HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-19-2013 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, December 19, 2013 - 7:00 PM
Forrna� Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma ' J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
D. Development Item
Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for a preliminary plat of
Lindernann Subdivision P2rt 43, 6, & 7, a 85-lot. 25 04-acre �esidential subdivision located on
Kenne'Lh and Charles Drive, north of Gustav Street. (SUB13-00024)
E. Code Items
1. Discussion of amendments to the section 15-3-10 of 'the Subdivision Regulations removing
the maximum distance requirements for the placement of clustered mailboxes in new
subdivisions and adding guidelines to ensure appropriate placement of large concentrations
of mailboxes.
2 Distribution of the public review draft of the Riverfront Crossings D(strict form -based zoning
code. (Public discussion of this itern will be held at the January 2, 2014 meeting.)
F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: December 5, 2013
G. Other
1-1. Adjournment
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal January 2 1 January 16 , February 6
Informal 6�lbeduled as needed
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo and Bailee McClellan.
Planning Intern
Item:SUB13-00024 Lindemann Subdivision Date December 19 2013
Part 4B, 6 & 7
GENERAL HINFORIVIAT ION:
Applicant: Southgate Development
755 Mormon Trek Blvd.
Iowa City, IA 5224(3
(319)337-4',.95
gsiders@sgdev.net
Property Owner: Walden Wood Associates, LLC
755 Mormon Trek Blvd. PO Box 1907
Iowa City, IA 52244
Requested Action
Purpose:
Location
Size
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Com, prehensive Plan
Neighborhood Open Space District:
File Date
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND N!'ORMATION:
Preliminary plat approval
Development of an 85-lot residential subdivision
Noith of Camden Road
25.04 acres
Planned Development Overlay (OPD8)
North �Ag ricultural (OPD8)
South: Residential (OPD8)
East: Residential (OPD8)
Wes'L: Residential (OPD5)
Low density single family residential
Lower West Branch (NE3)
November 27, 2013
january 11, 2014
In 2001 approximately 95 acres were annexed into 'the city for the Lindemann Subdivision. Upon
annexation the western 35 acres were zoned Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) and
the eastern 60 acres were zoned Medium Density Sngle Family Residential (RS-8). The rezoning
was subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) that included rec, hierrents for the
developer to contribute funds to the City for 'the reconstruction of Lower West Branch Road to the
north of the property� inclusion of a greenway and trail along the stream and wetland corridor, and
IN
an interconnected street pattern including future street connections to Lower West Branch Road.
A preliminary plat and Sensitive Areas Plan for Lindemann Subdivision with 261 -lots was
approved in in 2002. The Sensitive Areas Plan was required due to the presence of wetlands and
a stream corridor on the property. This is the reason for the OPD-8 zoning designation. Between
2002 and 2004 final plats were approved for Lindemann Subdivision Parts 3 through 5. A revised
preliminary and final plat were approved for Lindemann Part 5 earlier this year. The preliminary
plat for Parts 6 and 7 have expired, The applicant is now requesting approval of a new
preliminary plat for Parts 6 and 7 and a re -platting of Part 4.
The applicant has not used the "Good Neighbor Policy."
ANALYSIS:
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan future land use map indicates that the
property is appropriate for single family residential uses. The Northeast District Plans depicts a
subdivision with interconnected streets and a linear open space along the stream corridor. As
noted below street connections to the adjacent property to the north are necessary to comply
with the comprehensive plan policy for street design as well as the CZA and the subdivision
requirements. The linear park and modified grid pattern are otherwise generally consistent with
the concept for this area as shown in the district plan.
Zoning Code: The property is zoned Planned Development Overlay (OPD8). The underlying
RS-8 zone requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and lot width of 45 feet. The
proposed lots range in size from 7,999 to 12,119 square feet. Lot widths range from 70 to 88
feet.
