HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-03-2009 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, September 3, 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. Discussion of Miller Orchard Neighborhood Plan
D. Rezoning Item
1. REZ09-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Company for a
rezoning from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone to High Density Single Family
Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately 4.29 acres of property located on Walden Road, west of
Mormon Trek Blvd. (The applicant has requested that this item be deferred to the September 17
meeting.) (45-day limitation period: Waived)
2. REZ09-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Iowa Wireless Services, LLC for a text
amendment to allow communication towers in Interim Development Residential zones.
E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: August 20, 2009
F. Other
G. Adjournment
>>> Please note meeting time is 7:00 PM <<<
UDComina Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Informal
September 14
Se tember 28
October 12
November 2
Formal
September 17
October 1
October 15
November 5
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 27, 2009
To: Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Marcia Bollinger, Neighborhood Services Coordinator
Re: Presentation of Miller Orchard Neighborhood Plan
At your September 4th meeting, members of the Miller Orchard Neighborhood Association will
be making a brief presentation regarding their recently completed neighborhood plan. The plan,
which is attached, was the end product of a Field Problems project involving four students of the
University of Iowa Urban and Regional Planning Graduate Program; Nate Kabat, Doug Ongie,
Theodore J Paton and Milton Thurmond.
Over 100 residents and several commercial business owners/operators of the Miller Orchard
neighborhood met with these graduate students as well as various City staff to produce this five
year plan for their neighborhood. The process started in October, 2008 and the plan was
completed in April 2009. The plan includes a step by step outline of how the neighborhood will
be approaching issues related to neighborhood beatification and identity, housing stabilization,
pedestrian and personal safety, investment in the neighboring commercial districts and traffic
safety.
Mark Cannon and Katherine Parker Bryden will be providing an overview of the plan and would
be happy to answer any questions you may have. The Miller Orchard Neighborhood Plan will
also be presented to the Iowa City City Council at one of their upcoming meetings. The
neighborhood association is not asking that any action be taken by the Planning and Zoning
Commission or the City Council. It is simply for your information.
The neighborhood plan is available, along with other details related to the neighborhood
planning process at www.icgov.org/millerorchardplan. Let me know if you have questions at
356-5237 or Marcia-Bollinger@iowa-city.org.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 28, 2009
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
RE: Request to defer REZ09-00003 (Walden Woods, Part 7, Lot 79)
The applicant for REZ09-00003, Southgate Development, has requested another
deferral of this item. They have not yet come to an agreement with the Walden Court
Homeowners Association to use the private storm sewer pipe in Walden Court to convey
the storm water run-off from detention basins on the proposed development site to the
public storm sewer along Rohret Road. Until such an agreement is reached staff
continues to recommend deferral.
Given ongoing public interest in this proposed rezoning, staff will make every effort to
inform surrounding property owners of the status of this item. The deferral request has
been noted on the agenda that is posted to the City's website and in the newspaper. In
addition, once the applicant is ready to proceed, we will send out notification by mail to
all property owners within 300 feet of the property and any others that have provided
input regarding this application.
Attached is a letter received this week from a neighboring property owner regarding this
rezoning item.
August 25, 2009
Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Iowa City
Dept. of Planning
Attn: Karen Howard
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission,
We are submitting comments regarding the application (REZ09-00003) submitted by
Southgate Development Company for a rezoning of a 4.29-acre property located on Walden
Road, west of Mormon Trek Boulevard, from Medium Density Single Family Residential
(RS-8) to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12). My wife Meigen Fink and I are
residents of a home on property that borders the applicant's land along the west side. We
would like to bring to the attention of the Commission a set of issues related to this
application that include the character and scale of the proposed development concept and
the potentially negative effect that a high density development would have on the
surrounding neighborhood if the application were approved.
Our first concern is that a high -density development would likely create an overflow -parking
problem that would filter out into the surrounding neighborhood. Given the unusual size
and shape limitations of the applicant's land we find it highly unlikely that enough off street
parking would be included in a plan designed to maximize unit density. The basis of this
thinking comes from our observation of the five duplexes located on the stretch of Walden
Road situated on the hill leading up to the proposed entry of the applicant's land. The
development of these duplexes by Southgate in the mid 1990s has attracted a population of
those who appear to be University students, as we have observed a yearly turnover of
residents. There is the impression from the number of vehicles associated with these
residences that there is one car per bedroom in these units. Our contention is that upzoning
this land and adding a high -density development would likely bring an influx of unrelated
persons living together, and likewise a large number of cars with nowhere to go.
