HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-20-2009 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 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. REZ09-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Company for a
rezoning from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone to High Density Single Family
Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately 4.29 acres of property located on Walden Road, west of
Mormon Trek Blvd. (The applicant has requested that this item be deferred to the September 3
meeting.) (45-day limitation period: Waived)
2. REZ09-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Iowa Wireless Services, LLC for a text
amendment to allow communication towers in Interim Development Residential zones.
(45 day limitation period: September 7, 2009)
3. REZ09-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by The Breese Co., LLC for a rezoning from
Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 3,450
square feet of property located at 611 Southgate Avenue.
(45 day limitation period: September 13, 2009)
D. Subdivision Item
SUB09-00006 / SUB09-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Johnson County Extension
Service for a preliminary and final plat of Johnson County Extension Service, a 1-lot, 1.64 acre
subdivision located at 4265 Oak Crest Hill Road.
(45 day limitation period: September 11, 2009)
E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: July 13 and July 16, 2009
F. Other
G. Adjournment
Upcomina Plannina & Zoning Commission Meetings
informa=
August 31
'September 14
September 28
October 12
Formal
I September 3
September 17
October 1
October 15
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 14, 2009
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
RE: Request to defer REZ09-00003 (Walden Woods, Part 7, Lot 79
The applicant for REZ09-00003, Southgate Development, has requested a deferral of
this item. They are still working out the details of an agreement with the Walden Court
Homeowners Association with regard to storm water management. The applicant hopes
to have an agreement in place prior to your September 3 meeting.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 14, 2009
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
RE: Request to amend the zoning code to allow communications towers in Interim
Development Residential Zones (ID-RS & ID-RM)
Iowa Wireless Services, LLC, has submitted an application requesting a text amendment
to the zoning code to allow communication towers in the Interim Development
Residential Zones (ID-RS & ID-RM). Their letter and supporting documentation are
attached. In summary, they argue that demand for cell phone service has grown
dramatically over the last several years, particularly in residential areas, since so many
people have abandoned their landlines and rely solely on cell phones for service. The
applicant has provided a list of cities in Iowa that allow communication towers in zones
similar to Iowa City's interim development zones.
The purpose of the interim development zones is to provide for areas of managed
growth where agricultural and other non -urban uses of land may continue until the City is
able to provide City services and urban development can occur. The interim
development zone designations of RS (Single Family Residential), RM (Multi -Family
Residential), C (Commercial), I (Industrial), and RP (Research Park) reflect the intended
future use of the property according to the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff have reviewed the ordinances of Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, and Ames and found
that the applicant's assessment is accurate. Compared with these cities, the current
regulations in Iowa City are more restrictive in the location and zones where
communications towers are allowed. Restricting communications towers to commercial,
industrial, and research park zones and interim development zones with those same
designations may be causing problems for cell phone users in areas of the city where
there is an absence of non-residential zoning. Given that so many people rely on and
expect cell phone service in their homes, staff finds that the proposal to allow
communications towers in interim development residential zones by special exception to
be a reasonable request.
One concern is that communication towers will detract from the aesthetics of future
residential areas. However, as long as standards are in place to ensure that the towers
are not obtrusive and are carefully considered by the Board of Adjustment on a case by
case basis, proposed towers are less likely to detract from or discourage future
residential development. Since towers will be allowed prior to rezoning for urban
residential development, property owners, developers and future residents will have full
knowledge of the tower prior to making any investment decisions.
Staff recommends adopting standards similar to the ones currently in place for
communication towers in Neighborhood Commercial Zones. These standards were
Page 2
adopted to ensure that towers are located and designed so that they do not prevent or
discourage development of the area for other uses intended in the zone. In addition, staff
recommends allowing monopoles, which do not have guy wires or trusses and that are
painted or designed to blend in with the surroundings. Monopoles have been used in
several locations in Iowa City in recent years, and staff have noticed that the simple
structure tends to fade into the background even better than some more elaborately
camouflaged towers. After reviewing zoning ordinances from other cities, staff found
that this is a fairly common standard.
Staff also noticed that the code does not contain a requirement for removal of obsolete
communications towers in industrial zones. Staff recommends adding this language to
the industrial zone section to address this oversight. Note that staff added a requirement
to grade and replant the area after removal of a tower in order to prevent erosion.
We have been a few instances when we have received requests to build a new tower in
the general vicinity of another tower. When asked why they cannot co -locate on the
existing tower, the answer if often that the tower is not of an adequate height or design
to provide the service they desire. There has been some concern expressed by staff and
the Board of Adjustment that even though there is a requirement that towers be
designed to accommodate additional users, we don't have the expertise to determine
whether the proposed design is adequate. We added a requirement for an engineer's
certification that the tower can, in fact, accommodate another user with an antenna
system of equal size. The language is modeled after language in the Des Moines
ordinance. We hope with this additional language that co -location will be more feasible
over time and prevent unnecessary proliferation of towers in the same vicinity.
Suggested changes to the zoning code language for communications towers are
attached.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed zoning code language
2. Application materials
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
Amend paragraphs 14-4B-4E-4, 5, and 6, as follows:
4. Communication Transmission Facilities in Residential Zones and in
the ID-RS and ID-RM Zones
a. Communications
antennae are permitted in all Residential Zones and in the ID-RS and ID-
RM Zones, provided the following conditions are met:
(1) The antenna is mounted on an existing communications tower, on
the roof of a principal building that contains a nonresidential use or
on the roof of a building that is accessory to a nonresidential use,
or on another tall structure that is permitted in the zone. Examples
include church and school buildings, water towers and clock towers.
A maximum of two antennae is permitted per building or structure.
(2) The height of the antenna shall not exceed the height of the
existing tall structure or building by more than 20 feet. If it exceeds
this limit a special exception is required to ensure that the
antennae and any associated structure is designed to blend into its
surroundings or be camouflaged so as not to be obtrusive or
detract from neighboring properties.
(3) Strobe lighting is prohibited in Residential Zones. Therefore, any
antenna that requires such illumination is prohibited.
(4) Any equipment associated with an antenna must be located within
the exterior walls of the building to which the antenna is attached.
No separate equipment shed is permitted, except if the antenna is
attached to a tall structure that is not a building. In such a case, a
separate equipment shed is only allowed by special exception if it
can be demonstrated that the shed can be adequately screened or
designed in a manner that blends in with the residential character
or future residential character of the surrounding area.
b. Communications towers are allowed by special exception in the ID-RS
and ID-RM Zones and must comply with the following approval criteria:
(1) The proposed tower serves an area that cannot be served by an
existing tower or industrial property or by locating antennae on
existing structures in the area. The applicant must document
attempts to utilize existing structures, towers, and commercial and
industrial Rroperties within one-half mile of the proposed tower.
Such documentation must include maps illustrating existing towers
and potential alternative sites for antenna and towers that have
been explored by the applicant and the applicant must state the
reasons that these locations were not feasible.
(2) The proposed tower will be constructed in a manner that will
camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the
surrounding area. Examples of camouflage design include
monopoles which do not have guy wires or support trusses and
that are painted to blend in with the sky or surroundings, towers
camouflaged as flagpoles monuments steeples, or the integration
of rooftop towers onto existing buildings, water towers, etc.
Rooftop towers must use materials similar to or that blend in with
the structure to which it is attached. Other camouflaged tower
structures must be of similar height and appearance as other
similar structures allowed in the zone e.g. towers camouflaged as
light poles or utility 12oles must be of similar height and appearance
as other such poles The applicant must include an illustration of
how the tower would appear in the proposed location.
(3) The proposed tower will be no taller than is necessary to provide
the service intended Evidence presented should include coverage
maps illustrating current gaps in coverage and changes to coverage
with the proposed tower. Communications towers are exempt from
the maximum height standards of the base zone but under no
circumstance may the tower be taller than 120 feet from grade. If
a communications tower is camouflaged to appear similar to
another common structure allowed in the zone, it must comply with
the same height standards that would apply to the type of structure
that it emulates. For example if the tower is camouflaged as a
light pole flag pole or utility pole it must not exceed the height
limitation for such structures as specified in the base zone. If no
height standard exists in the code for such a structure, it must be
designed to be of similar height and appearance to other similar or
typical structures. If the tower is camouflaged as a chimney,
steeple or other similar rooftop structure, the Board may exempt it
from the base zone height standards if it is designed as if it were an
integral part of the building and is not out of scale or proportion to
other similar rooftop structures.
(4) The proposed tower will be setback from the property line at least a
distance equal to the height of the tower.
(5) Any equipment associated with the tower facility will be enclosed in
an equipment shed or building, which must be adequately screened
from view of the public right-of-way and adjacent properties and
designed in a manner that will be compatible and blend in with
future residential development.
(6) The proposed tower will not utilize a back-up generator as a
principal power source Back-up generators may only be used in
the event of a power outage.
