HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-17-2009 Planning and Zoning CommissionIowa City Planning & Zoning Commission
Informal Meeting
Monday, December 14, 2009
Monday - 6:00 p.m.
Lobby Conference Room - City Hall
I Formal Meeting
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Thursday — 7:00 p.m.
Emma Harvat Hall — City Hall
_ ..._ ._..... _._.
Rx1 n +A
as ..
j
,V NI N
1,
t
N
i x
fir-. t
r�°' MC;1
roar._
i
Department of Planning &
P Community Development �
I
CITY OF IOWA CITY'
0
0
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, December 14, 2009 — 6:00 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Lobby Conference Room
410 E. Washington Street
Thursday, December 17, 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. Subdivision Item
SUB09-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development, Inc. for a
preliminary plat of Windsor West Parts Two & Three, a 58-lot, 25.78 acre residential subdivision
located north of American Legion Road, south of Cumberland Lane, on Buckingham Lane.
(45 day limitation period: December 22, 2009)
D. Annexation / Rezoning Item
ANN09-00001 & REZ09-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Moss Green Development
Corporation for annexation and rezoning of approximately 132 acres of land near the intersection of
Highway 1 and Interstate-80 from County Agricultural (C-AG) to Interim Development - Research Park
(ID -RP).
E. Comprehensive Plan Item
Setting a public hearing for January 7, 2010, on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to amend
the long-range planning growth area boundary to accommodate the annexation proposed by the Moss
Green Development Corporation.
F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: November 16 and November 19, 2009
G. Other
H. Adjournment
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Informal
January
4
January
18 `
February
1
February
15*
Formal
January
7
January
21
February
4
February
18
" Meeting cancelled due to holiday
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Jake Rosenberg, Planning Intern
Item: SUB09-00010 Date: December 17, 2009
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Arlington Developers, Inc.
1486 1st Ave U nit A
Iowa City, IA 52240
Contact Person:
Duane Musser
1917 South Gilbert St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Phone:
319-338-8282
Requested Action:
Subdivision Preliminary Plat
Purpose:
Development of a 58-lot residential subdivision
Location: North of American Legion Road, South of Cumberland
Lane on Buckingham Lane
Size: 25.78 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Former golf course, RS-5
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential - RS-5
South: Residential - RS-5
East: Residential (Far Horizons Sub.) - County R
West: Agricultural - County R
Neighborhood Open Space District: Windsor Ridge (SE3)
File Date: November 12, 2009
45 Day Limitation Period: December 22, 2009
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
Public Utilities: Sanitary Sewer can be extended from neighboring Iowa
City subdivisions on the South, East, and North
Public Services: The City will provide Police and Fire Protection, and
refuse and recycling collection services. The Eastside
Loop transit route serves the proposed subdivision with
three stops along Arlington Drive approximately 0.2
miles east.
F
3_M -isi111L1/11►17/1:IVIN 197►5
The applicant, Arlington Development, Inc., is requesting approval for a 58-lot, single-family
residential subdivision with one outlot, on approximately 25.78 acres of land located on Buckingham
Lane, south of Cumberland Lane, north of Newcastle Drive, and west of Fairway Lane. Previously, a
preliminary plat, which included parts One through Three, was approved (2005), however the plat
expired in 2007 with only Part One (the southern portion of the development) having an approved final
plat.
Preliminary Plats expire after two years. This is to assure that changes to zoning and subdivision codes
are applied to subdivisions that have not yet begun to develop. The applicant is now seeking to have
the remainder of the Windsor West preliminary plat reapproved. Therefore, the subdivision regulations
adopted in September 2008 apply to the plat.
The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have not
had discussions with neighborhood representatives.
ANALYSIS:
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan
The property is located within the Southeast Planning District. The 1997 Iowa City Comprehensive
Plan identifies this area as suitable for low density residential development. Thus, the proposed
subdivision complies with the comprehensive plan.
Zoning and Subdivision Design
The existing RS-5 zoning allows for residential development with a maximum density of five dwelling
units per acre and a minimum lot area of 8,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing a subdivision
with lot areas ranging from approximately 11,000 square feet to 28,000 square feet, with a variety of
lot sizes within this range. All the lots in the proposed subdivision meet the minimum standards for lot
size and lot frontage. The subdivision development is compatible with the zoning and development
pattern of the land adjacent to this property.
The subdivision regulations adopted in 2008 require 60-foot rights -of -way with 5-foot sidewalks for
local residential streets. The wider right-of-way is necessary to provide sufficient room for utilities
and street trees. The original preliminary plat reviewed in 2005 included 50-foot rights of way and 4
foot sidewalks. Because portions of the roads connecting into the subdivision from the north, east,
and south (Cumberland Lane and Buckingham Lane) have already been constructed using the
previous 50-foot standard with 4-foot sidewalks, Staff believes it is reasonable to continue
development of these streets according to the previous standards. The other streets within the
subdivision, Sherwood Drive, Lancaster Avenue, Winnsboro Drive and Norwich Court, conform with
the current street standards.
Neighborhood parkland or fees in lieu of
The Neighborhood Open Space Plan identifies the proposed subdivision as part of the Windsor Ridge
Neighborhood Open Space District (SE3). The City's Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance requires
the dedication of 1.22 acres of property, or the payment of a fee in lieu thereof, in connection with
the land contained within the preliminary plat for all phases of the Windsor West Subdivision.
At the time of the previous plat approval for this property the Parks and Recreation Commission
chose to accept Outlot C as partial fulfillment for the open space requirement. Oulot C, located
between lots 94 and 95, will provide access from Windsor West to Scott Park. In addition to Outlot
C, the applicant has agreed to dedicate 3,929 square feet of adjacent land, which he owns, to
PCD\Staff Reports\sub09-00010 preliminary.doc
3
connect to Scott Park. Outlot C and the area being dedicated to Scott Park provides 12, 205 square
feet (.28 acres) toward the subdivision's open space requirement; therefore, fees equivalent to the
value of .94 acres of open space will be required at the time final plat approval.
Infrastructure Fees
At the time of final plat approval the applicant will be required to pay $395 per acre for water main
extension fees, $2,0177.44 per acre for sanitary sewer tap on fees and $1,715.18 per acre toward
the improvement of American Legion Road per the Conditional Zoning Agreement that applies to this
property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of SUBO9-00010 Windsor West, a 25.78-acre, 58-lot, residential
subdivision located on Buckingham Lane north of American Legion Road.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
PCD\Staff Reports\sub09-00010 preliminary.doc
z
0
Q V/
U �y
;p r w V
a a .�
/ i } 8101�3A1
�
aaVn3l J
IWI'- O
' �° � all p W
- _- _ _ __ _ Ml80-4
110�S
�I
1, ?,
PRELIMINARY PLAT & SENSITIVE AREAS SITE PLAN
WINDSOR WEST - PARTS TWO AND THREE
IOWA CITY, IOWA
r s PLAT PREPARE➢ BY: SUBDIVIDER/OWNER OWNER'S ATTORNEY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC. ARLINGTON DEVELOPMENT, INC NICHAEL PUGH
1017 SOUTH GILBERT ST, 1480 S. 1,t AVE TOWER PLACE
IOWA CITY, IOWA 62240 UNIT A ONE S. OILS RT ST.
fN IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
cwiir.M i
PLAT/PLAN APPROVED _ r,
or tn,..`"""`,�r ... .. g.
City of Iowa City
6 24 I I I I
✓ 97
` II
Y. RB kT 23 19 J 'I
- P ... / V / /
T 9D \
! tl� 1
if
El o ,
STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES
t:
as
11 w ,vw
Q � wows
.iaiwscu"xa
sm. cw
1 rill I
'
uxcum , T ..
MIEN07Si S—EEPON
C
I
1Nz
cn m
P
OY I
it
Lx N
m�
Aim
mpp
Zg
1 n7
iu�
iqi
.6
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: ANN09-00001 / REZ09-00006
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Owners
Contact Person:
Phone:
Requested Action:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Karen Howard
Date: December 17, 2009
Moss Green Development Corporation
3354 Kenruth Circle
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-351-8593
Moss Green Development Corporation
(address same as above)
Neal Llewellyn &
Catherine Chase Trust
Hills Bank & Trust Co.