Of particular concern is the single entry/exit on Walden Road, which is situated on a tight
curve at the crest of a hill on Walden Road. Currently this stretch of road assumes the
majority of overflow parking. Construction of the proposed entry to the development
would eliminate some overflow parking spots. In our assessment, potential vehicle overflow
from the proposed development would promote the parking of vehicles further down
Walden Rd and Jensen St. Single-family residents on those streets would now find vehicles
frequently parked in front of their homes long term where there were none before. The
frequency of illegal parking on the prohibited side of Walden Road would likely increase,
causing concern for emergency vehicle access. Certainly the intent of the original base
zoning (RS-8) for this area was that the majority of vehicles owned and operated by the
residents who live there year round would be parked off-street. There is the likelihood that
this premise would be violated if high -density zoning is granted.
— 2 — August 25, 2009
The land under consideration shares intimate borders with areas of development that
maintain the characteristics of a quality neighborhood, namely the Walden Court and Coll
Court neighborhoods. A high -density development in place on the applicant's land would
likely have an adverse effect on the integrity of these neighborhoods that border it. The
surrounding land was developed in stages over many years and yet the immediate area retains
a zoning of RS-8 or OPD-8. In our conversations with longtime residents of this area it was
learned that residents organized to protect and uphold the character of the medium density
development area in which we live, despite past attempts to upzone nearby properties.
Increased traffic and noise is not what is desired on this tract of land that sits between a
quiet retirement facility (Walden Place) and a neighborhood of widows and retirees (Walden
Court). High -density development may have an effect to lower resale values of bordering
properties. As it is the last remaining undeveloped parcel in the area, we would welcome
development of this land under current RS-8 zoning and feel it would complement our
neighborhoods.
The solution to dealing with storm water runoff has been identified as the largest issue to
overcome before proceeding with consideration of the application. This issue is of most
concern to the Walden Court residents, as they are directly downhill from the development.
We would, however, like to point out that the drainage issue directly affects fifteen property
owners directly to the west of the parcel under consideration for rezoning. The entire
backyard runoff from each of these fifteen lots is funneled down through the four
properties that border the pipeline easement on the west. This drainage is then required to
cross the pipeline easement to reach a city storm water receptacle near Rohret Rd. The
south end of the pipeline easement is very flat and swampy. This effectively renders
portions of three of the bordering properties mucky and useless. Having lived in our home
for more than 10 years, we can attest that there has been a worsening of the drainage over
time as a gradual silting -in occurs. For this reason we want the commission to know that
though we are a much smaller part of the drainage equation, we have been affected by the
problem on a long-term basis as well. Much of the pipeline easement is sloped so that it
adds to the runoff. Any grading or construction over the upper end of the easement, as is
proposed in the concept plan, may compound our backyard drainage issues. This may occur
if silt from soil grading during construction finds its way to the south, compounding already -
poor drainage.
In summary, it is our view that the rational development of this property does not support
the upzoning of the land. The developer has not provided enough compelling reasons why
the land and the surrounding neighborhoods would be best served by increasing the unit
density on this parcel. We feel the developer has not fully supported all variance approval
criteria in section 14-4B of the Iowa City Zoning Code. Development of the land under the
current RS-8 zoning designation retains the most appeal.
Sincerely,
Brian Fink Meigen Fink
44 Coll Court 44 Coll Court
Iowa City, Iowa 52246 Iowa City, Iowa 52246
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 28, 2009
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
RE: Request to amend the zoning code to allow communications towers in Interim
Development Residential Zones (ID-RS & ID-RM)
After further consideration of the discussion at your last meeting regarding the Board of
Adjustment approval criteria for allowing cell towers in ID-RS and ID-RM Zones, staff
agrees that adding language to guide Board decisions regarding how electric power is
provided to the site is important.
By adding the sentence underlined below, it will trigger consideration of how electric
power will be provided to areas that do not yet have urban services available. Given that
each site will be unique and it may not always be practical or desirable to have the
power extended underground, the proposed language states that the Board of
Adjustment may require that electric distribution lines be made underground. This
flexibility in the language will provide an opportunity for the Board to consider existing
site characteristics before making this a requirement.