(7) Strobe lighting is prohibited. Therefore, any tower that requires
such illumination is prohibited in these zones.
(8) The proposed tower must be designed and constructed to
accommodate at least one additional user, unless in doing so the
tower will exceed the 120 foot height limitation or if the Board of
Adjustment determines that allowing the additional height needed
to accommodate another user will detract from the area to the
extent that it will prevent future development as envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan The applicant shall provide a certification by a
professional engineer licensed in this state that the proposed tower
will be desianed to permit a second antenna system of comparable
size to be added to the tower above or immediately below the
original antenna system.
(9) If use of the tower is discontinued the tower and any associated
equipment must be removed by the owner of the tower, the
operator, or the owner of the property within one year of
discontinuance of use and the land graded and re -planted to
prevent erosion The applicant shall Present a signed lease
agreement a recorded declaration of covenants, or other
satisfactory evidence acknowledging this obligation.
5. Communication Transmission Facilities in Commercial Zones and the
ID-C Zone; Privately -Owned Communication Transmission Facilities
in Public Zones.
a. Communications antennae are permitted in all Commercial Zones, the
ID-C Zone, and in Public Zones provided the following conditions are
met:
(1) The antenna must be mounted on another structure allowed in the
zone, such as a rooftop, light pole, or utility pole.
(2) In the CN-1 and CO-1 Zones and in any ID-C Zone that is intended
for a future CN-1 Zone, strobe lighting is prohibited. Therefore,
any antenna that requires such illumination is prohibited in these
zones.
(3) In Public Zones and in the CC-2, CH-1, CI-1, CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10
Zones and in any ID-C Zone not intended for a future CN-1 Zone,
antennae may not be illuminated by strobe lights unless required by
federal regulations. If alternatives are allowed under federal
guidelines, strobe lights may not be used.
(4) Any equipment associated with an antenna must be located within
the exterior walls of the building to which the antenna is attached
or screened from view of the public right-of-way and any adjacent
property to at least to the S3 standard (See Article 14-5F, Screening
and Buffering Standards). If the equipment is located on the roof it
must be set back and screened so that it is not within public view
or appears to be part of the building.
b. Communications towers are allowed by special exception in Public Zones,
the ID-C, CO-1, CN-1, CH-1, CI-1, CC-2, CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10 Zones
and must comply with the following approval criteria:
(1) If the proposed tower will be located in an ID-C Zone that is
intended for a future Neighborhood Commercial Zone according to
the Comprehensive Plan, as amended, then it must comply with
any specific standards listed below for CN-1 Zones.
(2) The proposed tower serves an area that cannot be served by an
existing tower or industrial property or by locating antennae on
existing structures in the area. The applicant must document
attempts to utilize existing structures, towers, er and industrial
properties within one-half mile of the proposed tower. Such
documentation must include maps illustrating existing towers and
potential alternative sites for antenna and towers that have been
explored by the applicant and the applicant must state the reasons
that these locations were not feasible.
(3) The proposed tower will be constructed in a manner that will
camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the
surrounding area. Examples of camouflage design include
monopoles which do not have guy wires or support trusses and
that are painted to blend in with the sky or surroundings, towers
camouflaged as flag poles, monuments, steeples, or the integration
of rooftop towers onto existing buildings, water towers, etc.
Rooftop towers must use materials similar to or that blend in with
the structure to which it is attached. Other camouflaged tower
structures must be of similar height and appearance as other
similar structures allowed in the zone, e.g. towers camouflaged as
light poles or utility poles must be of similar height and appearance
as other such poles. The applicant must include an illustration of
how the tower would appear in the proposed location.
(4) The proposed tower will be no taller than is necessary to provide
the service intended. Evidence presented should include coverage
maps illustrating current gaps in coverage and changes to coverage
with the proposed tower. In the ID-C (except areas intended for
CN-1), CH-1, CC-2, CI-1, CB-2, CB-5 and CB-10 Zones,
communications towers are exempt from the maximum height
standards of the base zone, but under no circumstance may the
tower be taller than 120 feet from grade. In the CO-1, CN-1, and
any ID-C Zone intended for CN-1, communications towers must
comply with the same height standards that would apply to the
type of structure to which they are attached or if a communications
tower is camouflaged to appear similar to another common
structure allowed in the zone, it must comply with the same height
standards that would apply to the type of structure that it emulates.
For example, if the tower is camouflaged as a light pole, flag pole,
or utility pole it must not exceed the height limitation for such
structures as specified in the base zone. If no height standard
exists in the code for such a structure, it must be designed to be of
similar height and appearance to other similar or typical structures.
If the tower is camouflaged as a chimney or other similar rooftop
structure, the Board may exempt it from the base zone height
standards if it is designed as if it were an integral part of the
building and is not out of scale or proportion to other similar
rooftop structures.
(5) The proposed tower will be setback at least a distance equal to the
height of the tower from any Residential Zone, ID-RS Zone, and ID-
RM Zone.
(6) Any equipment associated with the tower facility will be enclosed in
an equipment shed or building, which must be adequately screened
from view of the public right-of-way and any adjacent residential or
commercial property.
(7) The proposed tower will not utilize a back-up generator as a
principal power source. Back-up generators may only be used in
the event of a power outage.
(8) In the CN-1 and CO-1 Zones and in any ID-C Zone that is intended
for a future CN-1 Zone, strobe lighting is prohibited. Therefore, any
tower that requires such illumination is prohibited in these zones.
The tower will not be illuminated by strobe lights unless required by
federal regulations. If alternatives are allowed under federal
guidelines, strobe lights may not be used.
(9)
. The proposed tower must be designed
and constructed to accommodate at least one additional user,
unless in doing so the tower will exceed the 120 foot height
limitation or if the Board of Adjustment determines that allowing
the additional height needed to accommodate another user will
detract from the area to the extent that it will prevent future
development intended in the zone. The applicant shall provide a
certification by a professional engineer licensed in this state that
the proposed tower will be designed to permit a second antenna
system of comparable size to be added to the tower above or
immediately below the original antenna system.
(10) If use of the tower is discontinued, the tower and any associated
equipment must be removed by the owner of the tower, the
operator, or the owner of the property within one year of
discontinuance of use and the land graded and re -planted to
prevent erosion. The applicant shall present a signed lease
agreement a recorded declaration of covenants, or other
satisfactory evidence acknowledging this obligation.
6. Communication Transmission Facilities in Industrial and Research
Park Zones and the ID -RP and ID -I Zones
a. Communications antennae are permitted in all Industrial and Research
Park Zones and in the ID -I and ID -RP Zones, provided the antenna is
mounted on another structure allowed in the zone, such as a rooftop,
light pole, or utility pole.
b. Communications towers are allowed in the ID -I, I-1 and I-2 Zones and
by special exception in the ID -RP, RDP and ORP Zones, provided the
following conditions are met:
(1) The proposed tower will be setback at least a distance equal to the
height of the tower from any Residential Zone, ID-RS Zone, and ID-
RM Zone.
(2) The tower and any associated equipment buildings must be
screened from the public right-of-way and any bordering
Residential or Commercial Zone to at least the S3 standard (See
Article 14-5F, Screening and Buffering Standards).
(3) The proposed tower must be designed and constructed to
accommodate at least two additional users. The applicant shall
provide a certification by a professional engineer licensed in this
state that the proposed tower will be designed to permit two
additional antenna systems of comparable size to be added to the
tower above or immediately below the original antenna system.
(4) If use of the tower is discontinued, the tower and any associated
equipment must be removed by the owner of the tower, the
operator, or the owner of the property within one year of
discontinuance of use and the land graded and re -planted to
prevent erosion. The applicant shall present a signed lease
agreement, a recorded declaration of covenants, or other
satisfactory evidence acknowledging this obligation.
i h c Grinnell'_..
Real Estate Development Solutions
U
July 23, 2009
City of Iowa City
c/o Sara Walz
c-
410 E Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Ms. Walz:
As you recall, we recently discussed the best alternative to addressing telecommunication
siting needs in Iowa City in light of the fact that towers are currently precluded in residential
zones and interim zones designated for future residential use. On behalf of my client, Iowa
Wireless Services, LLC, d.b.a . i Wireless, I am filing a formal request to amend the Iowa City
zoning ordinance to allow Communication Transmission Facilities in Interim Development
zoning districts by Special Exception. Please see the attached application and proposed text
amendment showing additions as underlined and deletions as crossed -out. I've also enclosed
a check in the amount of $450 for the application fee.
Over the last several years, the public demand for wireless phone service has grown
dramatically. Moreover, the public demand now places a greater emphasis on consistent,
reliable indoor wireless service in residential areas. For more information on this trend, please
see the enclosed Associated Press article from May 2009 which puts some numbers to this
trend. As noted in the article, one in five homes (20%) have abandoned landlines and now
rely solely upon cellphones. Another 15% have a landline but typically only use it for internet
access. In total, these groups represent more than 1 in 3 households (35%) relying solely on
cellphones for telephone service. By contrast, only 3% of homes were cellphone-only in
2003. Further, the FCC estimates that more than 50% of 911 calls are from mobile phones.
The wireless needs and demands of the citizens of Iowa City now conflict with the zoning
ordinance which greatly limits communication facilities in residential areas and future
residential areas.
