room and in the community agreed with those purposes. He suggested that was the place to
start discussion. Were they valid purposes or not.
He requested that every one of the specific suggestions received be reviewed and considered if it
helped to carry out the purpose(s) or not. If it was not consistent with a purpose, then change it
so it would be consistent with a purpose. When persons spoke of and/or requested that changes
be made, that they would consider and identify with which purpose it was not consistent.
Welsh said of the eight purposes, he'd guess the most difficult one would be the first purpose, to
conserve and to protect the value of property throughout the City. He said the purpose did not
say to preserve and protect the value of every piece of property in the City. He felt that was a
significant difference and personally liked purpose #1 as it was stated in the proposed Code.
Lori Dahlen, 2018 Waterfront Drive, said she lived and worked there. P.55 14 2 C, #1
Dahlen said this area of land was currently zoned as special exception. She'd spoken before the
Commission on previous occasions. Their request was that the land not be zoned as provisional
use. Dahlen said she'd brought a mother and her two children with her to the meeting. They
were uncomfortable speaking before the Commission. The woman's husband worked part-time
for the Dahlen's and part-time evenings at another job. The husband was very concerned about
the Shelter House issue and also wished to see the land remain zoned as special exception. It
was a situation that needed to be talked about. If the zoning were changed to provisional use,
the public in the surrounding area would have no say about it. Dahlen said it was a burden to her
to think that she would need to be able to protect a women and her children in their home if the
Shelter House were to be located across from the Mobile Home Park and that there might be sex
offenders in the shelter, use the Shelter's services and/or be in the area. Dahlen said it was a
great concern to the husband and to the resident's of the mobile home park.
If the Shelter House were to be relocated to their area, then all of the emergency housing for Iowa
City would be located in one area and that would not be an ideal situation for anyone.
Larry Schnittier, 1917 S. Gilbert Street, member of the Developer's Council Group.
Area of concern: Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
This was an existing and had been some slight modifications to it. As currently written and
proposed to be revised, this section of the Zoning Ordinance might become the greatest deterrent
to growth and development that the City had devised to date. Schnittjer said nearly no one had
Planning and Zoning Public Hearing
April 28, 2005
Page 13 of 20
any serious argument about the necessity to preserve environmental features but they did not like
the way it was currently regulated.
Jurisdictional wetlands were currently under the control of the Army Corps of Engineers. He felt
that was all that should be necessary as the Corps had requirements for identification of
wetlands, requirements for how wetlands could be affected or not affected, reconstructed
elsewhere, reporting requirements on how well the wetlands were surviving after they had been
constructed. Schnittjer felt the whole section on wetlands was a duplication and sometimes
conflicted with the Corps requirements.
Stream Corridors: He felt there needed to be some rethought in the process. Buffers were
defined based on character or how a stream was classified. The SAO section of the Code should
be included in the Storm Water Management section and as such the buffers could be applied to
a specific need of a stream corridor and not just based on where that line was on the map.
Regulated Slopes — Schnittjer said he had a lot of reservations about the regulated slopes. He'd
brought a demonstration to the meeting but would defer presenting it.
If the SAO were to be kept in the Zoning Ordinance, he felt the following should be considered:
• Remove any requirements for a level II review if the applicant does not wish to utilize cluster
design or otherwise modify the underlying zoning requirements.
• Paragraph C, Jurisdictional Wetlands — Wetland Mitigation Plan Required. This section
needed to be re -captioned. There was nothing in the section that was relative to a mitigation
as the terminology used by the Corps of Engineers or other wetland specialist. A more
appropriate captioned would be Wetland Protection Plan. As such this paragraph should be
located after the Wetland Delineation paragraph so that the process would be sequential and
the procedures required to determine if a wetland existed.
• Paragraph E, Wetland Buffer Requirements. The opening paragraph needed to be modified
to take into account the considerations relative to the constructed and/or altered wetlands
where natural landscapes adjacent to a wetland that are required for the buffer probably
would not exist.
• Compensatory Wetland Mitigation. References to specific ratios should be eliminated and
replaced with `as required by the Corps of Engineers' to avoid conflicts and confusions.
• Section G-4 E, Monitoring Requirements. The Corps of Engineers had specific requirements
that had to be met. This section did not add anything except another level of unnecessary
bureaucracy and should be replaced with a requirement to provide duplicate copies of the
Corps of Engineers required reports only if there was some reason the City thought there was
a need for duplicate jurisdiction.
• Regulated Slopes. The normal lay person did not relate to what the actual slopes were of the
percentages. There was no correlation between degrees which most lay persons understood
and percent of slope. A normal perception would be that a 50% slope would be a 45degree
angle, which was wrong. A 50% slope was a one -in -two slope which was considerably less
than a 50degree angle. A 40% slope, called a protected slope, had a 25degree slope angle.
Schnittjer said he'd be willing to illustrate those with the props that he'd prepared for the
meeting.
Schnittjer said there were many things about the slope section that bothered him. He would like
to see the Slope Section changed and completely re -written to correlate the slopes with degrees
of protection. The greater the percentage of slope the greater the degree of construction
protection. Current protected slopes could be modified as long as the resulting slope was less
Planning and Zoning Public Hearing
April 28, 2005
Page 14 of 20
than 40%. Created slopes in excess of 33% should have specific engineering to assure stability
and erosion control.