Staff recommends adding the underlined sentence to paragraph 14-4B-4E-4b(6) as
follows:
(6) The proposed tower will not utilize a back-up generator as a principal power source. Back-up
generators may only be used in the event of a power outage. The Board of Adjustment may
require that the electric distribution line necessary to furnish electric service to the tower be made
underground from existing systems however, this requirement would not apply to electrical
transformers meter pedestal switch pear and other appurtenances impractical to bury.
Approved by:
Robert MikTo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 20, 2009 — 7:30 PM — FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Michelle Payne, Tim Weitzel, Elizabeth Koppes, Wally
Plahutnik, Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Patricia Patton, Margaret Loomer, Sheila Cushing, Peter McNally, Glen
Meisner, Brenda Christener
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 6-1 (Plahutnik voting no) to approve REZ09-00004, an application
submitted by Iowa Wireless Services, LLC for a text amendment to allow communication towers in
Interim Development Residential zones.
The Commission voted 7-0 to approve REZ09-00005, an application submitted by The Breese Co.,
LLC for a rezoning from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone
for approximately 3,450 square feet of property located at 611 Southgate Avenue.
The Commission voted 6-0 (Busard abstaining) to approve SUB09-00006/SUB09-00007, an
application submitted by Johnson County Extension Service for a preliminary and final plat of
Johnson County Extension Service, a 1-lot, 1.64 acre subdivision located at 4265 Oak Crest Hill.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REZONING USE ITEM:
REZ09-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Company for a
rezoning from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone to High Density Single
Family Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately 4.29 acres of property located on Walden Road,
west of Mormon Trek Boulevard. The 45-day limitation period for this item has been waived.
Eastham announced that he was abstaining from consideration of this item.
Freerks noted that the applicant has requested the item be deferred to the September 3`d meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Howard noted that the property owner is negotiating with the owners of Walden Court Condominiums
regarding drainage issues and that is the reason the deferral was requested.
Freerks said she would open the public hearing on the matter in spite of the deferral as there seemed to
be some people present who wished to speak to the issue.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 20, 2009 - Formal
Page 2 of 8
The public hearing was opened.
Patricia Payton, 2428 Walden Court, said her property is at the bottom of the hill from the property being
considered for rezoning. She said that her property has suffered water damage many times and that until
the association hired a lawyer and an engineer, no cooperation from Southgate, the adjacent property
owner, had been forthcoming. Payton said clay and mud run-off from Southgate's property had been a
problem ever since the trees and vegetation had been removed fifteen years prior. She said that some
neighbors had foundation issues as a result of the clay and mud, and some had issues with the interiors
of their homes. Payton said that the idea of densely populated construction on that site is a scary thing to
the homeowners below it. Payton said that a lake often forms in the yards of homeowners at the bottom
of the hill as a result of run-off from that property. She said the neighbors have had bad experiences with
this property and that she is not convinced of Southgate's claims that they will be good neighbors if
allowed to rezone the property. She said that she herself has considered moving because of this issue.
Freerks asked if the run-off issues had continued within the last year. Payton said that she had had water
issues, but that she had had to dig out around her foundation and reinforce it with stone in the past to
prevent further mud and clay issues. Payton said that the neighbors had had to install heavy duty fencing
to catch the mud as it slid down the hill and prevent it from covering their sidewalks. She said the
property was mowed about once a year and had been graded once in about ten years. She said that
because the property is a hillside, there will be nowhere for the water to go but down if buildings are
constructed on it. Freerks asked if Payton had attended any of the neighbor meetings with Southgate.
She said she had but that the information provided had not satisfied her that the development was a good
idea. Payton said she believed that by deferring, Southgate is trying to wait out the neighbors until they
no longer show up at the Planning and Zoning meetings.
Margaret Loomer, 1248 Street, said she had safety concerns with the development. She said the parking
in the area is not sufficient for the density of the area already, much less if the proposed condominiums
were built. Loomer said that Walden Road is notorious as a short cut from Rohret Road to Mormon Trek,
and that as a result there is quite a bit of traffic in what is supposed to be a quiet neighborhood. Loomer
said she is concerned for children who have to walk to school in the neighborhood. She also is
concerned about the aesthetics of the neighborhood, especially if the development is intended to be
renter -occupied. Loomer said she would like to see the density cut down some at the very least.
Sheila Cushing, 2409 Walden Court, said she wished to reiterate the concerns about the traffic flow. She
said there is no stoplight and no way of making provisions for one at Walden Road and Mormon Trek,
and that it is somewhat of a blind turn for those attempting to make a left turn there. She said adding a
high -density unit there would really obstruct traffic flow. She said that the drainage and traffic issues
should both be taken into consideration.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Weitzel moved to defer to the September 3`d meeting.
