HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-04-2022 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Wednesday, May 4, 2022
Formal Meeting — 6:00 PM
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
Development Items
4. Case No. CREZ21-0004
Location: North of Kountry Ln and west of Sycamore Greenway, Unincorporated
Johnson County
An application for a conditional use permit to allow an electrical substation on approximately
5.82-acres of land zoned County Residential (R) in unincorporated Johnson County within
the City's growth area.
5. Case No. REZ22-0005
Location: South of Lehman Avenue
An application for a rezoning of approximately 4.7 acres of land from Interim Development
Multi -Family Residential (ID-RM) to Neighborhood Public Zone (P-1).
6. Case No. SUB22-0002
Location: South of Wetherby Park and east of Covered Wagon Drive
An application for a preliminary plat for Sandhill Estates — Part Five, an 8.88-acre
subdivision containing 18 residential lots.
7. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: April 20, 2022
8. Planning and Zoning Information
9. Adjournment
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 4, 2022
If you will need disability -related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact
Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or anne-russett(cDiowa-city.org. Early requests
are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: May 18 / June 1 / June 15
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
r
mil_- -4 CITY OF I O WA CITY
it-s- 1�7MEMORANDUM
Date: May 4, 2022
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Emani Brinkman, Planning Intern & Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood &
Development Services
Re: CREZ21-0004 Conditional Use Permit for MidAmerican Electrical Substation in
Unincorporated Johnson County
Background Information:
MidAmerican Energy Company has submitted a conditional use permit application to the
Johnson County Board of Adjustment for the allowance of an electrical substation located on the
Southeast corner of parcel 1026176002 located directly north of Kountry Ln and west of the
Sycamore Greenway, in unincorporated Johnson County. The subject property is located within
City's Growth Area in the City/County Fringe Area. The Johnson County Unified Development
Code requires that cities be allowed to review conditional use permits within their extraterritorial
jurisdiction (the area covered by the City/County Fringe Area Agreement).
It is the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission to make a recommendation on the
conditional use permit to the City Council. The City Council will then make a recommendation to
the Johnson County Board of Adjustment. Conditional use permits in Johnson County require a
4/5 majority vote of the Board of Adjustment to approve if the use is opposed by a vote of the
City Council.
The subject property is zoned County Residential (R). Adjacent properties to the immediate
north, east and west are also zoned County Residential (R). Properties to the immediate south
are within City limits are zoned Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12).
Proposed Land Use:
The proposed substation is intended to provide electrical distribution infrastructure to serve new
development in Iowa City's south, central, and downtown planning Districts. The proposed
substation site is approximately 5.82 acres.
Current and Future Land Use:
The subject parcel will likely be included in the future expansion of the City's limits. The
County's Future Land Use Map indicates that the subject parcel is appropriate for Agricultural
land uses. There are no structures currently located on the site.
The subject property is located inside of the City's Growth Area and the City's updated South
District Plan identifies this area as part of the South District Form Based Code (adopted 10-05-
2021). The South District Plan Future Land Use Map identifies this area as appropriate for
Neighborhood Small (T4NS) related uses and also envisions an expansion of the Sycamore
Greenway in this area. The intent of a T4NS land use category is to create a walkable
neighborhood environment with a small -to -medium footprint, moderate -intensity housing
choices, and short walking distances to neighborhood serving retail and services. Basic utility
uses, like the substation, are provisionally allowed in T4NS zones provided they are completely
enclosed within a building. Substations cannot be enclosed within a building. The County's
Future Land Use Map land use category for this area is Agricultural (A). However, this area is
currently zoned County Residential (R).
May 4, 2022
Page 2
City Analysis:
Although the land to the north and west of the proposed substation is existing farm fields, the
Sycamore Greenway is immediately to the east and there is an existing multi -family residential
development directly south. The Sycamore Greenway is an open space area maintained by the
City with public trails accessible to residents for recreation.
Staff has concerns related to the proposed transmission lines that would completely encircle the
existing residential area and run along the Sycamore Greenway. Specifically, the proposed
transmission lines would run along the north, east, south, and west of the existing residential
uses. Additionally, the proposed driveway/access to the substation is in a location that the City
would not typically approve since it is parallel to an existing street (Kountry Ln). Furthermore,
the proposed layout will make it difficult to integrate the substation into the vision established by
the South District Plan.
Staff understands that electric substations are needed in order for the city to grow. With the
adoption of the updated South District Plan and the associated form -based code this area is
intended to develop over the next several years. The City has been working with MidAmerican
Energy Company on locating a substation further south closer to the City's wastewater
treatment facility. MidAmerican has also submitted a rezoning application for this alternative
site. Staff would like to continue to work with MidAmerican on locating a substation on this site
since it will not impact existing residents and the Sycamore Greenway Trail.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of an application submitted by MidAmerican Energy Company for a
County conditional use permit to allow for an electrical substation located north of Kountry Ln
and west of the Sycamore Greenway in unincorporated Johnson County.
The Johnson County Board of Adjustment is the ultimate decision maker regarding County
conditional use permits. Therefore, if they approve the application, staff recommends the
approval include the following conditions:
1. Dedication of the extension of the Soccer Park Rd right-of-way to the City of Iowa City
subject to review and approval of construction drawings by the City Engineer and in a
fee simple form subject to review and approval by the City Attorney's Office.
2. City review of the site plan per the City/County Fringe Area Agreement and to ensure the
location of the transmission lines do not impact the trail network and are located on the
north side for the portion that runs along the Lehman Ave right-of-way.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Fringe Area Map
4. Application Information
Approved by: , I �) '
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
W-
ti /
rr♦
rrrr•�
■
■
■
■
■
■
CAST
A�%—.�
u
�ba
a+
O
U N N
Q
O
y
L N
U
cc
o �
c
>,:ti o
0
0 0 0`o
'y
N V
A
O a
°
E
U 0
m O
O
N
C W W
t C>
N
�' ¢ as avis
� ONIZV19 J
to v�
O
I0
U > (L o
75
U m m
O x N
3 �
w U)
fY
Im
_O
I
I I
1 1
II 1
I N
I I
� I Y
1 -
I 1 Z
0
Y
1
logeCC
CCcu
�ba��JJ
�
b3
C w
L
S N33u
-
U Q
u
LL
/y/
�
/�yy
C�C W
Q
d ror.
0 m
77 N U
�C
w
C
N C
G�
��
C C w
�(',AMORE ST
3S
1S 3NOW�1.S
3S1
•�
ca
O�
�
LyO
d
`0 o C ci
N
oa•�E
o
M0�oU
to
O
m
II
1—li
o. �
N y O rn
c ❑
r ro c
a
n°
r
a Y
aG
4
F
� �
�
w �
sw
6o�+os
m
Q
'��
U) ei tea°
Ana
°
iD HUI
�kry Lqy N � m
y��jl a z� o �aQQ m�(( r7so gyyl al w 4 Y yF�[lQ rr m p 0 i NN <Ni�W �
E NO< :Ii lJ up❑O ° ��NFKO �1 p�� ��2 yZ�LL °(OY� z �1Z
h UY�OJxf�YJ°nO 0P��� �4_� ; NiLL�QIe� ❑m
�{✓�p LL lu
YIII � �nY�Cy _ �S�I}NY?��
F�aa ❑m NN I-Sj FJ JQ Lr�� J JJa
- n n Y Vi 6 Ti Y vi H 1114!41 J - N m P Y1 J
lu
I
MIM
Z4'Vluls0Pw'Nd£4L0ZL LZOVEM 'B-P'slleladg saloN KE831sueld u0il0wlsu0M3BUlMW0 CIC \bLE83=08-3183l1:
Z:L'MMOPW'Wd BZ:LO:ZL LZOZ/E2L'6mp'LnoABI aeE KE831suRid uoiLon,LsuOM3Buimw0 CIE 16LEUMOW3153l1:
n
O
L1
x
IL
,ASS Fli
� � F
UTH
J K��OQ <U< �af CjOK
N�ow°� .���-z Q OF❑
iipp�1��f � y{{yN yyyyQQ���� kkx
6f6UQLAQFFrvuu
4
°
F
< ��
a
�Q
va
mX
m
Q
< °Y
<
F
ap�5d
z �o<`M
Q-
-
met'•-
Z4 'M9elsopw Ad 9ow-a Lzomin 6mp'ueld 8u!PeiE) KE831sueld uoPowlsuop�sBuimwp pEB 16LEB310008 3183�1:
OOJq$O
`W Qf �Z�m mFpnn(yN� �O
tn
DJ
�pUUq`T��ru{{y�{w ��a}oQd
�pB�mOT�Q�Na�
coi� Flao' ao'oma
U1 _ n m a ui
Y
R
V
L
Q
m
I
I
f9 Q �R R V� I I �I
amp—m1w,.
m
+
m
+ +
+
+ +
+
+
+
+ +
+
+
+ +
+
+
+
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+
+
+
+ +
+ + +
+ +
+
+
+ "
+ +
+
+
+
+ + +
+ +
+ +
+ + +
+
+
+ +
+
+
+
+ +
+ + _
++++++++++1++++++++
+
+ +
+ + +
+
+
+ +
+
+
+
+ +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + +
+
+
i +
+
+
+
+ +
+ + r�
+
+ + +
+
+
+ +
+
+
+
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+
+
+
+ +
+
+
+
+ + +
+
+ + +
+
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ + +
6
I / .