P.O. Box 100
Hills, IA 52235
Wally Pelds
2323 Dixon Street
Des Moines, IA 50316
(515)265-8196
Voluntary Annexation and Rezoning
Purpose: To facilitate construction of a portion of Oakdale
Boulevard, which would provide vehicular access
from Hwy 1 to the applicant's property located west
of the NCS Pearson property and to allow the
applicant's property to be incorporated into the City
of Iowa City for future development
Location: Northwest of the intersection of Hwy 1 and
Interstate 80
Size: Approximately 132.02 acres (approximately
109.23 acres if only a portion of the Neal
Llewellyn and Catherine Chase Trust properties are
included)
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Farmland and natural areas surrounding Rapid Creek
- County AG
2
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
Comprehensive Plan:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
North: Farmland & rural residential — County -AG
South: Farmland & Office Research — ID-ORP & ORP
East: Farmland and rural residential - County AG & R
West: Farmland and rural residential — County R
North Corridor District - Office Research park uses and
protection of Rapid Creek floodplain
November 12, 2009
No limitation with annexation
The Moss family has owned and farmed the land west of NCS Pearson for many years. The
family no longer wishes to farm the land and has recently formed a partnership, the Moss
Green Development Corporation, with the intent of developing the property as an office
research park. The corporation's approximately 1 1 1-acre property west of NCS Pearson is
located within Iowa City's corporate limits and is zoned Interim Development- Research Park.
This designation indicates that the land would be suitable for future development of research
and office uses, similar to other development in the area, once road access and infrastructure is
extended to allow for development. Since access to Highway 1 is blocked by the NCS Pearson
development, the applicant is requesting annexation of land directly north and northwest of
NCS Pearson, so that a road can be extended to their property to facilitate development.
The JCCOG Arterial Street Plan, an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, indicates that
Oakdale Boulevard is planned to extend from Dubuque Street to Highway 1 in the general
vicinity of the applicant's property. A location study was completed for the City of Iowa City
in 2003, which identified several acceptable routes for extending Oakdale Boulevard. One of
the possible routes illustrated in the report extends across the property proposed for
annexation. Construction of Oakdale Boulevard using this alignment would provide a means of
access to the applicant's larger parcel. While it is in the City's long range plans to extend this
arterial street, it is not included within the City's current 5-year Capital Improvements Program
(CIP) budget. The CIP is used as a tool to guide the location and timing of growth in the
community and it is reviewed and priorities established on an annual basis by the City Council.
Since the extension of Oakdale Boulevard is not currently listed as a priority in the CIP, the
applicant has indicated their intention to construct, at their own expense, the portion of
Oakdale Boulevard that will allow development of their property.
The applicant originally requested a planned development overlay rezoning. However, since
their plans are in the preliminary stages and the details and timeline of extending roads and
infrastructure to the site have yet to be determined, staff recommended and the applicant has
concurred that the most appropriate zoning designation at this time is Interim Development -
Research Park zoning (ID -RP), which is the same as the zoning on their property that is already
within the City limits and is consistent with the zoning of adjacent land near the Hwy 1,
Interstate 80 interchange.
As shown on the attached annexation exhibit provided by the applicant, a portion of the land
proposed for annexation is under the ownership of Neal Llewellyn and Hills Bank and Trust as
trustee for Guy and Bonnie McFarland. The applicant has obtained the consent of the owners
of this land to the extension of the roadway across their property and the annexation of any of
9
their property that lies south of the northerly right-of-way line of the proposed roadway
(portions of parcels identified as 0736251001 and 0736276001 as shown on the attached
parcel ID map) to Iowa City. Staff recommends that the area to be annexed include these
entire parcels, so that land on both sides of the proposed arterial street is within the City limits.
Inclusion of this additional land will ensure that any future plan for development of the land
north of the proposed Oakdale Boulevard is compatible with adjacent development, the City's
comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and sensitive areas ordinance. The applicant is in the
process of requesting permission from these property owners to include the entire parcels
within the annexation. Since this matter is not yet resolved, staff has included location maps
and annexation exhibits that illustrate both annexation scenarios.
ANALYSIS:
Annexation
The Comprehensive Plan has established a growth policy to guide the decisions regarding
annexations (pp. 13-17 of the Comprehensive Plan - copy attached). The annexation policy
states that annexations are to occur primarily through voluntary petitions filed by the property
owners. Further, voluntary annexation requests are to be reviewed under the following three
criteria.
1. The area under consideration falls within the adopted long-range planning boundary.
The area proposed for annexation largely falls outside the adopted long-range planning
boundary for Iowa City. Given that the City has not completed a detailed district plan
for this area, it is premature to consider a significant outward adjustment of the growth
area limit. However, a small adjustment may be warranted in order to allow a property
that is currently within the City limits to develop for the uses anticipated by the zoning
and the comprehensive plan. The 1 1 1-acre Moss property located directly west of NCS
Pearson does not have road access and therefore cannot be developed for the office -
research park uses that were anticipated with the current ID -RP zoning. According to
the City's comprehensive plan, "The 1-80 interchange with Highway 1 provides one of
the few opportunities for office research park development in Iowa City. National
Computer Systems and ACT are successful examples of this type of development. With
the tone set by these two companies and the advantages of interstate exposure, land
around this interchange should continue to be preserved for office research park and
research development park opportunities."
The intent of the subject annexation is to allow for the extension of an arterial street,
Oakdale Boulevard, which is anticipated in the JCCOG arterial street plan. Since this
roadway will need to be built to urban arterial street standards to meet the needs of
office and research park uses, it is in the best interests of the City to shift the growth
boundary north to include this future arterial street. While the JCCOG arterial street plan
projects a need for the extension of this arterial street across the northern portion of the
community in the future, the City Council did not anticipate an immediate demand for
this road extension and has not committed funds for its construction in its capital
improvements budget. The applicants, however, project a ready market for land for
research park and office uses in this location and are requesting this annexation to allow
for the roadway extension sooner than anticipated. The applicants are currently working
on a plan to build the road and the infrastructure at their own risk and expense, with
the intent to recoup the cost of construction as development occurs through an
GI
agreement with the City.
The growth area limit in this area generally follows the Rapid Creek stream corridor. The
City Engineer has confirmed that it is possible for the City to provide water and sewer
service to land on both sides of the stream corridor with the lift station in the area.
For the reasons stated above, staff finds that an adjustment to the City's growth area
limit may be warranted. Without this adjustment, the annexation will not meet the
stated policies of the City. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Commission set a
public hearing for your next meeting on January 7 to consider a comprehensive plan
amendment to adjust the growth area boundary to include the property proposed for
annexation.
2. Development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without
imposing an undue burden on the City.
At stated in section 1, above, the City's comprehensive plan identifies the area around
the Interstate 80 interchange with Hwy 1 as an ideal location for office research park
development. In recent years there has only been modest growth in office research park
development in this area. This modest growth rate may be attributed to general
conditions in the market and also competition from the University of Iowa Oakdale
campus. The applicants indicate that their analysis reveals a ready market for "green
technology" businesses, and are requesting annexation of the land to allow
infrastructure to be put into place so that their property can be made "shovel ready" for
this market. Given the current state of the economy and the constraints on the city
budget, it is unlikely that the City will have the funds to extend infrastructure to this
area in the near future. However, it is in the interest of the City to facilitate economic
development of land located within the city limits. The proposed annexation will make it
possible to extend Oakdale Boulevard and other infrastructure to land already within the
city limits, which will facilitate development anticipated by the comprehensive plan. If
the applicant is willing to extend this infrastructure at their own expense and risk at this
time, the proposed annexation may provide a means to meet future needs without an
undue burden on the City's taxpayers. Staff, however, recommends Interim
Development zoning until such time as concrete plans are in place for the extension of
roads and services necessary for the development of the land.