Koppes seconded.
Koppes asked if the applicant had indicated if they would be ready by the September 3`d meeting.
Freerks noted that it was the applicant who wished to defer to that date. Koppes said it would be a
shame to have everyone come back on the 3rd and then have the matter deferred again. Howard said
she had been in contact with the Walden Court Homeowners' Association and Southgate and would
continue to monitor the situation. Miklo said that people could call the Planning Department or check the
website to make sure the matter was on the agenda before coming to the meeting September 3rd. He
said he would also like to point out that the Planning and Zoning Commission will begin meeting at 7:00
p.m. instead of 7:30 p.m. as of the September 3rd meeting.
Plahutnik asked if he was correct in believing that this matter would not proceed at all until there was an
agreement with the homeowners' association regarding the drainage problem. Howard said this was
Staff's recommendation. Freerks said that the Commission would make that determination, but that as
she had expressed previously, she certainly was not interested in making the drainage issues worse than
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 20, 2009 - Formal
Page 3of8
they were presently. Howard said the drainage agreement in question is one that would allow the
developer to tie in with the private storm -water system owned by Walden Court. Further drainage issues
would be resolved at the subdivision level. Howard said it would be difficult to find a way to properly drain
the property without tying into the private drainage. Payne noted that if no agreement was reached it
would continue to drain the way it did now, which was also unsatisfactory to the neighbors. Howard said
ultimately the property could not be developed without dealing with the drainage issues.
A vote was taken and the motion to defer passed 6-0 (Eastham abstaining).
Freerks advised the public to check in with city staff regarding the September 3rd meeting to see if the
item would be deferred to a later date.
REZ09-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Iowa Wireless Services, LLC for a text
amendment to allow communication towers in Interim Development Residential zones. The 45-
day limitation period ends September 7, 2009.
Howard stated that Interim Development is a designation given to land that has been annexed, but has no
public services available to it and is not yet ready for development. She explained that this is a sort of
"holding" zone for land. These zones allow certain agricultural uses, single family homes and very limited
development.
The future zoning for this particular area is marked out to potentially be multi -family residential and single
family residential. The request is to allow cell towers in the area. Staff did some research into what other
cities in Iowa were allowing and found that many cities were allowing towers in similar zones, though
there were strict guidelines and it usually had to go through a special exception process. Howard said
that Staff developed language modeled after the zoning code language for Neighborhood Commercial
zones and their provisions for cell phone towers. Howard said that Staff recommended including the strict
restrictions found in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zones if the Commission decided to go
forward with allowing towers in Interim Development Residential zones.
Howard said that one concern is that communication towers will detract from the aesthetics of future
residential areas. Howard said the design of cell phone towers has evolved to be less obtrusive.
Howard said that either stealth/camouflage design or mono -pole designs could be incorporated into a
residential setting. She said that Staff believed that so long as the location of these towers was carefully
considered by the Board of Adjustment they could be allowed without detriment to the aesthetics of the
area. She noted that there have been issues of poor cell phone coverage in the area, particularly in the
northeast area of the city.
Howard led the Commission through a series of maps showing areas that could possibly be affected.
Busard asked if increasing the height restriction from 120 feet to 150 feet would better serve Staff's goal
of having towers co -located. Howard said that it would depend on the tower and its desired coverage, but
that 120 feet provided plenty of range.
Busard asked about the setback requirements for the towers, and Howard explained that the setback
requirements applied only to adjacent residential properties.
Plahutnik asked where towers are currently allowed, and Miklo explained that towers are currently
allowed in industrial zones and are allowed by special exception in the commercial and public zones.
Plahutnik said that he would like to see a map showing where the towers are currently allowed and
located to be able to determine if this change was necessary. Howard said topography was a factor in
the effectiveness of towers. Payne noted that in the special exception process the applicant would have
to prove that the tower could not be effectively placed in an area that already allowed the tower. Howard
said an applicant would have to: 1) check to see if the tower could be co -located on an existing tower,
and then 2) check to see if there are any other industrial or commercial properties available, and, finally,
3) take it before the Board of Adjustment.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 20, 2009 - Formal
Page 4 of 8
Miklo gave examples of inconspicuous cell phone towers and mono -poles that are located in populated
areas throughout town that one might not notice unless it was pointed out as a cell phone tower.
