Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11-05-2009 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, November 2, 2009 — 6:00 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Lobby Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street Thursday, November 5, 2009 - 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda C. Development/Rezoning Item REZ09-00008/SUB09-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for a rezoning to amend the Conditional Zoning Agreement to modify the concept site plan and a Preliminary Plat of Wal-Mart Subdivision, an approximately 25.16-acre 3-lot commercial subdivision located at 1001 Highway 1 West. (45 day limitation period: November 8, 2009) D. Rezoning Item REZ09-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by Allen Homes, Inc. for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single Family Residential (OPD-8) zone for approximately .44 acres of property located on Westbury Drive, south of Middlebury Road to allow five additional townhouse style dwelling units. (45 day limitation period: November 29, 2009) E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: October 12 and October 15, 2009 F. Other G. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Informal November 16 November 30 December 14 January 4 Formal_J November 19 December-3 December 17 —January 7 STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo Item: REZ09-00008/SUB09-00008 Date: November 5, 2009 Wal-Mart Subdivision GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. P.O. Box 8050 Bentonville, AR 72716-8050 Contact Person: Neil Evans ARC Design 1475 S. Perryville Road Rockford, IL 61108 Phone: 815-484-4300 Requested Action: Amendment to Conditional Zoning Agreement and subdivision into 3 commercial lots. Purpose: To reconfigure the previously approved concept plan to allow a smaller Wal-Mart Store and the creation of two additional commercial lots. Location: 1001 Highway 1 West Size: 25.16 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Commercial (CC-2) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Commercial — CC-2 and CI-1 South: Undeveloped Airport — CIA and P1 East: Commercial —CI-1 West: Undeveloped — CIA Comprehensive Plan: South Central District — Commercial File Date: September 24 45 Day Limitation Period: November 8 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In September 2008, the City Council approved amendments to the Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) for Westport Plaza to allow the reconfiguration of the previously approved plan for a multi - tenant shopping center to allow the property to be developed as one lot with a single large retail store. The approved plan included specific landscaping and building designs. 2 Wal-Mart would now like to revise the plan to reduce the size of the proposed store from approximately 176,000 square feet to 150,000 square feet. Rather than one lot with the Wal- Mart store, they are proposing a 3-lot subdivision with one large lot for the Wal-Mart store and two 46,500 square foot lots in the western part of their property. These lots would be sold for future development. ANALYSIS: The original CZA (1989) and the current CZA (2008) were intended to address Comprehensive Plan policies regarding the aesthetics and landscaping of this property, which serves as a major entranceway to the city. The current CZA requires compliance with an approved concept site plan, including a landscape plan and building elevations. Wal-Mart is proposing to reduce the size of the proposed store from approximately 176,000 square feet to 150,000 square feet. The proposed concept site plan reflects the smaller store and fewer parking spaces. As a result approximately 2 acres on the southwest side of the property are no longer needed for Wal-Mart's purposes. They propose to subdivide that area to create two lots that would be sold to other commercial developments. A vehicle access easement will be established to provide access to lots 2 and 3 from Highway 1 and Ruppert Road. With the exception of the proposed new location for the bus stop (discussed below), staff finds that the revised concept site plan, landscaping plan and building elevations are generally consistent with the plan approved in 2008. The landscaping and the building design are very similar to the previously approved plan and we believe that they meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the CZA. At the time of final site plan review detailed building elevations will need to be reviewed and approved for compliance with section 14-2C-6 K. Standards for Large Retail Uses. Because specific users have not been identified for proposed lots 2 and 3, site plans and building designs are not available to review for those lots. To assure that their eventual development conforms to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the original CZA, staff recommends that the new CZA require that the development of those lots be approved by the staff design review committee using the criteria of the 14-2C-6, Commercial Site Development Standards, subsection K. Standards for Large Retail Uses. Even though any future buildings proposed for lots 2 and 3 may not meet the 50,000 square foot threshold of subsection K, adherence to these standards will assure consistency within the development and will address the City's goal for improved aesthetics along Highway 1 as expressed in the South Central District Plan. Staff recommends that all other conditions of the CZA, including those pertaining to signs, landscape medians and phasing, be included in the new CZA. Wal-Mart is proposing to move the bus stop from the previously agreed to location near the northeast corner of the store, to an area located on the other side of the drive in front of the store. Staff recommends that the bus stop be located as previously agreed to. Our concern is that bus riders not have to cross driveways. It is our goal to make transit service as safe and convenient as possible to encourage more transit use city-wide. The transit manager also indicated that it will be safer and less difficult for a bus to stop and restart at the location adjacent to the store because they will only have one stream of traffic to be concerned. With the location as proposed by Walmart, there will also be intersecting traffic from the main drive in front of the store. Since the drives on this site will be as wide as or wider than many City streets, the traffic speeds may be comparable to street traffic with regard to the hazards for pedestrians. PCD\Staff Reports\rez09-00008 sub09-00008 wal-mart.final. doc.doc 9 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Compliance with subdivision requirements: The preliminary plat will create two additional lots on this property. In general staff finds that the plat meets City requirements, except for the issue of public access. The existing drives on the Walmart site provide traffic circulation and access to public streets for the other existing properties in the area and public access easements extend across the existing network of circulation drives. Since the three lots proposed in this new plat have little frontage on a public street, well -designed and shared circulation drives are necessary to provide the necessary access to public streets in the area. The existing public access easements are shown on sheet 1 of the plat. On sheet 2, the applicant proposes to reduce the extent of the public access easements and eliminate the easement over the drive that will extend along the front of the new Walmart store. In order to provide necessary traffic circulation, Staff recommends that a public access easement be extended across all circulation drives similar to the previous plat. The City Engineer's office notes several additional minor discrepancies on the submitted plat. Revised plats were received the day this report was mailed, so the City Engineer has not had an opportunity to make a final review. Other than the public access issue noted above, Staff expects that remaining discrepancies, if any, will be resolved prior to Planning and Zoning Commission consideration. Sensitive Areas: The submitted preliminary plat indicates that the site contains hydric soils that are regulated by the City's sensitive areas ordinance. The purpose of regulating lands that contain fully hydric soils is to recognize the constraints imposed on urban development projects by potential wetlands or high water tables. Since this site is already developed a wetland analysis is not necessary. However, at the time of final plat, when detailed construction drawings and calculations are submitted, the City may require additional utility protections, as necessary for these soil conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ09-00008/SU609-00008 an application submitted by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for a rezoning to amend the Conditional Zoning Agreement to modify the concept site plan, including landscape plan and building elevations, and a Preliminary Plat of Wal-Mart Subdivision, an approximately 25.16-acre 3-lot commercial subdivision located at 1001 Highway 1 West, be approved subject to 1) resolution of the location and extent of the public access easement; 2) the bus stop being located at the northeast corner of the store; 3) a new Conditional Zoning Agreement that contains the same requirements as the 2008 CZA, with the exception of the changes to the concept site plan, including landscape plan and building elevations, as attached, and 4) a requirement that development of lots 2 and 3 be approved by the staff design committee for compliance with Section 14-2C-6 K. Standards for Large Retail Uses. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: 1. The public access easement should pass in front of the Wal-Mart store in a fashion similar to the existing easement that goes in front of Cub Foods and Staples. This is necessary to provide a good circulation pattern and access to Ruppert Road for all of the lots. 2. Other minor discrepancies as noted by the City Engineer's Office. PCD\Staff Reports\rez09-00008 sub09-00008 wal-mart.f nal. doc.doc El ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Proposed Concept Plan 2009 3. Approved Concept Plan 2008 4. Preliminary Plat 5. Correspondence from applicant's attorney 6. Conditional Zoning Agreement (2008) Approved by: Karen oward, Acting Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development PCD\Staff Reports\rez09-00008 sub09-00008 wal-mart.final. doc.doc Q bb �b�igW W 6i a YES Y! d� e i vpp9y ji•¢ f M S ■a¢■9¢■9YY 3 gglByy 9gCeW 'p3pC R +ag V p 51H� 16 ��� .�j�Ly ^� q�j�aR� �3y�ii �pY��� e S p e 1�e dil � �. ' IT YY III t p9i� yy y / /i iip z R� �Y p r pb H`Hb•a(��ez6 B^ 1 �gCe3��ERi: i 9Wg[r 9e � 1 y ' � 7A W��� � �� a S= H�WA'� i�ppb 1 ��pp44Y �•1� � �' � �I��R 3 z�ce y peg yry a�l��,t�z W 5y6elgSR4 p8�� g�9a 9�¢�g7@dc 4e{He epq p�p rg a p Apg �a3y iva` l/�F6 �p q Fi Wb�4 z 73 Q.i4Mtl �Wv �b s�F Yzash 6 aR6 i::Y zliR I 7R A G ovoa 183ddn —(=------ a ga e .. ...... ..... 