3. Control of the development is in the City's best interest.
It is in the City's best interest to control this land as it is the location where a major
arterial street extension is anticipated. A location study for the extension of Oakdale
Boulevard from Coralville across the North Corridor to Iowa City was completed in
2003. The City has identified several reasons that Oakdale Boulevard will need to be
extended: to provide local access to developable areas within the City's growth area;
to accommodate through traffic and fill a gap within the arterial street network; and
to relieve traffic congestion from existing streets, particularly North Dodge Street
(Highway 1) and First Avenue. Based on this study, the City of Iowa City, the City of
Coralville, and Johnson County entered into a 28E agreement that fixed the locations
of the intersections of the future Oakdale Boulevard with other major roadways,
including Highway 1. While the intersection locations are fixed, the Cities and County
agree that the general alignment may vary within the parameters and alternative
alignments identified in the location study. The applicants are proposing to construct
5
the roadway in the general vicinity of "alternative 3A," which is the preferred
alignment identified in the location study.
Since the current property owners are willing to allow the road extension across their
property and have requested annexation, it is in the City's best interest to take this
opportunity to bring this land into the City.
The Comprehensive Plan states that voluntary annexation requests should be viewed positively
when the above conditions exist. In staff's view, these conditions have been met for this
voluntary annexation request, provided that the City's comprehensive plan is amended to shift
the growth area limit to include the subject properties.
Rezoning
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: While a detailed district plan has not been
completed for the North Corridor Planning District, the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1997
indicates that the area around the Interstate 80 interchange with Highway 1 is an ideal location
for office research park uses. The applicant intends to develop the property for office and
research development firms consistent with the comprehensive plan. Since infrastructure,
including roads, sewer and water service have yet to be extended to the property staff
recommends Interim Development - Research Park (ID -RP) zoning until definitive plans and
funding for the extension of these services are in place. The interim development designation
is used as a means of managing the City's growth. This zoning designation is an indication that
this is an area that is anticipated for urban growth, but is currently suitable for agricultural and
other non -urban uses of land until such time as City infrastructure and services are made
available. Once a plan and funding are in place to extend infrastructure and services, the
property owner may initiate rezoning to a designation that would allow urban development
consistent with the City's comprehensive plan.
As stated in the annexation analysis above, the comprehensive plan should be amended
concurrently with annexation and rezoning to indicate an adjustment to the City's growth area
limit.
Streets and traffic circulation: As illustrated on the attached parcel map submitted by the
applicant, the alignment of the proposed Oakdale Boulevard extends across the properties
proposed for annexation. A local commercial loop street would intersect Oakdale Boulevard in
two places. The concept is for development to occur along both this loop street and along
Oakdale Boulevard on portions owned by the Moss Green Development Corporation. The
parcels owned by Neal Llewellyn and the Catherine Chase Trust set up for the benefit of Guy
and Bonnie McFarland (Shown on the map as Parcel ID: 0736251001 and 0736276001)
would remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future. Those property owners have given
permission for annexation and for Oakdale Boulevard to be extended across the property, but
do not have any plans to develop their land for urban uses. From the aerial photograph it is
evident that the southern portion of these properties contains a number of sensitive
environmental features including the Rapid Creek stream corridor and extensive woodlands.
Any future development in this area would be difficult and would require a detailed
environmental analysis.
Streets must be designed to City standards and be extended to the property line so that
connectivity is ensured between properties as the land develops. A 100-foot right-of-way is
required for Oakdale Boulevard. Due to the meandering nature of Rapid Creek, the Oakdale
0
Boulevard alignment proposed by the applicant would require three bridge crossings, which will
add to the cost of constructing the roadway, but will allow good access for the property the
applicant intends to develop. The location study for Oakdale Boulevard states that "the
physical conditions in this corridor will pose some significant challenges to the construction of
any roadway." It should be emphasized that the City has not budgeted funds to construct
Oakdale Boulevard at this time. The property should retain the Interim Development zoning
designation until such time as the City has budgeted funds to extend Oakdale Boulevard or
until the developer has definitive plans to construct the roadway at their own risk and expense.
City Services:
The City Engineer has indicated that it is possible to extend sewer and water service to the
Moss property. Preliminary analysis of the Highlander sanitary sewer lift station indicates there
is adequate capacity to service the proposed development. However, prior to any
development, the applicant will need to submit calculations to confirm the capacity. The City
has considerable capacity within the system to provide water service to this area. A water
main extension from North Dodge Street will be necessary. The developer is responsible for
extending these services to their property.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas: Both the land proposed for annexation and the larger Moss
property contain sensitive environmental features including woodlands, a stream corridor and
flood plain, steep slopes, and potential wetlands. Prior to any type of development activity a
detailed environmental analysis and sensitive areas development plan will need to be completed
and submitted for review. The applicants have indicated their desire to develop the property in
an environmentally sensitive manner, perhaps even showcasing "green" development
techniques as a marketing tool.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that ANN09-00001 and REZ09-00006, an annexation to the City of Iowa
City and rezoning of approximately 132.02 acres of land from County Agriculture — AG to
Interim Development -Research Park, be approved, subject to a comprehensive plan amendment
adjusting the City's growth area limit to include the area being annexed.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location maps
2. Annexation map exhibits
3. Parcel map
4. Iowa City Growth Policy (excerpted from the Comprehensive Plan)
Approved by:
Ae,,� ' ","-
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
0
co
1
06
r
0
0
U
4�
U)
4�
4�
0
U)
(a)
4�
L.
0
z
W
Q
J
_J
>a
Q�
m p
OC -
zz J
Z W
GoLu
W U
W Q
a
a
0
do
V�O
00
10
W N
UO
M
do
G
uj
N
p
w�
O `
O
J
G 0
O
J
vv
Un
cWi�
ao
(YM
ao
ao
n
�o
0
J
W1n
Go
J 0
Win
Un
do
UN
Q�
�o
ao
Jm
W N
w
QP
I
IL
O
0
J
W O
tY �
P.
a. 0
W
a
J
J
d
Q
Z*
Q Z
X
Z W
W Z
OC Q
H 00
o
pG�
�
�ti
SERF
O N
to
o
s
;
O
,66'S69 M„1 t.LCo00 N
,B6'SSOt M,.l LLEo00 N
OJi
a
o
2
P
�
O W
P
R
P
�
P
�
F
,LO'9S0 t M „9Z.Lho00 N
3
O
S 11W I1 A110 YMOI
S 11 W I1 Ally YMOI
Annexation
MOSS GREEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION:
A part of the subdivision of the Northeast One -Quarter of Section 35, Township 80
North, Range 6 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa, as recorded
in Plat Book 1 at Page 11 in the Records of the Johnson County Recorder, Johnson
County, Iowa, more particularly described as follows:
Lots Four (4), Five (5) and Ten (10) and the South nine (9) acres of Lot Six (6), and the
South 12-1/2 acres of Lot Eight (8), all of the subdivision of Northeast Quarter of Section
35, Township 80 North, Range 6 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County,
Iowa, containing 60.67 acres, more or less.
CHASE TRUST:
Portions of the Southwest and Southeast Quarters of the of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 36, Township 80 North, Range 6 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson
County, Iowa lying south of the following described course:
Beginning at the West'/ corner of said Section 36; THENCE North 0'37'11" West along
the West line of said Section 36, a distance of 557.87 feet to the Point of Beginning;
THENCE along a curve to the left having a radius of 1,945.00 feet, a delta of 10'56'12
an are length of 371.26 feet, and a chord which bears North 61 °25'39" East having a
chord distance of 370.70 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE North 55°57'33" East a distance of 418.25 feet to a point on a curve; THENCE
along a curve to the right having a radius of 1,055.00 feet, a delta of 73°05'09", an are
length of 1,345.74 feet, and a chord which bears South 87°30'40" East having a chord
distance of 1,256.34 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE South 50°58'06" East a distance of 557.87 feet to the point of terminus;
AND
lying West of Iowa Highway 1 (North Dodge Street),
containing 48.56 acres, more or less.