Freerks asked for clarification about the screening provisions in the code. Howard said that the code was
drafted after a committee made up of various entities in Johnson County met and tried to come up with
similar wording for codes regarding towers. Howard said that if the Commission wanted to add language,
now would be the time to do that. Freerks said that the way she read the code buildings would be
required to be screened, but not necessarily the towers themselves. Miklo said he believed bases would
likely be screened as a result of utility sheds that would likely be built alongside towers. The utility sheds
are required to be screened.
Eastham asked if the utility cables to the towers would be placed underground as is required of utility
cables in residential zones. Miklo said that electric cables are required to be underground in new
subdivisions. Payne said that likely whatever was done prior to subdivision would be redone once
development occurred. Howard said she could ask Public Works. Eastham said his view is that it would
be a good idea not to have above ground cables in a residential zone.
Eastham asked if there was a lot size requirement so that in the event the tower blew down it did not
damage adjoining property. Howard said she believed towers were designed to collapse on themselves,
not to tip over, but she would defer to the applicant regarding the engineering of the towers. Miklo said he
believed the practice would be to make these outlots or open space. He said he did not think the City
would want these on inhabited lots. Miklo said that he would think that in the subdivision process this
question would be sorted out.
Eastham asked if there was a separation distance requirement between towers. Howard said there was
no requirement of separation, only that all sites within a half a mile were identified by an applicant.
Howard said that topography was such an issue that having restrictions on the density of towers might not
be wise.
Howard noted that the property will be rezoned prior to development, so the cell phone tower would either
be grandfathered in as a non -conforming use or it would be made to conform. Eastham asked if it was
correct that there were no cell phone towers in residential zones currently. Miklo said there is one on the
Elks property, which is zoned ID-RS. It was allowed by special exception under the previous zoning code.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Pete McNally of Grinnell Group, 225 42"d Street, Des Moines, identified himself as the representative of
the applicant, I -Wireless. McNally said that it is not the usual way for I -Wireless to ask a city to change its
rules if there were any other viable options to provide service. He said that what customers demand of a
cell phone has changed dramatically. McNally said there are now more households in the United States
that only have a cell phone than there are households that only have a land line. McNally said that
approximately 35% of households are relying on cell phones for their telecommunications needs. He
also said that the FCC reports that 50% of all 911 calls come from cell phones, which demonstrates the
importance of having good cell phone coverage everywhere. McNally said that after an extensive search,
[-Wireless found that it was having difficulty finding places where towers could be located and still provide
coverage everywhere. McNally noted that I -Wireless was asking only for the opportunity to ask the City at
a later date for permission to place a tower in a residential zone. McNally said that in asking for Interim
Development to be a place where towers could be built, I -Wireless was thinking in terms of infrastructure,
just like any other utility provider. He said that they were trying to get ahead of the curve and plan for the
future while still leaving the control of where a tower was placed in the hands of the City.
McNally said that 80-90% of tower agreements are leases. McNally said that he believed the owner
would want to keep that parcel in the event the property was developed in order to maintain the income
stream. In that case, McNally said, the City would have the opportunity to make sure that all of its
setback requirements were met. McNally said that I -Wireless does not generally use utility buildings,
though other cell companies do. He said they are functionally no different than transformer boxes located
in residential neighborhoods. McNally said that electric cables are handled in whatever way the utility
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 20, 2009 - Formal
Page 5 of 8
company requires of them. He said the coaxial cables are not typically buried, but come straight from the
top of the utility cupboard to the tower. McNally said that it would be highly unlikely for a tower to fail. He
noted that two blocks from the high school that was destroyed in Parkersburg when the tornado hit, there
was an I -Wireless tower. That tower remained standing and was operational within 24 hours. McNally
said he would not be any more concerned about a tower tipping over than he would any other four story
building. He said towers are engineered for local wind and ice conditions and for the exact spot on which
they are located.
Freerks said she was puzzled by the electric boxes and whether any fencing should be required if it was
located in a park area. Howard said that it was important to remember that the Board of Adjustment
would look at each case and could add any screening or other specific requirements they felt were
necessary. Payne said Freerks brought up a good point because coaxial cables that were above ground
could be subject to vandalism or children playing on them if the area became a park. McNally said
typically the area would be enclosed with a fence. Freerks said that while they did not wish to require
things that were not necessary, they did want to look ahead. Greenwood Hektoen said that during the
special exception process the City has quite a bit of leverage for adding requirements such as screening,
fencing, etc. Payne said the concern is at the point where the use of the surrounding property changes to
residential. Greenwood Hektoen said that at that point it will come back before the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the City Council as a subdivision.