9 / 00 �br T W / 0N. qyyyyQ� } 0"J $ /' �N 9333��3b A CO . Idol 0-1 !✓ I / _ � r2: zai O N W U) O M O w CL If w � 9} b; tt§j ��°� ;€eh�s �d F9' i€Pe9 "Y@aFS 4� pE; �L @p$�a�ryi� F p�, �• ����� 9S er3. �ei¢y� �� ��y�4�� �b p�p� i��♦ep�€5 °e� cyq�ri¢p5ip �( a6�t5� OG e�g6�4t iq6i s�� e�y�� 4E2ieE � lbgKg d�� •¢�'��y�!��G(�EiY i�� d 6 i93 Q p@6 9 [p,. tl� i •ykaji lE B � �3 iegg Yb � 's�q� ge ��'2' ��@e'e� kSe �9�� AA @@@�a�SipyE- r 2g� p 9 t�tnMF�yy. 4� p4p� q�qt'3� 5'p•pi �b p��ga 9 yr�tq Y�a®[[®gppeSBQ@z g %yy99Q�'YF « C I�6yyyyApi� ggg. C § ibe gge �B;` gwa a 1� Ply bFsy'!' e999biG`! @%; b � pg b'j1 e C y 6 . - - _ 6 aV02i ib3ddna + Z GI + • W d W °d Y U e ME 0E sell I elong 0 Q N W O m CL CL Q w z .p •. i z ' yb�o O Q m 9 p3 �jj fill y CCP 7 p3 a 99®g®@ gg 3i.1 Ila WE a i W / m a Page 1 of 1 Karen Howard From: Dennis Mitchell [deinnism@meardonlaw.com] Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:18 AM To: Karen Howard Subject: Wal-Mart Application Attachments: BUS ROUTE EXHIBIT 10-28-09.pdf Hi Karen. In follow-up to our discussion yesterday, I'm writing to confirm that Wal-Mart proposes locating the bus stop as shown on the most recent concept plan that was submitted. Although we realize this is a slight change from the location shown on the concept plan that was approved last year, Wal-Mart believes that the new proposed location provides better visibility and safety for customers who ride the bus. The prior location would be more isolated, and from VVal-Mart's standpoint, not as safe as a location that has visibility from the front of the store. The new location would not require any change in the bus route, and would not require customers to cross any more drives than customers who park in the parking lot. A separate exhibit showing the proposed location for the bus stop is; attached. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks, Dennis Dennis J. Mitchell Meardon, Sueppel & Downer P.L.C. 122 S. Linn St. Iowa City, IA 52240 319-338-9222 Fax: 319-338-7250 dennism@meardonlavv.com This e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U. S. C. Sections 2510-2521, is confidential and is legally privileged. This message and its attachments may also be privileged and attorney work product. They are intended for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others; also please notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you. 10/29/2009 2 o - - -- - -- - -- - Pr r aced by and Retum to: Sara F. Greenwood Hektoen. Asst. City Attomev, 410E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240, 13191331. 5030 CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT THIS CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made among the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), Wal-Mart Realty Company, an Arkansas corporation, Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, a Delaware business trust and Wal- Mart Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation (collectively, "Wal-Mart"), SUPERVALU INC., a Delaware corporation, successor to RSI-Supervalu Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Supervalu"), and Staples The Office Superstore, East Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Staples") (hereinafter, collectively, Wal-Mart, Supervalu and Staples, "Owners"). WHEREAS, on June 13, 1989, the City adopted an ordinance rezoning from Industrial, I-1, to Commercial, CC-2, approximately 28.084 acres of land located South of Highway l West; and WHEREAS, on June 13, 1989, the Joseph Company and the City entered into a Conditional Zoning Agreement (the "1989 CZA") which established certain conditions and restrictions on the owner of said 28.084 acres; and WHEREAS, the 1989 CZA was amended on September 24, 1996 (as so amended, the "1989 CZA, as amended"); and WHEREAS, the 1989 CZA, as amended, is a covenant running with the land and inures to the benefit of all successors and assigns of the property burdened thereby; and WHEREAS, Wal-Mart owns approximately 13.75 acres (the "Wal-Mart Parcel") and has the right to purchase approximately 11.41 acres of the original 28.084 acres of the property burdened by the 1989 CZA, as amended, and now desires to redevelop said 25.16 acres (the "Property"), which is considered to be major entrance to Iowa City; and WHEREAS, the City has a policy to preserve and enhance the entranceways to Iowa City; and WHEREAS, Wal-Mart has submitted a Concept Site Plan to the City that materially varies from the terms set forth in the 1989 CZA, as amended, and has thus requested the 1989 CZA, as amended, be modified by replacing it with this Agreement with respect to the Property; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of such modification subject to conditions related to ensuring that the Property is developed in a manner consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan as it exists as of the date of this Agreement and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood, paying particular attention to the aesthetics and landscaping of this site which serves as a major entranceway to the City; WHEREAS, Iowa Code Section 414.5 (2007) provides that the City may impose reasonable conditions when land is rezoned over and above existing regulations in order to satisfy the public needs directly caused by the requested change; and 3823-4435 9939.3 WHEREAS, Owners acknowledge that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure that the Property is developed in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood;' WHEREAS, Owners agree to use the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: 1. This Agreement hereby replaces and supersedes the 1989 CZA, as amended, with respect to the land legally described in Paragraph 2 herein. 2. Owners are the title holder of the land legally described as follows: Wal-Mart Parcel: Lot 1 Of Final Plat Westport Plaza, Iowa City, Iowa, In Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6, West Of The Fifth Principal Meridian, In Johnson County, As Per Plat Of Subdivision Filed In Book 32, Page 289. Staples Parcel: Lot 2 Of a Resubdivision Of Lot 2, Westport Plaza, Iowa City, Iowa, In Johnson County, Iowa, According To The Plat Of The Resubdivision Recorded In Book 37, Page 264, Plat Records Of Johnson County, Iowa. SuperValu Parcel: Lot 1 Of A Resubdivision Of Lot 2, Westport Plaza, Iowa City, Iowa, According To The Plat Of The Resubdivision Recorded In Book 37, Page 264, Plat Records Of Johnson County, Iowa; Excepting Therefrom; Commencing At The Southeast Corner Of The Westport Plaza, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, In Accordance With The Plat Recorded In Plat Book 32 At Page 289, Of The Records Of The Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence North 00 Degrees, 51 Minutes 23 Seconds East, Along The East Line Of Said Westport Plaza, 854.05 Feet To The Point Of Beginning; Thence North 38 Degrees 29 Minutes 03 Seconds West, 94.65 Feet, To A Point On The North Line Of Said Westport Plaza; Thence South 89 Degrees 08 Minutes 37 Seconds East, Along Said North Line, 60.00 Feet; Thence South 00 Degrees 51 Minutes 23 Seconds West, Along The West Line Of Said Westport Plaza, 73.20 Feet, To Said Point Of Beginning. 3. The parties acknowledge that the City has a policy, as stated in the Comprehensive Plan, to preserve and enhance the entranceways to Iowa City and to take special care with regard to the site design of commercial establishments, including landscaping to soften the impact of the structures and lessen the effect of large parking lots. Owners agree and acknowledge this policy is reasonable, proper and appropriate under the circumstances; 4823-4435-9938.8 4. The parties agree that Highway 1 West is a major entranceway to Iowa City from the southwest. Wal-Mart acknowledges the City's policy concerning entranceways governs this rezoning request, therefore Wal-Mart agrees to provide certain amenities over and above City regulations in order to lessen the impact on the surrounding area and enhance the development of the entranceway to the City, said amenities are more particularly described below; 5. The development will substantially conform to the Concept Site Plan (including the building elevations) (the "Concept Site Plan") and Landscaping Plan dated July 3, 2008, attached and by this reference incorporated herein (collectively, the "Plans"), particularly with regard to the building location and orientation, the square footage of greenspace, the storefront landscaping, facade design, and the configuration of parking spaces. In addition to the site development standards set forth in the Iowa City Code of Ordinances, Wal-Mart agrees and acknowledges that: a. The three internal landscaped median aisles running the length of the parking lot, but not containing a sidewalk, shall have a minimum width of nine (9) feet; b. Wal-Mart shall cooperate with the City to locate a public bus stop and/or shelter on the site and Wal-Mart shall, in its discretion, either relocate the shelter currently located on the Wal-Mart Parcel to the new location agreed -upon with the City at Wal-Mart's expense or shall acquire and install or construct a new shelter, at Wal-Mart's expense, of a quality and design at least equal to the bus shelter currently located on the Wal-Mart Parcel, and subject to terms and conditions to be agreed upon in writing by Wal-Mart and the City Manager as the representative of the City; c. Three free-standing signs shall be permitted to be located as shown on the Concept Site Plan; d. The Property may be re -developed in two phases. Phase I shall include the demolition of the existing Cub Foods and Staples buildings, construction of the new Wal-Mart store, and installation of all improvements on land not currently occupied by the existing Wal-Mart Store. Phase II shall consist of demolition of the existing Wal-Mart and installation of the final site improvements; e. Upon completion of Phase I in conformance with all applicable City requirements, the City shall issue a temporary certificate of occupancy valid for 120 days. If Phase II has not been completed upon the expiration of the temporary certificate of occupancy, said certificate may be extended if the Applicant has shown good faith efforts to begin Phase II; f. Upon completion of Phase H in conformance with all applicable City requirements, the City shall issue a certificate of occupancy; g. Wal-Mart delivery traffic shall be directed to enter and exit the site from Ruppert Road. 6. The Plans attached may be modified within the general parameters of the Plans, such as structural dimensions and tree species. Any modifications departing from the Plans must and shall be subject to staff review and approval. Nothing in this Agreement shall be 4823-4435-9938.8 construed to require Owners to conform to the Plans in every detail, as the Plans are intended as conceptual in nature. Neither party may intentionally digress from the Plans for any arbitrary reason. 