I
I 4�11 ��
Z:L'H!lelsopw 'pld L4:zo:zt LZ07./fi2L Tmp adeospuel KE831sueld uoilawISUOM36W,melp GEC \bLE8310008 31S31 H.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ22-0005
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact Person
Owner:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Location Map:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Date: May 4, 2022
Civil Engineering Consultants, Inc
Marty Dostalik
dostali k(cbceclac. com
Lillis O'Malley
Chris Pose
coose(cDlolaw.com
Lake Calvin Properties, LLC & Sycamore
Apartments
Rezoning to Neighborhood Public (P-1)
Development of an electric substation
South of Lehman Ave and west of the Sycamore
Greenway
Approximately 4.7 acres
Undeveloped / Agriculture, Interim
Development -Multi -Family (ID-RM) Zone
North: Undeveloped / Agriculture, ID-
RM
South: Undeveloped / Agriculture,
ID-RM
East: Undeveloped / Agriculture, ID-
RM
West: Undeveloped / Agriculture,
Interim Development Single -Family
(ID-RS)
Comprehensive Plan:
District Plan:
Neighborhood Open Space District:
Public Meeting Notification:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
2-8 Dwelling Units per Acre
South District, Form -Based Land Use
0"T,
Staff posted rezoning signs and send out
neighbor letters to property owners and
individuals residing within 500' of the proposed
rezoning
3/31 /2022
5/15/2022
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, MidAmerican Energy Company, has requested a rezoning of approximately 4.7
acres of undeveloped land in the South District to Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone in order to
develop an electric substation for the area.
MidAmerican Energy Company has been searching for an appropriate location for an electric
substation in south Iowa City and has identified the property south of Lehman Avenue and west
of the Sycamore Greenway. In addition to the proposed rezoning, the applicant has also
submitted a County Conditional Use Permit application for a different location north of Lehman
Avenue (CREZ21-0004). While the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council will
review that application and provide a recommendation to the County Board of Adjustment, the
final decision is made by the County.
At the Planning & Zoning Commission's April 20, 2022 meeting, the Commission
considered a text amendment to the P-1 zone. The proposed amendment would allow basic utility
uses, such as an electric substation, by special exception in the P-1 zone. The Commission
recommended approval of the text amendment. The City Council will likely hold a public hearing
on May 17, 2022 to consider the text amendment.
The applicant chose not hold a Good Neighbor meeting, but did reach out to neighboring property
owners (Attachment 5).
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned Interim Development -Multi -Family (ID-RM). The
purpose of the ID -zones is to provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and
other nonurban uses of land may continue until such time as the city is able to provide city
services and urban development can occur. The interim development zone is the default zoning
district to which all undeveloped areas should be classified until city services are provided. Upon
provision of city services, the city or the property owner may initiate rezoning to zones
consistent with the comprehensive plan. The ID-RM zone allows a limited number of land uses,
including but not limited to single-family residential, plant related agriculture, animal related
commercial uses, religious institutions, and communication transmission facilities. Basic utility
uses are not allowed in the ID-RM zone.
Proposed Zoning: The P-1 zone has historically been used to identify land owned by public
entities. However, staff has proposed an amendment to the P-1 zone (REZ22-0002) in order to
focus less on ownership and more on land use. With the proposed amendment basic utility uses
would be allowed subject to a special exception, which would need to be reviewed and approved
by the Board of Adjustment.
Staff is recommending a condition of the rezoning that prior to site plan approval, the owner shall
prepare an Auditor's Plat of Survey to align with the rezoning boundaries.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The South District Plan future land use map identifies
the subject property as being appropriate for form -based land uses, primarily Transect 3:
Suburban Neighborhood General and a small portion of Transect 4: General Urban
Neighborhood Medium. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map shows the area as
residential development at 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre.
The South District Plan also includes a conceptual vision of a highly interconnected trail and
street network. Due to the nature of this development, the large site required and the proposed
use, the street network identified in the area of the proposed rezoning is not practical. That said,
if the area surrounding the proposed substation is developed under the form -based zone
regulations a highly interconnected street network will emerge around the substation.
The Comprehensive Plan contains policies for growth and infrastructure that guide
development, including how public funds for infrastructure and improvements should be
invested. The focus of the City's growth policies is to prioritize development in areas best served
by current and planned infrastructure. Doing so provides the highest levels of service at an
efficient cost. Goals throughout the plan reflect these policies, such as the housing strategy to
"Concentrate new development in areas contiguous to existing neighborhoods where it is most
cost effective to extend infrastructure and services." While most strategies do not speak directly
to infrastructure provision, they emphasize the importance of well -planned utilities, without
which the City could not continue to grow and thrive.
The South District Plan also includes policies related to the development of new neighborhoods,
including the need for compact development that features a mix of housing types and small
neighborhood nodes. While the proposed location of the electric substation is not contiguous
with existing development, the location is more suitable for a basic utility use because it is near
existing transmission lines and is adjacent to the 1,000-foot buffer from the wastewater
treatment plan. The plan notes that future growth near the wastewater treatment plant buffer
area should 'take its proximity into consideration prior to development." It is also located within
City limits and provides a critical piece of infrastructure that paves the way for future growth in
the South Planning District. In addition, installing a substation prior to the surrounding
neighborhood, those moving to the area are aware of its presence in advance, rather than
locating an electric substation near or within an existing neighborhood.
Compatibility with Neighborhood: The proposed rezoning is in a location that has not yet
been developed. The land immediately surrounding the site remains undeveloped. The closest
residential development is to north of Lehman Avenue.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas: Based on the information provided by the applicant it is
staffs understanding that the site contains hydric soils. Staff has requested that the applicant
submit a sensitive areas development plan along with a wetlands delineation report. It is staffs
understanding that the wetland report will be available prior to the May 4t" Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting.
Access and Street Design: Access to the site will be provided via Lehman Avenue. Lehman
Avenue is currently unimproved at the access point to the proposed substation. Therefore, staff
recommends a condition that prior to site plan approval, the owner extends Lehman Avenue to
the access point of the substation with chip seal materials approved by the City Engineer. Staff
also recommends as a condition of the rezoning that the owner demonstrates to the City access
to the subject property from Lehman Avenue, which may be in the form of a Temporary Public
Access Easement agreement. The access easement shall be released upon dedication of right-
of-way when the land is final platted. Such access area shall be in a location approved by the
City Engineer and in a form approved by the City Attorney's Office.
Neighborhood Open Space: The proposed rezoning will not result in residential development;
therefore, the neighborhood open space provisions do not apply.
Storm Water Management: Compliance with the City's storm water management ordinance will
be determined upon review of a site plan. If the applicant decides that it does not want to
provide storm water management on -site, they will be required to obtain an easement over and
across adjacent land to allow overland flow of storm water to the Sycamore Greenway, which
acts as a regional stormwater detention facility.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will set a public
hearing to consider the rezoning application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
At this time staff is still awaiting receipt of a wetlands delineation report. In order to recommend
approval of the rezoning as proposed the wetlands report must make a determination that no
wetlands are present and be approved by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.
If the applicant can demonstrate these items are satisfied, staff recommends approval of REZ22-
0005, an application to rezone approximately 4.7 acres of land south of Lehman Ave and west of
the Sycamore Greenway to the Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone, subject to the following conditions:
Prior to site plan approval, Owner shall cause Lehman Avenue to be extended through
any access point established for the subject property with chip seal materials, subject to
approval of the construction plans by the City Engineer.
2. Prior to site plan approval, Owner shall have prepared, approved by the City, and recorded
an Auditor's Plat of Survey to align with the rezoning boundaries.
3. Prior to site plan approval Owner shall demonstrate to the City that it has vehicular access
to the subject property from Lehman Avenue, which may be in the form of a Temporary
Public Access Easement agreement, which shall be released upon dedication of right-of-
way when the servient land is final platted. Such access area shall be in a location
approved by the City Engineer and in a form approved by the City Attorney's Office.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Photograph
3. Applicant Statement
4. Applicant Sketch of Site
5. Applicant Neighbor Meeting Summary
Approved by:
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Y
r
U
oFILL
c ..
�,„i_
LL
u
all
OSSEO
OWN
V
Y
d
Qu
a) 0
Q E
ii
G O Lz
w L
C
(v
p v
C
O O
O G
EQC_.E
>N
A
7�
k O
OG:-.
a °
a a
00
a� d
O C
k
0
S7 O
O
C p W A
vOi Ci
y N lci
�
�
w � 0
cu
n=
> c
ow N
° Ecc
a o
m d
LILLIS O'MALLEY OLSON MANNING POSE TEMPLEMAN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MICHAEL W. O'MALLEY
(ESTABLISHED 1917)
JOHN CONNOLLY. JR. (1891-1975)
EUGENE E. OLSON
317 Sri=AvENVE, SurrE 300
GEORGE E. O'MALLEY (1905-1982)
DANIEL L. MANNING, SR.
JOHN CONNOLLY III (1918-1998)
CHRISTOPHER R. POSE
Des MotNEs, IowA 50309-4127
BERNARD J. CONNOLLY (1920-1970)
JOEL B. TEMPLEMAN'
C. I. MCNUTT (1901-1958)
DANIEL M. MANNING. JR.
TELEPHONE (515) 243-8157
STREETAR CAMERON (1957-2008)
'LICENSED IN IOWA h ILLINOIS
FAX (515) 243-3919
WILLIAM J. LILLIS (1943-2019)
W W ..LILLISOMALLEYCOM
Writer's Email Address: cpose@lolaw.com
March 31, 2022
Via Email
Ann Russett
Senior Planner
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
Re: REZ22-005 — Applicant Statement
Dear Ann:
On behalf of MidAmerican Energy Company, I provide the following statement as to
why the zoning change is warranted.
MidAmerican Energy Company has been seeking a substation site in this area since 2015.
The substation is an essential piece of infrastructure to serve the area and growth needs of the
South District Comprehensive Plan. After conversations With the City, it was determined that the
present site which is adjacent to an existing transition line and adjacent to the future wastewater
treatment area buffer park would be a suitable location for an electric substation. This rezoning
to a P-1 district classification will provide an essential item of public infrastructure which will
serve electric distribution needs for the surrounding area.
If you have any questions concerning this application, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
C,-k— IZe--
Christopher R. Pose
For the Firm
CRP/ta
CC: Marty Dostalik
Mike Pugh
Dawn Carlson
Jon Austin
��—
77f —7
Q
�
QQQ
Q
W
00o
rvz pmv
N
w
ma
o
QZ
j
O u
awN�
\ Q
�<
1�
uQ
I
U
lu
/
ua~
Q��
Nv 3 za�t �
LILLIS O'MALLEY OLSON MANNING POSE TEMPLEMAN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MICHAEL W. O'MALLEY
(ESTABLISHED 1917)
JOHN CONNOLLY, JR. (1891-1975)
EUGENE E. OLSON
317 SIXTH AvENOE, S= 300
GEORGE E. O'MALLEY (1905.1982)
DANIEL L. MANNING, SR.