W
,60 SEE M ,SUC.00 N UI
a
.J
J ^
> a
z�
os Q z
z, ca O
m a
z w
W z
W Z
Vi
�
0O y
N
a
W �
O h F
W U
ZV O_
,ZO'V9Z ,Bb'SSOt M„l ldEo00 N
M ..I I .LEo00 N
a
O� s
p O W
o fV
F
3
0
t 11 WI1 A110 v
t lIW 11 A110 YMOI
,ZO'9SOl M „9Z,L4o00 N
Moss -Green Urban Village
Legal Descriptions
Moss -Green Urban Village
A part of the subdivision of the Northeast One -Quarter of Section 35, Township 80 North, Range 6 West
of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa, as recorded in Plat Book 1 at Page 11 in the
Records of the Johnson County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, more particularly described as follows:
Lots Four (4), Five (5) and Ten (10) and the South nine (9) acres of Lot Six (6), and the South 12-1/2 acres
of Lot Eight (8), all of the subdivision of Northeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 80 North, Range 6
West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa, containing 60.67 acres, more or less.
And
All of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, a part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter lying North of the Interstate 80 Right -of -Way line and the East 63.75 acres of the West Half of
the Southeast Quarter lying North of the Interstate 80 Right -of -Way line, all of said Section 35, Township
80 North, Range 6 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa, being more particularly
described as follows:
BEGINNING at the East Quarter Corner of Section 35, Township 80 North, Range 6 West of the Fifth
Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; THENCE South 00°46'46" East, a distance of 1,980.54 feet to
the North Right -of -Way line of Interstate 80; THENCE South 82°24'15" West, along the North Right -of -
Way line of Interstate 80, a distance of 646.23 feet; THENCE continuing west along the North Right -of -
Way line of Interstate 80, North 88°11'05" West, a distance of 1,731.77 feet; THENCE North 00°54'55"
West, a distance of 2,023.65 feet to the North line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 35, Township
80 North, Range 6 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; THENCE South 89°41'57"
East, along said North line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 80 North, Range 6 West of
the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa, a distance of 2,376.88 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING, containing 111.22 acres, more or less.
Annexation
MOSS GREEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION:
A part of the subdivision of the Northeast One -Quarter of Section 35, Township 80 North, Range 6 West
of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa, as recorded in Plat Book 1 at Page 11 in the
Records of the Johnson County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, more particularly described as follows:
Lots Four (4), Five (5) and Ten (10) and the South nine (9) acres of Lot Six (6), and the South 12-1/2 acres
of Lot Eight (8), all of the subdivision of Northeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 80 North, Range 6
West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa, containing 60.67 acres, more or less.
CHASE TRUST:
The Southwest Quarter of the of the Northwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 80 North, Range 6
West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa and that portion of The Southeast Quarter of
the of the Northwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 80 North, Range 6 West of the Fifth Principal
Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa lying West of Iowa Highway 1 (North Dodge Street) containing 71.35
acres, more or less.
13
6ROWTH POLICY
In 1993 the City Council adopted amendments to Iowa City's Com-
prehensive Plan which established a growth policy for the city.
The growth policy is an integral part of the Comprehensive Plan,
and establishes three specific policies pertinent to any discus-
sion of growth and development:
(1) It defines a long-range planning boundary for Iowa City;
(2) It establishes when annexations should occur; and
(3) It establishes where the investment of public funds for in-
frastructure improvements should occur.
This growth policy refines the policy adopted in 1993 so that it
reflects current development pressures and decisions, and guid-
ance provided by the Beyond"2000 vision statements.
1. The Long-range (20-30 year) Planning Boundary
The sanitary sewer service area shown in Figure 2 defines the
long-range planning boundary for Iowa City. Based on Iowa City's
annual growth rate, the land available within the long range plan-
ning boundary should be sufficient for Iowa City's growth until at
least the year 2020. The sanitary sewer service area is generally
based on watershed boundaries and defines the eventual corpo-
rate limits for the purposes of long-range planning. Guiding new
developments to watersheds which can be served by gravity flow
sanitary sewer to the City's sewage treatment plant enables the
most cost effective provision of this City service. Sanitary sewer
and streets are the most expensive items of public infrastructure
which must be provided to new development. The long-range
growth area boundary should be used when making decisions
regarding the extension of infrastructure, the approval of subdivi-
sions, the approval of agreements with other governmental juris-
dictions regarding growth, and in response to annexation requests.
15
I ON CITY
6ROWTH POLICY
Reconstruction of a sanitary sewer line
under Clark Street.
With adoption of the growth policy in 1993, it was pointed out that
existing and planned improvements to the sewer system could
serve an additional 700 acres beyond the designated growth area.
The location of this 700 acres was generally identified as north of
1-80 since collection capacity exists in the River Corridor Trunk
line. The specific property to be served was not delineated since
there is no clear watershed demarcation. As development
progresses east of First Avenue in Coralville to Dubuque Street
and residential subdivisions in the North Corridor continue to pro-
liferate, it is appropriate for Iowa City to identify the 700 acre ser-
vice area more specifically to facilitate clear development agree-
ments with Coralville and Johnson County.
As shown in Figure 2, the amended long-range planning bound-
ary for property north of 1-80 is defined by the Iowa River and Rapid
Creek. The area extends east to a line roughly along the existing
corporate limits of Iowa City. Any area north of 1-80 will require a
lift station to access the gravity flow sanitary sewer system via
the Bjaysville Lane sewer or be served by the Highlander lift sta-
tion. The land denoted as part of the amended growth area can
be served most efficiently, allows for the most compact develop-
ment in relation to the rest of the city, and does not require a river
crossing. Development within this area can also occur without
the necessity of bridging Rapid Creek.
The growth boundary adopted in 1993 has also been amended to
reflect the decision made regarding the alignment of Highway 965.
The new boundary on the west side of Iowa City is shown con-
ceptually as a line which runs south from Highway 218 along the
alignment of Hurt Road and then along the east property line of
the Iowa City Landfill to Rohret Road. The decision regarding
Highway 965, the location and planned expansion of the landfill,
and anticipated pressures to develop land west of the current cor-
porate limits support moving the long-range planning boundary
west. Development will be limited in the short term by the capac-
ity and location of sanitary sewers. Discussion of capital improve-
ments needed to serve this new boundary are included in the per-
tinent Planning District sections of the Comprehensive Plan.
z Annexation Policy
Growth and development outside the corporate boundaries, within
the long-range planning area and beyond, is influenced by the City
through annexation and the Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe
Agreement (see Fringe Agreement discussion below). Annex-
ations occur, primarily, in response to petitions filed by the owners
of property to be annexed. Voluntary annexation should be viewed
positively when the following conditions exist:
(1) The area under consideration falls within the adopted long-
range planning boundary,
(2) Development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill
an identified need without imposing an undue financial
burden on the City, or
ip
(3) Control of development is in the City's best interest.
The third condition of this policy has been amended from the 1993
version to extend the area of control from the entryways to Iowa
City into the entire growth area. This reflects the intent of the City
to take a proactive role, consistent with the vision statement, in
annexation of the designated growth area. The annexations will
still be achieved through voluntary means. Involuntary annexations,
which are initiated by the City against the property owners' wishes,
are considered only under extraordinary circumstances. When
considering the merits of a proposed annexation or development,
the impact of increased vehicular traffic on any street, currently at
or near capacity, will be studied and the results will be included as
an additional factor in that decision.
Refer to the vacant residential land inventory in Appendix B for
more detail on land available for residential development within
the corporate limits and in the growth area.
3. Prioritization of Investment in Infrastructure.
When the City prioritizes public investment in infrastructure and
public amenities, the obligations to properties within the corporate
limits of Iowa City that further the concept of compact and con-
tiguous growth should generally take precedence. This policy will
be used as a guide in prioritizing the City's Capital Improvement
Program (CIP). The CIP is one of the most effective tools the City
has to affect the timing and direction of growth, the quality of life,
the growth of basic industry, and the cost of housing. Historically,
the City has invested in infrastructure to accommo-
date moderate growth rather than building infra-
structure prior to development. In the future, ef-
forts will be made on the part of the City Council to
use the Capital improvements Program to guide
more effectively the location and timing of growth
in the community through an annual review and
prioritization of the CIP prior to the budget process.