To resolve this conflict, i Wireless proposes to allow Communication Transmission
Facilities by Special Exception in the interim development zones designated for future
residential use. I Wireless is not proposing any changes to the code as it relates to towers
in existing residential districts. Interim development zones are undeveloped areas
allowing agricultural uses until city services are provided allowing for its development. I
Wireless' proposal would allow telecommunications infrastructure to be planned and
development prior to residential development, similar to other infrastructure serving the
development. Future developers and residences would be aware of the facility and able
to make their investment and design decisions accordingly. By utilizing the special
exception process, the City would be able to ensure that the Communications
Transmission Facility would be compatible with future residential uses. Together, the
pre -planning and thoughtful conditions resulting from special exception process would
allow for the provision of the necessary service and avoid future land use conflicts.
As you requested, I researched the policies of other Iowa cities which may be of interest
to you in evaluating our proposal. Attached is a brief summary. As you can see, all but
one of the jurisdictions allow towers in future residential areas by special exception or a
similar process.
Thank you for your time and interest on this proposal. I look forward to working with you
and addressing any questions or concerns which may arise during the process. Upon your
review, please call me to discuss.
Sincerely,
Peter . McNally
Principal
cc: Robert Renken, Real Estate Mgr, I Wireless
.77
I
r.
Q
Summary of Select Cities' Zoning Provisions
Regarding Towers in Ag or Interim Development Zones- ; ? P(:
Researched by _
The Grinnell Group „1113T-
City & District
Use Provision
Conditions
Des Moines
Board of
1:1 setback or adequate screening
A — Agriculture
Adjustment
Painted "sky blue" or alternate compatible color
and
(Sec. 134-307 &
FAA lighting only
R1-80 Residential
134-347)
180' maximum height
Capacity for 2"d carrier
Screened equipment at base
Monopole design
Cedar Rapids
Up to 80' height
MP — 50% from property lines, 100' from residential
A — Agricultural
by right; over 80'
Other towers —100% property lines, 300' from residential
by conditional use
Screen base
Shared use
West Des Moines
Permitted
Setbacks same as for principal structure (50')
OS — Open Space
Conditional Use
Agricultural
Ames
Special Use Permit
Demonstrate need
A -Agricultural
Provide for collocation
Minimum height necessary to achieve objective
Setback = greater of 50% of height or 60'
Cedar Falls
Planning
If in area designated as future residential, must demonstrate
A -Agricultural
Commission and
that proposal is in interest of the community. In such case,
City Council
limited to 80' height and monopole.
approval
Must be at least 750' from any existing tower of similar
height.
Demonstrate no existing tower can accommodate use
Accommodate 3 additional carriers
Screened base
Urbandale
Conditional Use
100' or less
Al -Agricultural
Non-residential property (i.e. church) or designated as
commercial or industrial in comp plan
Bettendorf
Special Use Permit
Accommodate collocation
A1— Agricultural
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ09-00005
611 Southgate Ave
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:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Karen Howard
Date: August 20, 2009
The Breese Co, Inc.
611 Southgate Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52244-2267
Thomas Breese
(319) 330-4050
Rezoning from CC-2 to CI-1
Allow use of an existing building for a CI-1
use
611 Southgate Avenue
3,450 square feet
Commercial / CC-2
North: commercial / CI-1 and CC-2
South: MF residential / RM-12
East: commercial / CC-2
West: commercial / CI-1
Intensive Commercial
July 30, 2009
September 13, 2009
The subject property at 611 Southgate Avenue is unusual because it contains an existing building
that straddles two lots (Lot 8 and Lot 9 as shown on the attached exhibit). However, the zoning of
the eastern lot (Lot 9) is Community Commercial (CC-2) and the zoning designation of the lot to
the west (Lot 8) is Intensive Commercial (CI-1). Given that there is a significant overlap in the
types of land uses allowed in these zones, this has not posed a significant problem for the owner.
In fact, they prefer keeping the split zoning to give them maximum flexibility to lease the space in
the building to a wide variety of businesses. The owner of the building has requested a lot line
adjustment to shift the eastern boundary of lot 8, 23 feet to the east to reflect remodeling in the
interior of the building to accommodate a new CI-1 tenant that would like more space. However,
this particular land use, an intensive animal -related commercial use, is not allowed in the CC-2
2
zone. The zoning code states that "where the zones designated on the Zoning Map are bounded
approximately by lot lines, the lot lines shall be construed to be the boundaries of the zones. The
intent of this provision is that no lot shall be divided by a zone boundary." (Subsection 14-1 B-4C).
It is therefore necessary to shift the zoning boundary to mirror the lot line adjustment. The
applicant plans to reconfigure the interior space and build a new fire wall along the new lot line
and zoning boundary.
The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy."
ANALYSIS:
Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is located in the South District. The South District
plan map designates this property as "intensive commercial." The plan states that "although
there may be some redevelopment of the existing commercial and residential areas south of
Highway 6, the character and major infrastructure of these developments have already been
established and major changes are not anticipated."
Staff finds that this minor adjustment to the zone boundary between the CI-1 and the CC-2
Zones is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code requirements and will
have little, if any, effect on future development or redevelopment in the area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that REZ09-00005, a request to rezone approximately 3,450 square
feet of property from Community Commercial (CC-2) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Zone
be approved.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Rezoning Exhibits
Approved by: C-V / "y(��fd✓
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
Fit 12: 5 U
2 i
ul d
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Anderson, Intern
Item: SUB09-00006/SUB09-00007 Date: August 20, 2009
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Johnson County Extension Service
4265 Oak Crest Hill Road SE
Iowa City, IA 52246
Contact Person: Gene Mohling
Phone: (319) 337-3043
Requested Action: Preliminary and Final Plat Approval
Purpose: To subdivide the Johnson County Fairgrounds to
create a lot for the Johnson County Extension
Service
Location: 4265 Oak Crest Hill Road SE
Size: Parent Parcel: 45.27 Acres
New Parcel: 1.66 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Johnson County Fairgrounds, C-AG
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Agricultural - County Highway Commercial
(CH)
South: Ryerson's Woods Park - County
Residential (R)
East: Industrial and undeveloped - (11)
West: Johnson County Fairgrounds — County
Commercial Agricultural (C-AG)
Comprehensive Plan: South Central District Plan - public
service/institutional
File Date: July 30, 2009
45 Day Limitation Period: September 13
60 Day Limitation Period: September 28
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
Public Utilities: The applicant has indicated an existing well will be
used for water and a leach field will be used for
3
Fire Protection:
The Fringe Area Agreement requires that applicant's engineer establish a fire rating for the
subdivision and that the Hills Fire Department submit a letter approving provisions for fire
protection. This letter has not yet been submitted. It will be needed prior to approval of the plat.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval for SUB09-00006/SUB09-00007, a preliminary and final plat for
Johnson County Extension Service, a 1.66 acre subdivision in the north portion of the Johnson
County Fairgrounds, subject to correction of deficiencies and discrepancies noted below and
staff approval of construction drawings and legal papers prior to City Council consideration.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
1. Inconsistencies in the legal descriptions contained within the preliminary and final plat must be
corrected.
2. A fire rating must be established for the subdivision. A letter from the appropriate Fire
Protection District approving provisions for fire protection is required.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary and Final Plat
3. Aerial Photograph
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
PCD\Staff Reports\sub09-00006, sub09-00007 oak crest hill rd se
�I
O
�
O
MQ
cn
v `
O
v/
N
momm
-- s1Al, 31Vb("
d.
Bli AYMIpIH QIO
C,
1
k.
1
i
l i
i
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 13, 2009 — 6:00 PM — INFORMAL
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Michelle Payne, Wally
Plahutnik, Elizabeth Koppes, Josh Busard
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Weitzel
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REZONING ITEMS:
REZ09-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development
Company for a rezoning from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone to
High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately 4.29 acres of
property located on Walden Road, west of Mormon Trek Boulevard. The 45-day limitation
period for this item is August 7, 2009.
Eastham explained that he needed to excuse himself from this item as he is the President of the
Board of Directors of The Housing Fellowship which has an interest in this item.
Payne noted that MidAmerican owns property right across the street from this property and was
notified of the rezoning. She asked if she needed to excuse herself. She said that
MidAmerican did not have a position on the rezoning. Greenwood Hektoen said she did not
believe Payne would have to recuse herself so long as she felt she could be impartial. Payne
said that she could be.
