MINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 11, 2008
1. CALL TO ORDER.
The regular monthly meeting of the Marion Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:00 PM by Chair Nesteby.
2. ROLL CALL.
Members Present: Golden, Seidl, Mooney, Nesteby, Krigbaum, Neighbor, Moomey
Members Absent: AbouAssaly, Preussner
Staff Present: Treharne, Hockett, Kaiser
3. MINUTES -
a. Planning and Zoning – February 12, 2008
b. Zoning Board of Adjustment – February 19, 2008
c. Council – February 7 and 21, 2008Motion by Mooney, seconded by Golden to approve the minutes of the February 12, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as submitted.
All “ayes” motion carried.
4. PLATS-
a. CPC Resolution No. 08-02 regarding Stordahl First Addition Final Plat located east of S. 11th Street, north of F Avenue (Norman and Carolyn Stordahl) (Case No. 08-51)
Kaiser presented the staff report regarding the proposed final plat. She explained that the applicant currently owns both properties and wishes to replat the two properties to allow the property located at 1100 F Avenue to expand to the north and encompass an existing gazebo. She went on to clarify that the property to the north (595 S. 11th Street) has never been officially final platted and only allowed by a plat of survey. She stated by requiring that these two properties be final platted, they will have clear legal descriptions for future purposes.
She noted that both properties, as proposed, will meet current zoning and land-use regulations as they exist today. Since there are pre-existing structures on these lots, water, sanitary sewer and storm sewers are in place and functioning properly at this time. She noted that Planning staff has no concerns regarding this property. The Engineering Department has asked that the property owner(s) of these two properties not be allowed any additional access drives onto S. 11th Street.
Seidl asked if the ingress/egress easements have been filed since they are shown on the plat. Hockett indicated that those easements are noted on the final plat and will be recorded as part of the platting process.
Neighbor asked if the proposed north property line will go just far enough north to include the gazebo, or if the property line will extend up to the existing driveway. Kaiser displayed the visual comparison of both the aerial photography and the proposed plat. She noted that there is enough room in between the gazebo and the driveway to allow the property line to be centered between them.
Treharne commented that the property to the north is currently described with a meets and bounds description which is a very rough description for a property. By final platting this property, the actual lot will be recorded along with the easements that have never been formally approved. He stated another concern that these two lots have been treated as one property since they are under common ownership. By dividing these two lots, staff wanted full review of the potential flag lot to the north.
Mike Brain, Brain Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that he would be happy to answer any of the questions that the Commission may have. Neighbor commented that he was under the assumption that the landscaping would remain the same after the lots are split. Brain noted that the applicant has no intention of changing anything on the properties.
Seidl asked if the applicant was present at the meeting. Hockett noted that neither the applicant nor the buyer were at the meeting, but he had spoken to the buyer earlier that day. He stated the buyer and his wife were unable to make it to the meeting, but did share their desire to get this plat approved as soon as possible. Seidl noted that he felt it was important that applicants attend the Commission meetings in case questions arise.
Motion by Seidl, seconded by Krigbaum, to recommend approval of CPC Resolution No. 08-02 regarding Stordahl First Addition Final Plat located east of S. 11th Street, north of F Avenue.
All “ayes” motion carried.
5. ALLEY VACATION–
a. CPC Resolution No. 08-03 regarding a request by Frank Reynolds to vacate and purchase a portion of the east/west alley located between 2nd and 3rd Avenues and 13th and 14th Streets adjacent to 241- 13th Street. (Case No. 08-01A)
Kaiser presented the staff report and noted that only the west half (10x1201 feet) of the east/west alley was being vacated. Presumably the alley was dedicated some time ago and has never been used for transportation related services. From aerial photography, the alley appears to be completely covered in grass. She noted that she has recently driven past the property and no one appears to be using this portion of the alley. Staff has sent out notices to all utility companies within Marion and had not received any comments back at the time of the meeting. If no utility easements are requested or required, the vacated alley will be fully buildable, with the exception of required setbacks.
Kaiser stated it is staff's understanding that the alley is being vacated in order to accommodate a prebuilt house that will be place on the property to the south (241 13th Street). She noted that she would allow the applicant to explain in further detail.
Nesteby noted that this lot seemed very familiar. Treharne noted that this property was recently requested to be rezoned to R-2, Medium Density, Single Family Residential by the applicant. Currently, the property is zoned C-4, Warehouse/Commercial and the rezoning case is currently awaiting its second reading before the City Council. He stated this property was also replatted a few years ago as part of Dulings First Addition.
