Minutes_Zoning Advisory Commission 5 7 14THE CITY OF
DUB
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
itigtagij
'IIIA'
M .NU .mn
MINUTES
ZONING ADVISORY COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
City Council Chamber
350 W. 6th Street, Dubuque, Iowa
riNN
PRESENT: Chairperson Patrick Norton; Commissioners Stephen Hardie, Tom Henschel
and Michael Belmont; Staff Members Guy Hemenway and Kyle Kritz.
ABSENT: Commissioner Martha Christ.
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE: Staff presented an Affidavit of Compliance verifying that
the meeting was being held in compliance with the Iowa Open Meetings Law.
MINUTES: The minutes of the April 2, 2014 meeting were approved unanimously as
submitted.
PUBLIC HEARINGIREZONING: Application of the Sisters of Charity BVM/The Lakota
Group (tabled) to rezone property located at 1100 Carmel Drive from R-1 Single -Family
Residential to PUD Planned Unit Development.
Motion by Hardie, seconded by Henschel to bring the request back to the table. Motion
was approved by the following vote: Aye — Hardie, Henschel, Belmont, and Norton; Nay —
None.
Daniel Grove of the Lakota Group said he was representing the Sisters of Charity BVM.
He said that the Sisters had made several changes in response to the concerns raised by
Commissioners at the last meeting. He introduced Sister Teresa Hadro, 2827 Pinard
Street.
Sister Hadro discussed the history of the Mount Carmel property and detailed what she
said was an extensive planning process undertaken by the Sisters. She said that during
the planning process, the Sisters had worked closely with the neighbors and City staff to
develop a plan that addressed their concerns. She discussed the goals incorporated into
the plan and noted that the Sisters intent is to ensure continued stewardship of the land.
She said that they have no current development plans for the property. She discussed
demographics of the facility's resident population.
Minutes — Zoning Advisory Commission
May 7, 2014
Page 2
Mr. Grove reiterated the details of the plan, including bulk standards, landscaping,
preservation of open space, and permitted uses. He said they felt there was no need for a
detailed concept plan like the colleges have, and said that the Sisters were of the opinion
that requiring an amendment process for the plan was not necessary. He said that, in
response to the Commissioner's concerns, they further limited the permitted uses and
included a conditional use component in the plan. He discussed the proposed uses and
their location on the site. He outlined the conditional use process and noted the
restrictions listed.
Dan Ernst, 899 Mt. Carmel Road, said that he supports the Sisters request. He said that
he has had a good long-term relationship with the Sisters, and he asked that the
Commission allow the property to be rezoned as proposed.
Mike Gaherty, 1849 S. Grandview Avenue, expressed concerns with traffic. He asked how
many units could be built on the property.
Steve Juergens, 200 Security Building, 151 W. 8th Street, said that he represented the
Butler family who own properties along both Mount Carmel and Grandview Avenue. He
said they had concerns with the lack of detail in the plan and the lack of traffic analysis for
the proposed Planned Unit Development.
Mike Conlon, 1975 S. Grandview Avenue, said that he is an adjacent property owner. He
praised the Sisters for involving the neighbors in the planning process, but he said that the
plan lacks detail. He expressed concerns with the potential for increased traffic along
Grandview Avenue.
Patty Haas-Chandlee, 945 Carmel Drive, said she is a long-term area resident and has not
experienced any issues with traffic. She said that the Mount Carmel facility would serve as
a great nursing home.
Mr. Grove said that he had no rebuttal.
Staff Member Kritz detailed the memo he provided noting the changes the Sisters
proposed to the PUD. He discussed the Zoning Board of Adjustment conditional use
process and said that the changes proposed were targeted to address the concerns raised
by the Commission at their last meeting. He discussed traffic issues regarding the PUD,
noting the potential need for a secondary access. He said that four concurring votes are
needed for approval of the Sister's request.
Commissioner Henschel said that he still had concerns regarding the number of uses
permitted.
Commissioner Hardie said that the Sisters put forth a commendable effort; however, he
said that the PUD plan does not provide enough detail. He said, generally, developers
Minutes — Zoning Advisory Commission
May 7, 2014
Page 3
would have to amend planned districts if what they proposed ran counter to the plan. He
said this allows the Commission additional scrutiny regarding subsequent development.
He said that the Sisters property is a large area with much uncertainty, and that the plan
did not address traffic management and infrastructure extension issues. He said that the
Sisters had not provided a plan with enough specificity.
Chairperson Norton said that he agreed. He said there is not enough detail even though
the plan has covenants and bulk standards. He said that a physical concept plan has not
been provided. He said that approval of the request would be giving the Sisters a blank
check for development. He said it is difficult to adequately evaluate traffic generation
without a plan. He asked Commissioners if they would be willing to condition approval of
the plan on the inclusion of an amendment process.
Commissioner Belmont said he was not necessarily concerned with the plan because the
Sisters had placed limitations on development through the conditional use process. He said
he had minor concerns with the potential intensity of the general office use.
Commissioner Hardie said some uses could be quite intense. Commissioner Norton
agreed that the intensity of the possible uses is of concern.
Motion by Hardie, seconded by Henschel, to approve the rezoning as submitted. The
motion was denied by the following vote: Aye — Belmont; Nay — Hardie, Henschel and
Norton.
PUBLIC HEARINGIREZONING: Application of Dr. Mary Lynn Neumeister to rezone
property located at 3674 Crescent Ridge from R-1 Single -Family Residential to C-3
General Commercial zoning district.
Mary Lynn Neumeister, 3674 Crescent Ridge, noted the site location and size of the
property and stated that there was a large row of trees along the property's boundary. She
said that Mr. Herrig, who owns the adjacent property, was in favor of her request. She
discussed alternative uses for the property considered by her family, noting that they did
not want to rent the property as a residence. She discussed the preliminary plan for
reconfiguration of U.S. Highway 20, and noted its impact on the status of her property.
Jim Neumeister said that he had been contacted by the Boy Scouts who he said were
interested in using this site as their office and main facility. He expressed frustration with
the IDOT, stating they have failed for quite some time to make a decision regarding the
status of their property.
Staff Member Hemenway discussed the proposed rezoning, existing land use and
surrounding zoning. He noted the receipt of a letter of opposition submitted by Ruth Durey
of 3663 Crescent Ridge.
Minutes — Zoning Advisory Commission
May 7, 2014
Page 4
Staff Member Kritz reviewed the Iowa Department of Transportation process regarding the
comment period required for rezonings located in the Corridor Preservation Zone. He said
that he had received information from the IDOT stating that their preliminary intent was to
acquire the property but they had not made a final decision.
Commissioners discussed the request. Several Commissioners noted that the request was
logical and that the ultimate disposition of the IDOT property was not of concern.
Motion by Hardie, seconded by Belmont, to approve the rezoning as submitted. Motion
failed by lack of four affirmative votes by the following vote. Aye — Hardie, Belmont, and
Norton; Nay — Henschel.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kyle L. Kritz, Associate Planner Adopted