Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Planning & Zoning Minutes 02/03/2014 MINUTES CITY OF AMES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Date: February 3, 2014 Debra Lee, Chairperson 2015 Julie Gould 2016 Call to Order: 7:00 p.m. Jeff Johnson 2014 Troy Siefert 2014 Place: Ames City Hall Rob Bowers, Vice Chairperson 2015 Council Chambers Yvonne Wannemuehler 2015 John Tillo 2016 Adjournment: 10:42 p.m. *Absent MAJOR TOPICS DISCUSSED: 1. Public Hearing for Rezone and Master Plan of 601 State Avenue, Breckenridge Group Ames Iowa, LLC (Old Ames Middle School Site, South Parcel). ___________________________________________________________________________ CALL TO ORDER: Debra Lee, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: (Johnson/Siefert) to approve the Agenda for the meeting of February 3, 2014. MOTION PASSED: (7-0) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JANUARY 15, 2014: MOTION: (Siefert/Gould) to approve the Minutes of the meeting of January 15, 2014. MOTION PASSED: (7-0) ____________________________________________________________________________ PUBLIC FORUM: There were no public comments. ____________________________________________________________________________ PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONE AND MASTER PLAN OF 601 STATE AVENUE, BRECKENRIDGE GROUP AMES IOWA, LLC (OLD AMES MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE, SOUTH PARCEL) Karen Marren, staff planner, stated that the applicant wants to rezone the property at 601 State Avenue from S-GA (Government/Airport) to FS-RM (Floating Suburban Residential Medium- Density) with a master plan. Ms. Marren stated that this property (sometimes referred to as the south parcel) along with two additional parcels is owned by Breckenridge Group Ames Iowa, LLC and makeup the property referred to as the old Ames Middle School property. She outlined where this property is located and the Land Use Policy Plan designations and zoning uses of various areas adjacent to this parcel. The site appeared to have a Low Density designation north of the creek and Suburban Residential to the south. Ms. Marren outlined the requirements, uses and allowed density in the FS-RM (Floating Suburban Residential Medium-Density) zone, FS-RL (Floating Suburban Residential Low-Density) zone, and in a PRD (Planned Residence District) zone. She reviewed the contents of applicant's master plan consisting of various development areas, number of units in each proposed development area (193-390 units proposed for the entire site), and proposed access areas to this parcel. Ms. Marren referred to a table in Attachment F located in the Commission Action Form which gives a range of the number of proposed units and the types of units. She stated that the range of units on this table shows 119 to 432 units and the example mix is 218 units. Ms. Marren said that there is a difference in the number of units shown on this table compared to what is shown on the proposed master plan as well as the numbers in the traffic study. She stated that the applicant is identifying a net acreage for determining density of 19.8 acres which excludes the bike path, floodplain and the conservation easement. Ms. Marren stated that the master plan also identifies a 50 foot buffer that runs along the south property line which is a result of earlier discussions and the request of Iowa State University. She stated that the bike path is not shown to be affected by the proposed master plan. Ms. Marren stated that staff has identified some concerns and impacts of the proposed rezone in the Commission Action Form. She stated that staff has reviewed the preliminary conclusions of the Traffic Impact Study that was submitted and has responded with comments. Ms. Marren outlined various staff concerns about the traffic study, one of which was that the traffic study was not complete. She stated that staff has requested additional traffic study information from the applicant which they have not yet received as of the date the Commission Action Form was written. Ms. Marren outlined some staff concerns in regards to the off-site traffic impacts at Mortensen Road and State Avenue, multiple vehicular crossings over the bike path and the capacity/availability of CyRide bus routes along Lincoln Way. She stated that there is no intention of adding CyRide service along State Avenue due to lack of funding. Ms. Marren stated that CyRide is currently operating at capacity in this area. She outlined some alternatives and conditions that the Commission might consider in regards to applicant’s request. Rob Bowers asked for clarification of the RL (Residential Low-Density) zoning designation and whether rental properties are allowed in this designation. Ms. Marren stated that they are allowed in the RL (Residential Low-Density) zone but the occupants would need to meet the definition of “family” outlined in the Code. Deb Lee asked about the history of the south parcel’s underlying definition of Village Suburban Residential zoning. Ms. Marren stated that it was reviewed and assigned when the Council looked at government owned parcels. Ms. Lee asked whether RL (Residential Low-Density) zoning