Schnittjer said if the City was trying to clean-up the current Code they should get rid of the steep
slope requirement. There was nothing in the ordinance that said what to do with or not to do with
Steep Slope. He felt it was just an extraneous piece of garbage in the Code. The only thing they
had to do was to draw a line on the map which indicated where "steep" slopes were; no other
requirement. Critical slopes requirements should coincide with the maximum allowable grading
that could be done under the Engineered Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance that was in
existence. A critical slope would be modified to be a 29% slope instead of a 25% slope.
Protected slopes should be taken out of the ordinance except where a slope of some to be
defined gradient was within a certain distance to be defined of an adjacent property where there
was potential for damage to another person's property;
Wooded Areas. Schnittjer said he failed to see the justification for applying different levels of
protection to the different zones. RR-1 had a 70% retention requirement for woodlands, all the
Residential Zones were 50% retention, Commercial zones were 20%. In his estimation a tree
was a tree no matter what zone it was in. There was no protection at all for landmark trees. He
felt that issue needed to be looked at.
Joe Holland, 123 N. Linn Street, said he'd like to see common sense in the ordinance. He
represented a large variety of persons coming from virtually every perspective in terms of what
was happening with land use planning. He remembered attending the public hearings in 1982
and 1983 which were the hearings for the current ordinance. It had been the foundation of what
the current ordinance was. He had a problem with the philosophical approach to the current
ordinance in terms of how it had been rolled out. Holland said if he were going to try to push an
agenda through he'd give someone a thick document that was so dense and had so many
interrelated references that people would freeze up. The tendency when someone froze up was
to pass the item as is. The Commission had heard from a variety of persons quoting from
chapter, section, subsection and sub- subsection. Holland felt a public meeting was not a good
forum to do legislative analysis and legislative drafting. He'd been professionally involved in
those types of open forums and they typically were not very productive.
Holland said he wished to focus on the design perspectives of the ordinance. He remembered
the proceeding when it had become clear to him the agenda on the part of Planning and Zoning
staff to take control of the aesthetics of buildings and their appearances in Iowa City. It had been
a hearing on a variance before the Board of Adjustment, approximately 7, 8 or 10-years ago. The
City Staff had indicated that they were going to require certain things as part of the variance. The
Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission had asked if they could require those things, Staff
had said no, but they thought it would look good. Holland said he didn't connect it at the time as it
had been part of the typical give-and-take and ask for more than you think you can get as part of
the process. Holland said he'd watched over the last few years as the whole concept of Staff
designing buildings had unfolded. It came at a variety of levels; in the ordinance where there
were detailed design criteria and bonus points granted for certain design elements, it was
pervasive through out the entire ordinance. He'd been told that the word design appeared
throughout the ordinance over 500 times. 3-4 years ago City Planning Staff had employed an
architect on staff so that when a developer came in with a project the architect could design and
re -design the appearance of the building. That had happened on a number of occasions on
projects that he'd been involved in. Holland said he didn't think there was any ill design on the
Planning and Zoning Public Hearing
April 28, 2005
Page 15 of 20
part of City Staff. They genuinely believed in what they wanted to accomplish. They had a vision
within the Planning Department as to what Iowa City should look like.
The real fundamental question for the Commission and eventually for City Council to grapple with
would be who would set that vision for Iowa City and how would it be implemented. Holland said
he'd lived in a whole variety of residential settings in Iowa City from corrugated steel Quonset
huts on the University's campus to residential houses. Housing had developed a culture of its
own. Everyone's housing but had essentially been identical and persons had each done their
own thing to modify it and make it look different. When the barracks had been built at the end of
World War ll, they had been built without a tree in sight. He considered that organic architecture.
Structures are constructed all over the world, all over the State and all over Iowa City that each
individual person might not consider attractive. Whole neighborhoods might not be considered
attractive but the people who live there infuse the properties with life. Holland said the majority of
the Commission had been on the Commission when the issue of snout houses had come up with
the Sand Hill Estates subdivision. He'd thought that the Council had sent the message that they
were not interested in that sort of design standards but now they were back in the ordinance.
In Sunday's Gazette there had been an article about how garages were becoming porches in
people lives and how they were a place to socialize and to conduct activity. Holland said that was
adaptation and culture developing out of the organic feeling where people took what a property
was, invested themselves in it and turned it into something that the Planning Staff did not
imagine, what he might not imagine, something that no one else might imagine. He felt there was
a philosophical battle over what group of people would control how our neighborhoods developed
and how they would look. The proposed ordinance vested that power in twelve or so people in
the Planning Department because there were so many provisions in the ordinance where there
were little bits of discretion given here and there, little bits of incentives that could be given and
little bits of punishment that could be inflicted over design issues. It was not over if it would be a
good land use proposition or did the structure fit with the integrity of an area.