7. Owners and the City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2007), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are directly caused by the requested rezoning. 8. Owners and the City acknowledge that in the event the Property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Agreement. 9. The parties acknowledge that this Agreement shall be deemed effective upon recording, which shall occur upon adoption and publication of the Ordinance and the parties further acknowledge that this Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City. In the event Wal-Mart does not pick up and pay for the building permit for the construction of the Wal-Mart supercenter structure contemplated on the Concept Site Plan within two (2) years from the date of Council approval of the Ordinance, this Agreement and corresponding Ordinance shall automatically be released and repealed two years from the date of Council approval of the Ordinance. In the event of such release and repeal, the Property shall continue to be subject to and burdened by the 1989 CZA, as amended. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. 10. Owners acknowledge that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to relieve them from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 11. The parties agree that this Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance approving this Agreement and rezoning the Property (the "Ordinance"), and that upon adoption and publication of the Ordinance, this Agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at Wal-Mart's expense. 12. The City acknowledges this Agreement is being entered into prior to Wal-Mart acquiring fee title to that portion of the Property currently owned by Supervalu and Staples. The City acknowledges and agrees that until such time as Wal-Mart picks up and pays for the building permit for the construction of the Wal-Mart supercenter structure contemplated on the Concept Site Plan, the Property and the buildings presently existing thereon shall be required to comply with the 1989 CZA, as amended, and not this Agreement. 13. If Wal-Mart or any Owner is delayed or hindered in or prevented from the performance of any obligation required under this Agreement by reason of failure of power, strikes, lock outs, riots, insurrection, war, military or usurped power, sabotage, unusually severe weather, fire or other casualty or other reason of a like nature beyond the reasonable control of such delayed party, the time for performance of such obligation may be 4823-4435-9938.8 extended for the period of the delay. Dated this day of A)ajA-J , 2008. WAL-MART REALTY COMPANY, an Ar sa c rporation By T DI S _ n t-t0s-D01--- Regional Vice President, Design and Real Estate WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUSTAael ware statutory trust By s is Regional Vice President, Design and Real Estate WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corpoY--ga By � 0 . Regional Vice President, Design and Real Estate SUPER LU INC., a D ware corporation, successor to SI-Sup alu Inc., a Delaware corporation By — Name CITY 6 OWA CIT ,10 A By Reg6JD. Bailey, Mayor By ��.� Marian .Karr, City Clerk Approved by: uta N�CiU�i✓ City Attorney's OfficeZSIvQ' 4823-4435-9938.8 WAL-MART ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS State of Arkansas, County of Benton ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on the 22nd day of August, 2008 by Brian Hooper, as Regional Vice President, Design and Real Estate, of Wal-Mart Realty Company, an Arkansas corporation, on behalf of the corporation. ROBIN M. LE MEUR Benton County =�'• ti ` My Commission 013xpires Notary Pu lic in and for the State of Arkansas . 9gkAN5P.: My commission expires: May 1, 2013 State of Arkansas, County of Benton ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on the 22nd day of August, 2008 by Brian Hooper as Regional Vice President, Design and Real Estate of Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, a Delaware statutory trust, on behalf of the trust. LE MEUR County =.' sion Expires , 2013 State of Arkansas, County of Benton ss: Notary Public in and or the State of Arkansas My commission expires: May 1, 2013 This instrument was acknowledged before me on the 22nd day of August 2008 by Brian Hooper as Regional Vice President, Design and Real Estate of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation, on behalf of the corporation. ROBIN M. LE MEUR Benton County My Commission Expires "9KAN5"y'` May 1, 2013 Notary Public in and for the State of Arkansas My commission expires: May 1, 2013 4823-4435-9938.8 I C) 0 cr Z LLI CID I- 3 O 1 § 0 LU UJ 951 o -i(n 0 m 05 U) co LLI Imm- UNIN, eo�� oi$ m m 3 V— z 0 as '! UU, 0 R la� Z LU Z L) 0 5 z 't Ow z 'z NO u 0 6z LU z C) LU m 2 cl 0 rj) 00 z Lij , z < a. Fra Z LU O=! LL W ZD t OD W o0 0 N k N 4� m Y Y J 0 O1s J H w go U� J N 0 K Y U) C N Rl Y Q rn 0 0 N a ■ V m oN 0 0 d C:D 00 r V Q W U � 6VU OJ ur ZO U Q W �Q0 5 < r Ur� w�+pY LO U z�zg i `t`zz �°� jg�2N z�W 011w�- ~¢ Z�iE >og ZI�� LUm1zZoaL) W L, z LL o r a ti LL W 0jr LL �2w?�o STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Christina Kuecker Item: REZ09-00010 Date: November 5, 2009 Westbury Drive GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Allen Homes, Inc P.O. Box 3474 Iowa City, IA 52244-3474 Contact Person: Jesse Allen Phone: (319)530-8238 Requested Action: Amend the existing OPD Plan for Olde Towne Village Purpose: To add 5 additional townhouse style units to Lot 1 of the previously approved OPD plan Location: Westbury Dr Size: .44 Acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: OPD-8 — the location of the new 5 unit building is currently shown as open space in previously approved OPD plan Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: OPD-8 (Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single Family Residential) CC-2 (Community Commercial) South: OPD-8 OPD-12 (Planned Development Overlay High Density Single Family Residential) East: OPD-8 West: OPD-8 RS-5 (Low Density Single Family Residential) Comprehensive Plan: Northeast Planning District — designates the corner of Scott and Rochester as a Commercial Node with townhouses and small-scale apartment buildings nearby with accessible pedestrian pathways. Neighborhood Open Space District: NE-3 — Lower West Branch 2 File Date: October 15, 2009 45 Day Limitation Period: November 29, 2009 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The original Olde Towne Village OPD plan was approved in 2005. This plan encompassed an area of approximately 21 acres and 62 dwelling units, with a combination of zero lot line duplex units, townhouse style units and detached single-family units. Many of the proposed units have been built. The northern portion of Olde Towne Village was designated as commercial and is partially built out. The applicant is proposing to amend the OPD plan to add an additional five townhouse units to the plan. This area is shown as open space in the original OPD plan. The applicant has indicated that they have used the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have had discussions with neighborhood representatives, although have not provided details of these discussions to staff. ANAL VS/S. Current Zoning: The area is currently zoned OPD-8, with a combination of zero -lot -line duplexes, townhouse style units, and detached single family. Lot One was designated to contain 15 townhouse style units and the location of the proposed building is shown as open space in the OPD plan. Proposed Zoning: The proposed zoning would provide for five additional townhouse units and an improved open space with a picnic shelter and grill area for the residents of the area. The developer is requesting a displacement of open space for the construction of five townhouse style units. In return, the developer is improving the remaining smaller open space. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Compatibility: The Northeast District Plan designates the corner of Scott and Rochester as appropriate for a commercial node. It indicates the need for townhouses and small-scale apartment buildings near by with pedestrian connectivity to the commercial area. The commercial node at the corner of Scott and Rochester is being developed. The surrounding areas are being built to contain a variety of housing types, including duplexes, detached single family, and townhouses. The proposed townhouses are of a similar style and quality as the existing townhouses in the area. However, because of the lack of grade change, the garages are on the first floor, rather than underneath the unit. This does not allow for the rear balcony areas that the other units in the area have. In order to compensate for this, the proposed design has deeper and wider porches to allow the residents to have some private usable outdoor space. The proposed porches are 6 feet deep and range in width from 15' 8" on the center units to 31' x 16' wrap around porches on the end units. In Staff's opinion, the proposed additional five units comply with the Northeast District 3 Plan and are compatible with the existing land uses in the area. Staff believes that the proposed building is appropriate infill development and will provide for a nicer streetscape along Westbury Drive, hiding the rears of the buildings along the private alley. The proposed porches will provide variety among the townhouses in the area and will be a nice feature for the residents. In addition, the increase in housing units in the area will further support the nearby commercial area. Nonetheless, staff believes that this increase in units and decrease in open space requires something in return. The developer is proposing to provide improved private open space to the south of the proposed townhouses. The applicant is showing a substantial shelter, a grill area, access paths, and landscaping. Staff believes that the proposed shelter should be of quality materials that will require minimal maintenance from the Homeowner's Association. The interests of the existing residents who have bought homes in Olde Towne Village and were told that this area was to remain open space should be considered. The applicant proposes to improve the remaining open space with amenities for all to enjoy as compensation for the reduction in the amount of open space. In addition, as noted above, staff finds that the new units will result in an improved streetscape along Westbury Drive that will be a benefit to the neighborhood. Variations from the Zoning Code: The proposed townhouses require variations from the underlying zoning requirements. The imaginary lot sizes range from 2,315 to 8,536 square feet, while the minimum lot size in the RS-8 zone is 4,000 square feet when alleys are provided for access. The lot widths for the interior units are 23 feet, while the minimum is 40 feet. A reduction in the required side yard setback is also required for this proposal. The end units meet the requirements of the underlying zoning, but the middle units do not. In order to compensate for the variations in the Zoning Code the developer is proposing to create usable open space for the residents of Olde Towne Village. A substantial shelter and a grill area are being proposed, along with considerable landscaping. Staff believes that these features will be a nice asset for the residents in the area and that the proposed additional units are compatible with the existing neighborhood. Traffic implications/Access: The proposed townhouses access the existing private alley. The addition of five new units will have minimal impact on the traffic in the area. The street and alley pattern have already been established in the area and the proposed units fit into the established pattern. Other: The Neighborhood parkland requirements, storm water managements, and infrastructure fees were addressed at the time of the approval of the original OPD plan. The open space indicated on the original OPD plan in this location does not contribute to the neighborhood parkland requirement. The City Engineer has reviewed the plan and has identified some technical items that need to be corrected, such as the labeling of easements and grading of the site to provide adequate drainage. It is anticipated that these issues will be addressed prior to consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. SUMMARY.