PC Minutes 6/27/07

ITEM NO. 9B:     RS-10 & COUNTY A TO RM-15; 24.5 ACRES; 31ST & OUSDAHL (MKM)

 

Z-05-05-07:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 24.5 acres, from RS-10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) & County A (Agricultural) to RM-15 (Multi-Dwelling Residential). The property is located at 31st & Ousdahl. Submitted by Professional Engineering Consultants, P.A., for RA & JG Limited Company, property owner of record.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mary Miller presented the item. She discussed item 9A-9D together.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

Jeanne Ellermeier, 2529 Louisiana, appreciated the applicant giving a presentation to neighbors. She said the traffic will still be a problem with over 800 beds of upscale students which she did not feel would take public transportation bus system. She did not agree that this would not increase traffic along 31st Street and that the entire area has a lot of decisions still to be made with the Southern Development Plan. She felt it would be beneficial to see the Southern Development Plan first before deciding on the proposal. She wanted the larger picture to be considered, not just a single development. She thought that The Exchange might be okay under some circumstances, but until that area was planned out in a way that would benefit the entire city, she wanted the project deferred.

 

Joyce Wolf, Indian Hills Neighborhood Association, agreed with the League of Women Voters letter. She also agreed with Ms. Ellermeier regarding the Southern Development Plan. She did not believe that the majority of trips would go out on Iowa. She felt that students would go other places besides campus so there would be traffic concerns. She was also concerned about the site layout and would like to have seen the Site Plan prior to this evening. She also expressed concern about the impact on the nearby wetlands. She did not feel it was an appropriate location and the proposal should come back before Planning Commission after the Southern Development Plan was complete.

 

Commissioner Eichhorn asked Ms. Wolf if she attended the neighborhood meetings with the developer.

 

Ms. Wolf said, yes, and that they went reasonably well and she had the opportunity to ask the developer questions. She appreciated the applicant taking the time to inform the neighborhood on what they planned to do.

 

Ms. Stogsdill stated that there had not been a Site Plan submitted to the Planning office so there was no Site Plan to review at this time.

 

Betty Lichtwardt, League of Women Voters, was concerned about consistent Staff interpretation of the new Development Code. She stated that the proposed Site Plan was not binding and that this type of conventional development was a major concern for the League of Women Voters because when a rezoning is approved, plat conditions are based on what the Ordinance permits. Only with a Planned Development Plan can you place conditions that would guarantee that it would be developed in that way. With zoning, if the development falls through then the zoning is still in place. She was also concerned because the area planning was still underway.  

 

APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Stamos stated that this is a student project and that the addendum to the TIS study shows that for the most part students would be traveling at off times and would use the bus system. He went on to say that the Site Plan that showed the buildings had not changed from when it was showed to the Indian Hills Neighborhood Association. He stated that they were extremely sensitive to the wetland area and they have done multiple studies to not encroach on the wetlands. They are also working to minimize their impact on the Riparian area on site. He said that according to Federal law they cannot do anything that would have detrimental effect on the wetlands. He also stated that the west side of Iowa had similar transition use of multi-family between commercial and lower density residential.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Finkeldei inquired about the Site Plan process.

 

Ms. Miller stated that the Site Plan will go to different City departments for review and those get returned to Planning with comments. Staff would then make recommendations to the applicant and the applicant would give Staff a revised plan. The applicant would then have a certain amount of time to get a building permit.

 

Commissioner Harkins inquired why Staff proposed to move ahead with this project prior to the Southern Development Plan being complete.

 

Ms. Miller stated that it was not known when the Southern Development Plan would be adopted.

 

Ms. Stogsdill stated this was similar to the Southeast Area Plan. An area was permitted to develop, which was a suitable development. Staff discussed this internally and decided to treat this development similarly.

 

Commissioner Harkins asked about the new transportation plan.

 

Ms. Stogsdill stated that during the next T2030 discussion it will be an overall broad look at what improvements are needed for the entire community and that 31st Street has already been identified for improvement.

 

Commissioner Eichhorn asked why an area plan was required sometimes but not always.

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that if it were in a fringe area then that would be the time to wait and examine that area but there is a history of looking at this area and it is an infill site.

 

Commissioner Harris asked Staff to address the letter from the League of Women Voters.

 

Ms. Miller went over the points of the letter and agreed the area plan had not been completed.

·         This is an application for rezoning to an RM District. There is much that is still not regulated in conventional RM districts.

·         The potential population concentration would be inordinately high in this location in the city.

·         The proposal was presented earlier and was rejected as being premature. The sewerage was inadequate, and the area planning was in process. This situation has not changed, and requires that the developer build a pump station.