Howard noted that the parcel is rather irregular. Walden Woods subdivision has been
developed in bits and pieces over the years and this is the remaining undeveloped parcel of
land. Howard noted the diversity of housing types in the immediate area as well as the steep
slope of the property. Howard said the piece is difficult to develop. It is currently zoned RS-8
which would allow small, lot detached single family homes, and duplexes or attached single-
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 13, 2009 - Informal
Page 2
families on corner lots. Because the parcel is so narrow from north to south there is difficulty in
creating a street on it. Various concepts have been suggested over the years but nothing has
really come to fruition. One reason for this is the topography of the site and the fact that there
are some drainage problems. Water drains from north to south into Walden Court at the bottom
of the hill. Walden Court's storm -sewer system is private, not public, making it difficult to tap
into. The owner of the property has had numerous discussions with the Walden Court
Homeowners' Association over the years and presented various concept plans, but has never
been able to come to an agreement with them on handling the storm -water drainage. Howard
said this is an issue which still has not been resolved.
Staff feels like the lay -out of the proposed subdivision would allow the developer to cluster
development into townhouse type units, leaving more of the central space for storm -water
detention while clustering the units on Mormon Trek and Rohret Road. Staff feels if the storm -
water issue can be resolved then this will be a decent proposal and concept plan. Howard
noted that this was simply an application for a rezoning, not for a subdivision.
If the property is rezoned, the developer would have to come back in for a subdivision
application. At that time, a number of things will have to have been resolved, Howard said. The
concept plan shows 18 units; Staff does not know if that is actually, achievable, as they would
have to review the grading and the water retention plan. Howard said there are questions about
the access road as there is a 100 foot gas pipeline easement that they believe they can get
permission from the gas company to build over, but have not as yet secured it. If permission
cannot be secured, the road will have to be moved. Howard said that the developer wishes to
donate the same area of pipeline easement to the City as park land. Howard said the City does
own a piece of property to the north and could potentially hook into a trail system to connect the
parcel. Howard said these are the kinds of questions that will have to be resolved at the
subdivision stage, but that are something to think about in terms of the developer's concept for
the area.
Howard said that for vehicular access Staff feels there should be a conditional zoning
agreement stating that the property cannot have access from Mormon Trek Boulevard, but that
the access must be from Walden Road.
Staff is recommending the application be deferred until the storm -water management issue is
resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. She said that efforts are being made to get the
developer, the City, and the Walden Court Condominium Association to come together and
come to resolution on the matter.
Busard asked if it was possible that the residents of Walden Court just did not want the area
developed and were therefore holding out on the drainage system, or if there was actually a
chance there might be a resolution. Howard said she did not know how to answer that. She
said there seems to be some mistrust there. She said that a lot of proposals have been put
before the condominium association over the years, and that they have been flooded, so there
are some serious issues and legitimate concerns.
Freerks asked what units were flooded. She noted that the Commission had received some
letters concerning that. Miklo pointed out two units. Howard said that the storm -sewer system
connects into Rohret Road and stops short of the property line; she reiterated that this is a
private system so the association holds all of the cards as far as being able to connect. Another
issue is that if the City does connect into it they would need some assurances that the system is
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 13, 2009 - Informal
Page 3
capable of handling the water. Howard stated that Public Works has indicated that if the private
system is in good order then it might behoove the City to take it over and make it a public
system.
Plahutnik said that if the rezoning is approved and the project does not go through, then the
Commission will have given the developer a gift in making his land more valuable to sell.
Howard said that it is definitely not a good idea to up -zone this until the drainage issue is
resolved. Howard said that having to build a road or a cul-de-sac would eat up a lot of the
property, rather than having to build just a private drive. Miklo said it would likely result in more
run-off as well because there would be more ground covered by rooftops and pavement.
Howard said there are some good reasons to rezone this RS-12 from RS-8, but that the 800
pound gorilla in the room is the drainage issue. Miklo said in the absence of a resolution to the
storm -water issue Staff would not recommend going forward with this.
Miklo returned to Busard's question and said that Staff has received indication from the
homeowners' association that they are willing to see resolution of the drainage matter.
Koppes asked why Eastham was recusing himself as the application has no mention of The
Housing Fellowship. Miklo said he believed The Housing Fellowship might have an interest in
buying the property at a future date. Koppes said that the same could be said for any
development in town, so she did not understand why he would recuse himself on this issue.
Miklo said there may have been discussions on this particular development.
Koppes said her other question was why would the developer not link the concept plan to the
rezoning as has been done in the past. Howard said that that is Staff's recommendation
essentially; that if the storm -water management issue is resolved, there should be a conditional
zoning agreement which incorporates the aspects of the concept plan. Koppes said that what
she had understood Howard to say earlier was that the subdivision process would address all
outstanding issues. Koppes said that sometimes the Commission gets burned when it follows
that line of thinking. Freerks noted there is still another meeting in which this can be discussed
prior to the 45-day limitation period's expiration. Miklo said it is unlikely that an agreement on
the storm -water issues will be reached by Thursday.
Koppes said the Housing Fellowship's potential involvement made her wonder how much low-
income housing was in that area. Greenwood Hektoen said she was aware that Pheasant
Ridge was down the road to the north but that other than that she was not aware of any.
Freerks asked how common it was to have a public to private sewer line issue. Howard said
that it was developed so long ago that it is kind of a mystery as to why it was made a private
storm -sewer system. Miklo said that one of the issues is that Southgate was the developer of
the property to both the north and the south, so this is a situation that they created.
Koppes said it looked as though there was quite a barrier between the single family homes and
the driveway that would go through the proposed development. She also asked what the
barrier consisted of and was told it is the sloped, wooded pipeline easement. Koppes asked if it
would be possible to require the wooded area to be left alone. Staff said that as it was actually
a pipeline easement it would have to be left in place. Payne pointed out that because the land
was actually a pipeline easement it could not be counted on that those trees would always be
there. Koppes said she just wanted to make sure there were no headlights or other
disturbances from the development for the single family homeowners that were already there.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 13, 2009 - Informal
Page 4
Plahutnik pointed out that until the drainage issue was resolved these kinds of discussions were
moot.
DEVELOPMENT ITEM:
SUB09-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development for a
preliminary plat of Stone Bridge Estates Part 6-9, a 102-lot, 36.32 acre residential
subdivision located north of Court Street, south of Lower West Branch Road, west of Taft
Avenue. The 45-day limitation period for this is August 10, 2009.
Miklo said that Stone Bridge Estates was rezoned and subdivided in 2005/2006. The
preliminary plat was approved for Parts 5-9 and only Part 5 was final platted. The subdivision
regulations state that a preliminary plat is good for two years and then expires. The reason for
this is to help ensure plats regularly come into compliance with any new zoning or subdivision
codes that take effect. In this case, Miklo said, the preliminary plat expired several months ago
and re -approval must be sought.
Miklo said there has been one significant change to the regulations that had not been in place at
the time of approval. The subdivision code now requires that streets must be 60 feet wide. In
discussions with the City Engineer and Public Works it was decided for consistency's sake to
continue current roads with a 50 foot right of way and four foot sidewalks. One exception to this
will be a new east/west street connecting to Taft Avenue.
Otherwise, the plat is pretty much as approved previously and Staff recommends approval,
Miklo said.
Koppes asked if the final plat had also expired. Miklo said that final plats do not expire due to
the great expense involved in doing them due to the engineering work. It also gives the
developer the opportunity to make changes if the market changes.
Freerks said she remembered that there was a lot of discussion about the stone bridge and that
everyone in the neighborhood wanted to make sure it was preserved. Miklo said all of those
provisions were still in place. Freerks asked if it was correct that the developer was not required
to make it pedestrian unless it was feasible. Miklo said they were required to put in a public trail
through the development. He said there will be a walkway from the neighborhood to the main
walkway. Freerks asked if there was a portion of land preserved for the school district in the
event a school should be needed in the area. Miklo explained that the school district had 15
years from the time the property was annexed to develop the property set aside for it. Because
that did not happen, it reverted back to the developer. Freerks asked where these kids would
be going to school. Koppes said either Longfellow or Lemme; she believed that kids from
homes on that side of Court Street would go to Lemme.
Plahutnik asked which street would be the 60 foot wide street. Miklo said that Thames had not
yet been started so it would be 60 feet wide. He said that Norfolk also had not been started but
it only covered four lots. Miklo explained that Thames would intersect with Taft, an arterial.
Miklo said that if there is a four way intersection it is possible to go from a 50 foot street to a 60
foot street; however, most of the intersections in the development are three-way intersections,
and therefore not good candidates.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 13, 2009 - Informal
Page 5
Eastham noted that the preliminary plat indicates that all of the outlots will be owned by a
homeowners' association except for Outlot B which will be dedicated to the City. Eastham
asked if the association was already formed and operating. Greenwood Hektoen said that that
was not an assumption she would make. Eastham asked if these people were aware that they
were going to become responsible for all of this property. Freerks pointed out that as more
people populated the subdivision there would be more people paying dues. Busard asked if
that was really a planning and zoning issue that could be considered. Miklo said that at the time
of final plat the developer would have to demonstrate how the open spaces will be cared for.
