The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-02-2014 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, June 2, 2014 6:30 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda D. Rezoning / Development Items Thursday, June 5, 2014 - 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street 1. Discussion of an application submitted by Allen Homes for a rezoning of approximately 3.6-acres of property from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-5) zone to allow construction of an 11-unit multi -family building located atthe NE corner of FirstAvenue and Hickory Trail. (REZ14-00005) 2. Discussion of an application submitted by Hodge Construction Company for a rezoning of approximately 4.40-acres of pro ' Derty from Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-8) zone to allow construction of a 33-unit multi -family building located at 2815 Rohret Road. (REZ14-00006) 3. Discussion of an application submitted by Emrico Properties LLC for a rezoning of 3.02-acres of land located on the west side of South Riverside Drive, north of Benton Street from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to Riverfront Crossings — West Riverfront (RFC-WR) zone. (REZ14-00009) 4. Discussion of an application submitted by John Hieronymus for a rezoning of 1.36-acres of land located north of Muscatine Avenue and west of Scott Boulevard from Low Density Single -Family (RS-5) zone to Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) zone and for a preliminary plat of Silver Slope, a 20-lot, 12.14 acre residential subdivision. (REZ14-00008/SUB14-00008) E. Code Amendment Items 1. Consider an amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 4, Use Regulations, Article B, Minor Modifications, to allow archways and gates over 4 feet in height in required residential front yard setbacks to be approved administratively. Consider an amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 4, Use Regulations, Article D, Temporary Uses, to allow outdoor service areas associated with restaurants as temporary uses in residential and mixed -use zones. F. County Conditional Use Item D;scuss;on of an application submitted to Johnson County from Verizon Wireless requesting a conditional use permit to allow a 195 foot tall communications tower on 9.2 acres of land located on the northwest corner of 420'� St SE and Taft Ave SE, in Area B of the Iowa City and Johnson County Fringe Area. (C U 14-0000 1) G. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: May 1, 2014 H. Other 1. Adjournment Upcoming Planning &Zoning Commis�sion Meetings Formal: June 19 / July 3 1 July 17 Informal: Scheduled as needed. STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: John Yapp Item: REZ14-00005 Date: June 5, 2014 Lot 42 &43, First and Rochester GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant & Property Owner: Allen Homes PO Box 3474 Iowa City, IA 52244 Contact Person: Jesse Allen allenhomes(a)qmail.com 319-530-8238 Requested Action: Rezoning from RS-5 to OPD-5 and Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan approval Purpose: To allow clustering for the development of a single 1 1-unit multi -family building in lieu of 11 single family lots Location: East side of First Ave, north of Hickory Trail Size: 3.59 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped; Residential Single Family (RS-5) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Undeveloped; ID-RS South: Residential; Low Density Multi -Family (RM- 12) East: Residential; Single Family (RS-5) West: Residential; Medium Density Planned Development (OPD-8) Comprehensive Plan: The Northeast District Plan identifies this property as residential Neighborhood Open Space District: Hickory Hill (C8) File Date: May 22, 2014 (revised plans submitted) 45 Day Limitation Period: July 6, 2014 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The subject property is approximately 3.59 acres in size, and contains a stream corridor and linear wetlands. The applicant and property owner, Allen Homes, is proposing to rezone the property from Residential Single Family (RS-5) to Overlay Planned Development (OPD-5) in conjunction with a Sensitive Areas Development Plan. The proposal would result in the clustering of dwelling units into one 11-unit multi-fami!y building as ODposed to 11 single family lots, resulting in a significant majority of the property being preserved as open space and the stream corridor and wetlands remaining undisturbed. The applicant has indicated that they have used the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have had a neighborhood meeting. ANALYSIS Current Zoning: The current zoning (RS-5) would allow up to 11 single family lots. Table I Current RS-5 Zoning Characteristics Property size: 3.59 acres Minimum lot size: 8,000 SF (6,000 SIF for attached single-family units on corner) Minimum lot width: 60 feet (40 for attached single-family units on corner) Minimum setback: 40 feet Potential density: 11 lots 3.06 units / acre Proposed Zoning: The Planned Development Overlay (OPD) is established to permit flexibility in the use and design of structures and land in situations where conventional development may be inappropriate. The OPID zone and Sensitive Areas Development Plan provide flexibility in the design and placement of buildings, use of open space, traffic circulation and parking and related site and design considerations. The proposed project would allow up to 11 units, clustered in a single multi -family building on the north end of the pro ' perty. In this case a majority of the property, including the stream corridor and linear wetlands, remain undeveloped open space. Table 11 Proposed Proiect Characteristics as submitted by the applicant Property size: Dwelling units: Overall density: Parking required: Parking provided: 3.59 acres 11 three -bedroom units 3.06 units acre 14,241 SIF unit 22 spaces (2 spaces per unit) 27 spaces Property size: 156,655 square feet (SF) (100%) Building area: 9,265 SF (5.9%) Paving area: 5,435 SF (3.5%) Pervious 'green'area: 141,955 SIF (90.6%) PCMS�ff ReDWM�14-W005 s�ff repoft doc 3 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: This property is in the Bluffwood Neighborhood of the Northeast Planning District. The Northeast District Plan illustrates a largely single-family neighborhood with opportunities for duplex and zero -lot housing, and townhouses and small scale multi -family buildings located along arterial streets. The Northeast District Plan states: Conservation subdivision designs balance the protection of sensitive environmental features with the development rights of property owners. The density of development is clustered on �t4 the more buildable area of the prope fy /.aving the balance to be protected as a nature preserve or open space. . . The resulting subdivision has more compact areas of development, but iess paving and more open space when compared to conventional development. Conservation designs are especially appropriate in areas containing steep slopes, woodlands and stream corridors. in staff's view the proposed project is consistent with the Northeast District Plan goals for conservation design which preserves open space, the stream corridor and wetlands. General Planned Development Criteria Applications for Planned Development Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following standards according to Article 14-3A of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance 1, The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and / or complimentary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale, open space and traffic circulation Density: The overall density, while clustered, is 3.06 units / acre. This is consistent with the underlying Single Family Residential Zone. Land use and layou : The land use is residential, consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed layout is to cluster 11 units into a single multi -family building on the north end of the properly, preserving a significant majority of the ' Droperty as open space. The stream corridor and associated wetlands are preserved, and a minimum 100-foot buffer from the wetlands is preserved. A mai . ority of the parking will be under the building, minimizing paving on the property. Five guest parking spaces are proposed off of the single access drive — this is appropriate given the lack of on -street parking on First Ave. Two building entrances for pedestrians are proposed facing First Ave. As a planned development, the project will be required to comply with the City multi -family site development standards in City Code Section 14-2B. Mass and scale: The proposed structure is between 1 1/2 and 2 stories along the First Ave frontage, and 2 1/2 to 3 112 stories at the rear (due to the topography of the property). This is generally consistent with the single-family homes to the east, which are 2 stories at the front and 3 stories at the rear. The proposed building is articulated with bays and balconies which help give definition to separate units in the building. The proposed building is just under the maximum building height of 35 feet for residenVal structures, which is measured as an average height around 'the structure. The proposed building is 146 feet wide and 68 feet deep. While this is larger than single family buildings to the east, it is compatible with other multi -family buildings in this segment of the Firs' Ave corridor. The large amount of open space and separation from the nearest sing!e famil� structure help mitigate the size of the structure — At its closest point, the build;ng is 189 feet irom the nearest single family property to the east, and approximately 345 feet to the nearest single family structure (more than a standard city block). PCD�Staff RepartsVaz!4�005 staff ieport,dm 2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities Access to the development is proposed from a single access point to First Ave, an arterial street. From an access perspective, a single access point is better than multiple access points along an arterial street. A November 2012 traffic count on First Ave south of Scott Blvd found an average daily traffic count of 7,002 vehicles per day, well under capacity for a two-lane artcrial street. The 11 dwelling units will not generate any more traffic than 11 single family dwellings would. Sanitary sewer and water is available to the property, and will not be overburdened. Storm water wi!I be directed to the stream corridor at the east end of the property, which flows into Ralston Creek and the regional storm water facility in Hickory Hill Park. The applicant has proposed a bio-retention basin to control stormwater runoff from the property and intercept it before releasing it into the stream corridor and wetland on the east side of the property. 3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air property values and privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development The proposed development provides far more open space and open views across the property than a conventional subdivision. The closest point of the proposed building is approximately 345 feet to the nearest house to the east. A landscaping plan has been submitted which identifies trees and screening to be planted on the property, and shows that the disturbed ground at the rear of the building will be planted with a prairie seed mix. The plan also states a maintenance plan for the prairie mix area will be created and submitted with the building permit process. The proposed covered entrance stoops encroach approximately 5 feet into the required 40-foot setback. This is permissible under the planned development process — staff finds that this minor encroachment will not have an adverse impact. 4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying zoning requirements or from City standards will be in the public interest, in harmony with the purpose of the zoning code and with other building regulations of the City. By constructing a single multi -unit building the proposal reserves a majority of the property as open space, and avoids the stream corridor and wetland. The 100-foot we'Lland buffer is provided. From a traffic perspective a single means of access to First Ave is preferable to multiple individual driveways. The proposed structure is at the north end of the property, maintaining significant open space and visibility at the northeast corner of First Ave and Hickory Trail. Sensitive Areas Development Plan: Because of the stream corridor, wetlands and regulated slopes on the property, a Sensitive Areas Development Plan is required. Regarding the wefland and stream corridor, 'the designer has shown that the stream corridor and wetlands are to be preserved, and the required 100-foot buffer between the wetlands and any impervious surface is proposed to be maintained. The property contains both steep (18% to 25%) and critical (25% to 40%) slopes, which are proposed to be disturbed to accommodate the proposed development. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance states that encroachment of construction area into steep and critical slopes must be minimized. In this case, the desire to maintain the 100-foot wetland buffer and to minimize PC MStaff Repofts�rezl,1-00005 staff rep.rt.d� paving must be balanced with the disturbance to steep and critical slopes on the west side of the property. Neighborhood open space: A planned development of this size is required to dedicate 3,398 square feet of public open space or pay fees in lieu of (3.59 acres X .065 X 5 dwelling units X 2.22 persons per dwelling unit X 3 acre / per 1000 persons = .078 acres, or 3,398 SF). The Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed the plan, and has recommended fees in lieu of public open space dedication. Infrastructure fees: sanitary sewer and water main: No sanitary sewer fees will be required. The water main fee was paid with the previous subdivision; therefore no water main fee is required. Summary The proposed development meets the intent of the Planned Development Overlay and Sensitive Areas Development Plan by clustering the dwelling units into one building, preserving a majority of the property as open space, preserving the wetland/vvetland buffer and stream corridor, and minimizing paving on the property by clustering the density and providing underground parking. From a transportation perspective, a single access point is preferable to multiple access points. The scale of the building is mitigated by the distance between the proposed structure and the single family structures (approx. 345 feet). The disturbance to the steep and critical slopes, clustering of density and building height must be balanced with the preservation of open space, stream corridor and wetland buffer. In staffs view the preservation of a significant majority of this property as open space and undeveloped wetland buffer meets the intent of the Northeast District Plan's conservation design goals. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of REZ14-00006, an application submitted by Allen Homes for a rezoning from Single Family Residential (RS-5) to Overlay Planned Development (OPD-5) and a Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan subject to general conformance with the plan submitted, and subject to the final building design complying with the multi -family site design standards in City Code Section 14-213. ATTACHMENTS: 1 r Location Map 2. Plan 3. Bui6ng elevations 4. Correspondencpl'� Approved by: Doug Boothroy,PiVctor � I Department of Nlpig�bcrhood and Development PCD�taff ReportiiVeV 4-00005 ii!aff mpft.d� CITY OF IM CITY Hickory Hill Pork--., SITE LOCATION: Hickory Trail and First Avenue REZ14-00005 ---A PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOT 42 AND LOT 43, FIRSTAND ROCHESTER, PART ONE IOWA CITY, IOWA W N ............ malsl- u I[ ZWL H=ll 11 cli LOT 42 PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND LOT 43, FIRST AND ROCHESTER, PART IOWA CITY, IOWA PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS SITE DEVELOPMEN'r PLAIN LOT 42 AND LOT 43, FIRST AND ROCHESTER, PART ONE IOWA CITY, IOWA PD,�m —IEIMLr- pm�� "UNT '.'mw W-M M W i W 0PH lE3 no �06CAPr RW, mamom% Fmwm�ja P�WE K PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS 51TE DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOT 42 AND LOT 43, FIRST AND ROCHESTER, PART ONE IOWA CITY, IOWA mm F T.�Affl tWHITE CEMENT BOARD LAP SIDING 1ST "E.11-PLEX Average Height: NORTHWEST CORNER (23'-4" + 35'-4" + 33'-9" + 47'-.4")/4 = 34'-1 1 4/24/14 ASPHALT SH I NGLES GREY CEMENT BOARD LAP SIDING WHITE CEMENT BOARD LAP SIDING METAL GUARD RAIL CASTLE BLOCK RETAINING 1ST "E.11-PLEX SOUTHEAST CORNER 4/24/14 ITE CEMENT BOARD LAP SIDING rci-04;9014 zl:l kli d:147.1 6A 12y'lal-i I FlUl ASPHALT SHINGLES CASTLE ROCK RETAINING WALL PARKING LEVEL METAL 71� - 1ST. "E. 11-PLEX EAST ELEVATION 5/23/14 IST "E.11-PLEX WEST ELEVATION 5/23/14 1ST. "E. 11-PLEX WEST ELEVATION FROM BEYOND TREES 5/23/14 1ST "E.11-PLEX NORTH ELEVATION 5/23/14 1ST. "E. 11-PLEX WEST ELEVATION 5/23/14 Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 May 9, 2014 Dear Members of the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission, Thank you for your April 30, 2014 letter informing us that you have received an application submitted by Allen Homes for the rezoning of approximately 3.6 acres of property from Low Density Single Family (RS-S) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-5) zone located at the NE corner of First Avenue and Hickory Trail. This rezoning will allow construction of a Multi - Family building with up to 11 unites. As owners of a single family home on the property almost right across from the proposed Multi - Family building, we are writing (because we will be away for the May meeting) to express our concern to the rezoning of the property from RS-5 to OPD-S. We believe that the plan and vision of current owner of the property Mr. Jesse Allen is in opposition to the expectations and vision of the current neighboring homeowners. Moreover, six multi -unit condominium complexes have already been built (or slated to be built) in the last 13 years along First Avenue North from Hickory Trail to Rochester Avenue with more than a hundred units in these buildings. It is our conviction that another Multi -Family building will negatively impact the wild life in the area, the character of our neighborhood, and create traffic congestion. Respectfully submitted, '�jason Chen Donna Chen John Yapp From: Synan, Ann <ann-synan@uiowa.edu> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 2:44 PM To: John Yapp Subject: Letters and Signatures Regarding Proposed Rezoning BlufKvood Neighborhood Attachments: Letters and Signatures from Neighbors within 200 ft Rezoning Proposal 1001353001 and 1001353002 N Ist Ave.pdf; Letter and Signatures to Planning and Rezoning Re Proposed Rezoning 1001353001 and 1001353002 N 1st avc.pdf John, Please find attached two letters signed by neighbors in the Bluffwood Community who are opposed to the proposed rezoning of the parcels of land at Hickory Trail and I't Ave to OPD5 for the purpose of bid1ding a multi -unit dwelling on the northernmost parcel of land. The first is a letter signed by households within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning. There are 21 sigtiatures attached to that letter. The second letter is from neighbors who live in single family homes, condominiums, attached houses, etc., along Cypress, Bluff -wood Drive, Evergreen, Evergreen Court, Hickory Trail, Tamarack, Hickory Court, and Stuart Court. There are 85 signatures attached to this letter. We ask you to present these letters with a total of 106 signatures to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their consideration. There has been a great deal of concem expressed in the neighborhood about the proposed rezoning. We hope that the Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission will recognize and support the concems of homeowners in our neighborhood and maintain the established RS5 zoning code for these parcels of land. Thank you for your assistance. Ann Synan Bill Synan PS John, Is there any word yet if this rezoning proposal is definitely on the May 15'h agenda for Planning and Zoning? May4,2014 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned neighbors living in the Hickory Trail/Bluffwood neighborhood are concerned about a proposed rezoning of parcels of land 1001353001 N. e Ave and 1001353002 N. I"' Ave his land, from RS5 low density single family homes, to OPDS with the intent of constructing a large 11-unit dwelling an the northernmost parceL We believe that a change to the proposed zoning code and approval of this proposed development project would fundamentally reshape our neighborhood — negatively impacting our quality of life, the character of our neighborhood and our property values. Specifically: • The aforementioned property is the gateway to our neighborhood community, and as such, it should complement and enhance the unique character of the neighborhood. • The property has been zoned for single family homes for over 25 years. We want this property to remain as it has been zoned. We believe that this zoning designation protects the stability and integrity of the Bluffwood neighborhood and our quality of life. • The proposed large, multi -unit condominium complex that is proposed for parcel 1001353001 N 1'� Ave would be a sharp contrast to the neighborhood and the surrounding area north and east of V Avenue and would dominate the landscape, day and night. it would look out of place on this site. • We believe that with the number of mufti -unit dwellings already built, or being stated to be built, along North Id Avenue, we do not need another multi' -unit complex on this site, nor do we approve of the disproportionate increase in density on this parcel. We are concerned that the depth of the proposed structure would put it closer to the buffer zone of the sensitive area on this land than single family homes would. We are concerned about other environmental and ecological ramifications of a multi -unit dwelling of this size and the possible impact that this development could have an Ralston Creek and Hickory Hill Park. We are respectfully asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider our concerns and our rights as current homeowners as you make a recommendation to the City Council. If we can be of any service to the Commission during the deliberations process please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, � laq Letter to City of Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission Page two Si nature Printed Name 9- 3 A�- Address � '? - C, I \-j Z I -� '4 S;- -5 Y-3 t5- lk Letter to city of iowa city Planning and Rezoning Commission Pagetwo Signature Printed Name Address ". 1, ,- 14 hq ,V Letter to City of Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission Page two Signature Printed Name Address I I w v �AtA '--k mo_��ti i , �Z-, ii'-i Dear Planning and Zoning Commission: we, the undersigned neighbors living with properties within 200 feet of the parcels of land 1001353001 N. 1" Ave and 1001353002 N. 1� Ave are concerned about a proposed rezoning of this land, from RSS low density single family homes, to CPD5 with the intent of constructing a large 11-unit dwelling on the northernmost parcel. We believe that a change to the proposed zoning code and approval of this proposed development project would fundamentally reshape our neighborhood — negatively impacting our quality of life, the character of our neighborhood and our property values. Specifically: 0 The aforementioned property is the gateway to our neighborhood community, and as such, it should complement and enhance the unique character of the neighborhood. The property has been zoned for single family homes for over 25 years. We want this property to remain as it has been zoned, We believe that this zoning designation protects the stability and integrity of the neighborhood and our quality of life. The proposed large, multi -unit condominium complex that is proposed for parcel loO1353001 N 1� Ave would literally tower over our yards and dominate the landscape, day and night. From the back, where many of us would view it, the building would stand several stories — including the retaining wall, garage, and two levels of living space. We never envisioned, nor do we desire now, a view of a parking lot, clumpster or massive retaining wall, let alone a single structure of this size, 6 For several of us, the proposed df iveway leading down to the garage and parking area would mean headlights glaring into our kitchens, living rooms, family rooms, decks, and patios. 0 It is significant to note that the "grove of treer that the developer states will "hide" a portion of the proposed structure, consists of trees that are without foliage for more than six months of the year. Even in summer they would not mask a dwelling of this size. We believe that with the number of multi -unit dwellings already built, or being slated to be built, along North V Avenue, we do not need another multi -unit complex on this site, nor do we approve of the disproportionate increase In density on this parcel. 0 We are concerned that the depth of the proposed structure would put it closer to the buffer zone of the sensitive area than single family homes would. In addition, we are concerned about the environmental and ecological ramifications of a multi-unrt dwelling of this size including but not limited to, the potential for water run-off and flooding along the creek and onto our properties that the development of a multi -unit dwelling could create, as opposed to the construction of single family homes. We are respectfully asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider our concerns and our rights as current homeowners as you make a recommendation to the City Council. if we can be of any service to the Commission during the deliberations process please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, � Z& 2> (M�" Page two Signatve Printed Name Address Letter to City of Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission Pagetwo Signature Printed Name Address Q '3,�� John Yapp From: Alan and Dottie Frank <andic@mchsi.com> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 4:35 PM To: John Yapp Subject: Proposed condos on North First Avenue Dear Mr. Yapp, My husband and I live on Bluffwood Circle in Iowa City. We understand there is a proposal to build yet another one or two condo projects on First Ave. between Rochester and Scott Blvd. This much development will cause undue problems with traffic on First Ave. which is already heavy at certain times of day when the school day begins and ends and when ACT employees are going to and from work. People in this neighborhood who use Stuart Court or Hickory Trail to access First Avenue can attest to the above difficulties. This amount of traffic also poses a safety issue. When cars are backed up at First Avenue and Rochester, it would be impossible for emergency vehicles to get into our neighborhood. Dottie and Alan Frank Sent from my iPad John YaEp Subject: FW: comments about pending zoning issue on First Ave. in Iowa City From: Jim Gloer [mailto*.james.gloer@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 4:07 PM To: PlanningZoningPublic Cc: Jim Gloer Subject: comments about pending zoning issue on First Ave. in Iowa City Dear Members of the City of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission: I would like to add my voice to those of many residents of our neighborhood who are concerned about the possible rezoning of land on First Avenue near the comer with Hickory Trail (parcels 100153001 and 100135002). 1 live on the cast side of Cypress Court (i.e., not directly bordering the parcels), and have resided there for nearly 25 years. The proposed rezoning (from long-term status as single-family RS5 to OPD5) would lead to construction of yet another large multi -unit condominium complex in an increasingly congested area, and would negatively impact our neighborhood in several ways. The area along First Avenue from Hickory Trail up to its comer with Rochester is already heavily populated with such buildings. As I understand it, there are 104 such units existing or under construction in this rather confined area. Vvhile I have not objected to this kind of growth in the past, I feel strongly that the situation is at the point of oversaturation. I do not know the number of these units being rented vs. owned, or how many are unoccupied, but I do know that the for -sale signs beside the existing properties are more or less permanent. Moreover, there is already another huge condominium building under construction across First Ave. from the parcels being considered. This structure is so large and is built so high (presumably because of the terrain?) that it dominates the landscape in this spot adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. Given the more sharply sloping tmain in the area being considered, I can only imagine what kind of dominant presence yet another such massive (I I -unit) building would impose, or what kind of further congestion it would bring. Sucha structure would radically affect the entryway/gateway to our entire neighborhood, and would have a negative impact on the overall character of the neighborhood (and, of course, on property values). It would also be the *third* such structure at this same intersection of Hickory Trail and First Avenue. As I understand it, this property was only purchased for this purpose within the last few months, with an apparent expectation that the zoning would be suddenly and dramatically changed from what it has been since the original development ofthis wonderful neighborhood. I do not think that this would be fair to so many families who purchased houses in this area with the understanding that these parcels are zoned RS5, as they have been for 25 years or more. In summary, I strongly oppose this proposed zoning change, and I hope that the Commission will recognize and support the concerns of homeowners in our neighborhood and maintain the long-established RS5 zoning code for these parcels. Thank