In addition to the underlying zoning requirements the CZA for this property requires compliance
with the design policies of the Northeast District Plan. These policies include an interconnected
street system and future street connections to Lower West Branch Road. To comply with this
requirement two streets should be extended to the adjacent property to the north of Anna
Street, as shown in the 2002 version of the preliminary plat for the Lindemann Subdivision
(copy attached). These additional street connections are also required per Section 15-3-2 A� 2.
of the Subdivision Code, which stipulates street connectivity between neighborhoods to provide
multiple travel routes and efficient distribution of traffic, and Section 15-3-4 A. 2, which limits
block lengths to 600 feet. As the subject plat is drawn, there are minimal points of access into
and out of the subdivision, Traffic generated by subdivision residents will only have access to
the north via Brentwood Drive, a local street in the subdivision to the east of the subject
property.
Subdivision Regulations: When the original plat was approved in 2002, the subdivision
regulations required 50-foot rights -of -way and 4-foot sidewalks for local residential streets. New
subdivision regulations were adopted in 2008 that require 60-foot rights -of -way with 5-foot
sidewalks. Kenneth Drive and Charles Drive connect to the subdivision from the south and have
already been constructed using the previous 50-foot standard with 4-foot sidewalks. The
construction of Kenneth Drive will continue with a 50-foot right-of-way with 4-foot sidewalks until
the intersection with Camden Road, and at that point will be expanded to meet the 60-foot right-
of-way and 5-foot sidewalk standards continuing to the north. To match existing portions the
streets in adjacent subdivision, the extension of Anna Street and Camden Road from the east
will be constructed with a 50-foot right-of-way and 4-foot sidewalks until the they intersect
Kenneth Drive to the west, and then will be expanded to meet the 60-foot right-of-way and 5-
foot sidewalk standards continuing west. Charles Drive will be extended north with a 50-foot
right-of-way and 4-foot sidewalks to maintain uniformity with the existing street.
Pedestrian Easement: The subdivision regulations allow the City to require an easement for
� CD blPr HIPOFIS C -I C I � ��, 2,1 S C1 F_ PC 11 30C
3
pedestrian connections on blocks longer than 600 feet. The 2002 plat shows an easement
connecting Charles Drive and the Court Hill Trail; the subject plat does not show this easement
The block length along the west side of Charles Drive from Gustav Street to Anna Street is
approximately 850 feet. An easement or outlot should be provided between lot 135 and 166
connecting Charles Drive and the Court Hill Trail to promote pedestrian accessibility.
The blocks along Camden Road and Lillian Street also exceed 600 feet, however staff believes
that given the already established street pattern and the likely destination points for vehicular
and pedestrian traffic in this area, this design is acceptable in this location and there is not a
need for a midblock pedestrian easement.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The property contains wetlands to the northwest and a
stream corridor to the west, and therefore was rezoned OPD-8 with a Sensitive Areas
Development plan when the original plat was approved in 2002. One of the purposes of the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance is to foster urban design that preserves open space and minimizes
disturbance of environmentally sensitive features and natural resources. The buffers required
by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance are meant to accomplish the goal of preserving the sensitive
environmental features. A 100-foot buffer is required between the wetland and any
development activity and a 15-foot buffer is required between the 30-foot wide stream corridor
and any development activity; both of these buffers are identified on the plat and are located
within the outlots that will be dedicated to the City for parkland.
Neighborhood parkland: The neighborhood parkland requirement for this property is satisfied by
the dedication of the stream corridor and Court Hill Trail. Court Hill Trail connects the subdivision
to Scott Park to the south of the neighborhood, The trail runs along the stream corridor and
currently ends at Gustav Street south of the subdivision. Court Hill Trail will be extended north
along the west side of the stream corridor to the property line north of Anna Street.
Stormwater management: Stormwater management will be provided in the Scott Park detention
basin, therefore no stormwater detention facilities are requiered on this property.
Infrastructure fees: Required fees include a watermain extension fee of $395 per acre and a
sanitary sewer tap -on fee of $1,038.26 per acre.