was considered at that time. Kelly Diekmann, Director of Planning & Housing, stated that staff was not able to find anything conclusive about the area south of the middle school site. He stated that the previous review focused on the north and middle parcels. Ms. Lee asked the building height allowed in the FS-RM (Floating Suburban Residential Medium-Density) zone. Ms. Marren stated 50 feet or four stories are allowed in the FS-RM (Floating Suburban Residential Medium-Density) zone. John Tillo asked for clarification of the 50 foot buffer outlined in Alternative #1 and #2 in the Commission Action Form. Ms. Marren stated that a 50 foot buffer is what is currently shown on the master plan and was discussed at applicant’s meetings with the neighbors and Iowa State University. Scott Renaud, FOX Engineering, stated that he is representing the applicant and that they are requesting Commission’s approval for FS-RM (Floating Suburban Residential Medium-Density) zoning. He outlined the reasons for applicant’s request for this zoning designation. Mr. Renaud outlined the Land Use Policy Plan designations and current zoning of several parcels in this area. John Tillo stated that applicant’s master plan does not include very much information and asked the reasoning behind the lack of information. Mr. Renaud stated that they have included the information that is required by Code. He stated that they have not restricted the amount of information intentionally. Mr. Renaud stated that they have not had much direction from the neighborhood other than they don’t want this project located in this area. He stated that ideally they would like to give more detail on the master plan; but, if they did, they would not have very much latitude to make changes. Mr. Renaud stated that additional detail will be shown later. He explained the analysis that they used for the Traffic Study. Mr. Renaud stated that it is almost certain that they will be updating the Traffic Study again as the number of units is solidified and they go into the next stage of the process. He stated that the greatest traffic impact is at Mortensen Road and State Avenue. Mr. Renaud stated that the Traffic Study covers the middle and the south parcels. Ms. Gould asked for clarification as to how they arrived at the traffic counts. Mr. Renaud described a study that was prepared for another Ames facility that he feels is comparable. He said that he feels that the only peak traffic concern will be from 4:30-5:30 pm. Mr. Renaud stated that he feels that the numbers in the morning will be very low. Mr. Bowers asked if it was accurate that some of the developers had contributed towards the street widening and improvements on South 16th Street in the last couple of years. Mr. Renaud stated that in exchange for some Grand Avenue improvements widening was done on South 16th Street. He said that it wasn’t done due to the development itself. Yvonne Wannemuehler stated that traffic counts need to be taken at 8:00 a.m. as it is also bad during that time frame. Ms. Gould asked Mr. Renaud for clarification of the difference in the number of units listed in the table and the information contained in the master plan that was provided by the applicant. He said that modifications had been made during the process and since the table was the last item that was prepared it is the most accurate document. Mr. Renaud stated that they won’t be at the maximum number of allowed units or at the lowest number but somewhere in the middle. Ms. Lee asked for clarification of the access points to the site. Mr. Renaud stated that a complex of this size requires two access points so they are looking at north and south of the bike trail. Ms. Lee asked about the access point for a specific location in the parcel. Mr. Renaud stated that this area would be accessed from South Franklin. Ms. Gould asked if this was improved all the way to the property line. Mr. Renaud stated that it was not. Mr. Tillo asked for clarification of the current bike path easement. Mr. Renaud stated the easement listed is based on the location of the bike path. He stated that they are not opposed to moving the bike path; but, the plans that they have prepared do not require the location of the path to be changed. Mr. Renaud stated that if the City wants the bike path to be moved they would be agreeable to doing so. Ms. Gould asked about the number of times that drive aisles, parking lots, sidewalks, etc. cross the bike path in the current plan. Mr. Renaud stated three times. She asked whether there would be signage in those areas to warn drivers and those on the bike path. He explained that there are several ways that it can be handled Ms. Lee asked whether the traffic study showed any concerns about the potential addition of traffic at the intersection of State Avenue and Lincoln W ay and traffic going east on Arbor Street. Mr. Renaud outlined information contained in the traffic study for several streets in this area. Brian Torresi, Davis Brown Law Firm, outlined the current zoning of this parcel and stated that this property must be rezoned. He outlined Iowa Code section, 414.5, which states that any conditions imposed on a rezone must be reasonable