Holland said it was very interesting to hear people speak from the east side neighborhoods talk
about how wonderful those neighborhood were because they could never be built under the
zoning ordinance. Lots were too small, too big a lot ration, side yards were too small, there were
all kind of reasons why the Longfellow and Dodge -Governor neighborhoods that people seemed
to admire could never be built. They'd developed by and large without zoning ordinances. He
had a copy of 1926 Zoning Ordinance, all six pages of it. Holland said he didn't disagree with the
fundamental concept of zoning or disagree with reasonable regulation. People had great battles
over what reasonable was. He urged the Commission to particularly look at the design issue and
how much of a choke hold they would have over the organic development in Iowa City.
Holland said there was a very famous Supreme Court Case which dealt with taxes. The quote
was, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Holland said he'd say, "The power to regulate is
also the power to destroy." The proposed design specifications destroyed innovation and
destroyed creativity. They put people into boxes in terms of what they could build. A person
might not like what was built or might not like what it looked like but it was a creative innovation
that had come about. No one knew what sort of organic culture would develop. Holland said he
defied Staff and the Commission to say what a pedestrian friendly streetscape was. Why was it
any less friendly for someone to walk into someone's garage, sit down and have a beer out of
their mini -fridge than it was to sit down on their porch?
Planning and Zoning Public Hearing
April 28, 2005
Page 16 of 20
Holland said he agreed with the speakers who'd spoken in favor of removing the design criteria
form the ordinance. Not to give people free -reign but simply to allow things to develop in a way
that partially was driven by reasonable regulation and partially driven by market forces.
Mike Pugh, 1. South Gilbert Street, current president of the local Homebuilders Association and
member of the Land Development Council. The local HBA was comprised of 425 business
members which constituted the second largest HBA in the state of Iowa.
Neighborhood Open Space. Pugh said the LDC and HBA were generally in favor of the
Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance. It had been in existence since 1994. In general builders
and developers liked to ordinance, they felt it added value to subdivisions and developments.
There were items in the proposed draft that gave cause for concern for builders and developers
based on 1) they had lived with the ordinance since 1994 and had seen some of the problems
that could arise under the ordinance and 2) was driven in part by an Iowa Supreme Court case in
West Des Moines regarding an ordinance that was almost identical to the one being considered
in the proposed development code.
Dedication of land in connection with the dedication of other public improvements and timing of
the dedication. Currently the dedication of land happened two years after approval of the
preliminary plat or when 50% of the occupancy permits for the subdivision had been issued,
which ever occurred sooner. The payment of fees in lieu of dedication had to be done prior to the
issuance of a building permit. The LDC and HBA would like to see some consistency there.
They'd like to see parks be considered a public improvement and be accepted as a dedication
when all the other public improvements were accepted by the City. They would also like to see
more objective standards for what was required to prepare the site that was to be dedicated, i.e.
prepared prior to dedication. Currently there were a lot of inconsistencies from one development
to the next in terms of what was required such as grading, trimming of trees, seeding, etc. They'd
like to have objective standards in the Code that really gave notice to the developer as to what
was required; similar to the objective standards for installation of streets, water mains, etc.
In connection with payment of fees in lieu of dedication they had several concerns. The current
ordinance and the proposed Code required the City to use those fees for neighborhood open
space within 5-years of approval of the preliminary plat and it could extend the 5-years in
additional 5-year periods if less than 50% of the occupancy permits had not been issued for a
sub -division. The LDC and HBA felt that was unreasonable. They felt that the City should use
those funds for open space and green space within the subdivision within a more reasonable
period of time such as 2-3 years. In the proposed draft those monies would not be returned to
the lot owners unless the lot owners applied to the City in writing for a lot refund. There were two
very limited windows for applying for the funds: at the expiration of the 5-years they had 180 days
to apply in writing to the City in order to receive that particular refund. If the City's 5-year period
was extended for additional 5-years, then the lot owners had 180 days from the end of the 10-
year period in which to apply for the refund. The HBA and LDC believed that if those funds were
set aside for a particular development, that there should be an automatic refund of those monies
if they are not used by the City whether it be at the end of two or three years. The refund should
not go to the developer but go to the citizens who've purchased lots in that particular subdivision.
The refund should be automatic and pro-rata to each individual lot owner.
Language of the ordinance that discussed why or how funds are used when fees are paid in lieu
of dedication. The current ordinance required that all payments be used to acquire or develop
open spaces, parks or recreational facilities or greenway trails that would benefit the residents of
Planning and Zoning Public Hearing
April 28, 2005
Page 17 of 20
the subdivision or planed development for which the payment had been made. The HBA and
LDC felt that was too vague and was not in compliance with the Iowa Supreme Court case which
basically said that those fees, if permissible under Iowa law, had to be used for two purposes: 1)
to cover the City's administrative expenses in regulating that particular development or 2) as
compensation for services that were provided to the subdivision or to the property owner. It was
not an administrative fee to cover expenses. The fees, if they are used, had to specifically benefit
the residents of that particular subdivision. In the West Des Moines case, the fees had been
used for neighborhood parks. The Supreme Court had said if there was any was any benefit at
all to the general public by use of those fees that constituted an illegal tax. The HBA and LDC felt
that under the current ordinance if fees are paid in lieu of dedication, language needed to be
tightened in terms of how those fees were used. It should be that the fees are used specifically
for that particular subdivision. Not for neighborhood parks.