When this property was annexed into the City in 2001 Lower West Branch Road was a county
road built for rural traffic. As a condition of annexation and zoning the property for
development, the applicant agreed to contribute a portion of the cost of improving Lower West
Branch Road to City standards. Per the 2001 CZA, the amount to be contributed to the City for
the reconstruction of Lower West Branch Road is $6172.98 per acre, which must be paid at the
time of final plat approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that SUB13-00024, a request for preliminary plat approval of Lindemann
Subdivison Parts 4b, 6 and 7, an 85-lot, 25.04-acre residential subdivision located north of
Camden Road, be deferred until the resolution of the discrepancies and deficiencies noted below.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES
1. Kenneth Drive and Danelle Street (which was in the vicinity of lot 225 on the previous plat)
should be continued to the north property line per Section 15-3-2 A� 2. and Section 15-3-4 A. 2
of the Subdivision Code and the Conditional Zoning Agreement,
�� I' �t,j Rz Its I bl 3 C I,2� 1111 1 e'lFt d,,
E
2, A 20 foot wide easement or outlot for a pedestrian walkway should be provide between lots
135 and 166 per Section 15-3-4 A,2
3. The locations of mail box clusters within ou'Llots should be shown. Although we are
amending the Subdivision Regulations to remove the 600 foot spacing requirement, we still
need to identify locations for mFil boxes that provide safe access to residents.
4. The sidewalk width on the plat and on 'the street cross section for Anna Street (west of
Kenneth Drive), Lillian Street, Camden Road (west of Kenneth Drive), and Kenneth Drive north
ol Camden Road should be shown as 5 ieet wide.
5. The outlots west of lots 202 and 231 should be labeled as open space to be dedicated to the
City.
6. The notation regarding fees should note that fees will be requ!red at the time of final plat
approval for the improvement of Lower West Branch Road per the Conditional Zoning
Agreement.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary plat
3. Previously approved plat (2002)
Approved lby�
Jeff Davidson Director,
Department of Planning and Community Development
F CD �t,tt P,p3HS SUb 12 OUC24 SW� Fe�oM Jo�
Li z N I -n I/
ITECH EL DR
N
_111H
C4
Mu
W;l
TOM
col
N368
-- ---------
"13M
co
4zl- CIL-
co
NN
m
IT
1 0
Ul-
co AD
co
fflM
0 :E
POM
ME
C)
zg
z �-<j
w (0
0
w
>
<n
w
X 1�
Z.0
� M
>op�-
�- V5
z
LLJ >
0
001-
z
b
W �
Ills
0- Z
zi
z
w
uj 0
Z
M-M
I
m
9
9
a
�Moll
so
11141 mum, i1ji"M 1:111ylq!
OR
N- pop Ono oil
Is
al ii�l 110
� IZ;
P�cv,-Icy wjrj,)"j
I I I
1-24-a.-1411 C;ITY OF 101NA CiTY
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 19, 2013
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Sarah Wa1z, Associate Planner
1111 !111111111,1111111111, 1 IM111111111111!111:1 , I : 1:111111111111111 11�::1111;!11111 lillll!1�111:
I FIN AT,
clustered mailboxes in new subdivisions and adding guidelines to ensure
appropriate placement of large concentrations of mailboxes.
Due to recent changes at the federal level, the U.S. Postal Service has indicated that
they will no longer support our distance requirements for clustered mailboxes.
Therefore, staff proposes removing these requirements from the subdivision
regulations. Though the language could simply be stricken from the regulations, there
are traffic and aesthetic concerns associated with large mailbox clusters that deserve
consideration,
Staff proposes additional language to minimize the potential impacts of large mailbox
clusters on adjacent property. The language is intended to provide flexibility to allow
arrangements of mailbox clusters in a manner that considers the layout and context of
each subdivision. These regulations do not apply to existing neighborhoods.
The proposed changes are shown below with proposed new language shown in bold.
15-3-10: CLUSTERED MAILBOXES:
A. All new residential or commercial developments platted after the effective date of
these regulations that receive curbside delivery of mail shall have clustered
mailboxes, unless an exception is approved by the United States postal service. The
location of mailbox clusters shall be noted on the plat,
B. Mailbox clusters serving residential developments shall be conveniently located for
residents.