and approved in writing by the developer. Mr. Torresi reviewed the alternatives listed in the Commission Action Form. He stated that Alternative #1 and # 2 contain conditions. Mr. Torresi stated that they may approve conditions but they have not been called back to the City Council for further discussions. He explained why he feels that PRD (Planned Residence District) zoning is not an option. Mr. Torresi stated that the applicant is requesting Alternative #3. Mr. Tillo asked why Mr. Torresi feels that it is not possible for the Commission to recommend the property be zoned as a PRD (Planned Residence District). Mr. Torresi cited Section 29.1203 of the Municipal Code in response. He stated that if the City Council asked the developer to look at F-PRD (Planned Residence District-Floating Zone) zoning he said that they would probably look at those plans; but, they have not been placed on a Council agenda with the opportunity for an open forum to negotiate with Council. Joanne Pfeiffer, 3318 Morningside Street, said that she wanted to speak about the rezoning and development of Breckenridge’s south parcel and the compatibility with the College Creek/Old Ames Middle School neighborhood. She asked which zoning, RL (Residential Low-Density) or FS-RM (Floating Suburban Residential Medium-Density), would promote the quality of life that the neighbors desire. She reviewed the sections of the Land Use Policy Plan that she feels addresses those quality of life issues. She stated that the answer is RL (Residential Low- Density) zoning to promote quality of life in this neighborhood. Michael Petersen, 3302 Morningside Street, stated that his property is located adjacent to the Breckenridge south parcel. Mr. Petersen stated that he is a trained wildlife biologist. He reviewed a list of numerous wildlife species that he has observed during the 43 years that he has lived in this neighborhood. Mr. Petersen outlined how many species were listed as endangered, threatened, rare and species of concern. He stated that about 60% of the available wildlife habitat in the planned development and adjacent to it would be eliminated or altered according to Breckenridge’s Plan S of July 12, 2013. Mr. Petersen strongly urges the City to obtain an expanded conservation easement covenant that would prevent any additional development on vacant land in the south and middle parcels regardless of potential changes of ownership of the land. He stated that he was concerned about the slope of the property and cited page 4 of the Suburban Residential Floating Zone Suburban Regulations, which states that development is prohibited on areas of severe slopes of 10% or greater. Mr. Petersen stated that maps show that some of Breckenridge’s buildings and parking lots will be built on slopes greater than 10%. He outlined several additional floodway and drainage concerns that he has regarding the south and middle parcels. Mr. Petersen stated that their neighborhood is student friendly; and, they are promoting a diverse community comprised of many different age classes and occupations. He asked the Commission to recommend that the City Council zone the south parcel and the other two parcels RL (Residential Low-Density), single-family and subdivision compliant only, not FS-RL (Floating Suburban Residential Low-Density), or FS-RM (Floating Suburban Residential Medium-Density). Kathie Whattoff, 325 South Wilmoth Avenue, outlined where her home is located and the types of wildlife that reside near her home. She spoke about the value of preserving the wildlife and their habitat in this area. Julian Birch, 2925 Arbor Street stated that he is a member of the College Creek/Old Ames Middle School Neighborhood Association. Mr. Birch asked the Commission to rezone this property to RL (Residential Low-Density) zoning. He asked where in Ames are children able to walk or bike to school on a trail which is traffic and hazard free. Mr. Birch stated that they welcome students. He stated that many students signed the 650 signature petition to rezone the property to RL (Residential Low-Density). Mr. Birch stated that some students have helped with their recent neighborhood improvement project. He outlined situations that cause great numbers of students to be troublesome and disruptive neighbors. Mr. Birch stated that zoning the south parcel medium density would allow the developer to build student housing for a high number of student residents and would be highly destructive to the quality of life in their neighborhood. He stated that this proposal is about exploiting students for the benefit of investors who have no interest in the negative impact that their investment may have on the residents of Ames. Mr. Birch stated that he supports an appropriately scaled nature corridor to protect College Creek’s woodland and wildlife. He stated that he strongly recommends that the property be rezoned RL (Residential Low-Density). Robert Lorr, 233 Hilltop Road, stated that he is a member of the College Creek/Old Ames Middle School Neighborhood Association. Mr. Lorr stated that a year ago the neighborhood association submitted a petition opposing any plan for the old Ames Middle School property being used