JOHN CONNOLLY III 119 18-1998)
DES MOINEs, IowA 50309-4127
CHRISTOPHER R. POSE
BERNARD J. CONNOLLY (1920-1970)
JOEL B. TEMPLEMAN'
C. 1. MCNUTT (1901-1958)
DANIEL M. MANNING, JR.
TELEPHONE (515) 243-8157
STREETAR CAMERON (1959-2008)
'LICENSED IN IOWA R ILLINOIS
FAX (515) 243-3919
WILLIAM J. LILLIS (1943-2019)
W W W.LQ.LISOMAllbYCOM
Writer's Email Address: cpose@lolaw.com
April 19, 2022
Via Email: arussetl@iowa-city.org
Anne Russett
Senior Planner
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
Re: REZ22-005 — Good Neighbor Meeting Report
Dear Anne:
In accordance with the spirit of the City's "Good Neighbor Policy" I am providing you
the following report.
MidAmerican Energy Company agrees this policy furthers good will and resolving of
issues. We encouraged dialogue with owners surrounding the site.
The following owners of land are present near the site:
Sycamore Apartments n/k/a Sycamore LLC
Sycamore Farms Company
Pleasant Valley LP
Tenants: Within the Sycamore apartments there are 140 apartment units. We conferred
with Sycamore LLC on whether or not these tenants should be notified. Sycamore LLC indicated
that the tenants in the apartments have lease terms of one (1) year or less and did not see the need
for dialogue with these tenants as part of this process. To comply with their wishes and our
understanding that we are better off dialoging with owners we did not notify these tenants or
hold any kind of meeting with them.
Meetings were held in person and as follows:
A. Summary of meeting with Pleasant Valley L P regarding the proposed Lake
Calvin substation site.
Dawn Carlson, MEC Right of Way Services, and Jon Austin, MEC Substation
LILLIS O'MALLEY OLSON MANNING POSE TEMPLEMAN, LLP
April 19, 2022
Page 2
Engineering, met with Pleasant Valley L P, (Aledo Feuerbach) on April 13. We
discussed at length the proposed substation site located west of the Pleasant
Valley property. Pleasant Valley's primary concern was how the substation will
be screened from view. We reviewed a similar substation landscaping plan and
the types of plantings typically used. Pleasant Valley requested we maximize the
screening by using taller trees if possible. Pleasant Valley suggested Norwegian
Spruce as a fast growing evergreen variety. We noted the overhead transmission
lines limit the height of plantings we can use with in the transmission corridor.
The landscaping will be per Iowa City standards at a minimum.
B. Meetings and discussions with Sycamore Apartments LLC and Sycamore Farms
Company have been held on numerous occasions before the application was filed.
Sycamore LLC is a Seller of land to MidAmerican Energy Company for this
project and is intricately involved in all project details and discussions. Sycamore
LLC has consented to the rezoning request and this development subject to
conditions as listed in the parties Purchase Agreement which include: (1) The City
buying the wastewater treatment buffer land to the south and; (2) the City
reviewing comprehensive plan designations for remaining land after the City
buffer purchase and the MidAmerican Energy Company substation purchase.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this report.
Sincerely,
, e, 4,
Christopher R. Pose
For the Firm
CRP/ta
Cc: Michael Pugh (Via email)
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: SUB22-0002
Sandhill Estates — Part Five
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact Person:
Owner:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Location Map:
Prepared by: Parker Walsh, Associate
Planner
Date: May 4, 2022
Hall & Hall Engineers Inc.
Susan Forinash
susan(a)halleng.com
Hall & Hall Engineers Inc.
Brian Vogel
brian(5halleng.com
Prairie Heights Land, LLC
Jason Walton
(319)499-8836
0walton(dsouth gateco.com
Approval of preliminary plat
Construction of Sandhill Estates — Part 5;
a residential subdivision
South of Wetherby Park and east of
Size: 8.88 Acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
Comprehensive Plan:
District Plan:
Neighborhood Open Space District:
Public Meeting Notification:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
UndevelopedNacant Open Space,
Low Density Single -Family
Residential with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5)
North: OPD/RS-5, Low Density Single -
Family Residential with a
Planned Development Overlay
P1, Neighborhood Public
South: OPD/RS-5. Low Density Single -
Family Residential with a
Planned Development Overlay
East: RS- 8, Medium Density Single -
Family Residential
West: OPD/RS-5, Low Density Single -
Family Residential with a
Planned Development Overlay
P1, Neighborhood Public
2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre
South District
S-1
Property owners south, east, and west of
the subject property in the Sandhill
Estates development received notification
of the Planning and Zoning Commission
public meeting. Subdivision signs were
posted on the site at the end of Covered
Wagon Drive.
March 24, 2022
May 8, 2022
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant Hall & Hall Engineers Inc. is requesting approval of the preliminary plat of
Sandhill Estates — Part 5, an 8.88-acre plat containing 18 single-family residential lots
located south of Wetherby Park and east of Covered Wagon Drive. The plat shows the
extension of Covered Wagon Drive and Sand Prairie Drive and the creation of Frontier
Loop.
A planned development overlay rezoning and preliminary plat was approved in 2004 for
Sandhill Estates that included a 379 lot, 146.48-acre residential subdivision, 119.94
acres of which would be rezoned to OPDH-5, now referred to as OPD/RS-5. Sandhill
Estates required a Planned Development Overlay rezoning due to the need for
clustered, conversation design in order to preserve open space and sensitive areas,
including the approximate 17.4 acres of open space (now referred to as Sand Prairie).
The OPD allowed for narrower lots than what is permitted by an RS-5 zone, allowing the
necessary design approach to preserve land and sensitive features. The rezoning
included the following conditions:
A. A separate left turn lane on Gilbert Street for southbound to eastbound traffic
must be constructed before more than 25 units are constructed. This can be
added to the existing roadway as a temporary feature or can be constructed as
part of the permanent improvements, including a four -lane PCC roadway with left
turn lane.
B. Vehicular access to lots 161-204, 204-330 shall be from the alley.
C. The design of the homes on lots 161-204, 304-330 shall be from the alley
i. A variety of facades and variation on rooflines, such as the use of
gable and hip roofs, to minimize a cookie cutter appearance and a
different fagade at least every third unit is required.
ii. The sidewalks of lots 161, 177, 178, 190, 191, 204, 304, 315, 317, and
330 that face the street, should include elements of the front fagade,
such as windows and fenestration, doorways, trim and moulding, and
roofline. It is not contemplated that porches will be required to wrap
around to the side of the dwelling.
iii. Front porches that are at least six feet in depth shall be included.
iv. Slightly staggered footprints, also to avoid a monotonous appearance
are required.
v. Ten feet between buildings to meet normal setback requirements
between buildings is required, and to allow for eaves or overhangs at
the side of buildings.
vi. Planning and Zoning Commission review of the building elevations and
footprints as a condition of approval of final plat is required.
D. For lots less than 60 feet in lot width with no alley access, the front yard setback
shall be 25 feet.
Of the conditional zoning requirements outlined above, only condition D applies to
Sandhill Estates Part 5 as proposed development would include lots with less than 60
feet lot width and must be setback at least 25 feet. Condition A has already been
satisfied and conditions B and C do not apply to the subject area.
Sandhill Estates has been developed in parts starting in 2004 after the approval of the
379 lot, 119.94-acre rezoning and preliminary plat. The timeline of development is as
follows:
1. 2004 — The Sandhill Estates Part 1 final plat was approved for 56 single-family
residential lots over 59.33 acres. Outlot M, containing 17.74 acres of public open
space, was dedicated to the City. This was , well over the 2.6-acre requirement
and satisfying the neighborhood open space requirements for all future Sandhill
development.
2. 2004 — The Sandhill Estates Part 2 final plat was approved and created 21 lots
on approximately 4.75 acres and resulted in the construction of Keel Boat Loop.
The 2004 approved preliminary plat expired in 2006 after the final platting of
Sandhill Estates Parts 1 and 2.
3. 2014 — The Sandhill Estates Part 3 preliminary and final plats were approved for
a 25 lot, 7.76-acre development.
4. 2014-2016 — The Sandhill Estates Part 4 preliminary plat was approved in 2014
and the final plat was approved in 2016 for a 22 lot, 7.74-acre development.
5. 2022 — Sandhill Estates Part 5 seeks approval of an 18 lot, 8.88-acre
development.
The applicant held a Good Neighbor Meeting on April 12, 2022.
ANALYSIS:
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan and the
South District Plan encourage urban growth through compact and connected
neighborhoods. They also have similar goals to enhance streets, sidewalks, and trails,
while also providing safe and pedestrian friendly street systems. The preliminary plat
demonstrates a commitment to these goals by providing wide interconnected sidewalks,
as well as a roundabout to calm traffic that as noted in the South District Plan, 'offers an
opportunity to enhance the appearance and identity of public streets". The subject plat
proposes to further incorporate an interconnected street system through the extension
of Covered Wagon Drive and Sand Prairie Drive. As Sandhill Estates continues to
develop, the interconnected street and sidewalk systems will further provide the
community with a walkable neighborhood a short distance from Wetherby Park and
Grant Wood Elementary School.
The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map identifies the subject property
as appropriate for development at 2-8 dwelling units per acre. With the South District
Plan amendment from 2021, the subject property is identified as appropriate for
development consistent with the Transect 3 Neighborhood Edge (T3NE) form -based
land use category. T3NE is described as "A walkable neighborhood environment of
detached, small -to -large building footprint, low -intensity housing choices from House
Large, Duplex Side -by -Side to Cottage Court, supporting and within short walking
distance to neighborhood -serving retail, food and service uses. Buildings are house -
scale and detached in nature. Both design site widths and building footprints are small -
to -large with medium -to -large front setbacks and medium side setbacks. Homes are up
to 2.5 stories tall, and frontage types include Porch, Dooryard and Stoop".