Eastham said that he did not know that the Commission could do a great deal about it, but that
he thought this could be an issue for some homeowners. Eastham asked if the easterly part of
the stream corridor would then be the responsibility of homeowners' associations for the latter
part of the development. Miklo said he believed that the same developer has options on the
other land but does not necessarily own it or control it. Eastham asked if there could potentially
be two homeowners' associations responsible for one stream corridor; Miklo said that was
possible. Eastham asked if there were similar situations in the city. Freerks said it would not
surprise her. Greeenwood Hektoen said there are creeks running all over town. Eastham
pointed out that homeowners' associations are relatively recent developments; as is the City
insisting that these associations maintain at private expense what many would consider public
lands. Plahutnik said it seemed like just any other property line to him.
Eastham asked if there was a sidewalk on the north side of Court Street that the private trail will
connect to. Miklo said he would check.
Eastham asked if the public would have access to the green space in the outlots as well as
access to the trails. Greenwood Hektoen said she did not know how wide the access easement
is. Miklo said that as he recalls it is somewhat rugged out there. Eastham said he had seen
signs in Windsor Ridge on the south side of Court Street stating that the green space and pond
were only open to homeowners in the association. Koppes said she thought that was the case
because Windsor Ridge maintained it. Eastham said that the generation of his question was
that all of the public should have access. Miklo said the access would basically be limited to the
trail, and that it was not a place where you would want to invite people due to the stream.
OTHER:
Miklo said that a number of people had inquired as to why the Commission met at 7:30 p.m.
when the City Council met at 7:00 p.m. Miklo asked if Commissioners would be open to
meeting at 7:00 p.m. instead. Several Commissioners said that 7:00 p.m. would be fine.
Freerks said she felt it should be a unanimous decision and so waiting to discuss the change at
the Thursday meeting would be best.
The meeting was adjourned as 6:37 p.m.
z
0
U)
N
� G
00
V W
L7 '
ZVo
0 z N
Q
GC
Q W
CD ~
z_ Q
z
z
J
a
C7
Z_
F-
W
W
2
a
0
LL
co
X-
X
X
X
X
X
cc
E�XXXXlX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
v-XXXXXOX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MXXXXX�X
N
X
X
X
X,
X
X
LO
ZZ
X
X
X
X
X
X
�W
MNOOM
I-X0000000
W
W
H
�-
J
a
=QmW-j
Zui
Q
WOUQJ—�=
Q
wvY~
Z�QYNmzw
°Caz=
w
wD
N
canv~iwa
�Qix0a�W
mLU
LYaa�
QU=
Q
0
z
V-XxXXXXD
ti
CD
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
NXXXXXXX
CN
uiXX0Xcn
X0
�W
(MNOOM
w a
U)
0
LO
LO
0
Lo
0
X
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
W
W
m
m
J
J
J
=
a
Z
N
LU
wcn=z
<n
a
WU
=
Y�
-
Z
Q
Y
N
~
W
IZ=CCW
MIDN
QE-
Waz=F.
cncnWa�a—
�aIR0a_w
COWtLYan.�
E
0
°
�C3
°Z
U p�
X=E
c � �
a=i y E cv
8 ° o
aQ 11 ZZ
n n w n
xooz
w
Y
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2009 — 7:30 PM — FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Michelle Payne, Tim Weitzel, Elizabeth Koppes, Wally
Plahutnik, Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Glenn Siders, Kim Edge, Kevin Don Adel, Meigen Fink, Jason Mascher,
Brian Fink, Libris Fidelis, Dorothy Dayton, Glen Stockton, Brian Maass
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 7-0 to approve SUB09-00004, an application submitted by Arlington
Development for a preliminary plat of Stone Bridge Estates Part 6-9, a 102-lot, 36.32 acre
residential subdivision located north of Court Street, south of Lower West Branch Road, west of
Taft Avenue.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REZONING USE ITEM:
REZ09-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Company for a
rezoning from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone to High Density Single
Family Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately 4.29 acres of property located on Walden Road,
west of Mormon Trek Boulevard. The 45-day limitation period for this item is August 7, 2009.
Eastham announced that he was a member of a Board that has an interest in this application and recused
himself.
Howard described the property as irregular in shape, and as the last remaining parcel of the Walden
Wood subdivision located at Rohret Road, Mormon Trek Boulevard and Walden Road. The Walden
Wood subdivision has been developed over the last 30 years, Howard said. Howard presented an aerial
photograph for a better idea of the surrounding area and its topography. Just to the north of the parcel is
a retirement home. Across the street are some single family homes and duplexes. To the south is a
condominium association with attached units. A MidAmerican power station is to the east of the parcel.
Howard shared several photographs which showed various viewpoints of the parcel, noting the slope
from north to south on the property.
Howard said the applicant has submitted a concept plan. She noted, however, that this application was
just for a rezoning, and that the concept plan was intended to show how the property would be developed
in the future if it was rezoned. The plan shows the developer's intent to further subdivide the property into
individual townhouse lots. The concept plan illustrated 18 units that front on both Mormon Trek
Boulevard and Walden Road. There would be a private, rear drive with access to the garages behind the
units. Howard advised the Commission to keep in mind that this is a concept plan, not a subdivision
application at this point.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 16, 2009 - Formal
Page 2
Staff reviewed the Comprehensive Plan to determine if the application was compatible with its vision for
the area. Howard said the property is in the Willow Creek area of the Southwest Planning District. The
district plan indicates that this area is appropriate for single family and duplex residential. The plan
specifically mentions this property, as it is one of the few remaining undeveloped parcels in that area.
The plan states that the property will require careful design given its topographic conditions and its
unusual shape and size. Howard said that the topography and shape would make the property difficult to
develop into detached single family homes, which is what would be allowed under the current zoning of
RS-8; thus, the request for a rezoning to RS-12. The level of density being proposed would still fall under
the RS-8 zoning levels; the RS-12 zoning is being requested to allow for attached townhome-style single
family dwellings.
Howard noted that there were a number of positive aspects to the proposed rezoning and lot lay -out. The
proposal is compatible with the density of the surrounding development, which has quite a mix of different
housing types. It allows the construction of townhouses, a popular and affordable housing type. The RS-
12 zone contains requirements for the main entrance of a dwelling to face the street and for a rear drive
with garages behind, both of which give the dwellings more of a residential appearance. The
Comprehensive Plan encourages compact infill development, Howard said, as well as proximity to
neighborhood services. Howard said this property is close by a neighborhood commercial area and
would therefore be a good location for additional housing.
Howard noted, however, that there are a number of issues that still need to be addressed. First, the
concept plan submitted is just that, a concept plan, and as such the achievable residential density cannot
actually be determined until the property is designed and engineered. If, for example, MidAmerican
Energy does not allow a driveway to be located over the gas pipeline easement, it may mean that fewer
dwellings can be achieved. Vehicular and emergency access will need to be from Walden Road, as the
City will not allow another access from the heavily trafficked Mormon Trek Boulevard. With access
coming from a private rear drive, it will have to be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. The
applicant has also indicated that they would like to dedicate the land that contains the gas pipeline to the
City as open space. This idea has been forwarded to the Parks and Recreation Commission, but will not
be officially decided until a subdivision application is received.
Howard said the biggest outstanding issue was storm -water management. Drainage is a concern for this
property due to the sloping topography. The water from the site drains from north to south over land onto
the neighboring Walden Court Condominiums. The applicant has proposed a system of one or more
stormwater detention basins, but these basins would need to have an outlet into a storm sewer pipe.
Given that the only feasible storm sewer available is the private system that serves the Walden Court
Condominiums, the developer will have to get permission from the Walden Court Homeowners
Association for this connection. Before development can occur, there will need to be an agreement
between the Walden Court Condominium homeowners' association and the developer to get the water
drained off the property properly. Staff met with both parties today and it sounds like they are willing to
work together to come to some sort of resolution. Until a final agreement can be worked out, staff is
recommending deferral of this application for rezoning. If the developer and condominium association
come to an agreement whereby the proposed development can tie into Walden Court's private storm
sewer so the water can drain out to the public storm sewer along Rohret Road, then staff recommends
proceeding with consideration of the rezoning application. Howard noted that the City Engineer has
indicated that the City may be willing to take over the private storm sewer system in Walden Court if is it
determined to be up to City standards.
Staff recommends that the application be deferred until the next Planning and Zoning meeting so that an
agreement can be reached between the condominium association and the developer on the issue of
drainage. If at that time no agreement has been reached, then Staff would recommend indefinite deferral
of the application. The staff report outlines Staff's other recommendations, to be resolved after the
drainage issue has been worked out.