- X--� '600') walking distance (whichever is less) fF()Fn any
Y G!"
k-A-4 F- Unless otherwise approved by the City,
.'et WO') to
mailbox clusters shall be located in an outlot to be maintained by the
homeowners association. Mailboxes should be located in a manner that provides
safe access for residents, e.g., does not require residents to cross heavily trafficked
streets, etc. Driveways shall be allowed no closer than twelve feet (12) from the
location of a clustered mailbox as measured along the curb line of the fronting street.
Mailboxes must be located in a manner that will not violate the city's intersection
December 13, 2013
Page 2
visibility standards. Locations and design must be approved by the City and the
United States postal service, Depending on the size and location of the clustered
mailbox, the City may require a vehicular pull over lane built to city specifications.
C. Mailbox clusters shall be located on a concrete pad built to city specifications. To
provide for pedestrian access, a five foot (5) wide concrete sidewalk shall be
provided from the mailbox cluster to the adjacent public street and sidewalk, An
accessible route shall be provided according to ADA standards for accessible
design. In situations where there are a large number of mailboxes, the cluster
site should be designed and located as an attractive and integrated
component of the neighborhood (e.g. covering or shade structure,
landscaping, setbacks, parking or vehicle access) in order to ensure that it
does not detract from properties immediately adjacent to it. The cost of
installation, including, but not limited to, box units and concrete pad and sidewalk
access shall be borne by the developer, and subsequent maintenance shall be
carried out by the United States Postal Service and/or homeowners association.
(Ord. 08-4313, 8-26-2008)
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
'0 VV A C I T
% r T- UM
ra T44
MEMORAND
Date: December 13, 2013
1
t 0: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
Re: Riverfront Crossings District — Form -based Zoning Code
At your meeting on Thursday, we will distribute copies of the public rev)ew draft of 'the lorm-
based zoning code for the Riverfront Crossings DistriciL, We will also be posting 'the draft on the
Rive,front Crossings District welopage on the City's website and issuing a press release, so
in'�erested members of the public have the opportunity to review the proposed code prior to
public discussion at your meeting on January 2.
Since this is a significant piece o' new legislation, we also would like to schedule one or more
work sessions with ffie Commission in January. In addition to the main body of the form -based
code, there are other changes to 'the zoning ordinance that will need to be made in order for the
form -based code to work within 'the context of the larger code and some related updates to our
central city parking regulations. We anticipate sending those draft code amendments to you for
discussion at your second meating in January.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
DECEMBER 5, — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Paula Swygard,
Jodie Theobald, John Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Eric Goers
OTHERS PRESENT: Josh Entler, Beverly Johnson, Marcia Akin, Wynn Johnson,
Sharon Sorensen
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 5-1 (Eastham opposed/Martin absent)) to recommend approval of
SUB13-00023, a request for preliminary plat approval of General Quarters Part Two, a 59-
lot, 15.54-acre residential subdivision located east of Sycamore Street subject to review
by the City Engineer.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
Subdivision Item
SUB13-00023
Discussion of an application submitted by Build to Suit, Inc. for a preliminary plat of
General Quarters Part Two, a 59-lot, 15.54-acre residential subdivision located east of
Sycamore Street, south of Sherman Drive.
Miklo said the subject property was given the zoning designation in 2004 of low -density single
family (RS-5) and at the same time, the plat for General Quarters Part I was approved. He said
the applicant is now seeking approval for the remainder of the property, which is Part Two. He
showed an aerial photograph of the property. He said the proposed subdivision would include
the extension of existing streets within Part One, which were platted in 2008 and don't meet the
City's current subdivision design standards of a sixty foot right-of-way He said those streets
would be continued at the previous standard of a fifty foot right-of-way until they intersect with
Dickerson Drive where the streets widen to meet the current standards.