Although the proposed development will not incorporate a variety of housing types, the
preliminary plat is consistent with the current zoning designation. It also incorporates
sidewalk and street connections envisioned by the comprehensive plan and South
District Plan.
Subdivision Design: The proposed subdivision contains 18 single-family residential
lots and Outlot A, which is intended for storm sewer and storm water conveyance. The
preliminary plat proposes to further incorporate an interconnected street system through
the extension of Covered Wagon Drive and Sand Prairie Drive. Each will provide a stub
for future development connectivity and intersect at a roundabout. The applicant also
proposes Frontier Loop, a loop street extending off Sand Prairie Drive to the east.
Frontier Loop has 9 residential lots, including 3 lots with less than 60' lot width, requiring
the 25' front setback outlined in the Conditional Zoning Agreement. The sidewalk
system proposed extends from existing stubs and no sidewalk is fewer than 5' wide,
with the extension of an 8' sidewalk along the north side of Covered Wagon Drive. The
proposed sidewalks would end in stubs at the end of Covered Wagon Drive and Sand
Prairie Drive, providing connectivity opportunities for future development. Block length
remains consistent with the city's subdivision regulations, a collector street, is broken up
with blocks intersecting between the 300-600 feet preferred range. The roundabout
would also provide a traffic calming feature.
The stormwater management basin, Outlot A, will be the source of offsite retention for
storm water conveyance for Sandhill Estates — Part 5.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The applicant has submitted a sensitive areas
development plan due to the presence of sensitive features. The site contains 0.01
acres of steep slopes. No critical or protected slopes are located on the site. The
proposed development will impact 100% of the steep slopes.
The site also contains 0.32 acres of hydric soils. Due to the presence of hydric soils the
applicant submitted a wetland delineation report. The wetland delineation report
identifies approximately 0.55 acres of wetlands located within a manmade stormwater
detention basin. 0.06 acres is considered emergent wetland and the remaining 0.49
acres are manmade wetlands. The sensitive areas ordinance outlines situations where
development is exempt from the requirements of the sensitive areas ordinance,
including stormwater facilities. According to 14-51-2C-4 "normal and routine
maintenance of existing drainage and stormwater management facilities are exempt
from the requirements of this article. This exemption includes vegetative maintenance
for access and storm water/flood control purposes within and adjacent to drainageways.
Except for temporary storage outside a wetland or water body, placement of fill or
dredge spoils is not exempt under this subsection C4. Groundwater monitoring wells,
when constructed to standards approved by the city, are exempt.
Per the preliminary plat, the existing stormwater basin will be used for stormwater
management for this plat. Staff has reviewed the wetlands delineation report and
determined that the stormwater management facility is exempt from the sensitive areas
ordinance. Per the wetland report the wetlands are located within a manmade
stormwater management facility and the sensitive areas ordinance exempts stormwater
management facilities for the purposes of stormwater management and flood control
purposes within and adjacent to drainageways. The stormwater management facility is
located within a drainageway. Per the wetlands report, the wetlands drain to the
southeast into a storm sewer culvert. As the area continues to develop, the storm water
management facility will need to be maintained to ensure the proper management of
storm water.
Archaeological Studies: The applicant commissioned an archaeological study in 2002,
completed by the Lewis -Berger Group in October 2002. No previously unrecorded
prehistoric or historic archaeological sites were found on the property. Artifacts from one
previously recorded site were recovered, the site had previously been determined to be
not eligible for listing within the National Register of Historic Places. The conclusion of
the archaeological study is that no further exploration can be recommended.
Neighborhood Open Space: Approximately 17.74 acres of open space was dedicated
in 2004 as Sand Prairie Park. The dedication was well over the 2.6-acre requirement and
satisfies the requirements for all future Sandhill Estates development, including the
proposed preliminary plat.
Storm Water Management: Storm water management will be provided via the
proposed regional retention basin, Outlot A. Public Works has reviewed and requires
the proposed regional retention basin include sediment forebay or another acceptable
pre-treatment practice at drainage outlets, as well as additional measures be taken to
prevent pond stagnation.
Due to the applicant providing an updated preliminary plat that includes the proposed
regional retention basin being platted as Outlot A, City Engineering requires a revised
stormwater report. The retention basin must also have at least 25% of the surface area
of the pond exceeding a depth of 8 feet after construction.
Infrastructure Fees: Required fees include a water main extension fee of $503.57 per
acre and a sanitary sewer tap on fee of $1,796.50 per acre for the entire subdivision.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the preliminary plat will
be considered for approval by the City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of SUB22-0002, an application submitted by Hall and Hall
Engineers for a Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Sandhill
Estates — Part 5, an 18-lot, 8.88-acre residential subdivision located south of Wetherby
Park and east of Covered Wagon Drive.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan
Approved by: #�=
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
J/
■
r : - joI ■ �,
•
■
•♦♦♦ _ L--fi- JJ
■
♦♦♦ _ A A A ,
■
♦♦♦� ••••
•
,Sao
M
O
O
tt: N
4\
e-1
z h o
0
3 0
z
U)
MW
W
Z
w
z
O
2
aQ
w�
J O
W
U
Ua
z o
W LL
O
LL
CW U
G
w
CO
In
O
N
V
m
l0
M
I,
l0
0
V
m
V)
r-i
N
N
ID
�O
LO
t0
N
N
lf)
In
01
lf)
01
In
M
0)
M
M
M
M
M
l0
N
M
rn
rn
rn
rn
0)
o
0)
m
�
m
M
M
z
z
w
d w
w
O F
O �
w U
w 0 w
w w U
Z U o
z o �
w a w
H
z
w
� }
U
a Z
w w
0
w w
Li w
U)
z
O
u
U
w
J
J
O
U
z
O
LU
w
Q
LU
w
Q
U)
w
F w
z
w
U U
w C�
Z w
O 2:
�a
0
O
0
w
cn
O
a_
O
Of
a_
I
Z
W
0
w
J
H
J
H
0
Z
H
V)
X
w
I
0
Z
LLJ
0
W
J
H
J
H
;m0)0
mu(
E§2-/
\|§§®
§§///
z»z°�
Z§})§
�kk,/
=E\oo
wt§�(
k(2mu
j/j\\
t2t�BE
§§§|!
,<wwwazo}
\§k�=
\WW-o<
,holy,
;[[§§§
§;!§§)
§[\rw§
&P2w:
§§W,
/<\w}\
/�Omm
mwm
ob
M§z 0
Wo (§|§!
mt"Wz
§�zore
§[(§§2
zRZW
\w=mwr
M§a�`®X"
I
J o�
eas-v
I
l
W
O
LU
Z
w
J
W
Q
W
H
Z
W
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 20, 2022-6:OOPM—FORMAL MEETING
E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark Nolte, Maria
Padron, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Chris Pose
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends that the zoning code be amended to allow basic
utility uses in Neighborhood Public (P-1) zones provisionally or by special exception, as
illustrated in attachment one of the staff report.
By a vote of 6-0 (Nolte absent) the Commission recommends approval of an amendment to Title
14, Zoning to allow a door connecting a drinking establishment to a sales -oriented retail use and
not consider it an expansion if certain criteria are satisfied.
By a vote of 6-0 (Nolte absent) the Commission recommends that the Zoning Code be amended
as illustrated in Attachment 1 to address numerous code clean up items with the exception to
strike the provisions relating to this Historic Preservation exception at 14-2A-7B, 14-2B-8A and
14-2C-11A with the intent to address that in a later code cleanup.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. REZ22-0002:
Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to allow basic utility uses in the Neighborhood
Public (P-1) zone.
Lehmann began the staff report noting this amendment is to allow private basic utility uses in the
P-1 zone but there are some other changes that are part of this amendment as well, such as
some changes to the way the public zone section is set up. Currently, it's a little different than
other zone sections and staff wants to try and make it as similar as the others to make it easier
for legibility for the public and staff and it also includes some modified criteria for basic utility
uses. Beginning with background, Lehmann stated the public zones historically have been used
to denote public ownership of land such as the County, the School District, or the City, any of
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 20, 2022
Page 2of19
those would be zoned P-1. Lehmann noted there are some private uses already allowed either
provisionally or by special exception in public zones but historically it has been used to denote
ownership and staff is trying to move away from that a little bit with this amendment since there
are some private uses already allowed. Staff looked at private basic utility uses such as public or
private infrastructure services, and noted they have to be near the area where the service is
being provided. Some examples are electric substations, communication hubs, switching and
relay facilities, water and sewer lift stations, water towers, reservoirs, etc. and those could be
public or privately owned. Currently they are only allowed in public zones if they are publicly
owned. They are also allowed in most commercial zones, not a mixed -use zone, in industrial,
research, Riverfront Crossings zones, and the T4 form -based zones, in addition to some
nonresidential interim development zones. Staff is hoping to expand that and has discussed this
for the past several years when a situation arises. Most recently it's been because of
discussions with MidAmerican Energy as they're looking for substations in growing areas, and
ImOn as they're also looking to expand services within their territory in existing neighborhoods.
Iowa City is growing, and it needs these services. Services are changing over time, and it can
be challenging to place these services in areas for necessary infrastructure.
Lehmann explained in terms of the approval criteria that apply to basic utility uses, in some
cases it's provisionally allowed in Commercial Interim Development zones, Commercial
Research Development zones, Riverfront Crossings zones, and the T4 form -based zones. It's
allowed provisionally if it's enclosed within a use and has to contain another use that is allowed
in the zone. Another use that is allowed provisionally are water and sanitary sewer pump stations
that are approved as part of site plan or as subdivision review. Lehmann stated there are some
odd caveats with that such as if it's a standalone utility use enclosed within a building, it triggers
the special exception because it doesn't have another use allowed in the zone and in T4 zones
that does have to be enclosed, there's no special exception option. Within those zones, if it does
doesn't meet those provisional criteria, then it has to go through a special exception, which was
reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Some of the approval criteria are that it has to be screened
from public view or view of adjacent residential zones to the S3 standard, it has to be compatible
with surrounding structures and uses based on safety, size, height, scale, location and design,
and then there's also general approval criteria that apply to any special exception. The general
criteria are things such as it won't hurt neighboring properties, won't impact property values, has
adequate utilities, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, etc. Lehmann noted all those
general criteria that apply to special exceptions apply here, but there's also some ability for the
Board of Adjustment to modify some standards but doesn't really apply to the subject today.