There were no questions for Staff and the public hearing was opened.
Glenn Siders, Southgate Development Services, said that he understood that the matter would be
deferred at tonight's meeting and that he would not waste the Commissioner's time with a presentation,
but that he is available for any questions. He said that he has no conflicts with Howard's presentation or
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 16, 2009 - Formal
Page 3
the staff report. He said that he is optimistic an agreement can be reached, and that each time the two
parties have met over the last two years they have come closer to reaching an agreement.
Kim Edge, 2633 Walden Road, said she had lived in her residence for 15 years. She said that she and
her husband are hoping that the Commission will not rezone the property to be higher density because
they are concerned about noise and traffic. Edge said that the neighbors had been asked by the City to
vote ten years ago as to whether or not they wanted this strip of land returned to native prairie. She said
that while the residents had voted in favor of returning the property to prairie, the prairie never came to
fruition. She said she once called the City to ask what had become of the prairie idea and that the
person she spoke with knew nothing about the vote.
Freerks asked Miklo if he knew what strip of land Edge might be talking about. Miklo pointed to an area
on the map where the gas pipeline easement is located north of the subject property and asked if this was
the park land to which Edge was referring. She said that it must be. Miklo said it was an area that was
dedicated to the City for a park when the property to the north was developed. He said that generally the
Parks and Recreation Commission develops parks with resident input, and that may be the process to
which Edge was referring. He said that Staff could check on it.
Kevin Don Adel, 43 Coll Court, described himself as a homeowner at the end of Coll Court, in the middle
of the cul de sac. He said that he wanted to make sure that the homeowners adjacent to the property are
a part of the discussions concerning drainage. He said the adjacent properties currently had some water
in their back yards, and he is worried that what might be a solution for the condominium association and
the developer, may prove to exacerbate the water problem for other neighbors. He said he just wanted to
ensure that homeowners like him are included in these discussions.
Freerks asked for clarification on whether Don Adel was a member of the homeowners' association that
had met with Staff and the developer earlier in the day. Don Adel said he was not.
Meigen Fink, 44 Coll Court, said that she lived right next to Don Adel. She said her family has lived in
that residence for nearly 11 years and has had drainage problems almost the entire time they have lived
there. She said that her back -yard is always wet, and that they have assumed it is coming from over the
hill. Fink said she worries that if this property is developed her yard will become a swamp. Fink noted
that where the proposal suggests a sidewalk, currently a wooded easement area exists which she fears
will be disturbed. She said she also had concerns about the type of properties that will be developed
there and the types of people who will be living there. She asked if the storm -water retention would
involve ponds; something which concerned her because there are many small children in the area.
Freerks asked Siders if he would mind addressing the concept plan's drainage system. Siders said that
he is presently anticipating two storm water basins, and that they are trying to design a system that would
shed the water from the parcel into the ponds. Siders said that re -grading the area will go a long way
toward assisting neighboring properties with their drainage problems. Siders said the basins would be
designed as "dry bottom" ponds, meaning that there is no water in them except when there are heavy rain
events.
Siders also explained that the rectangular section on the west side of the property is something the Parks
Department is looking at. He said that department will determine whether or not a sidewalk would be
desirable there. He said that the walkway easement that is shown on the map currently was actually
vacated some years ago. Siders said that some language about making a connection between Walden
Road and Mormon Trek Boulevard along the northern boundary of the property was involved in that
vacation, but that that would probably be renegotiated once the platting of the property begins.
Koppes said she thought Fink's other question might be related to the number of units in the development
that could be dedicated to low-income housing. Siders said he did not have a clue, and that he did not
anticipate any right now. Greenwood Hektoen said that the Commission really should not consider who
will be living in the unit. She said the job at hand is to consider what the best use of the land is. She said
that zoning cannot be done based on who may live in a certain area, but should be based on the
compatibility of the use with the neighborhood. Income level should not be a factor, Greenwood Hektoen
said.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 16, 2009 - Formal
Page 4
Busard asked how many single family homes could be built on the land if it kept its RS-8 designation.
Siders said two homes at best. Siders said there are access issues as he does not think access would
ever be granted off of Mormon Trek. He said there is a 100 foot gas line easement that is very limiting.
He said it could probably be subdivided into two single family lots. Miklo said that Staff looked at that
question and had felt that it might be possible to get four homes on Walden Road with the required 40
foot lots and rear access. He said whether it would be viable to get four more lots on the Mormon Trek
side for single family was questionable.
Jason Mascher, 45 Coll Court, said he and his wife had moved to their home in April. His concern is the
drainage issues in his back yard. He said that all of the neighborhood yards are wet as there is not
enough grading for the water to run toward the ravine behind his home. Mascher said that he is worried
that the drainage issues would be exacerbated by further development and that he too would like to be a
part of discussions with the developer, the condominium association, and Staff regarding drainage.
Mascher said he is definitely not in favor of a sidewalk that runs from Walden to Rohret Road as it would
severely disturb the privacy of the four homes in his area. He said he is in favor of more single family
homes rather than a higher density development.
Brian Fink, 44 Coll Court, said that in addition to his concerns about drainage, he had major concerns
about the trail shown going through the easement. The easement serves as a very valuable, heavily
wooded buffer, Fink said, between his neighborhood and the new development to the right. Fink said he
would suggest moving the trail from its proposed location further away from the property lines to promote
privacy.
Howard suggested that she could clarify this issue somewhat. Howard said that when the property was
originally subdivided, there was an agreement to have a sidewalk, a public access in that location.
Freerks asked how long ago that was. Miklo replied that he believed it was in the 1980's. Howard said
that a portion of the sidewalk was built behind the Walden Court condominiums, but the portion in the gas
pipeline easement was never built because the developer asked to have that portion vacated because it
was too steep to make it accessible. The City agreed to vacate that easement. Howard explained that
even though the easement does appear on the map, it really is no longer there and should be taken off of
the map. Howard further explained that there is no plan by the developer to put a sidewalk in that
location; it is a remnant on the map of former plans. The developer would like to dedicate the 100 foot
wide gas pipeline easement to the City as an open space designation. This would then become park land
if the Parks and Recreation Commission agreed to accept it. It would not be until the Parks and
Recreation Commission accepted the land that discussions as to what to do with it would take place.
Freerks noted that there would be public discussion and conversation about what became of the park.
Howard said that was correct, and that at this stage the Parks and Recreation Commission has not even
had a chance to take a look at it.
Miklo pointed out that to the south of Rohret Road there is a trail that is dedicated to the City as a part of
the parks system. The trail goes through the Mormon Trek Village area. Miklo said that the thinking at
one time was that it might be possible to extend that trail up through the pipeline easement and through to
the north. Miklo said that Parks and Recreation will look at topography as one basis for making its
decision about the land's use. Miklo said there is some discussion that the topography of this piece of
land may be too steep for a trail. He suggested that property owners in the area who wished to weigh in
on the matter send an e-mail or letter to the Parks and Recreation Director. Freerks noted that the
necessary e-mail address is available online or could be found by contacting Staff.
Jason Mascher, 45 Coll Court, asked who he could get contact information from for Southgate or Walden
Court residents in order to collaborate with them. Freerks advised Mascher to wait until the Commission
finished and then to talk to Siders directly. She said if he had any troubles he could contact Staff.
Libris Fidelis, 320 South Dubuque Street, said that although he had arrived late due to his attendance at a
different Commission's meeting, and had neither seen the plans for the development nor heard the
discussions regarding them, he would advise against any high density housing for the area as it would not
really fit in with the neighborhood. Fidelis said that given the strange shape of the parcel, trying to cram
a large number of units into the area could give the wrong impression and would be like an old-fashioned
trailer park. Fidelis said that he sympathized with the developer and the property owners, but that he just
did not see high density as a good option for that piece of property. Fidelis said there are small houses
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 16, 2009 - Formal
Page 5
located all over Iowa City that have 1600 square feet or fewer. Fidelis said that smaller houses of this
type could be offered to low-income individuals with some sort of steady income; however, not for those
who are simply impoverished. Fidelis said there is a need in the community for small residences for low
income individuals and retirees. Fidelis said that he personally would like to purchase such a home on
Park Street; however, given the economic situation and his own lack of funds, he is left out completely of
such an opportunity. He stated that high density housing in that neighborhood would detract from it and
would generally not fit in.
Dorothy Dayton, Walden Court, said that she has a little trouble seeing why high density would not fit in
nicely in that space. Dayton said that on the right side of Mormon Trek there are townhomes; south of
Rohret Road there are also townhomes and a condominium association; Walden Court is duplexes.
Dayton said that it seemed to her that there was high density development in that neighborhood already
so she did not see how Southgate's plan was out of sync with the neighborhood. She said it certainly
seemed like a better use of the land than to let it sit there vacant. Dayton said that Southgate's plan
leaves about 83% of the land without buildings on it. She said that the property will undoubtedly be
developed sometime, and that this is the best plan she has seen for it.