Miklo said the rezoning for this property did have conditions, including a requirement that there
be some public access or frontage on the Sycamore Greenway. He said this design more than
meets that condition with a single loaded street. He said the applicant has agreed to put in an
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 2 of 8
eight foot trail in the Greenway area, and the City will pay for the extra size cost.
Miklo said all the lots in the proposed subdivision meet the minimum size standard of 8,000
square feet, sixty foot wide lots. He said some of the lots along Sycamore Street are larger to
accommodate the required forty foot buffer and twenty foot landscaping in that area.
Miklo showed photographs of the subject property. He said requirements that will have to be
addressed in the final plat include payment of fees toward storm water management, which is
detailed in the staff report along with the other requirements.
Miklo said the plat is in order, and the City Engineer has signed off on the revised plat.
Eastham said the South District land use map shows two areas designated for apartments at
Sherman Street. Miklo said the District Plan talks about the possibility of small scale multifamily
at the intersections of collector and arterial streets. He said staff discussed with the applicant
that if they wanted to seek rezoning, there was the possibility of a higher density.
Freerks opened public discussion.
Josh Entler of Hall and Hall Engineers, representing the applicant, thanked City staff for
accommodating the applicant's request to move forward on this proposal quickly.
Beverly Johnson, who lives in the area of the subject property, asked if the development will be
apartments or single family homes. Freerks said the plat is for detached single family lots. Miklo
added that it would require rezoning to introduce multi -family units.
Entler said the intent of the developer is single family detached housing. He said they have no
intent or desire to do apartments.
Marcia Akin of Sherman Drive asked if there are long-term plans for apartments, as they were
promised when they moved in that all the homes in the subdivision would be single family. She
also asked about the specifications and quality of the planned houses.
Miklo reiterated that any proposal for multi -family would require rezoning, which would have to
come before the Commission and be approved by City Council. He said the Zoning Ordinance
does not address the appearance or quality of homes.
Akin asked how they can get any information about what kinds of homes will be built. Miklo
responded that the City Zoning Ordinance does not regulate single family homes to that extent.
He said that some subdivisions have covenants that have design standards.
Akin asked if the old covenants would still apply. Miklo said that would be up to the developer.
The City does not get involved with convenants.
Wynn Johnson of Sherman Drive said at the time they purchased their house, the developer
was not the current developer. He said they were told what the developer's vision for the
neighborhood and the phases of the subdivision were. He said now he's concerned if that vision
will be carried out as conveyed to them and if they will be notified of any applications to rezone.
Miklo said the current zoning allows only single family homes in this subdivision, and the
subdivision as designed only permits single family homes. He explained that if there was a
proposal to change zoning, any property owners within 300 feet would receive a letter notifying
them of that. He said the City would also post signs on the property. He said the only changes in
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 3 of 8
the subdivision design from the concept plan of 2004 were the elimination of a cul-de-sac in
favor of a through street and the slight increase in the width of the streets to sixty feet.
Johnson said the homeowners who purchased under the former developer would appreciate
being kept informed of what's going on, and he sees that as the responsibility of the current
developer and Hall & Hall.
Entler offered to meet with the homeowners after this meeting. Miklo said this will be going
before City Council on December 17 and suggested that it would be beneficial for the
homeowners to meet with the developer before then.
Freerks said it's not clear from the application if the developer used the Good Neighbor Policy,
but the Commission would like to see that as something that has to happen with an application.
She said it would be nice if there could be some sort of gathering prior to the Council meeting.
Akin asked if the Commission is at all concerned about this developer primarily being a
commercial developer. Freerks said that would probably not have any implication for the vote
the Commission makes.
Miklo said it's not unusual for a commercial developer to have members on their team who have
been involved in residential development. He said Build to Suit has made proposals for
residential development in other parts of Iowa City.
Eastham said the Commission is in large part required in making decisions to follow the
provisions that are in the City's Comprehensive Plan, in which there is nothing that talks about
developer experience or other qualities.