• The applicant is proposing to amend the OPD plan for Olde Towne Village to add five additional townhouse units along Westbury Drive. This area is shown as open space in the original OPD plan. Staff believes that this infill is an appropriate addition to the neighborhood that is compatible with the existing development in the area. The proposed building will improve the streetscape along Westbury Drive and will screen the view of the rear of the existing townhouses to the west. The additional units will also provide additional support to the nearby commercial area. The development does require modifications of the underlying zoning requirements and eliminates previously designated open space. In order to compensate for the reduction in open space, the developer is proposing to construct a picnic shelter/gazebo and grill area that will be accessible to all Olde Towne Village residents. The remaining open space will be landscaped to provide a functional and useful open space for the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION., Upon resolution of the deficiencies noted below, staff recommends REZ09-00010, an application submitted by Allen Homes Inc for an amendment to the Planned Development Overlay Plan for approximately .44 acres of property along Westbury Drive, south of Middlebury Road (Lot 1 of Olde Towne Village) to allow an additional five townhouse style dwelling units be approved. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES. - Technical items as identified by the City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Plan or plat 3. Building Plans Approved by: Karen Howard, Acting Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development THORNBURY AVE A 97, ml A 10 T mC Z O O S O O A O N Z E S co w p o xn �-- 43 � O azzJ AnJA N N�o z I C s s p o MIDDLEBI3R`� KOAD i 30' STO SEWER \ DRAIN E EASEMENT Jp, A X'A1d n z z Y NINE UP, Ajjj�l 8o A pc;, S88'5918' zo zcn DAC DAB ��_ fNn�'< r�rry� O� O� Z�p GD1Z Z�p GD1Z LOT I OLDS TOWNE VILLAGE BY ALLEN HOMES, INC. 3 ,g�tiseZ s� s p��4a�t� Z 0 0 G c a d z w • z_o - Y wm zc�x Z ~O> O w-• m � Z �p ?c00NOCP.j ?ZD ➢� AAAp Nn DZ Z � ' O O A ' N r- x p m 2 O p O C _ � m S. O 0 O � N� D 10 p AO� ADO N mC D c: 0 mr= n p w A � o m m w - I ee e � �zzzz ✓3 p o m o o W w Ao a poN� d G Ell f J ems. \ J J1 (n 10 (n0 Untrauer Drafting Service, Inc.• 2878 STERLING DRIVE, IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 338-5966 NIIIII 1, IIIII�I��!I - I??Ili�l�i a� �! paulll. � ■ '�Ih mxnxlNnxnn _ ■ICI � ' �,f�f®T�I� ' m ri;, ■fiifi� ■III I' - ■Igtl m®®N�J i h4h i +IIII I I � ®[i]®� III �• ,; ■L!. �i�Ilul 5I I IgIN . I ,,,••,IIN , III - ■ii� I II I I Nile,®®; NININ 'I � I III �' % i ■I■ I ■III I j II NAB NN]N!7 I ; .Iiii I � 9„�IAAIgRINAA ' I � IIN�N a •,L�i �� � -- I j I i a llllN■IINN II I � g +IIIIII I ®��■, II � ■I!!I '. N!ll�t■J� i II�N II I o I ol AA _.....®I® ICI = ?'i"Il ■ICI �: IllllnlllnlplllA � D � � II ■II� ■lil = I II II II 011pplllllp 4 � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN � • - ;_ I ■ f�l � i ► I � � xnnuumlNln I NINNNI � I I IIIxnINN11N1111 III - I II NNf. © ;?I III ■ICI II • � i�;;;;�1 III I I •,IppINNWx ■I.■ I III�I I Ihrr ii ■INS ®®j II i III � ,,,,,, � ■III I �Iffim r III � ,mm! ■ �I j � %= I ii���i�ii ■III - ■lil II/1film■C�a I N�®' I� ' I � ,, �ullll� ►r �q Ii�l �NN][NJJ 4 i q NNII®Ni�N] I II ILu'll r I II I, IINNNN�NINN i NINI� ' �, IAAIAIAAAAI �NNINNIN ' Q D ■IIlI � �D ®�NNI® I ■I::. I INNNNNNNNI I' ■ICI I ■iiil ®®1■NiJ ININNI I I IIII � I�I 0I N�I:N9■7; IggINN Milli i -- I iolmuunnnlo � �II�I I 3 l' m i . III q NIILI�NIINII NIIN�NNI , - I MItI�II��I ■ i11i r ODGll' 1 41 11 BY LALLEN II HOMES,/ 1.• �I• ./ ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 UNIT CONDOS AT LOT I OLDE TOWNE RUAGE BY L41LEN HOMES, INC. 530-8238 �I� ��_ ul� is � ��� Irk �� � I I� i� ,i elm �$ J �� as ooNn �0000a cn ino op i S88-C- LEB Y Ro AD R �J�w�z MIDD U a32g _ o o m p o o w o o z ~ y or�i�N �s � 01� owrnw?o J 1 �1 O W OA O O O A 3tj OONiU—'NZ � J � 1 i �aa 11r W NCOMN rn I yN ti Sm I I �•� ao ' N r a w� ti i O' I I -3i o -A d I I ton iIv (D j I pRIVATE ALLEY sg i I \ 51 \ R r-� 249_95' .._--------------------------- � r S88'S9 18'W I `\ CAI i i A.E LOT 1 OLLIE TOWNE VILLAGE Untrauer Drafting Service, Inca I SITE PLAN BY ALLEN HOMES, INC. 2878 STERUNO DRIVE, IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 338-5966 W C) N 00 C) z 0 cn Q W LL q1 cr g I I g C � ffi !If hd .O CL1 0 0 0lz 0 0 -o c p cp M lf) Ln �' tr) p o +J N U-) Ln Lr) O 0 U -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 ��zZv �seniz�a p _ .+. 0 0 0 0 0 o c a� N io O O O O O 00 t N O O O O O -� � N 0 0 0 0 0 p0 r_ O O N N N p p O 1 C,O � N 0 c E o _ Y O ir--) N i--) N cN Y O E o •.-fir _. —•� •� cv n n a' -� AL AT o r7 r7 r7 Y 0 o a� YgZV N N CV O N O L2 r7 L2 2 Yp c -a-+ N \ d N C- C-I N D 6 � T O O O O O O C N a 3i O_"D C MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCOTBER 12, 2009 — 6:00 PM — INFORMAL LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Elizabeth Koppes MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Weitzel, Josh Busard STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Walz, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen, Christina Kuecker 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. CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS: 1. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow flexibility in the type of fence required for Salvage Operations. The tape picks up when these discussions are already underway. Howard noted that the proposed change only gives flexibility if in areas where there is no visibility from public streets or rights of way; otherwise, S5 fencing is required. Plahutnik asked if the applicant was not aware of this from the outset. Howard and Miklo explained that there had been some confusion and some mixed messages were given to the applicant, but that the majority of their property still must be fenced to the S5 level. Miklo explained that if the amendment passed, the applicant would still have to go back to the Board of Adjustment and ask them to vary from their original order. Koppes said she had some concerns with the vagueness of the language. Howard explained that the standards in the code can be somewhat vaguer because the Board of Adjustment will be looking at each application on a case by case basis. Miklo noted that establishing another salvage yard would require Heavy Industrial (1-2) zoning, something which there is not a lot of, and a special exception, and so it is not going to be a use that is likely to occur very frequently. Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 2009 - Informal Page 2 of 5 Freerks noted a phrase in the staff report that did not occur in the code language which she felt was important to the issue; the phrase was "and where nearby uses will not be harmed by a reduced requirement." Koppes said that phrase would be better in her opinion. Howard said that it could be added to the specific standards but that the general standards also addressed that concern. Payne said that to her there is a difference between the two statements. Howard explained that the Board of Adjustment always has the discretion to require more of an applicant in order to receive a special exception; this change would simply allow the Board to require less of an applicant if they deemed it appropriate. Eastham asked if there is a public view of the property; Staff said there was no accessible view to the portions of the property being discussed. Howard said the whole purpose of having a special exception is to allow for the flexibility of someone looking at a case on its own merits. The question is should the Commission allow the Board of Adjustment an opportunity to review a case and determine if the standard is reasonable. In this particular case, Howard said, the question would be whether 1,000 feet of solid 8-foot fencing for an area no one can get to or see was a reasonable requirement for the Board to vary from. Koppes and Eastham expressed discomfort with the vagueness of the language. Several Commissioners expressed a desire to see the language about nearby uses not being harmed by the reduced requirement included in the code. Howard reminded Commissioners that the matter would be looked at by the Board in all of its particulars. Eastham countered that if a use changed in a nearby property to make the salvage yard visible, then the City would have no recourse to go back and make the salvage yard fence the area if it had not been required to do so at the outset. Howard noted that the zone in question is the heavy industrial zone, and is almost by definition going to have neighboring properties that are equally unattractive. 2. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to correct problematic language that will make it easier to extend wheelchair ramps and stoops into setback areas for all types of buildings. Howard said that this is essentially a correction of an error, in which the language was inadvertently changed to say "dwelling unit' when it should in fact read "building." 3. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to clarify standards that apply to duplexes and single family attached dwellings in planned developments. Howard explained that planned developments are allowed flexibility with the types of uses found there. Howard explained that currently duplexes have been grouped in with the multi -family standards in the code concerning planned developments, which is not necessarily a good fit. Howard said that the code will essentially change so that each housing type will have its own standards within the planned development overlay. Howard said Staff is essentially attempting to clarify things. Howard said that planned developments allow for variance from dimensional requirements such as setbacks and height. It does not, however, allow the developer to vary from site development standards. Howard said that nevertheless, it is common for developers to request those kinds of variances. Howard said that the last paragraph is attempting to insert additional flexibility in the planned development. The additional language lays out what standards have to be met in order for requirements to be waived. Freerks asked if this could potentially be used to buy up property in a blighted area and put a bunch of duplexes where they normally would not be allowed. Freerks said she had concerns for older areas of town. Howard explained that there was currently a gray area regarding Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 2009 - Informal Page 3 of 5 duplexes on non -corner lots. Plahutnik pointed out that in a planned development overlay the matter would still have to come before the Commission. Miklo said there are also very few planned developments in established neighborhoods because at least one acre of land is required. Plahutnik asked if there was a way to get a visual aid for Thursday outlining a planned development. Eastham asked if Staff felt that duplexes could not be allowed in RS-5 and RS-8 zones unless they were on corner lots in a planned development overlay. He said he was trying to establish if the language change would change the ability of developers to put duplexes on non -corner lots. Howard said that she believed without the language change it could be argued either way. Miklo said that the essence of the issue is that it gives Staff better ability to negotiate a planned development with the developer. She said that with this amendment it will make it clear that there must be a reason to vary from the underlying standards. Howard said essentially the language change says that 1) a good reason must be adequately demonstrated to vary from the underlying zone in the first place, and 2) additional standards above and beyond the zone must also be met. 5. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to specify that the amount of the Near Southside Neighborhood Parking Facility impact fee shall be adiusted annually based on the national historical cost indexes contained in the most recent edition of the Engineering News Record rather than the Means Square Foot Costs Manual and to hold any negative changes to the cost index of the preceding year. Howard said this was just a change in the reference tool because the City does not have this manual. Eastham asked what the difference would have been over the last couple of years. Howard said she did not know. Eastham asked if the final sentence was new language and Howard said that it is. Howard said this is essentially a fee that developers pay in lieu of actually providing the required parking. This is a pretty good deal for the developer who then does not have to build the parking on site and might therefore be able to achieve a greater number of dwelling units on the site. 4. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow specialized educational facilities in the CI-1 Zone. This is an application that was submitted by Judy O'Donnell who wants to open a fencing school on First Avenue. When it was determined that her use was a specialized educational facility, O'Donnell asked for a review of the code to allow such uses in the CI-1 zone. Howard said that CI-1 zones vary greatly in different areas within the city, but that in general specialized educational facilities could fit into the zone, depending on the specific location of the use. Because of this, Staff recommends permitting the use by special exception. Eastham said he would like to see this use permitted in the CI-1 zone without the need for a special exception because he feels the use is very similar to indoor recreational uses permitted y the zone, and does not feel the additional time and modest expense involved in a special exception should be necessary. Miklo said there had been similar discussions held by Staff. Miklo said that he would advocate the need for a special exception because there are some pretty intense uses in some of the city's CI-1 zones. Miklo argued that there also needs to be a place in the city for Cl-1 uses that don't have to worry about being the messy neighbor; placing a specialized educational facility next door to such a business could be problematic. Miklo said he would rather see indoor recreational uses require a special exception than specialized educational facilities not requiring one, if the goal was to equalize the two. Payne said that it could be argued that someone opening a business should have investigated the area enough to know Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 2009 - Informal Page 4 of 5 whether or not their customers will be willing to come into the area; she said it should not require a Board of Adjustment review. Freerks said it is also about traffic and the time of day. Payne said that it could also be argued that a vocational training facility also requires a special exception. Howard said one of the purposes of the zone is to provide a place in the community for large land users that cannot fit into other zones. Koppes suggested a minimum square footage requirement rather than a specified use that triggered the special exception in the CI-1 zone. REZONING ITEM: REZ09-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development, Inc., for a rezoning from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS-8) zone for approximately 7.91 acres of property located on Huntington Drive, west of Taft Avenue. The 45-day limitation period is October 9, 2009. Walz reminded Commissioners that Staff's concern with the proposal was the presence of double -fronting lots. Walz said Staff discourages double -fronting lots, particularly on arterial streets. The original plan had the road dead -ending into the single-family property to the north. The Northeast District Plan calls for single -loaded streets. Staff felt that where the developer had ended the road had no purpose; it neither opened up the area for future development to the north, nor provided views to the park. One of the Commissioners had asked if the road could be developable and continue on to the north rather than ending in a cul-de-sac. Walz said that Staff had issues with the plan provided by the developer which showed the street continuing on and meeting up with Taft. Walz said there is some question as to how developable the road is further north. Walz said that if Huntington is going to be a through -street, it would also cut into the lot sizes. Staff would be more comfortable if the rezoning was not tied to a specific concept plan, but did have a requirement of 140-foot lot depth and a landscaping plan for the roadway after Taft is improved. Miklo said that it is likely that Staff will request a cul-de-sac design at the subdivision stage if a better design is not presented. Eastham asked if Thames really needs to connect to an arterial. Miklo said it is essential in his view. Koppes asked when Taft was to be improved. Miklo replied that it is not in a funded year of the CIP at this point. Koppes asked if there had been much public input. Walz said that there had not been much public input other than a few neighbors who had kept in touch with her on the issue. Eastham asked if Huntington would remain a cul-de-sac once it was built that way. Walz said it would. She said the Northeast District Plan had a U-shaped street, but that did not account for the existing property owner to the north. Walz said that Staff's intention had been for the street to curve sooner to allow for a different lot lay -out. The developer does not wish to curve the street before the lot -line. OTHER: Staff updated Commissioners on the draft Towncrest Urban Renewal Plan. Miklo advised Commissioners to mark their calendars for November 11th and 13th to meet with the consultants for the Gilbert Street/River Front area. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. z 0 00 U `U 0 � Z V O N Z N cc QF- zQ z z Q J a O z p W W J 0 LL T- X X X O X O X NXXXXOXX 0 NXXXXXXX 00 lxxxxxxx 00 �XOXXXxx � OXXXXOX � XXOXXXX V" X X X X X O X NXXXXXXX MLU XXXXX,X N X X X X O X X LO �XXxOxxx e- N w M N O O M I-W o000000 LU H LU �- J 2 a m J Q Z cn=z�=�� OVQWC)Y_H. o w cn 2z� _ Y W W F- W N wQF-WaZ2F- Lu w Q ZmwtiYILCL Q w O Q J cm 0 0 X X X X X 0 lxxxxxxo 0 MXXxXXxX NXXXXXXX NXXXXXXX �Dxx0xx0 w MNOOM wX�n�n�n�n�n�n� F-W o000000 W J W J Q W Co J Q Q Z Q cn2z—=cn N � �VQWUY� YN2Fz-J WLLI:DN W wQi- 2cncnLUCL -waz=� 4 ZmWwYaa� cn Q n O Q J w E Lo �O U> Z L X m E c ��N�c� �-QZ o aQu„z LL, xOOz i LU Y MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 2009 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Tim Weitzel, Charlie Eastham, Michelle Payne, Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik MEMBERS ABSENT: Josh Busard STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Walz, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Duane Musser, Florence Stockman, Dan Hilsman, Judy O'Donnell RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 6-0 (Busard absent) to approve REZ09-00007, a rezoning of 7.91 acres from Interim Development Single Family (ID-RS) zone to Medium Density Single family (RS-8) zone, for property located on Huntington Drive subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring compliance with the following: 1. dedication of necessary land along Taft Avenue for right-of-way and construction easements to allow the improvement of the roadway; 2. Contribution toward the future costs of upgrading Taft Avenue to City standards, which contribution shall be 12.5% of construction costs; 3. Lots that double -front on Taft Avenue will be a minimum of 140 feet in depth; 4. Substantial compliance with the approved landscaping buffer area, which will include at least 50% evergreen plantings. The Commission voted to recommend approval of the following amendments to the Iowa City Zoning Code: 1. By a vote of 5-1 (Eastham voting no; Busard absent) the Commission recommends an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow flexibility in the type of fencing allowed for salvage yards as set out in the staff report, but also including additional language stating that flexibility is allowable where nearby uses will not be harmed by the reduced requirements. 2. By a 6-0 vote (Busard absent) the Commission recommends an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow specialized educational facilities in the CI-1 zone where such use will be functionally compatible with surrounding areas such that the health and safety of clients/students are not compromised, as outlined in the staff report. 3. By a 6-0 vote (Busard absent) the Commission. recommends an amendment to the Zoning Code to correct problematic language that will make it easier to extend Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2009 - Formal Page 2 of 13 wheelchair ramps and stoops into setback areas for all types of buildings. 