for medium or high-density student housing. He stated that 652 people (home owner residents; rental residents that also included students; and people from other neighborhoods) signed this petition. Mr. Lorr outlined various problems that have occurred at various Aspen Heights locations across the United States. He stated that if the student population is denser in a particular location more incidents will occur. Mr. Lorr asked the Commission to recommend only RL (Residential Low-Density) zoning along with Mr. Petersen’s proposed conservation easement for the south parcel. Elin Herrman, 2819 Arbor Street, stated that she is a member of the Arbor Street/Old Ames Middle School Neighborhood Association. Ms. Herrman stated that the Arbor Street neighborhood is currently integrated with homeowners, businesses close by, and students living harmoniously together. She stated that she is concerned that the proposed increase in student density will throw off the balance creating major traffic, parking, safety and crime issues for residents and law enforcement. Ms. Herrman stated that these issues have occurred and continues to occur in other residential neighborhoods adjacent to similar developments built by this developer in College Station, TX; James Madison in Harrisburg, VA; and others. She stated that the neighborhood around the old Ames Middle School already experiences high traffic, parking issues, vandalism, and littering during home football games and other events. Ms. Herrman expressed concern if 2,000 additional students were added to the area that the Ames Police Department will not be able to handle the increase. She stated that she is in favor of RL (Residential Low-Density) zoning for all 29 acres of the south parcel, both north and south of College Creek. Duffy (Marion) Lorr, 233 Hilltop Road, stated that she is a member of the College Creek/Old Ames Middle School Neighborhood Association. Ms. Lorr urged the Commission to rezone this property to RL (Residential Low-Density) zoning and include Mr. Petersen’s request for an additional easement. She explained the reasons for her zoning request. Ms. Lorr stated that the density in her neighborhood is currently 3.7 units per acre. She outlined several facets of the quality of life that the neighbors currently experience in their neighborhood. Ms. Lorr stated that there is currently a diverse population living in this neighborhood from nine months to ninety- three years old. She stated that the neighbors combined core group years of teaching are over 100 years. Ms. Lorr stated that their neighborhood likes students. She quoted the contents of a Breckenridge marketing piece: “Why Aspen Heights? All student neighborhood experience. The freedom of your own home while being surrounded by students. Avoid living in a neighborhood with residents of various ages who are not student friendly.” Ms. Lorr stated that Breckenridge is persuading their potential tenants that the neighborhood does not like students. She stated that RL (Residential Low-Density) zoning will benefit the new residents and conserve and enhance the integrity of the character of the existing neighborhood. Ms. Lorr asked the Commission to also grant Mr. Petersen’s additional land conservation easement request. Austin Stewart, 437 Hilltop Road, stated that he was hired recently by Iowa State University as a tenure-track professor. Mr. Stewart spoke about the shortage of single-family homes in Ames and how quickly they are sold. He said that the University hopes to hire 200 new faculty during the next two years. Mr. Stewart stated that there is a real need to increase the number of single- family homes in Ames. He stated that he feels that this parcel should be zoned RL (Residential Low-Density). Mr. Stewart expressed his concerns about potential flooding in his neighborhood. He stated that Medium-Density housing will significantly increase the rainfall run-off flowing into College Creek and compound the flooding issue. Mr. Stewart stated that Low-Density Residential zoning will meet the present need and allow for flexibility in the future. He stated that student populations fluctuate. Sharon Stewart, 437 Hilltop Road, stated that her family has had difficulty in finding a home in Ames. She stated that she strongly recommends that the Commission recommend that the south parcel be zoned RL (Residential Low-Density) and agrees with Mr. Petersen’s easement request. Ms. Stewart stated that the question that needs to be addressed is what zoning will meet the housing need for the area and the community. She stated that there is a need for student housing and the University is currently looking into and building student housing. Ms. Stewart stated that the University will have over 1,000 rooms available for the 2015-2016 school year. She stated that two additional developers have purchased land in Campustown to be used for student housing. Ms. Stewart stated that she feels that the need for student housing is being addressed. She indicated that there is a current need for single-family homes in Ames. Ms. Stewart stated that she is not opposed to living in an area that houses students. She outlined the importance of living in a