Private utilities are also allowed in industrial zones and interim industrial zones provisionally if
200 feet from any residential zone and screened from view of public right-of-way to the S3
standard. Lehmann stated that is a lesser standard than what is seen in the other zones.
Lehmann explained what the proposed amendment looks to do is to treat private basic utility
uses in public zones as if it was in a commercial zone. All the criteria that was just mentioned
would apply, if it's enclosed, then it would be allowed provisionally, if it's not enclosed, then it
would be subject to a special exception. One of the other changes staff is recommending with
this is to strike the standard that enclosed utilities require another allowed use within the building
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 20, 2022
Page 3 of 19
and allow an administrative review of standalone enclosed utilities. He noted staff has a lot of
requests for enclosed utilities such as ImOn communications hubs in the last five years. He
showed an image of what an ImOn utility communications hub looks like and noted it is
something that doesn't have another use in it and applying that special exception criteria to an
enclosed building is a little strange. Staff feels they can rely instead on existing site development
standards to prevent that additional Board of Adjustment review and just do an administrative
review.
Finally, staff is also proposing some changes to the public zones section generally, such as
adding any use table, and then modifying language regarding the purpose and regarding public
ownership with the goal of trying to make it more similar to other zones where it's based on the
use and not based on ownership.
In terms of analysis for this proposed amendment, currently areas that allow basic utility uses
generally are located in commercial and industrial areas, near downtown, along major corridors,
like the highways and interstate, or near railroads. Those defined commercial nodes are like
Towncrest, Old Town Village, and Walden Square so they do exist in quite a few areas in the
City. However, there are some notable gaps, especially in developing areas to the south, the
southwest and to the east and that can become an issue when trying to locate utilities for those
growing areas. Some residential areas are far from those neighborhood commercial nodes or far
from those commercial areas and can make it hard for the expansion of ImOn, for example, or
any future network provider that wants to come into the community. However, public zones are
better dispersed throughout the community such as fire stations, schools, parks, etc. Lehmann
showed a map indicating the relatively concentrated areas where the basic utility use areas are
currently allowed and again pointed to the gaps in growing areas. He next showed the P-1 areas
and noted they're better dispersed throughout the City and would allow the utilities to meet some
of these areas where there might be gaps.
Lehmann noted staff looked at some other comparable large communities in Iowa (Des Moines,
Cedar Rapids and Davenport) and they do allow private basic utility uses in a wider variety of
zones. They often allow it in residential zones and differentiate between major and minor utilities,
similar to how Iowa City looks at enclosed versus not enclosed. Staff shared a summary of those
comparisons in the agenda packet noting generally in Des Moines, substations are considered
major that do require a board of adjustment approval, but in Cedar Rapids, they're considered
minor, so it's provisional approval. Generally, they're allowed in pretty much all zones, either as a
permitted use or as a conditional approval, however in some cases, such as Davenport, they're
pretty much allowed if they're in an easement or within the right-of-way, so all private utilities are
also considered public utilities. Lehmann explained with the proposed amendment, Iowa City can
address some of these gaps and hopefully have less substantive changes that might be required
to be more like comparable communities. In general, this amendment allows a broader area
where these utilities can be placed which includes around public uses that might be suitable such
as lift stations or other City or County owned properties because they're treated similarly to other
basic utility uses in commercial zones. Staff does not anticipate any substantial issues with the
proposed changes and also believes this prevents a risk of requiring rezoning to commercial
designations in developing areas where if that utility use leaves in the future, they are left with a
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 20, 2022
Page 4 of 19
zone that could be redeveloped as something that might not be as compatible with surrounding
uses. Using the public zones allows a bit more control over what uses might be there.
In terms of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Lehmann stated there are growth and
infrastructure policies that are included in the Plan. Typically, they're not focused so much on
where utilities should be placed but focused more on how there should be growth in existing
areas or how areas will be best served by existing and proposed infrastructure that provides high
levels of service with efficient costs. He noted there are several strategies throughout the Plan
that talk about this, such as identifying opportunities for infill development and concentrating new
development in areas contiguous to existing development. The Plan doesn't directly address
infrastructure but addresses the mindset about how well -planned utilities are essential and
ensuring that it's cost effective. Therefore, providing basic utility uses in P-1 zones does have
benefits such as it allows improved coordination between public and private utilities and also
provides greater flexibility in placing those to ensure cost effective services.
Lehmann stated staff did receive some public comment which was forwarded to the
Commissioners. MidAmerican Energy submitted some revised language that they recommend,
one is to explicitly state that private ownership is allowed in P-1 zones for basic utility uses and
the other is a change from will to may in describing what designates a P-1 zone and whether it
has to be a P-1 zone, but staff does support that change and generally doesn't think that
explicitly stating private utility uses is necessary at this time.
Staff does recommend that the zoning code be amended to allow basic utility uses in
Neighborhood Public (P-1) zones provisionally or by special exception, as illustrated in
attachment one of the staff report.
Hensch asked for clarification that previously it was only allowed for publicly owned utilities, and
this will transition it to all basic utilities. Lehmann confirmed that was correct. Hensch asked if this
would replace the purchase of easements by utilities and could they just go to a public area
rather than have to negotiate with a private property owner to purchase an easement at market
rate. Lehmann stated what this amendment allows is for if there is an existing public facility that
would be appropriate for a basic utility use next to it the private utility could build their basic utility
use on that public land, or portion off a part of it, and subdivide and purchase that portion.
Hensch asked if a privately held utility or an investor held utility could place their property on
public land at no cost to that utility. Hekteon replied, no what this amendment allows is for the
private utility to purchase land. Hensch asked how that price will be determined, would it just be
market, would the property need to be appraised. Hekteon replied it would just depend on their
private negotiations. Hensch noted since this approval is provisional, is that done then at the
administrative level, and sometimes go to Board of Adjustment. Lehmann confirmed that is
correct, if it is enclosed within a building, it would be provisional and administratively reviewed. If
it is not enclosed, such as an electric substation, then that would be Board of Adjustment
reviewed.
Lehmann noted when discussing placing a use with another use allowed in the zone, in the past
there have been utilities that have built a warehouse which is a use allowed in the zone, and then
just attached their utility used to it and then it's provisionally allowed, rather than going to the
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 20, 2022
Page 5 of 19
Board of Adjustment. This amendment is trying to circumvent some of those odd quirks that
come with the code in terms of that revision to the provisional use standards.
Martin asked if there is a maximum size they can build if they're on public land, does it have to be
a percentage of the overall land. Lehmann replied they'd be subject to standards that anyone
building on public land would and there are some site development standards, it's less strict on
public land than other zones but there's no size requirement involved as currently proposed.
Craig noted one of her major questions is she doesn't understand the minor/major difference in
some of the other cities discussed and also keeps thinking of easements and all the green boxes
that are in the easement of the public right-of-way and in many people's yards so how did they
get there. Hekteon stated there would be a utility easement. if they're in someone's yard.
Lehmann noted there is a distinction between mechanical equipment versus utility uses and
mechanical equipment is more likely what Craig is thinking of, which is the smaller stuff needed
in the day to day like power lines. The larger utility uses, pump stations, gas regulars, gas relay
stations, electric substations, communications hubs, those are in easements.
Nolte asked for Staffs reasoning as to why this is necessary. Hekteon stated by definition basic
utility use is a public or private utility. The City doesn't typically zone based on who owns the land
but rather on how the land is used and that's why they feel like its pretty clear that it can be
public or private utility uses.
Craig agreed but noted staff is referring to the land here not to what is going to be put on the land
in the amendment. The purpose of the public zones is to provide reference to public ownership
and use of land. So this amendment is awarding private ownership for use of land for basic
utility. Lehmann explained that is the amendment language MidAmerican proposed. What staff
has proposed is the purpose of the public zones provide reference to public ownership and use
of land, or to the use of land for infrastructure services that need to be located in or near the area
where the service is provided. Craig thought staff supported the change that MidAmerican had
requested. Lehman stated staff supports the second change in paragraph 14-2F-1 B-1 that it may
be uses otherwise controlled and necessary infrastructure may be designated as P-1, instead of
will be designated as P-1 and Lehmann explained that's because these uses are allowed to be in
other zones so it makes sense that they say may and not will, that all infrastructure or utilities
have to be in P-1 zones because they could be in these other zones, too. Lehmann noted what
they see in public zones is land gets purchased by the City and then down the line they rezone it
to P-1 because it's an ownership designation right now, because there are private uses that are
already allowed or trying to shift back towards the general use of zoning to control uses rather
than ownership.
Craig asked about the part staff doesn't support and how they are talking about the public zone,
and suddenly talking about private ownership, how can there be private ownership of land in the
public zone. Lehmann explained because the public zone is the name of a zoning designation.
Hektoen stated this is discussing the uses allowed on public zoning designations, which include
basic utility uses. She referenced table 2F-1 that discusses uses not ownership and basic utility
uses. Lehmann added looking at the existing lists, not the table, the City already allows privately
owned communication transmission facilities in public zones and don't specify whether utility
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 20, 2022
Page 6 of 19
scale ground mounted solar energy systems need to be publicly or privately owned. Also plant
related agriculture can be public or private, so there are already some nonpublic uses that are
allowed in public zones.
Craig asked if private ownership in that proposed change is referring to the actual thing not to
the land. Hektoen said it is referring to the land and this doesn't say that only public entities can
own the land. It says if a public entity owns the land, it should be designated public. Craig
countered to take that further, the definition of public zoning is a public entity owns the land.