Fringe Area Agreement
State enabling legislation permits a city to regulate
the subdivision of land within two miles of the city's
corporate boundaries. This area is known as the
urban fringe. Counties that enact zoning ordinances
control the land uses permitted in this same area
through zoning.
Farmland in Iowa City's southern fringe area.
In the interest of managing development in Iowa City's two-mile
area in a mutually acceptable manner, Johnson County and Iowa
City have agreed on the appropriate land uses and standards for
development. As Johnson County considers rezoning applications
and Iowa City reviews subdivisions, their decisions will be gov-
erned by the Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area Policy Agree-
ment. See Appendix C for a copy of the current agreement.
The Agreement focuses exurban development in the area north
IDWO Illy
6ROWTH POLICY
m
IOWH c Iff, of Iowa City, encourages development in Iowa City's growth area
only upon annexation, and provides some incentive for the pres-
ervation of open space and environmentally sensitive features.
6BDWMGrowth and the Environment
POLICY
Environmental protection is a basic tenet of Iowa City's vision for
the future. As growth and development occur, they should be
managed such that the environmental quality of the community is
not sacrificed. Measures should be taken in all private and public
projects to ensure that any impacts on identified environmental
features are minimized.
A wooded ravine in north Iowa City.
In 1993, the City commissioned an inventory of en-
vironmentally sensitive areas. This inventory maps
the general location of woodlands, wetlands, regu-
lated slopes, hydric soils, prairie remnants, stream
corridors, and archaeological sites (see Appendix
D). Based on the information provided in the inven-
tory, an ordinance was adopted in 1995 to provide
protections for the identified environmentally sensi-
tive areas. The ordinance requires consideration of
environmental features during the development pro-
cess and encourages construction that respects and
protects natural areas. As the City continues to grow
and redevelop, natural areas that contribute to the
health and character of the city will be protected.
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 16, 2009 — 6:00 PM — INFORMAL
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Charlie Eastham, Michelle Payne,
Tim Weitzel, Josh Busard, Elizabeth Koppes, Wally
Plahutnik
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Sarah Walz
OTHERS PRESENT: None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice -Chair Elizabeth Koppes
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
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.
Eastham recused himself because of a conflict with this application.
Kuecker said a new site plan has been submitted that relocates some landscaping to provide for
more useable open space, and some paths have been relocated to provide better ADA
accessibility. All minor technical and labeling issues previously discussed have been
addressed.
Payne asked if some trees were removed from the plan. Kuecker said no trees were removed;
they were simply relocated.
Freerks asked about the changes to the building. Kuecker said the driveways were narrowed to
allow for additional planting areas. Freerks asked if there was room to park in the alley.
Kuecker said that the alley is not wide enough to allow for parking.
Payne asked for explanation of a letter included in the Commissioners' packets. Kuecker said it
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 16, 2009 - Informal
Page 2 of 4
was a letter from the applicant who felt like the previous meeting had had a lot of discussion
about the private covenant documents over which the City has no authority. The letter is
intended to clarify issues concerning those documents, though Kuecker advised that the
documents are not something the Commission can consider in making its decision.
SUBDIVISION ITEM:
SUB09-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by DASH Properties, LLC for a
preliminary and final plat of Hunter's Hideaway, a 1-lot (with an outlot for private open
space), 3.92 acre residential subdivision located between Washington and Jefferson
Streets at 1136 E Washington Street.
Plahutnik recused himself because the applicant is his employer.
Walz said she had taken many phone calls about this issue. She explained that there are
actually two lots on the property currently, and that this application is to reconfigure the lots.
One lot would be a wooded outlot and another lot would contain the existing home. The intent
of the subdivision is to allow the owner to sell the existing house to the current tenant.
Walz said that there are several issues to consider with this application. Walz said that an
access easement is necessary because there are other properties that get access to
Washington Street off of the private drive. The creek sort of splits the property into three areas
and Staff wants to make sure that each property owner has access easements through the
other's property.
Walz said that the original lot will remain what it is currently: a very oddly shaped lot with a
single family house on it. The other lot will become Outlot A and will be held as private open
space; though it will not be for the use of the surrounding property owners. Walz said that
presently Staff does not have the legal paperwork for the various easements so Staff
recommends deferral until the paperwork is submitted. Freerks asked if Staff anticipated the
paperwork being submitted prior to Thursday night's meeting. Walz said she did. Miklo said the
paperwork should be fairly simple since there were no construction or infrastructure issues, but
the easements need to be in place to ensure proper access.
Eastham asked if Staff has a preference for the location of the easements. Walz said they did
not.
Walz noted that if a future property owner wished to develop the outlot they would have to come
in and re -subdivide to have the private open space designation taken away. Walz said that
nearly all of the outlot is within the floodway and this, in combination with the sanitary sewer
easement, makes it undevelopable for all intents and purposes. Walz said that there is always
a way if one wanted to spend an extraordinary amount of money to get around those two things,
but even so, the sensitive areas ordinances would also be a factor in determining what, if any, of
the land was developable. Walz said she put this out there because she had received a large
number of phone calls about the property.
Miklo noted that the Central District Plan had identified this parcel as potential future park land,
and that this subdivision will in no way preclude that from happening should the City and the
owner reach a purchase agreement in the future.
Eastham asked where public access would be if, in the future, Outlot A became public open
space. Greenwood Hektoen said subsequent easement agreements would have to be
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 16, 2009 - Informal
Page 3 of 4
negotiated in the event that Outlot A became public open space. Miklo noted that it could be
that the City never actually acquires the property.
OTHER:
Eastham noted that there seemed to be some interest in exploring design principles along the
major entranceways to the city that arose from discussions on the Wal-Mart rezoning. He asked
if there was interest in coming up with some design principles or planning districts along the
major entranceways to the City, as there did not seem to be any planning concepts in place that
fit entranceways specifically as entranceways. Freerks said she thought the entranceways were
identified in each of the district plans. Miklo said that entranceways are addressed but in a very
vague and general way. Eastham said there are no development standards or concepts that he
has seen. Miklo said that if there is a rezoning involved, the City can negotiate for additional
landscaping or certain design elements. Miklo asked if the commission felt it would be a good
policy to pursue the idea of putting a cohesive standard in place for entranceways. Payne said
that Dodge Street offers a nice -looking entranceway into town whereas the southern entrances
to town are not as aesthetically pleasing. Freerks asked if such a policy would be something
that would need to take effect when people upgrade their property or make a change in use.
Otherwise a large-scale investment from the City would be required, Freerks suggested, as it is
not reasonable to demand that people improve their properties just to please the City. Miklo
said that some cities have created what is called an overlay zone in which there are areas
where entranceway/landscaping rules apply above and beyond what is required in other parts of
town. Greenwood Hektoen said that the redesigning of a property would be what would trigger
compliance. Miklo said that it was correct that the City could not just go in and tell a property
owner to plant trees. Miklo said that a lot of those programs also deal with areas in the public
right of way. Miklo said that twenty years ago the Coralville Strip looked similar to Riverside
Drive and the initiative to improve it was a public/private partnership. Freerks said such an
initiative would require a lot of public input. Miklo added that there would also have to be money
involved. Miklo said if it was something the Commission was interested in pursuing Staff could
certainly put it on the work program pending list and discuss it after the first of the year when the
next year's priorities are set. Miklo asked if the Commission would like him to put it on the
bottom of the list, and several Commissioners said they would like that.
Eastham said he also wished to talk a little bit about the sessions on the Riverfront Crossings
planning process. He said the sessions were remarkably helpful and productive. Eastham
asked if more data could be gathered on the area's market analysis as the planning proceeded.
Miklo said that because Iowa City was affected by the flood, the Environmental Protection
Agency and Rebuild Iowa Office asked Iowa City to enter a competition with other flood -affected
communities to propose a planning project which those agencies would then hire consultants
for. Iowa City was one of five communities selected for that program. One of the stated needs
in the City's proposal was a market analysis to see what is possible. Miklo said that given that
the consulting cost the City nothing, Iowa City's ambitions were bigger than what the EPA was
able to fund. Miklo said one of the sub -consultants did do a market analysis, but it is very
surface level. Miklo said that a more in-depth study was required to know if the plan is realistic,
and in what timeframe it might be possible. Eastham said that a market analysis would be
crucial to knowing what elements of the plan to pursue.