diverse community. Ms. Stewart outlined problems that could arise if the developer is allowed to build private streets in this development especially if the property is sold at some point to another owner. Sarah Cady, 2812 Arbor Street, stated that the developer suggested at the last Commission meeting that the neighbors negative opinions of this development is because they are against students. She stated that this is false. Ms. Cady stated that she was a college student for over nine years and currently is a staff scientist at Iowa State University and works with students on a daily basis. She does care whether her neighbors cause excessive and disruptive notice, traffic congestion and parking problems, property damage, and littering. Ms. Cady outlined current traffic concerns in this area and stated that she was surprised that the traffic study did not include Arbor, Tripp or Lettie streets in the analysis. She stated that there is also heavy bicycle and pedestrian traffic in the neighborhood. Ms. Cady stated that RM (Residential Medium- Density) zoning will only exacerbate these traffic issues. She reviewed information from the 2011 IDOT traffic count and the current traffic study regarding the number of trips in this area. Ms. Cady stated that the residents that would occupy the south parcel would need to rely more on personal vehicles for travel as it is a considerable distance to the nearest CyRide bus stop. She outlined her concerns for bicyclists in this area. Ms. Cady stated that Arbor Street already has a great deal of on-street parking due to individuals using it as a park-and-ride to catch the bus at North Hyland or walk to campus. She stated that she has concerns for pedestrian and bicycle path traffic safety at the crossings on State Avenue. Ms. Cady stated that the developer’s plan is a detriment to the safety and aesthetics of the area. She asked the Commission to recommend RL (Residential Low-Density) zoning. Sharon Guber, 2931 Northwestern Avenue, stated that Breckenridge has stated tonight that the lack of details on their master plan was because the neighbors did not give them feedback. Ms. Guber stated that Breckenridge summarized the neighbors’ comments from the last meeting by saying that the neighbors do not like students. She stated that the neighbors would prefer that the south parcel remain undeveloped. Ms. Guber stated that the Commission is not restricted to the zoning alternatives outlined in their agenda packet. She reviewed the Land Use Policy Plan designation for this area. Ms. Guber outlined the applicant’s proposed number of units and population density, the City staff’s recommendation, and the goals of the Land Use Policy Plan. She outlined the details of the various alternatives listed in the Commission’s agenda packet. Ms. Guber stated that she hopes that the Commission recommends that the City Council rezone the south parcel in its entirety to RL (Residential Low-Density) zoning along with the conditions listed in Alternative #1. Warren Madden, 2815 Oakwood Road, Senior Vice President of Iowa State University, stated that the University has had some discussions with the developer. He said that the developer has expressed a willingness to continue those discussions and provide support for some of the University’s issues regarding the development of this property. Mr. Madden stated that the University has a concern about the traffic and the bike path. He stated that they are also sensitive to the neighborhood’s concerns that have been expressed. Mr. Madden stated that he hoped that the Commission would arrive at an appropriate decision that represents the University’s interest in this area; and, if the development continues, that they can memorialize and negotiate the appropriate support and cost sharing of the issues outlined earlier. Joanne Pfeiffer stated that she was speaking on behalf of Tony Ramey, 425 Hilltop Road, who was not able to be present at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Ramey is concerned about the developer “making a killing” from the development of this property at the expense of degrading both the neighborhood and the environment for those home owners who have chosen to live there long term. He feels that RL (Residential Low-Density) zoning on all three parcels will foster moderate growth, permit a living economically for Breckenridge, and continue the quality of life for the neighborhood residents. Mr. Ramey feels that 20 acres is too small of a parcel for village type zoning. He asked the Commission to recommend to the City Council that the south parcel be rezoned RL (Residential Low-Density) zoning as well as the north parcel when it comes under consideration. Sue Ravenscroft, 455 Westwood Drive, stated that she does not live in this neighborhood but she and her husband walk in this area. She expressed concern about the current traffic in this area without any potential increase to that traffic. The Commission took a short recess at 9:19 p.m. and reconvened at 9:26 p.m. Public Hearing was closed at 9:27 p.m. Mr. Torresi stated that it is apparent that there is a shortage of homes in Ames. He said that fighting this development is not going to change this