Refund monies — if the money is not applied for as a refund the presumption was that that money
either trickled its way into the general park fund or found it way into the general fund of the City
coffers. In either case, the HBA and LDC felt at that time it constituted a tax that was not
permissible by the Iowa Legislature.
Pugh said this was a great opportunity for changes to be made based on the history of having
lived with the ordinance for 10-years and based on the guidelines that the Supreme Court had
provided in connection with an ordinance that was almost identical to the proposed ordinance.
Ann Bovbierq, 1710 Ridge Road, said she'd seen the beginning of some of this and it was
interesting to see it finished up. She said along with the previous speaker who'd spoken about
the general purpose of the Code, the good of the City was and always had been the basis of it.
The one that had been voiced over the years with the old zoning and the old Comprehensive Plan
as well as the new one was that there might be consistency, might be predictability and that there
might be usability. The Code should be something that people could use. Bovbjerg said as she'd
looked over the draft she had been very pleased that instead of just saying maybe this or maybe
that, the Code had been very specific. It might sound like over specificity or over regulation but
sometimes too vague had been an issue. Persons would say they'd drawn a development or
made a plan and they didn't know if it met Code because there was nothing specific enough.
Bovbjerg said she was pleased with the specificity of the proposed code and was also pleased to
see the diagrams and the pictures, it meant a lot of more than words. Bovbjerg said she also
appreciated that the draft constantly referred to other parts of the Code or other parts of City
Code which spoke very specifically to persons who said they didn't know where to go next.
Bovbjerg said these kinds of things were useful; they were the kinds of things that citizens and
builders had been asking for. Bovbjerg said if there were specific requirements or wording or
things that didn't work or things that developers and/or builders told the Commission that they
were hard to work with, then that should be where revisions were made. If something was not
useful then you might as well not have it. What ever revisions were made, they should come
from persons who had been affected, from people who had used it. She was very pleased that
the Commission was having the public hearings for just that reason.
Bovbjerg said the previous speaker had spoken about Neighborhood Open Spaces. That had
been a hard slog. Persons on the Commission, the Parks Commission and City Staff had looked
at court cases and other cities in other jurisdictions to figure what kind of connection must there
be, what kind of vagueness can't you have. One particular aspect of that had been saying that
Planning and Zoning Public Hearing
April 28, 2005
Page 18 of 20
dedicated acreage must be relative to density of people not to just acreage. It had been a very
good and almost a landmark part of the ordinance.
Bovbjerg said she was very glad that the Commission was listening to the public, all of whom
would be affected. It would be a useful ordinance.
Mark McCalhon, 811 College Street, member of the Historic Preservation Commission and
College Green Representative.
P. 51 Historic Preservation Exemptions — Special Provisions Recently the HCP Commission had
been discussing and looking at what could they do to 'make people do the right thing' with historic
or key structures in lieu of some of the most recent unsuccessful historic districts that had not
passed over the last year.
Section A-2 was an improvement over what the Code currently had. McCalhon felt it was a good
move in the right direction but further into Section A it said 'the exception was necessary'. He
didn't understand why it could not be made as an acceptable use. A very select number of
properties, 40-50 "Gems" within the City, would be affected. The creation of an added value for
the adaptive re -use of those properties so the likelihood of that property surviving over time would
be preserved. McCalhon said he had a problem with the word necessary. What was the
standard, had a provision been put in that really would not have any application over the long
term. He wondered if it even needed to be a special exception for those types of uses. He said
this would not mean every old building, just those identified as key structures by Historic
Preservation, Planning Commission and/or properties on the National Historic Register.
Patti Santangelo, 3035 Stanford, member of several Affordable Housing Boards and attendee of
many Scattered Site Housing meetings. Santangelo said she knew they were thinking of
recommending social urban inclusionary zoning. She wondered if Staff and the Board had
thought about adding that into the Code, it might be better to include it sooner rather than later.
She liked the smaller lot sizes as it would hopefully make it easier for affordable housing.
Mike McLaughlin, 614 Pine Ridge Rd, rental property owner in the near downtown area. Most of
his properties were in RN-12, RNC-20, RNC-12 zones. In February he'd applied for and been
granted building permits to add an addition to the back side of single family homes to duplex the
properties at 512 and 514 S. Dodge Street. On March 30, 2005 he'd applied for a building permit
to complete the same procedure for 530 S. Dodge Street. The last building permit had been
issued at the same time the proposed Code had been introduced to the public in the open house
sessions. He'd read through the proposed Code which stated that upon passage the new rental
permits would be permitted according to essentially one less non -related occupant. What the
proposed Code did not address was the situation he was in. He'd received building permits and
had a significant financial investment in the three projects. All three additions already had the
foundations poured, footings in place, slabs laid and plumbing in place. One was almost entirely
framed. McLaughlin felt he was almost in a race between getting his additions completed and the
potential passage of the Code. He might have to apply for new permits which would reduce the
non -occupancy allowed by one tenant from what the intentions had been when the permits had
been applied for and granted.
McLaughlin requested that there be a provision added to the proposal that took into consideration
when a building permit was granted, the significant investment that had been made with that
permit and to allow the occupancy to be granted under current levels of the existing Code as
opposed to potentially having it dictated by the proposed Code.