Sharon Sorensen of 26 Amber Lane said that a concern for her is the cul-cle-sacs that go
through the residential areas. She said it makes it difficult for fire trucks to get through. Miklo
said that on a street like Sycamore, they try to minimize the intersections because it's an arterial
street designed to carry more traffic. He said what will be helpful, unlike in the earlier
subdivision, there will Dickenson Lane will provide an access point back to Sycamore for
emergency vehicles and the public.
Sorensen asked if the houses will be low-income or subsidized. Freerks said the Commission
has no say on a preliminary plat about that possibility.
Sorensen said because this was a wetland, a former developer was going to put in a park and
wanted to know what changed that idea. Miklo said the wetland was actually to the east of the
Greenway, and there are no wetlands on the subject property.
Wynn Johnson said he thinks the issue of cul-cle-sacs is something someone should be looking
at closely because he frequently sees City trucks that can't negotiate the circle. He also said the
homeowners would very much appreciate a Good Neighbor Meeting with the current developer
to get some information. He said he knows it's difficult with the developer to come in after the
former developer left town without keeping the promises he made, but he thinks Build to Suit
owes it to the homeowners to have a meeting with them.
Freerks said the applicant has not indicated if they have used the Good Neighbor Policy. She
said the Commission has asked City Council to make these meetings mandatory, but so far, the
Council has decided not to do that. She said some of the issues raised tonight could have been
worked out through a Good Neighbor meeting, and she said that shows that having some
conversation with neighbors prior to a Commission meeting can be helpful.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 4 of 8
Freerks closed public discussion
Thomas moved to recommend approval of SUB13-00023, a request for preliminary plat
approval of General Quarters Part Two, a 59-lot, 15.54-acre residential subdivision
located east of Sycamore Street subject to review by the City Engineer.
Swygard seconded.
Eastham said this application along with the School District's decision to build an elementary
school nearby brings to light a number of issues that he would like the Commission to deal with
openly in the future. He said the Land Use Map show this area to be suitable for apartments. He
said he thinks this Commission and others have not followed the Comprehensive Plan principles
of mixed use, mixed density and mixed income as well as they should be followed. He said he
did not think the rezoning followed the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan so he does not
think the current zoning is appropriate. He thinks some part of it needs to be higher density
multifamily.
Freerks said she would like to make it clear for the audience that these are not mandatory labels
on the maps. She said they are suggestions, and stated that, for instance, they like to have
higher densities at intersections.
Eastham said in this case the areas for higher density could just be moved to either side of
Sherman Drive. He said it's possible to move the shaded areas on the maps around to more
appropriate locations, but he thinks that most of the time, they simply eliminate them. He said he
is sympathetic to homeowners who had conversations with the former developer. He said he
doesn't think that developer was totally candid in what the future could be for the area in terms
of multifamily dwellings built there. Eastham said all developers have access to the same
Comprehensive Plan maps he has and all developers can be frank and honest with potential
home buyers.
Eastham said City Council had a vigorous discussion at its recent meeting about whether or not
the provisions in the Comprehensive Plan are being followed in terms of creating walkable
neighborhoods throughout the community and whether or not the neighborhoods that are being
created are exactly like the neighborhoods that are already here. He said the RS-5 and RS-8
zones on both sides of Sycamore Street are essentially an extensive single family, detached lot
development. He said as they go south into the area that Council has annexed for the school
they will be challenged to follow the land uses suggested by the Comprehensive Plan, which is
mixed townhome, apartment and single family detached. He said the preliminary plat before the
Commission does comply with current zoning, but he doesn't think the current zoning complies
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Freerks said the Commission has approved so many apartment buildings in the community that
she doesn't feel that the city is at a loss for that type of housing. She said she does think this
preliminary plat complies with the Comprehensive Plan. She said the Commission has always
viewed the maps as living documents that can be altered, so the areas on them are just
suggestions.
Swygard said she agrees with Freerks. She said what the Commission has before it is not a
rezoning, so they have to deal with the current zoning.