Eastham asked if it would be good to have an engineer's review of whether or not a tower was necessary
in that area. Howard said she did not know if the City Engineers would be qualified to make that
determination as they typically deal with structural issues. McNally said that in cities where that kind of a
review is required I -Wireless simply submits something by their radio frequency engineers. Miklo said
further evidence can always be asked for by the Board of Adjustment if it is deemed necessary.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Weitzel moved to approve REZ09-00004.
Payne seconded.
Eastham said he is not necessarily against voting on the measure, but that there have been a number of
suggestions about possible changes. Freerks suggested making very specific recommendations for
changes and then seeing what they come up with.
Koppes said she would like to amend 4b.5 and other similar sections to add the word "cabinet".
Weitzel seconded.
The amendment was added by a 7-0 vote.
Plahutnik said that he views his job here as looking ahead 25 years into the future. He said that while he
is a cell phone user, he would not wish a 100-foot cell phone tower in his own back yard, and so could not
wish one on the back yard of his neighbor 25 years in the future. He said that cell phone companies
currently have a service tower problem, but that in the future they may be able to resolve this with
technology advances using a different solution. Plahutnik said he would not live in such a neighborhood,
and he cannot wish it on anyone else.
Payne said she had the same opinion as Plahutnik initially, but that she agrees with Staff to a certain
extent that anyone buying property adjacent to a pre-existing tower knows what they are buying. She
noted that the towers are so well camouflaged that it is difficult to even notice they are there in many
places in the city. She said that she has become convinced that this is probably a good thing for now.
Busard said that cell towers are now part of the infrastructure and that it is easier to design a subdivision
around infrastructure than to design infrastructure around subdivisions. Busard said that with the Board
of Adjustment and the subdivision processes he believes there will be adequate oversight of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 20, 2009 - Formal
Page 6 of 8
placement of towers. Ultimately, cell phone towers must be allowed in the area, Busard said.
Eastham said Plahutnik raised an excellent point and that a balance had to be struck between the desire
for more cell phone service and the need for more antennas. Eastham said it is important for him that the
provisions contain removal requirements when/if the towers become obsolete. Eastham said there is an
analogy between electrical service and cell phone service. The number of electrical lines in the area was
also once very annoying to look at, but now they are largely underground. At some point, the same sort
of transformation may take place with cell phone towers. He said he would go ahead and support the
current provisions.
Weitzel said it is hard to overstate how much design can ameliorate structure, and how it looks and fits
into the community. Weitzel said the code is well written and that the Board of Adjustment will have a lot
of control over the way the towers look. He reiterated the point that people will move into the
neighborhood with the tower pre-existing, not the other way around.
Koppes said she also supports the measure. She said she approves of the camouflaging, and the fact
that the towers will be there before the land is developed.
Freerks said Staff had looked at the matter carefully and has come up with a solid process. She said she
is very much in favor of the provision for removing the towers when they become obsolete, and the co -
location aspect of the code. She said she has some concerns about how the tower areas will transition
into park lands or subdivisions at some point. However, she thinks it will be dealt with carefully when that
time arises.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-1 (Plahutnik voting no).
REZ09-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by The Breese Co., LLC for a rezoning from
Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 3,450
square feet of property located at 611 Southgate Avenue. The 45 day limitation period expires
September 13, 2009.
Howard said the applicant could not be present and had offered his apologies.
Howard said this is a minor lot line adjustment. Howard said the building actually straddles the property
line. The applicant wishes to remodel the interior of the building and has a tenant that wants to extend
into the portion of the building on the other side of the lot -line. The applicant wanted to adjust the lot -line
to accommodate the tenant. However, the use that is going in there requires CI-1 zoning, so the zoning
boundary line must also be adjusted.
The Comprehensive Plan indicates this area as appropriate for Intensive Commercial zoning, as the
zoning pattern is fairly set in that area. Basically it is just a minor adjustment to the zoning boundary line,
Howard said.
The public hearing was opened. As there was no public comment, the hearing was closed.
Eastham moved approval of REZ09-00005.