Miklo thanked the Commissioners for their participation in the Riverfront Crossings planning
process, and told them there were DVDs available if anyone wished to review the meetings.
/_1 11191111XII'�I_=1>;kf
The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
z
O
O
z
z
N
z
Q
Z
z
z
a
J
a
Ln
�XXxxxxx
T
0
W
X
X
x
X
X
X
T
�XXx0X0X
QxXXXOxx
CD
Nxxxxxxx
00
�XXXXXXX
ti
coXDXXXXX
14Dxxxx0x
i?sXXOXXXX
XXXXXOX
4xxxxxxx
MXXxxxwX
NXXXX4jXX
�xxXLn
OXXx
T
MNOOM
WM
FX0000000
�U-)U)U-)LoLn0
w
W
J
�
W
�
J
Q
w
J
Q
W
=
Z
_
�OVQJVY�
Q-�
W--
Z
co
W
LA-
Lu
QF-W=�
a
Z
N
pQceOQJw
wa�Q—
COWLLYaa�
co
%-XXxxxxx
�xxOxxxx
LLI
T
`o
O
X
x
X
x
x
0
T
V)xxxxxxO
ti
MxxXXXXX
CO)
MXXxxxxx
NXXXXXXX
N
LU
Dxx0xx0
2 w
M
N
O
O
M
waLOLOLO
�X0000000
nmmm
W
W
�-
a-J
w„wj
J
J
2
Q
Z
LLI
Q�V
z
Q
Lu
Z
p
Y
N
J
W
cn
�QOGOQJw
v�
W
CL
mwLLYad3:
E
0
�a
(D o `
X
a) -a
w c E
a�
c � �
Ecv
a)-DaZ 0
aQz
u 11 w
XOOZ
w
Y
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 2009 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Charlie Eastham, Michelle Payne, Wally
Plahutnik, Elizabeth Koppes, Josh Busard, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Jesse Allen, Larry Pugh, Ed Foraker, Lars Anderson, Chad
Struve, Adam Slager, Zeb Rino, Lane Thomas, Corey
Tweden, Doug Alberhasky, Frank Gersh, Martha Gordon
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 5-1 (Koppes voting no; Eastham abstaining) to approve REZ09-
00010, 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.
The Commission voted 6-0 (Plahutnik abstaining) to approve SUB09-00009, an
application submitted by DASH Properties, LLC for a preliminary and final plat of
Hunter's Hideaway, a 1-lot (with an outlot for private open space), a 3.92 acre residential
subdivision located between Washington and Jefferson Streets at 1136 E Washington
Street, subject to Staff approval of legal papers prior to City Council consideration.
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:
REZ09-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by Allen Homes, Inc. for a rezoning
to amend the Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single Family Residential
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2009 - Formal
Page 2 of 10
(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. The 45-day
limitation period ends November 29, 2009.
Eastham abstained from consideration of this application because he is a board member of an
organization that owns property within 200 feet of the proposed development.
Kuecker said that a new site plan had been submitted since the last meeting. The new plan
relocates some of the paths to the shelter area in order to provide greater accessibility. Kuecker
said the new site plan also narrows the driveway in the rear to provide more screening and
green space. Outstanding technical issues have been addressed.
Kuecker said that Staff's recommendation has not changed, and that Staff continues to
recommend approval of the rezoning.
Kuecker offered to answer any questions from the Commission; there were none.
Freerks opened the public hearing, inviting the applicant to address the Commission first.
Jesse Allen, Allen Homes, 3704 Lower West Branch Road, said that he had spent the previous
two weeks going around and speaking to his neighbors to discuss the project, just as the
Commission had suggested.
Larry Pugh, 321 Westbury Court, said that he had attended the last meeting on the subject and
had had strong objections to the project. He said that since that time Allen had taken the time to
meet with him and fully explain the project and that he now supports Allen's rezoning application
and wants to see the project succeed. Freerks said that this was the first time she had actually
had someone come back before the Commission with a change of opinion and she applauded
the efforts at conversation and the open minds of the parties involved.
Ed Foraker, 3527 Middlebury, thanked the Commission for their service and openness. Foraker
said he has 22 notarized protest forms from people who live within 300 feet. Foraker said he
had contacted 23 people about the issue, and all 23 had agreed to sign the petition to keep the
area as open space. Plahutnik asked Foraker to read the wording of the petition to the
Commission. Foraker said it was a standard protest form given to him by the City. Foraker
noted that every property owner contingent to the project is against it, and that most expressed
the same reasons for opposing it. He said that all along Westbury Drive, property owners facing
the proposed project said that they would like to see open space remain there. Foraker said
that he believed that shrubbery and plantings could alleviate the City's concerns about the view
of the backs of people's homes along Middlebury, rather than building a new 5-plex to obstruct
the view. Foraker said petitioners also expressed concerns that the project would cause traffic
congestion and parking issues; issues which are already a problem in the neighborhood.
Foraker said that it is possible that there are water issues to be considered, as it is unclear
whether the water retention system will actually function as intended. Foraker said that the
Comprehensive Plan seems to support small neighborhood greens, which is exactly what will be
taken away if this project is approved. Foraker said that he also wanted to point out that their
condominium covenants show that area as open space. He said he understood that the City
was not bound by the covenant, but the Commission should be aware that every person that
purchased property in that area did so under the belief that that lot was going to be left as open
space. Foraker said that Allen may not have intentionally deceived the homeowners, but that
the homeowners were deceived nonetheless.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2009 - Formal
Page 3 of 10
Freerks asked Greenwood Hektoen to clarify the legal issues with the plat. Greenwood
Hektoen explained that the lot was never actually designated as "open space," a technical term.
The lot was shown as being undeveloped on the plat, but was not designated as open space.
Greenwood Hektoen said she believed it would be difficult to establish that the neighboring
property owners had vested rights in the property remaining undeveloped because the plat does
not have the area marked as open space.
Lars Anderson, 123 North Linn Street, an attorney representing Allen Homes, Inc., said that the
condominium declaration had been amended prior to the purchase of any of the homes and that
it clearly stated that there would be an additional dwelling in the development, though its
location was undecided. Anderson said that it was clearly in the public record that there would
be another building and that the site plan would be amended to incorporate that building,
pending City approval. Freerks asked if the property had ever been looked at as a set -aside for
the Parks and Recreation Department. Anderson said that it had not. Miklo added that in the
original planned development the Planning and Zoning Commission had approved the
configuration of Lot 1 with the townhomes on the perimeter. In order to add to that, Miklo
explained, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council have to take action allow
to the planned development overlay. Miklo said that the property owner could not simply go out
and get a building permit for another building; the public process involving the Commission and
the Council is required.
Chad Struve, 318 Westbury Drive, said that he was one of the first people to live in Old Town
Village. Struve said that a lot of the original residents of Old Town Village were present to
support Jesse Allen. Struve said there were not concerns from those who had been in Old
Town Village for a considerable amount of time. Struve said there had been stormwater issues
in the past but those problems have been solved.
Freerks asked Kuecker for information on water issues. Kuecker said that when the stormwater
retention facility was constructed one of the berms was constructed higher than the road,
leading to flooding; that has since been corrected.
Adam Slager, 3612 Glastonbury Street, said that he lives right next to the proposed building and
he is in favor of it. He said that he had never been approached about a petition of any kind.
Zeb Rino, 309 Westbury Drive, said that as a resident of Westbury Drive he believes he should
have just as much say about what it looks like as someone living on Scott Boulevard does. He
said that he would much rather see the facades of buildings than the back sides of them. Reno
said that if Allen left the space open it would take a pretty large hedge to cover up all of the
garages and the decks that make up the view currently. He said he would like to see the
townhomes built.