Thomas said what the Commission has before it doesn't require too much discussion but the
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 5 of 8
question of the larger vision, driven mainly by the fact of a new elementary school, will and
should require a more comprehensive plan toward the area to the south that is currently zoned
Interim. He said he's been very concerned with what he sees as the negative image and
impression that multifamily housing has in Iowa City that is in part because of the way it's been
integrated into communities unsuccessfully. He said one exception would be The Peninsula. He
said as this part of the city develops, he will be urging a much more creative and comprehensive
approach to how residential uses mix and how they are designed with respect to the commercial
development. He said he agrees with Eastham in that the Comprehensive Plan Update says to
..."encourage a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods for households of all types and
for people of all incomes." He said he thinks that can be done without this fear that is generated
every time they move away from single family residential, but it will require a more imaginative
and creative vision for how the various housing types integrate.
Freerks said with the annexation of a large parcel of land to the south there will be lots of
opportunities, and it's something that needs to be looked at. She said the application before the
Commission does comply with the Comprehensive Plan with the subdivision code and will be a
nice addition to this area, as there is a need for smaller lot single family homes like this as well.
Theobald said she will also be voting in favor of the application, but she thinks Eastham has
brought up a very valuable point that Thomas expanded on nicely. She said she remembers at
one of her first meetings that Thomas brought up the subject of value and how to add that, and
she thinks that's key to being able to integrate other housing types within single family.
Freerks says she thinks they will need to have some successful scenarios in order for the public
to see in terms of integrating apartment complexes into neighborhoods.
Miklo said the Comprehensive Plan does show another future arterial street just to the south of
this subdivision, and it shows a mixed use neighborhood there. He said here, where there are
going to be rezonings and further annexations, the City has much more say in the shape of that
area, he thinks that is where the mixed used neighborhood will develop based on the
Comprehensive Plan.
Eastham said he is hopeful that the area to the south will much more fully comply with
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Commission often gets a rezoning request
that is much less than the Comprehensive Plan calls for in terms of including all housing types
and income groups.
Swygard said she would really encourage the Good Neighborhood Policy for this applicant. She
said she knows the current developer can't address what the previous developer may have
promised but the neighbors do have a lot of insight about the area and their comments can be
very helpful for the new development.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-1 with Eastham opposed.
Consideration of Meeting Minutes: November 7 and November 21, 2013
Dyer moved to approve meeting minutes of November 7 and November 21, 2013.
Theobald seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 6 of 8
OTHER
Thomas said what he thinks needs more development is how the City can better accomplish the
goals of the Comprehensive Plan than the current Zoning Code allows. He said he would like to
see the City develop an area plan for the property just south of the subject property of tonight's
Commission meeting that shows how the commercial, residential, open space and all the pieces
of development fit together. He talked about how walkable neighborhoods are not being
developed around the new elementary school and in areas where the Commission is approving
preliminary plats.
Eastham said he agreed with Thomas. He added that no developer will not want to build
something radically different if the zoning regulations won't support it. He said that what would
be helpful is a clearer understanding on the part of the developers about what the City's
planning apparatus is interested in achieving and a commitment to carry that out by adoption of
appropriate land use regulations.
Thomas said in order to achieve integration of varying land uses and residential land types you
need a certain amount of space, and that's why this is an opportunity.
Miklo explained that the new subdivision regulations were adopted in 2008 and some of the
ideas from that are starting to be seen in the newer subdivisions, like more interconnected street
patterns and fewer cul-cle-sacs. He said many existing subdivisions where approved before
these standards went into place.
Freerks said she does think there's a need in Iowa City for the kind of housing the Commission
approved tonight, small lot, single family homes, but as development goes farther south, it's an
opportunity to do other things. She said that the Commission relies on a very small staff, and
she doesn't know that there's a lot of time for them to address this issue.
Miklo said when they met with school district and property owner they made sure that the school
site was positioned such that the vision of the South Plan could be implemented, that there was
room to incorporate some townhouses around the school and the possibility of a commercial
center in the area.
Eastham said he knows there isn't enough planning staff now. Freerks said she can't say that
enough.