Treharne elaborated that as part of the rezoning request, the Council was made aware that the applicant wished to move a house onto the property. Given the size of the lot, the house would have to face north or south (side lot line), but the Council would like the house to face the street rather than running east/west. Council suggested the applicant could possibly vacate and purchase the alley to allow the house to meet current R-2 zoning regulations while still being able to face 13th Street.
Frank Reynolds, 111 19th Street, spoke as the applicant for this case. He stated that the house will be 56-feet long. The existing property is 62-feet wide and with the addition of the 10-foot alley, the house would be able to meet R-2, Medium Density, Single Family Residential setback requirements. He also stated that if the alley is allowed to be vacated, he proposes to request a side-yard setback variance to allow for a driveway to be placed on the north side of the property.
Seidl asked if the applicant had contemplated vacating the alley to the east as well. Reynolds responded that it may be of interest in the future. Seidl asked if the applicant owns the property to the south. Reynolds replied that he does not. Reynolds noted that he has spoken to the property owner north of the alley and the owner expressed no concerns regarding the alley vacation.
Neighbor asked if the vacated alley will need re-graded to accommodate the house and/or driveway. Reynolds noted that the alley may be 6-8-inches higher, but should not pose a problem. Water is not an issue for the proposed house because the house will only have a crawl space. In addition, the neighbors have stated that ground water has not been a problem for them in the past. Hockett noted that the lot is generally flat in nature. He stated with any building permit, staff confirms that there will be no stormwater issues on the property or draining to other properties.
Motion by Mooney, seconded by Golden to recommend approval of CPC Resolution No. 08-03 regarding a request by Frank Reynolds to vacate and purchase a portion of the east/west alley located between 2nd and 3rd Avenues and 13th and 14th Streets adjacent to 241- 13th Street.
All “ayes” motion carried.
6. CONDITIONAL USE-
a. CPC Resolution No. 08-04 regarding a conditional use request to allow a watchmen’s quarters in the I-1, Restricted Industrial zoning district located at 100- 35th Street. (Robert Sternowski, Softronics, Ltd., Lessee). (Case No. 08-01C)
Mooney asked to recuse himself because of his personal interest in this property.
Hockett presented the staff report regarding the proposed watchmen’s quarters in the I-1, Restricted Industrial district. He gave a brief description of the property location and familiarized the Commission with the site. He noted that there is already an existing watchmen’s quarters on the second floor of the building to accommodate a watchman for the dry walling business next to Softronics. Hockett gave a brief history of the building, noting that both of the apartments/quarters were built prior to Tim Mooney purchasing the building in early 2002. He stated the current watchmen’s quarters was approved when the apartment was originally built and City building inspectors discovered the second apartment/quarters when they entered the building to inspect the permitted quarters. It is staffs understanding that the second apartment has been vacant since Mr. Mooney has owned the building.
Hockett referenced the handout he supplied to the Commission showing that the second apartment/quarters is a fully built apartment, including full kitchen, bathroom, living room, and bedrooms, consisting of 1,200 square feet.
Hockett then reviewed the six criteria that shall serve as the basis for approval or denial of the conditional use. He stated staff had no concerns regarding compliance with the criteria listed. He noted the additional five requirements that the Commission must make a determination on.
Hockett informed the Commission that he had received a call from Bernie Cooper, owner of the property to the north and west of the proposed watchmen’s quarters. Hockett stated that Mr. Cooper had no objections to this case.
Seidl asked for clarification if there would be one or two watchmen’s quarters in the building. Hockett replied that there is currently one watchmen’s quarters and the conditional use application is to allow a second watchmen’s quarters. With recent photographs, Hockett was able to point out where the existing and proposed quarters are within the building.
Nesteby questioned who enforces the compliance with the conditional use that only employee’s will be allowed to occupy the apartment/quarters. Hockett replied that it is currently staffs responsibility to ensure that only employees and their families occupy the units. Scheduled rental inspections by the Building Department will also help monitor compliance with the regulations.
Seidl questioned if two watchmen on one property was the original intent of the Code. Hockett replied that it is up to the Commission to determine the original intent.
Tim Mooney, 3060 Covey Run Court, spoke as owner of this property. He stated there are currently six businesses on the first floor of the building. He noted that the structure is made out of concrete cinderblock which separates the businesses, the floors and ceilings are pre-stressed concrete and each business is separated by a fire door.
