Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes_Planning & Zoning Meeting_12082021 PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING IONA COMMUNITY CENTER December 8th, 2021 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: Acting Chairman Ray Hart, Member Gary Elliott, Member Bill Koester, and Member Jason Cooper ABSENT: Chairman James West. VISITORS: None. Acting Chairman Hart welcomed everyone and led with the Pledge of Allegiance. Approval of Minutes: Acting Chairman Ray Hart entertained a motion. Member Koester moved to approve the minutes for November 10th, 2021. Member Cooper seconded the motion. All are in favor, so the motion carried. Items of Business: Variance Application – Curtis Developer Johnson, Sunrise Acres Park, Block 2, Lot 7 of the Sunrise Acres Subdivision; a Variance to waive the sidewalk requirement in the Subdivision Ordinance and the Standard Specifications of the Iona City Code and replace it with a continuous asphalt walking path ACTION Acting Chairman Hart asked for a representative of the developer to come up. Curtis Johnson the developer of Sunrise Acres came to the podium. Developer Johnson noted that Sunrise Acres is going to have an indoor basketball court and a park on Block 2 Lot 7. Developer Johnson wants to take the sidewalk and connect an asphalt walking path to it to surround the park. He noted that typical asphalt is 6-8 feet wide, and that the path would be in lieu of a sidewalk that would meander instead of staying with the easement. He tried to keep it continuous so that it flowed with the rest of the neighborhood, but give a larger walking path with landscaping on either side. Member Cooper asked if they would have concrete sidewalks in the parking lot. Developer Johnson replied that if they needed to do concrete through the parking lot and connect to the walking path, they would be willing to do that. They are open to suggestions. Member Hart stated that a sidewalk has more liability than a paved path, and that asphalt will hold water more than concrete will. He asked if he would be rounding the edges to allow the water to run off. Developer Johnson stated that he didn’t know how the City would need to go about it, they might need to just exclude this lot from needing a sidewalk. They will have an insurance policy for the park. Member Cooper asked if the lot would be private. Curtis Developer Johnson noted that it would, and it would continue to be maintained by the HOA. Member Cooper recommended that they carry the concrete sidewalks to the limits of the park, and then around the parking lot (see attachment). He inquired about whether there would be swells for drainage. Developer Johnson noted that there would be. Member Koester inquired about snow removal, and Developer Johnson suspected that they would have a four wheeler or something of that nature to remove the snow. Member Elliott noted that it seems like a soft variance, and Member Hart agreed that he doesn’t see this as an issue. Andrew Rawlings, City Attorney noted that 10-1-17-E states that all sidewalks should be 5 feet wide, and that 10-1-12 notes factors for granting a variance. Member Elliott makes a motion that the Variance Application to waive the sidewalk requirement in the Subdivision Ordnance and the Standard Specifications of the Iona City Code and replace it with a continuous asphalt walking path in Sunrise Acres Subdivision be recommended for approval to the City Council with the provision that any access to the asphalt should be concrete. Member Koester seconded the motion. All are in favor, the motion carried. Discussion of City’s Sign Ordinances Attorney Rawlings, stated that the first round of this ordinance was al a carte, here are all of the options, and now that he has had feedback from the commission and the City Council, he has adjusted it to be more in line with what the City wanted. He then proceeded to outline the changes and updates that have been made, listed below. Section 1 enacts a new 11-1-10 it includes everything that was in Chapter 10 Title 11 and clears some space so they can repeal and reenact Chapter 10 to be a sign code rather than administrative details Section 4 corrects a reference, changing it from sign “code” to sign “ordinance” which is more correct. Section 5 amends 9-2-1. This revisits references to signs in the City Code. This section is dealing with traffic signs, and with updating the manual. It states the actions that will be taken if the ordinance is broken. Section 7 deals with signs on wireless communication towers. Previously it didn’t allow a specific type of sign, but because that could be seen as limiting the content, or someone’s first amendment rights to speech, it was changed to disallow any type of sign, except those required by law or necessary for public safety. Section 8 amends the definition of a sign. Section 10 adds a definition of a temporary sign. The sign must be short term and easily removable, and it must be A.) In place for less than seven days or B.) Related to a one-time event (example: a sale, an election etc.). The sign must be in place no more than forty-five days before the event, and no more than seventy-two hours after the event. In sections 11, 12 and 13 dealing with R1, RT, and R2 zones it used to say that they could have a for sale sign and a political sign. This again regulates the content. This has now been changed to regulate the square footage only, so that they are allowed any signs not to exceed a total of 4 square feet, excepting temporary signs. 11-10-2 specifies that this chapter deals with signs on public property. City Council and Planning and Zoning didn’t want to regulate what people did on their private property. They wanted to regulate what happened in easements and the City’s Right of Way. 11-10-4 States that only City Signs are allowed on public property. Subsection 5 is about enforcement, and allows the City to enforce the code by removing any signs in violation of the code. Any person who knowingly and willfully violates the code will be guilty of an infraction. Member Hart wanted to make sure that private property was not affected by this ordinance. Attorney Rawlings clarified that the only effects on private property would be the zoning ordinances, the 4 square feet of signage and the temporary signs. All the members of the commission agreed that they are much more comfortable with how it is now written. Attorney Rawlings asked if there were any tweaks, or suggestions that they would recommend for him. Member Cooper inquired if there would be anything that would obstruct sight lines. Attorney Rawlings noted that, as the commission had mentioned in the previous meeting, all of the wording for that was in the zoning ordinance. Member Cooper motioned to adjourn the meeting, Member Elliott seconded the motion. All in favor, the motion carried. Meeting Adjourned: 7:06 P&Z APPROVED: ____________________ Ray Hart, Acting Chairman ATTEST:___________________________ [bookmark: _heading=h.gjdgxs] Rylea Farrens, Assistant Clerk [bookmark: _GoBack] Proposed Concrete Sidewalk [image: ] image1.jpeg