4. By a 6-0 vote (Busard absent) the Commission recommends an amendment to the Zoning Code clarifying provisions in article 14-3A Planned Development Overlay, as outlined in the staff report. 5. By a 6-0 vote (Busard absent) the Commission recommends an amendment to subsection 14-713-7 to indicate the use of the Engineering News Record rather than the Means Square Foot Costs Manual when determining the parking facility impact fee. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. REZONING ITEM: REZ09-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development, Inc., for a rezoning from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS-8) zone for approximately 7.91 acres of property located on Huntington Drive, west of Taft Avenue. The 45-day limitation period is October 9, 2009. Walz noted that the last time this application was discussed Staff had recommended that the applicant curve Huntington Drive rather than simply ending it at the north property line. Walz said one of the board members had asked the developer to come up with a concept plan for how such a road would serve properties to the north, keeping in mind that the Northeast District Plan calls for some single -loaded streets along the public park on the opposite side of the creek. The applicant drew up a concept plan. Walz said that Staff had reviewed the plan and found some problems with it. Staff is leaning toward a traditional cul-de-sac in that area, and so at this time Staff is not prepared to recommend a conditional zoning that is based on this specific concept plan. Staff would like to be able to review plans for Huntington at the platting stage because that would give Staff more information to determine if the plan could work. Walz said that transportation planners have been clear that the current concept plan showing Huntington Drive returning to Taft Avenue is not workable. She reiterated that Staff would not recommend tying the rezoning to a specific concept plan at this time. She said Staff does recommend the RS-8 zoning so long as the lots double -fronting between Huntington and Taft have a minimum depth of 140 feet. Staff has also spelled out conditions for the developer's contribution to the eventual improvement of Taft Avenue, as well as a landscape buffer to be put in once the improvements are made. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan. Walz said the plan looks reasonable, though Staff recommend that 50% of the shrubbery consist of evergreen to provide a year-round buffer. Walz offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. Koppes asked if permission from homeowners would be needed to install the landscaping plan Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2009 - Formal Page 3 of 13 since it would be done after the property was developed. Walz said the landscaping would be done within the construction easement. Miklo said the landscaping would be on the homeowners' private property, but that they would be aware when buying the lot that this landscaping would be put in place after Taft is built. Koppes asked what would happen if the homeowners did not want the landscaping. Miklo said he believed that because the landscaping would be a condition of the zoning, the homeowner would be required to accept the landscaping. Walz noted that if homeowners put their own landscaping in prior to the upgrading of Taft they would likely lose it once Taft is upgraded. Koppes asked if the homeowners would be able to remove the plantings at a later date. Miklo replied that technically they could not because the plantings were a condition of the rezoning, but that he doubted it would be strictly enforced. Payne asked if the owners would be required to replace plantings that died. Miklo said that they would technically be required to do so, but that enforcement would not likely by that stringent. Payne pointed out that the landscape buffer was there to buffer the property owner, so if the property owner failed to replace a tree it would only detract from their own enjoyment of the property. Eastham asked if the City would be paying for the installation of the landscaping after Taft Avenue is improved. Walz said it was the developer who would be paying for the landscaping in advance of the project. Miklo explained that when building permits are issued, the developer will have to put into escrow the money to pay for the landscape buffer; Miklo said this had been done in a few other cases where it was known there would be road improvement in the future. There were no further questions for Staff. Freerks opened the public hearing. Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, spoke on behalf of the developer. Musser pointed out that there was a slight chance that the landscaping buffer could be put in when the development was built, rather than waiting for Taft Avenue to be upgraded. Musser said that it depends on how the grades and elevations work out for future Taft Avenue; he said more investigation will be done on that with the City's Public Works Department during the construction plans phase. The Commission had no questions for Musser. Florence Stockman, 132 Eversoll Lane, said that her concern is about the park and the trail involved in the development. She said that she is specifically concerned about the lots that back onto the trail. Stockman said she has many questions about the trail, such as who will be putting the trail in and when. She said it has always concerned her that the homeowners will be responsible for the maintenance of the trail. Because there will be a lot of public access to the trails, she does not feel the maintenance of the trail should be the responsibility of the homeowners. Stockman said she felt the lots were somewhat small. Freerks asked Walz to point out the trail on the map. Walz did so and noted that the trail actually is a part of another subdivision, Stone Bridge Parts 6-9. Walz said the developer is required to build the trail but that there is a public access easement over the trail. Miklo said that the trail would, however, be maintained by the homeowners' association. Freerks pointed out that the trail in question is not actually a part of this development. Eastham noted that it will be the homeowners' association for Parts 6-9 that will be responsible for the trail, not the association for the area presently under consideration by the Commission. Freerks noted that the trail/park issue will be reviewed again at a later date when the planned development is considered as a whole. She informed Stockman that there would be another opportunity to come before the Commission to address her concerns. Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2009 - Formal Page 4 of 13 There were no further comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. Freerks called for a motion. Payne motioned to approve REZ09-00007, a rezoning of 7.91 acres from Interim Development Single Family (ID-RS) zone to Medium Density Single family (RS-8) zone, for property located on Huntington Drive subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring compliance with the following: 5. The developer would be required to dedicate space along Taft Avenue for right-of- way and construction easements to allow the improvement of the roadway; 6. The developer would agree to contribute toward the future costs of upgrading Taft Avenue to City standards, which contribution shall be 12.5% of construction costs; 7. Lots that double -front on Taft Avenue will be a minimum of 140 feet in depth; 8. Substantial compliance with the approved landscaping buffer area, which will include at least 50% evergreen plantings. Eastham seconded. Freerks invited discussion. Eastham said he was generally in favor of this application. Eastham said he felt the application complied with the Comprehensive Plan in that the plan calls for somewhat smaller lots and denser development along arterial streets, which Taft Avenue is slated to become. Eastham said his difficulty with the development is what to do with Huntington as the area develops to the north. Eastham said that he hoped at the subdivision stage the cul-de-sac proposed by Staff might actually become some sort of roundabout that incorporates traffic from the north. He said that he understood that there is uncertainty given the unknown factor presented by the property owner to the north of Huntington, but he would like to preserve as many options as possible for the development of the area. Weitzel said he was not totally excited about a traditional cul-de-sac and would prefer to see something along the lines of Eastham's suggestion. He said that given the transportation engineers' concerns about the tie-in of Huntington to Taft Avenue, he also did not wish to see that done. Weitzel said it is a very tricky situation when one must work around a large existing lot. He said he was in favor of the proposed smaller lot sizes, and that he hopes that a good balance can be found. Freerks said she believed this could be a fine development in the end, and that more discussion was needed on the way it would be laid out. She said she was alright with the idea of a cul-de- sac because Huntington is a neighborhood street and not a major arterial. Freerks noted that there were drainage concerns to the north, and that it was possible that running Huntington all the way through might not be the best solution. Freerks said that it seemed to her the development has a lot of possibilities and a number of solutions and that she is in favor of it. There were no further comments and a vote was taken. On a 6-0 vote (Busard absent), the Commission voted to approve REZ09-00007. CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS: Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2009 - Formal Page 5 of 13 1. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow flexibility in the type of fence required for Salvage Operations. Howard explained that salvage yards are only allowed in heavy industrial zones. Salvage yards have large outdoor work and storage areas, and because of the potentially negative externalities associated with salvage yards, a special exception is required to establish one. Howard explained that the language in the special exception has a fairly set definition of the type of fencing required for salvage yards, and does not allow the Board of Adjustment much flexibility to adjust the type of fence based on particular site conditions. The applicant who requested this change had a case in which there was some misunderstanding as to exactly what the Board of Adjustment had required for fencing and so had installed a fence that doesn't meet the requirement for a solid fence as stated in the code. The applicant wishes to allow flexibility in cases where screening the use may not be as important as it is in most cases, such as: in instances where there may be another salvage yard next door, or a storage facility, or a property that will not be developed in the future or is not visible to the public. Howard said that Staff is recommending adding language to allow the Board of Adjustment to approve other types of fencing (semi -opaque or open pattern fences) in certain situations, as outlined in the staff report. It was noted that even if the zoning code is amended the affected property owner will have to go back to the Board of Adjustment to request a change to their original order. Payne asked if language suggested in the informal meeting, "where nearby uses will not be harmed," had been added to the suggested code. Howard said she had not added that language, but that the Commission could do so in crafting their motion if they wished. Freerks opened the public hearing. Don Hilsman, Ace Auto Recyclers, spoke in favor of amending the language. He said that there had been some confusion in his attempts to comply with the fencing requirements for a salvage yard. He said that all other screening requirements of the special exception had been met or exceeded. Hilsman said that in his particular case, the property immediately to the north of his salvage yard was an existing salvage yard. On the east side of his property the old City landfill is located; a property unlikely ever to be developed. Hilsman owns the property to the south of Ace Auto Recyclers. Hilsman said that they would be happy to re -do the west fence to make it a solid fence two feet higher than the existing fence to make it less visible from Highway 218, per Staff request. There were no questions for Hilsman from the Commission, and no one else wished to speak to the matter. The public hearing was closed. Freerks called for a motion. Howard said that she would request Staff discretion as far as the best place to insert Payne's wording regarding "where nearby uses will not be harmed." Payne motioned to recommend an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow flexibility in the type of fencing allowed for salvage yards as set out in the staff report, but also Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2009 - Formal Page 6 of 13 including language stating that the flexibility is allowable where nearby uses will not be harmed by the reduced requirements. Plahutnik seconded. Eastham asked if Payne's motion meant that the additional wording would become subparagraph four in the staff report. Howard said she would advise against that, and would ask that Staff be allowed to incorporate this phrase into the code language in the most appropriate location to ensure it is a basic requirement of the exception. Eastham concurred. Eastham asked if the phrase "other public rights of way" in the proposed code clearly and definitively includes neighborhood trails. Howard said that it does. Howard noted that it is just after that phrase that she would suggest adding the language concerning nearby uses not being harmed. Eastham asked if the phrase would include trails that were planned for the future but did not yet exist. Miklo said that those are the kinds of things the Board of Adjustment would definitely take into account in granting or denying a special exception. Eastham said that while salvage operations are a valuable economic activity, their appearance can be somewhat unsightly. Screening such operations from the view of nearby property owners is for him a significant goal of the zoning code and the Comprehensive Plan. He said he is hesitant not to require S5 fencing around salvage yards in all cases, regardless of how unlikely it is the yard will be viewed. He said that the City has no way to go back twenty years from now and require screening in an existing zone if it was not required at the time of the salvage yard's establishment. He said that allowing exemptions could come back to haunt the City. Koppes said that she had the same concerns prior to the informal meeting, but that she felt comfortable changing the requirement if the language concerning nearby uses not being harmed was included. Koppes pointed out that if the operation wishes to enlarge at a later date then they will have to come up to the standards of the code — a process Ace Auto Recyclers is presently going through. She said that after seeing the site in question, the request seems reasonable. She also noted that there was not a danger of a large number of salvage yards being established throughout the city. Koppes said she had trust in Staff to make appropriate recommendations to the Board of Adjustment, and also trusts the Board of Adjustment's discretion. Howard pointed out that salvage operations are only allowed in heavy industrial zones, and that there is only a small amount of land in the community which is zoned heavy industrial. Plahutnik said that the purpose of the fencing requirement is for screening and that the Board of Adjustment will do their job to make sure screening requirements are met. He said that he had no problem with the change. Payne noted that the Board of Adjustment has very specific criteria for granting a special exception, and that Staff does a great job of presenting the facts to the Board. She said that typically the Board does a good job of scrutinizing things that come before them. Freerks said she was in favor of the change, and that she did not think the views in question would be harmed. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1 (Eastham voting no; Busard absent). The Commission moved to item #4 as the petitioner was present. Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2009 - Formal Page 7 of 13 4. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow specialized educational facilities in the CI-1 Zone. Howard explained that this was a code amendment where a specific request and an application had been received. Specialized educational facilities are schools that focus on non-academic, specialized training in trade, business, or commercial courses, as well as music, drama, and dance schools. Howard explained that the CI-1 zone was amended back in 2005 to try to eliminate uses that did not seem to fit in well with the zone; "schools of specialized instruction" was one of the uses disallowed at that time. The applicant has requested that the City re- examine that decision. Staff has closely analyzed the zone in light of the applicant's request. One of the purposes of this particular zone is reserving space in the community for businesses and recreational uses that are land intensive and require large outdoor areas, large indoor areas, or unusual building needs that other commercial areas cannot provide. Some of the allowable uses are large recreational uses or quasi -industrial uses that have large outdoor work areas and storage areas. The CI-1 zones in the city vary in nature by their location, Howard said, with some of them including businesses that specialize in repair of cars and trucks that have large outdoor work and storage areas and other areas contain small office uses or specialized services or recreational uses that are completely indoors, but that do not need the exposure to drive -by traffic along an arterial street. Howard said that Staff feels that specialized educational facilities could have a space in the CI-1 zone, and recommends that they be allowed by special exception. Howard said specialized educational facilities relate to the zone in at least two ways: 1) they can be land intensive uses with unusual interior space needs, and 2) they are uses that are destinations in and of themselves and may not need more visible retail commercial locations. Howard said that specialized educational uses are also similar to other uses allowed in the zone, such as fitness centers, health clubs, and gyms. If the schools provide office -type environments, that too would fit into the CI-1 zone. Howard outlined the specific criteria the Board of Adjustment would use to determine eligibility for the special exception: whether or not the use is functionally compatible with the surrounding zone such that the health and safety of the students is not compromised. Howard also made reference to the general approval criteria the Board of Adjustment must consider when granting a special exception as a means of further ensuring the use fits in with the surrounding area. Howard offered to answer questions from the Commission. Weitzel asked if it was correct that the special exception would be granted based on the uses in the area at the time the application for a special exception is made. Howard said that was correct. Payne asked if the special exception would be lost if at some point the building changed uses. Howard said that as long as the use was the same, the exception would remain in place. Once the use changes, the special exception is no longer in effect. There were no further questions and Freerks opened the public hearing. Judy O'Donnell, 16 South View Drive NE, said that she wants to open a fencing center to teach the sport of fencing in Iowa City. O'Donnell said the facility would be the first fencing school in the state of Iowa. O'Donnell said that finding a site that is large enough has been a problem for her, as a fencing strip requires 60 feet of length, and a fencing center would require several fencing strips. O'Donnell said that buildings of that length are very difficult to find, especially outside of the CI-1 zone. Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2009 - Formal Page 8 of 13 O'Donnell said that she did not really understand why this use should require a special exception once the zoning code is amended. She said the reasons cited in the staff report (such as nuisance concerns from noise, vibrations and dust) are things that any business owner would be looking at when trying to determine an appropriate business site. O'Donnell noted that a health club could open up a business in the CI-1 zone without a special exception, and the space that she requires is actually much smaller than a health club and would have less impact on the area. O'Donnell said a miniature golf course could also be opened up in the area without the need for a special exception. She said that people who are trying to run schools of specialized instruction are as capable as those operating health clubs and miniature golf courses in determining a site that is appropriate for their business and their clientele. O'Donnell said that the location of specialized educational facilities should be market driven, and should not require a special exception. O'Donnell said she would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have. Eastham asked approximately how many square feet O'Donnell would require for her school. O'Donnell said she needed 5,000-6,000 square feet. There were no further questions for O'Donnell and Freerks invited a motion. Koppes motioned to approve the amendment to the Zoning Code to allow specialized educational facilities in the CI-1 zone as outlined in the staff report. Weitzel seconded. Koppes said she personally felt that this use should require a special exception in the CI-1 zone, but that she felt that indoor and outdoor recreational uses