Planning and Zoning Public Hearing
April 28, 2005
Page 19 of 20
Glen Siders, Land Development Council, said the LDC had a very serious concern as the
proposed Code was a very thick, complicated document which would have a significant impact on
the City. He concurred with the comments made earlier that the revisions should have been
broken down and analyzed via sections and then run through public hearings.
A comment that the LDC had a particular concern with was with the grandfathering in of existing
developments and approved subdivisions, many of those lots were less than 60-feet. The LDC
did not feel that they should be obligated to come under the new ordinances that came about
such as the design standards. They felt that should be a consideration.
They did not agree with the philosophy that a 60-foot lot was a narrow lot; it could be reduced
down.
They did encourage Staff and the Commission to consider a new urbanism zone which would
allow for the opportunity and flexibility to incorporate those criteria; they felt the trigger should be
a 45-foot wide lot or less.
One of the concerns they had with the design criteria was that they had heard frequently that
some of it was imposed because the City had problems within in -fill development. In -fill
development was different than new development and probably should be looked at differently
than the ordinary standards.
Scatter Site Housing Task Force forthcoming proposal. Consideration should be given to should
the new code be adopted and then amended to incorporate the SSHTF recommendations or
incorporated before passing the Code?
Sensitive Areas Zone. In the new ordinance it was proposed that if a feature had a sensitive
feature it then became a part of the OPDH Plan — they were opposed to that requirement. It was
very difficulty to find any property that did not have some sensitive feature on that property. The
feature might be a very small percentage on the property. A sensitive feature should not trigger
an OPDH which would put the developer/builder into the OPDH design criteria and related
regulations. Siders said if the City did have one thing that was available and one useful tool the
SAO should be a stand-alone ordinance and not part of the OPDH. It should be a checklist as it
was very clear in the ordinance what had to be done. If someone wanted to alter the standards,
then that would be a different situation.
The LDC thanked the Board for allowing them input during the public comment hearing.
CLOSING REMARKS:
Brooks thanked the members of the audience for attending and for their input. He said this public
hearing would be the first of at least two public comment hearings. The Commission had
developed a list of issues raised during the hearing, it was expected that additional items would
be received. Brooks encouraged everyone to document their input on the Draft Comment Sheets
and give them to the Planning and Community Development Office.
Howard requested that persons who had very specific requests for amendments be sure to put a
contact phone number or contact information in case Staff needed to contact them for a
clarification. It was Staff's intention to compile a list of all suggested amendments and they
wanted to be sure that they had the person's input correct. Persons were also reminded to sign -
in on the Sign -In sheet at the entry to the room. .
Brooks said the next public comment hearing had not been scheduled yet as there had been no
way to anticipate the amount of speakers and input received during this hearing. Staff and the
Commission would now work through the input received and look for other options to get
additional input and public involvement during the public hearing processes. If persons had
Planning and Zoning Public Hearing
April 28, 2005
Page 20 of 20
signed in they would receive notification of future public meetings. Notifications would also be
placed in the local newspapers. Brooks said the Commission had hoped that by the end of the
summer they would be through with their review of the Code and would be able to send it to the
Council for consideration. He thought It was the Council's intention to have a series of work
sessions with the Commission as well as hearings for public input. The Commission wished to
move the process along as quickly as possible but acknowledged the importance of taking time to
investigate and review potential problematic items and to review those concerns with various
public groups.
Brooks said it had been mentioned several times that the proposed Code was twice the number
of pages as the current Code. The new Code was a single column format with larger print and
more detailed illustrations where as the old Code format was double columns with small print.
Brooks and Howard encouraged persons to contact Howard if they had questions, comments or
concerns prior to the next public hearing.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: Freerks made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 pm. Koppes seconded the
motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary
Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 5, 2005
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Wally Plahutnik, Bob Brooks, Beth Koppes, Don Anciaux, Terry Smith
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dean Shannon
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr
OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Schnittjer, Kim Kirchner, Jean Lakin, Scott Pottorff, Mary Ott, Frank Hickey
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, REZ04-00017/SUB04-00017, a rezoning from Low Density
Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Housing Overlay — Low Density Single -
Family Residential (OPDH-5) zone and a preliminary plat of Village Green, Part XXIII and XXIV, a 76-lot
residential subdivision on 25.67 acres of property located on Wintergreen Drive.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, REZ05-00001/SUB05-00003, a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone
and a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and Preliminary Plat of MWD Davis Addition, a 14-lot, 50.04-
acre commercial subdivision subject to a wetland planting plan including the wetland buffer area prior to
City Council consideration.
CALL TO ORDER:
Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
REZONING/SUBDIVISION ITEMS:
REZ04-00017/SUB04-00017, discussion of an application submitted by Third Street partners for a
rezoning from Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Housing
Overlay — Low Density Single -Family Residential (OPDH-5) zone and a preliminary plat of Village Green,
Part XXIII and XXIV, a 76-lot residential subdivision (38 single-family lots and 38 attached zero -lot line
lots) on 25.67-acres of property located on Wintergreen Drive.