Hekteon stated that's one part of it. Lehmann pointed out there's an "or" statement that says or it
doesn't specify or private ownership. Staff believes that because the way that zones work that
wasn't necessary. Hektoen stated that's the purpose statement and then they go to the uses so
together, all of it acknowledges the private ownership of the land in use for basic utilities.
Signs asked about striking the language under the P-2 section where it talks about the
designation "it serves as notice a function of owning and buying land in proximity to public land,
etc," and the reason he is questioning that is he didn't know the state and federal government
were exempt from ordinances until he joined this commission and so to take that out, from public
information seems unwarranted. Hektoen stated this language doesn't inform the public because
when one goes to buy a piece of land, they get an abstract for the piece of land. They don't get
an abstract that tells them what their neighboring property is designated. She emphasized it will
still be publicly available information, but they were trying to kind of get away from the emphasis
on the ownership as it didn't seem particularly helpful information. Signs asked if there is
anyplace else in the code or where it explains to the public that state and federal governments
are exempt. Hektoen does not believe so, removing this doesn't change anything, the uses that
are allowed in the P-2 zones are still the same and it is subject to City regulations, they just tend
to be less onerous. The language is sort of misleading so that was why staff is recommending
striking that language.
Townsend asked what prompted this change. Lehmann stated the most immediate was
MidAmerican requested an amendment for a South District substation and basically staff has had
this conversation anytime ImOn has come for utility cabinets as well. This has been an ongoing
discussion, staff found drafted language for this from probably four or more years ago and so
decided it was time to act on it.
Martin asked if staff feels this verbiage helps navigate that conversation with more efficacy.
Lehmann conferred they think that it opens up opportunities for different locations for public use,
or for utility uses and prevents those issues where if they need a utility use they would have to
have commercial zoning to have that which leaves some risk that in the future if that use leaves
there will be commercial zoning that doesn't mesh with a lot of Plans and creates some
complications. Therefore, staff thought that P-1 zones might be a good alternative because if that
basic utility use leaves, there's pretty limited uses allowed within that P-1 zone and it would
probably have to be rezoned to be reused for anything other than those absolutely required
infrastructure expenditures or for city or county use.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 20, 2022
Page 7of19
Martin asked if staff feels like this allows for significant or an appropriate amount of protection for
the neighboring community as well, like for example if the new subdivision by Hickory Hill needs
a substation or a pumping station is that then going to take up the entirety of an acre of land.
Could this have a negative impact on those surrounding developments or residential uses.
Lehmann stated when thinking about possible impacts, a public utility like a pump station or
sewer lift station are already provisionally allowed, they're approved either through subdivision or
through site plan review and are allowed to use public zones. If there is private infrastructure,
they're looking at commercial or industrial zoning that they have to use and in some cases those
things are needed, electric substations, utility hubs, etc., and so looking at providing ways to do
it, still requires a rezoning which would allow an opportunity for the public to be informed and
address it at that time. If it's in an existing public zone, it wouldn't go through a rezoning process
because either the City or the County or the School District would control that land already, but it
still has to go through approval on some level. It would be similar to if they are going to rezone it
commercial, it would still go through the same process. The difference is at the end of the day
when it's rezoned it's a public zone and there are pretty limited uses in what's allowed there,
versus a commercial zone where there's a lot broader variety of uses that are allowed
Therefore, staff saw this as a better alternative, especially for developing areas.
Russett added if it didn't require a rezoning and it was something like an electrical substation, it
would require a special exception and the neighborhood would be notified and the Board of
Adjustment would hold a public hearing on that.
Hektoen noted if it was an existing public zone, presumably that means that a public entity owns
the land, so either that would involve the sale of land to the private utility company, which would
require public hearing at least at the Council level, or a lease, which again, would require public
scrutiny, to allow that entity to come in and use the land, and they would have to get fair market
value for it and wouldn't just be giving away publicly owned land for this private use.
Craig asked if cell towers are considered with this, they're not public utilities. Lehmann said cell
towers are considered communications transmission facilities and are already provisionally
allowed through special exception.
Craig asked what does the County do compared to the City. Lehmann did not look at the
County's regulations regarding utilities. Craig was wondering if they could just surround the City
with utilities, not that they would do so. Lehmann stated sometimes they require conditional use
permits, but that's not in every County zone. Russett added the County does allow electrical
substations in residential zones through a conditional use permit process so similar to the City's
special exception where it has to go to their Board of Adjustment so just based on that they're
probably a bit more lenient than the City is in terms of their regulations.
Lehmann reiterated most other larger communities do generally allow these uses in residential
zones, but Iowa City tends to be pretty restrictive and that's been a good thing and they don't
want to allow blanket utility uses wherever, but rather trying to provide it in areas where it might
be appropriate seems to make sense.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 20, 2022
Page 8 of 19
Signs stated going back to what MidAmerican is suggesting, it is not a negative and theoretically
they could have a piece of public land and could request to purchase a piece of that land at
which point it becomes private land. Lehmann confirmed the amendment would allow that to
occur.
Townsend asked how safe these basic utility stations in residential areas are, especially the big
electrical hubs that seem like they're right next to residential areas, what's the safety factors
involved with that and is there anything that can be written into the zones that they're not so
close. 200 feet doesn't sound like enough distance. Lehmann stated the distance of the 200
feet is in industrial zones and they're allowed provisionally in industrial zones with 200 feet and
must be screened for public rights -of -way to the S3 standard, and also be enclosed by a fence if
in industrial areas. In commercial areas, if it's enclosed, then it's okay and allowed provisionally
and if it's not allowed provisionally, it requires a special exception. One of the criteria is that it has
to be compatible to surrounding structures with regards to safety, size, height, scale, location and
design. It's reviewed by the Board of Adjustment and they can place any condition with regards
to any safety concerns that they have. The Board looks at the health, safety, comfort and
welfare of those in the area and then it does require that screening as well, that's part of the
criteria.
Townsend noted that new apartment complex on Foster Road near Prairie Du Chien and there's
a big electrical station right next to the apartment complexes, how did that happen, it seems like
it's awfully close to that residential. Lehmann said that is in a commercial zone, and it was
approved by the Board of Adjustment, and they were satisfied that it was safe and a valid
location for it. Townsend asked do they keep that from happening in the future because it
doesn't look very safe. Lehmann replied amend the zoning code.
Padron asked for an example of something that is privately owned currently in a P-1 zone, other
than the cell towers. Hekteon said right now, that's all that's really allowed. Russett noted solar
is also allowed in public zones and the City was working with MidAmerican Energy to get a solar
facility out by the water treatment plant but City Council ultimately said no to that, but that use is
allowed in public zones.
Padron asked is there a way to know that whatever is built on this P-1 land will serve the area
that it is currently in, is there a radius maximum that this equipment that is going to be here has
to serve. Lehmann said there is no requirement with that. Padron noted then potentially they
could build something that serves an area farther away. Lehmann agreed potentially, but by
nature those things that are close to what they need to serve. A pump station is going to have to
be close to where it's used because it's being used for that purpose, maybe it helps people way
upstream.
Russett added in the conversations they've had with ImOn when looking for utility hub sites,
they're trying to address gaps that exist in the community and there's a very small area in which
they can locate those hubs and fill that gap. So maybe, theoretically, what Padron is suggesting
could happen, but staff doesn't think practically it would.
Hensch opened the public hearing
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 20, 2022
Page 9 of 19
Chris Pose (317 Sixth Avenue, suite 300, Des Moines) is the attorney on behalf of MidAmerican
Energy Company and wanted to state they are in support of the staffs request to amend the P-1
zone. In short, it gives more flexibility to the City to allow land that would otherwise have to be
zoned commercial or industrial to be zoned something as public for something that is more
permanent improvement. In this case, an electric substation is what drove the discussion. When
they did the Foster Road substation, MidAmerican owned a piece of land on the east side of
Prairie Du Chien and wanted to use it for a substation and the City said no, they should use a
commercial piece, so they went across the street and used that. They were then made aware
that the public zoning classification, if it were to be used is very restrictive, it's only for things that
are owned by public institutions, in which case MidAmerican is not. It came about again in the
last couple of years as they're looking to put a substation near the south area of the City. Much
of that area is undeveloped, but yet has a Comprehensive Plan designation for it. For
MidAmerican to take a piece of land that is in the Comprehensive Plan and zone it commercial or
industrial just to put a substation seemed too much so this P-1 district solution seemed to be a
good solution. In other words, they would zone something P-1 which would enable them to use it
for an electric substation. They would still have the same approval requirements that they'd have
in a commercial district, to go to the Board of Adjustment with that request and have them review
it and make sure it was appropriate and that's what happened with the Foster Road substation a
few years ago.
Pose did add a technical correction with the staff concerns, section 14-2F-1 and the definitional
sections, which still seem to have this vestige of they can only do this if the land is publicly
owned. MidAmerican's discussion with the staff here is a friendly one, they both want the same
thing, they want an ordinance that is well written and can stand the test of any legality check. The
concern on behalf of MidAmerican is unless they get this right, for what they're doing in the P-1
with the substation they're going to have to go to the Board of Adjustment anyway and if the
Board of Adjustment makes a decision that somebody doesn't like it can be appealed to a district
court, and a district court could decide whether or not this ordinance says public or private
ownership. Pose just wants to get this correct because he thinks the intent clearly is to let
something that is owned privately, and MidAmerican wants to own land that it builds the
substations on as it's a lot of equipment and they don't want to put that on a leased facility or
anything that is City owned, but as the purpose statement reads now, and this is after the City's
proposed amendments, the purpose of the public zones is to provide reference to public
ownership and use of land or to use of the land for infrastructure services that need to be located
in or near the area where the service provided. Public ownership is mentioned, but not private
ownership, and the term infrastructure services, use of land for infrastructure purposes, or
services, is not defined in the City ordinance. Pose doesn't know what infrastructure services
are, by definition, in the City. On the other hand, basic utility uses are defined in the City Code
and includes such things as substations. The second place where this becomes an issue about
ownership is in the Neighborhood P-1 statement where it says uses such as schools, parks,
police and fire stations and other civic buildings, owned or otherwise controlled by the County,
the City or the Iowa City Community School District and necessary infrastructure. Again, this is a
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 20, 2022
Page 10 of 19
term that's not defined, will be designated as P-1 Neighborhood Public zone. Staff has said they
would agree with the change of will to may and the reason MidAmerican suggested that is not
every substation they would do has to be P-1, it can still go to a commercial zone if that's
appropriate. Pose noted the problem he wants to solve is to make sure that a privately owned
piece of land can be used for a public utility and used in P-1. Staffs language states public
ownership, Pose wants it to be clear that it could be private ownership too because MidAmerican
while they're a public utility company in the broad sense, they are privately owned and they need
public ownership referenced in the section. He also added in basic utility use language because
that is a defined term in the code and includes such things as substations. In the second
paragraph, he added or a privately owned for basic utility services, so that it's included with the
County, the City, the School District, and he intended his corrections he submitted again to help
the ordinance do what the staff wants it to do and make sure that if they go forward with a
substation, because it's going to have to go to the Board of Adjustment anyway, that all of the
ordinance provisions indicate that that use can be allowed in the district.