should also be reviewed at a later date to see if they too should require a special exception as they are similar in nature. Koppes said that given the size of the buildings required, allowing specialized educational facilities in the CI-1 makes sense, but that she thinks it also makes sense to have the Board of Adjustment review the matter on a case by case basis. Eastham said he too is supportive of adding specialized educational facilities to the CI-1 zone, but that he would like to see the use as a permitted use, without the need for a special exception. Eastham said that it is important to him when adding a requirement for land use that there is a clear and convincing reason for doing so. Eastham said that in his view specialized educational facilities are nearly indistinguishable from indoor recreational uses, which are a permissible use in the zone. Eastham motioned to amend the original motion to allow specialized educational facilities in the CI-1 zone without the need to seek a special exception. There was no second to the amendment and the amendment died. Plahutnik said he felt that since the Commission had members divided in two separate directions in terms of the need for a special exception, that it was probably a matter that should be discussed fully in an informal session at some point. Plahutnik said he agreed very much that specialized educational facilities were indistinguishable as a use from fitness centers, and joked that O'Donnell might consider changing the name of her facility to the Iowa Fencing Fitness Center to avoid the special exception process altogether. Plahutnik said that overall it was good to open the zone to educational facilities of all stripes, and thanked O'Donnell for Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2009 - Formal Page 9 of 13 bringing the matter to the Commission's attention. Weitzel said he felt that the city does a good job of making their CI-1 zones safe and pleasant, and does not find this use to be incompatible with the other uses in the CI-1 zone. He said that because it is not a permissible use in the zone presently, there is merit in having the use reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Freerks said she felt Staff had done a good job outlining the issues involved, and she thanked O'Donnell for taking the time to find a place in this community where she could create a niche. Freerks said there is a lot of history behind why things are put into and taken out of the code, and that reviewing the code from time to time is useful. She said she agreed with Koppes that it could be a good idea to review indoor and outdoor recreational uses to see if they too should require a special exception. Freerks said she felt the amendment before the Commission was a reasonable compromise. A vote was taken and the motion passed on a 6-0 vote (Busard absent). 2. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to correct problematic language that will make it easier to extend wheelchair ramps and stoops into setback areas for all types of buildings. Howard said this amendment is intended to correct some language in the code. Howard said that the term "dwelling unit" in this section of the code should be changed to "building." There were no questions from the Commission. Freerks opened the public hearing. There were no members of the public present and the public hearing was closed. Eastham moved to approve a recommendation to adopt the proposed Zoning Code amendment intended to standardize setback requirements for wheelchair ramps and stoops. Koppes seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Busard absent). 3. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to clarify standards that apply to duplexes and single family attached dwellings in planned developments. Howard said that in the informal meeting Plahutnik had asked Staff to review where variation between duplexes and single family attached dwellings occur in planned developments. Howard said that planned developments allow for flexibility in dimensional requirements as well as in the uses that are allowed. This is in part intended to allow developers to be creative or to avoid sensitive features on the site. Howard said the process is set up to be flexible and accommodate a lot of different situations. Howard offered Lytham Condominiums as an example of what she was talking about. She said the property was infill development, and was difficult to develop, with its only access occurring in from a different jurisdiction. In the middle of the property is a large ravine with a lot of sensitive Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2009 - Formal Page 10 of 13 features. In this case, the developer was trying to mix some uses, create open space, and to avoid sensitive features on the site by clustering the development into duplex or attached single family units, with single detached family units providing a transition to the nearby neighborhood. Howard said that in this case the area could not be developed according to the standards of the zone, and so the property became a planned development. Even so, Howard said, in negotiating with the developer, Staff and the developer disagreed as to whether the buildings in question were duplexes or attached single family units, which have different standards and requirements. Howard said the additional language would make it more clear how to judge the difference between attached single family homes and duplexes. Howard said additional clarification will make it clear to developers in the future and should make the process of reviewing applications more straight -forward and efficient. The public hearing was opened; no members of the public were present and the public hearing was closed. Weitzel moved to approve the clarification of provisions in article 14-3A Planned Development Overlay Zone. Eastham seconded. Eastham noted that there was a very extensive and helpful discussion on this matter at the informal meeting. Eastham said that as he understood the matter, the ability to put duplexes in a planned development overlay in an RS-5 or RS-8 zone would not be changed, other than to clarify the standards for doing so. Howard said that was correct. In further discussions between Freerks and Howard regarding the proposed wording change, Freerks said she would hate for the change to result in any sort of moving away from single family homes in planned developments. Howard said that there simply has not been much planned development of any kind recently. She said that before the code was adopted, standards for attached single family were unworkable in some of the zones. Because attached homes were a desired housing type in the community, and because the only way to build them was through planned development, a lot of the planned developments did focus on attached zero -lot lines. In a way, Howard said, the RS-8 zone became the de facto attached single family zone. Freerks asked if it was correct then that not many single family detached homes were part of planned development overlays. Howard said that with single family homes people generally expect to own the land; planned developments keep the overall density in keeping with the underlying zone, while allowing for attached development. Koppes noted that there has to be a genuine justification for a planned development overlay, and it is reviewed by the Commission. Weitzel said it is an important tool to creatively address areas that are problematic to develop. Eastham asked if it is correct that current code says that planned developments can include townhomes if there is justification for them. Howard said that is correct, and read from the current planned development overlay section of the code. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Busard absent). 5. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to specify that the amount of the Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2009 - Formal Page 11 of 13 Near Southside Neighborhood Parking Facility impact fee shall be adiusted annually based on the national historical cost indexes contained in the most recent edition of the Engineering News Record rather than the Means Square Foot Costs Manual and to hold any negative chances to the cost index of the preceding year. Howard said this change to the code was initiated by the Housing Inspection Services (HIS) department. This is about adopting a readily available source manual to determine the appropriate rate for the parking facility impact fee in the Near Southside District. The manual that is currently listed in the ordinance is not one that the City receives on a regular basis. The Engineering News Record, however, is one that is well -respected and is the one the City's Public Works Department uses on a regular basis. The public hearing was opened; no members of the public were present and the public hearing was closed. Payne motioned to approve the amendment to subsection 14-7113-7 to indicate the use of the Engineering News Record rather than the Means Square Foot Costs Manual when determining the parking facility impact fee. Koppes seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Busard absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 3, 2009: Koppes motioned to approve the minutes. Weitzel seconded. The minutes were approved 6-0 (Busard absent). OTHER: Freerks advised Commissioners to check and see who was scheduled to attend the next City Council meeting. Miklo asked Commissioners to mark their calendars for November 11th and 131h. Early in the evening of those two dates some planning workshops will be held for the development of the Gilbert Street/River Front Corridor area. Miklo said that the City is considering calling this area the Riverfront Crossings District. The meetings will be held at the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building, and a letter with details will be sent at a later date. Miklo said that on the morning of November 12th the consultant will want to meet with the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission if possible. Howard said the exact agenda is still being hashed out by the consultants. ADJOURNMENT: Payne motioned to adjourn. Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2009 - Formal Page 12 of 13 Weitzel seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 (Busard absent) vote at 8:07 p.m. Z 0 00 U W Z_ ZVo NZN a cc Q W Z Q Z Z a J IL a Z H W W Q 0 LO oOXXXXXX T- ZXXXOXOX M X X X X � X X 0 N X X X X X X X co �Xxxxxxx ti T-xoxxxxx M�XXXXOX XxLO �XXXX XxXxxox 4xxxxxxx Mxxxxxpx NXxxxo LU xx LOXXX - XXX W c— a-MNOOM WX —0oLn0Un0 H W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w i W J Q W J Q 2aZ� cn=Z_z 0VaWt�YF. GUYcn�HJ w_ w W W N Wal-WdZ2H �cncnwa>-a— a�awOaJw ZmwwYCLIL O Z F- W W Q 0 Z o-- xxxxx �xxxxXxo ti 0 MXXXxXXX M MXXXxXXX NXXXXXXX �OXX0XX0 w ���-MNOOM wX LO0In00InU') I-W 0000000 w H m J J J a Q N=ZN=�g 0VaW%aIL O�CQYC6 _ w N wcaywdzQ~ a:)aGCOQJw zMWwlan.3: E O m0 u� ° U Z X � w y E a� C: c E' i Q°o Q II z z II II LLJ II II xOOz w Y