Blaine Thomas, address not given, said he lives across the street on the north side of Herbert
Hoover Highway. Thomas said that Iowa City has been greatly affected by the nation's
economic downturn. He said that he personally had recently had difficulties refinancing a home
that he had purchased here in town. Thomas noted that money is a lot harder to get a hold of
right now than it had been in the past. He said that Allen is a young man who employs
hundreds of people in this community. Thomas said that he and two other people in the room
were employed by Allen indirectly and that this project will keep the tax base moving forward
and sustain momentum in Iowa City's building community. Thomas said the project is beautiful
and the neighborhood is great and he asked the Commission to allow it to go forward.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2009 - Formal
Page 4 of 10
Corey Tweden, 445 Thornberry Avenue, said that he believes having homes facing the street
would be an improvement over the current view, which is of the backs of homes. He said that
there is a great deal of noise that comes from the backs of the homes, and the new building
would also serve as a noise buffer.
There were no further comments from the public and the public hearing was closed.
Payne motioned to approve REZ09-00010, 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.
Plahutnik seconded.
Payne said she drove by the area a couple of days ago and that she agrees with the sentiment
that the building would improve the overall appearance of the area. She said she understood
the parking issues discussed by residents, but that she did not think this building would make
the issues exponentially worse, as the majority of the parking issues were probably caused by
the presence of the nearby restaurant. Payne said the wetlands look great and they are not
going to go away. She said the additional townhome would probably enhance the look of the
area.
Freerks asked Staff if a great deal of parking would be removed by minimizing the driveway.
Miklo said that he did not believe there would be a net loss of parking; the new plan simply
relocates six parking spaces. Miklo said that each home will have a two -car garage with two
parking spaces behind the garage. There will be no loss of on -street parking in front of the
proposed building. Miklo said the City did recently prohibit on -street parking for a portion of
Westbury Drive in response to concerns that restaurant patrons were parking on the residential
portion of the street. Miklo said that the parking allotted in the plan exceeds zoning
requirements.
Koppes asked if Staff had come across any other OPDs that had been changed after
development was complete. Miklo said that while there had been some modifications of OPD
developments he could not recall ever having added a substantial number of units. Miklo said
that in regard to concerns expressed about setting a precedent for changing planned
developments, it is Staff's view that, like any other zoning matter, anyone can apply to change a
given zoning and engage in the public process required for reaching a decision on that
application. Koppes asked if there was no concern that developers might in the future simply
leave a lot undesignated and then come back to try to rezone it later. Greenwood Hektoen said
that every decision made by the Commission is individualized and does not have precedential
ramifications. Miklo said that even if the property owner had designated the lot as open space,
he would still have the right to ask the Commission and the City Council for permission to
change that designation. Miklo said the Commission plays an important role in this decision.
Busard said he is somewhat conflicted on this issue due to the parking issues and the possibility
that there was some misunderstanding about whether or not the lot was intended to remain
open on the part of area homebuyers. Busard said he had initially had concerns about setting a
precedent for changing an already -developed OPD, but accepts Greenwood Hektoen's
assurances that the decision will remain individualized. Busard said he would likely vote in
favor of the application.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2009 - Formal
Page 5 of 10
Plahutnik said that the whole Commission was conflicted on this issue. He said that he
understands the viewpoint of the property owners who believe they are not getting quite what
they paid for because it was their understanding that the space would remain open. However,
he said, the Commission is not party to the covenants in questions and so it can consider only
the tenets of the zoning code and the Comprehensive Plan. Plahutnik said the building is
compatible with other buildings in the neighborhood. He said that he lives on Gilbert Street so
by his reckoning there are no parking issues to speak of in Old Town Village. Plahutnik said
that it all boils down to what an individual can do with his/her property. He said that the owner
has come before the Commission with a reasonable plan that is not excessively dense.
Plahutnik said he finds himself in a position where he must regretfully support the application.
He stressed that communication is so important, and that it is so much better when a developer
can lay out expectations from the very beginning and communicate them to nearby
homeowners.
Weitzel said he too has felt conflicted on this issue. He said there seemed to be a genuine
appearance that this open space was intended to remain that way forever to homebuyers.
However, he said there was in fact no legal guarantee for that, and the land is developable.
Weitzel said that it might not have been a reasonable expectation to believe that properties
fronting on Scott Boulevard would retain open backyards forever. Weitzel said that quite a bit of
green space will remain in that development between the wetlands and the improved
designated open space the developer is providing. Weitzel said that in addition to open space,
other factors need to be considered, such as maximizing density for a given zone; failure to do
so leads to other issues. Weitzel said the rights of the developer must also be considered, and
while it may be unpalatable to him, he will also vote in favor of the application.
Koppes asked if the open space being dedicated is guaranteed to remain open space. Miklo
said that it will remain open space for as long as the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
City Council say that it must remain open. Someone could always petition to have the
designation changed, as is happening with the lot currently under consideration; although it is
doubtful that Staff would recommend it. Koppes said she is inclined to vote no on the
application because she feels like a development plan was in place, and that it is not right or fair
to change it now.
Freerks said that it often happens that people come before the Commission upset about the
development of land that they do not own but believed would be open space indefinitely. She
said that while she has a great deal of empathy for that situation, ultimately it comes down to the
fact that property owners have the right to develop their land for uses in accordance with the
zoning code and the Comprehensive Plan. Freerks said that change is difficult and she feels for
the neighbors. She said that she hopes at some point the neighborhood can come together on
this issue. Freerks said she must look at each development individually, and she does believe
that because the lot was not designated as open space or park land the property owner's
position must be respected. She said that a great deal of open space remains, and that in the
end, she believes that the amenities and upgrades to the remaining open space will be positive
for the area. Freerks said she is no longer concerned about parking or stormwater issues for
the neighborhood. Freerks said that the current plan is a better plan than the one presented two
weeks ago. She thanked everyone for coming to participate in the process; noting that if no one
had expressed concerns at the last meeting then the plan presented there would likely have
been approved. Freerks said all of the conversation resulted in a better plan, a better view, and
better open space.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-1 (Koppes voting no; Eastham abstaining).
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2009 - Formal
Page 6 of 10
SUBDIVISION ITEM:
SUB09-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by DASH Properties, LLC for a
preliminary and final plat of Hunter's Hideaway, a 1-lot (with an outlot for private open
space), 3.92 acre residential subdivision located between Washington and Jefferson
Streets at 1136 E Washington Street.
Plahutnik recused himself from consideration of the application because his employer is the
applicant.
Miklo explained that the property has frontage on both Washington Street and Jefferson Street.
There is an existing house on the property that has a driveway from Washington Street within
an easement shared by two other properties in the vicinity. Miklo said there is an odd
panhandle shaped strip of land on the property that goes back almost all of the way to Court
Street. Miklo said that Staff's understanding is that this panhandle was an old railroad right of
way that attached to this property at some point in history. There is a creek running through the
property which divides it into three segments.
The proposed preliminary plat would create two lots: one with the existing house and the
panhandle on it and another lot for private open space. The outlot would front Jefferson Street.
The lot on which the existing house is located would continue to front on Washington Street.
Miklo said the property is zoned RS-5 which allows single family homes on lots of at least 8,000
square feet. That zoning code requires a 60-foot lot width or frontage on a public street; Miklo
said that that requirement is fulfilled on both proposed lots. Much of the area is encumbered by
floodplain, floodway, potential wetlands and woodlands in the area, as well as a major sanitary
sewer easement. As a result, the outlot would be very difficult to develop. Miklo said that with
the current plat, there will be no development on Outlot A unless the applicant comes back
before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council to ask for the designation of
private open space to be removed. Miklo said there may very well be a place on the property
where a house could be built, but that it would have to be looked at very carefully. Miklo said
that the other lot will retain the existing house and will not change. He said it is possible that
another garage or outbuilding could be built on the lot, but not another house. With this
subdivision, Miklo explained, there will be no increase in density or housing units being
approved. Miklo said that an access easement has been requested because of the
configuration of the creek on the property so that if the outlot needs any maintenance or
improvements the owner can reach it. An access easement has also been added to the lot with
the existing house on it.