problem. Mr. Torresi stated that RL (Residential Low-Density) zoning is not an option, short of changing the Land Use Policy Plan. Charlie Vatterott, Executive Vice President of Aspen Heights, stated that over the last seven years they have developed, constructed and managed over 10,000 beds in communities in the United States and in Africa. Mr. Vatterott stated that they have another 7,500 additional beds designed for placement across the United States. He addressed comments from the public about several developments that they manage. Mr. Vatterott stated that they have setup dialog with Iowa State University. He stated that they have also attempted dialog with the neighbors but it has not happened. Mr. Vatterott said that there is no danger of them developing the Conservation Easement. He stated that they will conform to every City code. Mr. Vatterott said that this project will have less than 1,000 students. He stated that they are looking forward to making adjustments to their site plan and moving the hike and bike path as a community member requested, with the right zoning. Mr. Vatterott explained their reasons for the lack of detail on their master plan. He stated that there will be less than half of the quote of 2,000 students on the total of all three parcels. Julie Gould asked for clarification on the number of units that will be built. Mr. Vatterott stated that economically they prefer to build cottages. He stated that they are not an absentee landlord. Mr. Vatterott stated that they manage what they build. He said that it is basically a homeowners’ association that keeps up with the deferred maintenance and yard work. Mr. Vatterott stated that the problems at the Harrisonburg location have been addressed and those residents are receptive to Phase 2. He stated that they have offered to include the neighbors in their marketing and presentation to make sure that their student residents know who the neighbors are and the expectations. Ms. Lee asked how long Aspen Heights has been in business. Mr. Vatterott stated since 2006. She asked if they still own and manage the properties that they have constructed. Mr. Vatterott stated that they have 100% ownership in the six properties that were constructed last year. He stated that due to the economic downturn they had to sell parts of their interests in other developments. Ms. Lee asked if they still actively manage these communities. Mr. Vatterott stated that they manage the six developments built last year. He said that they manage some of the communities built in 2012. Mr. Vatterott stated that the developments where they sold principal ownership sometimes those partners want to take over the management of the development. He stated that Aspen Heights would be willing to provide extra security at the beginning and end of each semester from right before the weekend to Sunday during each of those times to address the possibility of the students living in this development partying. Mr. Vatterott stated that his budget would be larger if they are allowed to have higher density zoning, thus allowing him to possibly have lighted pathways, on-site security patrol, etc. Mr. Renaud reviewed the intent as well as several sections of the Land Use Policy Plan. He stated that there is a natural stream buffer, natural flood buffer and a conservation easement already in place on this property. Mr. Renaud said that the development of this parcel will depend on the number of units allowed. He stated that RL (Residential Low-Density) zoning on all three parcels, which is what the neighbors are requesting, is not a compromise. Mr. Renaud asked the Commission to grant the request of the developer for FS-RM (Floating Suburban Residential Medium-Density) without any conditions. He stated that the neighborhood has not been willing to compromise. Mr. Renaud stated that the neighborhood has a current mixture of various types of housing units (apartments, single-family residential homes, and townhouses). Ms. Wannemuehler asked if the City has a way of increasing the amount of the conservation easement. Mr. Diekmann stated that that would be a negotiated element of the development plan. She asked if this was the time to place that condition. He stated it would be appropriate for the Commission to identify their interests. Mr. Diekmann outlined the process for review. Ms. Wannemuehler stated that the map that was given to the Commission removes two areas. He stated that the Commission could add a conservation easement to the zoning designation that they recommend to the City Council. Mr. Bowers asked if the potential need for flood mitigation would be a contract rezoning issue. He said that concern had been mentioned about the increase in the impermeable surface that the development will add to this property. Mr. Diekmann stated that if the Commission wants to focus on the public facility issue of a culvert under State Avenue then the Commission may want to bring it up as a contract rezoning issue. He said that it will still be an issue of subdivision improvements. Mr. Diekmann stated that the run-off issue would not be appropriate for contract rezoning. He stated that he feels that the current run-off