Miklo said this item had been before the Commission on several occasions. The underlying zoning was
RS-5, Low Density Single -Family residential. In 1993 a planned development was approved to allow
single-family lots and clustering of zero -lot lines on the property. Last year the applicant had come
forward with a proposal for another planned development that would increase the number of zero -lot lines
by 18 additional units. Over the course of the past few months the Commission had reviewed several
versions of those plans. The latest version, compared to the 1993 plan, increased the density or the
number of units by 12 additional units versus the 18 units the Commission had not recommended
approval of at a previous meeting. The density was within the maximum density allowed by a Planned
Development Overlay. The issues of drainage and stormwater management had been resolved. The
Public Works Department had reviewed the stormwater drainage plans and felt that they were
satisfactory, met City requirements and probably would improve drainage for that area including the lots
adjacent to Sterling Drive. The technical deficiencies identified on the plan had been corrected. Staff
recommended approval of REZ04-00017/SUB04-00017.
Public discussion was opened.
Larry Schnittjer, MMS Consultants, said he was there to answer any questions the Commission might
have. The biggest change to this plat from the previous ones was that they'd removed all the zero lot -line
lots on the east portion of the subdivision. The lots around the perimeter of the planned developed part
were all single-family units now.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
May 5, 2005
Page 2
Kim Kirchner, 2906 Sterling Drive, said she lived next to the field being developed. She said it appeared
that the land was being built up, was it for drainage or why. She was concerned due to the amount of
water she currently received in her backyard from the lots to the north of her which were built up
considerably higher than her lot. If her yard received run-off from the proposed new lots as well as the
existing lots, she would not be amiable to that situation. Kirchner asked if a berm was still going to be
installed next to the rail road tracks and would there be a noise barrier from the industrial property to the
south? She was happy that the number of single-family homes in the development had been increased.
Miklo said the plan showed a berm along the railroad tracks with an eight -foot fence and evergreens.
Freerks asked if the meeting they'd previously suggested had been arranged between the residents and
the commercial property owners. Miklo said Staff had advised the neighbors to contact Steve Nasby in
the Economic Development Office to try to arrange a meeting.
Jean Lakin, 1609 Somerset Lane, lived in the Wellington Condominiums slightly to the north of the
proposed development. She'd visited with Miklo previously regarding the stormwater drainage issues.
Frantz Construction had developed the Wellington Condominiums which included a 4.5-acre retention
pond. They currently had sand from the streets and silt coming into the pond so it was a valid concern for
the condominium association to know what was going to happen with the stormwater drainage.
She was surprised to see all the proposed development was on 25.67-acres of property. It was the
smallest acreage she'd looked at, had the City measured that specific acreage. Freerks requested the
applicant's engineer to address Ms. Lakin's questions.
Schnittjer said he'd personally not worked on the project so he would not have in-depth details.
Regarding the drainage concern by property owner to the west he said the area was being built up but a
drainage swale along the west property line was planned as part of the development. The swale would be
collected into two different storm sewer systems that would drain the water away. The storm sewer
systems would typically extend to the property line which would help to alleviate some of the existing
problems and take care of any new problems which might result. Regarding noise control he said there
probably was not anything that could be done to completely solve this problem short of finding a way to
stop the noise itself. The berm and the trees would go across the south property line; the developer didn't
have the right or the financial resources to run the berm and trees along the railroad all the way up to First
Avenue. Regarding pond silting, he didn't have an answer as the pond was located in another
development. It might be due to the surrounding areas silting into the existing basin. The proposed basin
for the Village Green pond had a different character. It would not be as deep and the sides would not be
nearly as steep. The ponds Lakin had referred to had been excavated ponds and the sides capped with
stones. A culvert ran under the street that drained the ponds in the Wellington Condominium area. Miklo
said Public Works was aware of the situation, if the ponds had been turned over to the Condominium
Association they would be responsible for their maintenance over time. In the Village Green area, the
Homeowner's Association would be responsible for the maintenance of the basin as the City had not
indicated a desire to take over the green space.
Regarding the acreage of the development area Schnittjer said that the property was L-Shaped which
extended from Sterling Drive and another new street in the area all the over to Scott Boulevard, it was a
sizeable area that made up the 25 acres. Schnittjer pointed out on an overhead site map where the
stormwater storage area and two new drains would be. He said previously there had been no stormwater
intakes and it had simply been ground run-off to 'where -ever'.
Brooks asked who would be responsible for keeping the intakes open. Schnittjer said the storm sewer
system got to be a hybrid in planned developments. Anything that had to do with public streets and
drainage of those streets was the responsibility of public works to take care of. He indicated the areas
where the stormsewer system was private and would be maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve REZ04-00017/SUB04-00017, a rezoning from Low Density
Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Housing Overlay — Low Density Single -
Family Residential (OPDH-5) zone and a preliminary plat of Village Green, Part XXIII and XXIV, a 76-lot
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
May 5, 2005
Page 3
residential subdivision (38 single-family lots and 38 attached zero -lot line lots) on 25.67-acres of property
located on Wintergreen Drive. Anciaux seconded the motion.
Freerks said she was happy to see that the drainage and stormwater management issues had been
resolved. She felt there would be improvement of the drainage issues for many persons in the
neighborhood after the development was completed. There had some give and take, she felt it would be a
nice development.