Pose doesn't think this is intended to replace anything in the franchise that the City has with
MidAmerican where MidAmerican can go down public streets and cross trails because those all
have to be approved by the City anyway. Any kind of construction that's in a public land, they'd
have the right to cover it. Pose stated they are wanting to use this so that it solves a problem
within the City not creates them.
Hensch found it odd how it references particularly the Iowa City Community School District. If
Iowa City in the future annexes land and annex into a neighboring school district, then this
particular amendment would not apply. Pose would have to defer to how the City would treat that
but he would think they'd want to amend it if another school district came in.
Pose stressed again there's too much investment of equipment there for that to be something
that they would just place on public land. Also some of the things that were happening or that
were described are not really likely for MidAmerican but staff is also trying to do some other
things here for ImOn and MidAmerican is focused more on the having a chance to solve a
problem in the South District and have an ordinance that's well written for the future if they ever
have to zone land P-1. The electric substations MidAmerican deals with take power from
transmission lines, the bigger lines that run through the community, and they downsize it to from
161,000 volts to 13,500 volts so by definition they need to be near a transmission line.
MidAmerican's general surface area that they want to cover is three miles, they want these about
once every three miles and have redundancy so that if some station goes out because of a
storm, the other one can cover it. The south area is growing quickly, the north area where Prairie
Du Chien and Foster Road are grew quickly too and they had to put a substation into an existing
and developing residential area, which is a very different problem than they have down in the
south where they want to get it in there before the development happens and allow everyone to
see that it's there. Most times when the substation gets in there first, it gets absorbed very
quickly and nobody blinks an eye at it. If they try to do this where people can see it when they
couldn't before then there's questions, but they're a necessary animal for development of the
community and supply the distribution power that's necessary to light the buildings, do the
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 20, 2022
Page 11 of 19
security, lighting, anything that's electrical because it comes from a distribution substation
somewhere. This is a big investment and good for the community.
Hensch did have a question for staff if saying Iowa City Community School District seems overly
specific or if another school district was ever annexed in the future they would simply amend this.
Hekteon had not thought about future school districts and annexation, only that a school district
is not a subdivision of the federal, state or local government so in order for them to be included in
this, they have historically specifically named them. The idea is it's not meant to apply to private
schools
Craig asked Hektoen why she thinks that the first part of the amendment proposed by
MidAmerican is not necessarily. Hektoen replied because it's just a purpose statement and
again the meat of the uses that are allowed are in that table. The language that staff has
proposed regarding the purpose is broad enough and is more consistent with other purpose
statements for other zones. The infrastructure services, that's more or less the definition of basic
utility but the transmission, those aren't technically regulated and are considered another use so
she didn't want that purpose statement to be too narrow by using a defined term.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Nolte moved to recommend that the zoning code be amended to allow basic utility uses in
Neighborhood Public (P-1) zones provisionally or by special exception, as illustrated in
attachment one of the staff report.
Signs seconded the motion.
Hensch noted this is a complicated topic, as far as trying to foresee how the public will perceive
this and as soon as they hear public lands and private uses, they immediately think about how
the public is going to react so they want to make sure they're covering all the bases and getting
all the discussion out there. He feels pretty comfortable with what he's heard now and initial
questions have been resolved.
Craig noted this is just keeping up with the times and as the City grows the amount of utilities
that people need. 30 years ago whoever thought they needed internet service at their house, it's
just keeping up with the times. It sounds like the staff has worked well with the suppliers of those
utility services and the City needs it.
Hensch agrees they can't have a healthy city and a growing city without utilities, he also really
likes the idea of trying to get this substation placed early so then development can occur around
it, and everybody's completely aware of it, rather than placing it retrospectively.
Padron supports the staff version of the amendment, the only thing she has concerns about is
the way these structures or these buildings will look and wonder if they can put a requirement of
having them be covered with plants or native trees or maybe use the some of the walls of the
structures to be public art from local artists or something, that is her only concern. Signs noted
there are S3 screening requirements.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 20, 2022
Page 12 of 19
(Nolte left the meeting for another appointment)
CASE NO. REZ22-0007:
Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to allow a door connecting a drinking
establishment to a sales -oriented retail use and not consider it an expansion if certain criteria are
satisfied.
Russett began the staff report noting this is an amendment relating to City standards for drinking
establishments. Regarding background, in 2009 the City established a separation distance
requirement between drinking establishments of a 500-foot minimum separation distance, and
this was due to concerns of over concentration of these uses in the downtown and underage
drinking. It was applied City wide in 2009 and then in 2013 another amendment was passed that
restricted that separation distance requirement just to the University impact area and Riverfront
Crossings. For those existing drinking establishments that didn't meet that 500-foot minimum
separation distance requirement, they were allowed to continue if the use did not change and if
their liquor license was in good standing, and expansions of that use were only allowed in certain
circumstances such as rooftop cafes. Last year, an amendment came forward to the
Commission and to Council related to allowing non -conforming drinking establishments to
continue where economically viable business substitutes were not found for locally designated
historic buildings and that amendment was brought forward due to the Tailwinds project
downtown on the Ped Mall. The amendment that is proposed tonight is also a result of that
project as the developers would like to modify the structure at 111 East College Street, which will
house Reunion Brew Pub and Restaurant to internally connect to a sales -oriented retail use
planned for the building to the east at 115 East College Street. Without this proposed
amendment, that would be considered an expansion of a non -conforming drinking establishment
and not allowed. Staff is proposing tonight an amendment that would amend the definition of
enlargement and expansion to note that a door connecting a drinking establishment to a sales -
oriented retail use would not be considered an expansion and it also proposes to amend the
City's non -conforming provisions for drinking establishments. It outlines specific criteria that must
be met if a non -conforming drinking establishment wants to have a door between that use and a
sales -oriented retail use. Some of those requirements are that the door have the same fire
resistive rating as the wall and be ADA compliant. They must post a notice that alcohol is
prohibited in the sales -oriented retail use, and that staffing must be sufficient to monitor patrons
to prevent violations. The proposed amendment also gives authority to the Police Chief to close
the door if open container violations occur. The proposed amendment is narrowly tailored, it only
applies to a door between a drinking establishment and a sales -oriented retail use not another
use like an office use or some other type of use next to a drinking establishment. Sales -oriented
retail uses are not allowed to have a liquor license, they are allowed to sell accessory alcohol
sales for offsite consumption, if its less than 25% of the gross yearly income.
Staff recommends approval of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to allow a door connecting a
drinking establishment to a sales -oriented retail use and not consider it an expansion if certain
criteria are satisfied.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 20, 2022
Page 13 of 19
Martin asked what if that retail shop participates in First Fridays, can they not offer wine to their
patrons, does that require a liquor license. Russett noted she is not well versed in what requires
a liquor license and what doesn't so can't answer if that's a violation or not.
Craig noted this feels like a lot of work for something that she personally can't quite comprehend
why they care. Maybe as a fire exit or something and they have to go through that door to get out
to somewhere. Signs explained this is because down below they want to have a little shop that
sells Reunion merchandise and want people to be able to go from the bar to their little shop that
sells their T-shirts and their hats and their stuff like that.
Martin asked does that mean then that they're at capacity for the size of establishment that sells
booze. Russett explained they're a non -conforming drinking establishment so they can't be
considered for an expansion but through adding the door, it would be considered an expansion
of the non -conforming drinking establishment. There would be a door connecting the two
buildings, and that's where they would sell their merchandise and will also have access to
restrooms.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Hensch closed the public hearing.
Craig moved to recommend approval of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to allow a door
connecting a drinking establishment to a sales -oriented retail use and not consider it an
expansion if certain criteria are satisfied.
Martin seconded the motion.
Hensch noted it seems very similar to things he's experienced when on vacation going to touristy
areas where they have a restaurant/bar area and a gift shop off to the side.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CASE NO. REZ22-0004:
Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to clarify requirements and ensure compliance
with changes to State law.
Lehmann began the staff report noting staff keeps an ongoing list of small things that they need
to change or clean up, whether that's in reaction to State law, whether it's to codify
interpretations that they've made over the years and want to make sure it's clear to the public,
whether it's to clarify standards that are laid out in any way that people can figure out, or even to
ease staff administration. Staff made a list of 11 and most of them are pretty straightforward.
The first one is with regards to circulation for pedestrians in cases of redevelopment. This would
add provisions to single family site development standards and site plan review design criteria
that would allow the City to require the construction of sidewalks within public rights -of -way.
Currently, there are standards that allow it within private property, but not within the public rights-
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 20, 2022
Page 14 of 19
of -way unless there is some sort of zoning code condition. What staff is trying to do is improve
connectivity, especially with infill and redevelopment, and this would allow that.
The second one is how they interpret the historic preservation exception that's allowed within
residential and commercial zones. Lehmann noted it does allow some flexibility in historic
preservation properties and staff received correspondence where the chair of the Historic
Preservation Commission would like the Historic Preservation Commission to review it so staff
recommends striking this as part of the recommendation and staff recommends just addressing it
later.