you for considering my opinion. Sincerely, Jim Gloer 828 Cypress Cf. Iowa City, IA 52245 james.gloerksmiail-com John Yapp From: Edie Pierce -Thomas <epiercethomas@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 10:03 AM To: John Yapp Subject: condo rezoning proposal 1st and Hickory Trail. Mr. Yapp, I am writing to express my concern (again) that the city will permit the re -zoning of the property at the comer of Hickory Trail and lst Ave. from the current RS-5 to whatever it will take to allow another condo building with too many units in it for the space available to be built. I do not have any hope that the city will listen to the neighbors that have already seen have the complex across I st Ave be accepted and more concerning the one up I st Ave below the Regina track. The space at Hickory Trail and 1 st is too small for the proposed I I unit building. It will not allow the units to be family friendly adn will not fit into the neighborhood (except for the buildings on I st Ave.) With the two other buildings that are in progress, the traffic will be even more horrendous and though the city placated the neighbors for a little while having police at the Hickory Hill Park parking lot for a while and the monitors for speed for about a month last year, the traffic is getting heavier and continues to be too fast for the conditions! This new proposal would only add to the problem. Why does the city only want condos built on I st Ave? A couple of single family homes might not be bad, but what is wrong with having it remain green? To permit yet another condo building is short-sighted and devaluing the neighborhood. Please share this with the city council and the zoning commission. Edie Pierce-Thornas miercethornasa.vahoo.com. 631 Stuart Court Iowa City, IA 52245 Phor.c:765-414-4407 May 5, 2015 Dear Members of the City of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission: We have learned that an application for a proposed rezoning of land parcels 100153001 N. 1 "Ave and 100135002 N. 1"' Ave. has been filed with the Planning and Zoning Commission. As uwners of a single family home on the bordering property we are writing to express our concern and opposition to the proposed rezoning of the property from RSS low density single family homes to OPDS with the intent of constructing a multi -unit dwelling. We returned to Iowa City after 12 years in Chicago to raise our three young children. We chose to be on the Eastside and in the Bluffwood neighborhood because of its proximity to schools, downtown and that it was a strong, well established single family home neighborhood and community. We purchased our home at W Cypress Court in 2012 with the knowledge that the adjacent land was zoned RS5 for single family homes and the confidence that the lots would eventually be developed as single family homes following the same character and integrity of the rest of the neighborhood. If the property behind had been zoned for anything other than RS5 we would not have purchased this home. The current owner of the property, Mr. Jesse Allen, purchased the land on April 2, 2014 and less than two weeks later presented a proposal for the property at a Good Neighbor Meeting — a proposal that calls for a large multi -unit dwelling of 11 units, with a request for rezoning. The plan and vision that Mr. Allen has for the property does not coincide with expectations of the neighboring homeowners: single family homes as established by the current zoning ordinance for that property which has been in existence for more than 25 years. In the last 13 years six multi -unit condominium complexes have been built or are slated to be built along 1" Avenue North from Hickory Trail to Rochester Avenue, with total number of 104 units in these buildings. We appreciate Mr. Allen's willingness to meet with neighbors as part of the Good Neighbors Program, but we are concerned that he has not truly taken into account a very important part of the program, 'View it From Their Perspective.0 From our perspective, the proposed rezoning and proposed multi -unit dwelling is concerning for several reasons: - It would negatively impact our quality of life, the character of the neighborhood, negatively impact the surrounding natural environment and wildlife, Increase traffic In an already busy and congested thoroughfare and reduce our property values —viewing the proposed structure from our home would be four stories tall, not to mention a view of a parking lot dumpsters and incoming car lights which would shine directly Into our home. The property is the gateway to our neighborhood and a major entrance to the East side of Iowa City which needs more single family homes not more multi -unit buildings. We entrust that the City of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission will listen to the concerns of homeowners about the proposed rezoning of the property and will protect the established zoning code of RSS. Respectfully, ---I- — Berii min rage 845 Cypress Court Iowa City 1A 52245 VLA�*� fy_� Whitney Fraga Attn: John Yapp City of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 May4,2014 Dear Mr. Yapp; I write in strong opposition to the rezoning of two parcels of land located at the northeast intersection of First Avenue and Hickory Trail from single -home zoning to multiunit zoning. As a three-year homeowner within the adjoining Bluffwood area, I am dismayed by the proliferation of condominiums/apartments that is destroying the homeowner nature of the neighborhood, causing traffic congestion, and disrupting wildlife travel paths around Hickory Hills Park. I now wish I had not purchased a home in this area and have begun looking at homes in Coralville as I plan my exit from an area that is becoming overly populated by massive multiunit structures. It is unfortunate that the city is allowing family -friendly neighborhoods to be destroyed, which will contribute to the ongoing decline of city schools and other city infrastructure as more of us move to surrounding suburbs devoted to single-family homes. As an employee at the University of Iowa, I wanted to live on the east side in order to suppoft 'the city and to be a part of the community, but I do not wish to live in a high -density area that no longer feels like a safe community and instead is becoming an extension of student housing stock. And now the increase in my commute time caused by traffic congestion on roads not equipped to handle the proliferation of multiunit structures makes moving outside the city limits even more attractive since my commute time will remain roughly the same. The successful sales of single-family units in new developments along Rochester Avenue make it obvious that there is a strong market for single-family homes within this area. While a diversity of housing choices is desirable, the location of multiunit structures should be carefully considered so as not to destroy existing neighborhoods of single-family homes. Unfortunately, this consideration is not being given to the Bluffwood area. I hope the city sees the error of destroying thriving neighborhoods before it is too late. Sincerely, Geoig._ Dodge 44 'Evergreen Pl. Iowa City, IA 52245 (319) 512-1398 John Yapp From: Schulein, Thomas M <thomas-schulein@uiowa.edu> Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 8:41 PM To: John Yapp Cc: Synan, Ann Subject: Zoning Issue on North First Avenue at Hickory Trail Intersection John, My wife and I are the owners of the home at 811 Cypress Court. The planned 11 -unit condominium would be almost in our back yard, if approval for its construction is given. My wife and I are against this proposal, because the land upon which it would be built is zoned RS-5 and should remain as such, because my wife and I and so many other neighbors bought into this neighborhood with the understanding that only single family homes would be built behind us. We think the City has a moral obligation to adhere to this original zoning. To rezone such an area, a powerful argument must be made as to WHY it should be done. In this case, such an argument cannot hold water, We don't want, nor do we need this kind of dwelling directly behind us. We already have another monster condominium building under construction at the junction of First Avenue and Hickory Trail on the west side of First Avenue. So, we have an abundance of condominium -type units in our neighborhood and we don't feel that another one is appropriate, especially when so much other land that is remote from single family housing could be allocated for such usage. I feel that the purchaser of the two lots is trying to squeeze as much profit out of that land as he can, and at our expense. Our property values may 'indeed suffer and that is simply not acceptable when this improper proposal can simply be refused. I don't think you or the other members of the Planning and Zoning Commission would want such a unit in your OWN back yards. So, please don't encourage it in MY back yard by making such a recommendation to the City Council. Please encourage all of the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission to also say NO to this proposal. Thomas M. Schulein Vivian L. Schulein 811 Cypress Court Iowa City, 1A 52245 319-351-6598 d May 2" , 2014 Dear Members of the City of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission: We have been informed that an application for a proposed rezoning of land parcels 100153001 N. V Ave and 100135002 N. V Ave. has been filed with the Planning and Zoning Commission. As owners of a home on Cypress Court we are writing to you to share our concerns about the proposed rezoning of the property from RSS low -density single family homes to OPD5 with the intent of constructing a multi -unit dwelling, Between Ist Avenue and Cypress Ct is a large open area/ravine with a small creek running through it. This area is considered a "sensitive area" for site development. The creek has flooded in the past during heavy rains. We are concerned that the run off from the roof of a large multi unit dwelling will increase the risk of the flooding. In addition, we are concerned that construction in the area will remove or destroy trees and vegetation along the creek and destroy the banks of the creek. This area, even though small, is home to many birds and much wildlife. Throughout the state Iowa we have experienced much loss of habitat for animals. We do not want to see more animal habitat destroyed. Our second concern is the increased traffic at the corner of Ist Avenue and Hickory Trail. Hickory Trail is the only outlet from the subdivision. Currently under construction is a multi unit condominium at this corner. Half way between Rochester and Hickory Trail (600 block) the land has been cleared for the construction of another multi unit condominium. When these units are finished and occupied, we can only assume that there will be increased traffic on First Avenue, making it more difficult to exit from Hickory Trail, especially when people are going to work in the rnorning. As it now, the morning traffic often backs up from the light at corner of Rochester and First Avenue to the corner at Hickory Trail and First Avenue. These concerns, particularly the potential impact on the creek and its banks, make us opposed to this rezoning request. We hope the Planning and Zoning Commission will agree with us. Sincerely, Deb Schoelerman and Paul Pomrehn John Yapp From: Jennifer McDonald <irncdonald@rnchsi.corn> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 2:38 PM To: John Yapp Subject: rezoning of lots 42 and 43 on First Ave Dear Members of the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission: We are writing with regards to Lots 42 and 43 of First and Rochester in Iowa City (parcels 100153001 & 100 13 5002 on I't Ave extension) . There is a request to rezone these lots from RS-5 (Single Family Residence) to OPDR (Planned Development Overlay Zone). We purchased our home with knowledge that those lots were zoned RS-5. We assumed that only single family homes would be built on these lots. Now a builder wants to put up a condo. After review of the developer's plans, we had several immediate concerns: The proposed condo unit is large and is placed on a very steep property. So steep that some consider it unbuildabie. Because of the steep slope, the back side of the condo will span about 4 stories in height. The driveway is long and will be unsightly with parking spaces. Cars turning into the driveway coming off I st Ave will blare their headlights directly into the back of all the houses along Cypress Court. There are plans for 2 retaining walls, not stated how high those walls would be. The retaining wall behind the driveway and building is about 200 feet long and will be built right up to the wet land buffer. The wet land buffer is important for the creek below. A condo will change the feel of our neighborhood, These lots are zoned RS-5 for single family homes and we want to keep it that way. Single family homes will maintain the neighborhood feel of our subdivision, A condo will not. We are also concerned about property values. Who wants to buy a house with a view of a 4 story construction? The proposed condo would affect our property value of and the property values of the other houses along Cypress Court. Perhaps even all the houses in the Hickory Trail neighborhood. There are already too many condos on 1 st Ave extension. Many people enter Iowa City from this route. Adding yet another condo just makes the impression worse. Please drive by the proposed lots and envision what single family homes would look like and not another condo on your drive into the East side of Iowa City. Sincerely, Jennifer & Bruce McDonald 855 Cypress Ct., Iowa City, IA From: Kusiak, Andrew <andrew-kusiak@uiowa.edu> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 9:45 PM To: John Yapp Subject: Resoning Commission From: Andrew and Anna Kusiak 2629 Hickory Trail Iowa City, IA 52245 To: City of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission I am writing in response to the proposed rezoning of land parcels 100 153001 N. ls'Ave and 100135002 N. I" Ave. We purchased our home at 2629 Hickory Trail in 1988 with the knowledge that the land around our property was zoned for single family homes. My wife and I oppose the proposed rezoning of the property from RS5 low density single family homes to OPD5 with the intent of constructing a multi -unit property. My and all the neighbors we know are all against breaking the promise made to us decades ago. Building a multi -unit housing at this this time is unacceptable to us and it should not be in the interest of the City. There is no doubt that the property value will decrease, and ultimately the tax base will be affected. Properties will become more difficult to sell. Multi -housing units should be built where they belong, planned in advance, rather than attached to the existing single -home areas at poorly planned, leftover lots. It appears that the decision to build a multi -unit housing is driven by greed of the developer over the wellbeing of the long-time residents and appearance of the neighborhood. We hope the City of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission will protect our area from a multi -unit home invasion. 