Jason Mascher, 45 Coll Court, said he disagreed with Dayton. He said that he believes that having the
area less densely populated is also a viable option, and one he wishes the developer would more fully
investigate. Mascher said that while there is a mix of housing in the area, if one asked the families in the
surrounding neighborhoods, most of them would say they prefer a lower density than that currently
proposed by Southgate.
There were no further comments and Freerks closed the public hearing
Payne motioned to defer REZ09-00003, a request to rezone approximately 4.29 acres from Medium
Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12),
until there is a plan for storm -water management that meets City standards.
Koppes seconded.
Miklo said that the deferral would be until the August 6th agenda. If there is no resolution prior to August
6th, then the meeting would be cancelled and the issue would be put on the August 20th agenda. Freerks
noted that generally a deferral would have to be granted by the applicant at this point. Miklo said that the
45-day limitation period would have to be waived in order for the matter to be deferred beyond the August
6th meeting. Siders indicated that a waiver would be granted if needed. Miklo said that interested parties
could check the City's website closer to the 6th, or call into the Planning office that week to make sure
there is a meeting.
Weitzel said the landscape was clearly steep and that it was obvious something would have to be done
on drainage issues given the number and variety of comments on the subject. He said he thought it was
entirely appropriate to defer.
Freerks said it is clear that there are some issues that have to be worked through and that regardless of
what sort of development takes place on the lot in the future, it would have to be something that improves
the drainage situation overall and does not make things worse. Freerks said this was something she
would be looking at as she considers the matter. She agreed that deferral was the best course for now.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Eastham abstaining).
DEVELOPMENT ITEM:
SUB09-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development for a preliminary
plat of Stone Bridge Estates Part 6-9, a 102-lot, 36.32 acre residential subdivision located north of
Court Street, south of Lower West Branch Road, west of Taft Avenue. The 45-day limitation period
for this is August 10, 2009.
Miklo said that the preliminary plat of Stone Bridge Estates, parts 5-9, was approved in 2006. Miklo
explained that Part 5 is down along Court Street and that it has been final platted, allowing the developer
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 16, 2009 - Formal
Page 6
to actually sell the lots and get building permits. The preliminary plat for the remainder of the subdivision
expired after a two year period. Subdivision codes require that a plat expires after two years so that if
there have been changes to the subdivision and/or zoning codes in the interim, the development would
have to comply with them unless there is some significant reason for granting an exception. In this case,
Miklo said, the applicant is submitting an application for re -approval of Parts 6-9. Miklo noted that the plat
is essentially the same as it was when originally approved in 2006, with the exception of some minor
adjustments to lot lines and sidewalk locations. Miklo said that there have been changes in the
subdivision codes that would apply to this development. There is a requirement that street right of ways
increase from 50 feet to 60 feet; street widths potentially decrease from 28 feet to 26 feet; and sidewalk
width requirements were increased from four feet to five feet.
Miklo said that all of the north/south streets have already been started in the development, and only three
of the east/west streets have not been started. The City Engineer feels it would be difficult for the
developer to transition to the wider right-of-way, given the lack of "T" intersections on the street, without
creating difficulties with property lines and maintenance issues. As a result, the engineers recommend
that the streets remain at their current widths of 50 feet, maintain 28 feet of pavement, and four foot
sidewalks. The exception would be an east/west street that has not been started yet and will connect to
Taft Avenue; that street will meet the new standards.
Miklo said that another change is that Staff has recommended an additional sidewalk that will provide a
path or link to the private open space. Miklo noted that in the area is a parcel that has been donated to
the Parks Department, and which contains remnants of a historic stone railroad bridge. The
Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be developed as a park and to preserve that bridge and
possibly incorporate it into a trail network. The remainder of the trail is on a series of outlots that are to be
owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. There is a 15 foot easement that gives public
access or rights to travel on that trail, but does not open the entire outlot to the public.
Staff is recommending approval of the plat.
Eastham asked if any consideration had been given to just dedicating the outlots to the City rather than
the homeowners' association. Miklo said there had been discussion of this a couple of years ago, but
that the Parks and Recreation Commission did not wish to take over the outlots due to the maintenance
costs.
Eastham noted that the plat shows three pillars that are remnants of the bridge, only one of which is
actually in the current plat. Eastham asked if Staff was confident that the City would be able to acquire
the remaining parts of the old stone bridge when the land to the east was developed. Miklo said Staff
was pretty confident of that because the area will require a rezoning. When Stone Bridge Estates was
rezoned a conditional zoning agreement requiring the dedication of the bridge to the City was put in
place. Staff would recommend a conditional zoning agreement with similar requirements when the land
to the east is rezoned.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Florence Stockman, Stone Bridge Estates, said she had lived in her current residence about five years.
She noted that she came before the Commission a couple of years ago, and that she was returning to
echo the same concerns that the park lands in the area remain a high priority for the Commission, just as
it is for the neighbors. She said that in the present plat there are a few more inches of park land in the
area, and that she was pleased to hear Eastham's comments regarding acquiring the land where the
additional pillars stand. She said she was concerned about the outlot and trail system because the
neighborhood is not organized in any way yet. She said that hearing that the trail system will be the
property of the neighborhood association leads some neighbors to wonder what they are getting into.
Stockman said she had come before the Parks and Recreation Commission and that they had indeed
expressed an inability to pay for maintenance of more land, but that they did say they would send
someone out to keep the parks up. Stockman said that she was glad to hear that Thomas Street was
going to be wider, as the trail was to be on one side and the creek on the other and she had wondered
how that would all be accommodated.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 16, 2009 - Formal
Page 7
Stockman said that she hoped Arlington would be developed closer to Court Street; Part 6 is not
completed and there are quite a few lots in Part 5. She said that access to Court Street is good but that
there is a lot of traffic on Taft Avenue, which has not been improved. Stockman said she wondered when
the City and the County would decide to do something about Taft. She said that if Parts 7, 8, and 9 are
approved and development begins soon after, then that could be a problem in terms of more traffic onto
Taft. Stockman requested that the Commission once again ask the developer to develop Parts 5 and 6
completely before moving on to Parts 7, 8, and 9, to give time for improvements to Taft. She noted that
the developer had been moving dirt in Parts 7 and 8 in recent days.
Stockman reiterated that neighbors were not yet organized into a homeowners' association and that she
felt the trail system needed to be addressed at the level of the Commission and the City Council. She
thanked the Commission for preserving the area with the stone bridge and noted that she had pulled
together a history of the area for the Commissioners.
Freerks asked Stockman if she was the person who had provided photographs of the area when the
preliminary plat had previously been approved. Stockman said that she was. Freerks noted that there
had been a lot of discussion about the bridge and the need to preserve it, and thanked Stockman for the
information.
Brian Maass, 115 Eversoll Lane, said that his concern was with the maintenance of the trail. He said that
no homeowners' association had yet been formed, nor had residents had a chance to meet with the
developer. Maass said that with Scott Park is so close by, his recommendation would be to try to coax
the City into maintaining the outlots as well. Maass said that because the stone bridge is such a
wonderful thing he would like to see the developer put in some sort of trail or sidewalk to the area through
some of the lots that have not yet been developed. Maass said that on the western part of the plat there
are a couple of ponds in the Mayfield Condominium Complex that have nice trails surrounding them. He
said this is a great place to go for walks in the evening and that it connects with a couple of other trails off
of Court. Maass said he would urge the developer to put in some sort of walkway off of Eversoll or
Chadwick to connect down to the park.
Freerks asked Miklo to comment on the trail system in that area. Miklo said there is currently an eight
foot walkway on Court Street and a trail in Windsor Ridge south of Court Street. He said he believed a
trail was being installed in a development on the east side of the creek that will eventually be continued
up along the creek. Miklo said the plan is to basically use the creek bed as a trail network. He said he
did not believe there were any east/west trails in the neighborhood. Miklo said the trails referred to by
Maass were required in order to break up the long blocks in that development.
Eastham asked Miklo about the sequence of when the trail might be built and the outlot dedicated to the
City. Miklo said the park is in Part 8 of the subdivision, so the answer to that really depends on the
housing market and the pace of development. Eastham asked if it was the developer's decision what
order to develop the phases, and Miklo replied that it was both the developer's and the City's decision.
Miklo said that at the time the plat was first approved, Lower West Branch Road had not been improved
and so the preference was to develop from Court Street and move north. Presently, Lower West Branch
Road is improved and the developer could final plat those areas and move from the north to the south if
he wished. As it stands, the phasing is Parts 6, 7, 8, and then 9, Miklo said. Payne asked if the
developer could do Part 9 next if they had an agreement with the City to do so. Miklo said that was
correct. Miklo said that sometimes plats are phased for timing purposes but at this point he did not think
the City would have any objection to changing the phasing around. Eastham followed up by asking when
people can expect trails to be developed. Miklo said the trails are being put in as sections of the
development are built, at the time the roads are put in. Miklo said that residential sidewalks are done as
individual houses are built, but that if sidewalks or trails are on outlots or common areas, then they are
done at the time the streets are put in.