The third one is regarding the goal to clarify the applicability of form -based code design review.
Right now, the language states form -based code districts have design review, but that really was
only meant to apply to the Riverfront Crossings District due to the large scale of development
there. The City did recently adopt form -based code for developing areas, most recently in the
South District, but possibly expanding that to other parts of the City. Those areas they plan on
administering through site plan review and building permit review. So this code amendment for
design review is just for Riverfront Crossings and that it does not apply to the other form -based
zones.
Next is with regards to the approval criteria for variances. Right now, there's five approval criteria
that are required for variances and the Board of Adjustment must make the findings that all of
these are met in order to grant it. However, those criteria are not exactly aligned with State law
nor exactly aligned with case law. There's case law and State law that guides what can have a
variance and what can't have a variance and there have been some examples where variances
that were granted were overturned by State courts due to these standards. This amendment is to
try to align the City's variance criteria with that State law and the State code and makes it clearer
for applicants and for staff and the Board as to what would actually be qualified for a variance
based under that State law.
Next, with regards to utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems, there's a requirement
that there's a 200-foot buffer from residential zones. This amendment clarifies how that boundary
is measured and it's from the boundary of the residential zone.
The next one is with regards to bicycle parking. The City has minimum bicycle parking standards,
but it's not clear as to what that means in terms of what bicycle parking looks like, it leaves a lot
of ambiguity. Staff has been looking at the Essentials of Bike Parking, which is made by the
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals and staff wants to take some of those rules
and put them into the code to make it clear to applicants what is expected for bicycle parking.
This amendment will add in a minimum bicycle parking space, which would be 1.5 x 6 feet, it
adds in a minimum bicycle access aisle width of 4 feet, requires that bicycle racks be installed 2
feet from curbs and/or other obstructions or parking spaces, and it specifies that bicycle parking
facilities must be in a visible location.
The next section is with regards to a couple of provisions the City has for privately owned signs
in public places. Right now there's a section in the sign code that talks about when can privately
owned signs be allowed in public places, like in the entrances to subdivision or a sign in a right-
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 20, 2022
Page 15 of 19
of -way. Lehmann explained one of those special provisions provides a cross reference and is
redundant and the other gives the city manager authority to allow signs in public places, which
may violate State code requirements for conveying an interest in public property for private use.
Staff is recommending striking those two conditions as being unneeded in the zoning code.
The next change is to clarify the definition for family. This came about when in 2018 the State
restricted the ability of the City to regulate the occupancy of homes by familial or nonfamilial
relationships. Prior to that time, the City had a definition of family they used to define what is a
single family with a very specific use for family but since that time they have pretty much used
family and household synonymously and so this codifies this interpretation that staff has been
using. Additionally, it will open up housing for a wider variety of household arrangements and is
best practice for fair housing to try and define a family this way. Again, this will take family and
refer to the definition for households and that would be the definition they would be using but
they don't propose striking it is because family is used throughout the code, so they are just
going to cross reference it and not have to remove it from every other part of the code.
The next one is the definition for tree and the of ambiguity for the definition. A small tree currently
is defined as having a height of up to 50 feet, whereas the large tree is having any height of
greater than 40 feet which obviously creates a gap in which it's ambiguous as to whether it's a
tall or small tree. In recent conversations with the city forester, they had said 30 feet is probably a
better height for what's actually a small versus a large tree, so this justification changes a small
tree to be defined as with a height of up to 30 feet, and a large tree is greater than 30 feet.
Lehmann stated the next item is a more complicated one, that again is reacting to State law
changes passed in 2020 with the State restricting the ability of cities to regulate short term
rentals. The City made some changes to the housing code, but this cleanup is catching up the
zoning code. Short term rental is broadly defined in this State law as basically any residential
property that is rented for a fee for 30 days or less, is exempt or can't be regulated, except for in
a couple certain circumstances such as they can do inspections and get contact information, but
otherwise must treat a short term rental similarly to any other residential use. This amendment
seeks to bring the City into compliance with State law and remove references to length of
tenancy from the use categories that are seen in residential use categories, commercial use
categories, and also in institutional use categories. The new language will also consolidate the
definitions for bed and breakfast. The City currently has two, the bed and breakfast inns and bed
and breakfast homestay, the current difference is based on the number of people that are
allowed to stay. The language change puts them into one category called bed and breakfasts
and it's any number of guests up to 30 days, essentially a short term rental, but this is an
accessory use category and has to be in addition to some other residential use. With the creation
of this new definition they also strike any provisional standards that previously applied to these
bed and breakfast categories and only have those things that they can regulate apply to this bed
and breakfast category. Lehmann explained the reason they did it this way was because it's the
least change approach and there are existing bed and breakfasts that are accessory to single
family uses and they didn't want to make those all non -conforming. If a bed and breakfast is a
primary use, and not an accessory to a single-family use, it all depends on how it's structured as
to how it will be classified. If it is a single-family home and it is rented to a single household unit,
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 20, 2022
Page 16 of 19
which would be the definition of a single family and considered a single family, as long it is rented
out for 30 days or less. If they are renting out individual rooms, and they're all independent and
not living as a household unit, then they'd be considered group living uses, which is much more
strictly regulated and not be allowed in most zoning districts. Lehmann explained this is how staff
has been interpreting short term rentals and treating them like every other use, it really depends
on the structure of how many people is being rented to and are those people acting as a
household unit. He noted one repercussion of this is it would make these accessory bed and
breakfast uses more widely available and wouldn't have restrictions on parking because they
can't regulate that. It would also only require housing inspections every two years, and that
there's contact information that's updated, and that they have to stay there less than 30 days.
These changes meet the State code, and staff thinks it meets the goals of the City.
Finally, the last change is for informational purposes where staff wanted to clarify the boundary
line adjustment standards in the subdivision code. Those typically don't come to the Planning
and Zoning Commission, but Lehmann wanted to include it with all the others so that when it
goes to Council it's a little easier. Currently minor boundary line adjustments are defined if it's
less than 1000 square feet and they're transferring property from one abutting property to
another abutting property. However, there's no there's no process for if it's larger than 1000 feet.
Staff is just creating a distinction between a minor boundary line adjustment, which is the current
process, and a major one. The minor one doesn't go through administrative review, but the
major one would, and that's what staff has been informally doing anyway. This amendment will
just qualify the process so it is clear for those who wish to sell property to abutting property
owners.
Staff recommends that the Zoning Code be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 to address
numerous code clean up items with the exception to strike the provisions relating to this Historic
Preservation exception at 14-2A-7B, 14-213-8A and 14-2C-11A with the intent to address that in a
later code cleanup.
Martin asked about the pedestrian circulation and if there are currently no sidewalks somewhere
is this saying there needs to be sidewalks added or is it just for new site development. Lehmann
explained this is for infill development, but they did add in provisions to improve pedestrian
connectivity and in some cases there may be a house that doesn't have a sidewalk for whatever
reason so if it's being redeveloped, they would have to put in a sidewalk as part of either site
plan review or as part of the building permit review.
Lehmann added there are some cases where none of the houses on a side had a sidewalk, so it
doesn't make any sense to put in a sidewalk in front of the one house being redeveloped
because that doesn't improve pedestrian connectivity.
Martin asked for more information on the privately -owned signs in public spaces because she
remember being on P&Z when this was a big hullabaloo and it went to the Supreme Court
regarding allowing signs on easements and a public rights -of -way. Lehmann noted it came to
staffs attention because they had someone request to use this criteria. One provision stated the
city manager could allow a permanent use of public property, so this removes that language.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 20, 2022
Page 17 of 19
Martin asked regarding the definition of family, is that now going to convey throughout all of the
code what family means, even when it comes to rentals because people have had issues with
blended families but now this seems to kind of take care of all protected classes and whatnots.
Lehmann explained rental permits would be a little different, this would apply to references to
family in the zoning code whereas rental permits are based on parking spaces and bedrooms,
and it's different, the zoning code that deals with adult occupancy noting children shouldn't
matter for parking.
Townsend asked about the bed and breakfast term, isn't that an antiquated term. Lehmann
agreed bed and breakfast is probably an antiquated term, but this is just the definition that
they've been using for an accessory short term rental. It used to restrict it to 14 days but now
that's not compliant with State law. It is essentially a short term rental, they just didn't change the
name because it's already in the zoning code.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Hensch closed the public hearing.
Townsend moved to recommend that the Zoning Code be amended as illustrated in
Attachment 1 to address numerous code clean up items with the exception to strike the
provisions relating to this Historic Preservation exception at 14-2A-7B, 14-26-8A and 14-
2C-11A with the intent to address that in a later code cleanup.
Martin seconded the motion
Hensch noted they are going to vote yes for this but on item number one, the pedestrian
circulation requirements, he is 100% in favor of making everybody put in sidewalks to keep
people from walking on the streets.
Signs noted Friday is the 150th anniversary of Arbor Day so hopefully everyone can go out and
plant a tree, large or small.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MARCH 2, 2022:
Craig moved to approve the meeting minutes of March 2, 2022, with minor edits.
Martin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett stated one item to report is the right-of-way vacation at 829 Kirkwood has finally passed
and the sign was taken down today.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 20, 2022
Page 18 of 19
ADJOURNMENT:
Martin moved to adjourn.
Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
z
O
Cl)o
o°
V LU N
a N
Z W
Z N
Z
0 04
N N
06 Z
OW
ZF
z Q
z
Q
J
a
0
a
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
X
X
0
X
0
X
z
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
ax
x00XXX
W
X
x
X
O
p
X
X
�X
xxxxxx
ox
xoxoxx
o
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
x
00
X
X
X
X
xxxxxx
X
X
X
X
X
N
�000
W
—
—
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
W
LU
m
Q
J
Y=G
fA
�
N
IL
2
2
Z
z
W
x
4
z�JOz3
W
Q
O
QS?
o
c�
x
z
a
N
r
a
a> `
N �
7 �
X E
N
c �
c aD Co
c
y o
�aaz
a Q 11 u
W 11 u W
Y X O 0