833 Cypress Court Iowa City, IA 52245 April 29, 2014 Dear Members of the City of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission: We have learned that an application for a proposed rezoning of land parcels 100153001 N. I " Ave and 100135002 N. I" Ave. has been filed with the Planning and Zoning Commission, As owners of a single family home on the bordering property we are writing to express our concern and opposition to the proposed rezoning of the property from RS5 low density single family homes to OPD5 with the intent of constructing a multi -unit dwelling. We purchased our home at 833 Cypress Court in 1994 with the knowledge that the adjacent land was zoned RS5 for single family homes and the confidence that when the lots behind us were eventually developed, the single family homes and properties would follow the same character and integrity of the rest of the neighborhood. When we moved to Iowa City 20 years ago we looked for the right neighborhood for our young family. Happily, we found the Bluflwood Neighborhood and Cypress Court. We felt that we were not only buying a home in the neighborhood but making an investment in the neighborhood and in the community — for us and for our children. If in 1994, the property behind us were zoned for anything other than RS5, we would not have purchased our home. The current owner of the property, Mr. Jesse Allen, purchased the land on April 2, 2014 and less than two weeks later presented a proposal for the property a, a Good Neighbor Meeting — a proposal that calls for a large multi -unit dwelling of I I units, with a request for rezoning. The plan and vision that Mr. Allen has for the property does not coincide with expectations of the neighboring homeowners: single family homes as established by the current zoning ordinance for that property which has been in existence for more than 25 years. In the last 13 years six multi -unit condominium complexes have been built or are slated to be built along I't Avenue North from Hickory Trail to Rochester Avenue, with total number of 104 units in these buildings. We appreciate Mr. Allen's willingness to meet with neighbors as part of the Good Neighbors Program, but we are concerned that he has not truly taken into account a very important part of the program, "View it From Their Perspective." From our perspective, the proposed rezoning would negatively impact our quality of life, character of the neighborhood, and our property values. The property is the gateway to our neighborhood. We entrust that the City of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission will listen to the concerns of homeowners about the proposed rezoning of the property and will protect the established zoning code of RS5. Respectfully submitted, William Synan Ann Synan Bob Miklo From: Miriam Gardner <mimidoctor@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 11:40 AM To: PlanningZoning Public Subject: Upcoming rezoning meeting As a homeowner of 2620 Hickory Trail, I would like to make comment on the possible rezoning of the paree! of land on First Ave which is immediately adjacent to my home near the corner of Hickory Trail and First Ave. My husband and I bought the home 15 years ago and have seen development proceed with single family homes built along the West end of Hickory Trail. First Ave extension was also completed with the road going through all the way to Scott Blvd and ACT. These housing and road improvements were expected and appreciated for their contribution to the neighborhood in positive ways. I also fully anticipated that 6-8 single family homes would gradually be built along the property adjacent to ours along First Ave., as that is what the land is currently zoned for. I was not prepared for a proposal for a large 11 unit condominium to be built there. Such a structure is not in keeping with the neighborhood we have grown to love. I also question the need for another such structure on First Ave. when there are multiple condos with empty units along this road already, many of which end up as rentals when not quickly purchased. There is a large condominium under construction across from the proposed area, with a four story height due to the fact that the " basement" level was placed above ground and soil was piled up around it. In addition, its high roofline creates a high profile for a two story building. I can imagine something similar will occur with an I I unit condo on the opposite side of the road, where the proposed units are to go. In summary, my husband and I are in opposition to any change in the zoning for this area. Thank you, Sincerely, Miriam C. Gardner and Norbert J. Pienta 2620 Hickory Trail Iowa City, IA 52245 -Miriam Bob Mlklo From; Schulein, Thomas M <thomas-schulein@uiowa.edu> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 8:53 PM To: Bob Miklo, Bob Miklo Subject: Proposed Housing Development in my neighborhood "i Bob, Tom Schulein here, a resident at 811 Cypress Court in Iowa City. I am writing to voice my objection to the the proposed change in zoning from single family to multifamily, which is in the area behind my home, the area which is on the east side of First Avenue and just nor-th of the First Avenue -Hickory Trail intersection. There are two lots which the proposed change is concerned with, with references such as 42 and 43 and 100'353001 and 1001353002. When we moved in, we were told that the area behind us was zoned for single family homes and I object to the proposal that this area be changed eithef with rezoning or by way of an overlay (I'm not sure of the exact term). I have a concerned group of neighbors which attended the recent meeting at Regina High School, at which time the proposal was put forth to us. Also, several of us met at the Bill Synan residence at 833 Cypress Court this evening and we seem to be unanimous in our objection. Thank You, Tom Schulem STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo Item: REZ14-00006 2815 Rohret Road Date: June 5, 2014 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Hodge Construction Company 711 S. Gilbert St. Iowa City, IA 5220 Requested Action Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Opens Space District: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Rezoning from CO-1 to OPD-8 and Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan approval To allow a 33-unit multifamily residential building 2815 Rohret Road 4.40 acres Undeveloped, Commercial Office (CO-1) North: Residential, OPD-8 South: Highway 218, RR-1 East: Residential, OPD-8 West: Highway 218, RR-1 The Southwest District Plan identifies this property as being appropriate for cluster residential development or low -intensity non-residential uses. West High (SW6) May 23, 2014 July 7, 2014 The applicant, Hodge Construction, is requesting a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO-1) to Medium Density Planned Development Overlay (OPD-8) for the property located at 2815 Rohret Road. This property is approximately 4.40 acres and is located on the south side of Rohret Road adjacent to Highway 218. The property was conditionally rezoned in 2038 from Sing!e-family Residential (RS-5) to CO-1. The rezoning was subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) requiring sound abating design and construction techniques be used for any residential deve!opment that occurs on the property (a noise assessment for the property indicated that noise from Highway 218 exceeded the acceptable level "or residential development according to HUD guidelines, unless sound abatement measures are taken). The CZA also contained conditions regarding the placement of parking lots, setbacks and retention of the eAsting trees within 80 feet of the right-of-way of Highway 2 18. At the time ol the previous rezoning, the property contained a dwelling and barn that have since been removed. The applicant indicates that due to market forces, the property has not attracted commercial uses and thus has requested the rezoning to allow for residential uses. The applicant conducted a Good Neighbor Meeting on May 13 th at which they presented the proposed plan and responded to questions. ANALYSIS: Current and proposed zoning: The current CO-1 zoning allows for offices and personal service businesses; dwellings are allowed above the commercial space as a provisional use. The CO -I zone can be used as a transition or buffer between residential and more intensive commercial and industrial areas. When the property was rezoned to CO-1 in 2008, the intent was that commercial uses would provide a buffer between Highway 218 and the residential neighborhoods to the east and north, and that a commercial use would be less sensitive to noise generated by the highway than residential uses. As noted above, the CZA that applies to the property requires that sound abatement construction techniques for any residential development that might occur above commercial space. Staff recommends that this condition be carried over if this property is rezoned to OPD-8 The proposed OPD-8 zoning permits flexibility in the use and design of structures and land where conventional development may be inappropriate. For the subject property OPD-8 zoning will allow for residential cluster development with a 33-unit multi -family building. Cluster development into one building when compared to conventional residential development on this property, will allow greater setbacks from Highway 218 and adjacent properties, as well as retention of more open space and existing trees. The plan includes 37 parking garage parking spaces below the building and 31 outdoor parking spaces (68 total spaces). The use of underground parking will help minimize the amount surface coverage. Comprehensive Plan: The Southwest District Plan discusses that the property is appropriate for cluster development; that residential development on the property should include a landscaped buffer along Highway 218 to mitigate noise; and that property is also appropriate for low -intensity non-residential uses, such as office, religious instifuticn or fire station. Based on this, both the existing CO-1 and proposed OPD-8 zoning would be in compliance the Comprehensive Plan. General Planned Development Criteria: Applications for Planned Development Rezonings are ,reviewed for compliance with the following standards according to Article 14-3A of the lowa City Zoning Ordinance The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with andlor complimentary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale, open space and traffic circulation The overall density, while clustered, is 7.5 units I acre. This is consistent with the proposed underlying Medium Density Single Family Residential Zone RS-8 zone. The developments to the north and east are zoned OPD-8 and contain a mixture of single-family, dup!ex-style and muiti-family buildings. The proposed building contains 3 floors above one level of parking. At the north end of the building the parking level will be below grade. As the grade of the property falls from north to K south, more of the garage will be exposed so that the south side the building will be 4 stories in height. The resulting building height based on the average grade is within the 35 foot height limit that usually applies in the RS-8 zone. The residential buildings to the east are two stories in height. The site plan indicates that the existing grove of trees will remain as a vegetative buffer between the proposed multifamily building and the residential neighborhood to the east. The proposed building will have setbacks of 49 feet from Rchret Road and 110 feet from the property line to the east. The proposed building is articulated with bays and balconies which he!,p give definition to separate units in the building. in staffs opinion these features and the generous setback will help the building fit into the character of the neighborhood. The majority (37) of the required parking space will be located within the garage below the building and 31 surface ' parking spaces will be located on the west side of the proposed building. The placement of a majority of the parking under the build;ng will allow for a substantial area of open space and help make the development compatible with the neighborhood. 2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities Access to the development is proposed from a single access point to Rohert Road, an arterial street. A traffic volume count conducted in 2010 shows that there are 4,960 daily trips on Rohret Road. The capacity of a two-lane arterial, such as Rohret Road, is approximately 12,000 trips per day. There is considerable capacity currently available on Rohret Road and additional traffic generated by development of the property will not cause congestion. The amount of traffic generated from 33 dwellings may be less than what might be generated from a commercial office development allowed by the current zoning. Sidewalk access is available on both sides of Rohret Road. The existing sidewalk adjacent to Rohret Road was installed with the Rohret Road Reconstruction Project — Phase 2 in 1995. At the time when this property contained a single-family dwelling the City agreed to maintain the sidewalk as a condition of acquiring needed right-of-way. With the proposed increase in intensity staff recommends that sidewalk maintenance become the responsibility of 'the owner of the development. Sanitary sewer and water is available to the property, and will not be overburdened. Stormwater will be directed to a basin located in the western portion of the property adjacent to Highway 218. Stormwater calculations must be submitted to the City Engineer to verify that the proposed stormwater management plan is adequate. 3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air property values and privacy of neighboring properties any more than wouid a conventional deveiopment The proposed development provides more open space and open views across the property than a conventional residential subdivision. The closest point of the proposed building is approximately 150 feet to the nearest dwelling to the east (equiva!ent to Y7 a City Block). As noted existing mature trees will be retained between the proposed building and the dwellings to the east. 4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying zoning requirements or from City standards will be in the public interest, in harmony with the purpose of the zoning code and with other building regulations of the City. The only variation from the proposed RS-8 zoning is the clustering of dwelling units into a multi- family building. This reserves a majority of the property as open space. The proposed El apartment building is likely to have no more of an effect on the neighborhood than a commercial office building with upper floor apartments that would be allowed by 'he current CO-1 zoning. As discussed above this appears to be compatible with the neighborhood. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: This property contains some steep slopes, but no critical or protected slopes. Four separate groves including a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees are :ocated on 'the property. Two larger groves are located along Highway 218. Clustering of development will allow the preservation of the majority of the grove area. Aboutthirty percent of the total area covered by groves would be removed to allow grading for construction of the building, driveway and parking area and stormwater management facilities. Given that the Comprehensive Plan encourages a buffer between residential development and Highway 218, it would be appropriate to require that the existing vegetation be preserved along the highway as is required by the existing CZA, except where trees need to be removed for the stormwater management facilities. The plan includes additional trees to be planted to the west and south of the proposed building to provide additional screening from the highway. Neighborhood Open Space: A planned development of this size is required to dedicate 6,638 square feet of open space or ' pay fees in lieu of (4.4 acres X .65 X 8 dwelling units X 2. 22 persons per dwelling unit X 3 acre I per 1000 persons). The application will be referred to the Parks and Recreation Commission. In staffs opinion, none of this property appears to be suitable for public parkland and therefore fees in lieu of open space are likely to be required. Summary: The Southwest District Plan indicates that the property is appropriate for clustered residential development and encourages the inclusion of a vegetative buffer between any residential development on the property and Highway 218. The OPD-8 zone is an appropriate zone for clustered residential development and will allow flexibility in design to ensure that exposure to highway noise is minimized. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Subject to approval of the stormwater management plan by the City Engineer, staff recommends approval of REZ14-00006, a rezoning from Office Commercial (CO-1) to Medium Density Planned Development Overlay (OPD-8) for the property located at 2815 Rohret Road subject to general conformance with the site design and building plans submitted and a Conditional Zoning Agreement which addresses the following: 1 . Existing healthy trees within a distance of 80 feet of the Highway 218 right-of-way shall be preseRled except where it is necessary to remove trees for installation of stormwater management facilities. 2. The building will be built with sound abating construction techniques materials that reduce interior sound leveis including masonry, fiber cement siding, and laminated windows. 3. The maintenance the Rohert Road sidewalk becomes the responsibility of the owner of the development - ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary OPID Plan 3. Elevation drawings Approved by: _ 7,-o< lvir- John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services CITY OF ION CITY ON -CLEAR 5 UIJU/Kl b IR NG A moss G NC5 SH Y EN CT SYLV_ M- Pi Pi COLL CT DUCK CREEK PL RANIER DR NPP R NIER OR\,_.I') RR1 m CASCAD LN 12 ROHRET RD I SITE LOCATION: 2815 Rohret [load REZ14-00006 I 0 LOCATION MAP 2 7 W�po MLS -- I --- PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2815 ROHRET ROAD IOWA CITY, I0\rVA 0 0- 4�1�6 PREUWW SENSM AREAS WE OF&OPMENT RAN (SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN) 2815ROI]RETRC)AD MA� jamsom � MA -00- oil U k 71 mill I b, III I I N . " 2815 ROHRET ROAD NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS WEST ELEVATION TFI -T 17 FFIJ 2915 ROHRET ROAD NEUMANN MONSON EAST ELEVAT;0N zw__ Oil pw 2815 RCHRET ROAD NEUMAN N MONSON SOUTH ELEVATION io lt7. To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ14-00009 S. Riverside Drive (Hartwig Property) GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Karen Howard Date: June 5, 2014 Emrico Properties 2346 Mormon Trek Blvd. Iowa City, IA 52246 Kevin Hanick 319-331-1646 kevin@hanick.com Requested Action. Rezone from Community Commercial (CC-2) Zone to Riverfront Crossings — West Riverfront (RFC-WR) Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: Development of a multi -dwelling building in the Riverfront Crossings District South Riverside Drive, north of West Benton Street east of Orchard Street, and south of the Iowa Interstate Railroad. 3.02 acres Vacant North: Railroad South: Commercial (CC-2) and vacant commercial lots. East: Commercial (CC-2) kMest: Residential (OPD-5) May 15, 2014 July 1, 2014 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The subject property is located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone between South Riverside Drive and Orchard Street, south of the Iowa Interstate Railroad. The property is currently vacant, but previously was the site of the Hartwig Motors auto dealership. The subject property falls within the West Riverfront Subdistrict of the Riverfront Crossings District and, therefore, the recently adopted form -based zoning code for Riverfront Crossings will apply if the property is rezoned. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the property with a 4-story multi- 2 dwelling building, which is an allowed use and building type in the West Riverfront Subdistrict ANALYSIS: Current and proposed zoning: The property, which was formerly the site of the Hartwig Motors auto dealership, is now vacant and a ma * ior redevelopment site in Riverfront Crossings due to its size and location. The current CC-2 zoning is intended for ma ' ior retal!l commercial areas that serve a significant segment of the community population. The maximum building height in the CC- 2 Zone is 35 feet. The zone is primarily a commercial zone, but allows upper floor residential uses by special exception. Minimal parking and building setbacks apply, but parking may be placed between buildings and the street. The Riverfront Crossings form -based zoning for the West Riverfront subdistrict allows for a broad mix of commercial and residential uses, including multi -dwelling buildings as proposed by the applicant. Unlike the CC-2 Zone, the Riverfront Crossings code allows for a variety of building types and commercial uses are not required on 'the ground -level floor of every building. Buildings must be oriented to Riverside Drive with street -facing entries opening onto an improved streetscape designed to provide a more comfortable and attractive environment for pedestrians buffered from vehicular traffic on Riverside Drive. Parking must be located behind or to the side of buildings and screened and buffered from the sidewalk and the street. Residential density is limited by building height and parking. The maximum building height in this area of the West Riverfront subdistrict is four stories. An additional story may be granted through the bonus provisions. An open space requirement of 10 square feet per bedroom is required for properties containing residential uses. Building design standards apply and wi!l be administered through the staff design review process. These include requirements for streetscape improvements, landscaping, fagade composition and articulation, fenestration (window coverage), entranceway design, and building materials. The applicant has developed a preliminary site plan illustrating a C-shaped multi -dwelling building containing approximately 96 dwelling units with the main entrance fronting on Riverside Drive and a large landscaped courtyard located to the rear. Parking is located within the building and in a surface lot located behind and to the side of the building. If designed with features and landscaping that support passive recreation and leisure activities, the rear courtyard would satisfy the open space requirement and provide a valuable amenity for residents of the building. The applicant has indicated he intends to build a quality building designed to meet all the Riverfront Crossings design standards. Comp.ehensive Plan: The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan was adopted in January 2013 as an integral part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is located in the West Riverfront Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings. One of 'the primary goals flor tl,is subdistrict is to encourage redevelo ' Dment that wil: help create a more pedestrian -friendly character along Riverside Drive by enhancing the streetscape and overall aesthet�cs, tempering au'LO-dominated frontages by locating buildings closer to the street with parking behind or to the side of bui!dings, and creating a place where people can live close to the Iowa River and to shopping, restaumnts, and other services. The new form -based zoning code for Riverfront Crossings is intended to help implement that vision and contains standards for buiiding and parking placement, streetscape improvernents, building form and design, and landscaping and open space requirements. Due to the absence of building and ' parking placement standards and few requirements related to building form and design, the current CC-2 zoning for the property will not ensure that the property will develop in a manner consistent with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. One of the most important goals for the West Riverfront subdistrict is to improve the environment along Riverside Drive to Make it safer and more comfortable forPedestrians. Since the requested rezoning will result in a significant increase in the residential population in the area, staff recommends as a condition of rezoning, that the applicant dedicate 10 feet of land along the Riverside Drive frontage of the property to widen the public right-of-way. The additional land will be used to create a wider landscaped buffer between the traffic lanes on Riverside Drive and the public sidewalk. This will improve public safety and provide for a higher quality living environment for residents of the new building and encourage walking and biking to area businesses. The City is also moving forward with plans to create a pedestrian tunnel through the railroad embankment. The proposed tunnel will allow safe pedestrian movement north along Riverside Drive to the University campus and Downtown. As a condition of the rezoning, staff recommends that the applicant grant a public access easement or dedicate the necessary right- of-way between Riverside Drive and the location of the pedestrian tunnel. The applicant has indicated willingness to dedicate the necessary land for widening the right-of-way along Riverside Drive and for the constructing the pedestrian tunnel through the railroad embankment. For all the reasons stated above, staff finds that the requested zoning (RFC-WR) is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and will help to facilitate redevelopment the' will comply with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, provided that land along Riverside Drive is dedicated to the City to allow for improvements to the pedestrian environment necessary to accommodate the increase in residential density allowed by the rezoning. Compatibility with neighborhood: The proposed multi -dwelling building, if designed according to the form -based code, will be an improvement to what is currently an auto -dominated area with a strestscape that is largely hostile to pedestrians, The added residential density will result in additional demand for retail, � estaurants, and commercial services, which will be a benefit flor existing businesses and an encouragement for further neigh borhood-servi ng commercial and mixed -use redevelopment along Riverside Drive. Transforming the auto -oriented commercial strip development along Riverside Drive to a more pedestrian -friendly environment with a better mix of neighborhood -serving businesses will also benefit the residential neighborhoods located to the west of the Riverfront Crossings District. The form -based zoning standards will help to ensure that new buildings are compatible with the vision of the Riverfront Crossings plan and with surrounding residential neighborhoods. Therefore, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Traffic implications: There are currently two driveway access points from this property to Riverside Drive. To improve traffic and ' pedestrian safety, goals for the West Riverfront subdistrict include reducing the number of curb cuts along Riverside Drive, providing a wider sidewalk that is set back from the curb with a wider landscaped buffer, and providing a safe pedestrian connection through the Iowa Interstate Railroad embankment. The proposed development will result in closure of one of the driveway curb cuts on Riverside Drive and as noted above, the applicant has agreed to dedicate the additional , ight-of-way necessary for the stated pedestrian improvements. Access to the site will be from one driveway that accesses both Riverside Drive and Orchard Street. While there may be some cut -through traffic from residents living on Orchard Court, a short cul-de-sac that includes five lots with a single family house and four four-plexes, the traffic impacts will be negligible. Staff finds that the improvements that will result from dosing a curb - cut and enhancing the pedestrian environment along Riverside Drive will far outweigh any minor increase in cut -through traffic using the driveway to access Riverside Drive. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ14-00009, a proposal to rezone approximately 3.02 acres of property located between South Riverside Drive and Orchard Street, south of the Iowa Interstate Railroad and north of Benton Street from Community Commercial (CC-2) to Riverfront Crossing- 4 West Riverfront (RFC-WR), subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring the applicant/owner to dedicate 10 feet of land along the Riverside Drive frontage of the property to the City in order to widen the public right-of-way along Riverside Drive, closure of the northernmost curb cut from the property to Riverside Drive, and dedication of land or grant of a public access easement to allow the public sidewalk to be extended under the Iowa Interstate Railroad embankment in a location determined by the City. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial PhotograPh 3. Preliminary site plan Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Neighborhood and Development Services CITY OF IM CITY ON �-MYRTL-.111 IP v � - o- LL FW2 ------ Mel . .... Ash - - - --------- Por - ------- -- - - --- ---- --- Uj --A V5, BENTON ST AtIo --J --- - ------ DOUGLASS ST < -- - ---- ---- - ---- --------- - - ---------- LJ T 17T W0 - ----- DOUGLASS CT I I -- ) [-, - --------- y j SITE LOCATION: S. Riverside Dr., south of railroad and west of River -side Dr. REZ14-00009 REZONING APPLICATION (PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN) RIVERVIEW WEST IOWA CITY, IOWA a =ln=.= PL�T L�� M-M W=w. U-K- Scale: I"=200' CITY OF ION CIff AM - ILL A C4 ,,,BENTON ST;...,, - - I I A mllr �,- �i -.