protection and flood plain protection standards would be adequate for this development as well as other developments in the city. Ms. Gould asked if other City departments had an opportunity to make comments on the development phase of this property. Mr. Diekmann stated that both the middle and south parcel were circulated as master plans through the City’s Development Review Committee process. He said that all City departments are invited to attend those meetings. She asked about the two points of access drives on the property and whether it would possibly drop to one point. Mr. Diekmann stated that he feels that the developer will be required to have two points of access with a minimum separation to meet fire code requirements. Ms. Gould asked if there was an existing topographical map in order to determine how much of the site will need to be removed. He stated that staff will need to rely on the NRCS Survey. Mr. Diekmann explained how staff arrived at their recommendations of buildable area in relation to slope. Ms. Lee asked staff for clarification of their recommendation for RL (Residential Low-Density) and RM (Residential Medium-Density) zoning designations for this property. Mr. Diekmann explained how staff arrived at their recommendation. She asked if the Commission should consider expressing their concerns in the recommendation that will be sent to the City Council. He stated that it would be difficult to make a motion that would be able to define all of the issues for the Commission. Mr. Diekmann said that the Commission might want to articulate their interests as well as a precise motion of the Commission’s recommended zoning action. Ms. Lee stated that she feels that this area is one of the few remaining large undeveloped areas in the community. She feels that this site should have special care and stewardship in how it is developed. Ms. Lee stated that she does not feel that it is wise community planning to intentionally develop an area for one specific demographic group other than a senior community. She stated that she is concerned about having a community of individuals with short-term interests in the community. Ms. Lee said that she is concerned about designating a large area for a specific kind of development when the Commission does not know about the future enrollment trends of the University. She expressed concerns about what would happen to this area of the community if the kind of demand for housing changes. Ms. Lee expressed concerns about the pressures to the street system, CyRide, public safety, and potential expenses to the community. She stated that she wonders what return to the community will be generated by this development. Ms. Lee stated that she feels that there is a difference in intensity between a mixed demographic and a homogeneous demographic. She spoke about the type of motion that she would be willing to support. Mr. Tillo stated that he supports Ms. Lee’s thoughts. He stated that he is concerned about Mr. Torresi’s comments made on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Diekmann’s comments made on behalf of Staff. Mr. Tillo asked for clarification of staff’s recommendation. Mr. Diekmann stated that staff feels that it is not appropriate to rezone the entire south parcel to RL (Residential Low- Density) zoning. Mr. Tillo stated that staff feels that the current Land Use Policy Plan does not support the RL (Residential Low-Density) zoning designation for the entire site. Mr. Tillo expressed his concerns. Mr. Tillo said that he supports Alternative #6. MOTION: (Tillo/Johnson) to accept Alternative #6, which states: that the Planning & Zoning Commission refers this application back to the City Staff, specifically the City legal department, for an opinion determining the legality of the alternatives presented in this meeting’s Commission Action Form; AND, in addition, the legality of a seventh proposal specifically designating the 1.63 acres north of College Creek from S-GA (Government/ Airport) to RL (Residential Low-Density) and rezoning of approximately 27.37 acres of land of College Creek from S-GA (Government/Airport) to RL (Residential Low-Density). Mr. Tillo stated that he wants to see if this proposal is even an option before the Commission makes a recommendation. Mr. Siefert asked if there was a way to incorporate a change to the Land Use Policy Plan in the motion. Discussion was held about adding a section to the motion about the Land Use Policy Plan. Commission consensus was that the motion inferred that Commission wanted to see information about the legality of rezoning. Mr. Siefert stated that he will withdraw his question. Mr. Tillo stated that he wants the City staff to tell the Commission what options they have as he is concerned about the conflicting information that the Commission has heard about the appropriate zoning designations for this parcel. Mr. Bowers asked if they need to make a friendly amendment or a new motion. Mr. Bowers said that possibly the Commission’s discussion will indicate that they would like the Land Use Policy Plan issue addressed when this request comes back to the Commission. Mr. Diekmann asked the Commission for clarification of the