Thomas suggested that they could bring in a consultant. Eastham said the City could do more
proactive zoning. Miklo said when they annexed the area adjacent to the new school site, they
specifically zoned it Interim (ID) so it wasn't zoned single family and would have to come before
the Commission where they would have to work on a mixed use neighborhood.
Eastham said he doesn't know about the consultant.
Freerks said the City is laying people off and there isn't a lot of money to do that.
Miklo said that staff has statutory requirements to review zonings and subdivisions in a certain
time frame, and when they have time they do district plans and special projects like Riverfront
Crossings. Freerks said that there will be even more of a financial squeeze when the State tax
changes go into effect. Eastham said he doesn't want the financial situation to effect what Iowa
City looks like in thirty years, and Freerks agreed.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 6, 2013 - Formal
Page 7 of 8
Swygard asked if it's possible to apply a form -based code to a part of town other than Riverfront
Crossings. Miklo said that it's possible but they want to get some experience with it in Riverfront
Crossings before applying it to other parts of town. He said that our code currently has some
form based elements in existing districts.
Thomas said the City's Zoning Code does not compose the City's planning, ending up with
developers who do not have an overall vision and manifesting certain sprawl qualities where
there is a kind of pod development of different housing types stuck to each other. He said he
thinks that's part of what contributes to the negative image of multifamily, and they should make
a better case for it, and in order to do that, it has to be thoughtfully placed and developed in
relation to the other land uses. The Commission agreed that when you go with higher density,
there should be a higher quality rather than a lower one.
ADJOURNMENT:
Eastham moved to adjourn
Thomas seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote.
z
0
cn
cn
0
z
2
0
N
05
(9
z
2
z
IL
0
0
w
w
w
0
z
z
w
Cl)
C�
04
a
04
(9
z
w
w
0
LL
!e
"Xxx—xxx
LU
0
:
,��x
xR,
0
x
x
Ix
w
�
0
X
X
LLJ
—
0
x
x
x
Cl)
X
X
LLJ
—
x
x
x
x
0
in
LLJ
�
0
x
x
x
x
x
x
LO
,
x
x
xr<r<
XIX
c o
0 —
X
X
X
X
LLI
—
0
X
X
00
—Ixxxxxxx:::
a
04
1
LLI
—
0
x
x
x
x
x
x
co
I
SR
co
><
X
X
X
X
X
LLI
—0
co
IXXXXXXX:
LO
LO
X
XIX
X
I X
X
X
co
—Ixxxxx:xx
d
x
x
x
x
x
X
XI
cn
m w
(o
(o
r-
LO
OD
LO
(1)
W CL
�-X00000000
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo
LO
w
w
zi
w
z
>-
w
z
CO
w
D
Z
-j
00<1:
z
o
-00
w
cx
-
m
-CLOW-0-
cn
m
(6-j-
0
<
��
ZF
F-
<
w
w
mm—
m
O�Pw�-OWMN
In
in
w
w
�
6
0
[-u
Z
:
0
W
LL
�
0
0
-T-13:1
m
w
w
0
LL
K
U)
x
x
�oy
x
X
X
X
co
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
U0,Ix
xIx
x
x
x
04
X
X
X
X
LLI
0
X
X
Cl)
C�4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a
0
X
X
X
X
X
—
0
r—
�
8
W
�
0
X
LLI
—
0
X
X
X
w
�
0
Cl)
IXXXXXX-
LLI
0
00
a
Cl)
X
X
X
X
LLI
X
LLI
0
00
�
10
LU
—
X
X
X
X
LLI
—
00
LLI
—
co
(n
m w
w @�
(D
—�
(D
—�
(1)
—�
r-
—�
LO
—�
LO
—�
(1)
—�
w(Loommomm
�-X0000000
w
w
ZW
Zi
W�
z
co
D
Z
0
0
Z
<
W
0
<
X
o
M
Z
<
<
w
W
w
P
(D
m
p
MWOMogi
<
I ZIC,
W
LLI;--
(n
m
P
ox E a)
U)
a) a) a) cu
0) 0) 0)
0
< < z
x 0 L�jj
0