-. IONIC' SITE LOCA71ON: S. Riverside Dr., south of railroad and west of Riverside Dr. REZ14-00009 STAFF REPORT To: Planning &Zoning Commission Prepared by: Darian Nagle-Gamm Item: REZ14-00008 & SUB14-00008 Date: June 5t�, 2014 Silver Slope GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Hie, onymus Family Partnership 3322 Muscatine Avenue Iowa City, ]A 52240 Contact Person: John Hieronymus 3322 Muscatine Avenue Iowa City, IA 52240 Email: j.hieronymus@mchsi.com Requested Action: Subdivision of 17.85 acres and rezoning of 1.36 acres from RS-5 to RM-12 to accommodate new street alignment Purpose: Preliminary Plat Approval - Silver Slope subdivision, including 23 single family lots and 1 lot for 22 multi- family units Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: SPECIAL INFORMATION: Northwest comer of Muscatine Avenue and Scoff Boulevard Rezoning of 1.36 acres; Preliminary plat of 17.85 acres; RS-5 Undeveloped and RM-12 Undeveloped North: Ralston Creek, P1 & RS-5 South: Single family, RS-5 East: Multi -family, RM-12 (under construction) and Scott Park, P1 WPM: Single family, RS-5 Southeast Planning District Plan shows multi -family at the comer of Muscatine Ave and Scott Boulevard and single family on the remainder ofthe parcel. SE-1 Court Hill/Lucas May I 51h 2014 June 29th, 2014 Public Utilities: The area is currently served by Public Utilities 2 Public Services: This area is currently served by the Eastside Loop transit route BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The land under consideration is currently zoned Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) and MUlti-f2rrily (RM-12). A previous applicant for the same property, TNT Land Development LLC, was granted approval of a rezoning of approximately 2.79 acres at the corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) 10 Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-12) in February 2011. A final plat for this property was approved in 2011 (Terra Verde Subdivision), but for a different developer, The current applicant is now requesting approval of a redesigned preliminary plat for a 23-lot detached single family and !-lot multi -family residential subdivision with 2 outlots. While the final plat approved in 2011 included a loop street to be accessed from Muscatine Avenue (copy attached); the current concept includes Silver Lane, which is accessed from Scott Bculevard and terminates at a cul-de-sac to the west. Because the street alignment changed, there is a small parcel of land zoned as RS-5 in the area proposed for multi -family. The request to rezone this parcel as muit;-family (RM-12) is forcontinuity; however no additional multi -family units will be built outside of the previously approved 22 units per the 2011 Conditional Zoning Agreement. ANALYSIS: Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan: The proposed subdivision is comprised of 23 detached single family lots, 1 muN-family lot, and 2 outlots. Outlot A is used for stormwater management and is accessed off of Scott Boulevard via Silver Lane, the sole street in the subdivision. Outlot B is located on the west side of the subdivision and is not accessible by street. Both will be maintained by the homeowners association. All single-family lots meet the minimum 8,000 sq ft. lot size, 60' lot width and 45' lot frontage required by zoning. The proposed subdivision is located within the Southeast Planning District. The plan indicates that ihe area near the intersection of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard is appropriate for multi -family residential use, with the remainder of the subject property being appropriate for single family dwellings as provided by the preliminary plat. The City's adopted Comprehensive Plan encourages a mix of housing types including multi -family dwellings and also encourages concentration of infill development contiguous to existing neighborhoods. The proposed subdivision meets these goals and therefore complies with several strategies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Subdivision design: Silver Lane has been designed to local street standards, with a 60' right of way, 26' pavement width, and 5' sidewalks on each side. A sidewalk stub between lots 14 and 15 will ultimately allow the subdivision to connect to the Court Hill Trail to the north of the subject property. The subdivision regulations discourage cul-de-sacs and roads with a single point of access. The applicant has pro ' Dosed that Silver Lane end in a cul-de-sac rather than loop back to Muscatine Avenue as proposed in the previously approved Terra Verde subdivision. The applicant �ndicates that the cul-de-sac design is being proposed to preserve Outlot B, which contains several mature trees which he wishes to preserve in an area of common open space. The multi -family buildings will not be allowed direct access onto Muscatine Avenue or Scoff Boulevard and additionally must be set back a minimum of 40' from the property line along Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard. The fronts of the buildings are required to face the abutting streets and the parking must be located behind the buildings. The developer will need to submit a concept plan for the layout and building design of the multi -family buildings for consideration by the Staff Design Review Committee prior to receiving a building permit to ensure compliance with the Conditional Zoning Agreement approved in February 2011 Portions of lot 20 (the multi -family parce!) will also require a rezoning as the original rezoning (Ord. 11 -4432) only included approximately 2.79 acres of property that was rezoned from RS-5 to RM-12. Lot 20 is now approximately 3.58 acres as noted on the preliminary plat due to the reconfiguration of the street layout on the property. Compatibility with neighborhood: The surrounding neighborhood consists of predominately single-family homes. In staff's opinion, the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The location of the multi -family is appropriate given its access to the arterial streets. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: Ralston Creek is located to the north of the subject property and hydric soils are present on lots 11-16. Houses on lots with hydric soils need to be constructed with sump pumps and more stringent construction safeguards will be required for any parts of the street that are affected by hydric soils. At the time of final plat approval these requirements will need to be addressed in the legal papers. Traffic, access, and street design: Single-family lots 1 — 19 and the multi -family lot of the proposed subdivision will be accessed from Scot Boulevard via Silver Lane, the sole street in the subdivision, while single-family lots 21 — 23 will be accessed from Muscatine Avenue. Silver Lane has been designed as a single access cul-de-sac that extends towards the west property line. As individual lot access to arterial streets is discouraged in order to keep the number of potential conflict points to a minimum, lots 22 and 23 (accessed off of Muscatine Avenue) shculd be designed with a single shared driveway. This should be noted on the preliminary plat. The driveway location is at the discretion of the developer. Currently no sidewalks exist on the north side of Muscatine between Juniper Drive and Scott Boulevard. The developer will be required to install a 5' wide sidewalk along this entire frontage within the right-of-way concurrent with the construction of Silver Lane. This information is included in the CZA approved in February 2011. Additional right of way on Muscatine Avenue is also being dedicated in order to facilitate intersection improvements at the Scoff Boulevard Muscatine Avenue intersection. The preliminary plat includes a trail extension from Silver Lane to the northern property line on Outlot A between lots 14 and 15. This trail extension will provide for a future connection with the Court Hill Trail. Neighborhood parkland or fees in lieu of: A planned development of this size is required to dedicate 23,581 square feet of neighborhood parkland or pay fees in lieu of. The open space requirements were calculated as follows: 3.58 mufti -family acres X .65 X 15 X 2.22 persons per dwelling unit X 3 acre / per 1000 persons for a total of 10, 126 square feet + 14.27 single-family acres X.65 X 5 X 2.22 persons per dwelling unit X 3 acre / per 1000 persons for a total of 13,455 square feet, which equates to an overall total of 23,581 square feet of parkland or fees in lieu of for 'the subdivision. Storm water management: Sto, m water management for the single family lots 1 — 19 and the muti-family parcel is being provided for on OutlotA. The developer will need to demonstrate how stormwater will be handled for single family lots 21 — 23 and Outiot B to the satisfaction of Engineering staff. Engineering staff has expressed concern about drainage against the homes south of Silver Lane and has requested that the developer provide subdrain along Silver Lane in order to have an outlet for sump pumps. Infrastructure fees: Water main extension fee of $395 per acre is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral of this application until the deficiencies noted below are resolved. Upon resolution of the deficiencies, staff recommends approval of REZ14-00008, a rezoning of 1.36 acre parcel from single-family residential (RS-5) to mufti -family (RM-12) located on the northwest comer of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard, and SUB14-00008, a preliminary plat of Silver Slope, a 23-lot, approximately 12.14-acre residential subdivision at 'the same location. DEFICIENCIES/DESCREPANCIES: Stormwater management needed for lots 21, 22, 23 and Outlot B. A shared driveway will be required for lots 22 & 23, accessible via Muscatine Avenue. This should be noted on preliminary plat. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Previously approved final plat (Terra Verde) 3. Rezoning exhibit (Silver Slope) 4. Preliminary plat (Silver Slope) Approved by; Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development CTTY OF ION CI77Y ON 'AWRON 0 D8 IEND%IIP ST Pi 7 F1, 1 ou t il - I S, Scott IL VWE T r Park th Bran c ALPINE CT Robert Lucas S -hool D 0 P1 9 PINECREST RD I - --------- AMERICAN LEGION RD U1jqr.ATINE AVE SIL CK WAI 7, id R-, EST---- 0 12 V" Ism LOCATION: Silver Slope SUB 14-00008/ REZ14-00008 ANWIFt ORIN as --l' \ m wl sm M as U ig A M111, 17, r i & OUTLOT 'A' AIN LZ 5 4 &W .Tx oil (, /I MIL I / APARrWW LOrr IN I�LLA EN PA 14 �E .".M "I 15 1 is I ty 1---j WE GREEN. PART A IE 9 .......... . . . . . . . . . . E�57:'- * �jg I; AIM X.— iza� MA MA 0 cm KIMANEM LOD FLANNM LAND SURVEMRS LAXWCAPE ARCMM'TS 11111111111M %am= MT a IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMSCONSUALTANTS.W-1 851 % IVA I L-j- IL ------ EXISTING IN EXISTING P, m'-w 1. -�IR'IEPAIIE L RSS TO RMI 2 n ad. I EXISTIrG RS5 II GOP08 Kj Iiij EXISTING RM12 - ---- --4-- - — - - --I-- - "B JNG RS]5 QIE "AFT `,7 iv------ --- REZONING EXHIBIT SILVER SLOPE IOWA CITY, IOWA FLAT PREPARED BY OWNERSUBDIVIDER MW CONSLILTANTS INC. HIERCNYMUS FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LUP 1917 S. GILBERT STREET =2W53ATI EA�E IOWA CITY, A SI IMA CITY, [= SILVER SLOPE LOCATION MAP NOT TO S� MA m CNI". ENGINEERS LANDRAMERS LAWMEYDRS LAI AI ENMRONVEITALSPEMAWS Z' KiNfUlikNeWill SILVER SLOPE IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC Swool WR VA SILVER SLOPE - PART ONE AND TWC IOWA CITY, IOWA - - -------- ........ . W-T\M T L D il�l) MID 140� �i74% 0 PRFjLIMK4M PLAT SILVER F-WE �M PAKrONEMD l�� IMIA hl� 1 1410 �M Date: May 27, 2014 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Jann Ream Code Emorcement Assistant Neighborhood and Development Services Re: Minor Modification Amendment Introduction: City Staff was approached by James Hayes concerning a proposal for an archway, gate and fence to be installed in the front yard setback area for properties he owns in the 1100 and 1200 blocks of East Burlington Street. The properties - 1131 Burlington (single family), 1137 Burlington (duplex), 1205 Burlington (duplex) and 1211 Burlington (duplex) — are zoned RS-8-OCD. Mr. Hayes has created an entity with these properties called The Grant Wood Art Colony and has set up a program in partnership with the University of Iowa for visiting artists. The artists live in a unit in one of these rental properties and teach at the University. The purpose of the proposed archway, gate and fence is to delineate and identify these properties as a cohesive area designated for artists. Mr. Hayes commissioned local sculptor and artist, Shirley Wyrick, to design the archway and gate. Her design includes a 12ft high archway with a 5-7ft high gate. The adjoining fence would be 4ft in height. A design rendering of the proposal is included. H istory/Backg round: Current zoning code prohibits fences taller than 4ft in front yard setback areas. Because the proposed archway and gate are integral to the proposed fence, they would not be permitted since they exceed 4ft in height. The intent of the current ordinance is to maintain pedestrian friendly streetscapes and prevent tall "stockade" like fences in front yards that would detract from the public streetscape. Tall solid fences along the sidewalk block views and create safety concerns. However, there may be situations where the design of a fence with taller integrated structures would actually enhance the streetscape and the neighboring properties. Staff believes that the opportunity for fences and associated structures with unique and aesthetically pleasing designs in a front yard area should not automatically be disallowed because of their height. In this instance, the superior design by a nationally renowned artist and use of quality materials should be given consideration. In the past few decades, quality landscape design has seen a resurgence both nationally and in this community. Allowing greater ilexibility in exterior hardscape (with appropriate staff review) has the potential to greatly enhance the streetscapes of Iowa City. Proposal: Amend "Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions and Provisional Uses" (14-413-1) to add a minor modification which would allow archways and gates taller than 4ft to be approved administratively. The suggested code language is attached. This would allow for staff review to ensure any proposal was well designed and would not detract from neighboring properties. Since it is a minor modification, property owners within 200ft would be notified and have an opportunity for input. Minor Modification Amendment to allow archways and gates over 4ft in height in required residential front yard setbacks to be approved administratively An entrancewaylgate more than 4ft in height may be approved in Residential Zones provided the entranceway/gate is designed to be compatible with and to enhance the surrounding neighborhood. An identification sign no more than 12sf in area that is incorporated as an integral element of the entranceway/gate may be permitted as part of the Minor Modification. Approved by: —7o4%' X7r—� John Yapp, Coordinator Department of Neighborhood & Development Services C,�: I GRANT WOOD ARYUIL)LUN T k3n 1 SfURLEY WYIUCK, SCU�PTOR Mueb 2013 #-2-4 10 lf'STF%l0C-rl()N"3 -SF-C ilvq S, TaPS foF FItF()lVvS 00-"'T� r-�,4rKr. Dpj r=UkL-SIZE- Ex"F"- ilk; AkEk! srCrIoN 0: C�I: OWLRLAPPIAM sw GRANT WOOD ART COLONY GATE SHIRLEY WYRICK, KTLPTOR Mueh2013 PAGE# 'ANT) CUT FRO k-1 -1W 1-FTEEL PLATE SeCTIONA -� '6EAN PIELD" SEctios, 13: Pj-Dvwv FIELD Srr-TIOIVC: DISTANT FIELD -SE CTJ()A D: 5TYLIZCD If qESS SECTIONS ON 9'r-Al-F ;,vg4rr 6E CUT Fy,'O)AoAJETf9'PLATE, G05T NW70cc, or riTr/Ara AR4 OW TRE-- TRUNK TO er� tDETEkMfJED (1-St)) :sf�CT-icplfs 09) q,CZATE MI;H- r Be cur �&6-i OnE 718'PLArE, ,4 rfA clr#�ew OF PLA77Es -ro SMUCTUfAL. FPAAIFWPRKT$C TO ps or D wp c I -91+M�P POIA1T'5A&irovb IA)T,D L4A-9M-c?tF)vM)d- — SPAIZ41t)G reb B%oMZE CASTIIIG, 0),. IPGAXLF�' AKT COLONY lqkl, 4 3VI—zo T F-- MA L W-2!