Plahutnik said it might be a dense development in one area but it was a development that also preserved
a large amount of green -space in a neighborhood. It was a benefit for everyone in the neighborhood to
have a park type area preserved within a development.
Koppes said she felt it would help with the stormwater issues and was a good compromise.
Anciaux said MMS Consultants and the City Engineers had stated that the drainage would be better; he
felt the project would eventually benefit the whole neighborhood.
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
REZ05-00001/SUB05-00003, discussion of an application submitted by James Davis for a preliminary
plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan of MWD Davis Addition, a 14-lot, 50.04-acre commercial
subdivision located north of Hwy 1, west of Hwy 218. (45 day limitation: 5/14/05)
Miklo said this item had been on the Commission's agenda recently. Lots would be zoned CI-1, Intensive
Commercial, CC-2, Community Commercial, and CO-1 Office to provide a transition to the single family
homes located in the county along Kitty Lee Road. Outlot B contained wetlands for the most part, Outlot A
would have a built wetland in the center of it to mitigate other wetlands which would be disturbed. The
Sensitive Areas Ordinance required a 100-foot buffer between any development and the wetlands. At the
previous Commission meeting there had been discussions about mitigation of wetlands. A provision in the
Code allowed the City at its discretion to approve wetland buffer averaging where a portion of the buffer
could be moved to better protect the wetland. The applicant had proposed shifting the buffer in several
areas to the pan -handle area that ran along Kitty Lee Road. They'd submitted a written justification, the
logic being that the area drained into the wetland area. By using the pan -handle area as buffer area it
would filter the stormwater before it got to the basin. The previous proposal had had the buffer averaged
even further and had more of it extending along the roadway. Staff had not concurred with that proposal
as they felt it did not meet the intent of wetland buffering. The applicant/developer had come up with a
compromise that Staff did recommend for approval subject to the wetland planting plan including the
wetland buffer area be approved by Staff, prior to City Council consideration.
Scott Pottorff, MMS Consultants, said he was there to answer any questions.
Mares, 4056 Kitty Lee Rd, asked if Outlot B would remain rural residential and was it still considered a
wetlands lot? Miklo said there were some wetlands and buffer areas on it; the lot was unlikely to develop.
It would be zoned RR-1, rural residential, which would allow for up to one dwelling but it also had
wetlands and would require buffers. The lot would be difficult to access.
Pottorff said except for the small finger area of Outlot B the entire lot was taken up by wetlands and
wetland buffers. The remaining area probably would not allow for a house to be built there.
Koppes asked who would maintain that lot. Pottorff said he didn't know for sure at this time. The
developer would be required to monitor the wetlands that would be created on the outlot for 5-years. At
this point there was no plan for a land owners association to take the parcel over, there had been
discussion of subdividing it up and trying to give it to the adjacent home owners. At this point the
developer would be responsible for it.
Miklo said a subdivision would have to come before the Commission for their review.
Public discussion was closed.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
May 5, 2005
Page 5
Miklo said according to the Zoning Code, a sign had to be within 1,000-feet of an interstate highway in
order to take advantage of the ordinance. The Code defined an interstate as 4-lane divided highway with
controlled access.
Public discussion was opened.
Frank Hickey, Signia Design, St. Paul, MN representing Slumberland as their signage consultant. Hickey
said he was not comfortable going in to a community and asking them to change their signage code on
such an abstract note. He felt that the request was very open ended just for the issues that the
Commission had been discussing. Slumberland was a destination retailer which meant that persons left
their homes and went to the business to shop in a fairly competitive market. They'd looked at the
destination first, the proposed location from major site lines, the way the grade would work and sized the
signage appropriately for clear recognition. In dialogue with the City they'd looked at various sign sizes to
see what the site lines would be. Signia had concluded that 65-feet with the size and setback of 960-feet
from Hwy 218 would be the right size. The FAA had given them documentation that it would not be in
violation of airport clearance and/or illumination. Hickey said they did not wish to oversize the sign either
as they didn't want to have a client spending money needlessly or a sign be an eyesore. They wanted it
be a compliment to the surrounding locations. They were concerned about locations to the east that
would be granted a 65-foot sign that would be between Slumberland and the highway. With their low
building and the 25-foot high pylon sign they would not be able to be recognized. That would be a
detriment to the retailer.
Anciaux asked if a retailer such as Slumberland would be allowed in an area zoned Highway Commercial.
Miklo said no, generally it was limited to businesses that served highway traffic such as truck stops,
hotels, restaurants.
Hickey said in this case there were grade issues in terms of landscaping. Site lines from a vehicle moving
at a certain speed would be uncomplimentary to Slumberland. Hickey said he'd visited with the
contractors doing the grading at the site about grade shifts because that was critical too. They'd done a
lot of research with the preliminary sizing to see what the grade eventually would be. Hickey said he didn't
know what the grade eventually would be across the road to the west between Hwy 218 and
Slumberland. They went upon the worst assumption that the building would be blocked from other
development.
Brooks asked what was the company's schedule for construction and opening? Hickey said as soon as
possible.
Public discussion was closed.