Payne seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Freerks said she had one thought concerning the proximity to the apartments next door. Howard said
that the building is already in that proximity. Payne said the reason the line is where it is is because of
the way the building is situated on a corner lot. Miklo pointed out that it would not happen under current
zoning that a single building would be in two different zones.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 20, 2009 - Formal
Page 7 of 8
SUBDIVISION ITEM:
SUB09-00008/SUB09-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Johnson County
Extension Service for a preliminary and final plat of Johnson County Extension Service, a 1-lot,
1.64 acre subdivision located at 4265 Oak Crest Hill.
Busard announced that he would be abstaining from this matter because in his role as a County Planner
he has involved the review of this property. He left the meeting.
Miklo explained that this property is currently owned by the Johnson County Fairgrounds Board. The
Johnson County Extension Service, a state -run organization, currently has office space at the
fairgrounds. The proposal involves the Johnson County Extension Service buying a parcel of the
fairground property and building a new office on that site. The entire fairground is not included in the
subdivision because it is a property of more than 40 acres; this is a one -lot subdivision. There is an
easement allowing access to the fairgrounds driveway and Old Highway 218, also known as Oak Crest
Hill Road.
The Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the current fairgrounds, the residential, and the mixed
commercial uses in the area. The Fringe Area Agreement says that commercial and industrial uses
should not occur until the area is annexed into the City. Miklo said the Fringe Area Agreement does not
address public uses such as the fairgrounds and the Johnson County Extension Service, though Staff
feels this particular proposal is not inconsistent with the aims of the plan. The property is under the
County's jurisdiction and is zoned County Commercial Agricultural which would allow this use. Miklo said
that neither Staff nor the County wants an additional curb cut onto Old Highway 218 because of its arterial
function and the high speed of traffic in that area; thus, the driveway easement.
The Hills Fire Department submitted a letter stating that they have jurisdiction for providing fire protection
for the area.
Miklo said the inconsistencies of the legal descriptions in the preliminary and final plats have been
corrected.
Miklo said Staff recommends approval subject to the legal papers and construction drawings being
approved by Staff prior to Council consideration.
Freerks asked about parking provisions. Miklo said he believed the Extension Service planned to do their
own parking lot on the new property.
Freerks asked if there were large trees in that area that could be protected or maintained. Miklo said the
subdivision code does not have a provision protecting trees unless it is a significant grove of trees.
Eastham asked the size of the building. Miklo said it was fairly significant and referred him to the
applicant's engineer.
Eastham asked if the entities involved were under the control of the Board of Supervisors. Miklo said he
believed the fairgrounds were separate but was not sure, and that the Extension Service is a state
agency.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Glen Meisner, MMS Consultants, represented the applicant. Meisner said he believed the building was
80x50, single -story. Parking will be on three sides of the building. Plahutnik encouraged the applicant to
protect the trees. Meisner said that while efforts are being made to keep as many trees as possible,
some will have to be removed.
Brenda Christener, 2526 Potomac Drive, said she is currently the business manager for the Johnson
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 20, 2009 - Formal
Page 8 of 8
County Agricultural Association. She said that they do fall under the Johnson County Board of
Supervisors, and that she would be happy to try to answer any questions Commissioners had.
The public hearing was closed.
Payne motioned to recommend approval of SUB09-00006/SUB09-00007, a preliminary and final
plat for Johnson County Extension Service, a 1.66 acre subdivision in the north portion of the
Johnson County Fairgrounds, subject to Staff approval of construction drawings and legal papers
prior to City Council consideration.
Koppes seconded.
Freerks said that the proposal is not inconsistent with the Fringe Agreement and that an office use is
permitted in the current zone. She said she was glad that there would be no additional curb cuts on Old
Highway 218 and that efforts would be made to save mature trees.
Weitzel said that the use does seem to be compatible, and an office in the area does seem to be
appropriate.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Busard abstaining).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: June 13 and July 16, 2009:
Freerks noted she had one small change that she would give to Staff.
Payne motioned to approve the minutes.
Plahutnik seconded.
The minutes were approved 6-0 (Busard absent).
OTHER:
Miklo noted that formal meetings would begin at 7:00 p.m. in the future.
Miklo noted that there was a short article about the Commission in a publication he passed around.
ADJOURNMENT:
Plahutnik motioned to adjourn.
Payne seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 (Busard absent) vote at 9:18 p.m.
s/pcd/minutes/p&z/2009p&z/8-20-09.doc