�-g FILLSF- 5AR VMEVE" CAcT 8PDtjZE BAR 9=5 C)t�r rliFcE SRNIZ_E� c6sT SIDE: VIEW GRANT WOOD ART COLO'ITY GATE SHRLEY WYRICY� SCULPTOR MaTrh 2013 PAGE# )o f. =1 GRANT WOOD ART COLONY GATE SHRLEY WYRICK, SCUMOR M.a 2013 PAGERA-ejO 6tZONZE r-qStfNa:, 0M S" a--4TF: CjtAp;T'�VOOD 44VD NAmL PLATY C rR T 1 �� I t J T r% I F E 5 P, A MC 14 ES B E 7 W k- F N C U F�V E D r 3 k-, r-kc cp)LY Ot`.4� AS tJOT,-& OAI DRMI /",v. X;Z' - CURVED &IR 31 o.T LE TkZF 1 5 [4,C)rklt- E- URAN'Ll CAST wri orfztv LETMRs spp.CiE ';C 'E- 4 FED Vb PARrS OF Y:2"d- LFUERS Fri-rNo L 0 VE p ccKvej:) CUP4/EO 3AFZ --J SAX. (D (9) 1 qw f kv) GRANT WOOD ART COLONY GATE 114) SHIRLEY WYRIM SCULPTOR tb, ism .2U jslux ]PAGE T-T ISFE-5-RAVC-M&S GREEN: 144"d� plk;,.f IV'J� SLLJV�, 2'd. TRANSITIONS IN DEPTRS WEDEP SMIEEN T98 I"x2"CUKY" &kS 00 6RA fth,119-5 1- 3 - Alf& - q- 11 TO ACWftODAT'e 5AbiUZE WIZVNI; -TRAMSMOW TO DGPTO OF 2'AV"C-D 4)SOVE THE Tor 841? BY :e-"13 I � 1 =-4 CITY OF IOWA CITY 011� & R. 'ANDUM MEMOK Date: May 29, 2014 To: Planning and /Zoning Commission From: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator Re: Outdoor Service Areas associated with restaurants in residential and mixed -use zones Introduction The City Council recently received a request from Amy Pretorius to permit an Outdoor Service Area for alcohol service associated with a restaurant in the Peninsula Neighborhood. The restaurant is permitted in a residential zone by special exception as part of the Peninsula Planned Development. The City has also received an inquiry from the new owners of the restaurant at the corner of Iowa Ave and Dodge St, which is a lega1y non -conforming restaurant in a Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone. We expect similar requests in the future in the Riverfront Crossings District and other mixed -use zones I planned developments. The City Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to allow Outdoor Service Areas in residential and mixed -use zones as a temporary use. The rationale behind the temporary use is twofold: First, Outdoor Service Areas are seasonal and lend themselves to a seasonal permitting process. Second, the temporary use provisions give the City more authority to restrict the temporary use permit depending on the particular situation or if there are operational issues, and authority to revoke or not renew the permit if there are ongoing issues. Background An Outdoor Service Area (OSA) is an area outside of but immediately adjacent to a licensed establishment which has been approved for the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages. OSAs are currently permitted in commercial zones. OSAs do not have separation requirements from residential zones in the Central Business District (CB) zones or the Community Commerdal (CC-2) zone; in other commercial zones, OSA's must be at least 100 feet from residential zones. T he City Code was recently amended to allow OSAs within the CC-2 zone without the I 00-foot separation requirement subject to certain conditions. These conditions, which staff recommends carrying over for OSAs in residential zones, include: 0 The Outdoor Service Area must be associated with a restaurant 0 It must be closed by 10 PM, or when the kitchen closes whichever is earlier • It has an occupancy of no more than 30 people • It has an approved lighting plan Other existing conditions which apply to a// Outdoor Service Areas include: The Outdoor Service Area must be on private property (unless permitted as a sidewalk cafe in the Central Business District) 0 It must be immediately adjacent to the establishment it serves May 30, 2014 Page 2 0 Amplified sound equipment is proNbited Advertising or other identification signage is prohibited beyond what is permitted for the main licensed establishment 0 It must comply with all other building, housing and fire codes, and other applicable state and city laws Discussion Restaurants in residential zones may be permitted as part of a planned development like in the Peninsula neighborhood, or they may be legal, non -conforming uses such as the restaurant at the corner of Iowa Ave / Dodge St. Restaurants will also be established in mixed -use districts such as Riverfront Crossings. Staff finds it is reasonable to allow a permitted restaurant in a residential or mixed -use zone to have a limited Outdoor Service Area to be able to serve alcohol for patrons sifting outdoors, with conditions as outlined above. Staff also recommends the OSA be located on the street -facing side of the building or in an enclosed courtyard, to minimize potential disturbance to neighboring properties. To address concerns with behavior, litter or general poor management, staff recommends 'he OSA be permitted only as a temporary use. The temporary use provision requires an annual permit, at which time the regulations associated with OSAs will be reviewed with the proprietor. The temporary use permit also allows the City to restrict operation of the OSA if there are issues, and to revoke or not renew the permit if there are ongoing issues. Proprietors will be made aware of the requirements associated with the temporary use permit, and in staff's experience will be more conscientious than if the use were permitted by right. Sim�lar to sidewalk cafes, staff recommends that OSA's not be considered an expansion if the restaurant it is associated with is non -conforming. The rationale is that OSA's are a temporary, seasonal use and not a permanent expansion. This will require an amendment to City Code Section 14-4E-5G to clarify that OSA's associated with a non -conforming restaurant be treated similarly to sidewalk cafes, and not be considered an expansion. Approval or denial of a tem ' porary use permit is made by the Building Official. The Building Official may impose additional conditions on the temporary use, including regulation of nuisance factors such as glare, noise, vibration, odors, heat or other factors which may be a nuisance to neighboring properties. Decisions of the Building Official may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment, allowing for a public process if either the proprietor or a reighbor disa..nrees with the decision. Recommendation 11. Staff recommends City Code Section 14-413-2 be amended to add Outdoor Services Areas as an allowable temporary use for up to one year, subject to conditions including: The Outdoor Service Area must be associated with a restaurant It is located on the street -facing side of the building, or in an enclosed courtyard It must be closed by 10 PM, or when the kitchen closes whichever is earlier It has an occupancy of no more than 30 people It has an approved lighting plan May 30, 2014 Page 3 It meets all other standards in Section 144D (Temporary Uses) and all requirements in Section 4-3 (Outdoor Service Areas; Seasonal, Five Day or Fourteen Day Licenses and Permits) 2. Staff recommends City Code Section 14-4E-5G be amended to clarify that Outdoor Service Areas associated with a restaurant will not be considered an expansion of a non -conforming use. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Lette5,frb5m Amy PNtorps, representWthe Peninsula Neighborhood Company Approved by,— Y \ �� \_/ Doug Bo6lh r �, �irector' Department 0�,' N4ighborhood and Develop4nt Services City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 27, 2014 Planning and Zoning — 10 Commission From: Kirk Lehmann, Planning Intern RE: CU14-00001 Verizon Wireless Communication Tower Johnson County has received an application from Verizon Wireless requesting a conditional use permit for 9.2 acres of land located on the northwest corner of 42e* St SE and Taft Ave SE. The applicant proposes to contract SBA Communicators; to construct a 195'self-supported communications tower. The property is located east of Iowa City's City Limits in Fringe Area B and is within the growth area of the city. The Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance permits cities to review conditional use permits for applications within their extra -territorial jurisdiction. A conditional use permit requires a four-fdths majority vote of the County Board of Adjustment to approve a permit opposed by Iowa City City Council. Zoning Requirements: Communications towers are allowed in the County Heavy Industrial Zone by conditional use permit. Prior to obtaining a permit, several conditions must be met. One condition requires that the tower base be located a distance of 100 percent of the tower height from adjoining property lines. This prevents towers from falling into other property and protects surrounding property owners from damage. While the tower height is 195', the towers center is 107.92' from the abutting property to the west and 59.65' from the railroad Right Of Way to the north, This application does not comply with that condition. Compatibility with City Plans; The property is located within the City's growth area. Therefore it is likely that the property will be annexed into Iowa City in the future, and upon annexation, will likely be zoned industrial. Iowa City industrial zones have a similar requirement to the County's in that the tower base must be located a distance Of 100 percent of the tower height from adjoining property lines. While staff believes that a communications tower is an appropriate use for industrial zones, it cautions waiving the County's setback requirements for the location of the tower, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of Adjustment recommending that the application submitted by Verizon Wireless for a conditional use permit for the construction of a communications tower be approved subject to compliance with Iowa City and Johnson County setback conditions and Federal Aviation Administration approval if required by FAA. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Application documents I Approved by: Z4.664011rll� Poberf"Milklo, Senior Planner Department of Neighborhood and Development Services -s w CITY OF IOU CITY OPD-11 OPD-11 lil 41 OPD-11 --- ----- F ?A 0 irml - - ----------- - - -- - - - --------- 07- SITE LOCATION: 420th Street CU14-00001 u- 4 v, o� ur City of Iowa City Boundary 46 %0 K.YhL gM L' j, Proposed Tower Site 9.2 acres zoned Heavy Industrial Tower is a Conditional Use � � I, � � C I I %, . � , Z : 1, 0, m PR�SM �D �E MP4 st .�U M�NG 0 !l IA15829-B BUL UN 0 IOWA CITY ---- - ----- - -------------- 420TH STREET SOUTHE - - --------- OV 7NSMCC—IG7 R..b..Wmmw 0 MITE -S��r 7: cow� DET� Sol MW IA15829-B IOWA CITY QaH MEET BE 10�c"KSMQ W.�TEB ��...�WKEENM 8� �ATM PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 1 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Jason Harder, Greg Zimmerman RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 6-1 (Martin voting no) to recommend approval of ANN14- 00001/REZ14-00002, an annexation of approximately 39.6 acres and rezoning from County Residential (R) zone to Interim Development Single Family Residential (ID-RS) zone for the property located south of Herbert Hoover Highway subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) requiring that the developer provide at least a temporary pedestrian access route to the City sidewalk system at the time of development. 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. Annexation/Rezoning Item ANN14-00001/REZ14-00002 Discussion of an application submitted by Build to Suit for an annexation of 39.6-acres and rezoning from County Residential (R) zone to Interim Development Single Family Residential (ID-RS) zone located at 4701 Herbert Hoover Highway. Miklo responded to questions raised at the previous meeting regarding this application. He said that there are approximately 5,500 vehicles per day on Herbert Hoover Highway. He referred to a memo from Metropolitan Planning Organization, Transportation Planner, indicating that the road had sufficient capacity to accommodate additional traffic. He noted that as development occurs the speed limit on Herbert Hoover Highway will be reviewed. Miklo also showed a map from the Comprehensive Plan, Northeast District Planning, illustrating a concept of how a street network may develop in the area. He said that it is anticipated that Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 2014 Page 2 of 8 this property will initially have access only from Herbert Hoover Highway, but as adjacent properties area annexed, additional street connections will be made to provide access back to Scott Boulevard on the west, Lower West Branch Road on the south and Taft Avenue on the east. Miklo reiterated staff's recommendation to approve the annexation and rezoning to Interim Development (ID) conditioned upon a pedestrian connection being provided between future development and the public sidewalk system. Freerks opened public discussion. Jason Harder, representing the applicant, addressed the question raised at the previous meeting regarding why this property is being annexed before other adjacent properties. He showed a map and described the ownership pattern. He said that he had spoken with many of the owners and found that for various reasons they were not wishing to be annexed. He said that when this property develops he will be required to extend infrastructure from the west and or south to provide sanitary sewer and water service. Once those lines are in place it may be more likely that there may be interest in developing other properties in the area. Eastham asked about the developer's plans for complying with the Comprehensive Plan's policy for a mix of housing. Harder said that after looking more closely at the Comprehensive Land Use Plan they realize that there is more density to comply with what the City wants and that gives them more opportunity to spread costs. Eastham asked about the applicant's plans for pedestrian and vehicle access. Harder said in the short term vehicle access will be off Herbert Hoover Highway, which does have the capacity to handle the additional traffic. He said they will provide access to the adjacent properties in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that the sixty foot easement along the church adjacent to the subject property is not suitable for a road so they have tried to relocate that to match up with the Land Use Plan. He said once the church finishes expanding its parking lot, the applicant will meet with them again to see if all parties agree to