Mooney gave a brief history of the property and why Mr. Sternowski needs the additional space within the building.
Seidl asked if the previous owner had a permit for watchmen’s quarters in the existing apartment, or the whole second floor. Hockett replied that staff reports regarding the approved watchmen’s quarters preceded his time and he had difficulty deciphering the approved layout. It was his understanding that the existing quarters was previously used as office space and that the previous owner actually lived in the apartment that is now being requested to be made into a second quarters. Mooney stated that it was his understanding that the existing quarters has never been final inspected, but that the original occupancy permit was given to the larger apartment/quarters that is now being sought for a second watchmen’s quarters. He also noted that both apartments/quarters have their own air conditioning, heating, and electrical service.
Mooney stated that regardless of the Commission’s decision, it was his understanding that Mr. Sternowski wanted the additional space whether it was for an apartment or additional office space.
Krigbaum asked for clarification whether the original watchmen’s quarters was approved for the entire upstairs, or just one unit. Hockett replied that the previous documents were not easily readable, but it looked like the entire upstairs was allowed for the quarters. The request did not appear to be location specific.
Nesteby asked if the Commission agreed that it was a good idea to have watchmen’s quarters above industrial zoned buildings. Should new codes be adopted, would watchmen’s quarters be allowed if they did not already exist? Treharne replied that in the proposed Zoning Ordinance, watchmen’s quarters are allowed in the industrial district. Nesteby asked if watchmen’s quarters will be made use specific. Hockett replied that he has not seen use requirements in other codes, but he has seen size requirements of the businesses to determine if watchmen’s quarters is an accepted use for that property.
Seidl noted that he did not feel that watchmen’s quarters should run with the property, but with the business itself since different businesses have different needs for watchmen.
Seidl asked if there were any security requirements for this business because of the type of work being done. Bob Sternowski, Softronics Ltd., applicant for this case, indicated that because of current contracts with the Department of Defense, this business has to meet certain security guidelines. Hockett also noted that if the conditional use is approved, the Building and Fire Departments will have final review of this residence.
Mr. Sternowski gave a brief summary of the type of business that his company does, implying that the work is very similar to work being done at Rockwell, including engineering design work. Currently, the business has about 25 employees that are well paid professionals. He stated no manufacturing is done on site, but sent to other local fabricators. Current plans include expanding his business to the second floor office space between the two apartments.
Mr. Sternowski stated because of the sensitivity of some of his projects, it is his partial rational for needing watchmen’s quarters above the business. He stated any highly sensitive materials are kept in large safes within the business.
Mr. Sternowski stated another part of his rational for wanting the watchmen’s quarters includes the desire to recruit college students for summer internships, provide them a place to live for the duration of their internship and hope that they will want to seek permanent employment with the company after they graduate college.
Neighbor asked the applicant if other spaces opened up next to his business, would he be interested in expanding his business into the vacant space. Mr. Sternowski replied that it could be a possibility.
Golden asked if the intern/watchman would have specific watchman training. Mr. Sternowski replied that all Softronics employees have training for noticing suspicious activity near the business. He noted that working hours are typically between 6 a.m. and 2 a.m. which also provides a heightened level of security.
Seidl stated his thoughts regarding this application and commended the applicant for desiring to bring professionals to Marion. He noted that if the entire second floor was already approved for watchmen, then there should be no problem, pending final building inspections. On the other hand, if one business already has a watchman for the property and a second watchman is desired for a second business, what is stopping all six businesses on the property from asking for watchmen’s quarters?
Another concern that Seidl raised was if this should be a variance case for the Zoning Board of Adjustment since the watchmen’s quarters has already been approved, but the applicant might need a variance for the second quarters.
Treharne responded to the question of allowing watchmen’s quarters for each business. He noted that should they have another watchmen’s quarter’s application, it will be required to go through the Commission as well and they can determine if an additional quarters is appropriate at that time. He noted that this is a unique case in the fact that the construction has already been completed and the apartment in place.
Krigbaum stated that it should be no way to decide cases base upon what someone did without a permit.
Seidl asked if the watchmen’s quarters is approved for the entire property in its plural wording, does it need approved at all, or is it already an existing conditional use because of the prior approval. If only one watchman is allowed per property, is it up to the businesses to negotiate who is allowed a watchman.