Land Use Policy Plan request. Mr. Siefert stated that he understands that if the property is rezoned to RL (Residential Low-Density) it would require a change to the Land Use Policy Plan. Mr. Diekmann stated that this is staff’s position. Mr. Siefert stated that he wants additional information from the legal department. Mr. Diekmann asked Mr. Tillo for clarification of Alternative #7 that was mentioned in his earlier motion. Mr. Tillo stated that it basically was to rezone the parcel to RL (Residential Low-Density) without a Land Use Policy Plan amendment. Ms. Gould asked if the next Staff Report would address the concerns that the Commission has expressed. She stated that she would like to see more detail in the motion. Ms. Gould expressed her concerns about the applicant’s representative saying that they don’t have to comply with the conditions outlined in Alternative #1 and #2 per Iowa Code. She said that the applicant has not given Staff all of the information that they need. Ms. Gould is concerned that there are holes in the Traffic Study. She stated that she is concerned about not having the exact number of units and density numbers. Ms. Gould stated that she wants to see more hard facts and numbers. She suggested amending the current motion by asking City Staff to provide more information on the alternatives. Mr. Diekmann stated that that would need to be a request of the applicant to refine their proposal and submit a complete traffic study. Mr. Siefert asked if Staff were to recommend an amendment to the Land Use Policy Plan how long would it take. Mr. Diekmann stated that a minor amendment to the Land Use Policy Plan would take approximately three to six months from the time of the Commission’s recommendation. Mr. Diekmann stated that the Commission needs to make a recommendation to the City Council no later than 90 days from tonight’s meeting. Mr. Diekmann suggested that the Commission set a date for the continuance of this item to respond to Commissioner questions. AMENDED MOTION: (Tillo/Siefert): The Planning & Zoning Commission refers this application back to City staff, specifically the City legal department, for an opinion determining the legality of the alternatives presented in this meeting’s Commission Action Form; AND, in addition, the legality of a seventh proposal, specifically designating the rezoning of approximately 1.63 acres north of College Creek from S-GA (Government/Airport) to RL (Residential Low-Density), and rezoning of approximately 27.37 acres of land south of College Creek, from S-GA (Government/Airport) to RL (Residential Low-Density); AND, in addition, Planning & Zoning Commission requests the City’s opinion be delivered to the Planning & Zoning Commission’s regularly scheduled March 5, 2014 meeting. Mr. Siefert withdrew his second of the amended motion. Motion dies for lack of a second. AMENDED MOTION: (Tillo/Siefert): The Planning & Zoning Commission refers this application back to City staff specifically the City legal department for an opinion determining the legality of the alternatives presented in this meeting’s Commission Action Form; AND, in addition, the legality of a seventh proposal, specifically designating the rezoning of approximately 1.63 acres north of College Creek from S-GA (Government/Airport) to RL (Residential Low-Density), and rezoning of approximately 27.37 acres of land south of College Creek, from S-GA (Government/Airport) to RL (Residential Low-Density); AND, in addition ,Planning & Zoning Commission requests the City’s opinion be delivered to the Planning & Zoning Commission’s regularly scheduled March 5, 2014 meeting; AND, in addition, Planning & Zoning Commission requests a complete traffic study be provided by the applicant by the same date; AND, in addition, the Planning & Zoning Commission requests the applicant to refine the relationship between the master plan and the traffic study and incorporate staff’s comments on the draft traffic study that have been transmitted to the applicant. AMENDED MOTION PASSED: (6 -1) Voting Nay: Johnson ____________________________________________________________________________ COMMISSION COMMENTS: Ms. Lee stated that she watched a portion of the January 15, 2014 meeting and stated that she was impressed with everyone’s thoughtfulness and consideration. ____________________________________________________________________________ STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Diekmann stated that there are no agenda items as yet for the February 19, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. He said that it is highly unlikely that this meeting will be held. Mr. Diekmann stated that the next meeting will be held on March 5, 2014. ____________________________________________________________________________ MOTION TO ADJOURN: MOTION: (Siefert/Wannemuehler) to adjourn the meeting. MOTION PASSED: (7 - 0) The meeting adjourned at 10:42 p.m. _________________________________ ____________________________________ Debra Lee, Chairperson Lorrie Banks, Recording Secretary Planning & Zoning Commission Department of Planning & Housing S:\PLAN_SHR\Council Boards Commissions\PZ\Minutes\2014 Minutes\P&Z Minutes-02-03-14.docx