Koppes asked if moving dirt on Parts 7 and 8, as the developer was reported to be doing, was
acceptable. Miklo said he would have to check with Public Works on that. Miklo said that generally an
approved preliminary plat gives authorization to grade. He said that because this preliminary plat was
expired, he would have to check to see whether the grading permit was still good or not.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 16, 2009 - Formal
Page 8
Payne asked for clarification on the maintenance of the trail. Miklo said that the City will only maintain the
portion of the trail in Outlot B, the public part. The developer will initially be responsible for the trail, and
the outlots, the private open spaces. Eventually that responsibility will be turned over to the homeowners'
association. Access easements will allow the public to travel those trails, but they will not be publicly
owned. Payne asked if the homeowners' association will be responsible for removing snow and repairing
the sidewalks and Miklo said that they would. Greenwood Hektoen added that the trails and outlots will
is turned lned over tothe
thedeveloper
homeowners' association. Freerks asked f thatassociation
was' of the legal and
papers,upkeep
and
is
Greenwood Hektoen said that it was.
Freerks reminded everyone that public hearing was still open.
Florence Stockman said that when they purchased their lots they were given a covenant about the
homeowners' association. Stockman said the homeowners' association was put into effect in January of
this year by the developer sending residents bills for dues. Stockman said that no meeting had taken
place, no bylaws had been developed; the neighbors had simply been assessed a fee. Stockman said
that there have been promises of meetings in the past, but that nothing has materialized. Freerks asked
if Stockman had been able to get a hold of the developer. She said that he talks in a friendly manner
about developing the association but that nothing comes to fruition. She said she had called the City to
see about forming a neighborhood association, but that it was her impression that a homeowners'
association needed to come first. Freerks asked Greenwood Hektoen if she had any comments on the
matter. Greenwood Hektoen said that usually the City does not get involved in these matters but that it is
typical for a homeowners' association not to be formed until 75% of the lots are sold. Control remains
with the developer until that time, even if the dues are already being paid by homeowners. She added
that without seeing the documents for this particular homeowners' association she could only speak in
general term. Freerks advised Stockman to contact Marcia Bollinger about forming a neighborhood
association, which, she cautioned, was very different from a homeowners association.
Brian Maass, 115 Eversoll Lane, said that he lives in Part 4 of Stone Bridge Estates. He said that his
covenant mentions a homeowners' association but only for Parts 1 through 4. He asked if the developer
intended to create a different homeowners' association for Parts 6 through 9. He said he felt like the cart
was being put before the horse as they were paying a fee and no association existed yet. Freerks said
she did not think the Staff would have access to that information. Greenwood Hektoen advised Maass to
read the documents filed at the time he acquired the property. She said they would include information
on how to amend the homeowners' association declaration. To include additional parts or phases, an
amendment would be required.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Payne made a motion to approve SUB09-00004, an application submitted by Arlington
Development for a preliminary plat of Stone Bridge Estates Part 6-9, a 102-lot, 36.32 acre
residential subdivision located north of Court Street, south of Lower West Branch Road, west of
Taft Avenue.
Plahutnik seconded.
Eastham said he would go ahead and support the motion in part because he feels this is the best
resolution for preserving the stone bridge and developing north/south trails in the area. He said he would
like to comment that the questions about homeowners' financial responsibilities in maintaining the outlots
have made him wonder if the City is really doing the best it can to promote amenities, trail systems, green
spaces, etc., while still being fair to people who buy homes and therefore assume some of these
maintenance costs. He said one question to ponder is who is paying for the maintenance of our trail
systems that are under the responsibility of homeowners' associations. Eastham said a number of
people do not really know how homeowners' associations work and what the establishment of one in the
development process entails, nor the transition process between developer control and homeowner
control. Eastham said he found this lack of understanding unsatisfying.
Plahutnik said he viewed this application as a sort of book-keeping matter. He said the expired
application is being brought up to date; the issues with the new subdivision code have been addressed;
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 16, 2009 - Formal
Page 9
and issues such as relationships between homeowners and developers are outside the Commission's
purview. Plahutnik said he would be supporting the application.
Busard said the application meets the requirements of the subdivision regulations and he will vote for it.
Freerks said she too would be voting in favor of the motion. She said it makes god common sense to
continue the roads as they were begun and not to try to re -do them. She said she also thinks it is wise to
add to the width of the road that had not yet been developed. She said she was happy to see the bridge
will be preserved and an area where a lot of people can enjoy it will be created. She said the application
meets all of the requirements and she too will be in favor.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
Miklo added that there is a planned development overlay for this application, a requirement of which is
that there is common open space. At the time of the final plat, the developer is required to provide legally
binding instruments stating how the financing and maintenance costs will be handled. Miklo said that
when the final plat is submitted there will be more detailed information on the maintenance of the open
space and the plan for the homeowners' association than is typically available because of this planned
development overlay.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: June 18, 2009:
Busard motioned to approve the minutes.
Eastham seconded.
The minutes were approved 7-0.
OTHER:
Miklo stated that Staff will let the Commission know if there is to be a meeting on August 6tn. If the
drainage issues are not yet resolved, then the meeting will be cancelled and the Commission will meet
again on August 20tn
Busard asked if it would be possible to move the meeting time for Planning and Zoning meetings to 7:00
p.m., rather than its current start time of 7:30 p.m. Freerks noted that this had been discussed in the
informal meeting on Monday, and that in the past there had been questions as to whether it would be
possible to have Planning and Zoning meetings begin at 7:00 p.m. like City Council meetings do.
Commissioners agreed that the 7:00 p.m. time would work for each of them. Freerks said that she felt
that before the switch was made effort should be made to notify regular attendees. Miklo said that for
anything that is on the agenda the neighbors are notified of the date and time of the meeting. Miklo said
when the switch is made, the time will be highlighted. He suggested making the switch not at the next
meeting but at the meeting after that, since there had been a number of attendees tonight. Busard asked
how the time switch would work for Staff. Staff said 7:00 p.m. would be fine.
Freerks said that there had been an article in the newspaper about Hieronymus Square and some of the
high rise building projects that were going to potentially go up on Burlington Street. Freerks said the
article mentioned some changes to plans. She wondered if Miklo could fill the Commission in on that
without going into a full-blown discussion since it was not an agenda item. Miklo reported that the paper
said that because of the recession, financing for the size of project originally approved was not available.
Miklo clarified that only one project discussed in the article was actually approved by the City Council.
The Hieronymus Square project was approved under a conditional zoning agreement requiring at least a
seven story building, among other things. If the developers chose to go with a smaller building that was
not at least seven stories then they would have to come back before the Commission for an amendment
to the conditional zoning agreement.
Koppes noted that there was also an article in the paper concerning a green industrial park. She asked if
there was anything that the Commission would be seeing with that any time soon. Miklo said he was
skeptical that anything would be seen soon. He noted that the property was in an area that has no
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 16, 2009 - Formal
Page 10
sanitary sewer and no street access, though it does have the possibility of water. He said that in order for
the area to be developed some very expensive roads would have to be put in. He said the discussions
with the developer are in the very preliminary stages.
ADJOURNMENT:
Weitzel motioned to adjourn.
Busard seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote at 7:45 p.m.
s/pcd/m ins/p&z/2009/p&z07-16-09.doc
O
Z
H
a
0XXXXX0X
LL
co
,XXXXXXX
ti
(0X--XXXXX
-XXXX-X
�XX0XXXX
4XXXXXXX
MXXXXXLUX
NXXXX
LU
-
XX
r
X
X
X
�
X
X
X
N
W
rL�
N
OOM
wXU-)0m0
0U-)
H W
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
w
J
�-
a
W
J
J
x<z4
J
Q>
N
X
u
Z
ry
=
0
-J
Y
F-
a
_
Y
w
W
W
~
:
W
N
wQ�waz3:
2CnCOLuIL
Q—
w
Q
zmwwYaa�
5
Q
Ir
O
Q
J
C7
Z
H
W
W
a
LL
z
ZXXXXXX-
LU
0
MXXXXXXX
I
I
i M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
i N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
�XX0X
O
LLJ
X0
w
�,�����
NOOM
WXUnLO
I-w0000000
U-)0LOLO
W
H
LU
�-
Q
=
Q
z
qmq
W
tn=ZN=��
0
V
4
W
w
fn
2Y.
Z
J
Ix_
Ce
W
W
D
N
wcav~)Lua*
F=
Q�QCeOQJw
zmwwYaa�
E
0
�CY
o `
U Z a) -a
X
w E
a�
N E cv
N a p �.
Qz
z
uuw
x0Oz
w
Y