providing a pedestrian path across the church's property. Greg Zimmerman said he owns the property just to the east of the subject property and he has concerns about wild life and the development not fitting in with the rest of the neighborhood. He said that two years ago he was denied a new driveway to his property for farm equipment. The County claimed it wasn't feasible because of how busy Herbert Hoover Highway is. He said but now the City Engineer is saying that the highway can handle the added traffic of a development. He said he has talked to a person with years of real estate appraisal experience who says that this kind of leap frog development is almost always a bad idea, and he cited a number of reasons why that is. He said he thinks sewer and infrastructure should be in place before any construction begins. He said the City likes these kinds of projects because of the taxes up front, but all sorts of problems result in the long term. Harder said they have to prove how infrastructure will work before development begins. Freerks closed public discussion. Thomas moved to recommend approval approximately 39.6 acres and rezoning Development Single Family Residential of ANN14-00001/REZ14-00002, from County Residential (R) (ID-RS) zone for the property an annexation of zone to Interim located south of Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 2014 Page 3 of 8 Herbert Hoover Highway subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) requiring that the developer provide at least a temporary pedestrian access route to the City sidewalk system at the time of development. Swygard seconded. Eastham stated that the renters of the house on the northwest corner of the subject property had expressed an interest in long-term residence and had added value over the years, and he didn't see why that one small corner of the subject property needed to be annexed. Hektoen-Green said the terms of the lease agreement are private between the property owner and the tenant. Freerks reminded the Commission that what they are looking at tonight are the three criteria for annexation and the rezoning. Eastham asked for clarification about the City's Zoning Ordinance and if a landowner has the right to annexation. Greenwood Hektoen said the Commission has to find a reason not to grant annexation. Freerks said the Commission would lay out reasoning behind why they would do something if they would be compelled not to do it they would need to outline why it doesn't meet the criteria. Eastham said he's not happy with the notion that the City is potentially setting itself up for having a residential development with its sole vehicular access from a significant highway. He said he has concerns about periods when the speed limit remains high, and to him that's a potential safety issue. He said he would appreciate more clarity and firmness on the ID-RS zoning condition that provides for pedestrian access, which will occur before residential development. Miklo stated that was not the staff's intent. He said that the intent is that pedestrian access would be provided when the subject area develops. He said it will depend on where the development begins within this property. Eastham asked for clarification about what happens if the County doesn't agree to having pedestrian access along the highway. Freerks said then the development won't occur. Greenwood Hektoen said for the rezoning the Commission needs to consider public health, safety, and welfare. Freerks said she sees both sides in this annexation but the neighborhood is an area that's developing and it's not completely out of sync to take this property and bring it into the city and the other pieces will fall into place over time. She said although they won't discuss it tonight, how it develops and connects is of great interest to the Commission. She said they want to see growth in the eastern part of Iowa City and want to see it done well. She said although they can't tell the developer how to do things, it would be nice to integrate parts of the country into the development, leaving wooded areas intact and take neighbors and the greater community into consideration. Martin said she agrees that the city is moving in this direction and it's a great space for development, however, she feels this is a micro -cosmic way of looking at it rather than seeing the bigger picture. She said there are still many questions and maybe it's not the right time yet for this particular parcel. Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 2014 Page 4 of 8 Freerks countered that this is just a first step and a lot of other work and investigation have to be done. Thomas asked if the City could explore a transfer development right in regards to the resident living on the property now meaning that City would decree how many dwellings could be developed on this property because of its size and the consideration of keeping that existing residence in place we preserve the right of the property owner to develop to the fullest. Miklo explained that when you do a CZA you have to have a reason that's in the public interest to impose those conditions. Freerks said there have been situations where it's in the developer's agreement that they want to maintain certain structures on a property and then they are allowed to further intensify development in the rest of the area so they aren't penalized in any way. Thomas agreed and said that arguably preserving that house would be much like preserving the stone bridge to the south so if the land could be developed to its full potential while preserving that building he as a member of the public might feel there's some benefit in that. Thomas suggested that they could add language to the CZA to encourage preservation of the house and grounds. Greenwood Hektoen said she didn't think that could be done as a condition of this annexation and rezoning as there was not a public reason for the condition. Thomas said he would go on the record that the preservation of the house and grounds should be encouraged. Eastham asked if the grounds are considered a desirable feature could the City require that it be preserved. Greenwood Hektoen said if it's considered a sensitive feature that the City regulates, the City could do that. Miklo said that there was nothing historically significant about this house and the barn was in very poor condition, so it would be a stretch to require that this house be carved out of the development. Theobald said she feels that the Commission's hands are tied and she also feels a great sense of frustration because she sees that the vegetation found there is much more attractive than what you typically see in turf grass green space, and she thinks we need to broaden our definitions and look at preserving some of these wildlife habitat areas. She said she thinks there are many positive purposes for the community that the growth there can provide both in managing storm water runoff and habitat and aesthetics. Freerks said the Commission is going on record as saying that they would like to see some type of integration of keeping the natural beauty of the countryside when you develop in the countryside. She said this does meet the three criteria of annexation. Thomas asked what the width of the path would be. Miklo said likely six to eight foot, probably asphalt or concrete depending on whether it is temporary or permanent depending on where it is placed. Thomas said he would like to view this as a multi -use trail and wants to see it wide enough to accommodate bicycles. He said he is also concerned about the speeds on Herbert Hoover Highway, and if there is no change to the roadway designs, the speeds will remain at 50-55mph. He said he would defer to the Traffic Engineers but he doesn't feel comfortable with Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 2014 Page 5 of 8 the current speed. Swygard said it meets the annexation criteria of being in the long range planning boundary, it is contiguous and meets the minimal standard but doesn't see it connecting to an existing neighborhood, and it is in the City's best interest to it annex it if it is to be developed. She said the analysis from the last meeting specifically outlines a variety of housing options not restricted to single family, so that's something to keep in mind as that potentially comes back to the Commission. She said based on very minimal standards, she'll support this application. Eastham said this is an option he doesn't like, and all of the objections he has to this have been voiced. He said he agrees that annexing this parcel gives the City control over development, and he will carefully look at how that development occurs and who benefits and who doesn't. He said he will tepidly support annexation but wants to look at the development plan very carefully. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-1 with Martin voting no Consideration of Meeting Minutes: April 17, 2014 Eastham moved to approve the minutes with minor corrections Swygard seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Other Riverfront Crossings: Miklo updated the Commission on Riverfront Crossings and its progress. He said he would like the Commission's input on two items that they hadn't discussed, regarding the addition of forecourts to certain sub -districts and alternatives to the LEE D certification program as outlined in the staff memo. He would like to clarify if the Council makes these changes it will not be a concern to the Commission. After some discussion the Commission decided that they are agreeable to these changes. Walkability: Freerks said that there has been much discussion about redistricting, and she would like to propose that the Commission ask the City Council to send the Iowa City School District a letter requesting that there be some sort of walkability clause included with the diversity policy so that the City and the School District can discuss that every school, not just certain schools, have an amount of walkability, which is supported in the Comprehensive Plan and everything that they lay out — not competing against, but making sure it's a part of that so that they can support schools and walkability in our schools. She said that's something she hopes the Commission will support. Theobald said that sounds like a great idea. Eastham said he would be happy to support the notion of walkability to neighborhood schools. He said he would also like the City to be more candid in its use of its policies and practices that are trying to enhance neighborhood stabilization. He said the Community Development people wrote a memo to the City Manager that got to the school board that said the UniverCity Program was increasing stabilization in the Lucas -Governor Street area, which is perhaps true, but that stabilization is achieved by putting people who have higher incomes in those areas, not people Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 2014 Page 6 of 8 who are eligible for FRL status. Freerks reiterated that what she is asking about is walkability. Eastham said that's fine, if it means walkability for all households. Freerks stated that is what she's asking for — walkability at every school. She said she is not singling out anything. Eastham said for all households at all schools. Freerks said she doesn't know that every house that goes to every school is walkable. She said Windsor Ridge is bussed, for example. She said what she's talking about is that every school has an area that is a walkable area, and that's important to the Comprehensive Plan and what they develop in our communities. She said she doesn't want to spell it out, but that she wants them to communicate with each other about it. Dyer said it seems that in newly developing areas that means that they also need to have diversity of types of housing. Thomas suggested that what Eastham is saying is that this walkability concept be integrated with a diversity policy. Freerks said that is what she is asking for, that to be part of it. She said she wants to make sure that it is part of the discussion. She asked if other commissioners agreed on that. Commissioners agreed. Eastham said he did as long as they are clear that what they are suggesting exactly what Thomas said. Freerks asked what he's saying. Theobald said her concern is that walkability not trumps diversity Freerks said she's not saying that one trumps the other. She said what she is saying is that at the heart of the Comprehensive Plan, and it is supported by the Comprehensive Plan, that they have neighborhoods that have walkability and neighborhoods schools are part of that, schools and neighborhoods. She said she wants them to support that and she wants the school district to support that as well. Information packet: Thomas said in the Council packet there are often items of relevance to the Commission and he wants to know if the City could provide the Commission whatever is sent to Council that has relevance to their work. He said an email link would be sufficient. Thomas said there have been a number of pieces in the City Council information packet by the City Manager, e.g., an article entitled "Sprawl Is Not Necessarily Growth", that relates to the Commission's work. He stated that one of the criterion for the annexation item tonight was that it would not place an economic burden on the City. He said he would an explanation how that calculation is reached, because there is a lot of literature now questioning the economic sustainability of peripheral growth. He said there is mounting concern and evidence that in the long-term many are arguing that low density residential development is not sustainable. Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 2014 Page 7 of 8 Miklo said he could request that the City Manager copy the Commission on development - related items. Adjournment Eastham moved to adjourn. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2013-2014 FORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 915 1013 10117 1117 11121 1215 12119 112 1116 216 2120 3120 413 4117 511 DYER,CAROLYN 05/16 O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E X X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FREERKS,ANN 05/13 X O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/17 X X O/E X X O/E X X X X X X X X X SWYGARD, PAULA 05/15 X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X THEOBALD, JODIE 05/18 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X THOMAS, JOHN 05/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X WEITZEL, TIM 05/13 --- --- INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 3/4 4101 4115 9/19* 1/2 1/13 213 2120 DYER,CAROLYN 05/16 X X X X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/16 X X X X X X X X FREERKS,ANN 05/13 X O/E X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/17 X X X X X O/E X X SWYGARD, PAULA 05/15 X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE 05/18 --- --- --- X X X X THOMAS, JOHN 05/15 X X X X X X X WEITZEL, TIM 05/13 X X X --- --- KEY: X = Present 0 = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused = Not a Member = Work Session