Moomey commented that if the Commission is hesitant to allow any conditional use because it might set precedence, then maybe they should look at changing the Code requirements. Staff noted that the requirement is not proposed to change drastically with the new Zoning Ordinance. Staff displayed page 1343 of the Marion Code of Ordinances in which item 2§A allows living quarters for watchmen. Hockett stated that staff was not comfortable to allow or not allow the watchmen’s quarters based on the vague wording of the Ordinance; that is the Commission/Board’s decision.
Nesteby added that the Commission is being swayed by the fact that there is already an unused apartment in the building; an apartment that could be used as office space. Under current regulations, apartments are not allowed in the I-1, Restricted Industrial District and the applicant, therefore, needs to classify it as watchmen’s quarters.
Mooney indicated that the watchman in the other unit is over 60 years old and is not assumed to be able to work in the dry walling field much longer. After the watchman is no longer employed by the dry walling company, he will not be allowed to use the watchmen’s quarters.
Krigbaum noted his approval of the additional watchmen’s quarters subject to the following conditions:
1. The watchmen’s quarters will be specific to Softronics only.
2. The watchmen’s quarters must be brought up to current Building Code.
3. Only temporary employees/interns will be allowed to live in the watchmen’s quarters.
4. One watchmen’s quarters be approved, in addition to the existing unit, provided that if one quarters is vacated it can only be re-occupied as a watchmen’s quarters with approval of a new conditional use permit.Motion by Golden, seconded by Krigbaum to recommend approval of CPC Resolution No. 08-04 regarding a conditional use request to allow a watchman’s quarters in the I-1, Restricted Industrial zoning district located at 100- 35th Street subject to the following conditions:
1. The watchmen’s quarters will be specific to Softronics only.
2. The watchmen’s quarters must be brought up to current Building Code.
3. Only temporary employees/interns will be allowed to live in the watchmen’s quarters.
4. One watchmen’s quarters be approved, in addition to the existing unit, provided that if one quarters is vacated it can only be re-occupied as a watchmen’s quarters with approval of a new conditional use permit.Seidl stated his concern of the quarters being limited to only interns.
Motion by Seidl, seconded by Moomey to make a friendly amendment to Golden’s motion to remove Condition No. 3.
All “ayes” motion carried.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Hockett gave the Commission a brief update on the progress of the new Zoning Ordinance. He handed out the proposed definitions that will be included in the new Code. He asked the Commission to look over the definitions and provide feedback if they wanted any more definitions included. Additional sections of the proposed Zoning Ordinance will be reviewed at next month’s meeting.
Staff has also started to enter the proposed zones onto the new zoning map. Initially, staff will enter in the zones that will change and then fill in the rest with the existing zones that will not be required to change.
b. Treharne noted the two major sub-area plans that staff has been involved with. The 29th Avenue Sub-Area Plan has been contracted to Shive-Hattery to develop scenarios for future development. He stated Nick AbouAssaly was selected at the last meeting to be on that committee. That plan should take approximately 6 months to develop.
The regional CMPO is also coordinating efforts to develop a sub-area plan for north of Tower Terrace Road. Staff has been meeting with representatives from Linn County, Cedar Rapids, and the CMPO.
Treharne stated the survey results of the Corridor Study have been received. That information is available for review upon request. Treharne credited MEDCO and the Chamber for a large part of the successful turnout for this survey. The survey was a web-based survey that was even completed by persons not living in Marion. The City also just received a federal earmark of $343,000 from Senator Harkin to be used within the corridor. Treharne stated that money will be allowed some flexibility in how it is used. It is staff’s anticipation that a third of that money will be used for a detailed planning study, including design standards and transportation design scenarios.
c. Krigbaum asked if the Commission should ask or recommend that the City Council seek legal counsel on the legality of parkland dedication in Marion’s ordinance. Seidl said he would be in favor of bringing this issue to the City Council.
Motion by Krigbaum, seconded by Golden to get a formal opinion on the legality of parkland dedication and how it can be done in Iowa.
All “ayes” motion carried.
d. Krigbaum also noted that in the last month especially, making schools a conditional use has been on the forefront of Marion news. Krigbaum asked if the Commission could make an additional recommendation to the Council instead of waiting for the new Zoning Code to be formally adopted.
Motion by Krigbaum, seconded by Seidl to recommend to the Marion City Council that schools be listed as a conditional use under the Marion Code of Ordinances.
All “ayes” motion carried.
8. ADJOURN.
There being no additional business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy Preussner, Secretary