·         The traffic study indicates that most of the traffic will use Iowa Street rather than Louisiana. We suggest that this burden on 31st Street, especially at the overloaded corner of 31st & Iowa, could have the same negative impact on the city as the potential problems for the neighborhoods bordering Louisiana.

·         Adding to the existing surplus of new apartments could cause the student population, where they now have access to the Downtown, to shift to the periphery of the city with potentially negative effects on the CBD.

 

Commissioner Moore asked Staff if conditions 4 & 5 are typically done in the platting process.

 

Ms. Miller said the agreement was very common and that they are agreeing not to protest the benefit district.

 

Commissioner Harkins asked what the process to get the solution to traffic was.

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that there are multiple processes. One would be to have a decision east of Iowa that would allow for street improvements to proceed. If that decision were made then decisions as to what kind of improvements would be necessary at 31st and Louisiana would come forward in a CIP plan and then typically put in TIP, which would be determined through Public Works how it would be funded.

 

Commissioner Harkins asked if the process would move through the Public Works Department.

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied, correct.

 

Commissioner Jennings stated that all four sides of the project were in the County.

 

Ms. Stogsdill said the City would need to annex the property.

 

Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the extension of the sewer system was normal.

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied, yes.

 

Ms. Miller said that the applicant would not be providing their own sewer, they will still use city sewer; the applicant is just providing their own extension to the city sewer.

 

Commissioner Finkeldei inquired about dedicating the roads because the typical process was to dedicate at the platting stage. He wanted to know if the plan changes later but the road has not been built, how they would take that into account.

 

Ms. Stogsdill said that it could be vacated and realigned with a future plat. Typically if there was some change in alignment, someone who purchases the property and moves forward with development would know that intention upfront. Realignment would not be difficult, if the developer did not want the road to extend, that might be difficult.

 

Commissioner Finkeldei stated that none of the previous plans predicted low density residential, and did not feel it would be appropriate to stay low density with commercial zoning across Ousdahl. He did not feel that more commercial was needed and thought that medium density was a very rational use for the location. The Southern Development Plan still has to go to City Commission and County Commisison so it would be a while before it was passed. He was not sure that T2030 could do anything for the intersection of 31st & Louisiana and that there was not a great solution for the intersection. He agreed that more traffic would go down Iowa but that the only alternative would be to wait until 31st & Louisiana was fixed to approve this project, which may not be for quite some time. He felt that this would have a minimum impact during AM & PM peak hours.

 

Commissioner Jennings agreed with Commissioner Finkeldei and felt the fix would be to add a bypass. A surface street would probably not fix the intersection. 31st & Iowa works well now and he has used it for 30 years and felt that the intersection was working the best it has ever worked. The Southern Development Plan that is in the works was showing medium density in this area.

 

Commissioner Harkins voted in favor of the project last time and was not concerned about the traffic at 31st & Iowa. He argued that the area plan being out of date was the Planning Commissions fault and recommended action be taken. He stated there was some degree of rationale in his mind to stall the project since the area plan was not done yet. The Planning Commission announced that they were doing an area plan and appeared to be sincere about creating a plan, if the Planning Commission made a decision right in the middle of creating this plan they may damage the Planning Commission institution in the public eye. He did not want to hold up development but was concerned about the credibility of the Planning Commission in the public’s view.

 

Commissioner Eichhorn stated that the area plan was in the process and he agreed with Commissioner Harkins.

 

Commissioner Moore asked if there was no area plan when the project came to Planning Commission previously.

 

Commissioner Eichhorn said that there was an area plan but it was outdated.

 

Commissioner Finkeldei felt it was appropriate to move forward because the application came forward when the Southern Development Plan was outdated. The applicant returned after the time-frame he had been given for completion of the plan and the Southern Development Plan is not done, so he did not feel it set precedence.

 

Commissioner Harris agreed with Commissioner Harkins. The area plan was taking longer but it was being done in good faith and 6 months ago they had to guess at how long it would take. She felt the plan was a big project and the Planning Commission should wait for it to be in place before approving this project.

 

Commissioner Jennings agreed with Commissioner Harkins too and felt that if the applicant was trying to sneak this in prior to the completion of the area plan then he might feel differently, but since the use was compatible with uses being recommended in the ‘draft’ plan, there was no opposition to the ‘Land Use’ but all opposition was related to traffic. The Southern Development Plan would not affect the traffic issue.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Moore, to approve the rezoning request [Z-05-05-07] for 24.5 acres from RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) and County A (Agricultural) Districts to RM15 (Multi-Dwelling Residential) District and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report and subject to the following condition:

 

          1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance

 

Motion carried 5-3, with Commissions Eichhorn, Harkins, and Harris voting in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in opposition.