Miklo said that all of the technical deficiencies with the plat have been corrected and the City
attorney is reviewing a draft of the legal papers. Staff is recommending approval of the
application subject to Staff approval of legal papers prior to City Council's consideration of the
matter.
Miklo offered to answer any questions Commissioners might have.
Payne said that her concern was whether the access easement actually afforded access to the
property in real life or just on paper. Miklo said there are places that are rugged but that he
believed that for the purposes that someone would need to get back there it would suffice.
Payne asked if the easement were actually useable. Miklo said it is probably the best
alternative for the property. Eastham asked how wide the easement is and Miklo replied that it
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2009 - Formal
Page 7 of 10
is ten feet wide. Koppes asked what the purpose of the subdivision is. Miklo said that it is his
understanding that the people who currently rent the home wish to buy it, but that they cannot
afford the whole property. As a result, the applicant is retaining a portion of the property for their
own personal open space. Payne asked for clarification on concerns expressed by a neighbor
in an e-mail to Staff. Miklo said that the neighbor was concerned about property lines, but that
he did not believe that was an issue because all of the property lines in question are internally
set. Miklo said that concerning the neighbor's letter, one of the issues in play is that the
property line is along the creek and the creek moves somewhat.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Doug Alberhasky, 911 E. Market Street, said that both his wife's family and his own family have
a long history with this property. Alberhasky said that his grandfather's last memory before
leaving for World War II was pulling up all of the old railroad iron on the property; the outlot was
a pasture where his grandfather's family raised cows and livestock. Alberhasky's wife grew up
at 1200 East Washington Street, and her godmother owned the property prior to Alberhasky's
purchase of it. Alberhasky said that the couple had rehabilitated the house and rented it, but the
reason for subdividing the property is to provide a space for his son to go camping and to
recreate in. Alberhasky said that the current tenants have been wonderful tenants and really
want to buy the property, but cannot afford to buy the entire property. Alberhasky said that he
had never dreamed that the process of getting the property subdivided would be such a pain.
He said he and his wife have no evil intentions in mind and that they would consider giving the
outlot portion of the property to the Johnson County Trust or something like that at some point in
the future. The idea behind the subdivision is simply to allow the house to be affordable for the
tenants to buy and to provide a recreational space for the Alberhasky family.
Payne asked if the 10-foot easement was sufficient for accessing the property. Alberhasky said
that it is, and that he has put a lot of time, energy, equipment and work into restoring the
property to its more natural state.
Frank Gersh, 1041 Woodlawn Avenue, said that the area is a very beautiful one and that
Alberhasky has done some very good things in planting prairie grasses and removing scrub
trees. Gersh said it was not clear to him whether building actual buildings on the outlot was a
part of the plan. If it is, he would not support it. Miklo said that approval of this subdivision
would not approve additional buildings. Although there is potential in the future for one
additional house to be built on the subdivided property, it is not being proposed at this time.
Freerks noted that Commissioners had received a letter from the Johnson County Soil and
Water Conservation District which talks a great deal about endangered species, soil types, etc.
that would have to be carefully looked into before further development could be considered.
Freerks said it is clear that good things are happening with the property, but that she respects
Gersh taking the time to express his concerns. She said that she has the impression that a lot
of work would need to be done before anything could happen on that outlot. Greenwood
Hektoen said that unlike the previous application, this outlot would be designated as private
open space. She said that if the applicant ever applied to be permitted to build on the lot then
neighbors would be notified, the property would be posted, and an intensive sensitive areas
review of the property would be done. Greenwood Hektoen explained that in order to build a
house on the existing lot, the owner would have to tear down the current house and build a new
one. Gersh asked why a new easement is necessary if there already is one in place. Miklo said
that in order to get to the back half of the outlot there needs to be some access from
Washington Street. Miklo said that if there is no easement in place the only legal access to
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2009 - Formal
Page 8 of 10
Outlot A will be from Jefferson Street. Miklo explained that the easement would allow the owner
to build a driveway if they wished. Gersh asked if the 100-year floodplain would affect any
future plans to build. Freerks said there is no reason that an outlot cannot be located in a
floodplain, and there is no discussion of building at present. Miklo said that in the future if
anyone wished to build on either of the lots they would have to build one foot above the 100-
year floodplain either by building on stilts or bringing in fill.
Martha Gordon, 1041 Woodlawn Avenue, asked what the property is designated as now, and
what the difference would be if the designation was switched to private open space. Gordon
asked why the change was needed, and if there was any protection from building on it in the
future other than the difficulty of building on that site. She said although she does not own the
property, she would like to make sure that it is preserved because it is a really nice wooded
area.
Miklo explained that as it exists now there is more than one lot there. Miklo said that the
purpose of the change is to allow for the sale of the existing house to another party. Without the
subdivision, that would not be possible.
Freerks explained that the lot would be considered a "difficult" one by many developers and
owners; however, it is precisely because this owner has a history with the property and cares for
it that he wishes to see it subdivided so it can be better utilized and maintained.
Payne noted that designating that strip Outlot A made it difficult to build upon without jumping
through several hoops.
There were no further comments from the public and the public hearing was closed.
Eastham motioned to approve SUB09-00009, an application submitted by DASH
Properties, LLC for a preliminary and final plat of Hunter's Hideaway, a 1-lot (with an
outlot for private open space), 3.92 acre residential subdivision located between
Washington and Jefferson Streets at 1136 E Washington Street, subject to Staff approval
of legal papers prior to City Council consideration.
Payne seconded.
Eastham said that he wished to respond to a letter from Joan Jehle of 1167 E. Jefferson Street.
He said that it is his understanding that the Commission and the City Council do not have
authority to re-establish property lines.
Weitzel said he wished to reiterate that the subdivision is being done to allow someone to
purchase the home they are currently renting. Weitzel said that it does sound as though the
current landowner has a mind toward stewardship. Weitzel said that while the lot is very difficult
to build on, it is not impossible that at some point someone will take the time and expense
required to look into that possibility. Even so, Weitzel said, it seems like this is the best use of
the land and fits all of the zoning criteria.
Freerks said there are not that many places like this left in Iowa City and she is glad it is being
preserved and well taken care of. She said she appreciated Alberhasky's efforts to subdivide
the land.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Plahutnik abstaining).
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2009 - Formal
Page 9 of 10
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: November 2 & 5, 2009:
Busard motioned to approve the minutes.
Payne seconded.
The minutes were approved 6-0 (Plahutnik not present at time of vote).
OTHER:
ADJOURNMENT:
Weitzel motioned to adjourn.
Koppes seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Plahutnik not present at time of vote) at 8:05
p.m.
Z
0
U)
U)
00
V W
C
Z W o
N<
GG
Q W
CD ~
Z_ Q
z
z
Q
J
a
0
Z
H
W
W
2
0
I-XXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
o
�
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X,
X,
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
NXXXXXXx
00
T-
x
X
X
x
X
X
X
ti
T-X0XXxxx
oxxxxox
r-
X
X
w
X
X
X
X
xXXXX0X
4XXXxxxx
MXXXXXuiX
NxxxxwXX
LOXXX
-
XXX
�ui
mNOOM
�Xo000000
w
ma
J
J
J
Q
2
Q
Z
W
NO
U
Q
J
2-
M
Qn
ZIx2�W
wUY~
LLI:w
<P
ILz=�
cncnwa�Q—
UQUOQJw
MWwYaaS
0
LL
cc
�
XXXXXXX
V-
T
�
xXoxxxx
o0xXXXXO
V-
V-
XXxxXxo
ti
MxXxx
x
x
x
M
MXXXxxxx
Nxxxxxxx
V-0XX0XX0
�w�r
-
MNOOM
WaU-)0U-)000LO
FX0000000
w
w
W
J
ce
m
J
Q
4Q
WfA=Zrvwx
2
O
zoQYC62z
IxxWWLLFLu
vaic~nwCL
DQa0QJ
—W
COwU.Y(La�
E
0
�d
a)
N O `
U Q�
x E
w�
cii a)
aa) 2
E c o
a a Q z Z
a Q ii ii n
u n w
XOOz I
u1
Y