Freerks said she often talked about precedents. She understood that the applicant wanted an answer
right away so they could move forward. She was not comfortable allowing this in that zone because of the
implications it would have for all of the other areas that were in the community. The Commission needed
to take a look at the whole community and how this would impact that. She felt it would be short sited for
the Commission to approve an amendment to the ordinance because it worked for just one company. In
the future the Commission was going to review the entire ordinance. She didn't wish to rush into anything
as a domino effect might occur.
Anciaux said he was not in favor of having a 65-foot high sign outside of the Highway Commercial zone.
Even at 65-feet in height he was not sure that the sign would be visible from Hwy 218. Since the
Commission was going to review the sign ordinance in its entirety he didn't wish to make spot by spot
determinations which might be a detriment later on.
Koppes said since the Commission was going to review the sign ordinance after the Code revision was
completed she did not wish to address this now. She was concerned that they might change something
without fully seeing how it might affect the big picture.
Plahutnik said it was regrettable that the discussion had gone forward with Code enforcement without
realizing what the differences were between CI and CH zoning. There were other CI zones in the city and
this would open it up for them as well. He couldn't support changing it now.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
May 5, 2005
Page 4
Motion: Freerks moved to approve REZ05-00001/SUB05-00003, a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone, a
Sensitive Areas Development Plan and Preliminary Plat of MWD Davis Addition, a 14-lot, 50.04-acre
commercial subdivision subject to Staff approval of a wetland planting plan including the wetland buffer
area prior to City Council consideration. Koppes seconded the motion.
Freerks said it was again a compromise; however she didn't wish the Commission to be setting a
precedent with the approval of the tentacle usage of the wetland buffers. It had been a complicated area
to develop.
Koppes said each case was unique; she agreed about not setting a precedent. Since this would drain
directly into a stormwater receptacle she would support it. She liked the wetlands plantings.
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
REZONING ITEM:
REZ05-00005, discussion of an application submitted by Ace Auto Recyclers for a rezoning of
approximately 2.22-acres from General Industrial (1-1) zone to Heavy Industrial (1-2) zone for property
south of 2752 S. Riverside Drive. (45 Day limitation: 5/15/05)
Brooks said the applicant had requested an indefinite deferral.
Miklo said the applicant had met again with staff and agreed to rectify some of the outstanding zoning
violations on the property before coming back with a proposal to proceed.
Motion: Anciaux made a motion to indefinitely defer REZ05-00005. Koppes seconded.
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
OTHER ITEM:
Consider a request submitted by Signia Design, INC. for an amendment to the sign ordinance to increase
the height limit for free standing signs from 25-feet to 65-feet for signs located within 1000-feet of an
interstate highway.
Miklo the current sign ordinance allowed signs within 1000 feet of an interstate highway in a Highway
Commercial Zone to be as tall as 65-feet. It was specifically intended to allow businesses such as motels,
truck stops or gas stations which relied on business off the interstate highways. Other zones which were
common along highways such as the CI-1 zone and the CC-2 zone had a 25-foot sign height limit just as
anywhere else in the City. The applicant had proposed to develop property on the east side of Mormon
Trek Boulevard. The property's frontage was within 1000-feet of the highway but the property was zoned
CI-1 Intensive Commercial therefore the sign height limit was 25-feet. Miklo showed photos which
demonstrated the contrast in height of a 65-foot sign and a 25-foot sign.
Anciaux asked if there were concerns with the airport. Miklo said if it were within the airport overlay, it
would have to be submitted for approval.
Miklo indicated on the map where CH-1 zoning was located, mainly at interstate interchanges. He
indicated what area at the interchange an approximate 1,000 foot area would encompass.
Freerks asked what would prevent existing businesses in that area from requesting to have 65-foot high
signs. Miklo said if the City amended the Code, any business in an Intensive Commercial or Highway
Commercial zone could avail themselves to a 65-foot tall sign.
Freerks said some of that area was very close to residential areas. Miklo said to the north there was an
RM-12 development with condominiums and multi -family buildings. There was also RS-8 with planned
development overlay located near that area as well.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
May 5, 2005
Page 6
Brooks said he felt the same, once the Commission started to open the door to this type of exception it
would be difficult without giving due time, analysis and evaluation of the impacts around the community.
He favored deferring until the Commission had gotten into the sign ordinance in more detail. He didn't
wish the Commission to find itself in a situation that it might regret.
Hickey said he respected the Commission's comments and agreed. Signia typically looked at and talked
about the variables of hardship even with a variance. Even though it was a retailer, with the conditions
they had with grade, the distance and what they'd uncovered making it a unique situation within the Code
and requesting a variance, was the framework that they'd taken. He asked if that would be an approach
they could use. Miklo suggested he visit with the building department about a minor modification which
under certain circumstances might allow up to a 10-foot addition to a sign. Hickey said Signia did urban
planning work as part of their signage work. Their idea was not to make signage pollution but information;
they tried to work with municipalities regularly.
CONSIDERATION OF THE APRIL 21. 2005 MEETING MINUTES:
Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Koppes seconded the
motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: Smith made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:27 pm. Anciaux seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary
Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill
s:/pcd/mi nutes/P&Z/2005/05-05-05.d oc